Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
I am trying to figure out what caused the U.K. Riots. I know about the Police shooting but am wondering why did it spread all over the city and beyond?
What caused the U.K. riots?
- Thread starter Satcomer
- Start date
Rhisiart
Registered
Just like in Paris, the poorer districts of London have a long history of tension between local young people and the police. From time to time the police try to arrest someone for alleged gun crime and you end up with gangs of youths protesting.
The difference between the Tottenham riots of 1985 and today is social networking (which worked to good effect for the right reasons with the Arab Spring). The last three nights has seen fervent twitter activity telling people where to go to protest.
My impression is whilst there are some genuine grievances (poverty, unemployment, racism within the police etc.) most of the rioters are just in a 'for a laff' (for a laugh).
Attachments
Last edited:
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
I starting to think that western society is suffering under bad leadership (not paying attention to their own country) and the article's like this fan the flames. It's that kind of thinking that is contributing to the downfall.
Plus I am starting to think that maybe London should not hold the Olympics there and choose another EU country.
Plus I am starting to think that maybe London should not hold the Olympics there and choose another EU country.
Last edited:
Rhisiart
Registered
sgould
Registered
There are two things to note. It's nothing like as big as the papers and TV make out. In fact the number of "copycat" riots across the country would probably not have happened if it wasn't the lead on all TV news programs. Most people driving around London will not notice anything.
Secondly there is a suggestion being made on TV that the police made a deliberately slow response to make a point to politicians. The UK police say that they are understaffed, yet the politicians are planning more staff cuts. And let's face it, a politician under threat of being thrown out of power will happily spend as much of my money (taxes) as he needs to keep himself in power.
Football matches are being cancelled "due to lack of police resources". Surprise, surprise!!
Expect higher taxes and more police after all. U-turns are the in thing these days...
Cynical? Moi?
Secondly there is a suggestion being made on TV that the police made a deliberately slow response to make a point to politicians. The UK police say that they are understaffed, yet the politicians are planning more staff cuts. And let's face it, a politician under threat of being thrown out of power will happily spend as much of my money (taxes) as he needs to keep himself in power.
Football matches are being cancelled "due to lack of police resources". Surprise, surprise!!
Expect higher taxes and more police after all. U-turns are the in thing these days...
Cynical? Moi?
Rhisiart
Registered
sgould is right to say that most of London is untouched by the violence and visitors are unlikley to come across any of the riots (which didn't happen in the capital last night due to strengthened police numbers and the fact that they are now prepared to use plastic bullets).
I also share sgould's critical analysis of the police's inerta during the first three nights. Yes, some arrests were made but the police appeared to have sat back and let much of the looting take place. I think the police are taking a tougher line now because the government hinted at using the army instead. The police would not like that as it would confirm they are not in control.
It was wrong of me to suggest above that the use of Twitter and Facebook was rife in organising the riots. It appears now that these were not used so much (as the police could read them too), with the rioters opting instead to using Blackberrys and its free messenging service.
As far as motives are concerned, the vast majority of rioters appear to be in it for the looting. Its mass, organised burglary. Nothing more. And the social make up of the looters is pretty mixed - all races, both genders (although predominently male) and with ages ranging from 9 to 45 years of age. Furthemore, whilst most come from poor backgrounds, plenty of middle class kids have chipped in too.
I am not condoning what these feral citizens have done, but Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he will ensure most of them will be brought to justice and dealt with severely. Its a pity he didn't take the same attitude with the bankers who destroyed our economies resulting in hundreds and thousands of redundancies and brought considerable heartache to millions. The kids have caused a lot of damage but nothing compared to the feckless bankers.
I also share sgould's critical analysis of the police's inerta during the first three nights. Yes, some arrests were made but the police appeared to have sat back and let much of the looting take place. I think the police are taking a tougher line now because the government hinted at using the army instead. The police would not like that as it would confirm they are not in control.
It was wrong of me to suggest above that the use of Twitter and Facebook was rife in organising the riots. It appears now that these were not used so much (as the police could read them too), with the rioters opting instead to using Blackberrys and its free messenging service.
As far as motives are concerned, the vast majority of rioters appear to be in it for the looting. Its mass, organised burglary. Nothing more. And the social make up of the looters is pretty mixed - all races, both genders (although predominently male) and with ages ranging from 9 to 45 years of age. Furthemore, whilst most come from poor backgrounds, plenty of middle class kids have chipped in too.
I am not condoning what these feral citizens have done, but Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he will ensure most of them will be brought to justice and dealt with severely. Its a pity he didn't take the same attitude with the bankers who destroyed our economies resulting in hundreds and thousands of redundancies and brought considerable heartache to millions. The kids have caused a lot of damage but nothing compared to the feckless bankers.
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
The one thing that stuck me was people sympathizing with the rioters "because they are poor" but many other stories talk (and complain) about the rioters organizing with BlackBerrys.
In my travels around the world I have seen real poor people people that would love ANY kind electricity! Even electric lights are consider a luxury!
In my travels around the world I have seen real poor people people that would love ANY kind electricity! Even electric lights are consider a luxury!
Rhisiart
Registered
Some of the rioters are poor - many are not!
Let's not forget too the many Londoners who came out to clear the mess after the rioters (see slightly fragmented picture attached).
Attachments
sgould
Registered
This morning the police announced that they have questioned 888 people so far and arrested 371. Mostly as a result of pictures appearing on Facebook and Twitter, as well as the TV news.
"More arrests are expected"
In one part of NE London, Dalston, there is a large Turkish community. There were riots and looting on the first night. On the second night the Turks came out in force to protect their shops, according to the papers. I have a friend in that area who says that the looters tried to get going on the second night, but that the Turks "beat the hell out of them". That story is not confirmed! But there's been no more trouble in that area.
The new emphasis emerging is that the looters "want their share". After all the bankers have got rich by using other peoples money....
"More arrests are expected"
In one part of NE London, Dalston, there is a large Turkish community. There were riots and looting on the first night. On the second night the Turks came out in force to protect their shops, according to the papers. I have a friend in that area who says that the looters tried to get going on the second night, but that the Turks "beat the hell out of them". That story is not confirmed! But there's been no more trouble in that area.
The new emphasis emerging is that the looters "want their share". After all the bankers have got rich by using other peoples money....
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
...so they steal from non-government, non-banking businesses run by private citizens, just like themselves.
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
This is what is disturbing! These rioters are still from upscale stores and torching cars and business in the down trodden neighborhoods. This "riot" has nothing to due with a political cause or some inequality. It has to due with pure greed and the finical cuts in what us Americans called 'welfare'.
The video of the kid being mugged by these rioting thugs pretending to help him.
Most UK people need to look real hard at themselves like this teacher charged for rioting.
Rhisiart
Registered
Satcomer - look at the description below the video of the teacher. I very much object to the use of the 'N' word. The rioters were from white, black and Asian backgrounds (Asian in the UK refers to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh). For the author of the YouTube video to racially select one ethnic group betrays what happened in London and other UK cities this week.Most UK people need to look real hard at themselves like this teacher charged for rioting.
The attachment shows a interesting graph. It appears that 70% of the rioters did not come from the deprived areas.
Attachments
Last edited:
sgould
Registered
It seems that my previous suggestion may near the mark.
The police have now stated that they got their tactics wrong, but they had to judge the risk to other areas if they pulled all their resources to the riot. In other words "we are understaffed". Which is an interesting position the week before the government were due to announce more cuts in police budgets.
Of course it would be inconceivable that the police would put their own interests before that of the community they serve, wouldn't it?
The police have now stated that they got their tactics wrong, but they had to judge the risk to other areas if they pulled all their resources to the riot. In other words "we are understaffed". Which is an interesting position the week before the government were due to announce more cuts in police budgets.
Of course it would be inconceivable that the police would put their own interests before that of the community they serve, wouldn't it?
bbloke
Registered
A little late to this as I've been offline recently, but the topic of discussion is certainly a big question over here.
Regardless of whether or not the Olympics should be held in London (some Londoners want them, some don't), I think it is going a bit far to suggest they should now be moved. Apart from the sheer impracticality of moving things now, economic conditions in many European countries would make this difficult anyway, plus many other countries have had disturbances in recent years too. For comparison, Los Angeles had six days of rioting in 1992, with 53 deaths and over $1 bn of damage (i.e. much, much worse than the UK riots), but held some of the World Cup matches in the city in 1994. Perhaps the US should have been considered unsafe, and the competition should have been moved to Canada or Mexico instead?
Briefly, I too would have distanced myself from the link to the video where the note by the uploader was "F***ing [N word]s...." and the uploader's replies in the "All Comments" section used the N word as well.
Rhisiart and sgould have touched upon some of the key aspects. Some of the areas affected have had a history of tension and there have long been complaints about the police. These include the police disproportionately targetting ethnic minorities with stop and search powers (links here and here) and statements of institutional racism. There were also complaints that no senior officers from the police met with the gathering in Tottenham who were seeking answers to the death of Mark Duggan, despite having informed the police in advance of their planned protest and then waiting for four hours. The riots in Tottenham in 1985 (i.e. same area) had also started because of tensions with the police.
Some videos that may be of interest: an interview with someone who was there at the very start of the riots and thoughts from community leaders.
In relation to what sgould was saying, it is interesting that, when they too were faced with cutbacks in public spending, the police started making noises to politicians about not being able to protect them from the coming unrest ("we face a period where disaffection, social and industrial tensions may well rise"). Note they chose to create fears about protests and civil disorder, rather than saying your grandma is more likely to get mugged by some masked villain. Also note that only a few weeks later, when students were protesting in London, the police had coincidentally had too few officers around (despite organizers telling the police of predicted numbers) and the Conservative Party's (i.e. essentially the current government's) headquarters ended up being broken into and damaged. Fortunate timing. But we digress...
So, we have a picture of increasing racial and social tensions, a government cutting back on public spending (which is hurting the poorest by far the most), and the police trying to send a message to the government about cuts affecting them too, added to resentment due to a perception of the rich getting away scot-free (e.g. taxes being used to bail out the banks, harsh public sector cuts, and yet bankers have had large bonuses and even pay rises). Put together, you have a number of reasons for growing disatisfaction and alienation, which certainly can lead to trouble. In fact, weeks before the incidents, there was an interview where one teenager was predicting council cutbacks in north London would lead to trouble.
True, there will be people from a range of backgrounds involved in the riots, but, generally speaking, the rioters were young and from poorer areas.
You can also see the data on a map or read a summary.
With the information we are getting, it would, in my view, be too simplistic to label the riots as being purely crimimal and the rioters simply thugs. It is the sort of thing the politicians do to grab headlines and look tough, while failing to address causes. After all, addressing the causes is difficult work and takes a long time. More than one term of Parliament.
There's something I would hope will be understood, but which I want to make clear, regardless. An attempt to understand something is not the same as excusing it. I do not condone the riots and I believe a lot of innocent people have suffered as a result, including some small business (although my perception is that the bigger, more "faceless" stores were the main targets). While I don't believe the riots were thought-out protests, I believe there will be a mixture of motives, some of which will stem from anger and some from the aforementioned alienation. Of course, there will also be exceptions, such as those who get carried away by the (well-known) buzz of looting. At one level, we have a society which places a lot of emphasis upon wealth and possession. To those who feel the odds are stacked against them and they won't have a hope of prospering like the rich they see in the media (who were also perceived to suffer a lot less in the economic crisis), then there will be those who simply seize the oppotunity to "take" once there is the trigger point. Again, not excusing it. Interestingly, a City (of London) broker has recently alleged that the riots were due to an "out-of-control consumerist ethos." It is worth remembering, however, that the vast majority of Londoners were not involved in any riots.
So, the signs have been there. It is not surprising that something like this happened, but the politicians need to respond properly, not make knee jerk reactions. I would sound a note of caution against complacency and the idea that most Brits need to take a hard look at themselves; it would imply that most Brits were involved in rioting and that other nations are above the social problems observed (look at what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the world's reaction, as one example). There are considerable worries about generating an alienated "underclass" in many nations, and such signs can be found in many of our societies. It is not simply about badly behaved teenagers, as some politicians would like to make out. Perhaps we need to take stock of the divisions being fostered within our societies.
Goodness, that was all quite long. Rhisiart's signature has it about right.
Regardless of whether or not the Olympics should be held in London (some Londoners want them, some don't), I think it is going a bit far to suggest they should now be moved. Apart from the sheer impracticality of moving things now, economic conditions in many European countries would make this difficult anyway, plus many other countries have had disturbances in recent years too. For comparison, Los Angeles had six days of rioting in 1992, with 53 deaths and over $1 bn of damage (i.e. much, much worse than the UK riots), but held some of the World Cup matches in the city in 1994. Perhaps the US should have been considered unsafe, and the competition should have been moved to Canada or Mexico instead?
Briefly, I too would have distanced myself from the link to the video where the note by the uploader was "F***ing [N word]s...." and the uploader's replies in the "All Comments" section used the N word as well.
Rhisiart and sgould have touched upon some of the key aspects. Some of the areas affected have had a history of tension and there have long been complaints about the police. These include the police disproportionately targetting ethnic minorities with stop and search powers (links here and here) and statements of institutional racism. There were also complaints that no senior officers from the police met with the gathering in Tottenham who were seeking answers to the death of Mark Duggan, despite having informed the police in advance of their planned protest and then waiting for four hours. The riots in Tottenham in 1985 (i.e. same area) had also started because of tensions with the police.
Some videos that may be of interest: an interview with someone who was there at the very start of the riots and thoughts from community leaders.
In relation to what sgould was saying, it is interesting that, when they too were faced with cutbacks in public spending, the police started making noises to politicians about not being able to protect them from the coming unrest ("we face a period where disaffection, social and industrial tensions may well rise"). Note they chose to create fears about protests and civil disorder, rather than saying your grandma is more likely to get mugged by some masked villain. Also note that only a few weeks later, when students were protesting in London, the police had coincidentally had too few officers around (despite organizers telling the police of predicted numbers) and the Conservative Party's (i.e. essentially the current government's) headquarters ended up being broken into and damaged. Fortunate timing. But we digress...
So, we have a picture of increasing racial and social tensions, a government cutting back on public spending (which is hurting the poorest by far the most), and the police trying to send a message to the government about cuts affecting them too, added to resentment due to a perception of the rich getting away scot-free (e.g. taxes being used to bail out the banks, harsh public sector cuts, and yet bankers have had large bonuses and even pay rises). Put together, you have a number of reasons for growing disatisfaction and alienation, which certainly can lead to trouble. In fact, weeks before the incidents, there was an interview where one teenager was predicting council cutbacks in north London would lead to trouble.
True, there will be people from a range of backgrounds involved in the riots, but, generally speaking, the rioters were young and from poorer areas.
You can also see the data on a map or read a summary.
With the information we are getting, it would, in my view, be too simplistic to label the riots as being purely crimimal and the rioters simply thugs. It is the sort of thing the politicians do to grab headlines and look tough, while failing to address causes. After all, addressing the causes is difficult work and takes a long time. More than one term of Parliament.
There's something I would hope will be understood, but which I want to make clear, regardless. An attempt to understand something is not the same as excusing it. I do not condone the riots and I believe a lot of innocent people have suffered as a result, including some small business (although my perception is that the bigger, more "faceless" stores were the main targets). While I don't believe the riots were thought-out protests, I believe there will be a mixture of motives, some of which will stem from anger and some from the aforementioned alienation. Of course, there will also be exceptions, such as those who get carried away by the (well-known) buzz of looting. At one level, we have a society which places a lot of emphasis upon wealth and possession. To those who feel the odds are stacked against them and they won't have a hope of prospering like the rich they see in the media (who were also perceived to suffer a lot less in the economic crisis), then there will be those who simply seize the oppotunity to "take" once there is the trigger point. Again, not excusing it. Interestingly, a City (of London) broker has recently alleged that the riots were due to an "out-of-control consumerist ethos." It is worth remembering, however, that the vast majority of Londoners were not involved in any riots.
So, the signs have been there. It is not surprising that something like this happened, but the politicians need to respond properly, not make knee jerk reactions. I would sound a note of caution against complacency and the idea that most Brits need to take a hard look at themselves; it would imply that most Brits were involved in rioting and that other nations are above the social problems observed (look at what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the world's reaction, as one example). There are considerable worries about generating an alienated "underclass" in many nations, and such signs can be found in many of our societies. It is not simply about badly behaved teenagers, as some politicians would like to make out. Perhaps we need to take stock of the divisions being fostered within our societies.
Goodness, that was all quite long. Rhisiart's signature has it about right.
bbloke
Registered
A few people picked up on this tongue-in-cheek post on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/SCDSoundsystem/status/100679073600249856
Rhisiart
Registered
Well spotted!
I also read your comments above. You make a very valid point when you emphasis that the majority of young Londoners took no part in the riots.
Instead of trying to work out what motivated the looters I wonder whether it would be more useful to ask those that didn't take part why they stayed away.
bbloke
Registered
My first reaction was that it is best to look at those who acted differently to the majority and determine why that was. Then again, you make a good point: if there people in similar areas and potentially similar situations, what makes some people act one way and others act another way? Of course, people and precise circumstances are complex, so there will be a range of competing motivations.