Causes and Effects of the London/England Riots

I think that people are focusing too much on the shooting and videos. What Newbunkle mentioned seems closer to the point of this thread: it was festering, and just needed a trigger - any trigger. It also means that it'll not be some isolated incident.

The government reaction so far demonstrates why the police is one of the main targets of the riots: all the government can think of to deal with social problems is to throw police at them. Obviously, the police will continue to be constructed as en enemy to attack.

The other main target have been stores, and (it looks to me, on what news I've seen) chain stores selling brand products. And for an explanation of that, we have only to look at the price of those products, at wages (or unemployment benefits and social assistance) and at the daily barrage of advertisement associating said products with status and happiness. The rioters are mostly people priced out of conspicuous consumption, yet nevertheless daily encouraged to engage in it.

We can't have a society which both glorifies consumption, glamorizes brand names, etc, and has a large portion of the population unable to do it legally, without setting the stage for explosions of violence like this one. The peaceful solutions are either to take away the emphasis from consumption (but retail commerce and advertisement have grown so important that it'll be very hard to change that culture), or to enforce a much greater income equality so that every one can afford to be a dull middle class consumer. The other solutions is what the british government is attempting: thrown police at any inconvenient breakdown of the system and hope that repression alone can keep it going as it is.

I agree entirely with this. But I think there's also the feeling amongst the working class that they are being abandoned with the cuts to public services. That is what's new, and what took the social tensions to the level that was necessary for the riots to be triggered.
 
The irony is, what these kids are doing with fire and sticks is little different to what other people have done to them using economic and social policies. One just looks scarier and makes more noise.

Equating the malicious and abhorrent actions of 'these kids' with the policies of legitimate elected government is absurd and reprehensible.
 
It doesn't really help that over the last few years the government and police have been found to be involved in various forms of corruption, fraud, incompetence along with attempts to cover these things up, not to mention the unethical and blatantly greedy actions of the rich and of corporations.
Its given credibility to the 'common knowledge' that corruption is widespread throughout authorities and organisations nationwide, which almost never gets punished.
 
Equating the malicious and abhorrent actions of 'these kids' with the policies of legitimate elected government is absurd and reprehensible.

Why? Slashing aid to poor or sick people can lead to deaths. Starving people economically leads to ruin and the breakdown of communities. Are those preventable deaths less abhorrent somehow? Is starting fires inherently more malicious than ruining lives for personal gain? What does it matter if the originator was elected? That only proves his mob is the biggest.
 
Well, aside from the Duggan incident, the causes of this are deeper. Mostly:
- Large majority of young people don't respect the police, or the job they do. A lot of this lack of respect is for good reasons, ones which I agree with. From this viewpoint, I get it.
- Disatisfaction with the government. No one in this country voted for this government, and the policies it has been implementing have been terrible, especially to the working class.

I'd like to think these are the reasons. Hopefully for some they are.

However, in all of this, there is an underlying sense that perhaps it's more "We just want to riot cause we can" - A sense that this soceity is rotten at its core.

This.

A whole generation has grown up in these areas with no respect for the police (and vice versa). There have been several 'dubious' deaths in police custody or by police of black men that have wiped out any trust in the black communities.

I'm not from a rough family, but I was always taught not to trust or talk to the police, as was everyone I know - I've been told by police during a stop-and-search that if they 'catch' me again, they'll find something to arrest me for (I'm white). In my opinion, the Met has forgotten that their power is given to them BY the people to PROTECT the people; they have power and they use it as they please.

The Met Police has been rudderless for a few years now, Commissioner Blair was got rid of due to 'politicization' (with the Tories that forced him out elated that now they could influence them now instead) and only last month his successor stood down due to the News International scandal. They were told that they were too heavy-handed at the student protests, and have gone into these riots with that in mind, and we've seen the consequences. You'd think that there's a difference between a protest gone violent and looting throughout London, but apparently not according to police procedures.

I don't think this is political, a group in society that is disenfranchised and with a true hatred for the police has realised that the police can't stop them with sufficient numbers. Tonight there's 16k policemen on duty in London, as opposed to 6k last night. I would presume that the riots would not be in London tonight (if the rioters have any sense) and would instead take place in provincial towns and cities like Manchester, Liverpool etc.

Saturday was almost an accidental realisation for many: a peaceful protest turned violent, and the police didn't intervene when it did - many realised they could, in big enough numbers, get away with what they wanted. So they did

In short:
No respect for police in the black communities of London
+ Not enough police to stop unrest
= unrest.

I'd like to say it's political, but nobody robs a trainer or chicken shop as an act of protest.
 
Why? Slashing aid to poor or sick people can lead to deaths. Starving people economically leads to ruin and the breakdown of communities. Are those preventable deaths less abhorrent somehow? Is starting fires inherently more malicious than ruining lives for personal gain? What does it matter if the originator was elected? That only proves his mob is the biggest.

Because the rioters are causing damage for the fun of causing damage. They are starting fires for the fun of fire. They are violent. Their motives are destructive and avaricious; the steal for personal gain and destroy for entertainment. They are wilfully ruining the lives and livelihoods of innocent people and terrorizing communities. There is no political motive on behalf of the rioters in general, at least no discernible one. This is opportunistic theft, violence and vandalism. This is not disorder sparked by principle, it is disorder for personal enjoyment.

Government policy is not intended to be destructive. Its aim is not to wreak disorder and damage. It is enacted peacefully and in a legitimate environment. It is enacted by an institution the vast majority of the population see as a legitimate law maker. It is formed by people whom draw their legitimacy by endorsement from the population they govern. It is not formed by a violent mob. Government policy is the output of an accountable and democratic system. Burning and looting is not the output of an accountable and democratic system. Government policy is the product of a system the people see as legitimate. No such thing can be said for the actions of the rioters.
 
We can't have a society which both glorifies consumption, glamorizes brand names, etc, and has a large portion of the population unable to do it legally, without setting the stage for explosions of violence like this one. The peaceful solutions are either to take away the emphasis from consumption (but retail commerce and advertisement have grown so important that it'll be very hard to change that culture), or to enforce a much greater income equality so that every one can afford to be a dull middle class consumer. The other solutions is what the british government is attempting: thrown police at any inconvenient breakdown of the system and hope that repression alone can keep it going as it is.
It's like all those women dressing up in skimpy clothes and wearing all that seductive make-up while staying without reach for a large portion of the population... So, would rapes be equally excusable as these riots and should sharia laws be applied to prevent inequality?

I'd say it's a part of society, some things will be out of reach and self control has something to do with it, and the lack of it. At least I can watch commercials of BMWs without going berserk in the city. These folks are until proven otherwise, in my view nothing but criminals and political extremists out for some personal gain no matter who's expense it's on, rather than youths trying to make a political statement against Apple products.
 
Government policy is not intended to be destructive. Its aim is not to wreak disorder and damage. It is enacted peacefully and in a legitimate environment. It is enacted by an institution the vast majority of the population see as a legitimate law maker. It is formed by people whom draw their legitimacy by endorsement from the population they govern. It is not formed by a violent mob. Government policy is the output of an accountable and democratic system. Burning and looting is not the output of an accountable and democratic system. Government policy is the product of a system the people see as legitimate. No such thing can be said for the actions of the rioters.

You must have missed all the talk about a contemporary crisis of legitimacy that some of the well-established democratic governments are facing today, indeed one that can be said to have played a part in fomenting the discontent that forms the context of the riots.

The two aren't exactly the same, you're right, but the utopian picture of democratic government you're painting is frankly quite amusing.

It's like all those women dressing up in skimpy clothes and wearing all that seductive make-up while staying without reach for a large portion of the population... So, would rapes be equally excusable as these riots and should sharia laws be applied to prevent inequality?

I'd say it's a part of society, some things will be out of reach and self control has something to do with it, and the lack of it. At least I can watch commercials of BMWs without going berserk in the city. These folks are until proven otherwise, in my view nothing but criminals and political extremists out for some personal gain no matter who's expense it's on, rather than youths trying to make a political statement against Apple products.

As long as you agree that the same applies to those who played with the derivative market - it's not because there were incentives for them to do so, but because they lacked "self control".

Still, saying that people should have self control doesn't really solve anything. I guess that's what conservatism is about. Pretending problems will just go away.
 
I don't understand why people why are rioting over the harm to very few people, but the rioters are in turn causing great harm to many people.
 
Because the rioters are causing damage for the fun of causing damage. They are starting fires for the fun of fire. They are violent. Their motives are destructive and avaricious; the steal for personal gain and destroy for entertainment. They are wilfully ruining the lives and livelihoods of innocent people and terrorizing communities. There is no political motive on behalf of the rioters in general, at least no discernible one. This is opportunistic theft, violence and vandalism. This is not disorder sparked by principle, it is disorder for personal enjoyment.

If it's just an outburst of why-not, what is it that usually keeps that in check? Is the threat of jail the only thing keeping the average rioter, under normal circumstances, from looting and burning? Are there other reasons? Why don't you go steal and set things on fire?
 
You must have missed all the talk about a contemporary crisis of legitimacy that some of the well-established democratic governments are facing today, indeed one that can be said to have played a part in fomenting the discontent that forms the context of the riots.

The two aren't exactly the same, you're right, but the utopian picture of democratic government you're painting is frankly quite amusing.

Utopian? Come off it. I have claimed that Parliament is seen as legitimate by the population it governs. That the government formed from Parliament is thereby the product of a legitimate institution. That this government is, via periodic elections, accountable. I have said that this government enacts policy peaceably and that policy is not intended to wreak 'disorder and damage'. This is not a utopian picture of British government. If these criteria were not in place, we would not be able to call the UK a liberal democracy. I doubt you can object to any of these claims with any genuine substance.

If it's just an outburst of why-not, what is it that usually keeps that in check? Is the threat of jail the only thing keeping the average rioter, under normal circumstances, from looting and burning? Are there other reasons? Why don't you go steal and set things on fire?

The average rioter in these riots is, as Mise notes in the other thread, is hardly an upstanding member of the community.

To quote:

I don't know why people are looking for meaning in this*. It's just a whole bunch of gangs (you know, gangs - those things that have been around in London for decades, that we've all been scared of for decades, that have been stealing things and stabbing people and dealing drugs and getting in fights with police for decades) kicking off in a big way, all at the same time, all across London.

What usually keep this sort of thing in check is, broadly, the police.
 
Utopian? Come off it. I have claimed that Parliament is seen as legitimate by the population it governs. That the government formed from Parliament is thereby the product of a legitimate institution. That this government is, via periodic elections, accountable. I have said that this government enacts policy peaceably and that policy is not intended to wreak 'disorder and damage'. This is not a utopian picture of British government. If these criteria were not in place, we would not be able to call the UK a liberal democracy. I doubt you can object to any of these claims with any genuine substance.

I dunno, I suppose saying that accountability is a lot more complicated than just winning elections - that accountability can be impeded by dubious politicking and deals made out of the public eye - is not a claim of any genuine substance, is it?

Oh, we of little faith.
 
I dunno, I suppose saying that accountability is a lot more complicated than just winning elections - that accountability can be impeded by dubious politicking and deals made out of the public eye - is not a claim of any genuine substance, is it?

Oh, we of little faith.

The claim I made was that 'the UK government is accountable'. By substantial objection to this, I meant an object substantiating the counter-claim, that 'the UK government is not accountable'. I did not mean an objection which substantiates a claim 'the UK government is not perfectly accountable'.

So before proceeding, is it your intention to claim that 'the UK government is accountable' is false? That is to say, is it your intention to claim that the UK government is not accountable for its actions and policies?
 
The average rioter in these riots is, as Mise notes in the other thread, is hardly an upstanding member of the community.

To quote:

I don't know why people are looking for meaning in this*. It's just a whole bunch of gangs (you know, gangs - those things that have been around in London for decades, that we've all been scared of for decades, that have been stealing things and stabbing people and dealing drugs and getting in fights with police for decades) kicking off in a big way, all at the same time, all across London.

What usually keep this sort of thing in check is, broadly, the police.

Okay, that answers my first question. What about the other three?
 
The claim I made was that 'the UK government is accountable'. By substantial objection to this, I meant an object substantiating the counter-claim, that 'the UK government is not accountable'. I did not mean an objection which substantiates a claim 'the UK government is not perfectly accountable'.

So before proceeding, is it your intention to claim that 'the UK government is accountable' is false? That is to say, is it your intention to claim that the UK government is not accountable for its actions and policies?

No, what I said was quite clear - that it's not as accountable as people might be led to believe by the description you gave. Now, that being the case, I can see why people might draw parallels between the government causing harm and an angry mob causing harm. It is precisely because some doubt the moral authority/legitimacy that the government commands that leads them to think this way and claim that harm done under the guise of legitimate acts of government is no different from harm done by criminal acts except in name.
 
It's like all those women dressing up in skimpy clothes and wearing all that seductive make-up while staying without reach for a large portion of the population... So, would rapes be equally excusable as these riots and should sharia laws be applied to prevent inequality?

I'd say it's a part of society, some things will be out of reach and self control has something to do with it, and the lack of it. At least I can watch commercials of BMWs without going berserk in the city. These folks are until proven otherwise, in my view nothing but criminals and political extremists out for some personal gain no matter who's expense it's on, rather than youths trying to make a political statement against Apple products.

1) you're confusing explaining with excusing. This thread is about the causes of the riots, not about moral judgements.

2) if it is agreed that one of the causes is anger at a position perceived as of social inferiority (the symbols of status being mostly material, and these people being poor) it would be foolish to ignore that cause and not address it in any attempt to prevent future riots. Or do you hold that higher taxes on the bankster mafia would be as bad as covering women with burkas?

3) I'm not proposing that as the sole explanation, but one among several which combined to produce this.

As I mentioned, it's very clear that the police is the other major target. And several londoners here have already explained how in recent years the police has waster away the respect it might once have had. Also, consider the recent scandals in the UK: policemen taking bribes from reporters, the commissioner forced to resign... not very conductive to respect, is it?

Because someone else has already stated it more eloquently than I could, I'm quoting an opinion from another site here:

In the last few years, the general public has been made privy to the monumental failure of ethics and responsibility in institutions both public and private. Bankers and financiers have been seen publicly seen to profit enormously from feckless and irresponsible behaviour. Politicians and civil servants have been shown to be inept at best, and in collusion at worst. And--in particular in the UK--the media and police force have been found to be involved in the most scandalous, unscrupulous and unethical behaviour of recent times.

We are living in an age of irresponsibility.

It's interesting to see that many of the rioters are expressing no political, social, or ideological motivations. They are either engaged in arson or larceny. It is simple opportunism. But this behaviour not a random incident; it is an inevitable consequence of our times. I would hold that these rioters across the UK, discontented from the effects of austerity and unemployment, and cynicised by the endless stream of unresolved scandals, have simply decided to have their own slice of the rotten pie.

If bankers can loot the nation without consequence, if the media can destroy lives with impunity, and politicians lie without consequence, then why should a young unemployed man with few prospects turn up what may be his only opportunity to own a big flatscreen TV, or some designer clothes, or to vent his rage at the state? Because it would be "wrong"? Because it is "immoral", "unethical"? But for his entire life this young man has been shown by example that crime pays, that ruthlessness and wrongdoing pays, that rage and emotion pay.

I don't wish to sound like a religious reactionary, bemoaning the loss of public morality. But what kind of ethics have these young men learned from their leaders and public and private institutions? In the UK and beyond. Where are the ethical pillars of our society who lead by example? In politics? In the church? In the media? In private industry? I see none such. And moreover, I see those in such influential positions profiting from their poor examples.

Remember to these young people, the state over the last 10 years is all they have ever known. A state that has lied and warred. A media that has colluded and harassed. Public institutions who have lost all sense of civic duty. Industries that have profited from the most wanton recklessness and greed. And everywhere, none have been held to account.
 
Jesus, there is a lot of people getting there rocks off on this riot as it somehow "proves" there own political agenda.

The fact of the matter is, any legitimate protest was long ago eclipsed by the massive criminal looting which was spawned from existing criminal elements in London.

The cause is simple. Selfish individuals seek to gain from robbing and hurting there fellow creatures and they think they can get away with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom