Rioting in London?

[K. A. Pital]

So: the only thing these people could think of doing was to burn down down buildings and steal property. I'm sure all those missing DVD players are going to send a strong message to Parliament.

Never mind the fact that many of those stores had apartments directly above them. Frankly, it's a marvel more people weren't killed by these stupidities.

If you want to protest, fine. If you want an aggressive protest, go right ahead if you think that's the only way to get your point across (hint: it's not). But if you endanger people's lives and destroy your neighbour's homes and workplaces, you're nothing but a fucktard, regardless of what your grievances are.

Once again an incomplete analysis of the situation.

What has been the First World doing to any and all organized labour opposition in the recent 50 years? Systematic decimation of radicals, systematic coopting of moderates to become effectively collaborationists. Where are labour organizations? Demolished. Where are united wide-scale movements? Destroyed.

Cultural propaganda of the recent years centered on atomization and individualization of the society. You're unique, whispered the television, you're individual, look out only for yourself. Nationalism creepingly swept through the nation; the TV spoke on how "Muslims" are "different", they are a threat to society, further disuniting the workless youth (and "workless youth" is not some god damn euphemism, youth unemployment rose to over 20% in Britain!). Meanwhile any and all mass protest organizations were discredited on a fundamental level, using government infiltrators, provocations, blacklisting, pressure and a multitude of other tactics.

The whole system created a class of destitute, but disunited, disparaged people. Who can lead the poor if non-clandestine mass organizations are discredited? Clandestine organizations. Of which crime is the most successful one. Crime operates clandestinely for decades. Centuries even. Enormous experience.

So the unemployed youth did not turn to a socialist party - a discredited and toothless protest venue, but to crime. Foistering of individualism leads to inability of realizing their own interest. Really, was it in the interest of workless youth to burn down houses in their OWN districts? Burn down SMALL BOURGEOIS shops? Was it really a protest where people realized their interests and defended them? No.

And guess why - because they forgot. They only see their individual, short-term interest. Which can be realize through looting most immediately.

If people think that "senseless" riots are somehow not determined by the cultural circumstances of Britain, by cultural conditioning of these youths and the entire society, by the ever widening rich-poor gap (look at Britain's GINI from 1980 to now) and ever-rising youth unemployment (it was ca. 8%, now it's over 20!), he's deeply mistaken. The lesson will not be learned, however.

[Lord Zentei]

No offense, but that sounds like a whole lot of bullshit apologism to me, or perhaps seeing what you're hoping for.

Again: the people of the Arab Spring didn't need to resort to criminality in order to topple their dictators. What makes the UK so much less capable of doing the same? Because they were not motivated by the same noble ideals. Some may have been, but a whole lot of that looting was simple opportunism. What the hell did those reasonably-well-off looters alluded to earlier need with criminality?

[K. A. Pital]

No offense, but that sounds like a whole lot of bullshit apologism to me, or perhaps seeing what you're hoping for.

Apologism? No apology for neither government nor society. Neither criminals. But criminals are the birthchild of the society, they are not some sort of aliens. You disagree that this is a consequence of UK's fucking political and economic failure re: youth employment? Fine. I think that there can't be causeless actions. Indeed, without youth unemployment who the fuck would go rioting?

Again: the people of the Arab Spring didn't need to resort to criminality in order to topple their dictators. What makes the UK so much less capable of doing the same? Because they were not motivated by the same noble ideals. Some may have been, but a whole lot of that looting was simple opportunism. What the hell did those reasonably-well-off looters alluded to earlier need with criminality?

Without resorting to criminality and violence? You mean the ransacked Egyptian museum and self-defence militias and gands of roving marauders during Tahrir square protests were something people "made up"? That's even more idealistic than I thought.

And Egypt with 90% of youth unemployment definetely has had a bigger problem than the UK. The youth can't just go with "let's loot". In a dictatorship that would have lots of unwelcome consequences and won't fix unemployment.

"Reasonably well-off looters"? You got to be kidding me if you call ghetto youth "well off".

[Barlestone]

Stas isn't claiming the rioters have noble motives. He's trying to explain how they ended up with such rotten motives in the first place.

Edit: Stas beat me.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas isn't claiming the rioters have noble motives. He's trying to explain how they ended up with such rotten motives in the first place.

Edit: Stas beat me.

Indeed. In fact, the rioteers have no motives - they can't realize their interest or band together to defend it. They're just looting, because they can't do any better. It is not a political rights rebellion. It is a riot symptomatic of a rotting, dysfunctional society incapable of solving youth problems.

[Lord Zentei]

No offense, but that sounds like a whole lot of bullshit apologism to me, or perhaps seeing what you're hoping for.

Apologism? No apology for neither government nor society. Neither criminals. But criminals are the birthchild of the society, they are not some sort of aliens. You disagree that this is a consequence of UK's fucking political and economic failure re: youth employment? Fine. I think that there can't be causeless actions. Indeed, without youth unemployment who the fuck would go rioting?

Doesn't follow. For instance, football hooligans don't need youth unemployment to go rioting.

Again: the people of the Arab Spring didn't need to resort to criminality in order to topple their dictators. What makes the UK so much less capable of doing the same? Because they were not motivated by the same noble ideals. Some may have been, but a whole lot of that looting was simple opportunism. What the hell did those reasonably-well-off looters alluded to earlier need with criminality?

Without resorting to criminality and violence? You mean the ransacked Egyptian museum and self-defence militias and gands of roving marauders during Tahrir square protests were something people "made up"? That's even more idealistic than I thought.

Oh, come on. Those examples of property destruction by rioters were far less numerous than the looting that occured in London, and you know it. And obviously I'm not talking about the marauding gangs of pro-government thugs. Indeed, the very fact that the demonstrators in Tahir square showed such restraint in spite of those kinds of provocations shows them in an even better light than otherwise.

And Egypt with 90% of youth unemployment definetely has had a bigger problem than the UK. The youth can't just go with "let's loot". In a dictatorship that would have lots of unwelcome consequences and won't fix unemployment.

I'm not sure that looting fixes anything in the UK either.

"Reasonably well-off looters"? You got to be kidding me if you call ghetto youth "well off".

Ahem - from earlier in the thread: link

Stas isn't claiming the rioters have noble motives. He's trying to explain how they ended up with such rotten motives in the first place.

Edit: Stas beat me.

Indeed. In fact, the rioteers have no motives - they can't realize their interest or band together to defend it. They're just looting, because they can't do any better. It is not a political rights rebellion. It is a riot symptomatic of a rotting, dysfunctional society incapable of solving youth problems.

OK, that's something I can more easily get behind - except, see above link.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't think blocking twitter is reminiscent of China so much as the strongman regimes in Egypt and Syria.

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

I would have thought that saying something like this would have turned public opinion against Cameron, but apparently not.

Is the proposed blocking temporary, for times of unrest, or permanent? That might make a difference in peoples' opinions.

I surmise it would be temporary, since he's not an isolationist. Even so.

[K. A. Pital]

Zentei, seriously. Select examples of tried rioteers out of what, thousands? How are several examples who were leading "respectable lives" representative? Basic sociology - the selection should be representative to actually describe the whole group.

Most interestingly of all, they were predominantly white, and many had jobs.

How many is many?

Then again, if this is indeed a riot of small bourgeois and middle class kids - typically thought of as the foundation of UK's and other Western European nations' government support base... I'm speechless.

For instance, football hooligans don't need youth unemployment to go rioting.

That's true, but in case of football hooligans you have actual hooligan clubs and organizations basically.... dedicated to football hooliganism. This was a spontaneous riot. I described it as a sort of a class riot, but if it turns out the majority of rioteers had jobs and got good pay, then it would be a non-class riot. Probably cultural issues.

[Lord Zentei]

Zentei, seriously. Select examples of tried rioteers out of what, thousands? How are several examples who were leading "respectable lives" representative? Basic sociology - the selection should be representative to actually describe the whole group.

Most interestingly of all, they were predominantly white, and many had jobs.

How many is many?

The article doesn't exactly say, does it?

At least we learn that they're "predominantly white", implying a majority - so it's not a race riot. "Many" having jobs implies more than expected. I agree that a more quantitative analysis would be better - but that's something that can be said for any assumptions that the rioters were by and large somehow moved by bad social conditions.

Then again, if this is indeed a riot of small bourgeois and middle class kids - typically thought of as the foundation of UK's and other Western European nations' government support base... I'm speechless.

Well, don't celebrate too soon, in case I'm right about these being little more than hooligans with little or no inclination to change the status quo and having little mainstream support in any case.

For instance, football hooligans don't need youth unemployment to go rioting.

That's true, but in case of football hooligans you have actual hooligan clubs and organizations basically.... dedicated to football hooliganism. This was a spontaneous riot. I described it as a sort of a class riot, but if it turns out the majority of rioteers had jobs and got good pay, then it would be a non-class riot. Probably cultural issues.

As far as I can see, the "culture" in question is Chav "culture". Social media makes such spontaneous events far easier than they were in the past, so Cameron is at least right about that (though he's an idiot for wanting to restrict free speech technologies).

[K. A. Pital]

Restriction of free speech is a natural reaction of the elites. Self-preservation instinct. Riots carry the possibility of certain elite members losing status/positions. Riots caused by free speech - restrict free speech and preserve position. Cameron's not an idiot

[Lord Zentei]

Well, I meant that in the moral sense, obviously. Perhaps "asshole" would have been more accurate.

Sadly it seems that too many Britons are in love with their emerging police state.

[Broomstick]

"Reasonably well-off looters"? You got to be kidding me if you call ghetto youth "well off".

Stas, please look at these statistics released by the UK police on August 11. Granted, these are early figures, but they show that 70% of the rioters were not from the neighborhoods where the riots took place.

Many have been surprised at the number of people who are middle-class, with jobs, or even from wealthy families who have been brought before the courts to explain why there exists video and photos of them participating in mayhem.

In light of these facts, perhaps you should re-evaluate your narrative of "poor people rising up and smashing things".

Your points about factors in society driving people apart and discouraging collective action has some validity, however, this riot may not be precisely what you assume it to be.

ETA: I see this sort of thing have already been pointed out - does anyone have any updated figures? I could use them in arguments poo-flinging discussions on other forums.

[Crown]

"Reasonably well-off looters"? You got to be kidding me if you call ghetto youth "well off".

Stas, please look at these statistics released by the UK police on August 11. Granted, these are early figures, but they show that 70% of the rioters were not from the neighborhoods where the riots took place.

Many have been surprised at the number of people who are middle-class, with jobs, or even from wealthy families who have been brought before the courts to explain why there exists video and photos of them participating in mayhem.

In light of these facts, perhaps you should re-evaluate your narrative of "poor people rising up and smashing things".

Your points about factors in society driving people apart and discouraging collective action has some validity, however, this riot may not be precisely what you assume it to be.

ETA: I see this sort of thing have already been pointed out - does anyone have any updated figures? I could use them in arguments poo-flinging discussions on other forums.

I'd be careful with this point, for one thing opportunistic looters != rioters. A lot of the cases as reported in the BBC consist of people looting the day after the riots in the early morning, and a few have turned themselves in over their own guilt.

These are not the people who did this;



Or this;

[dragon]

Here's a little more info on the nitwit wanting to ban social media.

(CNN) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron thinks he's found some culprits to blame in the recent riots that have rocked London and other cities -- Facebook and Twitter.

Saying the "free flow of information" can sometimes be a problem, Cameron's government has summoned those two social-networking sites, as well as Research In Motion, makers of the BlackBerry, for a meeting to discuss their roles during the violent outbreaks.

"Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media," Cameron said Thursday during an address to Parliament. "Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them."

Cameron said that government officials are working with authorities "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."

More than 1,200 people have been arrested nationwide, Cameron told lawmakers. One estimate found that UK retailers lost more than than £100 million ($161 million) in stolen goods and property damage over four nights of rioting.



The defining image of London riots

Behind the scenes of UK riot reporting

UK activist blames classism for riots

London to hold night court sessions Cameron, a Conservative, seems to have support for a potential crackdown, even from members of the opposition Labor Party.

"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security," said Ivan Lewis, the shadow secretary of culture in the House of Commons, according to London's Guardian newspaper. "We support the government's decision to undertake a review of whether measures are necessary to prevent the abuse of social media by those who organize and participate in criminal activities."

Home Secretary Theresa May has called for meetings with the three companies in the coming weeks, according to British media.

Many UK rioters reportedly used BlackBerry Messenger, a free, private instant-messaging tool, to organize. A recent survey found that 37% of British teens prefer BlackBerrys to other smartphones.

Twitter and Facebook have been used as well, although those sites also have been used to organize cleanup efforts and calls for peace in the wake of riots that started in London's Tottenham district on Saturday after police shot and killed a man.

Representatives of Facebook and Twitter said they're happy to meet with the government, although both would presumably object to being censored or shut down in the UK.

Twitter has said it has no intention to block accounts or delete posts, while Facebook has said publicly that it already shut down pages that explicitly incited violence.

Research in Motion's Inside BlackBerry blog was hacked Tuesday after the Canadian smartphone maker suggested it would cooperate with London police to help identify rioters who may have used BlackBerrys to plan mayhem.

Open-Web and free-speech advocates immediately objected to Cameron's language.

"It may be tempting to smother that kind of speech when a government feels it is under siege, as Britain seems to feel that it is," wrote Matthew Ingram of tech blog GigaOm. "But doing this represents nothing less than an attack on the entire concept of freedom of speech, and that has some frightening consequences for any democracy."

Ingram questioned whether the government would be cracking down on telephone use or people talking about the unrest at their local pub if social media didn't exist. "That seems unlikely (although not impossible). But the British government's apparent willingness to consider shutting down or blocking access to Twitter and BlackBerry's BBM falls into the same category."

On ReadWriteWeb, writer Curt Hopkins said Cameron "joins the long line of powerful men who totally miss the point of social media."

"Banning those convicted of crimes from accessing social networks (the idea being that they used such access to organize criminal activities) is no different than banning the same criminals from accessing goose quills and ink pots," Hopkins wrote. "It will have zero effect on crime, aside from criminalizing social media itself."

link

[Broomstick]

I'd be careful with this point, for one thing opportunistic looters != rioters. A lot of the cases as reported in the BBC consist of people looting the day after the riots in the early morning, and a few have turned themselves in over their own guilt.

The people in those stats are alleged to have participated in the riots as early as Monday, so I wouldn't consider them late-comers.

These are not the people who did this;

Apparently at least one arrest has been made in that case, but no details have been released yet so again, how do you know? What tells you where those people are from, or how well off they are or aren't?

Or this;

How do you know that? Have those people been identified? What, exactly, tells you they're either from or not from the area that shop is located?

[Zaune]

Just for the record, there is actually not a particularly large gulf between being unemployed and holding down a minimum wage job in this country. The actual unemployment insurance part, known with increasingly unwarranted optimism as Jobseeker's Allowance, is only one part of it. The other part is Housing and Council Tax Benefit, which are exactly what they say on the tin, and can be applied for by people in part-time work or single parents with kids who are too young for school as well as the unemployed. How much you get depends on your rent/mortagage, your other income (though some benefits relating to disabilities don't count towards this) and other assorted factors relating to your living circumstances.

All told, an unmarried 18-to-24 year-old with no children will be worse off by about £40 ($65) a week on the dole than if they were in a minimum wage job with a typical 40-hour week. If they're not fortunate enough to live within walking or cycling distance of their minimum wage job, public transport costs vary wildly but they'll be very lucky if they're getting much change back from £5 a day just getting to and from work; owning a car is almost out of the question.

[Crown]

I'd be careful with this point, for one thing opportunistic looters != rioters. A lot of the cases as reported in the BBC consist of people looting the day after the riots in the early morning, and a few have turned themselves in over their own guilt.

The people in those stats are alleged to have participated in the riots as early as Monday, so I wouldn't consider them late-comers.

Huh? Where does it say that? Hell where does it imply that? The VAST majority of the people arrested to date (71%) are charged with "Burglary and related offences including receiving and handling stolen goods". The minority of the people arrested (23%) are being charged with crimes which would correlate with partaking in the riot. Which is what I just said, no?

<snip>
Apparently at least one arrest has been made in that case, but no details have been released yet so again, how do you know? What tells you where those people are from, or how well off they are or aren't?
<snip>
How do you know that? Have those people been identified? What, exactly, tells you they're either from or not from the area that shop is located?

Wait, how do I know what? How do I know that the overwhelming majority of people being prosecuted are not being prosecuted for the involvement of the specific actions I YouTube linked? Well, didn't I answer that above? Your own link breaks the statistics down to 3 charges, only 2 of which could be considered to be in line with what I posted above, and these 2 charges are in the minority of people having been processed;

[Rye]

I thought it'd be good to share a cross-section of the Manchester riots:

The bad guys (chav scum if we're being honest):


The good guys (also arranged by social media, so they probably wouldn't have happened as they did if Cameron et al had shut down social media):

[HMS Sophia]

I got invited to the clean up in salford by some friends from Uni. Apparently it had a really big response from locals. Unfortunately I'm not living there any more, so I couldn't take part.

[Chirios]

Also, people don't forget, that there's a difference between the original riots and the copycat violence and thieving.

[Broomstick]

The people in those stats are alleged to have participated in the riots as early as Monday, so I wouldn't consider them late-comers.

Huh? Where does it say that?

Upper right - says these were people listed to appear on August 10, which was Wednesday. That would imply the crimes they are accused of occurred earlier, that is, Monday or Tuesday.

The VAST majority of the people arrested to date (71%) are charged with "Burglary and related offences including receiving and handling stolen goods". The minority of the people arrested (23%) are being charged with crimes which would correlate with partaking in the riot. Which is what I just said, no?

Yeah, 71% were charged with looting, that is, taking stuff that's not theirs (burglary and receiving stolen goods) and either keeping it or funneling it to others (handling stolen goods). How is looting NOT part of the riots?

Unless, of course, "burglary" has some radically different meaning in the UK as opposed to the US, but "robbery" is taking possession from a person and "burglary" is taking stuff from something like a building. I've heard that the UK doesn't regard property theft as seriously as the US (a point I'm sure is debatable, if it exists at all) but I hardly think it's regarded as trivial when it reaches the level of a shop entirely stripped to the walls. Reports are that looting was the main activity in this riot, were those reports in error?

[Crown]

Reports are that looting was the main activity in this riot, were those reports in error?

I see that this is our sticking point. When I say 'involved in the riot' I mean 'throwing molotov cocktails at police, setting fire to cars, smashing up property and yes looting'.

But if the vast majority are only being charged with looting, that means they haven't caught the people who were actually, you know, rioting they've caught people who were looting. Please for the love of everything decent don't make me repeat this self evident distinction.

[Broomstick]

I would expect that the ones throwing molotov cocktails were only a tiny subset of those causing trouble... which is supported by the given statistics.

If you don't see looting as part of rioting, well, OK, I can see our opinions differ. I, however, see the looting as part of the riot, not a separate activity. I don't see looting as an "only" or "mere" offense, it's a felony. It's not life-threatening in the same sense arson or assault and battery are, but certainly on this scale it's not a minor crime.

[Crown]

I would expect that the ones throwing molotov cocktails were only a tiny subset of those causing trouble... which is supported by the given statistics.

If you don't see looting as part of rioting, well, OK, I can see our opinions differ. I, however, see the looting as part of the riot, not a separate activity. I don't see looting as an "only" or "mere" offense, it's a felony. It's not life-threatening in the same sense arson or assault and battery are, but certainly on this scale it's not a minor crime.

Are you purposefully trying to wind me up here? I specifically did say that looting is part of rioting, but rioting is not necessarily part of looting! Look, I'll quote myself here;

I see that this is our sticking point. When I say 'involved in the riot' I mean 'throwing molotov cocktails at police, setting fire to cars, smashing up property and yes looting'[/i].

But if the vast majority are only being charged with looting, that means they haven't caught the people who were actually, you know, rioting they've caught people who were looting. Please for the love of everything decent don't make me repeat this self evident distinction.

I'm not trying to be tricky here. This shouldn't need another reply.

[weemadando]

Apparently Council's are issuing eviction notices to council housing tenancies who have had an occupant convicted of riot/looting offences. Apparently the first one was a family who's son was convicted of burglary.

Because that can only make this situation better, right?