Tony Thompson in Time Out observes that historically, every controversial shooting of a black man at the hands of the police has been followed by a riot, yet the events of August seemed to take the Met by surprise.
Richard Wilkinson, Professor of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham makes a comparison between banker’s bonuses and the MPs expense scandal, and the looting seen in the riots. Both are seen as stealing, both brought grief and ruin to families and businesses, yet the rioters were seen as much more of a threat to our way of life.
Politicians are talking about mindless violence to avoid discussion of the real cause. Wilkinson claims that Britain is more unequal now than it was in the 1920s.
Social commentators had many differing views on the causes of the riots.
The journalist of the ‘Bagehot’s notebook’ blog on The Economist online believed that there was no single explanation for the trouble, but one of the most plausible arguments is that of inner city gangs.
This is because gangs have been evolving recently, and are now based around geographical areas rather than ethnicity and have been recruiting younger members than before.
The Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips believes that the violence was a predictable outcome of a “three decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value”.
The Daily Mirror’s Paul Routledge blames the culture of rap music which he feels glorifies violence, lack of respect for authority and materialism.
An article in the print copy of The Economist (13/08/2011) expressed its opinions that the riots were caused by the frustration of an underclass that feels increasingly marginalised.
Budget cuts beginning to close youth centres and affect pupils and students.
These youths see expense claiming MPs and bonus fiddling bankers, and see no reason not to help themselves.
They feel they have no stake in society and nothing to lose.
However, some social commentators also focus on the issue as an opportunistic outbreak of thuggery and stupidity, evidencing the fact that the violence suddenly stopped when 10,000 extra police were drafted in, and, although this policing change happened only in London, national trouble stopped at the same time (copy-cat effect)
Many social commentators focus on the socio-economic background of the rioters. Bagehot’s notebook describes a bleaker sense of an underclass who think the ‘rich’ are local shopkeepers or the owners of Footlocker etc.
‘Smashing the rich’ = just attacking anyone with something they did not have, and wanted.
Despite the socio-economic background of the rioters being frequently discussed, commentators handle the issue of race much more tentatively. An article in the print copy of The Economist makes some comments, however.
The journalist says that it is hard to ignore the fact that the majority of the rioters were black which suggests that race played some part (even if politicians are unwilling to contemplate it.) The journalist makes two key links between race and certain aspects of the riot.
If you are of the opinion that the riots were just ‘mindless thuggery’, the assertion by Tony Sewell (of ‘Generating Genius’, an organisation promoting maths and science among black boys) that “black popular culture used to be based on spirituality and social justice…now we have a music that glorifies violence, materialism and sex”, could explain some of the violence in relation to race
If you come at it from the angle that the rioters are the disaffected youth, there could be a link between the riots and the fact that black youths are five times more likely to be stopped and searched than white youths by the Met.
Other social commentators lament on the ‘youth of today’, and the supposed decline in morals and family in recent years.
The historian David Starkey put forth the somewhat controversial opinion that the reason for the riots was that ‘the whites have become black…so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country’
Allison Pearson in The Telegraph questions England’s ‘frighteningly moronic youngsters’, blaming bad parenting for the troubles, which she says would never have happened 30 or 40 years ago.
However, in an interesting blog by Bagehot, he highlights how Professor Geoffrey Pearson’s 1982 book ‘Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears’ shows a long history of commentators lamenting the decline in morals, bad parenting, lack of respect for authority etc., as far back as 1751, which Bagehot believes teaches us to avoid moral panic and hasty judgements.
One of the major concerns of social commentators regarding the riots is the role of politicians and their reactions to the riots.
It is noted that whilst constituency MPs have come out of the crisis well, national leaders have done less well.
Bagehot asks whether after a year in office, shouldn’t Cameron already know whether his government’s policies were likely to help or harm British families?
The blog ‘Blighty’ makes some political predictions of its own.
It says ‘Don’t expect any hoody-hugging from Mr Cameron’, as well as stating that the country doesn’t want to hear a ‘blame on all sides’ opinions. This, according to Blighty, will mean that in the short term he will condemn the rioters, whilst in the longer term he will make proposed reforms of police and welfare bigger parts of the government’s strategic measures.
Blighty also predicts that there may be a general hardening of public opinion not only towards crime, but also towards welfare and other social issues, the test of which will be the reactions to the proposed housing benefit cap.
Another key aspect of the riots explored by social commentators is that of the police.
The biggest accusation being thrown at the Met is that, when faced with civil disorder, the police stand by for fear of provoking further violence, attempting to catch culprits afterwards using CCTV footage.
However, commentators also acknowledge that the Met have been alternately accused of brutality and laxity in recent years so are in a difficult position.
Commentators believe that policing will become a more central topic of political discussion.
Politicians will question if successive attempts to check and soften the Met (such as the Scarman Reports of the 1980s and community support officers etc.) have resulted in an excessively tentative attitude to policing.
Sources:
Time Out Magazine 18-24 August 2011, no.2139:
- ‘Can the Met respond?’ by Tony Thompson (p22)
- ‘Is the problem welfare or warfare?’ by Richard Wilkinson (p23)
Collected articles from The Economist online:
- ‘Britain’s August Riots’, Bagehot’s notebook, 15/08/2011
- ‘London Burns’, Blighty blog, 09/08/2011
- ‘We have been here before’, Bagehot’s notebook, 16/08/2011
- ‘Race and the Riots: a reckoning’ from the print copy, 03/09/2011
- ‘The fire this time’ from the print copy (13/08/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment