The London Riots Revisited

I wanted to revisit an earlier thread of mine: London Riots: We Tried To Warn You. I made the argument that regardless of the morality of rioting there are factors which predictably to lead to it. I also maintain that supporting those factors (ceterus paribus) is tantamount to tacitally accepting riots or other forms of disorder. In any case, two articles in the Guardian aroused my interest. First was this piece: England Rioters: Young, Poor and Unemployed. Which has some interesting information on the demographics of the rioters (as suggested by the headline). Of worth was the following:

"A Liverpool University urban planning lecturer, Alex Singleton, analysed the Guardian's preliminary data by overlaying the addresses of defendants with the poverty indicators mapped by England's Indices of Multiple Deprivation, which breaks the country into small geographical areas.

He found that the majority of people who have appeared in court live in poor neighbourhoods, with 41% of suspects living in one of the top 10% of most deprived places in the country. The data also shows that 66% of neighbourhoods where the accused live got poorer between 2007 and 2010."

Another article: England's rioters: did many 'pillars of the community' take part? has perhaps the most shocking statistic:

"Only a small proportion of people appearing in court charged with offences committed during the riots are listed as being in work or in full-time education, according to an analysis of most of the defendants whose cases have been heard so far. Research carried out by the Guardian of around 1,000 cases going through the magistrates courts shows that just 8.6% of defendants have jobs or are students." [Emphasis mine]

I found this article interesting as much of the media coverage has focused on those rioters that were not unemployed etc. due to the shock value and as such they have put forward implicitly (or explicitly in some cases) the case that socio-economic factors were not important (instead we have 'culture of greed', 'broken society' etc.).

Meanwhile, as Cameron talks of 'zero tolerance', it would be useful to check some of the research on this question. I refer the reader to one paper Redistribution and Civil Unrest.

Abstract:

"Recurrent episodes of civil unrest significantly reduce the potential for economic growth and poverty reduction. Yet the economics literature offers little understanding on what triggers social unrest and how to prevent it. We analyse theoretically the merits of redistributive policies in the onset and reduction of civil unrest and compare it with more direct policies such as the use of police. We present empirical evidence for a panel of Indian states, where conflict, redistributive policies and policing are treated as endogenous variables. Our empirical results show, in the medium-term, redistributive policies are an effective means to reduce civil unrest, as they affect directly important causes of social conflict, notably poverty. Policing is at best a short-term strategy. In the long-term, it may trigger further social discontent."

It seems we never learn....or at least the Conservatives don't.....assuming, that is, they genuinely want to solve the problems.

The London Riots Revisited

 

Interesting...At least we can say with certainty now that they were worse off then others. Will have to read that paper.

 

They rioted because they could and had a very good chance of getting away with it. Even if caught, the penalty is minimal. They learned crime pays in the UK.

 

Liberalism facilitates crime because liberalism is too ready to excuse it for any number of reasons.

 

The police will now do what they did before, when the same occurred at soccer matches and post the photographs they, and onlookers, took of the rioters, masked or not.

Prosecutions will follow in due course.

 

Interesting. Trying to find an underlying cause for a problem is making excuses?

 

Not attempting to understand a problem is to condemn it to repeat which is de facto an excusing and supporting of the problem.

 

In the land of the eternal present we don't like to remember. Perhaps that is why these problems keep repeating themselves.

 

I draw a different conclusion from the data. Judging by the riot itself, and this was a proper riot, I'm led to believe... or have the opinion that those who participated in this riot likely have a habit of making really poor decisions in life. They likely have a habit of caving in to the bad habits and ways of their peers. Poor decision making will definitely keep you in poverty, or lead you into poverty.

There really was no reason to riot as they did. It was ridiculous.

 

What causes poor decision making?

 

A lot of it is cultural. I'm not talking about race, just culture.

There are lots of cultures around the world who have suffered far greater poverty and far greater injustice (I use the term lightly in the case of London).... Tibetans for example. They're not angels of course, in fact they had a bit of an uprising in 08', but their reasons are another matter.

 

Culture? (Great). Now, how does one change culture. Furthermore, does culture have ts iroots in the economic system.

 

What then is the penalty?

 

With a change of perception, a change in the way one acts and reacts to life's situations.

This seems to be a bit of a "chicken or egg type question" and hard to determine anyways. In my mind, poverty can keep you down, but the possibility of changing your situation through will and determination is completely possible. You can be born into wealth and privilege, yet loose it all through your own actions.

So I'd have to say that culture is not wholly rooted in the economic system, or even your particular position within a system.

 

Six years for looting a bottle of water is just a slap on the wrist! (sarcasm off)

 

It is an interdependent system but there is a major economic determinant.




Take the above for example. Economic systems do affect culture which leads to poverty etc.

 

I've been poor most of my life, honestly. I understand the hopelessness and discontent. My point is that while poverty can undoubtedly effect behavior, we should never forget that all individuals have the ability to alter their own behavior in a manner which leads to a better present and future.

I've been pretty consistent with the idea that social services are a good thing, and that we need them to some extent. But, throwing money at problems isn't always the solution. I don't believe it would help to fiscally elevate the impoverished to the point where most start to report well being. I believe there are certain traits and behaviors which will predictably lead some back to poverty.

So, I think the best solution, along with providing "bare bone, necessities only" social welfare, is to push for education in personal responsibility, finances, rehab if needed, anger management if needed etc. I think we are somehow failing to address the real problems.

 

The problem is the formulation of welfare in the U.S. and the U.K. and the neoliberal system as a whole. It is in the countries where inequality has skyrocketed that we have seen these riots and the rise of the permanent underclass.

 

I haven't heard this position before, what do you mean exactly?

 

Wow! Magistrates now have that amount of power? How things change!

 

I think that in any society when a very large percentage of the population that is under 25 and unemployed is a riot situation in the making. You have all of this energy, anger and free time. And you really do not have anything better to do! For many.... a riot would be considered FUN! And if there are really no seriously penalties for getting caught... then I can easily see that happening.

 

The Judge says "Bad! Bad!, Naughty.." and slaps the rioter on his wrist, gives him a time out and then sends him to bed without his milk and cookies....You know, sort of like what we do to the trash caught spraying graffiti...

 

Since you don't know the difference between a Magistrates Court and a Crown Court, I doubt that you have any idea of British justice and the way it works.

 

Judging by your decades long trend in rising crime of almost every sort, I was not aware British Justice did work.

 

Rising trend? I was fairly certain crime was falling.