I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but why is this happening? I read that this started saturday as a protest against a policeman who shot someone, but that doesn't seem to be what the protests is about now.
The sources I checked don't reach any kind of consensus.
Forty years ago Harvard Professor Edward Banfield wrote a chapter in his book about the riots of the 1960's. From what I can tell, almost everything he wrote applies to these current riots in London.
The primary reason that people riot is that rioting is fun. It gives an immense surge of adrenaline and other hormones, it gives the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. In order for a riot to occur there must be some sort of event that acts as a Schelling point or catalyst. This Schelling point might be a real grievance, or a contrived one. It might be some innocuous event, like a sports victory. News of the riot spreads via the news channels of the day - tv, internet, twitter, etc - and the riot snowballs. The final necessary ingredient is weakness on the part of the police. If the police are outnumbered, and only allowed to manually arrest with handcuffs, then the rioters will go wild, and even more rioters will join as they realize they suffer no consequence for their actions. If the police start beating the hell out of people, or even using live rounds, the riot ends fast.
the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction.
I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?
I think the thrill of the riot is pretty widespread. I myself am a pretty staid, law abiding, non-violent fellow. But I definitely feel the urge - whether its wanting to destroy my tennis racket after losing a game or wanting to participate in post-victory riots that I've witnessed first hand. But the thing that holds me back are a) fear of getting in trouble and b) my conscience. My mom brought me up with a very strict sense of right and wrong and that still stays with me. From what I have read and experienced of inner city culture, its the parenting (or lack thereof) and the failure to instill a conscience that makes rioting more common in these communities. Another factor is that the media and/or educational system and/or community culture have generally built up a sense of grievance and entitlement. That sense of grievance gives an excuse to act out, and a rationalization that assuages the conscience. These grievances may be real or not, but the destruction is still completely unjustified, because its certainly not the hard working storekeeper who's shop is getting burned who is responsible for whatever grievances the rioter might have had.
Also, more than likely you would lose your job and professional standing if you got busted for looting. This is a pretty big disincentive for you. But for the looters it's kudos.
Creating is much more difficult than destroying. Creating actually takes preparation, discipline, work, sacrifice, frustration, and the ability to put off till tomorrow the pleasure we want to experience today. In so far as education tempers people with the ability to sustain that process, then yes you're probably right, it is a failure there. Not an easy problem to solve, though.
I totally agree with you. Creating is more difficult than destroying. Although part of me thinks that destroying at this level would be very difficult. I mean, these people are ransacking some 89-year-old's small business and looting retail stores. That should feel different than fighting an oppressor. Even though you are pumped up with adrenaline, isn't there some part of you that just knows that you're being part of the problem? That's what I have a difficult time understanding. But does this just show the brokenness of the situation? Do these people feel trapped, without hope, disaffected, like nothing matters?
Originally it was a protest about the guy that got shot by the police. But, there's a lot of kids with nothing to lose and in the last couple of hours they've realised it's a free for all.
I'm not justifying anything here just trying to make an analysis: The reason they don't care is because they don't have a hope in hell of getting a job in mainstream society that would pay enough to get them out of the bunk bed in their parents house. London is so expensive to live in and there's a lot of poorly educated young people that are stuck with no chance of an independent life. So the attitude on the street is like 'we can't get it by getting a job and living normally so we're just gonna take it'. There's very little chance of getting caught at the moment, no reason not to. So it's not really random violence and stealing, it's probably even at some level a rational choice to do this if you are someone in this position.
The police can't cope because they don't seem to understand how the rioters are organising through BBM and because Britain has relatively fewer police officers per head of population compared to other European countries and the US.
Who knows what'll happen next. Twitter is lit up with people saying 'send in the army' at the moment which seems nuts to me but quite frankly seems like anything could happen tonight.
Started off as a protest against a police shooting (details will depend on which side you ask) and then escalated. Now it is just vandalizing, destroying property, and looting. Some BBC commenters were saying that for the young guys, the austerity measures with a combination of feeling marginalized, unemployed, and no hope for a future plays a part in this too.
Yes, the eighties austerity, cuts, unemployment and we had riots then too.
Local council budgets are being cut. Libraries and swimming pools, after school activities, policing. All being eroded.
From what I see of the news, it's somehow different this time. Perhaps more nihilistic, versus the more confrontational riots in the eighties. It definitely seems there's a goal of hitting shops full of 'shinys'.
Of course, modern messaging may also be playing a part in enabling more 'agile' riots.
I remember growing up and watching demonstrations and protests on TV - unless my memory is seriously impaired, something has changed in the decade and half since then. It seems in recent years black bloc tactics have taken over protesting, to the point where one rarely sees peaceful protests anymore.
Black bloc animals will seize upon any cause, just or otherwise, as an excuse to loot and cause mayhem - and the worst part is, their mere presence erodes the credibility of otherwise legitimate groups with legitimate grievances.
The city of London has it's own police force called the Meltropolitan Police (the Met). This is a different organisation to the normal English police. I think the Met carry guns but the normal police don't.
Rome has a similar thing with the Carabinieri, I understand these guys are part of the military.
The Met is responsible for Greater London (where all the riots seem to be so far). The City of London Police is responsible for the Square Mile (the actual City) in the centre.
The City of London police don't especially carry firearms. That said, you may see more of the specially armed police in the City, simply because of a high terrorist threat
The Met is just another regional police force, similar to (and on a level with) the Hampshire or Sussex police. It is only really special because of the size and importance of its area of operations.
It's long since become little more than hooliganism. I'm sure a variety a deeper societal-reasons will be dredged up in the weeks and months to come; but what started off as a sit-in on Saturday is now just a backdrop for a large number of disaffected people, mainly youths, to smash shops and steal.
It's not native Britons rioting, largely it is young members of immigrant communities. However, given the apparent youth of the rioters I doubt racial politics is a significant issue here. It appears to indeed be rioting for the sake of rioting.
Source required. It's not completely clear what you mean by native and immigrant, but it could be construed as racial slander. Please clarify and source.
NB - I'm not normally a stickler for sourcing, but I feel a statement as controversial as this requires one.
I think by immigrant communities he was also including immigrants children (1st 2nd generation or more). I've seen this used as to visible minorities in many places around the world. Including country that are mostly immigrants like Canada (where I'm from).
What has been reported is that it's youth from poor neighborhoods. Considering the population composition of those neighborhoods, I'm going to guess that it's probable the groups are composed of a majority of people from those immigrant communities. It still doesn't mean it's a immigrant riot. I bet poor non-immigrant (as in their family always been there) are also participating.
I'm in my flat in NW2 and I can hear police cars going down the Edgware Road. Fucking terrifying. The police can't keep up, according to the news they're showing up hours late to everything and they don't have any water cannons. Bad times.
It's very frustrating knowing the police can do little to contain or manage the situation, and we're completely at the mercy of rioters as to what will happen next or when it will stop.
A group of 30-40 of them went up my street, smashing cars, and started congregating out front, all holding glass bottles -- this just when reports of homes being broken into started coming out. Absolutely horrifying, luckily something spooked them and they moved up the street.
Unfortunately English law around intruders in the home is quite vague and very different from the Castle Doctrine laws in the USA
'As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than they reasonably believe necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises'
Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed. It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them. I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-(
And the illegal to use a weapon to defend yourself is a legal situation in transition in the UK. So if you take away the ‘armed’ part as you did, James, then the answer is no, not yet.
Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed."
Aren't they? At least some of them? And those that aren't carrying guns, might it be that they're mostly opportunistic looters who generally wouldn't be carrying anyway?
"It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.
Well, but that's true of any weapon.
"I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-("
Well, it shows that different cultures have different problems that are not easily equatable. Not to dismiss the obvious issues with gun violence in the USA, but are you sure that the right set of gun control laws allowing private ownership would lead to the same results in the UK as in the USA? Gun deaths per capita is not a universal ratio.
Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.
The trouble is that anyone with basic machine tools can make some pretty fancy weapons, and the career criminals by definition will make them with impunity. Hence the saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
It is difficult for me to stay objective when it comes to gun possession, because I'm strongly anti-guns, and I can't seem to even begin to understand Americans' attitudes on the subject, but I'll give it my best shot:
Remember what was the "cause"[1] for these riots? A person got shot. The situation is already out of control, but if half the rioters and half the citizens and all of the police were carrying guns, I honestly think London would be a war zone right now.
One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.
These are people fighting people. Any guns would be evenly distributed among the defenders and the attackers, and thus not serve to end or cool the conflict, but further exacerbate the situation.
Any mob is better than an armed mob. Arming the citizens would be arming the mob, since the mob actually consists of citizens. I do not think guns would help anybody.
I don't even think that guns would help the police. I'm glad the police are not using arms against the mob.
And yes, if I had to choose between somebody breaking into my house and stealing/breaking everything, and having a gunfight with said person, I'd choose the former, without even blinking. Call me meek, but I'd rather lose my livelihood than my life. Where I come from, health is always valued more than possessions.
----
[1] I know "cause" is not the right word. The shot drug dealer wasn't any more a cause for the riots than Helena's rapture by Paris was a cause for the Trojan siege. Doesn't mean that the Trojans would have been wise to counteract the Greeks by abducting more women. The mob is taking it as a primary reason to run amok, and more people getting killed would add more anger.
These are people fighting people. Any guns would be evenly distributed among the defenders and the attackers, and thus not serve to end or cool the conflict, but further exacerbate the situation.
This may be apples to oranges, but during the Los Angles riots that came about after the Rodney King verdict, while some rioters had guns they were way overwhelmed by the fire-power of people defending their property (mostly Koreans protecting their stores).
For whatever reasons some people view gun control they way others view drug control; that is, if something is available then oh-my-god everyone will have/use it. But it just doesn't play out like that.
For example, here in Arizona it is easy to get a gun. Many people have them, but I'd be surprised if they make up the majority, and we don't have routine daily gun fights here.
My anecdotal observations aren't going to explain any complex social dynamics, but some conjectures put forth in this discussion do not seem to be based in data or experience.
One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.
Apparently most of the police do not carry guns as well. I saw that it was questioned earlier if some of the forces being used to maintain order are now carrying guns, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. The Metropolitan police might(?)
Firearms are only carried by limited numbers of specially trained units, and will likely only be deployed if there is reason to suspect that they're going against other armed individuals.
Tasers have recently been more widely issued across most forces.
Considering this whole situation was sparked off by armed police firing on a man who (apparently) hadn't fired on them, things could get real ugly if more armed police are added to the equation.
I don't know how tight the community but could the residents organize to protect the areas? A little like what the Egyptians were doing? Blocking roads and letting only residents pass?
The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting.
As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality".
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms.
EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this. Just proves the point that those who would actually use force to restore order will be called out as "committing police brutality."
Don't bet on it. The group dynamic (deindividuation[1]) behind rioting is exactly the same as the group dynamic used to build armies that are willing to risk their lives on orders. Introducing military on the streets like was done in Northern Ireland[2] is a recipe for decades of pain and division. The military are not police; you don't want that.
Whatever dude. Just ask anyone who grew up in anything resembling a ghetto. There's lots of us who begin to think that shooting rioters on sight is not a bad idea. Where do you think Boondock Saints came from? Honestly, at some point, you just get sick of the shit and you want it to stop, and solutions like the military become appealing.
And therein lies the problem. We know it's inhumane. We know it degrades us further to succumb to that shoot-the-fuckers mentality. It is understood then, that for riots like this to happen at all, we've already lost. That there are scarcely any viable solutions merely brings to surface the existing societal decay.
The point then, is not that you are right and he is wrong or vice versa. The point is that ultimately, the military is brought in for riots of LA-scale intensity because the people want them to be brought in, because in a lose-lose situation, you'd prefer the choice that affords peace.
p.s. It is interesting then, that folks like Jefferson were against standing armies because they were only necessary for oppressing the populace.
p.p.s. Looks like people can't handle the notion that society can slide into nihilism. =P
I was pointing out why people think the way they do. No need to get condescending or shoot the messenger here. More than that, you are merely being pedantic.
It makes little difference that Hollywood made it when it was people who made a cult out of it.
This is the path to totalitarianism. The scary thing is that the people actually want it; it doesn't take much to push them into its arms. And that's why it's so important to fight against it, at all costs.
In one incident, a man suffered life-threatening injuries when he was attacked by rioters after he tried to extinguish a fire they had started in a bin.
Other residents told how they barricaded themselves into their block of flats as more than 200 masked rioters bent on burgling houses tried to smash down the doors.
Classical composer and musician Leni White told how she escaped her blazing flat in Ealing with nothing but her violin after it was torched by thugs.
Shopkeepers were also robbed and one was left with stitches after looters beat him up and demanded his money.
The military quelled the LA Riots, which is the direct comparable. Northern Ireland was a decades long political/military issue, not about lads looting TVs. Not a good comparison.
Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms.
My ex was career military. I don't know about the UK, but he always said "You really don't want to bring in the military (for stuff like this). Police are trained to wound and bring them in alive. We are trained to shoot to kill."
This reminds me of the 1998 movie The Siege. Terrorists are bombing New York and the politicians are discussing bringing in the army to hunt them down. Bruce Willis is a hard ass general and this is what he has to say on the subject:
"Make no mistake, Senator. We will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy. And no card-carrying member of the ACLU is more dead set against it than I am. Which is why I urge you - I implore you. Do not consider this as an option."
"There is historically nothing more corrosive to the morale of a population than policing its own citizens."
Another line that is spot on, IMO, from Battlestar Galactica:
> "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
Yep, and we've been there before, quite recently actually. See Bloody Sunday on wikipedia. Paratroopers killed 13 people at peaceful demo when they mistakenly thought they had come under fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
Though I wouldn't call the 1970's "quite recently", similarly, the US had four deaths of protesters in 1970, known as The Kent State Shootings or Kent State Massacre:
I suppose I meant 'quite recently' in that I would never have imagined that something like Bloody Sunday could happen in a modern 1st world democracy, until we studied it in Modern History at school. To put it in context, the next most recent military action against UK civilians was the Peterloo massacre in 1819. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
I'm 46. I was just shy of my fifth birthday when the Kent State Shootings occurred. Age surveys suggest that people on HN are predominantly in their 20's and 30's. Attitudes about time aren't necessarily age dependent. I find that people from older cultures tend to have a longer view of time than your typical American. I do happen to be American. "Mate" implies you are not.
I heard this somewhere (quite probably on HN actually)
"In America 100 years is a long time, in Europe 100 miles a long distance"
Your perceptions are shaped by your culture, and particularly in the US people rarely look at history before the revolutionary era (if they even know about that) so 100 years would be almost half of history. Whereas an older empire might trace some of it's roots as far back as the dark ages.
The inquiry into the killings only fininished last year - and, as you would expect, there was a lot of coverage in the UK of Bloody Sunday so isn't something that has been forgotten about (and given the nature of the killings it really shouldn't be):
Military is also supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.
The military has more functions than that and is very effectively mobilized to assist in disasters, such as fires and floods. My ex participated in such things. Still, the point you make (about it making your own citizens "enemies of the state") is a chilling one and I can't really rebut it per se.
I agree with everything you're saying about helping out in disasters, but when you mix military and police, it's just unhealthy. They have different goals/functions and can't/shouldn't be used interchangeably. Military and criminal threats should not be responded to in the same way. Rioters are criminals, let the police handle it. And if the police incapable of doing so, that is a separate problem in and of itself.
It's a good thing that in the real world, we have people in charge with some restraint. Which is why most riots in the West end without bloodshed, shots fired or the military being abused to fight it's own citizens.
Order is rarely restored through some short-sighted power-fantasy that disregards the value of human lives. But lots of dictatorships started that way though. And often with the best of intentions.
Ok. So youths are burning a building across the street from your apartment. And it's a dictatorship if you want men with guns to stop them from doing this:
And take a look at what the rioters are doing on Youtube. Some would submit that the people with the "power fantasy" are the rioters who are burning buildings, beating random passerby bloody, and looting businesses.
We also have different premises on what is the more plausible immediate threat: fascist dictatorship or arson and anarchy. It's doubtful that we'll resolve those differences in this comment box, so let's just agree to disagree.
May I respectfully inquire as to how old you are? At the risk of sounding like an arrogant old fart, you act like you've never seen riots before.
These things have happened many times in the past, they usually burn themselves out after a few days and very, very rarely cost lives. This "anarchy" is very temporary. The odds of this evolving into a permanent state or a broad revolution are about zero.
Your idea of "plausible immediate threat" does not match decades of history.
If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting.
You do realise what "shot on sight" means, right? Dead. Forever. No takebacks.
If you really think that summary execution is a reasonable response to throwing a brick through a window, shouting at people in a scary way, or nicking a couple of packets of cigarettes then you are officially an Internet Crazy Person.
They're setting fire to buildings and cars and throwing bricks at people's faces. Arson has historically been considered one of the most serious of crimes because of the frequency with which fires spiral out of control, especially in a densely populated metropolis like London.
Look at the pictures. Still want to contend that the severity of what is going is equivalent to nicking a pack of cigarettes?
>> The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot.
I think the riots were triggered by a man shot by police. So you want now to shot more people, and consequently trigger more riots. If there are people rioting then there is a reason. Go and talk to them. Understand what they want. If they are badly educated, that's probably your fault (your are the government).
Because using force to restore order has worked so well for Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria? Or are you implying that London citizens are pussies and will stand down where the other countries' citizens didn't/aren't? I highly doubt escalating will solve anything, but who knows.
Ed: Wrote this too quickly without thinking enough on it. I don't think violent response is the answer, but given the nature of the situation I'll shift my position to thinking it'd probably work in this case.
In Africa and the Middle East, the riots were heavily motivated - the rioters had strong political reasons to be there. In London, it's just some socially disaffected youths and looting opportunists. So I don't think they are all that comparable.
> Or are you implying that London citizens are pussies and will stand down where the other countries' citizens didn't/aren't?
I'm not going to respond directly to this.
Rather, I'll point out that force is used because it is often effective.
There are innumerable instances of riots where the subsequent police/military crackdown actually suppressed the population.
The real question here is what makes London like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, or Syria today rather than like all those countries in the past where rebellions were quelled?
"The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdicts, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. A curfew and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually U.S. Army soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well."
I agree that you're right in your example, however I think this was only accepted and allowed to occur because it was in largely black neighborhoods where they deployed the military. They were already an 'other' of sorts so the general population saw them as a foreign threat that they didn't identify with and thus used military force against a criminal threat. It's the same as Katrina/New Orleans.
And to repeat my other comment: Military is supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.
I suspect the real reason it was acceptable to call in the military is because fairly high numbers of people had already died (and thousands were injured and the property damage was very high). Killing a few more to actually stop it becomes more palatable in the face of something like that.
Excerpt from the wikipedia article:
Fifty-three people died during the riots[24] with as many as 2,000 people injured. Estimates of the material losses vary between about $800 million and $1 billion. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once every minute at some points. Widespread looting also occurred. Stores owned by Korean and other Asian immigrants were widely targeted,[25] although stores owned by Caucasians and African Americans were targeted by rioters as well.
And it indicates Hispanics likely played a larger role than blacks:
Half of all riot arrestees and more than a third of those killed during the violence were Hispanic.
I agree but if you watch the footage from back then it's a case study in media framing bias. A lot of the stories focused on blacks rioting/looting white small businesses. Similar to how Katrina was framed.
Now imagine any other ethnic riot in another city where this would be acceptable--it doesn't exist unless they are brown in a predominantly white city. The military would never be used against a majority of whites or even asians, but if you're brown or black it's accepted-- because they're constantly other-ed all the time and scapegoated.
I do recall Katrina being framed that way by the media. But I also remember watching the LA riots and my impression was always that the military got sent in because it was so out of hand and not stopping. The military has also been sent in historically to protect blacks when schools were desegregated and for other Civil Rights incidents on behalf of blacks. Just because the media shows it's bias doesn't mean racial bias is why the military does the things it does.
Not entirely on topic, since the soldiers don't decide where they go, but while we are on the topic(s) of racism and the military: The US military tends to be more multi-racial/multi-cultural than most civilian social climes and there tends to be less racism in it. The joke in the military is that they are the "green" race -- ie the color of their uniform makes them all one "race", separate from the civilians who are typically not very welcoming of the military members stationed in their community yet still want to milk them for money. The loyalty to a cause larger than themselves and willingness to bleed and die for it seems to overcome differences that are often insurmountable in the minds of other people. That whole "I am willing to die defending you and you are willing to die defending me" paradigm is a commitment and a bond deeper than many families or lovers have. It makes things like skin color seem rather superficial and insignificant in comparison.
My ex was wonderfully non-racist and I became uncomfortably aware of just how much my mind had been poisoned from growing up in the Deep South when I finally met his best friend at a new duty station after months of hearing glowing things about the guy. The guy was black. My ex had never once mentioned that and the surprise showed on my face, which made for a very awkward meeting. It has been food for thought ever since about the topic of racism and I think I have grown as a person because of it.
I don't think the military shot anyone. There is a paradox here and it's that the military response would put the republic in danger if it indeed turned violent. But the mere presence of the military put the riots down. As others have pointed out in this thread, the rioters are largely opportunists. They won't stand up to the army, but it is regrettable to society at large that the army had to be deployed to begin with.
Because using force to restore order has worked so well for Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria?
A lot of that unrest is because of rent-a-mobs hired by military juntas. "Force" does not work because it is not supposed to.
IIRC, one of the accomplishments of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution was to intercept busloads of rent-a-mobs and pour immense amounts of free booze into them before the opposition figured out what was going on.
In Europe we prefer to find the problem and solve it, discuss and communicate with each other, instead of shooting at people and hope they'll be too scared to continue rioting.
In most countries i lived (UK not included) the army can only be used for pacific work inside the country.
It's against all countries' constitution I know of to use the army in internal affairs that include use of force.
And I doubt the riots are killing anyone. You probably lost more money for corrupt government office holders than to any riot-smashing-your-precious-things you will face in your life time. so focus your desire to raise arms more effectively, please.
I'm a Londoner near some of the affected areas. The sky is not falling, London is not degenerating into lawlessness, and from what I can see from my flat window, police are responding quickly.
Other areas may be different, but London is a very large city - commenters should remember that in discussions.
That's even scarier. When we had our (ridiculous) riots here in Vancouver a couple months back, it was all in one area. Many will argue that the cops didn't do a great job keeping it under control, but at least they kept everything in a relatively small zone away from residential areas, and it petered out over the night. Doesn't the fact that they're springing up all over London point to there being a systemic problem that is provoking people to more violence? How many days has this been going on now, three? Is there an end in sight?
London is a much larger city with what seems like a lower quality of life for many people. Basically the number of potential rioteers in London is way higher than in Vancouver, so it is logical that their riots will be stronger and longer when they do spark.
It appears a known criminal (gangs, drug-dealing) with a loaded handgun was shot by police while resisting arrest; he may or may not have shot a police officer [first] at the time of his arrest ...
So if it's not gangs trying to violent show their power then what is the motivation in your opinion? Why sudden anger towards the police _from the general populus_?
FWIW the buzz appears to be "send in the troops" rather than this being in any way justified demonstration (like maybe G8 demonstrations).
Originally there was a peaceful protest over the shooting of a young man during a police operation. that seems to have been hijacked by mobs intent purely on violence.
The initial areas are fairly poor and have a history of tension with the police, but the disturbances tonight seem simply to be youths intent on causing damage and looting.
I'm not in London, these are my impressions to give you a quick answer. They may not hold up to future scrutiny.
Seems to me that this would be a huge opportunity for some well co-ordinated use of social media by the MET: many people have seen looters return to their home with their swag and would probably be delighted to report it anonymously - along with all photos taken by people of the actual looting. The refugees seem to have no clear contact number let alone website to go to on their smartphones. These people surely are motivated to inform on the rioters and quite probably have useful knowledge.
And finally, phone location records - even without call history and text messages - could be data-mined to give leads on the rioters - when they go home to sleep pick them up with the loot, and you have an easier case than two weeks later with it all squirrelled away.
For me this is simple opportunism. The authorities have clearly been overwhelmed and people are able to do what they like with impunity. I really think the state response needs to escalate.
True, I was scanning reports for some serious police/military actions but found nothing. Vehicles and buildings are on fire, rioters are aggressive and don't care about the police, random people are injured... I really find it hard to come up with an explanation for not using force necessary to stop it right now. That's a third day now - each adding damage to completely unrelated people and property.
I work in Bristol and wouldn't be surprised if riots started happening in some areas there, unless London ones are dealt with straight away.
Edit: Just read reports of police stations being set on fire. Now I'm really curious what exactly is the official plan for dealing with the situation.
Hearing the accounts from some commuters returning home of what they witnessed on their commute; it struck me as the first time I hear a use case where Color would actually add some value. ;)
Also it is amusing to see the looters use BBM, which has been the corporate -type favoured mean of communication to loot the economy for years.
On a serious note, just heard a devastating interview with a 6th generation furniture store manager, while witnessing his family store go up in flames (you will see the pic tomorrow in most of the frontages).
It is extraordinarily terrifying to consider the implications if the thugs were a bit more organised, a bit more dispersed, a bit more armed; how much more havoc they could cause.
For example consider the implication to the economy if they start targeting more affluent locations, such the central London high streets (Oxford street, Knightsbridge...). The insurance industry has already been wiped out this year, it will be a deadly blow. To say nothing of the recently depressed UK retail performance which fuels a lot of the London economy.
Or the implications to house prices and thousands of stretched mortgage holders (London housing bubble is perhaps the only housing bubble in the world that hasn't quite popped in the last two years, and if it does at this time it will be cataclysmic) .
No doubt they already wrecked immeasurable damage to the economy, except they bankrupt the already bankrupt councils, which is the core tragedy in all of this.
Can't help but compare this to the uprising in the Middle East over the last months. Sure, the motivation is different, or even incomprehensible in the case of London. Still, they're both begging the question "why now?" and they exhibit characteristics of a highly contagious epidemic, where the original reasons are almost irrelevant. People frustrated for all sorts of different reasons find the opportunity to express violently their anger with much less fear of repercussions than usual, mostly thanks to their sheer number and decentralization. It's fascinating (or scary, depending how close you are).
Scary absolutely, no matter your location. The factors that seem to be setting them off exist in most technically wealthy countries. This should be troubling for anyone who lives in an area with masses of unemployed young people.
Indeed there might be some parallels, especially the fact that the London events started as a peaceful legitimate (to my mind) protest, that has been hijacked by vandals/thieves.
But the parallel stops here; most of the gangsters in the Middle Eastern protests were government stooges that got outnumbered by the civilians and consequently fizzled out.
Aren't they encrypted somehow? What was the thing in Saudi Arabia (might have been different middle east country) where the gov't banned blackberry because they couldn't snoop?
I not only disagree, I genuinely believe this doesn't not belong here. I have downvoted and flagged because I believe that kind of comment to be inappropriate on HN.
Not all poor people are poor because they are somehow incapable, undeserving, or somehow unfit to live. Sometimes people are caught in circumstances beyond their control, and they are unable to get out of it. Not to understand that shows a breathtaking arrogance.
Who are you, who are we, to decide who has the right to live? Who are you, who are we to decide who should have rights and who should be deprived of them?
If my business collapsed there's every chance I'd find myself behind on the mortgage, and if I then was ill for a month or two there'd be the very real risk of being homeless.
Who knows how I would've turned out had I been in the situation these people endure?
I condemn the violence unreservedly and unhesitatingly, but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with the situations of people who are caught in the poverty trap.
Actually, as a (just as absurd) heuristic I think the world would be much better off if we killed, say, the 1% richest people every year. We'd lose some people up there with genuine net contribution to mankind, but for the most part we'd get rid of thieves and thugs. The problem with mankind is not lack of good and brilliant folks, but excess of white collar thieves and thugs.
Not that I would propose this seriously. Just seems to me less absurd than what you suggested, which is not saying much at all.
I'm deeply in debt and being sued by my creditors. I am deeply in debt because I and my oldest son have a genetic disorder and I figured out how to get us well when the entire world says it cannot be done. Since the entire world frames the problem the way it does, there would be financial support for keeping me and my son ill and lifelong legal drug addicts. There is no financial support for things that actually worked to get us healthy against long odds. It all came out of my pocket. In order to live at all, much less have any hope of getting well, I had to get divorced. As a divorced single mom with a life threatening medical condition, my pockets are not deep. This in spite of being extremely capable and having a long history of academic awards, education to prep me for a good paying job, etc. I ended up in a job paying half what I "should" be making because I was ill and heavily medicated and just didn't interview well and probably couldn't have held down those jobs anyway. "Underemployed" was better while fighting for my life.
I often wish there was some kind of assistance available for me. It feels incredibly unfair (not to mention insane) that charities, state aid, federal aid and so on would willingly spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on each of us (me and my son both) to keep us limping along in a zombified horrifying state of existence but I can't come up with a measly $50K--$100k (one time expense) to clean up my financial mess and move on and focus on writing software to teach what I have learned to others so that the roughly $3 billion per year that gets spent on medical care for a mere 30k individuals with this condition in the US could be shrunk to a more reasonable amount and their lives improved at the same time. There's a recession on. It would be enlightened self interest for The Haves to empower me to do this. But the odds are good I will keep limping along, just trying to pay my bills, while people like you pass judgement on me in the worst way possible.
If you had your way, I would be put to death and instead of the odds of me sharing my discovery with the world being poor, it would be non-existent.
I've seen you post this story a few times now; have you considered opening the detail spigot a whee bit more and posting an "Ask HN" if there's anybody here who can help you out a bit? (I would think at least naming the condition could help.) It's not all 19-year-old programmers optimizing clicks on kitten pictures around here.
And I mean the kind of help where someone works with you to share that treatment you've come up with and make some sort of living income off of that. It sounds like you're more after the former to me.
I've said it before: I have a form of cystic fibrosis, a condition with an average life expectancy in the mid- to late- thirties. I'm 46. There's a website listed in my profile where I talk some about what I have done: http://healthgazelle.com/
Would it be nice if donations came pouring in? Sure. But my preference would be to figure out how to support myself. I don't really expect to support myself from that website. I don't do much with it these days. Most people think I'm a teller of tall tales and couldn't have really gotten myself well/was never really that sick. My energy is mostly going elsewhere these days.
Edit: It wasn't intended as a "fundraiser". Just a counterargument to someone suggesting wholesale slaughter of "poor" people. I think I have redeeming value and am in fact currently a contributing member of society, in spite of (in some sense "because of") my very serious financial problems.
And now since that comment is dead, I have no idea what you were arguing against. I suppose from the response it's not worth worrying about, but it does sort of irritate me.
The OP basically suggested all poor people be put to death. I don't recall the exact wording, but the assumption/implication was that poor people are incapable/incompetent and have nothing to contribute to society.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but there aren’t that many people who will engage in an argument with someone who advocates murdering humans and wants to be taken seriously.
