Riots

[amateur51]

John Osmond, Director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, blogs

http://www.clickonwales.org/2011/08/riot-reflections-1-why-wales-escaped-the-riots/

and his colleague Rhys David blogs

http://www.clickonwales.org/2011/08/riot-reflections-2-big-may-not-be-so-beautiful-after-all/

Is there potentially anything in the fact that both Scotland and Wales have devolved (and different) forms of government and both nations have become accustomed to coalition politics since devolution?

[ahinton]

ahinton - You write with the precision of a political Jane Austen. I'm not a fan of hers but there might be something to be said for it in the current day. You also generally place weights on the scales in an attempt to re-balance them. I tend to do that too in my own way and therefore welcome that approach in principle. However, what we might both need to accept is that with every "it is this as well as that", we don't overlook the stress points. The zeitgeist can be lopsided in very significant ways.

I think that you flatter me overmuch!

On 1, the "on the rocks", I note your view. On 2 and 3, the effectiveness of state apparatus, I agree we should accept both imperfection and ongoing change. There does though seem to be an exceptional amount of the former. As for the latter, it is far too reactive in my opinion.

But if it's not to be reactive to some degree and in certain instances, there would surely have instead to be an inordinate and implausible amount of overwhelming prescience on the part of lawmakers, the police and the judiciary, would there not?

I don't think I agree that the rioters acted "principally as a consequence of pent-up frustration". This looks like a phrase used by psychiatrists to underplay a condition and only ever-so-delicately place the blame. Every contribution on this thread is probably relevant to what has taken place. I believe that redistribution of wealth - in money, opportunity, power, control, management, morality......etc etc - was a key issue. I have to say that I don't know anyone who can hack into bank accounts but it might be that I am keeping the wrong company. Do tell me more if you have any decent information.

OK, let's take this one point at a time. Firstly, you say only what you think was not the reason why the rioters acted as they did but not what was the reason (although, of course, it would be ridiculous to seek to ascribe just one blanket reason to the actions of every single perpetrator). Secondly, describing the motivation as pent-up frustration does not of itself exculpate anyone from the misdeeds of which they are guilty. Thirdly, if you believe that redistribution of wealth was indeed an issue that motivated a majority or maybe even all of those responsible, why do you think that none of them sought to move money around from where they don't like to see it to somewhere else where they'd have less objection to its presence? Whether either of us knows anyone capable of hacking into bank accounts (and, for the record, I know no one that does this, since you ask) does not impact upon the fact that each of us knows as well as anyone else that some people can do it and some of them have done it, just as they've succeeded in infiltrating the police national computer and defence and other governmental records inside UK and elsewhere; the fact remains that there appears to be no evidence to date that such money-relocation activities have occurred lately in UK and there is no obvious way of explaning how torching the homes and small businesses that have been targeted might reveal any evidence of the desire fundamentally to redistribute wealth as a motivation for the rioting and looting, especially since the only redistribution of wealth that these activites have brought about is that of making even more people poorer than they were before they fell victim to the activities of the rioters and looters.

On 4, you are quite right that not everyone is grabbing from the till. We have though seen a sea-change. Once - oh, I don't know, around 2005 perhaps, even with Blair as PM - one might have believed that this was a minority sport that unfortunately was a bit on the rise. The revelations on MPs' expenses showed that it was somewhere in the region of 80% in their House of Horrors. That was a defining moment which shouldn't be underestimated. It was, I think, the time, that we stopped unfairly blaming the odd disappearances of purses in the office on the evening cleaners and instead started to zip up the pockets as soon as any colleague was seen heading towards the desk.

Most tended to keep silent and smile. You then asked yourself why they were smiling. It was obviously horrible - really horrible - and you knew that things just weren't like that before. To ask the salient questions openly was like to declare oneself as the enemy within for coming across suddenly "kind of" all moralistic. So with this in mind, yes, the Cabinet Office might simply be suffering from FOI inefficiencies. Alternatively it might be delaying while it shifts in its seat uncomfortably and plays with its stress busters.

Or both. All with which I take issue with you here is the level and extent of this kind of activity; OK, it may be on the increase, but what has increased far more is the extent to which we hear about it today. Let's not forget that we'll have heard far more about these kinds of activites, along with phone and computer hacking and other unauthorised surveillance and theft by the end of this year than we've heard already, but one has only to consider how much we know now compared to what we knew five years ago to perceive the necessity to balance levels of activity with the extent to which they are publicised.

On 5, multiculturalism, are the rioters - indeed are EDL - a twist on the old or a small reflection of the nation's twisted? Either way, the patterns are shifting.

Nuances will be different on every occasions, of course, because the sets of circumstances in which rioters, EDL or anyone else operate will vary from second to second, so yes, patterns are indeed shifting but then they'ave always done so.

The links are interesting and not without truth but actually I am not accepting it. For a start, Brixton '81 was very different. It was almost exclusively related to race and particularly stop and search. The riots were also very localised to the point of being ring fenced, just as they were in Toxteth, Handsworth, St Pauls. In terms of the 50s, yes, the teddy boys and the like showed that a significant section of youth neither chooses or prefers peacetime but the scale was much smaller, as indeed was it in and across subsequent movements. And I just don't buy into the well-trodden argument that the 1800s show us such events are nothing new. It ignores both the deficit of democracy in that century and the fact that there were times in the 20th century when with increasing rights almost everyone exercised greater responsibilities

I'm not for one moment suggesting - and nor, for that matter, was the writer from whose article I quoted - that there is "nothing" new in all of this - merely that the differences in manifestation, extent, methodology, nuance, apparent motivations and the rest do not and should not blind any of us to the fact that public affray of one kind and another is ingrained in our nation's history. One substantial difference between the latest incidents and earlier comparable ones is that the use of mobile messaging and social networking facitilies is bound to ramp up the ante just as the internet and other media enable the vastly greater and faster spread of information and misinformation about them.

[Anna]

amateur51 #564 - A number of reasons occur to me. Some may not be altogether serious.

The Scots have different values.
The Scots are better behaved.
The Scots have more common sense.
The Scots have a greater respect for authority, including the police.
Some Scottish cities look like riot zones anyway - difficult to tell the difference.
The weather's not been too good for rioting lately - too cold and wet.

Substitute 'Welsh' for Scots on all points and but not 5 (Cardiff and Swansea are beautiful) and 6 (we've had hardly any rain)

I'm not sure if anyone realised but the BBC were forced to stop referring to 'The UK Riots' and instead use the term 'The England Riots' after representation by Alex Salmond and numerous Scottish and Welsh listeners.

In actual fact there was an attempt to break into JDSports in Cardiff Bay (which failed due to increased police presence) and a number of Facebookers in South Wales (I think 8) have been arrested for trying to stir up trouble, released on bail, think they may be in Court tomorrow.

Cardiff has always been multicultural because of the Docks, (it has the highest and longest established Somali population in the UK), it has a very high student poplulation as does Swansea. Comparatively populations in the Cities are small (even smaller than Bristol), working class districts are well away from the large shopping Malls which have high end shops, although not far from the out of town retail parks. There has been a lot of talk about Wales having a higher sense of community and social cohesion but, there weren't any riots in Newcastle either, so I'm not really sure what the answer is

Edit: Just posted and see Ams has mentioned Devolution, will now read his links!

[Stillhomewardbound]

Why do judges go in for such overly dramatic and antiquated language when passing sentences:

"This happened at a time when collective insanity gripped the nation. Your conduct was quite disgraceful and the title of the message you posted on Facebook chills the blood.

Chills the blood?? Was m' learned so very frit!!

[scottycelt]

In the case of crime, "zero tolerance", taken literally, means no tolerance of crime under any circumstances ...

- but then not all politicians say one thing and mean another, just as not everyone interprets what they read in specifically scottyceltic ways.

On the first point you are absolutely correct and is precisely what I previously indicated ... I take 'zero tolerance' to mean what it means ... if people don't mean what they say that is a problem for them, nobody else.

As for the second, if to take someone at their word is a 'specifically scottyceltic way', I thank you most deeply for your kind and generous words, sir ... :cool2:

[ahinton]

On the first point you are absolutely correct and is precisely what I previously indicated ... I take 'zero tolerance' to mean what it means ... if people don't mean what they say that is a problem for them, nobody else.

How convenient your selectivity is! I was in fact correct (according to you) in the selected part of my point only because you overlooked the remainder; to remind you, the whole, from which you quoted, was
"Zero tolerance" has to be defined specifically for every circumstance in which anyone might seek to invoke it. In the case of crime, "zero tolerance", taken literally, means no tolerance of crime under any circumstances, but the question of tolerance or otherwise of any criminal activity is by no means the same issue as sentencing policy, since it is only reasonable that the shareholders (i.e. the taxpayers who fund parliament, the police and the judiciary) can be satisfied at any given time that laws are appropriate, policing policy is sensible and workable and the courts treat each case before them in a reasonable manner in accordance with its gravity rather than rush into issuing a sentence because of the sheer volume of cases to be gotten through.
You therefore extracted a mere 17 words from a total of 127 in a lame attempt to prove the validity of your assertion that "zero tolerance" of crime is some simple and self-contained issue that need take no account of what such tolerance might mean in the face of any individual crimes; dispensing maximum sentences of six months for murder would not mean tolerance of murder but at the same time it would be widely regarded as gravely insufficient punishment, just as a sentence of half of that for stealing a few pounds' worth of water can be regarded as disproportionately harsh. We should "tolerate" neither (to the extent that due punishment be dispensed to those convicted of either) but the concept of making the punishment fit the crime (as far as is possible) is hardly new. Some of the criticism now being directed at the judiciary for handing down disproportionately harsh sentences for relatively petty criminal offences centres around the suspicion that judgements are being made in too much of a rush and in ways that would not likely apply had the riots not occurred; imagine, for example, the kind of sentence that most judges would hand down to someone convicted of stealing a few litres of water in circumstances entirely unconnected with the kinds of large-scale rioting and looting that occurred recently.

There's no need to thank me in any way for kindness and generosity of expression when I've done nothing to merit it; to remind you once again, I wrote
not all politicians say one thing and mean another, just as not everyone interprets what they read in specifically scottyceltic ways
but I wrote nothing - as you try to claim - about merely taking people at their word without overlaying personal interpretations thereon.

There seems here to be something of a case of two Scotsmen divided by a single language. As a fellow Scotsman, I find it especially sad that you seem to offer the impression that the entire background to the recent events, the way in which they and their consequences should be interpreted and the manner in which the judiciary should deal with cases brought before it may be explained in such simplistic, monochromatic terms; we need to find ways to understand it all better, for the sake of the victims, the lawmakers/police/judiciary, the participants and society as a whole if anything positive is ultimately to emerge from the experience and if the risk of repeat is to be minimised.

I'd be interested nonetheless to hear your serious and considered opinion as to why no riots and looting occurred in Scotland (or in Wales, for that matter). In the meantime, here's some more reading or you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/england-riots-ministers-wrong-courts-carlile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...ces?intcmp=239 (this covers the Brake issue but far more than just that)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/aug/16/riots-legalised-injustice-looters?intcmp=239

[amateur51]

The government's former terror adviser has intervened in the row over the sentencing of people who took part in last week's riots, accusing ministers of appearing to "steer" the courts into handing down the more stringent sentences.

Lord Carlile, the barrister and former Liberal Democrat MP warned that the sacrosanct separation of powers between the government and the judiciary had appeared to have been breached by some of the messages coming out of government since the riots engulfed neighbourhoods last week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/england-riots-ministers-wrong-courts-carlile

[Anna]

Just to touch on my #572 re no riots in wales and Devolution. In April we had a referendum and the Welsh Assembly can now make laws for Wales on subjects for which the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government are already responsible, without needing permission from the UK Parliament first. This represents a significant development of Welsh devolution. Of course, Scottish devolution is quite different and they are far more self-governing.

However, I think that gives people in Wales the sense that they are becoming more in charge of their own destiny (if that doesn't sound too drippy hippy) and breaking away from being governed by the English. Also, I really don't think there is the level of consumerism in Wales because Wales is still a rural country, even industrial towns like Port Talbot are within a stones throw of the mountains. I also do believe we have a stronger spirit of community. I have somewhere (I'll try and find it) a recent article about gangs in Glasgow and the difference between the gangs in London but I'm sure our North of the Border contingent will have some light to throw on the absence of Scottish rioters.

[scottycelt]

How convenient your selectivity is! I was in fact correct (according to you) in the selected part of my point only because you overlooked the remainder; to remind you, the whole, from which you quoted, was
"Zero tolerance" has to be defined specifically for every circumstance in which anyone might seek to invoke it. In the case of crime, "zero tolerance", taken literally, means no tolerance of crime under any circumstances, but the question of tolerance or otherwise of any criminal activity is by no means the same issue as sentencing policy, since it is only reasonable that the shareholders (i.e. the taxpayers who fund parliament, the police and the judiciary) can be satisfied at any given time that laws are appropriate, policing policy is sensible and workable and the courts treat each case before them in a reasonable manner in accordance with its gravity rather than rush into issuing a sentence because of the sheer volume of cases to be gotten through.
You therefore extracted a mere 17 words from a total of 127 in a lame attempt to prove the validity of your assertion that "zero tolerance" of crime is some simple and self-contained issue that need take no account of what such tolerance might mean in the face of any individual crimes; dispensing maximum sentences of six months for murder would not mean tolerance of murder but at the same time it would be widely regarded as gravely insufficient punishment, just as a sentence of half of that for stealing a few pounds' worth of water can be regarded as disproportionately harsh. We should "tolerate" neither (to the extent that due punishment be dispensed to those convicted of either) but the concept of making the punishment fit the crime (as far as is possible) is hardly new. Some of the criticism now being directed at the judiciary for handing down disproportionately harsh sentences for relatively petty criminal offences centres around the suspicion that judgements are being made in too much of a rush and in ways that would not likely apply had the riots not occurred; imagine, for example, the kind of sentence that most judges would hand down to someone convicted of stealing a few litres of water in circumstances entirely unconnected with the kinds of large-scale rioting and looting that occurred recently.

There's no need to thank me in any way for kindness and generosity of expression when I've done nothing to merit it; to remind you once again, I wrote
not all politicians say one thing and mean another, just as not everyone interprets what they read in specifically scottyceltic ways
but I wrote nothing - as you try to claim - about merely taking people at their word without overlaying personal interpretations thereon.

There seems here to be something of a case of two Scotsmen divided by a single language. As a fellow Scotsman, I find it especially sad that you seem to offer the impression that the entire background to the recent events, the way in which they and their consequences should be interpreted and the manner in which the judiciary should deal with cases brought before it may be explained in such simplistic, monochromatic terms; we need to find ways to understand it all better, for the sake of the victims, the lawmakers/police/judiciary, the participants and society as a whole if anything positive is ultimately to emerge from the experience and if the risk of repeat is to be minimised.

I'd be interested nonetheless to hear your serious and considered opinion as to why no riots and looting occurred in Scotland (or in Wales, for that matter).

To avoid further accusations of 'selectivity' I shall in future quote all your posts in full before any response ...

Firstly, I thought we are here talking about crime, and some pretty nasty types at that. There can be no different 'definitions' of the word 'zero' ... it means nothing, nought, nil, zilch ... there is no point in castigating me for simply pointing that out!

When one says that one has 'zero tolerance' of crime the listener might naturally assume that person would be very much in favour of tough sentencing for any crime committed. That would be a logical assumption, I would think, but then, as I've said before, if some people don't actually mean what they say, well maybe not! For what it's worth, my own view has consistently been if an example has to be made of those convicted after the recent looting and rioting well, so be it ... they chose to act as they did, and now its payback time for law-abiding society. Some judges will be tougher than others ... surprise, surprise, what's new? ... for every person who might be concerned about 'over-harshness' you may find ten who are outraged by what they consider excessively lenient sentences.

This is not the first time that you have expressed 'sadness' that a 'Scotsman' could possibly hold the some of the views that I do as you apparently claim the same desirable racial pedigree ... I congratulate you, sir, but would respectfully remind you of that stubborn streak of independence (not only political) which has been one of the great hallmarks of our country-folk throughout the centuries.

I have no particular views on why the rioting didn't occur in Scotland (or Wales) ... maybe the thugs up there tend to know exactly what the 'polis' mean by zero-tolerance ?

[Mr Pee]

To avoid further accusations of 'selectivity' I shall in future quote all your posts in full before any response ...

Oh please don't. Having to wade through them once is torture enough.

[Lateralthinking1]

Scotland and Wales also have their problems but they have more of an identity. Yes, there has been devolution. Perhaps more to the point SNP and Plaid Cymru enable nationalism to be viewed and expressed in the absence of racism. The English have no convincing alternative. Here nationalism virtually equals racism politically. It may be that the nationalism is less important to the Scottish and the Welsh than the feeling that it gives them some sense of empowerment. Yes, it is true Newcastle wasn't affected much. Nor Middlesbrough, York, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax, Sheffield, Hull, Derby, Coventry, Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent, Norwich, Cambridge, Luton, Oxford, Swindon, Reading, Guildford, Brighton, Bournemouth and Plymouth. I sort of wonder about the reach of the communication technology. Could it be that the places worst hit were the ones with the best signals or something?

In Croydon, there is a racial angle but not I think as we have known it. I would guess that the percentage of the population that is of ethnic background has quadrupled here since 1981 and the Brixton riots. Back then, it was probably comparable with somewhere like Reading or Derby. Now the north of the borough is like a combination of Brixton, still significantly West Indian, and the Finsbury Park area of North London, where shops are mainly in the ownership of those from Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, India etc. There are probably few places in Britain where the change has been so rapid, although Luton springs to mind in this respect. But while Luton has its ethnic tensions - could it be that those actually had a restraining effect on rioting last week? - here people have tended to get on pretty well if distantly. Gun crime tends to be black on black. There are other differences. We have the Home Office Immigration Service here. It is often the first place people attend on their arrival into Gatwick. There is a very long queue for permits daily. After that, they tend to settle close by. Why initially go anywhere else? So I suspect that we have a lot of people who are here only temporarily. Later, they move on. This leads to more anonymity than one might expect elsewhere.

The unemployment figures today are hard to assess but it appears that Newcastle is among the places having it particularly tough. As has been said, there were no riots there. It could be that it is geographically more distinct in its identity than some places. In fact, when Leeds suffers and Bradford doesn't, when there are problems in Gloucester - so close to Cheltenham!!!! - but not in Swindon and Reading, it looks to me that any analysis needs to be a bit like that on election night. Certainly, the average Saturday night in Reading and Guildford feels like a battle zone. But not midweek last week - so there are a lot of local differences.

[ahinton]

To avoid further accusations of 'selectivity' I shall in future quote all your posts in full before any response ...

Be my guest; if you really feel that this would be a necessary preamble to try to justify some of your remakrs, then by all mean go ahead.

Firstly, I thought we are here talking about crime, and some pretty nasty types at that. There can be no different 'definitions' of the word 'zero' ... it means nothing, nought, nil, zilch ... there is no point in castigating me for simply pointing that out!

We are indeed talking about crime - but, in so doing, we are - or at least one of us is - trying to point out (a) that there's a vast gulf of difference between first-degree murder and nicking a few litres of water and (b) whatever your interpretation of "zero" may be it has no direct impact upon appropriate attituds towards sentencing.

When one says that one has 'zero tolerance' of crime the listener might naturally assume that person would be very much in favour of tough sentencing for any crime committed.

No - only listeners who think as you appear to do would "naturally assume" that; the rest of us would be "very much in favour of" appropriate sentencing and would certainly not favour sentencing for any relatively petty crime that is harsher than it might otherwise be purely because of the background of the riots.

That would be a logical assumption, I would think, but then, as I've said before, if some people don't actually mean what they say, well maybe not!

I mean what I say - and I've said it above.

For what it's worth, my own view has consistently been if an example has to be made of those convicted after the recent looting and rioting well, so be it ... they chose to act as they did, and now its payback time for law-abiding society.

But why should a particular "example" be made just because of the riots? A crime is a crime is a crime, surely? Would you expect harsher or less harsh sentences to be dispensed to criminals at any level of criminal activity just because of the riots background? Perhaps you would. This is one are where you and I differ.

Some judges will be tougher than others ... surprise, surprise, what's new? ... for every person who might be concerned about 'over-harshness' you may find ten who are outraged by what they consider excessively lenient sentences.

Fair comment, but my concern here is that of different attitudes to the same crimes just because of the riots background, as I've already made clear.

This is not the first time that you have expressed 'sadness' that a 'Scotsman' could possibly hold the some of the views that I do as you apparently claim the same desirable racial pedigree ... I congratulate you, sir, but would respectfully remind you of that stubborn streak of independence (not only political) which has been one of the great hallmarks of our country-folk throughout the centuries.

As a Scot, I do not need reminding of that, thanks! That said, perhaps you'll accordingly accept that such independence of thought allows for difference such as those betgween us on some of these issues.

I have no particular views on why the rioting didn't occur in Scotland (or Wales) ... maybe the thugs up there tend to know exactly what the 'polis' mean by zero-tolerance ?

OK - but I cannot tell what people's attitudes to the local police may be in either principality sorry I mean country and, since no one has yet come forward with convincing arguments as to why it is that Scotland and Wales seem largely to have escaped the worst of the problems, we'll just have to wait and see and maintain our own respective counsel in the meantime, I guess.

[ahinton]

Oh please don't. Having to wade through them once is torture enough.

I'm no more inviting him to do this than I am desirous to torture you or anyone else - and, after all, torture is a crime of which, were I to be found guilty right now, I'd probably have to expect to receive a tougher sentence than would be the case under other circumstances and would accordingly be obliged to seek legal advice with a view to appealing against it as far as I could or might have to find myself having to go with such appeals procedures.

At least no one knocked Elgar off his bike outside Hereford Cathedral during the riots (from which Hereford doubtless escaped largely because the place is now so sadly run down and full of charity shops closing down that potential looters probably decided to give the place a miss on the basis of a perception that there would probably be an insufficiency of well-priced goods worth nicking).

[Lateralthinking1]

BTS - Thanks. These figures really support what I said. 40% from ethnic groups in 2009. This link - on homelessness - suggests that it was 30% in 2001 and 18% in 1991. So back in 1981 - the year that I left my Croydon school and the riots in Brixton seemed a long way away (although not on visits to relatives in Southwark as I have said) - it may have been 10% or just over.

Change is one thing - I remember a great summer in an office in Croydon in 1983 when virtually all my colleagues were black and we all got on so well - but the pace has just been too rapid. In fact, I would say ridiculous. ALL people need some time to adapt:

http://www.regionalchamps.org.uk/rhc/documents/Croydons_Homelessness_Prevention_Manual_Chapter_One_-_Introduction.pdf

[mangerton]

I also do believe we have a stronger spirit of community. I have somewhere (I'll try and find it) a recent article about gangs in Glasgow and the difference between the gangs in London but I'm sure our North of the Border contingent will have some light to throw on the absence of Scottish rioters.

Anna, My reply which you were kind enough to quote from was slightly - but only slightly - tongue in cheek. As in Wales, there is without a doubt a stronger spirit of community in Scotland. (As an aside, this goes a long way towards explaining the almost total annihilation of the tory party in Scotland over the last 50 years or so, and especially since the arrival of thatch in 1979. (tory MPs in Scotland: 1959 - 31, 1979 - 22, since 2001 - 1))