August 2011 riots: Looking At Causes

[Guest]

In the aftermath of the August riots, The Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn London NW6 is running a reportage theatre piece called The Riots based on interviews by Gillian Slovo and Nick Kent (out-going Director of The Tricycle); and the Guardian is running a 6-day series Reading The Riots based on research that it has undertaken with support from London School of Economics, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and The Open Society Foundation

http://www.tricycle.co.uk/current-programme-pages/theatre/theatre-programme-main/the-riots/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/series/reading-the-riots?CMP=EMCNEWTXT5399I

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks. 30 years on with not a lot of learning, the Scarman Report Volume 2:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16018215

[Mr Pee]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/riots-caused-by-police-when-they-finally-turned-up-201112054627/

[amateur51]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201112054627/

Oh my sides

[aeolium]

I think the stop-and-search law (under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act) is a bad law and more pernicious than beneficial in its effects. As this article comments, research has indicated that it is not even particularly effective in the prevention of knife crime, which I would have thought would be its main purpose. As Paddick has suggested, it should only be used where there is strong intelligence that someone is carrying a knife (and therefore committing a crime). To use it randomly, as seems to have been the case, creates more trouble than it prevents.

[Mr Pee]

To use it randomly, as seems to have been the case, creates more trouble than it prevents.

Of course it does. The riots were all the fault of the police, after all.

[aeolium]

Of course it does. The riots were all the fault of the police, after all.

Do you think it's an effective law? If so, why? Why do you think it has been implicated in inquiries and reports as one (and sometimes the most significant) cause in several large-scale riots in the last thirty years?

[Lateralthinking1]

Are we talking about Stop and Search? That was why I mentioned Scarman. Same as in 1981.

I am a bit disappointed by this story from LSE.

I would have much preferred it if the police were not said to have been the main cause. Most of them are just doing their job. And most of them were not doing their job at all - or anywhere to be seen - on the first night. That bit was hardly heavy policing.

[aeolium]

I would have much preferred it if the police were not said to have been the main cause. Most of them are just doing their job.

I don't think it is so much a question of attributing blame as trying to understand why the riots occurred. See for instance this article:

"Almost three-quarters of interviewees said they had been stopped and searched by the police in the last year; 85% said "policing" was an important or very important cause of the riots. Just 7% believed the police do a good job in their area."

[Mr Pee]

"Almost three-quarters of interviewees said they had been stopped and searched by the police in the last year; 85% said "policing" was an important or very important cause of the riots. Just 7% believed the police do a good job in their area."

Well that would say that, wouldn't they? The vast majority of the rioters were opportunists who saw the chance to grab a new telly or stereo system without having to do pay for it. They're hardly going to admit to that, are they? Much easier to blame it on poverty or bad policing.

It's time the Left stopped making excuses for criminal behaviour, whether that's a racist rant on a tram, or large scale theft, as we saw last summer.

[John Skelton]

It's time the Left stopped making excuses for criminal behaviour, whether that's a racist rant on a tram, or large scale theft, as we saw last summer.

Who is making an excuse for a racist rant on a tram? If you mean the comments on the thread about Cameron and Clarkson you misunderstood what was being said there and continue to do so, either accidentally or because when you have got your knickers in a twist you like the sensation so much you refuse to untwist them. The comments weren't about the incident: they were about the way people respond to a YouTube video of an incident, and about the morality of 'judgement by YouTube'.

Asking people why they rioted isn't the same as making excuses for people rioting (unlike the Right, of course, which routinely excuses criminal behaviour on the grounds that it is 'entrepreneurial' ). And how do you know stop and search and hostility to the police weren't motives for the riots? Why "would they say that"? Because your plasma TV set tells you so, or because you know something about policing in the communities where the riots happened?

[Frances_iom]

..t it is not even particularly effective in the prevention of knife crime, which I would have thought would be its main purpose..

somewhat disingenuous - drug dealing I suspect - many of those interviewed from the estate when asked how they funded their lifestyle (having left school with no qualifications) went somewhat coy - a couple admitted a bit of dealing. The death at the start was it seems of a young man apparently living well but without visible means who it appears from public reports had acquired a gun that day - I suspect someone informed and the police response was I suspect based on a presupposition that he would be found in possession of it - easier to prove than drug dealing ?

[Lateralthinking1]

I assume Mr Pee you will be out on Boxing Day reporting hunters to the police for breaking the law. Please let me know though if my assumption is wrong.

Now then, aeolium, it appears that a higher percentage of people did cite one poverty issue above policing - 86% to 85% -and other poverty issues were within percentage points of 85%. I suspect that the most crucial questions weren't asked by the academics - "Did you feel abandoned by the Government?", "Do you feel that you have no political influence?", "Do you feel you have no control over your future because of Government policy?", "Do you feel that there aren't really any answers to your problems from the main institutions because they don't care about you?". We could have had some impressive 90%-100% "yes" responses in each case. Regrettably, institutions like the LSE are fundamental components of the system. Most academics aren't law breakers so they can criticise the police via others without fear. Perhaps they feel just still trendy enough to retain a genuine anti-policing stance whereas a survey of others criticizing Government or the private sector might threaten their funding.

I have always had mixed views about Stop and Search. I believe that in Brixton in 1981 it was clear that many black people felt targeted just because crime rates were higher in the black population. There were some quite ludicrous examples of people being stopped 30 odd times in a month. That was clearly wrong. It showed that the strategy lacked subtlety to the extent of representing intimidation. Scarman was right to point it out and, in fact, what we are seeing here is a very similar mix of factors to the one he identified in a solid enough report. Arguably some lessons were learnt - Paddick did a bit, we had the dialogue about institutionalised racism and subsequent changes to the law, and certainly there was much more publicity around individual cases - Stephen Lawrence, Damiola Taylor, de Menendez, and so on. As with many things, it has been a patchy affair.

But some of these new questions need challenging, ie "Have you been Stopped and Searched at least once in the last year"? That is hardly an intolerable position. "Was the Duggan treatment a factor?" Most said "yes" but note they felt the policing "fuelled" the unrest which is not at all the same as meaning that it was the root cause. Actually, there is quite a big gap between those two questions, and the answers, into which to fit a conclusion that policing was a direct issue of daily concern for most involved!

[aeolium]

Lat, I was simply questioning the effectiveness of the current law, and particularly the way it has been operated. I think if they are to retain it, it must be much more intelligence-based, as Brian Paddick suggested. If that doesn't happen, then there will invariably be the perception that it is discriminatory, and the sense of grievance which it will generate will undo any possible benefit (which, on the evidence of the research into the prevention of knife crime, is not that great anyway).

The Duggan incident was a quite separate issue, in that - as I understand it - he was stopped when (correctly) believed to be in the possession of an illegal firearm, but he was then shot when he was challenged, the officer wrongly believing that he had a firearm in his hand. I think the IPPC investigation into this is still continuing. The problem with stop-and-search is that if it is applied in such a way as to give rise to a sense of collective grievance, then an incident like the Duggan one is like a lighted match dropped in a haystack.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat, I was simply questioning the effectiveness of the current law, and particularly the way it has been operated. I think if they are to retain it, it must be much more intelligence-based, as Brian Paddick suggested. If that doesn't happen, then there will invariably be the perception that it is discriminatory, and the sense of grievance which it will generate will undo any possible benefit.

I agree that this is a sensible question. And the potential for Stop and Search becoming a more significant problem, if it is not refined, is greater in the aftermath. Again, that is similar to the period after 1981.