“The police is the biggest gang out there” – Reading the response to the riots
John Hewitt Jones
Tweet
Name:John Hewitt Jones
Occupation: studying English Literature at Edinburgh UniversityJohn's Full Profile
Riot police in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, 09/08/2011. Photo by Richard Hopkins
‘[businesses] are just raping the world anyway…just taking advantage of other people’s labour…so why can’t we take advantage of them for this one moment.’
- Anonymous looter, interviewed as part of the Guardian/ LSE Reading the Riots study.
Last August was a profoundly unsettling time to be living in the UK. Outbreaks of violence in six major cities resulted in five deaths, hundreds of injuries and four thousand arrests. Businesses, livelihoods and homes were destroyed as the police struggled to respond to the level of disorder, and insurance claims alone are estimated to have cost London’s economy £300 million.
Working in Pimlico when the disorder erupted, I walked out of Brixton tube station on 7th August to be confronted with the burnt-out shell of Brixton Foot Locker. As people stopped to gawp and scrabble for photos on iphones, this was, for me, the moment that connected the images of a burning dystopia on TV to reality.
Whilst it would be imprudent to set too much store by conclusions drawn so soon after the events, interviews conducted as part of The Guardian/ London School of Economics’ Reading the Riots study suggest that three key issues contributed to the levels of resentment described by many of those who took part in the violence, namely: youth services, unemployment and policing.
As the government is in the process of cutting youth services and public sector jobs -two juicy carrots – it’s the stick that seems to be demanding most media attention. There has been a constant discussion of the need for ‘harder sanctions’, focusing on the possible use of baton rounds and water cannon. This in itself seems highly concerning given that the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, one of the only senior officers in the country who has experience of using these potentially lethal methods of public control, doesn’t think they’re a good idea. In fact he’s stated categorically that the deployment of these in such situations would be a serious error of judgement.
Indeed, if the Guardian/LSE study is correct, then distrustful relationships between communities and the police had a significant role to play in inflaming the resentment felt by many of those who participated in the riots. Much of the interviewees’ anecdotal evidence suggests that British police forces have a long way to go in challenging, or at the least shaking off perceptions of, discriminatory behaviour. According to one young interviewee: ‘The police is the biggest gang out there.’ Considering that 85% of those questioned stated that policing was an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ factor in why the riots happened, does it not seem somewhat ironic to be discussing increasingly Draconian measures when what’s really needed is a debate on how the police engage properly with the public?
At the moment the discourse seems to centre relentlessly on the question of the deterrent; on what the seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes labelled ‘external sanctions’ – people are discouraged from stealing because the risk of being caught and having to face punishment isn’t worth it.
High Road Tottenham & Lansdowne Road, London, 07/08/2011. Photo by Alan Stanton.
Whilst restorative justice is a necessary part of upholding law and order, I don’t accept Hobbes’ supposition that all human actions are driven exclusively by our self-interest. And I don’t think this should be the approach we take to maintaining contemporary civil order. It’s dangerous because it presumes that penal sanctions are all that prevent us from stealing from the corner shop or robbing the granny next-door. Harsh retributive punishments must therefore be the order of the day to act as a feasible deterrent, and this is problematic when the grip of authority is weakened, as we saw during the riots. There is nothing to stop people behaving immorally, and if we accept the analysis that people are driven solely by self-interest, then it could be argued that it would be prudent (not moral) to steal from Foot Locker.
Kavka argues that ‘Internal Sanctions’ are the most effective means of social control. These are the feelings of guilt, shame and remorse that retrospectively affect most emotionally literate people. Even when governing structures fail, if properly instilled, these internal measures prevent people from behaving immorally. The Reading the Riots study would seem to support this, with many of those interviewed ‘said they became uneasy about the scale of the violence.’ Whilst restorative justice is essential, I conjecture that the real discussions should focus on how we can invest to strengthen these internal sanctions for the future.
What do you think?
Loading ...
vouchers
I agree with Lauren here…
For me the police have only been successful in giving students a bad name. It is a fact that actually mindless thugs were those who rioted there was little involvement from students and we are forgetting that those thugs are not us young people its the minority that think they will give us all a bad name.
For me the media have a lot to live up to for that as well and sticking with the football theme Lauren started I am a Liverpool fan and after the Suarez case the media have continually brought up Liverpool fans getting in trouble for racial comments. For example at the liverpool vs Man U game I was amazed to hear numerous times that 2 Liverpool fans were arrested for racial abuse whereas I heard only once there were 3 man u fans who decided to “relieve” themselves at the hillsborough memorial at the ground. Now I’m sorry but thats sick! and the media are not even mentioning it!… they are only concerned about Liverpool fans being racist! what a fiasco!!!
There were many factors that contributed to the disturbances that took place in Summer 2011. 3/4 of the rioters were under 24 years of age, which obviously shows that the rioters were predominantly young. This may suggest that the contributors to the riots were affecting the young: Youth Services and Unemployment. The reason it was mainly youth taking part shows that Unemployment and the services available to the youth are heavily affecting them or it may be the sense of adrenaline that overcame them.
The duty of the police is to protect the community. They have and still do. However, when approached for information by the family and friends of Mark Duggan and the community he lived in, the police may have took the wrong approach. Instead of selecting a few individual (which may have been the right approach) the police didn’t respond the the communities questions. this is when the throwing of items started, as the youth became restless. So what was the Factor? Was there only factor? This, we cannot determine, but we can identifying some of the factors that were contributors: The shooting of Mark Duggan was the initial base (or to some it was just an excuse), youth services, unemployment, Police and/or the internet.
the police cannot give information on an open case.
Even so, shouldn’t they have at least consulted his family instead of leaving them angry and grieving. They didn’t have to give them any specific details from the case. I’m not accusing or pointing a finger towards the police, i’m just saying that it may have been a factor that helped build up to the riots.
The police had every right to use a bit of force, the amount of trouble the rioters caused, they destroyed peoples lives, their livelihoods. And the sentences imposed were not at all fair. The police are doing a fantastic job and they don’t need criticising. How about you try and see if you can do a better job!
I’d advise you John, to walk a day in a PC’s shoes. Then take a long hard look at the article you’ve just written.
Really! I think people forget they are human and majority are trying to do a good job. I am female and was robbed and sexually assaulted a few years back at knifepoint in Croydon and I can honestly say the way the officers handled the matter was with kindness and sensitivity – male and female. Lets not forget they do a lot of good and have to see a lot of awful things too. Would you do their job any better – if you think they are harsh here try Spain, Germany, America, Poland … I could go on. People need to grow up, grow some balls and take responsibility for their OWN actions.
I agree with what you have stated John, I find them unjustified for what they have done. The police create the most violence because they are untouchable. The news needs to show the police in a more negitive light instead of the people who “help”. It’s the idea at the football games the more police the more violence because the public act up to them thinking they can rebel against the Government. They do more harm then good.
That’s ridiculous, Lauren! It’s because the police are so ‘touchable’ that these delinquents act up, because they know they can get away with it. And as for your football argument. Did you not stop to consider that the only reason there is more violence when more police officers are there is because they only add significatly greater numbers of police to those games that require it? Games that would otherwise cause much more violence, which is a disturbing point in itself. Furthermore,if you start showing police in a more negative light, no one will want to be a police officer and so the next time you need protecting from some thug, no-one will be there to help.
You are, of course, spot on (we’ve been saniyg as much for over a year). The mystery is why bringing the uber class to account is not the top item of public debate. Why do our politicians refuse to acknowledge it is the cancer that sickens us all let alone act to deal with it. Bob Diamond takes his a36.5 bonus for ONE year and urges Cameron & Co. to stick to their cuts programme. That should be condemned by anyone who claims that we are all in this together as part of the Big Society. Any discussion of the riots should include the message in your article.