@Gothamloki "I love London! Stop burning it down."
S'alright. Most of the rioting has been confined to the 'burbs, Camden (which usually looks like a riot has recently passed through) and Oxford Circus (which is all generic shopping centre-y and not tourist-y). We haven't damaged anything pretty (although I hope the Oxford Circus riot didn't spread too far along Regent Street, which is pretty).
@Psycho Honey "Maybe if they used their cups 'o tea to dash the flames it be out by now."
Wash your mouth out! That is no way to treat a cuppa (yeah, it's a cuppa, not a "cup o' tea").
@Psycho Honey "Gun control stops nothing. It empowers criminals and weakens otherwise law abiding citizens from defending themselves."
and @Quetzalcoatl "This is why i like the good old US uncle sam, We as people of this great nation have the right to bear arms, if someone comes at me trying to hurt me ill shoot."
Depends on what you mean by 'Gun control'. Homicides are generally much lower in Europe than the U.S. because it's a lot harder to get hold of a gun ('gun control' aimed at restricted gun ownership). The notable exception is Switzerland, where every adult male is issued with a gun as they all have to do military service. That seems to have had a measureable effect on the homicide rate, but the conviction rate is high because all military issued-guns and -ammunition are serial numbered and traceable ('gun control' aimed at enabling wide-spread gun ownership).
Give me restricted gun ownership any day. Our police don't need to carry guns as a matter of course, but can call on armed backup if needed. The occasional serial killer or other homicidal nutter does go on the rampage, but their number of victims is rarely higher than an equivalent nutter in the U.S. If the right to bear arms (and frequent assertions from gun-owners) did matter, the nutter should be gunned down pretty quickly by the nearest citizen and you'd have fewer victims per nutter.
@Jo "Nothing is ever black and white, and it's not as easy as you think to lay the blame."
Ah, the voice of reason. Hear, hear. Nothing is ever black and white, and those that think it is, usually have an over-simplified view of the world that makes their suggested responses next to useless.
@All
I don't think we've actually worked out what the trigger was. The shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham is widely held up as the initial trigger, but the local community seemed to support the police's actions once the circumstances had been explained. Direct comparisons with the 1980s riots don't fully apply as these highlighted widespread racism in the Metropolitan Police which has since been addressed resulting in fairly good relations between the police & local communities.
Others have pointed to the widespread unemployment in the area. However, unemployment in the area was at 19% during the mid-noughties boom and has only risen to 20% now (BBC, 'The Daily Politics', Thu 11th Aug).
Others have pointed to gang culture, but I'm not sure that explains how widespread the rioting was. Gangs aren't a significant issue in most areas and I doubt gang culture can account for the numbers of people involved in Tottenham.
These also don't explain why the rioting spread across so many different cities and areas.
My own thoughts on the cause is that it probably is partly to do with poverty, gang culture and, more significantly, a perception that things are only going to get worse for those at the bottom when the spending cuts start to hit. (This is where comparisons with the 1980s may rightfully be made.) This perception of a worsening situation, rather than immediate poverty, might account for why the rioters were looting rather than protesting and why it spread to other cities (there were even reports in Manchester that families were going out by car to go looting): sort of a 'why not stock up now?' attitude.
I don't think we, as a nation, will be able to work out why it all kicked off without the benefit of hindsight and perhaps not even then.
Nothing is ever black and white.
Just to bring this up again. I have been rather pissed off (ex-colonials: that means angry) with journalists and locals, particularly in Manchester, saying that the vandalism and looting is not being done by 'true' Mancunians. There is no such thing as 'true' and 'false' Mancunians. It's too simplistic to label people like that, and categorising people into 'true' and 'false' Mancunians can only emphasise any divisions (whatever they are) that caused some Mancunians to riot.
You get a similar division into true and false whenever a religious nut decides to take God's judgement into his/her own hands. After the attacks in Norway, Anders Breivik was cheerfully declared not to be a 'true Christian'. Face it - Christians can do good and bad things, just like atheists can do good and bad things, just like Londoners/Mancunians/citizens-of-anywhere can do good and bad things. Distancing yourself from groups of people by labelling them as 'not true whatevers', won't address the problem. All it achieves is a washing of hands and may tip a few sympathisers into picking the other side.
