What's with the London riots?

<p>Young people in London also rioted about rising tuition costs recently.</p>

<p>I would be careful characterizing this as more than it is. It is a relatively small segment of society that feels down and out, with little hope for economic turnaround. The incident that set it off was the police shooting a black person. I think the guy who got shot was armed, but I haven’t been following this too closely.</p>

<p>It is humorous that Iran and Libya have issued statements about what London should do regarding these protests. Iran and Libya are very adept at handling their own protests… by killing tons of people.</p>

<p>D1 is in London for training. I have been talking to her everyday, but she didn’t tell me her firm has been letting them out everyday at 4pm. I guess she has been talking H and she didn’t want to worry me. Her firm is going to see if it gets better in the next few days. If the situation doesn’t improve, they are going to send all the trainees home.</p>

<p>Razorsharp, for years London has had the reputation of being the most electronically monitored city in the world. For example, I understand that now there’s a camera-based electronic toll system for automobiles entering the central business/financial district.</p>

<p>LW,
The CCTV cameras are not only in London, but throughout England. I actually found it creepy that when I was there in 2009 I could have been “filmed” hundreds on times per day. In Norwich, where D studied, the CCTV cameras were everywhere.</p>

<p>Not much analysis going on here yet – they say ‘get control of the streets first and then discuss the causes’ but it’s not racial and it’s not ‘organized criminal elements’ and Cameron’s explanation (‘moral decay’) seems absurdly reductive. Initial reports show that the majority of those arrested are young people with no previous record. And young! As young as 11, some of them. Most disturbing is the idea that the hopelessness these young people must feel is so intense that it explodes into violence that destroys communities. Communities that they obviously feel no part of. They must feel they have no future so there’s no risk jeopardizing a future by criminal senseless looting. It’s incredibly depressing. Only heartening development: the clean up crews organized by local residents.</p>

<p>I suspect the answers are not going to be simple, it is going to be a complex bunch of reasons about why this has taken a life on its own, from the little bit I have been able to fathom, the initial cause could be what often causes riots, a group of people, reacting to either a real or rumored situation, that fans flames already brewing. In this case, the shooting death of a young minority male triggers people who for whatever reason feel marginalized, and erupt (note I am not going to judge whether the cops acted badly, whether the people who were ****ed off had reason to be, it doesn’t really matter, to be honest, since those who started this somehow felt the need to do this…).</p>

<p>We went through these kind of riots in the 60’s, we had riots in Watts, Detroit, Harlem,Newark and other inner city areas, where due to economic conditions and quite frankly very real claims of racism and being treated like crap, they erupted, usually over some sort of incident that sets it off. And yes, there was economic opportunism in those riots, people smashed store windows and looted, feeling like they were getting something back from the man (in the case of the 60’s riots, the stores targeted were often either owned by Jews, or were perceived as being owned by Jews, and the claim of the looters was that Jews economically exploited them for years, so this was payback, though in the end it didn’t matter, it was like a flock of locusts on crops, almost everything was hit).</p>

<p>With London, BBC news and other sources seem to be saying that the real culprits were people simply looking to stir things up, local community groups who represent the Caribbean community and such have said that the initial protests and such have little to do with the ongoing riots, that the ones now rioting are either thugs looking for an opportunity to score a fast one, or the usual gang of bored, angry types of all races, anarchists (read drug addled morons), and those who go there in their own perverse way to have a good time.</p>

<p>I don’t doubt that the bad economic times have something to do with it, people are feeling angry about what they see as something more making their lives miserable, but I also think that blaming Britain’s austerity budget alone or claiming it is cuts doing that are too simplistic. </p>

<p>As far as why the police are using water cannons, police learned a long time ago that armed force in a riot is a disaster area, that it is kind of like cutting off the head of a hydra in that armed response tends to breed even more violent reactions and so forth.</p>

<p>One of the sad parts about this is if it plays out like the 60’s riots did, it will make the lives of the people in those areas worse, not better as some may think, and those who go there thinking they are standing up for the oppressed and fighting for them by rioting, will end up making their lives worse if history holds. Places like Newark, Harlem and Detroit after the riots lost a lot of stores, it wasn’t all that long ago that Newark, for example, finally got a supermarket opening there, the first since the 67 riots, and other then Harlem (which gentrified), most of the places I am talking about lost what little they had and still have not recovered, 40+ years later.</p>

<p>Pre riots Newark was a place middleclass used to go to the museums and shopping. Some still lived in parts of Newark that were very nice. After–nobody went there again. Most middleclass moved out.</p>

<p>I lived in Irvington during the Newark riots, about 6 blocks from the Newark border. My mom remembers hearing the gunshots in the distance. Our area was primarily multi family homes owned by German immigrants. Within a year there was a major case of white flight. Irvington is another one of those towns that 50 years later is still battling the scars of those riots.</p>

<p>Good point. I grew up down the shore, and many folks I knew moved down there from Irvington, south Bloomfield, etc. after the riots. They definitely hurt the people left behind the most. Ironically, as an adult I moved up there and brought up my kids in that area. Now I teach students from Newark, Irvington, East Orange, etc. Good kids, just trying to make it to the middle class. So much societal baggage I can’t begin to imagine.</p>

<p>Keep trying Garland. I’m sure that your dedication has made a difference in a young person’s life, and will do so again.</p>

<p>The “father” was gunned down by police for no reason, as some wish to report. The “gangster” as I’d prefer, was shot during a covert operation. Mr. Duggan was a subject of the investigation and was shot when police attempted to arrest him. British police do not carry guns and if the police that were trying to arrest him were the special police that are armed then they had a specific reason to go after him. Those who decided to take this opportunity to riot are nothing but savages and should be dealt with accordingly. Maybe they could have tasered him? (joke for those who don’t get the sarcasm)</p>

<p>i think i read on yahoo that the guy was a drug dealer</p>

<p>The fact remains that the initial police report was a pack of lies. It said that he was killed in an exchange of gun fire with the police. He apparently had a gun, but it was NOT fired.</p>

<p>He was shot twice–he was killed by a bullet to the chest and also had a gun shot wound to his leg. </p>

<p>Now, maybe he pulled out a gun and a one or two cops shot quickly. But, it is worrisome when the initial report said the Duggan fired first and the police responded. </p>

<p>A cop insisted that his radio had been shot. He was telling the truth–but it was a police bullet when it was retrieved. </p>

<p>As I understand it, the cops had targeted him as a probable drug dealer. However, I haven’t seen anything that says he’d actually been convicted of anything.</p>

<p>I’m not suggesting this was a choir boy. However, lets not jump to the opposite conclusion–that the cops were justified in shooting him.</p>

<p>Jonri, please…when someone is arrested for robbing a bank they have yet to be convicted, but when the police were staking that bank out and went to arrest the man because he was a suspect and that suspect decided to draw his illegal gun on the police and is shot dead it is all good. There is no time to get the case to court as the man chose to force the police hands. As in this case, no it doesn’t appear that the gang member shot, but he did as you say “maybe pulled out a gun” and therefore was shot. Police can shoot someone in that instance. Was he convicted? No. Was he dealt with immediately as a result of his actions? Yes. Am I happy with the outcome of that incident? Yes. I guess the only drawback was that the shooter did not kill the other cop as I’m sure he intended so that he could silence any witnesses to the murder, right? Wake up!</p>

<p>I don’t see what the problem is with police shooting at a suspect who pulls a gun…</p>

<p>I also don’t see the problem with him being shot twice. You don’t shoot once and admire your good aim.</p>

<p>Russell Brand has an interesting piece on the riots in the Aug 11 edition of The Guardian, titled “Big Brother Isn’t Watching You”</p>

<p>Oldfort,
What is happening with your D1?</p>

<p>They are continuing with the training. They cancelled all evening events for the trainees. D1 went straight back to her apartment after class. This weekend 10+ of them decided to take off to Mallorca. She is due back end of Aug. I will feel better when she is back to the States.</p>