Depraved or deprived: What lies behind these riots, and why aren't they happening in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Solopower]

I've been reading the threads on the riots and I wondered if we needed one on the causes.

People's ideas seem to range from thinking the rioters are just opportunistic criminals to socially and culturally disadvantaged youngsters.

But why isn't there any rioting in Scotland, for example, where there are pockets of extreme social deprivation?

Zoe Williams' article on the psychology of looting is worth reading, imo:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting?CMP=twt_gu

not so.violence is genderless.its an action and behaviours undertaken by men and women

and re girl gangs.there are prolific accounts of girl gangs in Victorian and edwardian london. children perpetrated crimes too

50's uk had girls in gangs.its not new

this was what you said, Norman...

'I've just come back up to Glasgow from London today and I actually think it's the rain that puts people off looting. brrr'.

and that's all i've ever been commenting on. there was no 'brrrr' on the nights when there were riots in London, because it was warm here. there was no rain putting people off looting because it was not raining.

please god, can this be the end of the weather chat? it's completely bizarre.

bonkers as conkers, this.

I hate to disillusion you all, but I'm afraid that there have now been riots iin Scotland, as can be seen here

I don't know anything about the history of girl gangs in Victorian London, but I still maintain that in, for example, the Brixton/Toxteth/St Paul's riots in the 80's, you wouldn't have seen girls/women joining in with the violence in such numbers, and that something has changed (as it probably has for men - I think the motivations behind those riots and this week's were different).

lol bogwobbit. and

Arf.

you sort of falling into girls good.boys bad trap.and shock that girls do that
actions and behaviours are good or bad as are people. dysfunction isnt solely a male pursuit. women have always been involved in criminality. as have men

Yes, I agree, scottishmummy, but I don't think women have traditionally (in recentish past at least) been involved in this kind of criminality, is all.

salient point may be has female participation and proclivity in disturbance and crime increased? as you note there was not an absence or non representation of women in 80's riots "you wouldn't have seen girls/women joining in with the violence in such numbers" just you wonder has it increased

i think that concentrating on the females in this story is not the point, though. it has been a largely male event. but there is a sexist angle in concentrating on the dumb girls, even as they are hardly the problem.

I'm probably going to get a flaming for this, but I also think there is a biological/hormonal difference that makes men more aggressive by nature.

Which is not to say that it's acceptable in a civilised society.
Which is not to say that women are all 'good', by any means.
Which is not to say that women shouldn't be on the front line in the army if that's what they want.

Which is, in short, not to say anything except that I believe this to be the case.

I haven't insisted anything. Was just struck by how much cooler it is up here having been sweating in London, listening to sirens and helicopters.

A throw away remark. But let's leave it there, shall we.

No flaming from me midnightexpress, there's no point pretending that women and men are exactly biologically the same, or that our different hormones have an effect on our minds and behaviour. I don't think it's the full story when it comes to these things, there are obviously cultural and historical reasons as well, though those are tied in with biology as well to some extent. And individual reasons relating to childhood, background etc why a particular person might be violent/aggressive.

It's an average difference as well, so not all men are more aggressive than all women, which is how it could be misinterpreted.

youre deliberately chosing to ignore or minimise female criminality. why?
edwardian/victorian clippers- prostitutes who mugged clients. female mugging gangs past and current.

unsavoury as it is females perpetrate crimes and simply sayinmg men do iyt more isnt adequate exploration.

minimise or use socio-biological theories as you wish
but cannot deny women are involved in criminality.as are men

all that does is add another layer to female deviancy the disbelieve and shock women do crimes

Yes, aitch, agree. But one of my main beefs in this whole thing (and in fact in most of the Big News Stories recently), is with the media reporting. When you have 24 hours of BBC24/CNN/Sky News to fill, you have to find hooks to hang things on don't you? And 'oh look at these naughty GIRL rioters!' is one, along with 'look at these child rioters', 'look at these teaching assistant rioters' etc etc. It's an angle, isn't it? But the danger is that those angles get taken up and drummed into us, and that's what people take away from the story.

i would fucking LOVE that, norman.

to answer the poster upthread re: Exeter and Plymouth...

Exeter has a majority older population, (especially in the summer when the students aren't there), and is in comparison to Birmingham, London and Manchester far less deprived. see UK Deprivation Indices. The pockets of deprivation in the city are very small and there are far less shops or urban centres to riot in.

Plymouth is more deprived than Exeter and is considerably more urban, however, it also has a huge military presence. I don't know if any of you have experience of MOD Plods, but they are frightening and whilst their remit is to police their own, and anyone on their property, even their cars going by put the fear of god into us as kids. Plus, it adds another authority layer to the area.

Southampton is interesting. There were very small linked/planned criminal activities there and it does surprise me that it didn't kick off. Also suprising that Portsmouth didn't either, especially as during the NOTW's campagin against paedophiles the whole of the north of Portsmouth erupted and was extremely violent.

I'm not scottishmummy. Men commit acts of violence more than women. Women also commit acts of violence. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

yes but more male crime doesnt equal absence of crime by females
im exploring your incredulity females involved,and assertion men just like that

women have always been involved in criminality.as have men
rose tinted idealised view of women to suggest otherwise

gin palaces and female criminality
gangs in london and female criminality dating back to victorian - not new

I never said it did

I think you're misinterpreting what I've said.

I'm not incredulous that women are involved. Far from it. But I do think it's interesting that they are more upfront about it, or perhaps the media is just reporting it more.

And I categorically said that it's not OK to dismiss it in terms of 'men are just like that'. In my opinion, men are more like that. But that is not the same as saying women are never like that or that it's OK if men are like that.

I also agree with Aitch though that the gender issue in this case deflects discussion of the root causes of what happened.

it's too hard for politicians to look at male roles in this sort of event because they are, by and large, male. i do think it should be looked at, tbh. but i doubt it ever will. like i said before, historically poor men with impulse-control issues are culled by war. they aren't being now (thank god) but it does mean that society has to deal with their existence and them as parents. it's massive.

mn discussions move and are fluid.dont need to adhere to a precribed logic as thread develops.