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

I find it sickening that people are trying to justify these vermin by saying things like " well they come from poor backgrounds" and " but they are under privileged"

I come from a poor back ground, but you don't see me smashing shops, looting and burning peoples homes and businesses down. Some people are just scum.

I think so too AvrilHeytch

Thanks flippinada for the Winston Smith, never heard of the guy before, but he is imo spot on.

Poor turn of phrase BofC. Let me retract that, what I meant to say was bussed in from somewhere else as everyone knows everyone within a 50miles radius. Dublin/Cork city/Limerick City whereever. That was the point I was trying to make.

I'm not a Corkonian by the way. I'm from another Irish city.

The Katherine Birbalsingh article, though it comes from a different angle, doesn't contradict Marcus Ryder's analysis of the situation.

I don't want to jump on any band wagons, but to write an article that is so negative about black people at a time when people are trying to understand the causes of the violence seems to be implying that they are to blame for the riots, when the evidence shows us that is not the case.

Even if the riots were triggered by a peaceful protest by the black community against what they saw as police injustice, the unrest soon became much more about looting and destroying businesses, and people of all colours were involved.

Race might be part of the issue here, but I'm much more persuaded by the 'people rioted because they just want more of what they see other people have' consumer/envy/greed explanations. Underlying social, cultural and moral deprivation sparking feelings of anger and resentment iin a world of twinkly celebs.

And the AbsduCroissant take on the social divide.

Sound. Maybe you could ask MNHQ to delete the post.

encyclogirl:
My mother is a champion in olympic gossiping ;)
She used to drive me mad as a teenager and even now I'm really can't be bothered with it.
Now I'm a mum, it just clicked how important family and community are. I now gladly put up with the sport without getting involved in it. I now have a reputation for not saying bad word, when in reality I just keep my mouth shut. :)

Ok, can you also have yours deleted, as it will no longer make any sense?

It looks as though it is is a different Alexis Bailey, the one being shown on the news coming out of court is male.

Tis a delicate balance Elenor. I find I now want to know what's going on just as much as the next nosy biddy, but I don't want to get quoted. Hard going sometimes!

I don't like the way the Winston Smith article sneers at the efforts of the government, social services etc to get it right. What's wrong with trying to look at the underlying causes of a problem? How else can we try to stop it happening again?

The only way to improve these childrens lot is by stopping their parents having so many children, by removing their babies so they don't get a chnce to loot along side them when their 15 and to withdraw their means to buy blackberries eg benafis which are very genarous

There is a geographical difference between London and Glasgow. In London poverty like in that poor kids tv programme a few weeks ago live a few feet from million pound houses. In Glasgow the poorest are out in ghettos 40 mins bis ride from town. They -ever see the people n the leafy suburbs so inequality isnt so obvious.

Look, not all of us can be millionaires. But not all of us are out looting shops, either. There's virtually nobody here that would say no to a hike in income, but that doesn't mean we'd say yes to torching somebody's business. Disparity of wealth explains nothing.

It's true that there's massive disparity of wealth in London, I've worked alongside people earning massive salaries and almost unimaginable amounts in bonuses, and while of course you occasionally wonder what it would be like, I've always been happy enough with my relatively modest salary. It's enough for me. There's no point me being angry and jealous because someone else has more (I wouldn't particularly want to do their jobs anyway!), what will that achieve? Certainly no reason for me to damage their property and steal from them! There are others again who have even less than me, but still most of them don't behave like this.

I wonder if these people are too thick to realise that 'the rich' are already massively subsidising them through their taxes (except those who aren't, but that's another story!). That bankers and business owners and ordinary workers are paying for their housing and income and healthcare and education for their children?

We could all use a little gratitude for what we have IMO, and less of this obsession with money and material goods. Greed and envy are not very pleasant personality traits.

If you have a look at the blog, solopower there is a lot of analysis there.

The reason why I posted the link is because this blogger isn't coming from a 'reactionary' perspective. He's a left wing Guardian reader - the sort of person who gets pilloried for being a hand wringing, touchy-feely liberal.

Will do, as it adds nothing to the debate anyway.

rainbowtoenails - that scenario exists in Edinburgh and Glasgow too. I used to live in a council flat on the edge of a very rough estate in Edinburgh; less than 5 minutes away from where I was you have detached houses worth £500k plus.

Disparity of wealth/envy doesn't explain mindless vandalism.

DH had a meeting in the Sackville St buildings of Man. univ. this morning - the bit nearest town. All the lower floor windows including stained glass that survived the war smashed. WTF good does that do anyone? Its just going to waste taxpayers money to fix. The nice deli where he usually gets lunch smashed up - very sad owner. There is no bloody excuse for damaging the businesses of people who are working hard, no bloody excuse for damaging educational establishments.

maypole1 Wed 10-Aug-11 13:24:41
"The only way to improve these childrens lot is by stopping their parents having so many children, by removing their babies so they don't get a chnce to loot along side them when their 15"

Are you serious? Take peoples children into care because they might be having them to get more benefits or help with crime?

How do you decide that then? How many children should we be allowed to have? Which social groups are we talking about? If David Cameron wants 6 kids is that ok because he won't claim benefits for them but if a woman on a council estate has 6 kids then she has to give some up? How many?

What if an affluent family has lots of children they can afford to raise and then find themselves on benefits?

And what about the cost to the state of taking all these children into care? And the cost to the children themselves? We all know how well children in care do in life....

Christ, that is the most disgusting post on MN I have read in a long time.

"DH had a meeting in the Sackville St buildings of Man. univ. this morning - the bit nearest town. All the lower floor windows including stained glass that survived the war smashed"

That makes me very angry. I went to UMIST back in the day and remember that fine old building with the beautiful stained glass. I really cannot begin to understand why anyone would do this, just really don't get it.

"Disparity of wealth/envy doesn't explain mindless vandalism"

I think it can, particularly when looting is involved. Or maybe it's because we live in such a materialistic society but the real underclass just don't have access to the shit that is advertised as being normal to have, so when they get the chance to have it they take it.

have to grin a bit at the idea of a 'nice Deli' being smashed up being a massive issue. Perhaps it's because it's a 'nice deli' that it was smashed up? It represents something many people will never have, something which is seen as ridiculously indulgent. I would worry about the people left homless more than I would about the nice Deli, though obviously I feel sorry for the owner. If it was a not so nice greasy spoon would it be different I wonder, would people care as much?

Flip, where in Glasgow is extreme deprivation next door to million pound houses?? These communities are segregated. As someone further upthread said, lots of people in these estates dont ever venture more than a few streets away, otherwise they get stabbed by rival gangs.

"Perhaps it's because it's a 'nice deli' that it was smashed up? It represents something many people will never have, something which is seen as ridiculously indulgent. "

This doesn't make any sense to me. How does smashing it up so no one can 'have' it make things any better for the people who can't afford that kind of 'indulgence'?

I don't believe that all the people involved in the rioting were desperately poor either. Plenty had more than enough consumer goods of their own (Blackberrys etc!) but just wanted more.