Reading the riots gives a fresh perspective

LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images

August saw Britain experience some of the most serious social unrest since the riots of the 1980s. Media and political commentary during the three days of upheaval repeatedly highlighted the criminality and mindlessness of the hoodied thugs on “our” streets. Images recurred of the few burning buildings in Croydon and Tottenham, windows being smashed in and loot being carried away. Vitriol spewed from COBRA, daddy Cameron and the Metropolitan Police, on the lack of discipline in current society. They were out to teach the kids a stern lesson.

Amid the street cleaning campaigns in Ealing and the stories Sky News played of neighbourhoods being terrorised by children who stole dumpsters, the questions of why the riots took place were drowned out. The observations of veteran broadcaster and writer Darcus Howe were met with accusations of his rioting past. Others who attempted to provide a reasoned social analysis connected to poverty and systemic exclusion were attacked for sympathising with the riots. This very response has now been toned down to a whisper by the LSE/Guardian study “Reading the Riots”.

Common opinion at the time delegitimised the riots for their apparent lack of ideological foundations; the youths were not seen to be following any agenda other than self-enrichment. The report contrarily flagged up overarching issues over which the majority of rioters were enraged. Selfish consumerist aspirations were at play, but their roots were conveniently ignored. Interviewees talked of the social pressures they faced, the need to own the next new half-model of iPhone or Nike trainers. Advertising agencies vociferously push products upon all, leaving no grey area un-flyered or postered over. Such companies did not and do not factor in the frustrations and limitations caused by poverty and the minimum wage.

With unemployment reaching new highs and jobs becoming an increasing scarcity, the consumerist thirst is more consistently being left unquenched. Three quarters of those who appeared in court were aged 24 or under, a third of all claiming they had no qualification higher than GCSE. The demographic of rioters highlights that these are youths who have been excluded from the riches of the capitalist market, blocked from accessing the wealth that taunts them from billboards. Social inequality has only become more apparent, feeding the sense of injustice that many rioters expressed over those three days.

This was not only a free for all fun fair though, as many stated their disobedience was a revolt against unfair policing. Outrage at the often racially motivated “Stop and Search” strategy was apparent. Its specific targeting of ethnic minority groups has only further validated mistrust of the police in communities such as Tottenham. Even though the riot assumed a life of its own, it is often forgotten that it initially rose from anger at the unnecessary killing of Mark Duggan. These may not expressly have been race riots, but exclusion, as a result of either race or class, was an undoubted cause of the violent flare-ups.

The report was essential in giving the socially motivated causes of the riots a scholarly backing. The cross section of people interviewed and the comprehensive presentation of data make it a convincing indictment upon the government and judicial system’s handling of those involved in the aftermath. Scapegoating vague ideas of poor parenting instead of the corrosive values that rule in our society has been typical of the Tory response. The report has helped define the arguments in favour of correcting the economic imbalances that have caused this crisis of values. Yet whether the necessary steps to correct this will be taken is another issue.