Wild in the Streets

So, this rioting started after a Polar bear attacked some teenagers in North London? Because he was white and all his victims black, it was taken to be a racial attack and the police shot him as he tried to get away in a taxi? Or am I getting my news stories confused? It's all too easy in this twenty four hour instant news culture we inhabit. I must admit that I first became aware of the riots when I saw 'Tottenham' trending on Twitter - at first I thought it had something to do with the friendly against Althletico Bilbao we'd just won at The Lane. It wasn't that good a match to be trending, I thought. My next thought was that maybe Harry had signed someone amazing, so I checked the BBC News site, only to find that Tottenham was ablaze. That's out of order, I thought, I mean, we won, for God's sake! It all got even more confused when people started claiming that 'outsiders' were behind it all. Clearly those Athletico Bilbao supporters were more disappointed at losing that friendly than we'd all thought.

I remember the last time we had inner city riots like this, back in 1981, when Brixton, Handsworth and Toxteth erupted. I was a teenager back then and for a few delirious weeks it seemed, to my radical young mind at least, that the country was teetering on the edge of revolution. But in the end it all died down. I'd like to think that we're living in a similar moment, but I doubt it. That said, the way this latest unrest has spread across London and now, apparently, to Birmingham, is quite impressive. Nevertheless, it just doesn't seem to be on the same scale, in destructive terms, as the 1980s. The trouble is that these rioters just don't seem to be well enough organised. The police always seem to be able to disperse them with mounted cops - you'd have thought by now the rioters would have organised their own mounted division. A well organised cavalry charge by a troop of hoodies on horses, (probably looted from the nearest stables), would be able to disperse a line of coppers with shields and batons. (For legal reasons, I should point out here that I'm most definitely not advocating that anyone assault the police, loot commercial premises or engage in civil disorder. This is all being told for comic effect).

To be slightly serious, the way the reporting of these disturbances is being slanted, it is clear that there is a concerted effort to characterise the whole thing as simply criminal activity. All the emphasis has been upon the looting and destruction of property. Consequently, the underlying causes of the unrest aren't being highlighted. Clearly, in a healthy society, people don't take to the streets and indulge in an orgy of criminality. It's clear that this civil disorder is simply a manifestation of far deeper problems within these communities, which they feel aren't being addressed by those in power. As for the incident which appeared to spark the initial problems in North London, the shooting by police of a local man in Tottenham, it's interesting how quickly the 'official' version has begun to unravel. This is in direct contrast to the police shooting of the Brazilian guy on the Tube in the wake of the 7/7 terror attacks. Then the police were able to maintain a sustained campaign of disinformation and character assassination against the victim via the press. Of course, now that the Metropolitan Police's unhealthy relationship with News International has been exposed, it isn't so easy for them to engage in such propaganda.