Infamous London riots of the past have occurred with a single purpose in mind: Brixton (all three) and Tottenham 1985 were reactions to racism in the police; the Poll Tax Riots were targeted at Thatcher's government; even the unrest in March was confined to bank and high street tax avoiders. What was disconcerting about the riots of July 2011 was that there was no specific target; they were widespread, impulsive, and constantly moving. The police cannot be criticised for not predicting this behaviour - the fact is that nobody saw it coming.
On an individual level, the riots may not have been politically motivated. In the words of Lacombe from Close Encounters:
"This is a small group of people who have shared a vision in common. It is still a mystery to me why they are here. Even they do not know why ... it is an event sociological"
I refuse to believe that it was random criminality. For some reason these kids grew up with no consideration for themselves or their homes, in a world where possession and wealth were the most important things in existence, where the individual must always put himself first. Pourquoi? Why?
To blame the riots solely on the cuts to benefits and public services is opportunistic of the left, but the fact remains that police numbers and youth centres are being cut across the nation and this is hitting the most deprived parts of England very hard. Haringey, Southwark, Lewisham, Croydon - these are all very poor and troubled councils that have been dealt tremendous blows by Cameron's fuck-the-poor axe. Still everyday we read more and more about executive bonuses, fraudulent MPs expenses, back-scratching and arse-licking at highest levels of government, business and entertainment. This injustice filters down and even if a single looter or arsonist cannot articulate his reasoning it cannot be wondered that he has no respect for those around him if those with power, with responsibility, the ones from whom we take example, behave with exactly the same lack of conscience. The only difference is that a politician wears a jacket and tie, rather than a baseball cap and trackies.
However, life goes on. In Southwark, we are so used to being forgotten and neglected by Westminster that we have learned to look after ourselves and will continue to survive by doing so. It will take more than one riot to bury Peckham. We have an incredibly strong community spirit here - for every rioter on Monday, there were a dozen cleaners-up on Tuesday morning. What might hurt us, however, is the criminalisation of a vast chunk of our community's youth.
Breaking shop windows, throwing rocks and police, petty theft are all crimes, but do they really warrant a long prison term? Especially when most of the offenders are kids? Four months inside for inciting riots on Facebook that never actually happened - that's not right. A large proportion of those appearing before magistrates following the riots already had criminal convictions and prison terms to their name: a two month stretch isn't going to faze or reform them. They will be warm, safe and well-fed for a few weeks and won't have to spend a penny. And where better for a lad with nothing to lose than prison to learn the 'benefits' of a criminal lifestyle from some real hardnuts?
Another proposal has been to evict them and take their benefits away (making the rather rude assumption that council housed and benefit claimant = looter). Again, this seems counter-intuitive. By taking money from somebody who steals, you give them greater incentive to steal more. By evicting them from their council homes and putting them on the streets, they are compelled to beg, mug or home-break. Even by moving them to another area, you are moving the problem rather than resolving it while disrupting the family and hardening their feelings towards you. I watched this happen on the council estate I grew up on - you just end up with itinerant groups of troublemakers moving from one block to another.
The Daily-Mail-knee-jerk reaction by the papers and public (largely public living OUTSIDE London's trouble-spots) was frankly terrifying. I'm sorry, what? Fire rubber bullets at children? Bring back national service and teach an aggressive teenager to use a gun? There were casualties, of course - the pensioner in Ealing, and the three shopkeepers in Birmingham - but otherwise nobody was seriously hurt. Army? The press would have us believe that it was dangerous to leave the house, that we were engulfed in a civil war. This is really is a situation where I feel the need to say - if you weren't there, shut up. Baghdad - that's a dangerous place. Tripoli. The West Bank. These are all places where it's not safe to be. Peckham's Rye Lane is three streets away from me and I felt safe. This is the poorest constituency in London and one of the most deprived in the UK. As much as I love it, it is rough as fuck here, but a sense of perspective is required. These were not armed insurgents, they were bored kids. If the schools had been in and if it had rained, I doubt anything would have happened.
Of course, the political response would be: what's your alternative? How would you punish these miscreants?
Tag them. Give them curfews (and actually enforce them). Make them repay the value of what they stole and destroyed. Put them on community works projects. Educate and train them in practical, physical, transferable skills. Above all, keep them occupied, don't let them get BORED. These people are still young and malleable, and are surely entitled to a chance at changing their ways. Throwing them in prison is as good as giving up on them. As long ago as 1969 Elvis Presley was singing "In The Ghetto" with words to the same effect. It's 2011 now, and Peckham is the ghetto, and lads are still being allowed to grow up hungry, angry and abandoned.
0 comments:
Post a Comment