The Home Office’s statistics about last summer’s riots make interesting reading, especially if we remind ourselves of some of the more crazed political and media analysis that accompanied these events. Take this wild venting about the rioters from Max Hastings in the Mail:
Hastings, like many of those from the ‘bestial’ school of thought, rejects any suggestion that the ‘feral children’ who participated in the riots had anything to do with social deprivation or inequality since ‘ the welfare state has relieved them from hunger and real want…When social surveys speak of ‘deprivation’ and ‘poverty’, this is entirely relative.’
It might be relative Max. But it still exists. And don’t take my word for it. Just ask the Home Office:
And contrary to perceptions of a violent underclass overwhelmed by gang culture, the report found that ‘ 13 per cent of arrestees (417) were reported to be affiliated to a gang’ , 337 of whom were arrested in London, and that ‘where gang members were involved [in the disturbances], they generally did not play a pivotal role’.
In terms of racial/ethnic background: ‘Forty per cent of all arrestees described their ethnicity as White, 39 per cent as Black, 11 per cent as from a Mixed ethnic background, eight per cent as Asian and two per cent from some other ethnic background.’
The Report also notes that the largest number any single category of crimes consisted of 2, 561 ‘acquisitive’ crimes ( robbing shops etc) out of a total of 5,112 crimes committed in total. Interestingly ‘Male arrestees were more likely than females to be arrested for disorder offences while females were more likely to be arrested for acquisitive offences.’
What these statistics appear to tell us is that the majority of those who took part in the riots were in fact members of a deprived underclass, and that many of them simply took an opportunity to take the things that many of them cannot afford to buy but are continually told they ought to have. The Italian left used to call this phenomenon autoriduzione (‘self-reduction’) of prices ie. looting, also known as ‘proletarian shopping.’
This isn’t what David Cameron is calling it. Back in August the ex-Etonian peered down in horror at Britain’s ‘moral collapse’ and promised to respond with a national citizens service for all 16-year olds, since ’Teamwork, discipline, duty, decency: these might sound old-fashioned words but they are part of the solution to this very modern problem of alienated, angry young people.’
Jolly good show David. And never one to miss an opportunity to promote a little profit and privatisation for Michael Gove’s lobbyists, our shining moral crusader also promised to boost City academies, since they would have ‘higher expectations of discipline and standards‘ than comprehensives.
There was further blather about the ‘twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal responsibility’ and even the ‘obsession with health and safety that has eroded people’s willingness to act according to common sense’ - to which one can only reply ‘Say whaaat?’
Naturally Cameron insisted that ‘ these riots were not about poverty: that insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.’
Maybe not. But some will, when the chance arises. And now the Home Office has made it quite clear that the riots really were ‘about poverty’ after all, and it will take a lot more than teamwork, decency, academies, strong fathers and ‘soldiers in classrooms’ to fix that.