Much of the media coverage of the riots in England dwells on the issue of police restraint. There is a “public backlash against police restraint,” the Washington Post explained (8/11/11), with some wanting “a tougher response to the rash of disturbances that has sullied Britain’s image.” The problem is the “seemingly halting, even timorous, policing,” according to one New York Times story (8/12/11). Another Times piece added:
A former senior riot police officer with knowledge of current operations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the most recent riots were allowed to rage, in part, because police officers felt constrained.
While there is no doubt that some people feel this way–one British poll found a third of respondents supported using live ammunition against demonstrators–it is rather odd to focus on police restraint when the immediate context of the uprisings concerns police brutality. The protests started after police killed Mark Duggan in Tottenham last Thursday. Early, inaccurate reports suggested Duggan fired on the officers.
While some commentary is quick to point out that looting can’t possibly be connected to one police killing, there is a far bigger problem here. As you might expect, independent media are covering this better than the corporate media. From a Democracy Now! interview (8/10/11) with London blogger Richard Seymour:
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask Richard Seymour about one of the pieces in the Guardian written by Caroline Davies, who says, “A total of 333 people have died in or following police custody over the past 11 years, but no officer has ever been successfully prosecuted.” That’s according to the government; it’s according to a watchdog report. “‘Prosecutions were recommended against 13 officers based on ‘relatively strong evidence of misconduct or neglect,’ but none resulted in a guilty verdict.” This is quite remarkable. Three hundred thirty-three people have died in or following police custody over the last 11 years? This is more than two people a month over the last more than decade. Can you talk about the significance of this, Richard?
RICHARD SEYMOUR: Yeah. I mean, first of all, there has been, over the last generation or so, some efforts to overcome the antagonisms between the police and black communities in Britain, but that didn’t, obviously, get rid of institutional racism. Institutional racism was acknowledged in the outcome of the Lawrence Inquiry, but the steps undertaken to deal with it were obviously inadequate. And the result of that has been that there has been a disproportionate amount of stop-and-search of young black men, a disproportionate amount of harassment and violence, and, of course, as you mentioned, deaths in police custody.
But it’s worth mentioning that it’s not just deaths in police custody. There have been a number of recent notorious deaths outside of police custody, including that of Ian Tomlinson at a G20 protest, and including that of the artist Smiley Culture, who, they said, stabbed himself in the kitchen while police were visiting with him to discuss allegations of drugs. And I donâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢t think anybody really believes that, but there were peaceful protests in response to that, quite large protests by the local community. And to be honest, they were largely–in fact, completely–ignored by the media. They were a very important democratic moment, but just completely ignored.
And that puts these riots in an interesting light, because when one of the young people was asked by a reporter, “Do you really think the rioting is the right way to go about getting what you want?” he said, “Yes, because if we weren’t rioting, you wouldn’t be talking to us.” A political establishment, a media, and a state system that gives people that impression, that gives people the impression that they won’t be listened to unless they force themselves onto your attention, is going to lead to riots.
That kind of analysis stands in stark contrast to a New York Times story today that explores anti-police resentment in minority communities:
The broader question, though, is this: How did a national institution once held in esteem, or at least respect, by many Britons–“bobbies on the beat” to an earlier generation–become a force of such contention, even as, in recent years, it has taken credit for shielding the country from an array of terrorist plots?
The Times adds that “in recent years the force, overwhelmingly white, has faced accusations of racism, brutality and incompetence that it has struggled to shake off.” Of course, accusations that are true are bound to be are hard to “shake off.”
An ABC World News report (8/10/11) introduced by Diane Sawyer asked a similar question that’s bothering many reporters.
And now, overseas to those riots in England. And a question we had today, where are the British parents as their young people run wild in the streets of London and other cities?
The piece that followed showed correspondent Lama Hasan asking rioting teens why they it was happening. One says, ” We’re just showing the rich people we can do what we want.” Another says: ” The problem is there ain’t enough opportunities for people out here…. People’s lives are like a dead end.”
It sounds like parental authority might not be the most important factor. But if you’re going to ask these kinds of questions, then by all means: Over 300 people have died in police custody. What went wrong with the parents of those officers?
How appropriate that Yank coverage of this would mirror a British author’s world of the absurd – namely, Lewis Carroll’s land on the other side of the looking-glass.
And if I may appropriate an allusion from same …
When contemplating the character of the corpress, one must always
“Beware the Jabberwock”
It’s been a heaven-sent opportunity for the American MSM because, of course, it takes the proles’ minds off their own country’s circling of the drain.
And without exception they all refer to “London” as if it was a cohesive entity consisting of three thatched-toof cottages and a tavern. Greater London covers an area in excess of 600 squae miles, and Central London, which is where things happen and the tourists go, was completely unaffected by these mindless yobs looking for free stuff.
It’s true that all this kicked off after the shooting of Mark Duggan, who armed police regarded as a person of interest for Operation Trident, the task force of the Metropolitan Police which deals with black-on-black crime. What happened then was a series of riots and looting, most of it opportunistic and lef by troublemakers of all colours and demographics, from a teacher and a social worker to druggies and the unemployed.
The police were put on the back foot because of the constraints put on them politically. In a situation where they were heavily outnumbered in places it would have been utter folly to have engaged these people aggressively.
Had this happened in the USA, of course, the streets would have been littered with bodies.
Please excuse the typos. I too am working under pressure.
And this kind of note, FAIR, is why we love you so much.
Just because black people are more frequently arrested or stopped by the police doesn’t mean there is “institutional racismâ┚¬Ã‚Â. It can be that, for whatever reasons, more black people are into drugs and gangs.
Just because there are cases of police abuse doesn’t mean ALL policemen are bad or corrupt. And the police have to make use of force to stop gangs from looting and pillaging. There is no other way to stop them.
Finally, I disagree with the idea that these vandals can be considered victims of society. Even if they were all poor -which is not true since many of whom had expensive Blackberry phones, which are by no means basic goods- but even if we took that argument, poverty does not justify such degree of violence. They were harming working people, innocent people. We should sympathize with the victims, not with the aggressors. Those gangs have the same capacity for moral choice as everybody else. They can discern right from wrong. They knew that they were doing wrong. But they just didn’t care because they thought that nothing would happen to them. It’s just envy and resentment, which turn men into beasts. â┚¬Ã…“Kill the richâ┚¬Ã‚ is always the perfect excuse to vent one’s anger and frustration. It’s the perfect excuse for not seeing our own flaws. There is an excess of tolerance. No, we can’t let them.
So is more poison the cure for a poisoning?
Will more imposed austerity for poor people remedy the poverty created by imposed austerity?
Will more violent repression remedy the social ills brought on by violent repression?
These seem to be thoughts of a drunk; drunks say that strong drink will relieve a hangover. Who else could believe that what is learned from being a drunk is so widely applicable to problems in the political economy?
In total agreement with Luis’s comment.
As a person who works long hours and budgets like crazy to make ends meet I certainly do not want the police to show more restraint against thugs who vandalise. If asked the question if I would like the police to use all in their power to protect the likes of me and mine, my local shops and shopowners (who work long hours and have pride in their businesses) I would say a resounding YES. Here in Australia the police use guns and stun guns – they don’t mess around with rubber truncheons, and yes there have been deaths. These deaths are usually Aboriginal men. It is not right, it is abhorrent. However, the Aboriginees – who have much to complain about do not take to the streets and damage, kill and wound innocent people. They have too much pride and respect – which is what is lacking in the thugs seen on the streets of London.
Police here in Australia can stop people whenever they feel like it ( my own son was stopped and questioned about a year ago. We’re white by the way,). He didn’t feel humiliated or angry and nor did I.
Like Teachers the Police will always be blamed for those in society who go off the rails.
To those who call for unshackling the police, let’s imagine that the police were preying on our community, that our fathers, sons, and brothers were dying in police at a rate of two a day and then an unarmed man in our community was shot down and the police said he was responsible. Meanwhile nothing is done to ameliorate the situation and instead the politicians blame us for everything and then cut back what support we get in society. If the children in my community lashed out in anger in the circumstances, I think I would not condone it but I might understand it and I might hold the police and the politicians as being more responsible.
Yeah, ‘luis’, in a twisted way there IS an excess of ‘tolerance’ – – – tolerance of the 333 deaths of people in recent police custody certainly DOES sound excessive! Also, I re-read Peter Hart’s article and the linked Caroline Davies article and did NOT find any reference to “… ALL policemen are bad or corrupt”, nor would a careful reader infer that from these articles. The articles are essentially saying that these are complex situations with multiple causes and a knee-jerk/simplistic response of the police to simply get more violent is not getting at the root causes. One thing that I found refreshing in the whole rioting incident WAS the virtual lack of serious injuries/deaths. As Bogwart notes above, if this had happened here in the US, it could well have lead to deaths (because the US ‘reverence for life’, except when you break a storefront window).
Debbie, you should move to the southern US, circa 1950 – – – you’d enjoy the same sort of ‘cultural policing’ that existed then. The unfortunate victims there would be blacks/Negroes, but you could still discount their existence like you do the Australian Aborigines, since they are both dark-skinned minorities subjugated by white European invasion descendants who are obviously ‘superior’ for some undefined reason. (I can’t help but wonder if you’d be singing a different tune if your son had been beaten and/or killed during his police stop [read some of the articles about deaths from excessive use of stun-guns, for instance]… would you STILL be such a big proponent of unrestrained police powers?)
tolerance by the police, they were under no leadership, and were taken completely by surprise with the intensity and depth of the insurrection. THe police act in overkill when there is one person like Duggan and use extreme force to kill. The police want to rule over and most have no sense of justice just revenge and to order like do and ask how high. Yes it is unfortunate but when you look at burning property and looting as opposed to deaths, well, the police murder on a regular basis. This violence is only the beginnning and the people will soon begin to retaliate on the true hooligans and goons, the police of the state.
I agree with Luis.Police do your jobs.Use force if necessary to arrest those breaking the law.Use lethal force if your life is threatened or anyone else’s appears to be.This is not rocket science.Mob mentality and violence can not be condoned or allowed.
In Philadelphia we are having a problem with flash mobs.From all reports they are 100% black.The reasons are really irrelevant.Cease and desist.If you threaten property you will be arrested and tried.If you threaten people you are likely to be hurt.Police and people have the right to defend themselves.Philadelphia has a lot of gun permits.These people will have every right to protect themselves or their loved ones from these deranged animals.I don’t want to hear pity for a man shot and crippled for life by a legal gun owner who weeps from his wheel chair that he only wanted to punch the guys wife and daughter in the face.Cease and desist.Police do your jobs to serve and protect.
Nearly all of the things you claim is astonishingly accurate and it makes me ponder the reason why I had not looked at this in this light previously. This article truly did turn the light on for me as far as this particular issue goes. But there is actually just one position I am not too cozy with and whilst I attempt to reconcile that with the actual main theme of the issue, allow me see just what the rest of your subscribers have to point out.Nicely done.