- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Guardian-LSE whitewash of UK summer riots shows the Left is in denial
The UK riots were a product of a social democratic entitlement culture for which theft and looting were merely the logical conclusion
Oh dear. They’re already pulling out Martin Luther King’s line about riots being “the language of the unheard.” But it’s worse. Without even the slightest sense of irony, Guardian columnist Gary Younge goes on in his piece on this year’s UK riots in Monday’s paper to add: ”Now, thanks in no small part to a study undertaken by the Guardian with the London School of Economics, we've had a chance to listen.”
It’s cringe worthy stuff. But apparently they seem to think that a sociological “study” conducted by people whose ideological prejudices dictated their conclusions in advance is a remotely serious proposition. Here’s why it isn’t, and we’ll use Younge’s piece to illustrate.
The first point, as one would expect from a stereotypically Leftist writer from a stereotypically Leftist newspaper, is about social deprivation:
“Poverty was clearly a factor. Ministry of Justice figures revealed almost two thirds (64%) of the young rioters lived in the poorest areas and 42% relied on free school meals,” says Younge.
The trouble is that it never occurs to him that the reasons why those areas are poor is because these people live in them. The wider socio-economic background in which they were all brought up, after all, was the 1990s and the first three quarters of the first decade of the 21st century.
In other words, they were brought up in one of the biggest, extended boom-times in modern British history – a time when anyone who wanted one could get a job; when wages were rising way above the rate of inflation; when opportunity was there for the taking.
While all this was happening, they, their parents, friends and practically everyone around them – hence the word “underclass” – chose to opt out and live on the largesse of a welfare state which would give you decent housing and an income without having to lift a finger.
Supplement that with some casual (or not so casual) crime and, from a material point of view, you have a perfectly viable life-style with food, drink, drugs and gadgets galore. (If these people are materially deprived, it would be helpful if someone could explain what they’re lacking beyond that latest pair of Nikes or that new look iPhone they were smashing the shop windows in for).
None of this crosses Younge’s radar, and unless he’s grossly misrepresenting the report the wider-Guardian-LSE establishment is just as clueless.
“When asked how he heard about the riots, one interviewee said he got a message on his BlackBerry saying people were "getting free stuff out and about", so he joined in,” says Younge.
Unless they stole it, how does someone so materially deprived come to own a BlackBerry? It’s the obvious question, but it’s just not asked.
Overall, the analytical shortcomings are frankly embarrassing. The report relies on the testimony of the rioters and since they’re hardly likely to blame themselves and their families let alone welfare dependency, the entitlement culture and crime we get the following sort of statements which Younge expects us to take at face value:
“The cause most often cited for the riots was poverty (86%), but unemployment (79%) and inequality (70%) featured prominently too.”
But there’s another “cause” that Younge is keen to highlight on the report’s behalf: “police brutality”.
Again, you have to be aware that the following excerpt is not intended as self-parody:
“Almost three-quarters of interviewees said they had been stopped and searched by the police in the last year; 85% said "policing" was an important or very important cause of the riots. Just 7% believed the police do a good job in their area.”
In other words, criminals don’t have a good relationship with the police and wish the police would leave them alone. Really, in terms of the report’s credibility, enough said.
In the end, there is of course a relationship between politics and economics on the one hand and crime (rioting or in other guises) on the other.
If you’ve taught significant sections of your society over decades, regardless of the wider economic backdrop at any given time, that they have a cradle-to-the-grave social guarantee you cannot be surprised if you end up radically recalibrating their expectations about life to the point that it changes the culture.
And if social-democracy has taught people that they are literally owed a living by other people and that they have no personal responsibility whatsoever, some of them are bound to wonder why they should wait for the state to take the money out of law abiding citizens’ pockets rather than simply taking it off them directly.
When you add in to the calculation the reality that most economic crime doesn’t result in being caught, and even if you are caught a first offence rarely results in a jail sentence, the outcomes are entirely predictable.
The London riots were bound to happen sooner or later. All they needed was a spark, an excuse or a little bit of encouragement.
With that in mind, here's a final, parting thought. We haven't yet told you the title of Younge's piece. He probably didn't write the headline himself, so let us be clear that we're not blaming him, just his paper. Ponder this: "Indifferent elites, poverty and police brutality – all reasons to riot in the UK".
Incitement, anyone?
Follow The Commentator on Twitter
Print
@Jeremy Poynton: Hilarious compilation. Thanks. But what about the piece's heaadline? It could certainly be read as incitiment. Where's the PCC?
The journalist Gary Younge is widely believed to have had strong links with the USSR. A venomous 'Anti-white' racist in the mould of Lee Jasper, quite frankly Mahmoud Ahmedinajad or Kim Jong-il's thoughts on the riot's causes would have more credence. Brilliant dissection and will RT to all my followers
Here's another good one from the comments over there.......
"This article is perhaps the first in a 3-parter, next week looking at the Pope's religious views and then after that at ursine defecation in forest areas?"
Feel free to correct if I'm wrong; but as I recall, the police just stood and watched for a large part of the event. How is this police brutality?
On another note, The Commentator is proving to be a fantastic resource for Neocons, even Neocons with leftish tendencies such as myself. Keep it up!
That will be the Grauniad whose editor earns more than 23 times the average wage and complains about the growing gap between rich and poor.
Which criticises tax avoidance .. and then practises itself.
That supports equality and has 9%% of its Board from Oxbridge Universities..
I don't know if anyone watched Robert Peston's programme last night, but it made the point very forcibly that Chinese people save 40-60% of their wages because there is no welfare state. Us? Those interviewed basically said " nothing" .OK it could have been a biased sample but the point is moot. These people, as you say, have been taught they have " entitlement". No, they don't. And our political leaders should have the balls to make that clear by stopping any increase in welfare payments so that in time what the state pays the feckless will be so small that they think about a) working ( those that have bothered to learn anything) OR b)doing vocational training
"But apparently they seem to think that a sociological “study” conducted by people whose ideological prejudices dictated their conclusions in advance is a remotely serious proposition."
Thank God you didn't comment on this report without having any advanced ideological prejudices of your own! Now, where's any of your evidence, I assume you've done a similar study, or is all of your proof just based on 'common sense'?
when I feel like a laugh, I go read Comment is Free over at the grauniad. Honestly you cant make up stuff that fall over funny ... and completely lacking in any sense of reality as well.
The London School Of Economics...isn't that the same one which takes money from Saif Gadaffi and then calls him a defender of democracy?
Ok, this is about a left wing paper blaming anyone else (dont understand the shock at that?).
My simple point/question/statment is this:
Where were the parents? Surely you teach your child that smashing a shop up, looting it and then setting it on fire is like, WRONG????
David Cameron might be a w***** but he was right about broken socitey and family breakdown.
@Mods if "W*****2 is offensive or unsuitable then delete the word, it wont make sense but then niether do half my post on Guidos site :-)
The majority of empirical evidence on crowd psychology and studies of riots supports that which is coming out of the Guardian/LE study. (Dr Cliff Stott and Professor Steven Reicher are two examples of authorities on the matter who have conducted such research.)
Which empirical, objective evidence can The Commentator produce to support it's editorial stance on the issue?
The majority of empirical evidence on AV voting supported the line which came out of the Guardian.
Don't you ever wonder why after all the discussions,dissertations, reports, investigations and wide reaching surveys no one ever agrees with your social-liberal conclusions?
It might be because if you only ask professional left wing academics what they think you'll only get an Islington response.
Its why the Guardian genuinely thought the AV vote was 'on a knife edge' when it was in fact the largest ever electoral defeat on any issue, ever, probably anywhere in the world.
Younge getting a good kicking from the early commenters on his piece. Yes, even on CiF, this seems to have been discerned as tosh
"Next week – “Why those b******s we burned out of their homes and livelihoods deserved it.”"
"What do we want? New JD Sports Trainers When do we want them? Now"
"Of course poverty was the cause - that's why the looters descended on food shops and ransacked them to fill their empty bellies.
Oh, hold on..."
"Interesting that if poverty played a part that it was mainly the poor with criminal records that took part.
How so? Did your research look into this or was it more convenient to find a leftist narrative and stick with it?
Most honest and impressive explanation of the riots - David Lammy (and believe me I never thought I would say that).
But, of course, Lammy's explanation raises the point of children needing fathers and many who rioted growing up without them. Definitely not an explanation allowed in Leftist circles."
and so on...