Monday, 8 August 2011

Panic on the Streets of Tottenham - Enfield, Brixton, Walthamstow - I Wonder to Myself...

Violence, looting, buses and cars on fire, petrol bombs being launched at patrol cars - while what has happened between Friday and Sunday in North London is relatively small fry when compared to the riots of the 1980s, it has still left a permanent black mark on the lives of many whose homes or places of business have been destroyed.

Of course my heart goes out to them, and if I hear one more Statist commentator explaining how this is all a product of 'deprivation and isolation' then I swear I'll do an Elvis and shoot the television screen. Are these people seriously suggesting that it was need that drove thieves to break into Halfords and pinch themselves a mountain bike? Or smash their way into a sports shop and pick up some free trainers? This really was the revenge of chav Britain, against the mistreatment dished out to them by who or what, I really don't know. The one thing of which this bunny can be almost certain is that Mark Duggan was stratospheres from their rather empty minds when they took to the streets and shops, while some appeared intent on torching anything with wheels.

Insomnia left me listening to the BBC Five Live phone-in during the early hours of the morning. One of the better callers was a well-informed gent who originally hailed from Moss Side and therefore had some personal experience with this sort of thing. His solution centred around the police and 'influential members of the community' sitting down and establishing some sort of harmony again. On the surface this is entirely sensible since policing by consent is the only form of law enforcement that most of us will put up with for very long. The question that nobody posed and so was left unanswered is:- how do you police by consent where the 'influential members of the community' are largely made up of criminals? One suspects that the only honest answer to this question is - you can't, and some swift and effective action is needed at least until the area is back in the hands of its well-meaning citizens.

One of the other great 'explanations' for the idiocy of Friday through Sunday is that "this is what happens when people feel detached from their communities", as if the closure of a youth club or dreaded 'government cuts' have caused naturally law-abiding people to snap. The reality was exposed by another caller to this radio show who claimed that he'd seen murders go ignored and unreported in the part of London where he lived. Some may not believe it, probably because it means confronting a wider problem, namely that many of these communities are policed not by law enforcement working in consent with the law-abiding, but by the criminals themselves.

Faced with the choice, which arrangement are those of less than benign intent more likely to go for? Naturally, one of the rules of gang culture is that 'grassing' and the involvement of the police in turf disputes is not permitted. In my favourite book on the subject, 'Gang War' by Peter Walsh, one of the later chapters details the efforts of Mancunian villain Ken Keating to keep the policing of local crime in-house by patrolling the area in a van marked 'GRASSWATCH'. Quite hilariously, the scumbag then has to endure the 'heartbreak' of discovering that his son, Sean, has turned rat and become a police informant. This was later captured in a Channel 4 documentary, with excepts used by Bob Mills in a particularly brilliant edition of his 'In Bed With MeDinner' programme - first person to say 'Shameless' wins a coconut.

The serious point of course is that rather than being 'detached' from their communities or victims of 'deprivation', many of those who operate in such gangs make a conscious choice to rule them by fear from a distance. The Met in particular may be something of a toxic brand these days following the blunders of the last few years and I don't go in for Anna Raccoon's blanket statement that law enforcement 'deserves our support' - No individual or group is worthy of blind faith or obedience regardless of their actions or performance, and so the challenge is for the police, in partnership with law-abiding local people, to reclaim the streets of our cities from gangs.

This does not mean 'zero tolerance' policing, but a clear and proportionate application of the law, with no concessions made to 'cultural differences' or any attempt to 'understand' the local criminal element. Only then can we eradicate the theft, violence, disorder and panic that they cause. Take care and I'll catch you tomorrow.


  1. A geezer got shot so I nicked a plasma telly innit.

    Democracy is rule by the mob. If you are not concerned you are not paying attention.

  2. Anarchy is just like libertarianism really, I'm just gonna go and liberate a pair of Nike trainers.

    Anarchy ! coming to a town near you, get used to it!

    That Teresa May don't know what the f*ck she's on about. Nobody's gonna catch me innit!

  3. Don't be such a bleeding heart and grab yerself some goodies!

  4. Eric Poupart Lafarge9 August 2011 at 16:08

    Just bagged myself a new suit from M&S in Croyden. I didn't have time to try it on with all the commotion. Do you think their normal 28 day returns policy will still apply?

  5. I am a Libertarian. Couldn't be much further from an anarchist (or a looter).

    Simple laws rigorously enforced. Property respected, not destroyed by rioters nor stolen by looters and the state.

  6. And who enforces the laws? The state of course!
    You lot want it both ways. You want the protection of the state, but you don't want to pay for it. You want your freedom protected but not other peoples.

    Either cosy up with the establishment, or live outside of it like me.

    Have you ever wondered why none of the major parties, be they left, right or centre, cater for your political aims- because they are completely unworkable. The problem that the major parties have is that they are likely to be elected from time to time and have to have policies that work even though they might be unpopular to some people and feel like an infringement of their liberties.

    Thats why the real choice is to either stop whinging and accept the mainstream. Or take to the streets. This has been brewing for a long time.

    Law is made on the streets, not in parliament, in much of the world. This is the case even in a developed country like France.

    In this country politicians are corrupt (expenses scandal), big corporations are corrupt (tax avoidance on a huge scale, legal, but hardly ethical)the media is corrupt (phone hacking) the police are corrupt (selling stories to the media) I could go on and on. The millionaires who run this country don't care about them so why should the so called "chavs" not help themselves when they get the chance. The bankers are the biggest looters, why shouldn't the chavs have a go.

    By the way I can get you a nice Addidas tracksuit if you let me know your size. You look like an XXL from your photograph.

  7. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because others are corrupt, that does not make your criminality legitimate.

  8. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

  9. It's different when it's people rioting in Egypt or in Libya, then its the Arab Spring, well this is the Chav Spring!

    We are fighting back against people who think they are more classy, more intelligent and more importantly more stylish.

  10. I support the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many other places who are sacrificing their lives to try to achieve freedom. Their struggle has nothing in common with the thieves and wreckers who are destroying lives and businesses in English cities over the last few few days. The rioters are a bunch of shits with no motive other then personal greed and the wish to join violent gang idols who have no merit other thans their ability to induce terror.

  11. So you agree with anarchy if the ends justify the means.

    Well the people in the middle east want freedom so they are rioting.

    The people on Pekham want sportswear so they are rioting, what's the difference?

    Since the riots have started we have people with your view saying its just opportunists causing chaos for a bit of fun and to fuel personal greed. On the other hand there are a few voices on the left saying its due to unemployement, people being disaffected no opportunities etc. The truth of course is never that polarised. I agree with the first argument of course. But the alternative argument holds some water because this never happens when things are going well!

    During the boom years the underclass, the unemployed, stupid, lazy, feckless etc, were just ignored and forgotten about. Forced off Job Seekers allowance and pushed on to incapacity benefit to massage the unemployment figures. Nobody really cared. As the rich got richer and the comfortable became more comfortable. More foreign holidays, bigger houses, bigger cars, more cars new experiences. Everyone started to take on middle class values. The uneducated and low skilled were no longer needed, plenty of well educated and motivated eastern europeans willing to take jobs well below their capabilities.

    Then crash! It all goes wrong! The people who have been living beyond their means for far too long find out the party is over. We are in the shit. We have got to tighten our belts and we can't afford to subsidise the chavs anymore. It's not enough for them to appear on Jeremy Kyle so we can laugh at them, with their tracksuits and cheap bling,silly trainers and baseball caps. Now they have to contribute. But how? If they couldn't contribute when there were jobs to fill how the hell are they going to contribute now? Well don't worry about that, just cut their benefits, they don't deserve them! Oh and by the way lets cut the top rate of income tax. We don't want the rich suffering.

    I rest my case, which of course is fake Louis Vitton.