Riots? What riots?

I recall quite vividly the riots of the 80s. They were scary. Gangs of men (not youths) night after night, day after day, engaged in pitched battles with the police. CS gas being deployed, barricades on roads, virtual curfews imposed on some boroughs. It was an attack on authority, the government, with racial tension mixed in, and with strong undertones of ideological and political divisions, back when the left was on the left, and the right on the right. Hundreds of police were injured, buildings set alight. And this went on for months across many cities. Dark days.

The "riots of 2011" as they'll no doubt be known, have also had terrible consequences - loss of life, buildings burnt, but have felt more like (and appear to have been) opportunistic theft committed in general by a few hundred young people with simple materialistic aims. They weren't out to protest, or make a political statement (and Lord knows they have plenty of easy targets ... criminal MPs; untrustworthy newspapers; greedy self-interested bankers; fat-cat CEOs) .. but no, rather than attacking any of these elements, they seemed to mainly be after a new pair of trainers, or a flat-screen TV. Way to make a point guys.

So forgive me if I've not felt like this is the end of civilization as we know it. Forgive me if it's looked like a bunch of youngsters thieving "cos they can". But that's youth for you ... okay, it's 'bad youth' for you. Of course, for every 'youth looter' there were many many more young people who didn't go looting. Society will always have its unseemly elements. That's why we have the law. That's why we punish. To deter others from following suit.

And of course, they weren't making a point. They were just out for what they could get. And maybe that's the irony, because rather than making a political statement against any of those groups I mentioned, they were simply following their lead but on a smaller scale. Hurting those same people, those same businesses, that were already suffering from an economy ravaged by rich influential people interested only in gaining more influence and wealth. Maybe these youths had found their missing role models after all, and in some ivory tower a fat CEO was tugging on a fatter Cuban, and saying "that's my boy" as the city burned.

For my part, I'm more surprised by the way in which we're discussing these riots as though we have no comprehension of what it means to be young. As though we don't know who 'youths' are. We're too keen to distance ourselves from "the youth" as though they're an alien species; forgetting that 10, 20, 30 years ago that was us. They aren't different people - just us, younger, and surely you can recall what that was like? You were often bored, felt awkward, and wanted to fit in. And had only a narrow perspective on consequences of actions, morality, and the like. But that's what being 'young' is, isn't it?  That's why the law does not punish children to the same degree it can adults. We make the distinction. We say that these young people will lack the moral perspective we attribute to adults, so feel less able to judge them against the same yardstick we hold up to the more mature. And that's why we lay the emphasis on moral propriety on the parents, the guardians, of the young. We cannot expect the young to hold the same moral values as society as a whole, and it is the job of the parents, of society, of the state, to put in place the framework through which such ethical training can be given. So let's not throw our hands up the air in horror when children act immorally - for society has already accepted that, and has mechanisms in place for it. When the children are not controlled adequately, then the guardians are responsible. That is how the law views it, and that is how we should act.

What then about those 'young adults' who retain a lack of moral perspective as they enter adulthood? Well, again, this is why penalties exist to deter unlawful behaviour. The problem of "copycat" rioting wasn't caused by inadequate police response to the initial protests in Tottenham and subsequent looting. The entire youth population of the country were not suddenly mobilised by the thought that actions were going un-punished. No. It was only a few; those who were prepared to commit crime if they thought it would go unpunished; it had no impact on those who were not committing crime already because they knew it was wrong. The apparent police inaction did not create criminals, it merely gave those with criminal intent the opportunity to act on those impulses. When we are forced to remove citizens from society due to their actions (the basis of the hypothetical imperative on which our legal system is founded) then we have to some extent already failed. A civilized society's job is to create people that do not require the threat of criminal recrimination in order to remain law-abiding; when it fails in this task, it hides its failures from sight.

It's become too easy to lose perspective when the key elements that shape your life are too remote from the experiences you've had. You forget how amazing it is that you can turn on a tap and get clean, fresh water; that you can break a leg and call for free assistance from trained medics, and get that treatment without having to pay a penny; that you can walk the streets of a night in (relative) peace and safety. It's all taken for granted. We're soft, idle, with time on our hands and ready to blame the state when there's no local social club open to entertain us; as though that's an excuse (and how many social clubs were there for youngsters in the 30s, the 40s?)  We have to fall back on the games available for free on the internet, on phones; the television; or (perish the thought) go to the free local library and read a book (yeah - there was entertainment before TV, honest).

The problem isn't that life's too hard, but that life's become to 'easy'. You won't find anyone rioting in Somalia. When your concerns lie around how you'll live until tomorrow, there's not enough time to worry about whether your smart-phone is too embarrassingly out-of-date to use in public.

We're in a society where 'what you have' is so much more important than 'what you are'. It's a trend started 30 years or more ago, and reinforced by every pointless purchase we make. Whenever we decry someone for wearing "that dress, again!?" we're doing it. Or saying "you're using an iPhone2 ?!"; as though it *matters*, as though it means something, as though it's important.

The elements that make up the issue are clear. We/society created them. And we have a way to deal with them. And that's what we're doing. So they happened. Those who are guilty will hopefully pay the price, and we'll move on. Society will change, yet roughly stay the same.

Not the end of the world. Not the end of civilization. A few people performing criminal acts in a time when moral role models are hard to come by. But we've been through worse times. So chin up, on to tomorrow and make things better one person at a time. There's no better way.

Banning Twitter? Uh-huh ... that'll work

As I type we're just emerging from what will likely be called "the Riots of 2011" in future years. There's much I could / have said but here's a quick response to the proposals to 'ban Twitter' in times when it's believed to be being used by rioters to communicate their plans.

It's a bit barmy for (at least) four reasons:

1. Why punish Twitter?

Okay, why punish Facebook or whatever? It's not the vehicle's problem, any more than it is television's issue for showing pictures of the riots. Certainly I didn't think "ooh - riots - let's go out and join in" when I saw pictures of the Tottenham unrest. So it doesn't 'incite' those who do not wish to be incited. That's as crazy as saying that violent films cause violence.

So, it's silly to ban Twitter because it's not a cause.

2. Why push communication underground?

If the rioters weren't using Twitter / Facebook then they would use their mobile phones, email, IM, whatever to communicate. In fact, it was mainly BBM that was being blamed wasn't it? But more importantly, if the messages are on Twitter they are in the public domain. We can all read it, see it, and see who is posting these messages. Isn't it better to know these things, than have them being passed around in secret where we won't be able to monitor them?  Give people the forum to express their (odd) views, then we'll know how they are thinking rather than hide it away so we won't know.  This way we can hopefully dissuade people early in their criminal careers, rather than have them silently growing in hatred and plan heinous acts for months and years.

So, better to let people have the rope to hang themselves, than withhold it from them like an over-cautious nanny.

3. It harms the innocent as well as the guilty.

A lot of police forces are using Twitter now to both monitor criminal activity, and to spread information in a timely and effective manner. At times when people are feeling anxious, withholding information will spread panic, not calm. It's better to work with the technology rather than throw your arms up in outrage at it, and insist it is removed. You can't ignore the good that comes from the positive messages being spread just because of the negative.

So, it's best to show how Twitter can work for good, rather than remove it and lose all benefits.

4. It plain won't work.

If China with an internet infrastructure controlled directly by the governing body can't block Google, then the UK are hardly going to manage the same with Twitter when they have much less control. There are many Twitter clones out there. And blocking an internet service is very hard to do. Very hard.

So, it will waste resources and fail.

---------

Just a few quick thoughts.