2011 UK Riots

The participation of the 2011 UK riots was noticeably young people, especially focused on by the media, reinforcing their already negative perception (Baker, 2012). After the riots, ¾ of those trialled were under 24, with ¼ of those prosecuted under 18 and only a small minority over 40 (Ball et al., 2011). Furthermore, 63% of arrests on the second night were under 21 (Rogers & Evans, 2011). Whilst it is clear that the vast majority of those who partook in the violence and looting of the 2011 riots were young, the reason for this is not clear.

The main reason people believe youth engaged in the 2011 riots was due to gangs. Through gangs, youth can gain status and respect from the older gang members who coordinate their activities to avoid getting caught themselves. This is especially prevalent where youth view gangs as the main form of authority in their neighbourhood (Harding, 2012). Generally, in gangs, there are more younger members than older members (Harding, 2012), which means their prevalence is greater, leading to more arrests. However, despite this popular belief that many of the younger arrests were due to gang participation, only 19% of arrests had gang affiliations (Harding, 2012), so this analysis is not fully complete.

Furthermore, although true that youth were the main contributors to the rioting, the media perpetuated a much worse image of young people. Stanley Cohen (1975, cited in Pearson, 2012) coined the term ‘moral panic’ – a feeling of widespread panic among the public – which Pearson (2012) has adapted to the 2011 UK riots. Pearson further explains that, historically, during a moral panic, younger people are often the target, unjustifiably garnering all the blame.  Moreover, younger people have commonly been seen as a threat to the general public (Coopoosamy, 2017). This has led to a general feeling of alienation from youth. This alienation has partly stemmed from a lack of control and discipline from parents and teachers (Durodié, 2012), creating a ‘deep moral crisis’.

Another argument for an over representation of young people in the riots is the use of technology. The messaging service Blackberry Messenger (BBM), on the mobile phone device Blackberry, was greatly used during the riots to organise different events. These phones were generally accessible and affordable (Baker, 2012), making them perfect for younger people to use. This meant youth were far more prominent in the riots as they could more easily communicate and arrange meetings. On the other hand, technology had been in abundance for many of the young people partaking in riots, with many of them growing up with technological advances. Being surrounded by so much technology can desensitise someone and make them no longer interested in it (Hall & Winlow, 2012). This can lead young people to search for a distraction from boring, everyday life, and with its lack of political agenda, the riots seemed like the perfect way to escape reality and have some fun.

Overall, young people overwhelmingly took part in the UK 2011 riots. This was due to many different factors, which all interplayed to cause this result. This was notably the role of technology and general attitudes towards youth. This, along with the perfect opportunity, caused the increase in youth participation in the UK 2011 riots.

From social media websites to online news and blogs, the increased use of digital technology over the past few decades has undoubtedly become a normal aspect of everyday life. Even in 2011, millions of people worldwide relied on digital technologies each day, with social media being a main point of discussion during the 2011 UK riots and their aftermath.

One main contributor to the organisation and the ultimate eruption of the riots appeared to be BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), along with Twitter, whereby information on where riots were and what police were doing could be shared at the click of a button, according to Ball and Brown (2011). BBM was a free, popular service exclusive to BlackBerry phones and one that made the brand sought-after by rioters due to its security, messages being private and encrypted, unlike tweets on Twitter, for example, which are usually public (Ball and Brown, 2011).

In a study conducted by Morrell et al. (2011) concerning the riots and the involvement of young people, it is outlined how they found out about the riots. They highlighted the importance of receiving information through social media, and how these platforms played a part in shaping involvement. They also placed emphasis on the role of BBM in ‘telling them and others “what was happening and where to go next”’. Examples of BBM messages shared during the riots, as outlined by Ball and Brown (2011), include, ‘Just got the word that boys are making way to #croydon, make it happen boys! Burn the place to the ground #Lewisham #Hackney #londonriots’ and ‘H.U.D riot tonight kingsgate at 12 . Be there … SPREAD THE WORD.’

A number of politicians have consolidated and advanced the suggestions that social networking had a role to play in causing the riots. Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, said, ‘Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media’ (Halliday for The Guardian, 2011). The former British Home Secretary, Theresa May, also delivered a speech to the House of Commons following the riots, and claimed that social media was used during the riots to ‘coordinate criminality and stay one step ahead of the police’ (The Home Office, 2011). In other words, their claim was that the riots were caused solely by social media.

Despite the view that social media was at the centre of the unrest, research funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) analysed over 2 million tweets over the period that the riots took place. The results found that there was “no evidence” to suggest Twitter incited the riots. Professor Rob Proctor, who led the study, stated that whilst politicians were quick to point the blame at social media, “our study found no evidence of significance in the available data that would justify such a course of action”. Likewise, Freddie Benjamin, a research manager at Mobile Youth, told BBC News that once one person starts posting to BBM or twitter, more people try to follow the trend. He claims that they might not join the actual event, but they might talk about it which makes it seem like they are taking part (Mackenzie, 2011).

Whilst it can be said that social media did not necessarily trigger involvement, there is no doubt that it sped up the exchange of information relating to the riots, and played a part, albeit minor, in increasing the chances of rioters getting involved (Morrell et al., 2011). Ultimately, it is humans rebelling against issues in society who orchestrate unrest and revolutions, rather than technology. 

Bibliography

Ball, J., Brown, S. (2011) ‘Why BlackBerry Messenger was rioters’ communication method of choice’. The Guardian online. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/07/bbm-rioters-communication-method-choice [accessed on 09/03/2020].

Fuchs, C. (2012) ‘Social media, riots, and revolutions’ in Capital and Class. Vol.36, No.3, PP.383-391.

Halliday, J. (2011) ‘David Cameron considers banning suspected rioters from social media’. The Guardian online. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/aug/11/david-cameron-rioters-social-media [accessed on 11/03/2020].

Joint Information Systems Committee (2011) ‘Social media ‘not to blame’ for inciting rioters’. Available from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2011/12/riot.aspx [accessed on 11/03/2020].

Mackenzie, I. (2011) ‘Is technology to blame for the London riots?’ BBC News online. Available from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14442203 [accessed on 09/03/2020].

Morrell, G., Scott, S., McNeish, D., Webster, S. (2011) The August riots in England: Understanding the involvement of young people. National Center for Social Research. Available from https://www.dmss.co.uk/pdfs/The-August-Riots-in-England.pdf [accessed on 09/03/2020].

The Home Office (2011) Riots: Theresa May’s speech on 11 August 2011. Available online from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/riots-theresa-mays-speech-on-11-august-2011 [accessed on 11/03/2020].

The London 2011 riots as a subject is extremely controversial. Over the years, sociologists, police and politicians have offered explanations as to what sparked these riots, and their explanations frequently clashed. Overall, the role of class in the riots was prominent, as many in poverty rioted in an attempt to raise awareness of their dire situation, however, others claim that other factors were more influential, for example, opportunism, greed and excitement.

The sociologist Briggs (2012, p.27) explains that some police and political figures claimed that gangs, problemed youths and dysfunctional families were to blame as they made up the underclass, who were widely regarded as feral due to their negative stereotypes of being unemployed and living off welfare. Briggs further explains that this view of blaming the underclass was limited in reliability as the media’s representation of who participated in the riots was inaccurate and exaggerated. This view is reinforced by Tyler (2013) as their argument offers an insight into how the media focused on the underclass and portrayed them as products of their own chaos and dysfunctionality. Headlines depicted the riots as uncontrollable, claiming that the underclass are “lashing out” and called on politicians to punish the poor. These punishments came in various forms, such as welfare cuts, the introduction of “workfare” and any rioter who was caught faced personal repercussions such as themselves and their family’s evictions from local authority housing. Overall, these punishments were imposed on the most impoverished and marginalised people in society, pushing them further into poverty. The riots were allegedly sparked over public spending cuts in the first place.

In contrast, Tyler (2013) highlights how the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, claimed that the riots had nothing to do with poverty, but instead were a showcase of the feral behaviour of the underclass. For example, he claimed that those who were rioting participated in smashing windows from their local shops in order to steal TV’s and other materialistic goods, not essential things which people in immediate poverty would be interested in. However, this was challenged as some people who looted stole essentials such as nappies. On top of this, Tyler (2013) also argues that the media created a platform for people to stigmatise the rioters even further as they curated columns such as “name and shame a rioter”. This encouraged people from the same communities to give the identities of people they seen looting, which further marginalised the rioters who were mostly in poverty.

Alternative reasons other than poverty and class were given as to why the riots occurred. In a report by the International Business Times depicted that the death of a black man called Mark Duggan, shot by the police in Tottenham, sparked the riots. This enabled the riots what began as a peaceful protest in solidarity over Duggan’s death became an excuse for theft and violence. Therefore, the riots may have been a product of opportunism. In contrast to this, a report by the Evening Standard (2011) argued that it was never a protest over discriminative justice as the rioters trashed their own communities instead of going after the institutions at fault such as the police, for the death of Duggan. Additionally, youths boasted of their participation in the riots on social media from their Blackberries. This sparked inquiries into whether the riots were a wakeup call as the underclass youths followed a celebrity culture through social media instead of having a respect for the law.

In conclusion, underlying issues that come hand in hand with class and poverty were all influential, to an extent, in causing the riots. As areas in which the riots took place lacked jobs for people who left school, social exclusion and margination was influential in the frustration felt by the underclass rioters. However, it does not explain why their greed eventually meant they would loot from their own communities. Overall, other factors were just as influential as class and poverty.

Bibliography:

Briggs, D. (2012) ‘Frustrations, Urban Relations and Temptations: Contextualising the English Riots’, in Briggs, D. (ed.) The English Riots of 2011. United Kingdom: Waterside Press Ltd, pp. 27-42.

Evening Standard (2011) ‘Poverty did not cause the riots’, 24 November, p. 75. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=67441666&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 15 March 2020).

International Business Times (8AD) ‘London Riots 2011: Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood”’, International Business Times, 2011 December. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=8OGE.4268F251.A51A7669&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 17 March 2020).

Tyler, I. (2013) ‘The Riots of the Underclass?: Stigmatisation, Mediation and the Government of Poverty and Disadvantage in Neoliberal Britain’, Sociological Research Online, 18(4), pp. 25-35 [Online]. Available at: https://journals-sagepub-com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/doi/epub/10.5153/sro.3157 (Accessed: 17th March 2020).