It's a fairly unusual (though increasingly common) situation that we find ourselves in, when anonymous and unknown commentators speak more sense than those we trust with our country, but in the aftermath (or, perhaps, midst) of the London riots it appears as though anybody with a reputation is incapable of expressing an opinion which goes any further than standard rhetoric. 'Justice' and 'mindless criminality' are the buzzwords of the hour, and though it is absolutely crucial that those with the capacity to do so condemn this violence and, indeed, mindless criminality, in the strongest possible terms, they also have a broader and frankly more important responsibility, and right now it is one that they are shirking.
As they career down the path of short-term firmness, they use the ongoing crisis as an excuse to dodge questions about the source of the unrest which has swept through London's streets. It is logical to prioritise safety and order ahead of diagnosis in this case, definitely; we should probably stop our capital city from burning before we start to survey its charred remains. And yet, the ones evading these issues are not doing so in order to liaise with the police; they have the time to take an interview on BBC News, so they should have the time to answer a question about the possible causes of what we're seeing. It's not that these people are leaving the answers until later - I can't count the number of times I've heard the phrase 'there are debates to be had' in the last couple of days - it's that every single last one of them is scared of sticking their neck out.
They're scared because of the state of politics in this country, and the state of media coverage, particularly where politics is concerned. They won't answer this question because they have a reputation to uphold and because they know that as soon as they begin to debate the reasons behind this mayhem they will be quoted and demonised and their opponents will seize the opportunity to claim that they are making excuses for the rioters. It's already happened with Ken Livingstone, and while I don't agree that the riots are a result of the cuts (they're far more deep-seated than a year's worth of economic policy) it is unfair that the media have jumped on his attempt to explore the complex issues which have led to brainless looting and violence and turned him into a sympathiser.
The problem is that on the whole we are incapable of distinguishing between an excuse and a reason, between the individual, selfish, stupid acts of each person in this mob of gang members and opportunists and the simple fact that there is a mob of them. Nothing excuses the way these people have conducted themselves and anybody convicted of theft or arson or criminal damage should be punished to the full extent that the law allows; we have to be seen to uphold our system of law and order, and that is the first priority. But adopting the attitude that these people are outliers is by this point demonstrably wrong: it is so clear that the happenings of the last few days are symptomatic of something dark. It is far more damning that nobody can point to a specific cause (ignoring the shooting of Duggan whose death is an excuse, not a reason) - it suggests a systematic failure.
These people are not outliers, and nor are they mavericks. The simple fact that they don't have banners and slogans does not stop the riots that have hit London from being a display of protest. I do not mean to imply that they are in any way reasonable; I will provide the caveat one last time that the people responsible should be jailed or punished accordingly. But it is very simple. There are two reasons why anybody does anything: firstly, because something caused them to do it (here, it is almost impossible to find such a trigger); and secondly, because nothing stopped them from doing it. It is the second of these criteria which clearly applies strongest to the smashing up of communities we are witnessing right now. Any person who is capable of destroying charity shops and family-owned businesses in the area they themselves live in does quite obviously not feel a connection to that area or its community, and whatever your political position, you cannot possibly believe that's a good thing.
What is happening here is not the random malevolence that many attribute it to: when such an unmotivated, unfounded explosion of in-fighting and released anger occurs, it is only really possible to see one answer to the question why: what we are witnessing is the last step in the collapse of the concept of community, a notion which has long been disintegrating and one which, right now, is more in need of rebirth. I would argue that these attacks are more dangerous to our livelihood than the 7/7 bombings ever were; I think they illustrate something about Britain which is very sinister indeed and, yes, Mr. Cameron... broken.
