bridge too far

That's ringing some bells, I think TDD. Herd following too, I bet. But why? Why did he need to do that to get 'the buzz'? That's what I've been trying to understand.

^^^ Great post (by Pap, that is)

Dead right - I forgot that some people attribute statements and attitudes to others that they haven't made. Silly me!

Woo hoo! I've just had a reply from 'a journalist' to whom I sent 'the link' last week, as follows: Thanks very much for this. Yes, these proceedings cannot be reported at the moment, but this is very useful and interesting, so I'd be very grateful if you would keep me in touch with it as you get more. with best wishes

I'm not aware of one single poster on here attempting to excuse what's happening. A few are simply trying to understand why its happening. Nought wrong with that.

Since I never said that at all, you're just showing your own ignorance there.

But, with respect, and without knowing how old you are - things have moved on. Way back, materialism was nowhere as rife as it is now. And people were judged on what they were like rather than what they had. In no way does this excuse the mob violence - I'm as appalled as everyone else on here. But I do ask myself, when did this obsession with possesion begin? Where did it come from? Is it all tied in with obsession with 'celebrity'? Does this country now rate fame and fortune as more important than hard work and honesty? Do young people look at some of their elders as good role models when some of those grown-ups sacrifice all integrity in the pursuit of money and fame? I don't know the answers but I'm prepared to try to understand underlying reasons if I can. That's why I'm asking questions. A head in the sand attitude helps no-one and only stores up trouble for the future.

I haven't spoken of any estates.

No - it's not. Did you notice the ? at the end of that bit? Just offering it up as a possibility. But if my grandchildren want fun, their parents can afford to take them swimming, to Center Parcs, to football coaching courses (although by no means are their parents rich - far from it - but they are working and just about managing). That's what I mean about buying fun.

Hey - clever comment there TDD I've just googled 'Mark Duggan execution', gone through about 7 pages and the only reference I can find to 'execution' is a statement from the IPCC denying that he was killed 'execution style'.

Because they can afford to buy fun in other ways? However: "in 2005, following damage to a 15th century pub in Oxfordshire during a dinner, four members of the party were arrested; the incident was widely reported.[16] A further dinner was reported in 2010 after damage to a country house" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club Small beer, in the scheme of things, I know.

And you know this how, exactly? Do you have a link to this statement?

Even I know that the trend is to wear plimsoll-like shoes without laces

I agree with you. It's copy-cat, mobbing, bundling...... But why? I would never have done something like this, and I bet you wouldn't either. So why do they? Why do groups of youths (usually, although I did spot a fat, middle-aged man running off with something up his top on the news last night) feel the need to behave like this? Are they bored? Do they have no role models? Or do they think that if others can get away with it, then they'll give it a go. Youths hunt in packs, regardless of their colour or status. It's always been that way - not as extreme as this but, as you point out, information is more readily available these days. Which is why I referred, ages ago, to football fights, Teddy Boys, Spivs, Mods and Rockers and the Bullingdon club. Young (men generally) have always been in 'gangs' to destroy stuff.

Jackanory - at no time, anywhere, have I defended what's happened. I'm simply trying to understand why people behave like this. If we don't try to understand, we'll never sort the problems. As for your remark "Never seen a banker, MP, Journo or copper throwing bricks, torching cars, smashing front doors through to residential homes or looting personally?", living in the leafy home counties I can tell you that I've seen disaffected, bored white middle class youngsters doing just this. They're sometimes given the label 'Hooray Henrys'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club (read the paragraph 'Reputation') But before you start thinking 'oh she doesn't know what the real world's like', I can tell you that I've lived in inner London, I have friends and family living in inner London and I have a very good friend serving with the Met whose safety I'm really concerned about. I'm really sorry that you don't understand that crimes against society are just that. The argument could be put that the mobsters see the upper echelons of society behaving illegally or immorally and think 'I'll have some of that'.

Did we have 'political correctness' at the time of the Brixton riots or the Tottenham riots of the 80s?

All are crimes against society. Be it rioting and looting / thieving by mobs or thieving by MPs with their expenses, being rewarded for failure (bankers), taking part in illegal practices (tabloids) or taking back-handers (police). They're all crimes that affect us all in one way or another and make us disillusioned and angry.

At the 'top' as well as at the 'bottom' of society. But the ones at the top don't get such a bad press - indeed some of them are even praised !

SaintBletch - that's a powerful post and I, for one, applaud you for putting it so succinctly.

So you read it twice and still didn't understand that I said (to paraphrase) that youth violence is almost like a rite of passage' (I spelt rite wrong, if you get my drift). I WAS NOT suggesting that these dreadful goings-on are! I was pointing out that mob violence has been going on for years and will probably continue to do so. So read my comment for a third time and you just might understand what I was saying.

Oh yeah

It's not really anything new though, is it. Crikey, I'm old enough to remember the mods and rockers and (just about) teddy boys. Then there were the spivs before that. There have always been, and always will be, groups of youths who will fight and cause mayhem for the sheer hell of it. It's not right but it's almost like it's a right of passage.

Thought provoking article.

Which is what I've said on at least 3 occasions! See that TDD? That's why you've heard that other areas might kick off too. They're kids, climbing on a bandwagon. A bit like fights kicking off after football matches; mindless lemming-like behaviour.

Very senior police officer just been on the news saying that the family should have had its questions answered by a senior officer / IPCC sooner. I realise that the IPCC can't respond immediately, because a lot of forensics would have to be carried out but all it needed was someone senior to talk to the family to explain what was happening, and what had to happen. Had someone done that, instead of ignoring the family for nearly 48 hours, maybe a lot of this would have been averted. I don't think the Guardian is 'anti police'. It IS against police officers who are racist or crooked as are most normal people. What it does do is report on situations more accurately and in an unbiased way, unlike the usual knee-jerk screaming banner headlines of the likes of the Mail. Incidentally, although the 'riots' in Hackney were probably not caused by this, it transpires that some tensions arose due to a stop and search. I still think the 'rioters' are bored, disaffected (probably) teenagers who see the opportunity to do a bit of thieving.