It is no surprise that there continues to be a plethora of violence emerging from today’s youth. The London riots, which occurred only five years ago, were the actions that brought Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange, where youth gangs ravage the city, to life. In his article, Burgess accurately predicts a time in England when teenagers will be in control. Attempting to justify these unexplainable events, Jonathon Foreman wrote “London Aflame,” where rioters in London defy authority and act in anarchy. By showing us the events of the riots, as well as, why they lasted so long – due to the teenager’s violence and lack of police force – readers begin to get a clearer picture as to why these teenagers decided to loot London. Beginning August
…show more content…
According to Foreman, “there is a much more savage, bullying edge to this looting and vandalism.” This is primarily because they were accustomed to more extreme violence and rule over the streets. Teenagers, and most people in general, are used to seeing more extreme violence, whether in movies, video games, or even just the news. Over the years, extreme violence has become much more normal to society and is now translating into actions. The teenagers are also more accustomed to being given free run of the streets, primarily because Britain recently adopted a hands-off approach to violence. This technique was also tried in the United States in the 1970’s, but because it turned out so disastrously, they abandoned it in the early 1990’s. Although the media said that these riots were a result of public-sector cuts and unemployment, it is unclear what the true cause was because they were not very adamant about destroying workplaces. Rather than showing anger, the teenagers’ “mood seemed exuberant and excited-not unlike that of the students and sports fans who have realty rioted in North American cities after the local team wins or loses a major game.” Foreman seems to infer that he believes the teenagers did this because most military age men just seem to enjoy disorder and …show more content…
The Cameron government had cut budgets for police in order to increase the money in other areas they found more important, and as a result there were fewer police to go around and cease the riots. It wasn’t just the number of police that was a problem, for; “London’s Metropolitan Police was doing its feeble best considering its inadequate equipment, training, and public order doctrine, not to mention its poor leadership by politically correct apparatchiks.” In other words, they went into the fight unprepared. The police’s ideology also plays a big part in the ways in which they attempted to subdue the riot. Home secretary Theresa May stated, “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.” What they seemed to forget though, is that if you subdue a riot (and it will most likely take serious force) at the beginning, it saves time, effort, and lives. Apparently, they are trying a hands-off approach so that they do not end up like the French police who are extremely aggressive. Although the French may be too harsh at times, a hands-off approach does not work either; for it gives looters the upper hand as well as not inspiring many of the public to help stop them. That brings up a final problem, which is that the public was generally not willing to chase away looters any
According to Foreman, “there is a much more savage, bullying edge to this looting and vandalism.” This is primarily because they were accustomed to more extreme violence and rule over the streets. Teenagers, and most people in general, are used to seeing more extreme violence, whether in movies, video games, or even just the news. Over the years, extreme violence has become much more normal to society and is now translating into actions. The teenagers are also more accustomed to being given free run of the streets, primarily because Britain recently adopted a hands-off approach to violence. This technique was also tried in the United States in the 1970’s, but because it turned out so disastrously, they abandoned it in the early 1990’s. Although the media said that these riots were a result of public-sector cuts and unemployment, it is unclear what the true cause was because they were not very adamant about destroying workplaces. Rather than showing anger, the teenagers’ “mood seemed exuberant and excited-not unlike that of the students and sports fans who have realty rioted in North American cities after the local team wins or loses a major game.” Foreman seems to infer that he believes the teenagers did this because most military age men just seem to enjoy disorder and …show more content…
The Cameron government had cut budgets for police in order to increase the money in other areas they found more important, and as a result there were fewer police to go around and cease the riots. It wasn’t just the number of police that was a problem, for; “London’s Metropolitan Police was doing its feeble best considering its inadequate equipment, training, and public order doctrine, not to mention its poor leadership by politically correct apparatchiks.” In other words, they went into the fight unprepared. The police’s ideology also plays a big part in the ways in which they attempted to subdue the riot. Home secretary Theresa May stated, “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.” What they seemed to forget though, is that if you subdue a riot (and it will most likely take serious force) at the beginning, it saves time, effort, and lives. Apparently, they are trying a hands-off approach so that they do not end up like the French police who are extremely aggressive. Although the French may be too harsh at times, a hands-off approach does not work either; for it gives looters the upper hand as well as not inspiring many of the public to help stop them. That brings up a final problem, which is that the public was generally not willing to chase away looters any