Britain Burning: Cause and Consequence

With a certain apprehension, I write from just outside Manchester City Centre as the riots that have spread widely across the country are mounting for a fourth night of action: today, the first in which my city has been involved.

London and the rest of the UK are now under siege from within. Personal vendettas and localised looting is dominating cities nationwide with subsequent apparent anarchy. What began as an isolated incident in a London suburb on Saturday night (6/08/2011), has quickly and ferociously developed into the most diabolical scenes of rioting witnessed in this country in some decades. 

Trouble in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool has been labelled ‘copycat’ behaviour, following the unparalleled waves of violence seen in London boroughs. The catalyst for this widespread outpouring of feeling was the shooting of one Mark Duggan. Whether one describes the actions as disaffected or a fuelled release of pent up frustration, there can be no apologies for the violence which has been directed at innocent members of the public, small business owners, and other people doing their daily business who now are incapacitated in some form.

Peaceful protests provide persons with an ample forum in which to highlight and showcase their grief and issues with public administrations. In general, they help in not only quelling dramatic attacks, but reflect nationwide sentiments that can be taken into account. Therefore, the march in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon was an event with justified merit that was later tarnished by mere opportunists and vandals. 

However, we need closer analyse underlying unrest that has plagued both the capital and certain national suburbs over the immediate period prior to these disasters. In Tottenham, the original focus of the violence, residents were becoming increasingly begrudging of police stop and search actions that are reported to have been widely unjustified and yielded few results for public safety. With the mounting power abuse that the police actioned in the surrounding areas, there became a unilateral belief that the scaremongering tactics were introduced to reduce crime and yet had intruded on lives to such an extent that police were subject of ridicule.

Of course, continual mistreatment and suspicion of youths in the past has led to a mounting air of mistrust that has featured predominantly as the violence has spread. In blaming a great deal of social problems as rising solely from those of young adult status, the support of those under-25 is understandable, even if not condonable. 

Moreover, Tottenham is an area that suffers rife unemployment. Together with later targeted Lewisham and Peckham (which were featured in a recent newspaper editorial as amongst the top 25 areas in the country for people out of work), onlookers are able to establish that the dissatisfaction is also fed off both lack of job prospects and the subsequent idle and sedentary lifestyle that comes hand in hand. Sparking of other social injustice only provided a platform for this plethora of misfortunes to manifest in physical outbursts.

In addition, spending and budget cuts amidst global recession, Eurozone crises and worldwide credit down-gradings only adds to the country’s financial woes. The widespread effects are that as well as unemployment, local facilities and amenities shut down so there are further disruptions and lack of distractions in daily life. Ironically, for all the attacks, no one has launched a mounted assault on big businesses at Canary Wharf. 

More to the point, the number of destroyed independent businesses is completely inexcusable: almost as if vengeance for those few in the area who were struggling with small enterprise pressures already. Two teenage girls speaking to a BBC reporter this morning said that “This is to show the rich that we can do what we want.” However, there appears no distinction between the rich and those who have private, small businesses that do not make the mega-buck revenue of which the girls naively spoke. 

Reverse dichotomy: this is certainly not the image of the Big Society that Cameron had in mind.

Although the public are being heard, this is no way to reverse any standing belief of disenfranchisement: but rather provides reason that tighter measures need be in force to govern the public. 

Army drafting, water cannons, tear gas, Tasers. Over the past 72 hours, there has been a great deal of social debate as to how the country’s management should proceed in order to restore order and maintain livelihoods for the majority. Options are many and certainly diverse.

However, it is not so much dealing with the immediate onslaught as the subsequent aftermath. Perhaps one of the poignant comments after pictures from London fires have been circulated was that “it looks as though London has been bombed, in a war”. Irrevocable damage has been incurred and the mounting costs are certainly a serious issue and concern for all involved. 

Already a country dealing with daily money misery, the cost of the cleanup will cause national taxes to be increased. The unprecedented need for extra dependence on the emergency services will rise the amount of money needed to be paid to the state. Stockbrokers will invest less as millions is wiped off those businesses who are unable to deal with the continued clashes, whilst insurance prices will rise in supposedly troubled cities, such as those aforementioned.

In an already struggling economy, the sense of any such riots is lost (if, for that matter, it existed in the first place). Despite this entry having acceded money issues as facilitating events while they were first brought before the public, there is only a continual problem in our nationals thus wasting their own money in the long run: ergo constructing a continuum of debt generation.

Taking a different slant, government officials convening emergency Cobra meetings and recalling parliament will for a long time yet have an image of an unruly mob in their mind when putting forward any changes to country legislation. While some may argue that it is government action which has caused unrest, these scenes have only served to further widen the divide in trust between those in Westminster and their citizens: tougher rule would appear a more democratic action in the interests of the majority.

Information released just today details that the bullet found wedged into a police officer’s radio, at the scene where Duggan was shot on Thursday, was in fact police issue. The most recent statement at this time is that there is no evidence of the victim having shot at the met. Since violence had pre-empted such a finding, there is no sense how this may yet effect the public feel towards the riots. Yet, this is also a crucial piece of information regarding how police will be viewed within their constituencies: little trust being honoured with unjustified action.

But more than these monetary and bureau escapades, the real consequence will be a loss of public sentiment and compassion, especially toward youths (as earlier mentioned, blanket punished). Living with the shells of buildings and lost businesses haunting high streets across the country will always conjur images of a week where citizens, in “a moment of madness” according to lawyers convening in courts today, simply took to wanton destruction to prove a public power without direction or motive. 

What began as a moving and socially meaningful demonstration, now a marred public effigy to anarchy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We Lost Our Way": A Media Blame Game

Current climates suggest that it would be a difficult time to join my desired profession. Already being a domain of decline since the advent of internet and the more recent economic recession, the industry has taken a huge blow of late that shows no relent. The continuing saga of the phone hacking scandal, subsequent closure of ‘The News of the World’ (one of Britain’s most widely distributed and read papers) as well as the forced withdrawal of the Murdoch BskyB takeover plans leaves a rather precarious sphere, where press is continually scrutinised for more proof of these events.

“Simply, we lost our way” read the final editorial statement from News of the World, whose last edition circulated on 10 July 2011. The sentiment is deeply interesting: whilst the actions of the paper were undoubtedly grossly misjudged in their event, the conception of such tactics is grounded in a much more logical problem: worldwide newspaper readership is declining in favour of other mediums. Simply, the paper lost its way amongst a conglomerate of internet sites affording more up-to-date stories.

Moreover, there has been established a universal scandal dichotomy. Public interest is skewed so as the vast majority want to read cutting edge stories: scandals, new information, no matter whose privacy is taken away. Originally a specialist niche of the gossip column, tabloid news now has to cater for a population who want to have hidden secrets uncovered; the resultant number of injured parties reads like a dictionary of showbiz. Now add NotW to the collateral damage, for in its mission to bring the public an ever more reliable service, it ventured to extremes that the readership secretly covets, yet was stung by the social etiquette by which we are openly governed.

As such, the public, as well as those involved at News of the World, lost their way and are equally as culpable in the continued and relentless invasion of privacy which papers are expected to carry out.

Consequently, the media domain is under a watchful eye that is all too reminiscent of a certain George Orwell novel (ironically the aforementioned author was quoted in the final edition of the News of the World). The arrests of several members of the staff team are merely scapegoat routines: in order for a prolonged change, there need be a revolution in our consumption of the news. Whilst it is all too tempting to lay full blame on figures such as former editor in chief Rebekah Brooks, a fully functioning news room works on an independent and free flowing nature: in order to achieve maximum output, not every journalist can (or should be expected to) pitch, write and have each idea checked for concrete backup. The sphere of reported news would slow to a pace not considered acceptable since the railroad revolution. 

Extended ripples have meant the withdrawal of the BskyB bid. Indeed, the event is exemplary of how fragile any industry is to a cynical nation without faith in a product. A takeover that was once considered a fundamental step in the unity of Murdoch’s media empire is now the bane of social contempt. Yet, for all the furore, the planned purchase of the group was quite the separate entity and completely unrelated to the media scandal. Ergo, public demands for scandal comes full circle, so crippling an industry that functions based on their personal whims.

However, there remain serious lessons to be learnt. The hacking and various attacks, slanders and invasions should not have been allowed to continue for such an extended period. Individual journalists should be using legitimate and trustworthy sources and methods. This is both a business of freedom of information and data protection as is conversely necessary. From the ashes of a floundering news system, may a new generation of considerate publications take care as to both print and approach. Integrity of the media and the public interest are both balanced on this sensitive issue. 

An issued statement of apology, signed by Murdoch himself, tells that “a free and open press need be a positive force in society. We need to live up to this.” However, the burden is not one of the press alone. To play a positive role, the demands of the consumer need be socially acceptable on all levels.

“Atrocious but necessary”.

A little more than a week ago, Norway became the latest country of the EU to suffer a terrorist attack. Whilst the world is used to outside agents or people working on behalf of foreign terror groups acting against a particular nation, these events stood out because their perpetrator was in fact a Norwegian as well. 

Anders Behring Breivik bombed the capital city Oslo on the 22^nd July just hours before he started to gun down people at a youth holiday camp many miles away on Utoeya Island. The corresponding attacks across different regions of the country show a precise and vicious will; a will deemed by Breivik as “necessary” for his country’s future. 

As concerning as both the events and the lack of response appear to the outside world, the restrained grieving is much more common in Norway, and today, the country’s PM warned against a ‘witch-hunt’ following the crimes.

Justifying these horrors is indeed hard to accept, however the suspect has laid out his plans in a manifesto style for the past three years and consequently his supposed reasoning behind the attacks is laid out in rather a simple manner. Similarities to Nazi doctrine have been drawn, but more and more, people are describing the events of 22^nd July not as terrorism, but extremism.

Extremism is difficult to quantify in that it may encompass elements of terrorism, exuding fear amongst many, but in addition, there is often a political agenda at work. Geir Lippestad, who is Breivik’s lawyer for the case, said that “He wanted a change in society, and from his perspective, he needed to force through a revolution.”

To understand this further, we need consider that Breivik’s writings talk of the left’s supposed lenience and call for multiculturalism as negative moves for the country and as a general worldwide. He believes that the ‘Islamism’ of Europe need be prevented, not for common reasons that plague many such as job loss or fear of the different but, so as to preserve national identity and remain focussed on the country’s own populous and well-being. The seemingly contradictory killings were merely means to an end: look how easy it would be for someone to attack. After all, Breivik had been politically active and found out himself that he did not succeed with usual political tools and so resorted to violence.

Described as a quiet man locked in his thoughts, there is no doubt in the mind of Anders Behring Breivik that his actions were “atrocious but necessary” and he denies any criminal responsibility. It remains to be seen whether there will be a plea of mental instability, ergo negating mens rea: for without a vicious will there can be no vicious crime. Of course, such a statement would undermine the (for want of a better word) message for which this man stands. If insane, it would go against his claim for a social revolution.

What is now “atrocious but necessary” is a full scale investigation into the extent of extremism within Europe, as a source of continued threat from within. Whilst it may be a subject rather avoided, if we are to understand the concerns which drive many to such views, there needs be a greater public forum than internet chat rooms - lives could be saved. For as Breivik himself quoted: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." (John Stuart Mill) and for their own safety, this is a belief in which 100,000 should surely have an interest.

"I Told You I Was Trouble"

Tragic but predictable, it was the timing rather than the passing of Amy Winehouse that left many shocked and bereft on Saturday 23^rd July. Discovered by her security in her own bed in Camden, it was a somewhat quiet end to a loud and lavish lifestyle that had prevailed over the preceding years of the youngster’s life. Whilst many point to Amy’s troubles with alcohol addiction, drug abuse and tabloid shenanigans as the root causes for the death, these are just the public images of a lost girl, who was described in completely different ways by family and friends.

Scandalous until the end, Winehouse first came to the public eye with release Frank in 2003. This debut was essentially a cigarette stained, alcohol smeared soul and swing record that was reminiscent of 60s finesse. Critically, the album was a smash and gained Winehouse prestigious Ivor Novello awards – a feat that was repeated several times. Widespread success came with second offering Back To Black, where controlled raspy vocals and controversial issues led to both fame and fortune. The album became the biggest selling LP of 2007 in the UK and the seventh biggest selling in the world in 2008. 

Talent then is unquestionable. More often than was fair, smearing images blocked an accurate portrayal of the life of this star and perhaps the most perceptive remark reads:

“I know Amy Winehouse very well. And she is very different to what people portray her as being. Yes, she does get out of her mind on drugs sometimes, but she is also a very clever, intelligent, witty, funny person who can hold it together. You just don't see that side.”

-Lily Allen.

If, as Ms Allen claims, we didn’t see that side of Winehouse in her personal life, it was because the soul and swing music that she clung to was her eden: outside of her musical menagerie, the troubled starlet was all but lost in a media frenzy that sabotaged and plagued a person that had lost their way. When music was no longer effective in providing an outlet for the different traumas of her life, Amy Winehouse was subjugated to addiction for peace.

Lyrically, Amy’s music is self-professed and riveting material that only foreshadows her latter strife. “I cheated myself, like I knew I would” read the words to ‘You know I’m no good’: everything the star warned herself against has come to dominate her life and yet she enjoyed it nonetheless, and she shrives herself by simply saying that “I told you I was trouble”. Elsewhere, songs such as ‘Tears Dry On Their Own’ question attachments with trivial lovers, and ‘Fuck Me Pumps’ is an ode to all those who lose themselves in the good times, just as Amy herself did. Almost too ironically she warns those who fall from grace not too upset if “like the daily news they get pressed”. It’s a rock’n’roll lifestyle that is so glamorised on the outside, yet is too addictive to leave behind. More than any other artist, her short lived career writes her own eulogy in many ways: a life riddled with problems in love, in drugs, and feeling comfortable with self.

Winehouse’s legacy certainly lives on through her music now, as her parents laid her to rest in an emotional and extremely private congregation. Whilst the media continued to heckle the event, the true trouble of the star is truly realised. However brief her active career, her contributions to the musical world cannot and should not be undermined by her inevitably self destructive path. Current giants such as Duffy, Lily Allen and Adele cite her as their influences; the last going so far as to say that Amy was the original star of the 21^st century to get people excited about British music once again. Moreover, soul music has not enjoyed such popularity, diversity and success since the 60s. Often, genius is a case of trouble. Many of the greatest artists of the 20^th century wrote their music or claimed that their music was inspired by happenings whilst locked away and under the influence of some variant illicit substance. Amy’s music is so startlingly brilliant and unique to its market then because not only did she indulge in drugs, but her entire musical life was based around such self-abuse, mingling with vibrant crowds in Camden and struggling to maintain the balanced lifestyle of her family. 

So whilst she may have said no, no, no to rehab, Amy’s genius flourished under such  circumstance and after all, we’re only saying goodbye in words.

Don’t Believe The Hype.

Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: foreign dictatorships send shudders down our spines. Looking out towards these places with limits on what it is permissible to vocalise, many question how those in power are able to defend their stance and how those who are forced into these submissive positions are able to live under such limitations. Gaging how far a country’s freedom of speech is impoverished is not a difficult task: often, one only has to look towards the medias that lie within. Normally, they will be heavily state controlled and censored by government and law. Frequently, they will portray positive images of the most controversial decisions and leaders. 

Media influence however has deemed it a reflex to assume that our system of freedom is instantly superior to that of those elsewhere. There are obvious reasons for this stance. We need only consider China’s banning any reference to or any shows and literatures pertaining to time travel in May as a case of the over-zealous manner in which some prohibitions are applied. Can we imagine their version of Doctor Who? On a more serious note however, the Chinese government labelled this a bid to increase national identity and pride: “Time travel shows are irresponsible in not respecting history” it was announced and the officials continued to describe time travelling shows as “frivolous” and a way by which “to re-write history”. Fair enough, the Chinese ministers wish to create an air of solidarity in what China has achieved in the past half a century, becoming the quickest emerging superpower, but surely more of this present can be appreciated if other realities were speculated at the same time? Just a thought.

Last year, North Korea banned World Cup games from live screening. Instead, matches where the national team won were only broadcast after the event itself. In the case of defeat, past winning scores were shown in some way to negate the loss in the current competition. The aim was to keep moral high. Such extravagance in control however is tantamount to abuse and insulting populus’ intelligence. The country’s residents are going to notice that the World Cup trophy didn’t arrive in Korea… even if the government can conceal it’s Spanish destination.

Of course, these governments promote their version of events as helpful in their controlling the country: indeed, China’s seemingly exponential growth in the past few decades now has it a country amongst the top traders, it boasts the first fully functioning maglev, the largest metro system in the world, has hosted the Olympics and is predicted to soon be putting out more academic research than the USA (academia now being a new measure of world power). Therefore maybe there is something to be said for the tightly run state: it seems to have fostered in all the people a dedication to a way of life that brings greater benefits if they are more in routine. Disturbingly, it appears on the surface as a rehash of the American Dream. 

Elsewhere, the power of the media is something to be feared. When free speech developed in Rwanda for example through the use of the radio, RTLM was amongst the first stations to be independent of the government. Upon its launch, it was proclaimed that:

We have a radio here, even a peasant who wants to say something can come, and we will give him the floor. Then, other peasants will be able to hear what peasants think. Personally, I think what complicates things is that ordinary citizens have no forum where they can speak. Normally, for ordinary citizens to speak, they speak through elections and elections are impossible. So, in fact, ordinary citizens have been deprived of a say but RTLM is there, we will give them the floor.

(Gaspard Gahigi, RTLM, 19 March 1994)

For those less illuminated with the facts, the radio station then went on in the following months to incite genocide that saw the deaths of almost 1 million Tutsis. The station broadcast names and locations of ‘traitors’, described those to be killed as subhuman and the action of murder as nothing but work. The extent of the damage is still visible today: once the months of bloodshed were over, government controlled radio was all that was permitted: all media remains heavily monitored today lest such unspeakable horrors should be repeated. And what was the world doing whilst these tragedies unfolded? The Western media was more concerned with the death of Kurt Cobain and the OJ Simpson case. Two men overshadowed a nation.

Priority of reporting then comes into question. Through our own negligence, we allow medias to dictate our perceptions of the world and what happens. No area should be left unbroached. Recently, this concern has grown closer to home. Whilst I am concerned for family well-being, the late super-injunction scandal brings entire reams of freedom of speech and freedom of the press into question. If we are unable to pass comment on these smaller matters, how soon before there are limits in place on other things of grand importance? To ban any comment is to undermine the very foundations of the current system of democracy held in the Western hemisphere. Whilst extending the principle to more serious matters could appear somewhat dramatic and far-fetched, conceding a small amount of rights has often led to great swathes of rights being attacked.

Therefore, we need consider the role of government and its interrelation with the media in a 21^st century world. No doubt, technology has come to consume and dominate entire swaths of the planet with its ease of use and rapid transit of information. However in its misuse, there can be death, restraint and feeding ego of power heads of state. Moreover, a more broad perspective need be considered: restrictions elsewhere have contributed to shaping China and protecting Rwandans. Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: free speech in Western democracies is under attack, but is it advantageous?