ADF,

I shall allow myself to become the latest victim of turbo-consumerism and buy your next album.

And we probably agree on much more than either of us would care to admit.

What I mean is apparant when the likes of the criminal Mandelson pays £8 million+ for a house. Where did the money come from when the corrupt bankers chumley earned a "MINISTERS" wage? Same as Tony "the liar" Blair.
If its good enough for the MP's and chumleys then by jove the poor should get some too.

Interesting piece. This was something that I alluded to in a discussion forum post on 11 August actually, insofar as what influence the student riots may have had on the more recent scenes of unrest http://bit.ly/nV3Yel

However, I think my point diverges from yours, which seems to seek to somehow distance the student rioters and the recent rioters. I would hazard a guess that many of the latter were indeed present at the former, if my local boroughs were anything to go by. This time around though, the targets were different and more local.

I do agree that some of the glee and good humour which greeted last year's scenes of unrest, particularly from left leaning commentators, has been shied away from this time around.

You seem to be making a very common mistake, Dan: confusing the law with what's right and wrong. There's a tenuous correlation between the two, but it has never been exact and sometimes the two are diametrically opposed.

Apparently, it's OK for most MPs to fiddle their expenses and take bribes from lobbyists. This is rarely against the law, it seems. The rich are allowed to avoid tax using secrecy jurisdictions and seldom face the courts. However, the law (only since 2003) says that occupying a shop to make a political point is illegal and squatting (an ancient right) may also soon become illegal. Not long ago, homosexuality was illegal but it was OK for a man to rape his wife.

But wait, you say; where would we be if we had no respect for the law? In a more civilised society, I say. the reason I don't go around killing people and setting fire to stuff is because they're wrong (usually), not because they're illegal. Of course, the state likes to reserve the power to kill and destroy to itself, as it did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and many other wars. Apparently, killing was OK then, regardless of what the British people might have thought.

So, the law is an ass, Dan. Try moral principles, instead, and if that doesn't work, maybe it's morally justifiable to smash a few windows. If the law is unjust, then there is a moral duty to break it.

@Dan:

As it happens, I live in Croydon but was on my way back to the UK during the riots. Like everyone else, I too was worried that my home would be burned or looted, but that is beside the point, which you missed.

I didn't attempt to justify arson and looting. They're wrong, on moral grounds. I have offered to defend the homes and livelihoods of my neighbours if there should ever be a recurrence of these events (and I hope there won't be). BUT ...

You were implying that all deviations from the law are morally unjustifiable and an implicit incitement to riot, which is nonsense.

Except that the students engaged in trespass and vandalism, but very minimal (if any?) violence and no theft that has been reported. And had a clear agenda and were part of planned demonstrations. So not really that similar.

Hang on a minute so the rioters in August wouldn't have had a clue about rioting unless their well educated bretheren had shown them the way first? Somehow Sherlock this does not quite add up.

Entranger,

"The fact that you Dan can so easily conflate an obviously physically harmless act of satire (throwing a custard pie) with violent inssurection only goes to show the depths of your own Authoritarian nature"

No argument from me on that score.

Callum,

"one of the things that struck me and everyone I was with was that many of the protesters were, in fact, BME school and colleges students from the inner cities

You're not though, are you.

Absolutley brilliant article. The vast majority of people do not engage in violent protest or looting. The vast majority of poor people do not engage in violent protest or looting. We live in a democratic society and anyone self-indulgent enough to want to take to the streets rather than engage in democratic processes will not help promote any of the policies they claim to advocate. I suspect most of the student protesters were more into the thrill of protest than anything else.

The self-indulgent arrogance of some was shown when on another thread an erstwhile protester responded to my support for democracy and the rule of law (which on the part of citizens means not breaking the law) by comparing himself to Rosa Parks.

Rioters be they political or consumer should be condemned. Anyone who fails to perceive this is David Cameron's wet dream.