Rioters, police, and sentimentality

Unclear thinking about social disturbances.

Sentimentality and partisanship are the banes of English political life. It may well be the same in other countries, but the polarisation which means that normally sensible people think that abuses of power are only what the "other side" do has been a feature of our domestic politics since well before the 1688 revolution.

For some people, usually conservatives, there is sentimentality about the police. This is notwithstanding the repeated evidence of police corruption and brutality, and the casual dishonesty of police spokesmen whenever some new tragedy comes to light. The "boys in blue" do a "difficult job". It is "not easy, you know".

For others, the sentimentality is about rioters. And this is notwithstanding that the criminality that often accompanies or follows-on on from protests cannot be justified in terms of politics, or indeed anything else. Instead of protesting earnestly outside Currys and JB Sports about the evils of highly priced consumer goods and the low wages of those who usually make them, the windows were smashed and those same goods were simply carried away in shopping trolleys.

In fact, neither the police nor the rioters can be praised or blamed in universal terms. There has been a sequence of civil disturbances, some spontaneous, some planned; the police dealt with some of these well, and sometimes badly; and some protestors had a point, and some just took full advantage of an opportunity. But even now, the sort of people who have strong but easy political opinions are seeking out who is really to blame, whether it be certain hapless politicians on holiday, the loathsome bankers, the police, or the looters.

And in all this, nobody's mind will actually change, for -- as usual -- civil disturbances will re-affirm and not challenge views already held. The other side will again been at fault. They always are.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for International Trade.

Only Nixon, it is said, could have gone to China. Only a politician with the impeccable Commie-bashing credentials of the 37th President had the political capital necessary to strike a deal with the People’s Republic of China.

Theresa May’s great hope is that only Liam Fox, the newly-installed Secretary of State for International Trade, has the Euro-bashing credentials to break the news to the Brexiteers that a deal between a post-Leave United Kingdom and China might be somewhat harder to negotiate than Vote Leave suggested.

The biggest item on the agenda: striking a deal that allows Britain to stay in the single market. Elsewhere, Fox should use his political capital with the Conservative right to wait longer to sign deals than a Remainer would have to, to avoid the United Kingdom being caught in a series of bad deals. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.