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.)

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.