Financial burden of riots will be crippling.

Recent widespread disturbances are placing a heavy financial burden on individuals, police and insur

As businesses in cities across the UK prepare for another night of chaos, figures are constantly under revision in an attempt to predict the cost of the riots.

On Tuesday, £100m was put forward as an estimate. That was before Manchester and Salford, amongst others, witnessed serious overnight disturbances. From looted shops and street fires to a massive increase in police numbers, the costs are escalating.

As it stands, legislation dictates that the police authorities must meet the costs of rioting under the Riots (Damages) Act 1886, which specifies that local police authorities must compensate victims where damage has been caused by people "riotously and tumultuously assembled".

Although some police authorities are insured against such events, whatever costs not covered must be met by police budgets. In light of the policing budget reduction as part of the public spending cuts, this signals serious concerns for the Met in particular. Reassurances are now being sought to ensure that front-line services including policing, fire and ambulance services will have everything they require to deal with ongoing disturbances.

As well as the immediate outcomes of the riots, longer-term impacts on services such as tourism should not be overlooked. Shadow business minister Chuka Umunna has said that the riots will have a seriously detrimental impact on Britain's economic recovery, particularly on small businesses, many of whom will be forced into bankruptcy. The service sector, which makes up around three-quarters of total UK GDP, grew by just 0.2 per cent over the last quarter. It has been "massively dented" by recent events, according to the Labour MP.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) have made it clear that insurers are working as quickly as possible to deal with claims, despite limitations such as access to dangerous buildings and crime scenes. The organisation is urging people to contact their insurer immediately in order to check what they are covered for and arrange help. Nick Starling, Director of General Insurance and Health at the organisation, said: "We have every sympathy for residents and business owners who have suffered damage to their properties. This is a time of enormous stress for them".

Comments over what the social impacts of the riots have been prolific, many of them making links between the coalition's drastic austerity measures and the ongoing implications of these, particularly now in light of the past few days. Mary Riddell points out the deep social cost of high unemployment:

If there are no jobs for today's malcontents and no means to exploit their skills, then the UK is in graver trouble than it thinks. Mr Osborne may congratulate himself on his prudence, but retrenchment also bears a social cost. We are seeing just how steep that price may be.

 

Tess Riley is a freelance journalist and social justice campaigner. She also works, part time, for Streetbank, and can be found on Twitter at @tess_riley

Show Hide image

Leader: Mourning in Manchester

Yet another attack shows we are going to have to get to used to the idea that our liberalism and our freedoms can only be preserved by a strong state.

Children are murdered and maimed by a suicide bomber as they are leaving a pop concert in Manchester. As a consequence, the government raises the terror threat to “critical”, which implies that another attack is imminent, and the army is sent out on to the streets of our cities in an attempt to reassure and encourage all good citizens to carry on as normal. The general election campaign is suspended. Islamic State gleefully denounces the murdered and wounded as “crusaders” and “polytheists”.

Meanwhile, the usual questions are asked, as they are after each new Islamist terrorist atrocity. Why do they hate us so much? Have they no conscience or pity or sense of fellow feeling? We hear, too, the same platitudes: there is more that unites us than divides us, and so on. And so we wait for the next attack on innocent civilians, the next assault on the free and open society, the next demonstration that Islamism is the world’s most malignant and dangerous ideology.

The truth of the matter is that the Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Ramadan Abedi, was born and educated in Britain. He was 22 when he chose to end his own life. He had grown up among us: indeed, like the London bombers of 7 July 2005, you could call him, however reluctantly, one of us. The son of Libyan refugees, he supported Manchester United, studied business management at Salford University and worshipped at Didsbury Mosque. Yet he hated this country and its people so viscerally that he was prepared to blow himself up in an attempt to murder and wound as many of his fellow citizens as possible.

The Manchester massacre was an act of nihilism by a wicked man. It was also sadly inevitable. “The bomb was,” writes the Mancunian cultural commentator Stuart Maconie on page 26, “as far as we can guess, an attack on the fans of a young American woman and entertainer, on the frivolousness and foolishness and fun of young girlhood, on lipstick and dressing up and dancing, on ‘boyfs’ and ‘bezzies’ and all the other freedoms that so enrage the fanatics and contradict their idiot dogmas. Hatred of women is a smouldering core of their wider, deeper loathing for us. But to single out children feels like a new low of wickedness.”

We understand the geopolitical context for the atrocity. IS is under assault and in retreat in its former strongholds of Mosul and Raqqa. Instead of urging recruits to migrate to the “caliphate”, IS has been urging its sympathisers and operatives in Europe to carry out attacks in their countries of residence. As our contributing writer and terrorism expert, Shiraz Maher, explains on page 22, these attacks are considered to be acts of revenge by the foot soldiers and fellow-travellers of the caliphate. There have been Western interventions in Muslim lands and so, in their view, all civilians in Western countries are legitimate targets for retaliatory violence.

An ever-present threat of terrorism is the new reality of our lives in Europe. If these zealots can murder children at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, there is no action that they would not consider unconscionable. And in this country there are many thousands – perhaps even tens of thousands – who are in thrall to Islamist ideology. “Terror makes the new future possible,” the American Don DeLillo wrote in his novel Mao II, long before the al-Qaeda attacks of 11 September 2001. The main work of terrorists “involves mid-air explosions and crumbled buildings. This is the new tragic narrative.”

Immediately after the Paris attacks in November 2015, John Gray reminded us in these pages of how “peaceful coexistence is not the default condition of modern humankind”. We are going to have to get used to the idea that our liberalism and our freedoms can only be preserved by a strong state. “The progressive narrative in which freedom is advancing throughout the world has left liberal societies unaware of their fragility,” John Gray wrote. Liberals may not like it, but a strong state is the precondition of any civilised social order. Certain cherished freedoms may have to be compromised. This is the new tragic narrative.

This article first appeared in the 25 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Why Islamic State targets Britain

0800 7318496