I've never considered myself a true Mancunian (a person from Manchester), moving from another county to 35 minutes outside the city when I was 3, then leaving at 21 to live in the U.S. But growing up, Manchester was 'town', as in when we'd say we were 'going to town', we meant we were heading in to the city of Manchester.
The Manchester of the late 70's & 80's was sorely in need of a lick of paint (not that it would ever have dried due to the mostly damp conditions), but it wasn't a bad place; you could walk throughout the city, down the damp side streets, without much fear. The people weren't necessarily the friendliest, nor were they particularly rude. They just went about their business as people tend to do, keeping to themselves.
Many a time, I took the train to Piccadilly Station and walk down to the Arndale Centre, the main shopping mall in the middle of the city. I spent time perusing the shops, buying things from some, and marveling that others somehow remained in business despite their apparent lack of quality goods, or customers.
Although I wasn't a Mancunian, it was my town.
Moving away, first to college on the other side of the country (90 minutes away), and then finally to the U.S., meant that I didn't get to see my town that much. In 1996, I was first horrified at the IRA bomb blast that damaged the Arndale Centre, then delighted to see how the city was rebuilt, complete with a new tram system, after being awarded the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
Last night, I saw the first pictures, tweets, and stories coming out of my town, talking of masses of hooded youths swarming through Manchester city center, smashing shop windows, brazenly looting stores of anything they could carry, and setting fire to at least one shop.
It sickened me.
After the London riots started Saturday night and began spreading across the country to Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, and elsewhere, I knew there was a good chance it would hit Manchester. It was reminiscent of 1981, when rioting in Brixton (a suburb of London) led to the Toxteth riots in Liverpool's suburbs and the Moss Side riots outside Manchester. At that time, the looting and arson persisted a full 72 hours.
It's true that today, as in 1981, the economy is not great. It's true that it's harder for anyone to find a job right now, let alone youth lacking practical experience or higher education. But this is not, and never will be, an excuse to destroy another person's livelihood; to smash, burn and destroy the businesses, houses, cars or property of others.
There are no visible leaders in these riots; no real demands or specific grievances beyond being bored, not having a job, and a sense of entitlement to commercial goods that has lead to smashing and grabbing across the country. While the catalyst of the first disturbance in London may have been the shooting death of Mark Duggan, it's tough to argue that the later riots have had anything to do with that incident.
Watching video feeds of the riots, I see places I know, shops I've been in, streets I've walked down... and I see gangs of youths with bandanas, baseball caps and hoods tied tight around their heads to obscure as much of their face as possible. I see them stealing everything from bags of cheap candy to high end plasma televisions. I see a branch of a company I used to work for, window smashed, shelves empty, everything gone.
Some have talked about oppression, harassment by police, an ingrained culture of mistrust and abuse by the system. Tell me, what does the corner shop owner have to do with that? What had they done to deserve to lose their livelihood in a deliberately set fire, or mass theft? The people whose homes were broken into, or whose cars were torched, or who were walking or taking transit home and were terrorized by screaming mobs, burning barricades, and flying projectiles... what did they do to deserve this?
One girl interviewed on the television in London claimed this was her way of "getting her taxes back." I would guess she doesn't realize that while the insurance companies will pay out to those affected by the riots, they'll most likely attempt to claim it back from the police under the Riot Damages Act of 1886. If the police end up paying a bill currently estimated at $162 million, that comes out of the public purse... her taxes. The idiocy of such a statement when she claims to be rioting against poverty and the oppression inherent to her financial state (so we can safely assume she's not paying a high amount in taxes, anyway) is astonishing. She doesn't seem to realize that cuts will now have to happen elsewhere to make that money available. She's now contributed to worsening her situation, and that of everyone in the country.
I hope the riots will soon end. That order will be restored. That these criminals will be arrested, or at the very least stay indoors tonight and play their looted Playstations on their stolen big screen plasma TVs, rather than head back out for another night of completely pointless violence and anarchy.
Other people in Manchester are already planning to mobilize; armed with broom and dustpan, they'll converge on the city this morning and try to clean their town, to brush away as much of the destruction as possible.
Those are the images I look forward to seeing today, of Mancunians coming together to show they won't be bowed down by these degenerates. That their town means something to them, just as it does to me, even though I'm 3,500 miles away.
Follow Simon Heseltine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonheseltine
Rev. Al Sharpton: Violence Never Has and Never Will Be The Answer
What does concern me is the backlash that can promote law and order governments.and the people who will suffer the most are the poor.
It's about being smart about this and having discretion. Then maybe you won't be labeled a silly domestic terrorist. Try thinking things through next time but in general violence does not help. Look at the Irish situation. No matter how many buildings you attack or people you assault (even legally) that is not going to change anything. MLK changed things for African Americans by mobilizing monetary power via boycotts. Change the system by interrupting the flow of money to the Rich and Powerful by mobilizing young consumers. When they feel the pinch maybe they will hire you.
The demonstration turned into a riot, during the course of which some shops were looted.
Yobs throughout the country saw, on their TVs, that the looters appeared to be walking away with expensive consumer goods without being stopped, and pronounced among themselves that this was "a good thing", but it was, by then, late, so they stayed home with their tins of lager.
The following day, and having reviewed the repeated (ad nauseum) TV news coverage, and talked with some of their "lucky" friends, who had been fortunate enough to "liberate" some of those expensive consumer goods from the "oppressive" shops in which they were on sale, they decided that they, too, should "liberate" expensive consumer goods.
Similar yobs in other cities throughout the land saw the same TV news, heard the same interviews, and found that what was "a good thing" in Tottenham should also be "a good thing" in Manchester, or Birmingham or Liverpool.
The subsequent riots are not about some poor man being shot by the Police, or "lack of opportunity", or "injustice" they are about out of control yobs deciding that it is legitimate to destroy, burn, loot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Don't believe me?
Listen to the radio interviews with "participants."
The veneer of civilization and polite discourse is always very thin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots
In previous posts I have been somewhat lenient on the rioters and emphasizing the need for government to "listen" to what is being said through action instead of words. And, though I stand by the need to decipher the message being sent, my sympathy towards the offenders is waning. No common voice, no common cause, no apparrent motivation other than capriciousness and the ability to partake in meyhem.
Maybe the message is that we collectively need to root out the cause of social decay and correct it. Anyone who is familiar with my basic theme knows that I hold capitalism accountable, as it rewards aggressiveness, promotes hyper-individualism, glorifies competition over cooperation, and relies on classism and dispairity to work. If capitalism is the cause, and social decay is the effect, then what's the solution?
Hyper-individualism tends towards anarchy, which is an affront to democracy, so perhaps there is a grinding incompatibility between Democracy and Capitalism. Anyhow, this is turning into a rant, so I'll end by saying that my sympathies go out to those injured by rioting. If there were a cause that was worth rioting for, then the energy and violence has been misdirected. Time to re-read Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm.
The truth is that if you want a job, you don't destroy the shops and companies that might be the only ones able to give you one.
People's homes were burnt to the ground, shopkeepers were beaten, robbed, and had their places of business, many of which had been operating for decades, completely razed. Law abiding citizens had to leap from second story windows because hooded thugs tossed molotov cocktails through their living rooms.
So the wanton destruction of private property, not to mention physical violence and assault, is an acceptable means of social protest? It's okay to protest police harrassment, lack of opportunity and oppression by beating up shopkeepers and small business owners, looting them of everything of value they possess, and then lighting a match? And what of the people who died trying to protect their livelihood, who were trapped inside burning buildings and roasted or suffocated to death, did they not have rights that were completely violated?
I am in no way condoning their actions, but the reality is they are reactions to the supremacists that think the poor should stay in their place because they are sleeper cells of degenerates.
The author feels the need to tell a rioter who he has never met and knows nothing about how things really are according to him -- because he is all knowing and knows what is best for her, obviously. Thats disgusting.
I just read an article about a looter arrested for stealing two Burberry shirts. It might not seem like nothing on the surface but Burberry was added for effect. It is the stereotypical brand coveted by the "chavs" -- or poor whites. The word Burberry was used so you know all you need to know about the little thug so you could be dismissive and pass judgement. Do you see how this game works? Language is powerful, use it wisely. This author has shown obvious bias against the poor in his language.
It happens when British has not won the world cup soccer for a long time.
What kind of sport is "soccer"?