Fight the real problems
In the aftermath of the riots, we are now trying to figure out what caused them. 'Figure out' in this case means finding someone or something to blame. On top of the list are the rioters themselves. Justice came down harder on them than what's been considered proportional in the past. Why? David Cameron claims that their deeds were particularly severe and should therefore be combated with proportionally severe punishments. David Cameron is of the opinion that the rioters rioted because they were particularly morally deprived. The events that occurred and the people involved all fitted conveniently into his already well-formed argument of a broken society. The opinions of the prime minister and his ilk about the people of Britain are worth scrutinising in detail.
Poor people commit crimes because economic deprivation is inseparable from moral deprivation. In order for poor people's morals to improve, they must be made poorer and their lives harder. If they commit a crime they must be imprisoned, from where they will, of course, emerge as morally upstanding members of society. Putting people in prison makes society better because prisoners are separated from society for the time of their imprisonment. If it makes people less likely to reoffend is besides the point since the crime caused by the moral deprivation has been punished: justice has been done, and social betterment is besides the point.
Crime is all around us. Some acts of criminality are more visible than others. Let's look at the basics: laws are put into place because it is wrong to do certain things. Those who break laws must be punished to make it clear that it is not acceptable behaviour. However, some crimes are considered worse than others. This is not because of the damage the crime does in the world but how visible the damage is. Governments and corporations businesses are the biggest criminals on the planet, yet the damage they do is so removed from the façade these criminals look perfectly respectable. It is much easier to categorise a looter carrying off a big TV as a criminal. It fits with the narrative we are fed with from media and politicians. A criminal is a person who has certain properties. They often have to do with class and race. This attitude is a prejudice, one of many popular with the coalition government.
Let's take another example: the disabled. The cuts have come down hard on the disabled. The argument from the government seems to be that if not-so-able-bodied or -minded people are given less or no money, they'll snap out of their disability or illness and get a job. As in the case with poverty, disability is seen as a choice. It is seen as a situation that you've gotten yourself in, rather than something that has just happened. Why are we even surprised that the Tories are punishing the weakest in society? Nothing is new with conservativism, as it were. Conservative politicians will favour those who are already well off, because in a much-outdated view, people who are successful are so because they deserve it. Never mind if the money and position has been inherited and not acquired by personal achievement. They must have done something right. People who have less must have done something wrong and must immediately become more like rich, successful people. It's popular to tell schoolkids that they mustn't be different in any way in case they would be bullied about it, instead of dealing with the prejudices that cause bullying to happen. This victim-blaming we are seeing now feels very much like it.
I am comforted by the knowledge that most Britons are unhappy with the coalition government. There have been widespread protests against the new policies implemented that punish the most vulnerable in society. It is our democratic right to protest peacefully for what we feel is right and against what we feel is wrong. However, media and politicians have seized upon the incidents of violence from protesters to demonstrate that it is these people who are doing something wrong, rather than the people they are protesting against. Last time there was such widespread protest in Britain there was also a recession, and the Conservatives were also in power. Knowing the circumstances that the country is presently in, does it really make sense to say that the riots were perpetrated by a 'feral underclass', as Ken Clarke put it, and had no political or social motivation? The aftermath we are now in can play into the hands of David Cameron with his 'broken Britain' argument, or, we can realise that the timing and locations of these events are conspicuously telling.