It is improper to dismiss grievances of the UK rioters simply because they are looting.

I especially see this criticism being made in comparison to the Egyptian rioters. What such criticism fails to consider is the difference between Egyptian and British (or really Western) society. Egypt was an authoritarian society and the mere act of speaking and demonstrating was an adequate transgression to put the government in a tight spot. Disobedience is not something the authoritarian regime could tolerate, as it ignores and erodes authority. Western democracy is not authoritarian, instead it is consumerist. They could demonstrate till the cows come home and nobody would pay them any mind. Crimes against property though (vandalism and theft) are direct assaults on the way consumerism operates and thus gain attention that simple demonstrations cannot.

But apparently you can't rec something after a day. :(

As has happened here, over and over again.

Which means, I guess, we're next for the "London calling" stage, when the spark alights...

since the first riots began..

Look, whether it is Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Syria, Greece, or the UK, young educated people cannot get jobs. World wide its about the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. And soon you people here with $100,000 student loans with not chance of paying them off are going to take to the streets here as well.

And if they keep trying to hack the Big # the old folks will be out there as well.

Many of them are young thugs that terrorize the housing estates they live on and have no particular cause other than to create as much trouble as possible. Many of the stores they are looting are run by small business owners who may end up being bankrupted by these riots.

I have no doubt that the initial reaction to what now appears to be a questionable police shooting was a genuine outburst of anger at overzealous police practices, but it has gone way beyond that. Many of the rioters in Tottenham came from other areas to cause trouble. They are the same ones that cause fights and damage every Saturday afternoon at soccer matches.

Sadly, those will legitimate reasons to demonstrate about unemployment, educations etc. will have a harder time getting their voices heard in the noise all these looters are making.

They have no other way to speak out. They do not choose their leaders through elections, there is no free press and they do not have the right to demonstrate peacefully. I am very supportive of their efforts.

If it accomplishes anything, it's to get society to side with The Man and not listen to the protesters' message.

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x619271

...expressed by a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?

"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

I imagine MLK should have rioted and looted more... :shrug:

"Don't sit there", "Don't use that bathroom", "Don't use that drinking fountain", "Don't talk back to white people". This is much more along the lines of Egypt and can be transgressed by simpler means. Outside of the South the civil rights era did have a lot of rioting (as wel as looting). Loot at Watts, Detroit, Newark, or the LA riots of the 90s. And that is because there is no lunch counter sit-in equivalent to respond to being denied mortgages, receiving inadequate public services, or suffering police brutality.

What does Joe Blow think of it? That's what matters. Joe, and all his friends, and all of his friends' friends, aren't going to be even remotely receptive to your message if you smash his windows and steal his wares.

But then, wisdom is often a commodity in short supply among political leaders.

I agree that grievances should not be discounted because there is looting.

I also agree that vandalism is a form of demonstration.

Having lived through a few riots, however, I hold my belief that theft (looting) is merely theft. It does gain attention, but never in history has it been the kind the actual demonstrators wanted.

Looters are opportunistic assholes, nothing more, nothing less. They may not be assholes the day before the riot, nor the day after. But they aren't demonstrating against anything, and glorifying them as you suggest demeans the demonstrators worth supporting.

They see chaos around them and figure it's a good time to swipe a new television. The media will just lump them in with everyone else to show how dangerous these people are, and how they must be stopped.

Thatcherism and 30 years of privatisation.

But as a Londoner told me earlier today: "Desperate people don't go for 42" TVs and Calvin Kleins".

"Nihilism", was his word for that.

some would call that, at the least, improper.

- as their theft demonstrates that they are unable to bring forth a civil grievance and they lose all credibility as well as their voice. They willingly turn themselves into thugs and thieves and their message is lost.

kind of belittles the point the people are trying to make.

In my opinion, it just makes people look like greedy dumbasses. Looters are only hurting their neighbors,local businesses and the jobs that those businesses provided.

was supposed to cure?

since it is about expressing self thru consumerism.