Citation

Briggs D. Safer Communities 2012; 11(1): 6-16.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing)

DOI

10.1108/17578041211200065

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Purpose - Over the course of the early part of August 2011, we saw revolving images of social disorder in London yet very thin explanations for the events. Yet the disorder continued and each time it evolved in different areas. Then the politicians came back from holiday and all the usual suspects were thrown in the mix: "gangs" "problem youth" "dysfunctional families" "single parents" "the underclass"; the familiar list went on. The debates which followed revolved around the violence, victims, effective policing, and sentencing but rarely went into depth about the causes or how the disorder evolved so quickly and why. This paper tries to place the events in London in context by using the testimonies of those involved to show: why the social disorder developed when it did; and how it evolved so quickly.

Design/methodology/approach - In his spare time since the events, the author has undertaken short interviews with as many people as possible who were involved in some capacity (instigators, fringe participants, spectators, local residents, professionals) because collectively, they hold the clues with regard to how and why this occurred. Ethical approval was granted by the University of East London Ethics Committee.

Findings - This paper shows how relations between the authorities and the public in certain urban communities are extremely fragile and that it doesn't take much to stimulate public action on perceived injustices. Importantly, however, it demonstrates how exactly social networking played a significant role in the way the social disorder started and evolved, concluding that the reasons for involvement were collective as well as subjective. Lastly, it highlights the one-sided nature of the media depictions and how the knee-jerk government response was hard-line and blatantly disregarded established criminal justice processes.

Research limitations/implications - To date, discussions have only taken place with 30 participants and what is offered here is a "work in progress".

Originality/value - This is likely one of the first attempts based on empirical data to conceptualise the motivations for involvement in the social disorder in London.