Something rotten in the state of... London

On the bright side, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is out soon.

What a week, eh? Without delving too far into the origins of the protests, they began when police messed up – and not for the first time. However, the legitimate complaints were soon hijacked by some very angry people.

One ubiquitous youtube video showed Fiona Armstrong interviewing Darcus Howe (She came a cropper in the media for asking "You are not a stranger to riots yourself, are you? You have taken part in them yourself." To which he replied, "I have never taken part in a single riot. I've been part of demonstrations that ended up in a conflict.”) What I found sad was that Darcus Howe apparently believed that the rioters were in some way politically motivated, as he had been when protesting in the 1970s. It appears to me that rioters were cynically using the death of Mark Duggan as an excuse for their own agenda.

At least some of the “protesters” made it clear they were not the champions for social change that some suggested, as this recording (sure to become a classic) indicates.

Apparently rioting is “good fun” and “it’s the government’s fault.... I dunno... Conservatives... whatever, who it is, I dunno....  It’s not even a riot, it’s showing the police we can do what we want... and now we have.”

And why were these radicals targeting local people?

“It’s the rich people, the ones that have got businesses..... that’s why all of this has happened, because of the rich people.....so we’re just showing the rich people that we can do what we want.”

That’ll teach you for trying to build a successful business, won’t it! No wonder the people who dared to have homes got them burned down, too. These girls have obviously never heard the sage old rabbi's advice: "don't waste time counting other people's money".

Perhaps wading into the crowds for some hand-to-hand combat would have caused more problems (and been near suicidal in some areas) but police seemed paralysed – TV reports frequently showed little groups of them around the one person they had managed to handcuff. I imagine the threat of being sued – "It's my human right to set fire to houses!" must be quite debilitating when trying to do your job. The questions floating around Facebook were direct: Where were the rubber bullets, the tear gas and water cannons? (It seems that we all lose our liberal views at the sight of a chav with a nicer iphone than our own). 

“Those people were fighting for something; for a cause. To them out 
there, this is just entertainment.” Michael Caine, Harry Brown

Hand-wringing about the state of Britain’s moral decline could wait. We needed to STOP what was going on, and NOW. This did not happen; chaos continued for days, and more innocent people lost their homes and livelihoods.

Of course, to your average rioter, smashing in a shop window and nicking a laptop is a victimless crime. Because those businesses make lots of money! (And you know that’s a crime, right?) While The Guardian claimed “There is a context to London's riots that can't be ignored”, it seemed that the only context was “People like smashing, stealing or setting fire to things that don't belong to them”.

Lee Jasper, a former adviser on policing, allegedly said that certain shops were attacked because they don’t create projects for under-privileged youths. He was quoted as asking: "When did Curry’s build a school?" Since nobody seems to have the original quote, it strikes me as hearsay (or hastily buried) but it’s the kind of thing an idiot in politics WOULD say.

Ed Miliband asked "Is it culture, or is it poverty and lack of opportunity? It is probably both." Exactly – until now we’d all lacked the opportunity to get away with looting a shoe shop.

Nina Power wrote in The Guardian; “Combine understandable suspicion of and resentment towards the police based on experience and memory with high poverty and large unemployment and the reasons why people are taking to the streets become clear.”

Which would all be perfectly valid, if it wasn’t both patronising and insulting to the many people living in poor areas who DIDN’T riot. (You could also argue that she was suggesting most rioters were black, given the stronger history of conflict between black people and the police.)  As looters were caught, many people were astonished to find that, far from being the “betrayed youth,” they were often middle class 20 and 30-somethings with respectable jobs. They were just greedy morons. (And the context here would be: “It’s ok to like the products of your corporate foes, as long as you’re not giving them your money.”)

Why should we be surprised that, among others, a millionaire’s daughter, a charity worker and a graphic designer were caught stealing? For years we’ve watched politicians lie, cheat, and claim for bath plugs on their expenses. Selfishness and avarice is the culture, and it’s not exclusive to the ghettos.

Peter Oborne of the Telegraph pointed out that self-made millionaire Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland to avoid heavy taxes, and “I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted".

He also gives many examples of politician’s hypocrisy in lambasting looters, when “I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between (Hazel) Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.”

Obviously, something has gone wrong in the moral landscape of Britain.

"The Opposite of War Isn't Peace, It's Creation" – Jonathan Larson

Camilla Batmanghelidjh (pictured) is founder of the Kids Company and is generally an amazing person. She wrote “How, we ask, could they attack their own community with such disregard? But the young people would reply "easily", because they feel they don't actually belong to the community.... In this false moral economy where the poor are described as dysfunctional, the community fails.”

So how have we raised a society with so little empathy?

Neuroscientists have learned that when we see or imagine the pain of others, we activate regions of the brain that are normally activated when we feel pain ourselves. Experiments such as those by Alessio Avenanti and Tania Singer illustrated that participants showed a greater response when seeing pain inflicted on someone of the same “group” – be it race or football team. Brain activity revealed that knowing someone is a fan of a different team is actually enough to shut down empathy for that person’s pain. So, someone who feels completely alienated from their community will have no problems turning on their fellow man, whether it's the police or their neighbours.

I know gamers hate it when people point fingers at the beloved x-box, but check out some youtube vids of State of emergency – it’s not a giant leap to imagine that a gaming addict could get excited when offered the opportunity to try out some well-practised moves in real life. (But most likely they were sitting on their arses when the riots went on anyway. Ho ho.)

In contrast to the total lack of compassion shown by rioters, one thing which makes me happy is the “spirit of the blitz” atmosphere which has emerged. Groups stood shoulder to shoulder and refused rioters access to their neighbourhoods. Clean-up operations transformed ruined shops in hours. (The only disappointing part is that the rioters weren’t forced to return to the scene of their crimes.) Incidentally, I was in the US at the time of the 7/7 bombings, and Americans would often tell me they thought the Brits’ “Keep calm and carry on” attitude was amazing.

I follow writer Naomi Wolf on FB – I enjoy her books, and mostly disagree with her politics (all the more reason to follow and get some interesting points of view, yes?). This week she was theorising about agent provocateurs, saying “Look closely at all these 'masked rioters' – half of UK youths are overweight or scrawny from lack of exercise... these young men have been bench pressing. Their 'yob' clothes are brand new. Something is wrong with this picture..... people just don't show up dressed like a thug from central casting.” One fan replied “Oh NayNay... leave it to you to realize how cute the rioters are.” Wolf went on to point out that “NO ONE under thirty stands up ramrod straight, chest out arms at the sides except young people trained in the military. Seriously.”

Brand new sneakers and unimaginative clothing is not exactly incompatible with Britain’s youth (especially when JD Sports was no 1 on the loot list) and it seems unlikely that the police secretly mobilised riots spread across the country. (And all the looters I saw on TV looked skanky anyway, sadly adhering to Naomi’s first impression of British youth). But there were more theories popping up; Nay Nay’s supporters theorised that planned riots may be part of a “global blueprint” to make changes while the public is all of a dither.

The reality is that David Cameron has the perfect opportunity to bring in stronger laws (if I hear him say “robust” one more time, I might scream). There is also ammunition for those who argue in favour of more CCTV cameras – who needs privacy rights when you can catch criminals? (Activists who campaign against cameras always mock the phrase “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you won’t have anything to fear,” but I’ve never heard any of them explain why they think it isn’t true.)

I might also suggest that “next time” the police and press should make it clear that if you’re not a rioter, you should get off the streets whenever possible. People standing around with camera phones just cluttered up the place and unnecessarily swelled the ranks of the troublemakers. Not to mention the fact that some of those who have since been arrested have argued that they were just “caught up” in the crowds...

You know what? I’m starting to turn into my granny, because the phrase that springs to mind is “they don’t know they’re born”. I’m trying not to think about the fact that all of these poor, repressed youths have blackberries, and I don’t. (The irony is that without the privilege of expensive technology, they would never have co-ordinated their attacks on, um, all those black-hearted capitalists.)

These spoilt kids have the same sense of entitlement we see on X factor: “What do you mean I can’t have what I want? F--- you, then!”

If they had to live in any of the many countries in which police can and will beat you to death just because they don’t like the look of you, or where politicians have almost no restrictions on their expenses (try Italy for starters), they might realise that, imperfect as Britain is (never so clearly illustrated as it has been this week) it’s not such a bad place to live.

But now that the masses know they can rise up and own the streets, what’s to stop them from doing it again? And can we trust the police to protect us?

I suspect sales of baseball bats and inspirational DVDs such as Harry Brown and Dexter (recommended!) will go up.

I leave you with the wise words of Miranda Lambert. 

ETA: I don't mean for this piece to come across as overly critical of the police – when I say "Can we trust them to protect us?" I am talking about the fact that they are tied up in red tape which doesn't allow them to do their job as effectively as they'd like to. I know that they appreciate it when members of the public give them words of support on their toughest days; a "thank you" and a cup of tea and a jammy dodger go a long way.

And this is why I don't listen to the radio....

No wonder kids are turning to drink. May I also suggest ear plugs?

Ooh, aren’t children growing up fast? 

Yep, and in ways too numerous to mention here. I recently found myself sitting next to a very sophisticated young lady at a family event; I guessed “So are you studying?” as I didn’t want to insult her if she was 20 and had been working for the last 2 – 4 years. Um, no, she was 12. And perhaps this reflects badly on my mental age, but I found her by far the most entertaining person there and we discussed The X Factor and Edward Cullen at length. 

As we chatted about alcohol (she had been strictly instructed to drink only one glass of champagne) she informed me thoughtfully “I probably won’t start drinking heavily until I’m... sixteen.” Well, that’s a relief. I did my best to persuade her that actually, hanging around outside the offy with a can of cider is not the most fun way to spend an evening in your teens. I may find myself in the minority for suggesting an evening of drinking shots til you puke actually isn’t the most fun you can have as an adult, either. 

In a desperate attempt to dissuade youngsters from drinking to excess is a new programme What Did I Do Last Night? – apparently actually seeing footage of yourself in all your “crawling around on the toilet floor in your underwear and then punching your best friend,” glory actually does shame people into changing their habits. Unlike the ill-advised anti-drinking campaign from a year or so back, which attempted to chastise us with the legend “You wouldn’t start a night like this. So why end it that way?” It simply illustrated that the campaigners had no understanding whatsoever of their subjects; if they had, they would have known that falling down the stairs, getting sick in your hair and makeup smeared everywhere is actually a badge of honour; proof  that you had a good time, and a story to be told and re-told until it has passed into legend. 

Coming back for a moment to precocious kids, the airwaves are full of Willow Smith and the amazingness of her performances at the age of ten. (Slightly creepy and “Hollywood family” it may be but at least she wasn’t, to my knowledge, sporting Suri Cruise-style stilettos aged three.) This is all very well, but am I the only one who can actually HEAR the song? It is mind-numbingly awful. And I mean actually, seriously, you might have to be a little bit brain damaged to be able to listen to it all the way through without wanting to rip off your ears. Almost 2 minutes of the 3m 24 sec running time is taken up by the imaginative line “I whip my hair back and forth”. (And just remember, somebody got paid for writing this. Somebody who is clearly from the Natasha “I’m in a big big big big ocean” Bedingfield school of lyric writing.)

Fittingly for a child’s song, it is simplistic, repetitive and will stick in your brain like chewing gum. The verses (during which Miss Smith sounds like a carbon copy of Rihanna) are slightly better, even if one does include the line “None of them whip it like I do.” Good to know that the next generation of girls are aspiring to... well, whip their hair, better than anyone else. Who said feminism was dead? 

Frankly, I may have to avoid any venue in which dance music is played – the thought of a roomful of adults miming along to whipping their hair back and forth is too tragic to contemplate. 

Putting your rage to good use... (and I'm not talking about sending hate mail to Katie Price)

If all else fails, we can always empty the prisons for entertainment purposes. 
With our love of reality TV, I'm AMAZED that nobody has started a real life 
Running Man competition. It can only be a matter of time...

A recent survey found that 62% of Britons would not feel confident stepping in to prevent a group of 14-year-olds vandalising a bus stop, compared to 48% across Western Europe as a whole.

The study came from the Royal Society for the Arts, which has volunteered the suggestion to train park keepers, public transport workers, street cleaners, caretakers, and teachers so they are prepared to deal with rowdy youths.  

Ben Rogers (author of this study) apparently blamed our collective unwillingness to intervene on a “loosening of social ties” caused by factors such as women going to work and increased immigration. That’s funny, I always thought it was the fear of getting stabbed in the face. Does it for me. 

We have plenty of yobs who are spoiling for a fight, so why don’t we look on the bright side and harness all that aggression into something useful?  Just train up the most violent plebs into law enforcement officers so they can channel their natural belligerence against the cretins who so rarely pick on anyone their own size. 

Bullies confident in the fact that nobody who values their lives will dare admonish them, will have a rude awakening when they are “dealt with” by mobsters whose criminal records they can only dream of. (OK, this is starting to sound like a futuristic Arnie /  Sly / Bruce movie.)

Of course many of these people will also be mentally ill, as shown by the tributes to “legend” Raoul Moat. Never mind getting facebook to ban pages like this, I’d fix it so that you could track down every fan, DNA swab them and keep their details on file. And because they’d undoubtedly be too stupid to read the small print, I would write a disclaimer into facebook so they would have given their full consent to this.  

(Sometimes I surprise myself with how right wing I’ve become... however, all those FB friends of mine who describe their political stance as ”liberal” are always the first to invite me to groups called “paedophiles should have their throats cut and their toenails pulled out by wolves,” so perhaps there is a little confusion about the dictionary definition of “liberal”?)

Back in 1911, a criminologist named Arthur McDonald suggested that newspapers and books should stop publishing the names of criminals, as “this would lessen the hope for glory, renown or notoriety, which is a great incentive to such crimes.” 

In the meantime, watch Eden Lake. It's a brilliant, British made film with a horribly realistic portrayal of "Hoodie" culture. I was strangely depressed for about two weeks after watching it, but I do recommend it.

100 lines - I must watch more Bruce Willis films until I see teenage boys for the weedy, illiterate little oiks they really are.

Yikes. Boys, postcards like this are a sign that your teacher needs to get out more.

The second news story to catch my attention was that of Hannah McIntyre, the teacher acquitted of seducing a sixth form student.

I’ve thought for a while that the laws should be changed to protect those accused of sexual crimes; they should be anonymous until they are found guilty. As the law stands, anyone accused of a crime has their name dragged through the mud before any evidence has been heard.

Having said this, wouldn’t it be prudent also to pay closer attention to the relationship between students and teachers?

Hannah McIntyre opened the door to three students while “drinking wine in her pyjamas.” Ok, that was stupid, but not everyone has a peep hole.

She told the court “They barged in. They were very loud and boisterous. I asked them to leave but they did not take any notice. I was trying to be non-confrontational – not trying to provoke anything.”

She tried to get them out of the flat by saying she had to go out to the local shop. They followed her and persuaded her to buy them cider, then returned to her flat to drink it.

Wait. Hold on a second. She was trying to get them out of her flat, this I can understand. It would be intimidating to have three large teenage boys in your house, and I would probably try to get them out at any cost, too. But they managed to “persuade” her to buy them drink, and then they “followed” her back?

In the end, she went to bed leaving the boys downstairs in her living room. She didn’t call the police, thinking the boys would get in trouble with the school and make life in her classroom even more difficult than it already was. (She was “bullied” in her classes.)

Another recent case of a teacher accused – and acquitted – of seducing a 16-year-old boy was that of Teresa McKenzie. Like Miss McIntyre, the whole situation was muddied by her own insane actions.

During the course of her supervision of the unnamed teenager, Mrs McKenzie exchanged hundreds of text messages and calls with him, as well as sending him love letters. In one, she described how she couldn't concentrate on a school meeting for thinking of his “beautiful eyes, strawberries-and-cream hair, soft hands, gorgeous laugh, strong shoulders and delicious lips,” and “Such sweet anticipation makes my heart race.”

(To think, the only notes I got from my teachers were “Could do better” and “This is not an hour’s work”.)

In another, she wrote to her “gorgeous pirate. Dreaming of hiring a pirate ship and sailing across the seven seas, finding a deserted beach, just palm trees and lapping waves, soft sand and hot sun. What do you think? Would you like to come?. . . Ah, it would be bliss, even for one day, to play...I will love you forever and ever and ever xxxxxxxx.”

She told the court that the first letter was an attempt to emulate the language of Shakespeare, since Romeo and Juliet was being taught in class, while the second was a “silly” idea to try to make John smile, sparked by the game of pirates she had played with her pupils earlier in the day.

Later she said “I'm the sort of person who sends a lot of gushing cards. To now think that they might be interpreted in the context of some kind of sexual relationship makes me feel sick.”

Let’s just say, it might be best if she didn’t teach any more.

Now, am I crazy, or has the teacher / pupil relationship got weird lately? There seem to be more and more of these stories popping up, always with a background of phone calls and texts. Is it etiquette now to be facebook friends with your students? Is it essential that they have your home number, in case they have a question about the homework?

Personally I can’t think of anything worse, as an adult, to be available to students 24/7. And thinking back to my school days, I can’t think of anything nerdier than wanting your teacher’s number and actually using it for non-prank calls. What’s wrong with the kids of today? Has Bart Simpson taught them nothing?

The only thing weirder is grown women even beginning to contemplate relationships with teenage boys. (Outside of Sweet Valley High books, they are uniformly sullen and unattractive.) The last time I fancied anyone aged sixteen, I was about twelve.