What the rioters did was evil - liberals must stop blaming the innocent

"This was not political protest, or a riot about politics, it was common or garden thieving, robbing and looting.” That was David Cameron on this year’s riots. Obviously – and for once - he was dead right. But not according to those impeccably left-liberal institutions, The Guardian and the London School of Economics, who, victims of folie à deux, have produced a report which concludes that anger at the police was a key motivating factor.

"Criminals Don't Like The Police Shock Horror!" 

Rarely has my flabber been so ghasted.

At the heart of the rioters’ concerns, we were told, was the police’s "stop and search" policy. Apparently 70% of the rioters interviewed for the report had been stopped by the police during the previous year. "It was war and for the first time we was in control, like we had the police scared, like there was no more us being scared of the police." 

You was in control, indeed! 

This afternoon, another bastion of liberal thinking joined the attack on the forces of law and order. The BBC’s World At One ran an item about the unfair and “discourteous” treatment of black youths in Hackney by the police. Aw, diddums!

Years ago, a vicar in Newcastle, interviewed the day after some riots in the country’s most subsidised city, dismissed the standard set of liberal excuses (lack of jobs, feelings of hopelessness, disadvantaged homes, brutal policing, uncaring authorities, not enough subsidies, schools without the latest textbooks or espresso machines, racial prejudice, alienation, lack of amenities, etc. etc. ad nauseam) and said something I’ve never forgotten: “What happened here last night was simply an explosion of evil.” (The end of his career, no doubt – the modern Church of England knows that only those in authority  are capable of evil.)

What British cities in general, and London in particular, witnessed this summer was, indeed, an explosion of evil. The fact that the wretches who habitually commit criminal acts don’t like being stopped and searched by the police – or that the police sometimes forget to call lippy young thugs “Sir” – is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

Of course, stop and search in London is based on racial profiling. That’s because (as the BBC yet again failed to point out) the majority of street crime is committed by members of a one racial minority. On every occasion that my son and any friends he happens to be with have been menaced, chased or mugged – and this happens quite often in our wonderfully vibrant, multicultural capital – the racial origins of his actual or would-be attackers would suggest that not using racial profiling would amount to a gross dereliction of duty (unless, of course, you see your duty as being to protect the right of criminals to go about their business unhindered).

Our liberal establishment really must stop  dreaming up increasingly bizarre excuses for the bad behaviour of members of their mascot "victim" groups. If I thought for one moment that their hunt for “reasons” would ultimately prevent law-abiding citizens from having their lives disrupted (or, in some cases, terminated), I might be more tolerant about the liberal-left’s addiction to feeling good about themselves. But I know – we all do – that the excuses will be used (1) to funnel more of our money towards useless people as a reward for behaving badly, (2) to lay the blame for criminal behaviour firmly on those charged with protecting us from the Caliban tendency, and (3) to blame the law-abiding for being insufficiently compassionate, understanding or generous.

Just chuck it!

We live in a remarkably tolerant, kind and generous society. Nothing about it would justify decent people doing evil things, let alone the scum who brought terror to the streets of our cities last year. If – as seems inevitable – there are more riots next year, the emotionally masturbatory liberals busily trying to deflect blame for the guilty onto the innocent should all be arrested for aiding and abetting.

The hell with them!

One curious detail concerning today’s report: of the 270 rioters interviewed for it, only 30 were arrested as a consequence of their involvement in last summer’s outrages. If the researchers who interviewed these creeps don’t know who they are, why did they accept their word for it that they actually had taken part in the riots?  If, on the other hand, the researchers possess proof that their interviewees took part in the riots, why haven’t they passed the criminals’ names on to the police so that the horrible bastards can be  arrested and charged? Because if they aren’t punished, it means that at least 230 vile, lawless, sociopathic shits will have been left with the (seemingly accurate) impression that they can terrorise law-abiding citizens, attack the police and destroy property without suffering any consequences (apart, of course, from being lionised by the Guardian, the BBC and the LSE).

Yes, an extended summer break abroad in 2012 might be just the ticket!