Search results

This article aims to explore the impact of new social media on the 2011 English riots.

The paper suggests that discourse on the riots in the news and popular press is obscured by speculation and political rhetoric about the role of social media in catalysing the unrest that overlooks the role of individual agency and misrepresents the emotional dimensions of such forms of collective action.

In considering the riots to be symptomatic of criminality and austerity, commentators have tended to revive nineteenth‐ and twentieth‐century crowd theories to make sense of the unrest, which are unable to account for the effect of new social media on this nascent twenty‐first century phenomenon.

Here, the notion of the “mediated crowd” is introduced to argue that combining emotions research with empirical analysis can provide an innovative account of the relationship between new social media and the type of collective action that took place during the riots. Such a concept challenges orthodox nineteenth‐ and twentieth‐century crowd theories that consider crowds to be a corollary of “emotive contagion” in spatial proximity, with “the mediated crowd” mobilised in the twenty‐first century through social networking in both geographic and virtual arenas.

The paper proposes that this original approach provides insight into the particular conditions in which the 2011 English riots emerged, while advancing crowd theory in general.

The general consensus amongst policy makers regarding the causal explanations for the involvement of young people in the August Riots of 2011 seems to have centred on “mindless criminality” and “thuggery”. These explanations have tended to be quite one dimensional where complexity has been avoided in favour of simplicity. Issues of structural inequality, poverty and social injustice appeared to be negated by political figures in favour of an emphasis on neo-liberal, individualistic explanations and solutions. Understanding that there have been very different interpretations of the riots, where some have come to very different opinions from the same data, the purpose of this paper is to revisit the causes and meanings of the rioting that took place over a five-day period in August 2011. Second by drawing on social democratic perspectives the paper stipulates several factors that if not dealt with may give rise to future rioting.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis. I draw on the work of a number of key academics and commentators to enrich the analysis.

Within the paper it is argued that the policies that emanate from neo-liberal political ideologies have impacted disproportionately on working class children and young people. More specifically the paper finds that problems experienced are deemed to be the responsibility of the individual, side-lining the influence of ecological and socio-economic factors.

In the light of the criticisms of neo-liberalistic approaches, social democratic perspectives are drawn upon in order to consider new ways of approaching the issues facing children and young people within contemporary society. Such perspectives are concerned with addressing structural inequality, poverty and social injustice.

We conducted a narrative analysis of a collective narrative comprising inscriptions left on the locally famed “Apology Wall,” written by thousands of community members in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot. In considering the Apology Wall as an “evocative object,” this study emphasized the significance of material objects as meaning-making devices. Interpretation of themes was conducted through a constructivist lens, specifically guided by literature concerning meaning-making following negative life events. Results bolstered the significance of the Wall as a sense-making device that provided a forum for the community to collectively share positive emotional expression, construct solidarity and collective identity, and express desires for restoration. By studying this collective narrative, the study not only illuminated how those affected constructed meaning after the Vancouver sports riot, but it also contributes to the literature on how communities, in general, make early sense of and respond to destructive events.

To explore the way in which responses to urban disorder have become part of the anti-social behaviour (ASB herein) toolkit following the 2011 disorders in England. In particular, the purpose of this paper is to unpack the government’s response to the riots through the use of eviction. It is argued that the boundaries of what constitutes ASB, and the geographical scope of the new powers, are being expanded resulting in a more pronounced unevenness of behaviour-control mechanisms being deployed across the housing tenures.

Using a qualitative research design, 30 in-depth interviews were undertaken with housing, ASB, and local police officers alongside a number of other practitioners working in related fields. These practitioners were based in communities across east London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester. This was augmented with a desk-based analysis of key responses and reports from significant official bodies, third sector and housing organisations.

Findings from the research show that responses to the 2011 riots through housing and ASB-related mechanisms were disproportionate, resulting in a rarely occurring phenomenon being unnecessarily overinflated. This paper demonstrates, through the lens of the 2011 riots specifically, how the definition of ASB continues to be expanded, rather than concentrated, causing noticeable conflicts within governmental approaches to ASB post-2011.

This research was undertaken as part of a PhD study and therefore constrained by financial and time implications. Another limitation is that the “riot-clause” being considered here has not yet been adopted in practice. Despite an element of supposition, understanding how the relevant authorities may use this power in the future is important nonetheless.

Much effort was expended by scholars to analyse the causes of the 2011 riots in an attempt to understand why people rioted and what this says about today’s society more broadly. Yet very little attention has been focused on particular legislative responses, such as the additional riot clause enacted through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This paper focuses on this particular response to explore more recent ways in which people face being criminalised through an expansion of behaviour defined as ASB.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the benefits of participation for young offenders. It also explores some of the challenges giving young people “a say”.

This paper reviews and critiques a number of published sources, including peer reviewed journal articles. By critically reviewing the literature, the paper intends to promote discussion and ignite debate on the topic of “offender participation”.

This paper argues that if young people are given a voice and provided with the opportunity to influence how a service is implemented it is more probable that the child will be “rehabilitated”. Furthermore, participation has many benefits for the individual child. More specifically, not only does it increase levels of engagement and compliance with a particular form of intervention or programme, but by being involved in the process, the child's self-esteem increases, making “motivation to change” more likely.

This paper argues that despite good policy and practice intentions, the involvement of young offenders in the design and delivery of youth justice services requires further development. Indeed, there needs to be greater opportunities provided to young people, across the Youth Justice System, to “share their views” and influence practice.

Between the 6th and 10th of August 2011, a number of cities in England experienced serious civil disorders now commonly referred to as the English riots. The riots are being regarded by many as the most serious disturbances in the UK since the Brixton riots of the early 1980s, resulting in over 3,000 arrests and by mid‐September, over 300 convictions. Whilst the post‐mortem into the “causes” for the English riots continues, the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is rapidly dispensing severe punishments upon those who have been identified. Yet, despite the “informed” commentary and assertions espoused within the national and local media, there is still little information about those who were processed though the CJS as a consequence of their “involvement” in the riots. Arguably, the social, political, and media reactions have impeded a clear and considered exploration of the rioters (characteristics and previous experiences) and what factors may have contributed to their involvement.

Drawing upon a specially configured dataset, incorporating social, economic, and criminogenic information of those convicted and sentenced by the courts in the initial weeks following the riots in Manchester, this paper is concerned with providing a case study of the individuals involved. In doing so, it inevitably explores the potential limits of any data constructed through the lens of the CJS.

The emerging profile demonstrates that the individuals convicted as “rioters” are often assessed as having multiple and entrenched issues around housing, employment, finances, and mental health. Agencies such as the Probation Service must now carefully reflect upon such profile information in developing their response to this type of offending behaviour, understanding the risks such individuals may pose but also the potential for the “rioters” to establish an offence‐free life on completion of their order or prison sentence.

Whilst acknowledging its limitations, the findings from this analysis make an early contribution to an important debate regarding the response of CJS agencies supervising the “rioters”.