Tuesday, August 9, 2011

London's Burning, Police Found Guilty.

On Saturday in Hackney an individual was stopped and searched by police, on the same day as a peaceful vigil was held commemorating the fatal shooting of a civilian again by the police. Later, police in riot gear were attacked.

What connections do we see? Police, Pigs, PoPo. Though titles on the BBC read: 'Police Attacked', 'Mobs in London', 'Violence hits new parts of London'; they should read 'Police behind it'. Can we actually believe the sensationalist reports saying it's 'an absolute war-zone'? or misleading ideas saying shop-owners are losing their livelihoods? were police just walking around, casually on a weekend stroll, in their riot gear when they were attacked?

I've been following the reporting by the BBC. It says who: criminals/youths; when: Saturday, yesterday, today; where: London; what: rioting; how: through violence... But why? Journalism follows a series of conventions, as a to-be journalist I will not follow them. Objectivity benefits the right, the status quo and authority. Moreover it is a myth. Foucault would say it is part of a media discourse, itself a product of the discourses of capitalism and government. Reality is subjective, I see things personally, I project my experiences and ideas to every news story I read. The events in London are done by people.. angry at the way they are constantly mishandled by police.
The Met Deputy Assistant Comissioner says: "When we have large numbers of criminals intent on that type of violence [i.e. burning, looting, protesting], we can only do that, get lots of officers there quickly and try to protect local businesses and local people."
A misconstrued reality, the people are on the street. Business will be payed back by insurers.

We have to look at the reasons why the police are being attacked. Last week an individual was shot, this week someone was being searched. What authority do they have? I have often seen police speed, I have been stopped and photos have been taken of me. I never did anything wrong but go to protests. London has been protesting for much more than just three days. Last year there were 50.000 on the street, the year before as well. It's always youth. What are they unhappy about? Is generation Z anarchic and ungrateful? Or are we having to push the boundaries to express a systematic reality. Climate change, education and the economy are all constructed in a certain way. Neo-liberalism runs wilder and burns faster than and doubledecker bus in London. It's in our food, we spoon it for breakfast, at school, on the couch watching TV. 
The markets are currently crashing, this double-dip has been predicted but the brunt of the hit will again go to beneficiaries and workers, while corporations will receive yet another budget bail-out like the one recently approved by "Left-wing" Obama.

I don't agree with attacking the police, there should be a clear differentiation between attacking property and people. Property is inanimate, it represents the state's authority. People act knowing these institutions exist. I don't think the police should have as much power as they do, but this is not their fault as individuals, the police body stands in front of the government in its protection. Any individual policeman is innocent of the way the system works, so they should not become targets. What if they attack Tottenham blacks and jews? London has not fully integrated these populations, nor has the rest of Europe. From here we see the violence these groups of the population suffer from, like in Sweden. Jews were once scapegoats, now Islam is.

Attacking property though only gives the state an excuse to repress and create culprits. On the other hand it brings the point across. The media love a class-based conflict with burning stores.

No comments:

Post a Comment