Mike Butcher writes in TechCrunch “Absolute Explosion — How BlackBerry BBM Fed The London Riots" about the way that BBM would be used by gangs. Using an informant who tells us that the criminal gang would not be using BBM to organise their own activities it becomes clear that the looting was orchestrated as a smoke screen for gang activities. Only the police will know the extent of this, but, it seems that gangs hit on the ability to orchestrate mass looting really by accident and probably would not be able to continue to coordinate these activities by design.
It is possible to deduce that the fact that BBM is encrypted is less important for the criminal than that it is reliable and permits broadcasting. It takes little imagination to see that if A broadcasts to B who has 2 others to broadcast to unknown to A, this will spread out very quickly (although, of course it will not be that sort of neat pattern, but, eventually, a power series, with peaks and troughs of new connections - hence bridging from one territory or group, to another.)
Cameron, in the House today, concentrated on a profile of gangs, he clearly had been briefed. In the fact of giving such a description it shows that police intelligence is emphasising the organisational power of gangs, these relatively small groups of people.
The idea that gangs have orchestrated the activity is interesting.
While, for instance, someone might say that this is the best protest ever (heard on the radio), what might the motivation of the gangs have been.
Since gangs rely on a steady flow of income and regular business (mainly drug related) really a bit of looting will not go very far for them, and would, I expect, be counter productive to their business if it continued.
I should think that this was a protest at the killing of Mark Dugan - purportedly a heroine dealer and gang leader. On the whole gangs don't want their bosses killed because it leaves them feeling and seeming impotent and, remember, gangs rely on physical intimidation to make sure debts are paid and to protect turf.
So, my surmise is that the riots were initially a reaction to that ripple of anger and fear that took hold of a core group of people, those in Dugan's sphere of influence.
However, there are some other contexts to consider.
The immediate context is that of young people impressionable enough to be drawn into the looting.
Here I see two activities. Those drawn to loot JD Sports and so on, and those wanting to ensure some decent, if temporary, profit, by robbing jewellery shops and luxury designer goods. In this case perhaps the arson was to divert attention and resources, as well as an attempt to destroy CCTV footage, where core gangs were involved.
The context here, then, is that of our society that really softens people up so that they are malleable and exposed to an extraordinary extent. All of the 'evils' of modern society play their part here, from poor education, exhausted parents, benefit dependency and desensitising video games.
Within that, a messaging system that swarms and creates instant feed back would seem very exhilarating - even though its seeming chaotic nature would not be fully managed by any individual or identifiable group.
Another context is the broader one of society at large.
There are a few things to point out.
There have been a number of world catastrophes recently.
It is impossible to know, without asking, how these may play on the mind of different people involved in this.
Some, the bullying, would say that it vindicates being strong and their own measures for dealing with life.
Others that the backdrop of the world is one of total unpredictability where only those who are included seem to be protected.
I could extend this list, but, important to also mention, some would just feel very insecure, perhaps all, in one way or another, do.
Those who have not been protected when very young grow up possibly brutalised, but certainly feeling raw and exposed. (This is the Lacanian Real.)
Looking again at the politicians I do wonder how they will react.
It has been pointed out enough times now that the rhetoric of moral absolutes used by right wing politicians allows no room for understanding.
But there is little understanding of this lack of understanding. Here both Harriet Harmen and Diane Abbot failed. Harriet Harmen just tried to push the Labour line, and really had nothing to say to Gove when he pointed out that Labour had been in power when spending was completely uncontrolled.
This brings me to my own points. I may be accused of xenophobia but when I was working for Serco I was aware of the way in which Serco conducted its business.
Serco conducted its business as if the Government was an infinite trough at which it could water itself, its raison d'etre was to invent ways in which it could bump up its costs so that these could be passed on to HMRC. I found this extraordinarily immoral.
There were many contractors working there and many people, usually contractors, who were not from the UK. In particular a large section of people from the Indian sub-continent.
There were next to no black English, and certainly no black English in technical areas. I found this terrible.
I found it terrible because I live in Tottenham and I know, while not having my ear to the ground, that there is poverty, unemployment and a lack of opportunity here.
Frankly the whole thing made, and still does make, me feel very angry. I often have had the fantasy that I could somehow start an IT business here and employ local people, local kids (but of course it is not that simple.)
What is straight forwardly true is that government has wasted no opportunity to waste an opportunity to actually help the working class population of this country. This is as true of Labour, who were in power for thirteen years, after all, as it will, no doubt, be true of the Conservatives.
How can it be that a whole enterprise is set up (the contract between HMRC and Serco) for government to spend, at a ratio of waste of about 20:1, money on bad and inefficient technology that draws in, and therefore trains up, in large proportion non UK born or educated workers.
If my readers find that both understandable and moral that is up to them. I know that I do not.
I return to my point made elsewhere. There is not enough work of the right type to go around to engage our own local population, in that sense there is no doubt that workers from the EU and Asia (and Africa to a far less extent) are taking opportunity away from those who already live here.
I should add that it is a very different proposition to come into work as someone who resides here to come here as an already formed young adult specifically for work. The former person does need a different compact, a more sure deal, to help them into adulthood with a sense of a future.
This, to me, is anyway pretty self evident.
Personally I don't care if there are foreign workers here, but I don't buy the reasons given, that English people don't want to work, that they can't do that sort of work, that it benefits the economy anyway and so benefit out weighs harm. I don't believe any of this. The reason I don't believe it is because we have thirty odd years of the same talk, but the problems we had then have only grown worse - from the evidence in my field of work which has been hungry for skilled people but has found disproportionately few from this educational system, let alone the black community. For the obvious reason that business has seen this (incorrectly by the way) as the way to maximise profit. But their misunderstanding on that front is an entirely other story, that has to do with the incompetence of managers.
Coming back to Diane Abbot - I was disappointed with her. I thought that she mainly spoke about herself in a very narcissistic way.
She did not address (by some form of description at least) the conditions that may have led to this sort of civil disorder. Leading me to think that she neither has particular insight into the problems nor has any solutions.