A Home Office report presents an analytical overview of the disorder in parts of England in August 2011.
It reports on 5,175 recorded crimes and 4,105 arrests across 19 police forces that were affected by the disorder. The analysis covers where and when the disorder took place; the types of crimes recorded by the police; and the characteristics of suspects arrested by the police. The statistics are based on police recorded crime and arrestee data and present a snapshot of the picture as at early September 2011.<br><br>To recap, the first outbreaks of disorder occurred in Tottenham on Saturday, August 6, 2011 after a peaceful protest in response to the shooting of Mark Duggan. Unrest became more widespread in the days following, initially in others areas of London, then in other urban areas across England.<br><br>According to Home Office statisticians in October, overall 13 per cent of arrestees (417) were reported to be affiliated to a gang. Outside London, the majority of forces identified fewer than ten per cent of all arrestees as gang members. Only two non-London forces estimated figures in excess of this: West Yorkshire (19 per cent) and Nottinghamshire (17 per cent). These percentages only represent relatively small numbers of arrestees (13 and 20 respectively). In London, 19 per cent of arrestees were identified as gang members โ the joint highest of any force โ and the number of gang members arrested in London (337) is far greater than those arrested in all other forces combined.<br><br>In terms of the role gangs played in the disorder, most forces perceived that where gang members were involved, they generally did not play a pivotal role.<br><br>Timetable<br><br>Day 1<br>Saturday, 6 August<br>Incidents of unrest in Tottenham with vehicles, shops and residential buildings set alight, and looting of shops.<br>Day 2<br>Sunday, 7 August<br>Further incidents of disorder occur in others areas of London affecting principally Enfield, Wood Green, Brixton, Walthamstow and Islington.<br>Day 3<br>Monday, 8 August<br>Disorder becomes widespread in London, with disorder occurring across almost all London boroughs. Incidents of disorder also occur in Avon and Somerset (Bristol), West Midlands (Birmingham) and Merseyside (Liverpool).<br>Day 4<br>Tuesday, 9 August<br>Although disorder in the London area begins to dissipate, disorder becomes more widespread throughout parts of Thames Valley (Reading, Milton Keynes), West Yorkshire (Leeds), Leicestershire (Leicester) and Greater Manchester (Salford, Manchester). Unrest also continues in Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham.<br>Day 5<br>Wednesday, 10 August<br>Disorder continues into the early hours on Wednesday in Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester and Merseyside. Widespread disorder has now largely died out, though isolated disorder continues throughout the evening into early hours of Thursday. Some low-level isolated unrest continues over the following days. <br><br>Typically but not always the riot-affected local authorities were among the higher-crime areas, and more deprived. Within London, the boroughs of Croydon (430), Southwark (314), Haringey (303), and Ealing (279) recorded the highest number of crimes. Outside London, Manchester (386), Birmingham (363), Salford (188) and Liverpool (146) also recorded high volumes of crimes.<br><br>Some riot-affected local authorities were classified as having relatively low levels of deprivation (e.g. Bromley). Conversely, many high-crime and high-deprivation areas did not experience any incidents of disorder; for example, Blackpool, Bradford, Newcastle upon Tyne, Doncaster, Wakefield and Middlesbrough. <br><br>Although a range of crimes were recorded by the police, the most commonly recorded involved some form of acquisitive crime (burglary, attempted burglary, robbery, and theft and handling offences); these accounted for half of all recorded August rioting crimes.<br><br>In total, 51 per cent of the crimes recorded were committed against commercial premises; these were predominantly incidents of criminal damage and burglary. Just under one-fifth (19 per cent) of crimes involved vehicles (arson, criminal damage or theft of, or from, vehicles). Relatively few crimes targeted domestic premises. Just over six in ten (61 per cent) of commercial premises targeted were retailers; 13 per cent were restaurants, cafes or public houses; and a further 11 per cent were classified as โother business premisesโ. Specialist electrical and clothing shops collectively accounted for 22 per cent of commercial premises targeted 12 per cent and 10 per cent respectively).<br><br>Nine police forces provided information on whether the arrestee was previously known to the police (although the definition of โpreviously knownโ was not always consistent). The great majority (88 per cent) of arrestees were already known to the police in some way, either through previously being arrested, convicted or cautioned. Two forces also provided data on the background of offenders, such as their employment status. In the West Midlands, six out of ten (61 per cent) individuals arrested in response to the disorder were unemployed, with a further 17 per cent being students.<br><br>The document also sets out where disorder happened – much wider than the media at the time had the time to report – isolated incidents being spread across Hertfordshire, Thames Valley, and the West Midlands, such as Coventry; Liverpool; and Chapeltown in Leeds, and Huddersfield. <br><br>For the 35-page document visit the Home Office website – <br><br>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/?view=Standard&pubID=955633
Gavin Poole, Executive Director of the think tank the Centre for Social Justice, made a statement in October response to the latest figures from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice on those taking part in the riots. He said they revealed an urgent need to tackle social breakdown and the drivers of street gang culture in the UK.
โWhilst it must be recognised that these figures provide only a snapshot of the drivers behind the disorder it is clear that this was a group of people broken off from societyโs mainstream. The majority had failed at school; more than a third having been excluded from school in one year alone. Of those appearing before court, 42 per cent were in receipt of free school meals and 66 per cent of young people were classified as having some form of special educational need. Many faced a life on benefits, trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency, with 35 per cent of adults claiming an out of work benefit at the time of the disorder.
โBeyond these latest figures the CSJ has heard that many of those involved has experienced dysfunctional family backgrounds and this segment is adrift and detached from the rest of society. Furthermore, these latest figures prove that gang members played an important role in this disorder. In London almost one in five of those arrested have been identified as gang members, although we must recognise that in all probability a number of others have not yet been brought to justice. This reaffirms that the Government is right to tackle gang culture, which is both a consequence and cause of social breakdown and deprivation.
โFar from pushing the Government off course in confronting street gangs and the social breakdown which surrounds them, yesterdayโs findings should quicken the action on social reform. This has to mean strengthening families, reforming education, putting purpose back in to the welfare system, dealing with drugs and alcohol and rehabilitation at the heart of the justice system to bring widespread re-offending to an end.โ
