Riot Special Question Time

With me in London tonight, the former Deputy Prime Minister, John

Prescott. The Conservative David Davis, former Shadow Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick, who stood for Mayor of London after

retiring from the Metropolitan Police. The Archbishop of York,

John Sentamu. The founder of the charity Kids Company, Camila

Batmanghelidjh. And the editor of Thank you. Before I go to the first

question, with no respected David Davis, you may be wondering why

there is no Cabinet minister on this important occasion. We did ask

for a Cabinet minister to join the panel tonight and not one of them

would agree to come. Just in case you are curious. They were all in

the House of Commons today. All of them in the debate. Just so that

you know, because it is a surprise they are not here. Our first

question from William Brewster. a resident of Clapham Junction, I

felt very exposed as I waited for the police to arrive on Monday

night. How are we going to make sure the police are not outflanked

again as we return to normal policing levels. No longer with

16,000 police on the streets of London. David Davis. One of the big

concerns was not just how late they arrived but even when the police

got to the site of the looting and the rioting there was what appeared

to be, anyway, and order to stand back, to allow the violence and the

crime to go on. One of the lessons that David Cameron made clear in

the House today, one of the lessons that has been learned from this is

that the way you police a mass criminal activity, which is what

this has been, is very different from the way you police and

ordinary demonstration. This is completely different. The police

who operate under so-called public- order policing rules, which are

designed not to deal with this. In future, I hope we will see that

when the police get there they will intervene before, all whilst the

crime is taking place and not wait until afterwards, leaving us to

clear up the mess. Do you agree with David Cameron, that the police

chiefs have actually said they made a mistake here? I am sure that is

right. They were operating under a set of rules which were really

designed for demonstrations which might go wrong but are generally

peaceful. This was not that at all. This was a mass Quim of outbreak.

Very different. Brian Paddick, how come this would happen. The first

thing to say is that I think that if the disturbances in Tottenham on

Saturday night were handled properly, if they had sufficient

officers there - and it should not have been a surprise because when I

was Police commander in Brixton we had somebody shot by the police, a

peaceful demonstration turned into a riot - there was no excuse for

not having sufficient officers on duty in Tottenham on Saturday night.

If we had had that, and if the officers had acted, rather than

standing back - we saw the pictures on the television of officers

standing back and allowing people to go looting - then I do not think

we would have a copycat violence in Clapham Junction or anywhere else.

As far as the specific question, these crowds were organising

themselves using social network, using Twitter, Facebook, BlackBerry

Messenger. Why weren't the police on Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry

Messenger, getting one step ahead of the crowds? You are very

critical of your former colleagues. Where do you think it has gone

wrong with the Met? They have lost a lot of experience at the top of

the organisation, in terms of experience of dealing with public

order situations. This is the first thing. I was talking to officers

about this this afternoon, and they are very concerned, after the G20

and criticism of the police in those demonstrations, that if they

do police robustly, which I think is what the majority of the public

want, they fear they will not be supported by their bosses, should

there be a complaint. Therefore, not only are the senior police

officers telling police officers to watch, we will get them afterwards

with closed circuit television, sending the wrong signals to the

public and the rioters, but officers are afraid of acting

robustly because they think there will be complaints and they will

not be supported by their bosses. number of people wanting to come in.

I dispute that, actually, because there was a news bulletin on Monday

night. My friend's flat in Clapham was burnt out completely. If there

were four officers at the scene watching with him while people help

themselves to shops around, stood there doing nothing. Surely they

would be able to employ an amount of reasonable force in order to

prevent the destruction that continued for two hours before they

intervened. A thing we agree with each other. On the point that was

made about using reasonable force, I think the public, the media and

the politicians, we all send mixed messages to the police. In April

2009 we had the G20 protests and police were accused of being heavy-

handed and there is now an opera -- an officer on a manslaughter charge.

To pick up on the point that Brian Paddick made, if Sunday night had

been policed properly, we would be sitting here saying the police were

heavy-handed and did not act proportionally. They cannot win

either way. Do you agree? I think there are difficulties but let's

recognise there have been 29 civil disturbances since 19 some T5. This

is of a different magnitude altogether. -- since 1975. The

scale of it, the use of social Messaging, all of that as played a

part in making this different. What I find it difficult to understand

is why the police, that have these powers, did not exercise them in

the way they could have done. 1, numbers, no doubt about it. 16,000

showed that people stayed off the street. You cannot sustain that, so

the Public Order Act would allow you to designate special powers to

deal with them. I believe politicians, whatever they do to

get all the back, must recognise, designate a special area, which

requires bigger than the police to talk together about that, put a

proper police numbers in to deal with it. Thirdly, let's deal with

these people who covered their faces with scarves in order to

commit criminal acts. Make sure that if they are involved in that

designated place, they are acting in a criminal way and they must

face the consequences for that. That is obviously an issue. But I

think that when we talk about the police, I think it is important to

remember that the police are actually part of our society and

individuals with families themselves who also have - it's the

job. It could be a vocation, but it is a job and it is important to

remember that they do not get backing. This gentleman's point

about mixed messages. No support, very little support, mixed support

when things go wrong. If they were heavy-handed, they would have been

filmed and the rest of it. And then they are on a manslaughter charge

and they do not get the backing from senior officers, all from the

public that they deserve. Most of the time. Brian Paddick's point was

that these were orders to behave as they did, not an individual

policeman deciding how to react. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of

Constabulary, in his review of public order policing, said exactly

what this gentleman said, which was that there is no guidance to

officers as to what reasonable forces, no consistency across the

country about reasonable force, and officers need that protection.

feel that this has been an evolution of responses to

demonstrations in the past. You started to see it towards the end

of the student riots. Instead of clustering in one area, the

students went into small gangs, people wanting to cause

disturbances went into small gangs, because they knew the police would

kettle them, for instance. Second, I do not feel additional violence

from the police would solve the problem, because that is pretty

much what caused it in the first place, isn't it? What do you call

additional violence? I am talking about people calling for people to

be shot, using rubber bullets, for instance. The mistake that the

police made was to stand and observed on Monday night because

that is what they have always done. But none of us ever expected these

riots happening in diverse places in London. Tottenham, arguably, was

predictable because there were bad moves their head. But nobody would

have thought Croydon, Woolwich. I think Brian is being a bit mean on

his former colleagues. They do monitor Twitter and BlackBerry. But

do you know how many people in London use them? There is no way

the police can sit and work out. If somebody says, I predict a riot,

they may be talking about a pop song. You cannot do that, unless

you set up a fascist state. We could be sitting here saying, the

police were brittle and look at all of the people they have beaten up.

I think it is amazing that there have been no instances of police

brutality. I would rather live in a city that erred on that side,

rather than going in with shields and batons. This issue of social

networking is extremely important. My children in infield picked up

that there was going to be a riot in Enfield at 1pm. That is when

they picked up a message. It happened at 4pm. They gave me the

time. That is three hours. Why weren't the police there? The man

in the red tie. If we think that the police were not heavy-handed

enough, what does the panel think they should be doing differently,

and what other techniques should they be using on the streets of

London? John Sentamu. I think the first responsibility of any

government is to keep the peace, above everything else. So we have

to ask the question, is the Government keeping the peace

through the police? Because don't just simply blame the police.

Because if the police can't actually do it, vigilante groups

grow up. Nature always fills a power vacuum. Are you in favour of

vigilante groups? No. Do you disapprove of people standing in

front of their temple, armed in case it was attacked? Be careful if

you want to go that way. If you have a liberal democracy, where

people are accountable through Parliament and the police are

accountable as well, it will be a matter of time before people begin

to say, and I heard on one particular social network where

people were saying, I think we had better go and get it done because

we need to protect ourselves. Please, let us not go down that

road. -- go and get a gun. But if you know there is a mob coming up

the road, are you right or wrong to get together with colleagues and

stand outside and say, if you come, I will hit you. I would say to the

gross surfacing that difficulty, where are the police? Where are the

police. They have a responsibility to keep the peace. And the

Government have a responsibility. Therefore, you have to ask yourself,

do we have sufficient numbers of police? Do we really want to go

down a road which says, get in and use as much force? If there is a

lot of violence already and we respond with more violence, you

create a darkness on a night when If we are talking about more force

being used, what force is that? If people are waiting for the

criminals to be identified on closed circuit television, then

there have to go in and arrest the looters in the act of committing it.

That sends the signal that the police are doing something direct,

and it sends the signal to the rioters that they cannot get away

with it. Camella, you live in Peckham. I work in Peckham. Where

do you live? In West Hampstead, if you must know. Where there were no

riots. What do you think about the issue of how the police reacted?

think the police have an incredibly difficult job, in very challenging

areas. Potentially if they had got in very heavy handed in some of

those neighbourhoods, it could potentially have led to use of

firearms by people in those areas. What we have got to understand is,

as you rightly say, the police are human beings. They were also taken

by shock. They had to ascertain how to ascertain the situation.

Potentially, I think this situation may have calmed down. Unfortunately

because David Cameron was suggesting that rubber bullets and

water cannons would be used, and even though I regret the fact that

warlike behaviour is responded to with warlike language, I think the

police feel they needed back up. you thought the first reaction of

the police on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, was the right reaction, to

stand back and watch rather than making arrests? I think we can

never make judgments sitting behind the desk. There were lots of people

in very heated situations on those streets, both victims, perpetrators

and the police. I think we have to be very cautious about blaming

people in these conditions. Let's hear more from the audience.

disagree. I expect my police to stop people in the act of a crime.

And what was your reaction to the way that they responded? Blind

panic. I could not believe the pictures that I saw on Saturday

night of non- intervention and CCTV policing going on. That is not the

right way to deal with a mob like that. Brian has touched on the

point, but this is very important to understand. People have compared

this to the G20. That was broadly speaking a peaceful demonstration.

The man That died was not committing an act of violence or a

crime. It is very dangerous to use the same rules for that as you use

for this. And what we need to do is to give our police the discretion

on the ground to act when a crime is being committed, and to act

appropriately. If that means force, then that means force. The real

problem, as you know, the police claim the right to have the powers

to control, operation rights. Governments of the poster not

interfere. In this situation, a remarkable situation, one which has

to be dealt with in a different way, COBRA was pulled together, and then

all the arguments about water cannon came up, because of the

political discussion between Government and the police. We need

to know exactly what should happen in these exceptional circumstances,

how the police should act. If you leave it to the Chief Constable of

the moment, or even a commissioner, you get different solutions at

different times, which causes confusion and encourages people to

do the looting because the police don't know how to act in that

situation. Are you saying that the commissioner or the deputy

commissioner of the Net police was not in a position legally to deploy

the police as he wanted on Saturday and Monday, that he had to wait for

the Prime Minister? They have the powers under the Public Order Act,

but to use them they are required to discuss the Government. They did

not discuss any of that and Government was not there any way.

So they called COBRA. COBRA was only called when the Prime Minister

and Home Secretary came back from their holidays. The place where

this is discussed is broadly among senior police officers and they

made the mistake, bluntly. They applied rules for a demonstration

to a circumstance which was about crime. That is why it was discussed.

What they have all now recognised, it has come up in the house today,

they got that wrong and they need different rules of engagement for

their police officers on the ground. Until the Prime Minister came back

from holiday, the police could not have acted. Do you agree with John?

The idea that the police commissioner should call a room

full of politicians and ask them what to do, that would make the

situation worse. That is called COBRA and it happens constantly.

That fills me with dread, asking you what to do now. Sorry! Let's

assume it is your mate David Cameron. They can have the

discussion, politicians and Government. Where they do not have

it, they have the mess that we have had over the last few days.

police got it right in the end. You put more police on the streets.

police had sufficient powers on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. They

have the authority of to use baton rounds and Robert -- rubber bullets

if they wanted to. When it came to Manchester, the police had learned

what went wrong, so they intervene straight away. Or it was a

different police commander. The man over there? I think the problem was

that they did not have any rubber bullets. They have four policeman

in Clapham Junction and that was it. If you of four policeman with 250

rioters, you cannot do anything about that. On your own, to hundred

and 50 rioters. In your view why were there only four? God only

knows. There were riots in South London anyway, but... The woman in

red? I put it to you that the decision was taken deliberately to

have lax policing in order to after the events that happened push more

rules for were it to stop protests, to stop the working class having a

voice, and to stop... -- forward. Initial point. I drove round many

areas of South London where I live and there were no police. I cannot

believe that in five different large areas there were no police.

Eyesore crimes being committed and I cannot believe there were none.

It was deliberate. -- five saw crimes. Do you think it was

inevitable that the police would be limited in their ability to handle

the situation effectively considering a mistrust of the

police that pervades through so many of the communities affected by

the violence? I think that there are challenges in relationships

between the police and these communities. Funnily enough, I

don't think they stem necessarily from the police. I think that the

police end up with the bulk of our social troubles and they become an

agency that in effect has to suppress people's rage and protest

and that is what we are doing to our police. We are asking them to

do everything without really giving them the equipment to do it

sensibly. What is very interesting for me throughout this is that

actually the areas that did not get raided, like Oxford Street, like

Knightsbridge, it is well worth thinking what happened that those

areas did not really get attacked, and... Why do you think they did

not? I think the police caught on to what was happening and prevented

attacks on those areas by really pulling the crowd in. There is some

discussion among children at street level that suggests that the really

wealthy areas were well protected and the areas that we economically

more vulnerable were less protected. I will take one more point. Given

the speed with which all of the gangs seemed to be organised,

because of the use of social media, surely the police had an impossible

task? There cannot organise themselves quickly enough to follow

the gangs. What do you say to communities that did on themselves,

prevent trouble, when there is no adequate police response? I would

like to come back on this actually. The kids at street level did say

that the gangs that would normally be fighting each other United in

these circumstances to fight what they perceived to be the wrongs of

Government and the police. Does that make it better? I am just

stating what happened. I am not saying it is a good thing. This is

exactly the kind of liberal rubbish that has put this country in a

state we are in today. And to Lord Prescott, with all due

respect, the Labour Government over the last 13 years created this

culture of impunity that has led to the senseless act that we have seen

on the streets of our country this week. How dare you sit there and

defend your record? Because unemployment reduced by 2 million.

You always quote that. You always have facts and figures but people

of the country know the truth. Interesting that riots happened

under the Conservatives. They happened under a Conservative

Government. Labour are being paid off to be quiet. Who are being paid

off? Since they have come to power, there have been more riot because

cuts are being made, welfare payments are not as generous. And

people... People what? I think Labour tried to create this state

for the voters. We need to move through these topics because there

are several to raise. Just before we do, this programme is also being

broadcast on Radio 5 Live and on BBC local radio in London, the West

Midlands and Manchester, and we welcome all of those listeners. The

debate will carry on after this programme is over in all of those

places. In the meantime, you can join the discussion on Twitter. You

can send us text messages. And we will tell you what other people are

saying. John Prescott has his own tweeting going on here. You can

also press the red button to see what other people are saying.

you know that you are called dimple pot? I do! We are having a serious

discussion but I do know that is my name. I know there is a dimple

dance and I know that I can do it, too! This is neither the time nor

the place. The question from Emily, please. What do you think about the

petition demanding that those convicted in the riots lose their

benefits? This petition has been set up by the Government, whereby

you can petition Government and get hurt if over 100,000 people signed

it. This petition has now reached that. It is suggesting that people

convicted in the riot lose any welfare benefits that they receive.

Are you in favour of that? I know the Government is looking seriously

at this. At the moment, if you go to prison, you do not get your

benefits but that is because the Government is looking after you in

prison. OK, not very good food but to get the idea. If you get a non-

custodial sentence, you still get benefit. They are thinking about

putting them. Benefits could be used as part of the penal system

here. That might be a good or bad idea but I think now was not the

right time to make the decisions, right in the heat of it. We are

getting all kinds of suggestions and the worst possible thing would

be to come out with a Tony Blair style of the five things to do. We

should have the discussion, but when but tempers have calmed down.

OK, 100,000 signatures. Anyone in I think it is completely right. If

you have broken the law in the way that these people have done and

destroyed their community, why should they be receiving tax money

to go about their lives in the way they want to? It is disgusting.

the second row. Do you not think if you take away benefits and put

these people in prison you will make it even harder for them to

contribute to society when they come out? I am just asking the

question. They should have thought about that. Isn't it going to

create a vicious cycle? No, they should take responsibility for

their actions. I am asking if it will alienate them further from

society. They should have thought about it. What do you think? They

should take away their benefits and confiscate their private property

as well, in order to pay for the damage that has been caused and

compensate the victims, which include My cousin whose flat was

burnt down in Clapham on Monday night. Why should the taxpayer pay

out even more for these riots? David Davis, his petition is there

and there was talk in the House of Commons about removing people from

social housing, council housing, if they offended. Do either of those

ideas seem practical to you? I have slightly more sympathy for the

social housing aspect because that is a privilege. You have a 17-year-

old who was arrested... With a -- with respect, let me finish because

this is a difficult area. Fraser Nelson was right that decisions

made on this in the heat of the moment normally generate bad law

and we live to regret it years later. For example, if you take

away benefits and housing, you end up with a social case not just of

the individual but maybe their children. You cannot make sweeping

judgments. These judgments should be made by people who have all the

facts at hand, normally the court. That is where I like to see

judgments made on people's misbehaviour, not in Parliament and

not, with the best will in the world, on your programme, David.

And what about the e-petition, organised by Downing Street, with a

Cabinet that if they reach 100,000 they will go before Government.

That can be debated and that is fine. Many things will be debated

which will be uncomfortable for Parliament in coming years, which

people want to debate. At the end of that, hopefully parliament will

deliver laws which will be interpreted by the courts. We will

not have one law for a crime committed on this circumstance and

another law for exactly the same crime committed a year later

perhaps not in the glare of the public eye. John Prescott, what do

you think of this sort of punishment, the gentleman was

saying, for those found guilty? think that is happening on the

social network now. I got 30,000 against the bankers bonus. They are

deciding to participate in the debate. If you get 100,000 for a

petition, I am not against Parliament debating it. Why

shouldn't they? But I think what might happen is that the facts

might come out about the circumstances of what you were

dealing with. We found with hanging and abortion, there was lots of

emotion and feeling but when Parliament had to make a decision

against a background of those problems it did not arrive at the

same conclusion. I am happy to see that happen. But I think we have

only been told today that something like 50% of those before the courts

in London are under 18. Do you mean the 18-year-old, or do the whole

family get thrown out and become homeless? Do you change the law to

deal with homelessness? It is not just a simple solution to a problem.

Parliament has to make those kinds of decisions. I want to comment on

David Davis when he said about council accommodation being a

privilege. Have you lived on a council estate? I was brought up on

one. Believe me, it is no privilege. A lot of these people don't have

nothing. If you take away their accommodation, what happens then?

That is why I said it is a decision for the court with full information.

How many family are there, how many dependants, what was the

circumstance and the nature of the crime, all of the crimes committed?

Those are decisions that have to be taken properly, not in this way.

you evict those people, what happens to the family who are

innocent? I agree, which is why I say it is a decision forecourt.

First of all, the most informed people to make these decisions as

to what the appropriate punishment should be are the courts. They get

social reports and so forth. If the court decides somebody on benefits

should be fined, they get time to pay, and it effectively takes away

their benefits, as some people are suggesting. The other thing that

already exists with some social landlords are things called

acceptable behaviour contracts, where when they take over social

housing families, particularly those who have children with a

record of misbehaving, signed something to say they will keep

their children under control and behave themselves. That is a

condition of tenancy. I see no objection to that. But to take away

somebody's home, where it has not been agreed in the first place,

just to blanket takeaway benefits because a crime is committed, I

think that is going too far and it is too simplistic. In response to

Lord Prescott saying that 50% of those convicted are under 18, why

can't we offer them vocational apprenticeships to rebuild the

communities that are really damaged that they have destroyed

themselves? Instead of giving them a sentence, give them community

service where they can go and learn how they can actually help in the

future and give them a job? That is one of the things we have to

consider in dealing with the kind of problems in society. Give them a

chance and an opportunity. That is what many of them are calling for.

They are acting this way because they don't think they have any

opportunities. The man on the far right over there. If these people

on benefits, committing these acts, which we don't know, if you take

away what meagre sums they are run, they will have no money and will be

more likely to steal more because they will not have any money to

live on. Let me move on to the people who were engaged in the mobs

that were rioting, or whatever you like to call it, with a specific

riot, or looting. Matt Sheffield has a question. How can we engage

with rioters when they show no respect for society and appear to

lack the intelligence and understanding to be a part of it?

John Sentamu. Sadly, we have created an individualistic society

with a weakened family and community structures, where the

interests of me, myself have become prominent. From my point of view,

in many ways we have made a gob of self and self interest. The

difficulty is that our education system, as we have got it, what do

you do when all that you have been doing his driving towards higher

and higher academic achievement? Some of these people, quite frankly,

the system has not delivered for them. You have been requiring them

to do the same thing. I have a friend of mine who says, if you

want to make sure that your pig grows fast and quickly and you want

to sell it, the best ways to feed it and not to constantly way it. We

have had these attainment targets every time and some of our people

just cannot make it. It is time to recognise that within society some

people are going to be better off on apprenticeships, the kind of

thing you are suggesting, better off in other areas. The education

system, friends, needs to be looked at very carefully. And remember,

quite a number of these have been excluded from schools. I am not

making an excuse for anybody who committed a criminal act. The other

thing is that if you go into a house and you find that water is

leaking down the stairs, it is no good getting a mob to mop up the

water. It is better to find where the taxes, and to turn it off. --

where the tap is. Isn't it fair to say, answering the question there

and what the panellists are saying with regards to respect, over the

last few years we have seen a number of major court cases, MPs'

expenses and the phone tapping, with regard to the rich and

powerful who are somewhat immune from being prosecuted in any way,

shape off-form? These people have nobody to look up to. They are

supposed to look up to politicians and police, and all they do is to

see them as the enemy, the people that have, when they are the have-

nots. They feel as though they have been left out. Fraser Nelson, do

you agree? I am not sure how many of us look up to politicians,

lovelies -- lovely though some of them are. But you are right about

the absence of role models. We are talking about people who have been

given, to a large extent, a bad education, short changed by the

schools. We have this ongoing scandal of sink schools in the

country, particularly in the poor parts of London, where they churn

out people who can barely read and write at the age of 16. How are

they expected to get a job and provide for themselves like that?

Then they need to find a job and an employer. And right now, a lot of

them are better off on benefits than they would be working. You get

taxed on your work. We paved a road for them which leads to a welfare

ghetto. Are you saying we have created the circumstances for

looting mobs to go round the cities of London, the Midlands and so

forth by the way that society has been constructed? Absolutely not.

There are lots of very poor people in this country and hardly any of

them would even think about that kind of behaviour. It is an insult

to those who are struggling to put food on the table, struggling to

find a job, that poverty leads in its grip -- inextricably to mooting.

So what are you saying? The welfare state was set up to cure what

Beveridge called the giant evil of idleness. What the welfare state is

now doing is unintentionally creating joblessness, creating the

very evil that it was designed to eradicate. John Sentamu -- John

Prescott is screwing up his face because his record in Government

was not good when it came to dealing with this. We owe it to the

poorest to give them a decent education system and the ability to

find a job. We are churning them out of schools at the age of 16...

How dare you blame the state education for the system when you

and you're not come from a private education system. You have no idea

where I came from. 7% enjoyed private education, becoming bankers,

politicians, dominating most of the decision-making. And don't say that

has been free from corruption. The bankers have created part of the

problem we have got today and you cannot put that down to state

education. Do you think some schools are a problem? Yes, we

tried to do with them. What success did you make? We built a new

schools. You and your lot knocked them down and gave us deplorable

conditions. Look at your moral righteousness. Bankers did not come

from state education and they have given us the biggest problem we

have in our society and it is the poor people that are having to

carry it, not you lot. What is your answer to the question, how can you

engage with rioters when they show no respect for society and lack the

understanding and intelligence required to be part of it? You have

to separate them into those who are obviously criminal and older. You

have to do with them fiercely. No doubt about it. But with the

younger people, we have to hope we can rehabilitate those people, give

them hope and opportunity. That is the challenge. Nobody knows the

exact formula but we had better start thinking of it or else we

will be saying to a lot of these young people, you have no role in

this society, and they will continue to be antagonistic to it

through the rest of their lives. We cannot want that. We will get more

of this. I think it is very important to separate the moment in

which people engage in a riot and are not thinking from their normal

level of intelligence and their capacity to think. I think it would

be wrong to suggest that all of the rioters were somehow lacking in

intelligence and not part of society. That is the first thing.

The second thing to understand is that, whether we like it or not,

and I appreciate that there are a lot of heated feelings around the

despair that this situation has caused, but whether we like it or

not, there are large numbers of exceptionally disenfranchised and

disengaged individuals living in the ghettos of Britain. They have

not had a voice. The whole dynamic of the interactions politically has

been dominated by people who have a voice and a media who can express

things the way they want to. These people have not had a chance to say

it. It does not justify them rioting, but they have not had a

chance to say many things and we must not dismiss them. This is an

opportunity to listen to them as well. This is all very interesting,

but the vast majority of the people who went out mooting over the last

few days were just going out there to get things for free because they

thought they could get away with it. -- looting. Yes. We had a teaching

assistant brought up before the courts. We had a student who

admitted they were stealing to pay for a trip to Africa during their

gap year. Yes, there are these problems, but let's separate that

from this mindless violence we have had over the last few days. I think

it is very interesting how this has got packaged, because you have

these people paraded in front of all of us to suggest that there is

this brand called "the criminal" and there is nothing else to this.

That would be missing an opportunity to understand some

On this occasion I disagree with you. Brian was that the riots in

1985, and there was a political background to them. This was

clearly a criminal exercise at every level. There were gang

members... I will come back to that in a second. Let me finish. I will

come back to the precipitation. It starts off, I am afraid, with a

large number of gangs in London, 200 gangs in London, I think, and

many of them in Brixton, Hackney. And that is where the organisation

came from. I don't come from public education or a private estate, as

you well know. I will tell you a story that Alan Simpson told me, a

left-wing member of the Labour Party, talking about problems in

Nottingham. He said there were estates in his constituency when

young people had �30 per day paying for drugs and the man to look up to

was the drug dealer because he had a big car and he lived well. Before

you create circumstances like that, it will be no surprise that we get

the problems we have had in London and the Midlands and the North and

the last week. Why does Sweden not have this problem, and Norway?

Because it is a more egalitarian society. Thank you. I want to bring

in a man that commented on David Davis. We have failed to recognise

that everyone is quick to hammer into them, and we are not looking

at why things started and why it escalated. You make that point

about state schools. As a council estate boy that went to a good

state school, you reach the point when you have to go into the public

school sector to progress your career. We need to look at why that

is. I had to do that. You cannot become a politician, you cannot go

on into those careers. We need to look at young kids, and provide

real characters that they can look up to because they are not people

like me in the Cabinet. There are not people like me that our MPs and

we need to look at why that is and address it. You are saying why did

it start now? I grew up in a council estate. I am well-educated.

I have got a great job. I bet you any amount of money that I have

been stopped and searched more times than David Davis, more times

than that editor. There is a real distrust within that level of

society that you just don't trust the police. You need to address

that to stop the riots. I want to hear from more members of the

audience that have had their hands up for a long time. Going back to

what the panel said about education, I work in a secondary school in

East London and I teach citizenship. I think we can all agree that the

rioters that we have seen over the past few days all lack basic

citizenship values. Why has this subject like citizenship been

planned to be removed? It is the only subject that teaches young

people about their rights and their responsibilities. Why is that?

you get a good ear from your pupils if you talk about citizenship?

majority of the young people IT to articulate with views and they care

about their future and they want to go into politics and careers. And

to judge all the young people by the behaviour of a few is not fair.

Young people can be engaged but blue -- we will not engage them

without the necessary subject. you in the 4th row? I think it is

all good that politicians are condemning everything that has been

going on, but what in reality is deterring these people from going

back to attacking our streets? I read in newspapers today that one

boy got sentenced to two days in prison. What in reality is stopping

them going out and doing all that they have done all over again?

would you like to see happen, yourself? I think this talk about

scrapping benefits, we know that it is not realistic. I don't know

either what will stop them. David Davis, what do you think?

think we start by the court being sensible about proper penalties. If

the courts do not do that, it will be a terrible signal for the rest

of society. The politicians set the sentences. The set a maximum and

the men are men and then the courts choose it. -- they set the maximum

and the minimum. They are passing these on to the Crown Court to give

a heavier sentence. That is why we have to deal with this... We will

come to parenting in a moment. is going to deter people from

rioting is the certainty that they will get caught. The reason why it

went viral was because people thought from what they saw on the

television that they could get away with it. It is not about how tough

the sentence is, that should be appropriate to the crime and the

circumstances of the individual. What will deter people is if the

police are there, arresting people at the time. And if people really

believe. Why was Oxford Street not attack? Because it is covered, end

to end, with very good CCTV. So people thought better than to go

there because they would be caught. 10 minutes away from my house there

is just as much CCTV. It is the fact that the police were told to

stand back. Oxford Street is a safe haven, the centre of the city. We

saw what happened with the students, when Kettering was going on. It

makes sense for them to go to their own homes and neighbourhoods

because they do not respect them. When the student protests on there

were attacks on shops on Oxford Circus. That does not hold water.

This lady made a good point about parenting, so let come back to it.

But you are against CCTV, have you changed your mind? No. Intrusive,

expensive and not effective. That is exactly right. Guess where those

words came from, from the man that ran CCTV in the Met Police because

there was CCTV all the way up and down Archway Road, a lot of crime,

and they were never used. Nobody has never said don't have CCTV. I

wrote the policy. Make sure it is properly controlled. They work

effectively. Exactly. Let's move on it to parents. And to tie into it,

this question, saying that many of the rioters will be parents in the

next few years and what does the panel think the next generation

will be like in the light of that? With parental rights, a lot of it

has been removed. Parents cannot discipline their own children, they

cannot correct them, they cannot ask them to stay in. They just go

out and do what they like. Why cannot they ask them to stay in?

Because children are parents these days. That is nonsense. Children

just don't listen. We have cinemas everywhere, on the buses, so unruly.

They have been given so much liberty. So many things go in, and

so children perceive they have rights. The teachers are afraid,

parents are afraid. Who will give them the right values for Society

for them to be good citizens? Where does it come from? What do you

think? We need to restore that because the children of today of

the adults of tomorrow. We saw that in the student rampages well. 20

years ago they were all children. What will happen in this

generation? I think for me, remembering parenting when things

go wrong only is not helpful. We should remember it all of the time.

Actually we have got social pressures. Controlling small

children is not that easy. I have been a parent and a foster parent

and all I will say is this. When children are growing up, when they

become teenagers, like me they seek independence from their parents. I

wanted a peer group to which I could belong. Fortunately for me

there were proper structures. At the moment, there are no proper

structures, no proper care and concerns, so what tends to happen,

if they are not safe, then unsafe structures will emerge. And gangs

developed to create that structure which is not safe. So I set up a

Youth Trust. I can tell you the story of a little man. A teenager

that move to Manchester, after his friend Damilola Taylor was shot. He

got involved in gun crime in Manchester. He was met by one of

our projects, and he is now studying for a degree in youth and

community work. Why? A structure was provided that took him away

from that difficulty. Please don't undermine the social pressure of

our society now. I just want to follow up on that and ask about the

cuts to after-school programmes, sports programmes, at and youth

clubs. How is that going to help these people get into something is

good. -- which is good? They need to reform the school system. The

Conservatives are taking city academies, one of Labour's good

ideas, and putting rocket boosters and of that. We have been talking

about guidelines, legislation and education for children. There is a

link between ideas of responsibility and what the state

can and should not do in order to create an environment for people to

take on responsibility and accepted for themselves. An interested in

asking the panel about what they think about the Government appetite

to instigate change, to make things happen. I am not talking about cuts

and increased legislation to stop people doing stuff, I am talking

about empowerment and creating an environment for people to take

responsibility for themselves. empowerment of teachers and parents,

you mean? Absolutely. What do you say to that? I think there is an

appetite for that. As has been said, if a young person thinks they will

be caught and punished, then they will not take part in the crime. If

over the course of their years from year 7 onwards, the parents do not

keep them under control, do not set rules and guidelines, and the same

happens at schools because the teachers are afraid to exercise

those powers, then they find they can break the rules and nothing

happens, then they do it again. Then they come into contact with

the law, they break the rules and nothing happens. By the time they

get to 16, actually, even if they are certain they will get caught,

they tend to commit crimes and that is a real problem. We have got a

moment for a last question, which comes back to what happened over

the last few days. A lot of people have commented on this. Under what

circumstances is vigilante action justified to defend your community

or home? We have talked about the police, we have talked about

parents and schools and the rest of it. John Prescott? There are

vigilantes because there is a breakdown of law and order and we

are not providing law and order. I find I cannot condemn people if

they stand outside their property and say you cannot come into this

church, and they take those actions. Basically, I understand that, but

the failure is all of us that have a responsibility to make sure law

and order is maintained in our streets. People that are vigilantes

do not want to do it. They do it because we are failing to provide

the proper cover on the streets. Under what circumstances do you

think vigilante action is justified? I think we should avoid

it at all costs. No. You saw an incredible amount of disorder at

street level. One set of people start, then another set joins in.

It just escalates and I don't think we should have vigilantes. So what

happens to the vulnerable in society that cannot stand up to the

thugs? What about my 92 year-old mother? She will not turn into a

vigilante. She will not stand up to these people and she has to rely on

the police and we should rely on the police. The question is in what

circumstances is vigilante action justified? In whatever

circumstances, you get people like the English Defence League, roaming

round Lewisham, purporting to be protecting society, but in fact

they are justifying their racist attacks on black people. What do

you think? The man in the yellow. But then you also get people

roaming around looting, purporting to be acting in response to the

death of Mark Duggan. I think there was a very small minority of people

on the Saturday night that were really angry about what happened

with the police shooting. I think what happened subsequently that was