Riots, Rumours and Robbery: The Summer Ahead?

The recent August TikTok and Snapchat invitation to a ‘mass looting event’ in Oxford Street attracted a crowd of teenagers as well as a considerable police presence. The widely shared posts began trending under the tag “Oxford Circus JD robbery”, with youths encouraging others to congregate at 3 pm and loot stores. A video suggested a ‘dress code’ of balaclavas and gloves, although interestingly, warned them, “Don’t come if you can’t run. Don’t bring any weapons.”

Although much smaller, is this event reminiscent of the so-called Blackberry protests in 2011, when an estimated 15,000 youths across major UK cities rioted after the police shooting of Mark Duggan? It was so named because the communication and inducements were conducted through Blackberry smartphones, where the social network Blackberry Messenger at that time was encrypted and not able to be intercepted by authorities. While blocking of harmful posts is now a massive endeavour by all major platforms, it can never catch up with the instant viral appeal to excitement.

Why take part?

Motivations to join in riot-type looting events are complex, from anti-capitalist attacks on specific stores to basic boredom, poverty, power, and feelings of entitlement to consumer goods. Political inducements to riot or engage in tribal attacks are characteristic of elections in many countries across the world. Following the January 6th Capitol Hill riots – and the looting of the White House - we now see Trump indicted for stirring up the protests across his millions of followers on social media.

While there is a huge distinction between Trump organising and youth organising, some connectors can be found. The initial language of Trump’s tweet was ‘Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th . Be there, will be wild! ‘ This was sent to far-right leaders such as such as Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. The Oath Keepers leader Kelly Meggs sent Facebook messages referencing Trump as follows: ‘Trump said It's gonna be wild!!!!!!! It's gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that it's what he's saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen, we are heading to DC pack your s***!!.

The London language was similarly ferocious: ‘Everyone from all sides of London meet up at the heart of London (central) OXFORD CIRCUS!!, Bare SHOPS are gonna get smashed up, so come get some (free stuff!!!) fuck the feds we will send them back with OUR riot! >:O Dead the ends and colour war for now so if you see a brother... SALUT! if you see a fed... SHOOT!’.

What we see in both summons is the appeal to ownership of the riot, and the connotation that there is a call to arms. Trump has ‘called us all…he ‘wants us to make it wild’. In London, ‘we will send [the feds] back with OUR riot’. People who are otherwise powerless can not only enjoy excitement but can determine its course and make it their own. The subversion of authority is a common thread.

Bizarrely, we also see the TikTok craze being used to encourage insanely reckless behaviour, for example, youth gathering at Southampton Central Station to challenge each other on who could be become hospitalised the longest by overdosing on paracetamol. Other daft behaviours and photo opportunities trending on social media have been antics on level crossings, within seconds of trains arriving.

While there are appeals by Donna Jones, the police and crime commissioner for Hampshire, for parents to be fined and to do more to intervene in mindless challenges, it is not immediately clear how you tackle the crowd mentality, particularly in the social media generation. Everything becomes performative, sharing videos of being at an event, or standing next to someone vaguely well known, or being in the limelight for some off the wall behaviour. Staying relevant through being viral is a behaviour rewarded on platforms, but with unknown consequences.

What to do?

The political response, by Rishi Sunak, is to use ‘the full force to the law’ to bring participants in violent riots to justice. Suella Braverman says they should be ‘hunted down’. But this is difficult on a large scale when there are thousands of participants – and when it is not clear who are protagonists and who are bystanders. There are also on-line bystanders – those that did not actually attend an event, but shared the footage. It is interesting to go back to the recommendations made after the Blackberry riots. An official panel report After the Riots made a host of recommendations but curiously did not mention social media platforms. Instead, it talked about parents instilling values, about ensuring qualifications and hence jobs, about police-community relations, and about engaging with young peoples’ ‘hopes and dreams’. There would be nothing to dispute, but now reads somewhat predictable and occasionally elusive. At the centre is the slippery concept of ‘having a stake in society’.

Admittedly, it is still difficult to pinpoint specific targets or strategies. At the political/legislative level, there is the delayed Online Safety Bill, but what to do at the educational or community level? In ConnectFutures we have training initiatives for young people on fake news and mis/disinformation, but incitement to riots is not always about propaganda and conspiracy theory, unless underpinned by false accounts of police action, or an act of perceived injustice or racism. But rumour does play a key role. As I commented in 2021 in a book chapter called

The problem of working in the areas of peace and conflict is that it appears easier to amplify tension than to amplify harmony. It takes only one or two people to fan the flames of conflict, whereas it seemingly takes hordes of people to put out the fire, to foster or maintain peace. The power of rumour is crucial, but spreading rumours about how nice people are does not really have much effect.

Although AI can now give that power to positive rumour and amplification? An appealing speculation.

But why do young people stay away?

Yet does the clue lie in why people do NOT participate in riots`? The After The Riots report interviewed people with similar backgrounds and disadvantages to the rioters who explained they didn’t participate because they had something to lose – a job, the respect of their family, their education. They showed an awareness of shared values. They had the resilience to take the knocks and felt able to create opportunities for themselves.

Ten years on and with a different cohort it is interesting that more young people are taking A level sociology than ever before, with one theory being that they would see themselves as ‘activists’ and want to understand the structure of society and how to change it. An academic qualification is by no means a panacea for all nor all ills, but it could be indication of how young people want to understand their society and its workings. The implication is not to advocate maths for all up to 18 but social and political science, including hefty doses of media literacy.

The key, as with tackling extremism, radicalisation and grooming, is resistance – to being sucked into a crowd mentality, sucked down rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, or lured into the excitement of looting. But, as with the 2011 riots, we need to ask young people themselves why they do NOT riot or loot or share poisonous messages – and crucially what they think can be done, to amplify and electrify the otherwise boring messages of moderation and common sense. At ConnectFutures we are developing an ‘asset-based’ approach supported by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which includes a Youth Board and enhanced mechanisms for youth voice.

The youth voice is out there already – a video entitled ‘The JD Sports Riot Explained on the TikTok Face magazine described how it was tough being young in Britain today – a staggering decline in youth services, the rise in youth unemployment, catching up on disruptions to education, and all within a cost of living crisis. ‘Kids are bored frustrated and angry… failed by a failing government.’ That view on youth provision would be endorsed by organisations such as YMCA, who reveal an almost billion pound cut in youth services. ‘We are condemning young people to become a lonely, lost generation with nowhere to turn.’ ‘Where to turn’ becomes a bigger issue even than the summer riots, and pivots on the nature of the viral space. The immediacy of the messaging means we are often acting reactively as we don’t have the tools to work with, to pre-plan and to understand young people and the way they converse. We have some idea of what they want in terms of provision but are less sure what to do when the vacuums are filled with explosive ideas.

Prof. Lynn Davies is an Emeritus Professor of International Education at the University of Birmingham, UK and Co-Director of the ConnectFutures. She has worked extensively in the area of education and conflict for the last 15 years, specifically in education, extremism and security.