Conservatist and Radical Views of Rioting

When asked about witnessing a large disorder or even any form of disorder most members of the public describe it as seeing a “riot”. What is a riot and is that what they are actually witnessing? This essay will start with the legal definition of a riot contrasting it to the common garden belief of rioting. From this it will be shown that there are more deep-rooted reasons for genuine rioting referring to ideologies and how social observers namely Rudé 1959 and Burke 1790 have identified these ideologies in relation to rioting. The three constructs of these ideologies will be examined and contrasted and compared each in turn. It will then further explain these ideologies in practice by using notable events in history and how they contrast and compare This is really repeating.

What is a Riot? Most lay people who witness disorder in the street will claim it “was a riot”. Was it really? The legal definition of a riot stems from the Public Order Act 1986, Section 1. Within it it defines the number of people that would deem to constitute a riot in the eyes of the law, then defines what they must be doing and whom it affects. Such terminology as “common purpose”, “conduct placing a person of reasonable firmness in fear of safety” and that it can be committed in private or public domains. One strange quirk, which is common in most public order offences is the adage that the phrase “or Likely to be” is used. This shows that the authorities recognise that people not associated to the initial gathering of people may be in a position to claim it is a riot or even have the belief it is a riot. If everyone there is behaving to a common purpose then how can the “public“ be   affected? This then devolves the classification down to public service personnel, namely the police. One contentious point raised when this legislation was evolved from original common law was that the onus of reparation for riot damage fell to the Chief Constable of that area. Therefore, would it not...