The media coverage of the recent shootings in South London has been extensive. There have been others which have gone unreported, either because the age of those involved didn't provide for the shock factor that media covets, or because they happened some time ago and are not easily linked to this spate of violence (and I mean two months ago).
Obviously the memory of the media, and politicians and cops for that matter, has a very short span. Only two days ago they were reporting on the findings of a UN study on childhood welfare, which found that the UK is the worst place for children and teenagers in the whole of the western world ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm).
But the link between these two facts seems to be escaping the majority of the media reporters and the public. Instead they decide to put the blame on the apparent availability of weapons on the streets, their low price, hip-hop music and 50-cents lyrics. The facts that teenagers are in many cases neglected by overworked families, lack alternatives to hanging around corners and are pushed to consume at whatever the price by the advertising industry have apparently nothing to do with it.

This of course has the public turning en masse to government and the police, asking for a solution. Ian Blair has been quick to come up with one: armed police to patrol the "hotspots", which probably means most of south London (definitely Peckham, Lewisham, Camberwell, Streatham, Mitcham, Clapham, etc.), except Wimbledon and other similar higher middle class areas. This implicitly means that police will be even readier to shoot at people carrying guns, or suspected of carrying guns. It escapes me how putting more guns in the streets is going to stop people from being hurt by either part. I'm afraid we are likely to see more deaths in the future, particularly considering the track record police armed squads have.

Again, the fact that Londoners already are one of the most surveyed people in the world is being (conveniently) missed by media and the public. The UK has been classified as an endemic surveillance society, a dubious honor shared only by China, Malaysia and Russia of all the countries included in a Privacy International report (  http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-545269&als[theme]=Privacy%20and%20Human%20Rights)

All this points to a few operating factors. First, something that you would suspect, the inability of police and politicians to deal with the situation. Prompted by media to act on issues like crime, immigration, etc. the only answer this government can deliver is more repression: more police, new jails, more cctv on the streets, more restricting laws, monitoring...But indeed repression is the nature of any government, call it democratic or not, so this is hardly surprising. The fact that it is not working and only making things worse will not deter politicians from "talking tough".
Secondly, the inability of the public to imagine any solution beyond the usual "lock them up for life" kind of stuff, which of course is only an echo of the media-politicians discourse. What this reveals is the extent to which communities have disintegrated and independent thought has receded. In a replica of the debate about terrorism, immigration, and so many other perceived threats to UK society, people simply expect their politicians to solve problems so that they don't have to do anything. This is deeply rooted on a typical capitalistic mentality: that is, pay someone to sort out the mess, instead of making the effort to deal with it. But can a solution be bought? There's been a real war on communities going on in this country for the last 20 or so years, from Thatcher's days to New Labor blairists attitudes. This has produced a highly anomic society, with no solidarity networks left for any one to cling on to and everyone "minding their own business", which more often than not means locking yourself up in your house for an evening of TV "entertainment", after your trip to the shopping centre. Good for business, bad for people, welcome to the neoliberal society.

There are no repressive solutions to social problems. Indeed, many of these problems do not have one in capitalism or under a state. They are endemic to an unequal distribution of riches, economically, and of power, socially. But for sure, any solution goes through ending the two main trends I have identified before, only that ending state’s repressive nature can only be done through its abolition, altogether, as it is its very core we are talking about. And the second one can only happen if society as a whole is able to shake off the mental habits that consumerism and media dependence create. I am afraid that many people just want to go on not giving a heck, but then reality will come banging at their front doors. Actually, is it not happening right now?

London AFer.