Young British people the most unpleasant and violent in the world

10 posts

Behind England's riots, a violent and entitled generation of British young people

By Anthony Daniels

The riots in London and elsewhere in England have confirmed what I long knew and have long preached to my disbelieving but totally unobservant countrymen: that young British people are among the most unpleasant and potentially violent young people in the world. It took determination on the part of my countrymen not to notice it.

Needless to say, any generalization on such a scale needs to be tempered by qualification. Of course it is true that not all young Britons are unattractive in appearance and conduct, only a far higher proportion of them than of the young of any other nation. It requires but an overnight stay on a Friday or Saturday in any British city to prove it. Even Russians are appalled by what they witness.

The rioting is only the extreme end of the spectrum of bad behavior by British youth and young adults. The characteristics that are common to all classes are arrogance, a sense of entitlement and an unwillingness to moderate their behavior for the convenience of others. The main difference between the classes is that the rich can pay for what they feel entitled to, while the poor have to wheedle, cajole, swindle and steal it. But the inflamed sense of entitlement is the same.

These riots certainly did not emerge from a cultural vacuum. Many visitors to Britain, including Americans, are surprised and disturbed by how quickly many people in Britain appear to get murderously angry over trifles and direct real and frightening hatred at a person who has offended them in some very slight way. Tempers flare over nothing.

In England it is difficult now, quite literally, to distinguish the sound of people enjoying themselves from that of someone being murdered. Recently in Manchester (where there has also been rioting), I woke at 1 on a Wednesday morning in my hotel to hear drunken screaming and shouting down below on one of the city's main streets, the sound of which continued until 4:30. Lo and behold, when I left the hotel at 8 in the morning, I discovered that a man had been savagely beaten nearly to death at about 2 a.m. and was still in a coma - but the drunken reveling had continued nonetheless, uninterrupted by the police.

So the sheer viciousness and destructiveness of the riots certainly do not surprise me. No one who has seen an English football crowd, and the brutal faces it contains, could be under any illusion as to its potential for violence. At the last match I attended, the police kept the supporters of the two teams apart by almost military maneuvers, and after the match thousands of them frogmarched one set of supporters into their awaiting buses. If they had not done so there is no doubt that widespread fighting, looting and destruction would have occurred. And football tickets are now so expensive that it is no longer the game of the poor. Thus poverty does not explain the quick resort to violence, or the obvious taste for vandalism, of the modern British.

This is now the British way of life. We are afraid of our own children; many carry knives. The number of knifing injuries in London rose from 941 in the three months between November 2010 and January 2011 to 1,070 in the three months between February and April 2011; that is to say, by nearly 14%. And knifings with victims ages 13 to 24 rose 30% over this equivalent period between 2008-09 and 2010-11.

Most of the fatalities were among people of African and West Indian origin; Negus McClean, age 15, was chased on a bicycle by seven youths before being stabbed to death by them. Apparently, he was defending his brother from a gang. Oddly enough, the outrage of the local community was contained after this event and no riots ensued. Apparently, not all violent deaths are of equal concern to the inhabitants of our slums.

Long training and experience have taught young denizens of our poorer areas that they have nothing to fear from the law. Not only do the police solve a mere 5% of crimes or thereabouts, but nothing much happens to those who are convicted. A former lord chief justice of England, Lord Baron Woolf, thought that house burglary was so trivial a crime that those who committed it should not be imprisoned. Shoplifting has been virtually decriminalized. The slum dwellers of London are not well-educated - they reject the very concept of education - but are perfectly capable of drawing their conclusions. The only thing that will stop the rioters is boredom or exhaustion.

Daniels, who often writes under the pseudonym Theodore Dalrymple, is a retired British prison doctor and psychiatrist. He is a contributing editor to City Journal.

The dumbass didn't see the full scale football riot in the center of Moscow several years ago.

Gooks were attacked at random, and half of the downtown suffered from not just 'drinking' but drunk destruction of anything and everything.

Niccolo and Donkey

The underclass is in freefall, but Dalrymple notes that the attitude of self-entitlement is not limited only to the lower class.

Is this the end result of rabid individualism? It seems Burgess, Orwell, and Huxley were all right.


The decline of many areas in Britain is certainly precipitous and he is correct to note that self-entitlement is not limited to the proles. The wealthy public school crowd which congregates in London is purely out for itself, scutteling around hedge funds, media groups etc. It has abandoned any genuine position of leadership and influence. Furthermore, there is a level of ugliness at closing time that is unseen in Germany and France, and this is not limited to some Hogarthian underclass; it is prevelant in small, reasonably wealthy towns in the Home Counties.

This said, some of this is quite over the top and shouldn't necesserily be taken seriously. Knife crime tends to affect the oft mentioned "youths" it is not ubiquitous and football hooliganism is now fairly rare. It is also disengenuous to suggest hooliganism is still a near exclusivly British phenomenon. Last year I saw Germans and Eastern Europeans (I forget where from exactly) with "brutal faces" kept "apart by almost military maneuvers, and after the match thousands of them frogmarched one set of supporters into their awaiting buses."

For some insight into the mentality that pervades the Metropolitan Police (in light of the riots), it is worth reading Dalrymple's piece on the Macpherson Report, written in response to the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence:

I still don't understand what you mean by rabid individualism... what is this and where did it come from?

They are. But this is nothing new. The British - especially English -0 have always had a large uncouth and violent young underclass. Ot is the inevotable product a large urbanised society where social mobility is limited to non existent for those at the bottom. It has been this way for 300 years.

Normally, and the architects of Empire knew this, they could be killed off in regular wars or at the very least posted well abroad to man garrisons in the Punjab and the like.

Now there is no outlet for them, and as many point out, the welfare system allows a lot, if not most, to breed quickly and heavily.

I would say that in my experience, it is the white underclass that is the worst. They have the biggest entitlement mentality, are the most drunken and violent. The black kids tend to shoot each other and war with each other. And the families of the Afro Carribean kids are usually appalled at this. They cam to Britain and worked hard.

It is the white English multi generational unemployed and welfare dependent, who still manage to have Sky TV and drink Tesco special 9.99 for a dozen cans of Stella that is the problem.

But as I said, there's been a drunken violent nasty white English underclass for 300 years. Longer really, but enclosure and uirbanisation sped it up.

Niccolo and Donkey
Here's a great piece I just read:

Britain burns the colour of ‘A Clockwork Orange’

Good writing.
Niccolo and Donkey
Niccolo and Donkey