³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

So can we decide now what to call the events of the past few days. Disturbances? Riots? Orgy of looting?

My preferred description, I think - not entirely seriously - was offered by one of our contributors last night: "shopping with violence". But not "protests", because with the exception of the original protest in Tottenham last Saturday, after the shooting dead by police of Mark Duggan, there hasn't been much sign of anyone out on the streets protesting overtly about anything.

We journalists have an annoying habit of asking sometimes: "Was it X or was it Y?" In this case, "Was it a reaction to prolonged economic stagnation and high levels of youth unemployment, or an anarchic outburst of greed and criminality, born from a culture of amorality in which there is no understanding or recognition of what is right and wrong?"

Perhaps the most useful answer is: All of the above - because as I listened to some of the young looters who've been interviewed this week, I was struck by how varied their responses have been.

"It was a bit of fun ... I wanted to get back at the police ... I wanted to show rich people we can do what we want ... It was a chance to get something I wanted without paying for it."

I was also struck by something the pyschotherapist Nancy Secchi said on the programme on Tuesday: that in some cases, the looters behaved like toddlers, throwing a tantrum, smashing their toys, destroying the nursery. All with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, because they've never learned to consider consequences.

But of course there are consequences. As of last night, more than 1,000 people had been arrested. Some have already been processed through the courts and sent to jail. Yesterday, a 23-year-student was sentenced to six months in prison for stealing bottles of mineral water worth £3.50.

Over the coming days, we'll learn much more about who the looters were - or at least we'll learn more about those who were caught. So far, it seems they come from a wide spread of ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds.

And in a few months from now, what will we think as we look back? A terrifying warning of a society in deep trouble - or a moment, a spasm, of mid-summer madness, what Macbeth would have called "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?

I've been thinking about a woman I met in Philadelphia some years ago, whose son had been shot dead in a trivial argument over a parking space.

"If I ever meet the man who shot him," she said, "I would ask him just one question: 'Where did all that anger come from?'"

The same question is being asked by many commentators today after three nights of violence on the streets of London. It's not my job to offer answers, but I am paid to ask questions. So here are some of them, and I'd be interested in your thoughts.

1. Is it a mistake to look for reasons why? Is the answer simply that what we've seen has been gangs of hooligans and criminals doing what hooligans and criminals always do?
2. Can we learn something by analysing the targets the rioters have chosen to attack? Electronic goods shops, sports goods shops, jewellers? All of which could be seen as "status" goods stockists? (Although I did see one report of a Tesco Express being looted by women snatching milk and nappies, which suggests that poverty may not always be irrelevant.)
3. Is the violence related in part to feelings of power and powerlessness? When an American TV reporter asked one young rioter last night what he thought the violence achieved, he is said to have been told: "You wouldn't have been talking to me without it, would you?"
4. Is inadequate parenting in part to blame? The woman I spoke to in Philadelphia said she believed the anger of many urban youths stemmed from a sense of betrayal by absent fathers. How many young rioters come from stable, loving, two-parent homes?
5. Should we be calling the violence London's "austerity protests", akin to the protests seen in Athens and elsewhere? Is it irrelevant that in Haringey, the borough which includes Tottenham, three-quarters of the youth clubs have been shut down because of budget cuts?
6. After several months of reports of law-breaking by politicians, police and press, have some London youths now decided that taking what you're not entitled to is something they can try as well?
7. Has gang culture now become so engrained in some London communities that obeying gang rules (follow orders, look strong, be brave, own the streets) is more important than obeying society's rules?
8. Why were the police apparently so slow to react when the violence spread from Tottenham on Saturday night? Are they under-staffed, under-resourced, or too demoralised by talk of deep cuts in police numbers?
9. Is the violence a predictable consequence of high youth unemployment and prolonged economic stagnation? Would more jobs mean less risk of riots?
10. And finally, why did so many years of painstaking community work in Tottenham, after the Broadwater Farm riots of 1985, with hugely improved relations between police and local people, come so catastrophically undone on Saturday evening? Was a key senior officer on holiday? Did the police not foresee that the shooting dead of a man in disputed circumstances was likely to lead to tension?

Democracy's a funny old thing, isn't it?

In the over-quoted words of the over-quoted Winston Churchill: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

So I wonder what you make of the government's relaunched attempt to encourage more of us to play a direct part in the democratic process by signing online petitions which could - note that word "could" - lead to a debate in the House of Commons.

Here's how it's meant to work: first, create your petition (the relevant website is here.) There are, of course, certain rules that have to be obeyed. Jokes, nonsense, anything libellous or offensive - not allowed.

So, presumably, no more petitions like the one three years ago, signed by nearly 50,000 people who wanted Jeremy Clarkson to be made prime minister. (He is a TV presenter, m'Lud, apparently well-known for his love of motor cars.)

Second, wait for 100,000 people to sign it. That's about 0.2 per cent of the 46 million people who are entitled to vote in the UK. Everyone who signs has to provide an email address, but I'm not sure how they'll stop people creating multiple addresses and signing up more than once.

Then, if you've got that far, and if you haven't broken any rules, your petition will be considered by the Backbench Business Committee of the House of Commons. If they like it, they'll schedule it for debate.

And then ... ah, funny you should ask.

Because if you've ever tried to follow the progress of a parliamentary proposal, you'll know that unless it has government support, it doesn't get very far. In fact, it doesn't get anywhere at all. In the words of the old saying: "You can have your say, but the government will have its way."

As of midnight last night, incidentally, it was the anti-capital punishment petitions that were in the clear lead, with about 7,300 signatures, compared to around 4,500 signatures on the pro-capital punishment side.

Other popular demands were: keep Formula 1 racing on free-to-air TV (3,800); withdraw from the EU (3,500); and legalise cannabis (1,200).

At the other end of the scale, a proposal that the UK should switch from driving on the left to driving on the right had managed to acquire only 11 supporters.

But suppose, in a few weeks' time, more than 100,000 people have signed up for the restoration of capital punishment - or for the UK to withdraw from the European Union. Suppose the Commons committee decides it's a proper subject for debate. And suppose a handful of MPs turn up for the debate, and most of them argue in favour of the petition.

The Leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, wrote in the this week: "If politicians want to regain the trust of the public, then they need to trust the public. Giving people more power is the right place to start."

But you could argue that a mechanism for triggering a parliamentary debate is not necessarily the same as "giving people more power."

Because what happens if after the debate, the government does precisely nothing? The Conservative MP Louise Mensch wrote yesterday: "The death penalty is interesting in terms of representative democracy versus referendums. I would not vote for it if 100 per cent of the public were for it."

So are the petitions going to usher in a bright new über-democratic dawn? Will MPs obediently follow the expressed wish of 0.2 per cent of the electorate? Or will they follow Ms Mensch's example and use their own judgement when it comes to voting on tricky issues?

And if they do ignore the views of the petitioners, will trust in our political system have been enhanced - or reduced?

Perhaps the very act of organising or signing a petition will in itself represent a welcome advance.

On the other hand, if you think it's all nonsense, you'll be pleased to know there are already petitions up and running to demand the ending of petitions.