Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of ...

Ev w50 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence
offer our future input into the work of the committee, including oral evidence, as we continue to learn more
about who was involved in the disorder and what may have caused them to become involved.
In considering the evidence, I would like to draw to the attention of the committee the amazingly positive
response of the broader community in the aftermath of the disturbances. Both spontaneously and with the
support of the council, people have come together in Southwark in ways that have underlined the strength of
our community. This has been more than just through getting involved in the immediate clean-up operation,
with a broom in hand, welcome as that was. Local people across the borough have shown a spirit and
determination to move on from the disturbances and have wanted to express this explicitly through the
“Peckham Wall of Love” and “Walworth Bunting”, photographs of which I attach.
My Cabinet colleagues and I have begun a series of “community conversations”, with the purpose of finding
out from people directly why they thought the disturbances happened, what is needed to support local
communities and how to help businesses, in particular smaller, independent traders. We are also asking local
people what they might do themselves to help prevent such disturbances blighting our communities ever again.
We would be pleased to share what emerges from these conversations with the committee, alongside our indepth
local research and analysis.
Initial Findings on the Disturbances in Southwark
1. On Monday 8 August Southwark experienced disturbances across the borough, with concentration of
activities in places like Rye Lane, Peckham and on the Walworth Road. The disturbances were a difficult and
challenging time for all concerned. Pressure was put on stretched local resources. In some cases businesses
reported long delays in police responses because police resources were so stretched during the disturbances.
2. Locally we are in the early stages of a long term police investigation and there will be significantly more
arrests and charges that will take place. The council is working with MPS Southwark on those charged with
offences related to the disturbances.
3. It is impossible to draw conclusions as to the cause of the riots at this time. There is a considerable
amount of evidence that has not yet been fully assessed and the emerging picture appears to vary from one
part of London to another. Any change of policy would need to be properly evidence based and relevant to the
specific local circumstances.
4. Local analysis of those arrested and charged to date indicates a wide variety of individual circumstances,
with no clear pattern emerging. The council is assessing these on an individual basis. Serious disorder was
organised through social media sites and involved a cross section from the community. Based on the limited
information known at this time, the majority of offending in Southwark is not believed to be linked to gangs.
However, that is not to conclusively say that gang elements were not involved.
5. As of the end of August, initial evidence of those arrested for Southwark shows that there were 339
crimes reported and 76 people have been charged. Of those charged, 84% reside in Southwark, 49% were
18–23 years old, 10% were under 18, and some two fifths committed an offence over 2 kilometres from their
home address.
6. In some instances, the same home address has been given by multiple people. To date, 53 Council
tenancies have been identified as the home address of one or more of those arrested. Initial letters have been
sent to the relevant tenants. In all cases follow up action is being taken and each tenant is being visited by
experienced officers to explore their individual circumstances and recommend further action where appropriate.
7. It is understood that almost 40% of the charges made so far relate to commercial robbery. 140 local
businesses have reported damage and looting to the police. In addition, there are businesses that have not been
directly impacted by the criminal activity but lost trade during the period of the disturbances and immediately
after (for example, their loss resulted from having to close due to the threat of disorder, rather than because of
direct, physical damage). It is important that when considering business support and relief, for example the
High Street Recovery Scheme, the government use the most complete and accurate data available.
8. About 50% of the businesses affected are small, independent traders who operate on very low margins
and therefore are at greatest risk in terms of survival. Some of these lost special materials which are difficult
to replace or even have to be recreated from scratch. Discussions with insurance companies reveal a fear that
areas impacted may face punitive premiums. The council has set up an emergency recovery fund of £100,000
to provide immediate support to local businesses to get them “back on their feet” and will closely review
whether this provision is enough. The council will also be contributing £20,000 to the Mayor of London’s high
street fund. The business community is looking to the government to provide assistance as well, not only to
help rebuild our local high streets in the short term but also look at sustainable solutions in the medium term.
9. The committee may wish to consider what work may be required to reassure business that the police will
be there to support and protect where necessary in the future. Equally, modern measures to improve business
security, including “safe by design” style advice from the police to prevent over-fortification of premises can
be examined.