東區學英語 | 菁英東區新聞大補貼 暴動誰負責？英相與警察暗較勁
After British Riots, Conflicting Answers as to ‘Why’
LONDON — Outside a London court last week, as those accused of looting and rioting in the most destructive and widespread violence in recent British history faced justice, a mother turned to her 11-year-old son, accused of theft, and asked simply, “Why?”
That question has been at the heart of a fraught national debate as Britons puzzle over what drove even some previously law-abiding people to steal, sometimes risking arrest for nothing more than bottles of water. The debate has often divided people into predictable camps.
The Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, stood up in Parliament as Britain smoldered around him on Thursday and railed against “mindless violence and thuggery.” His critics on the left blame deep mistrust of the police in poor communities, and income inequality they say will worsen as his government pursues sweeping cuts in spending and social welfare.
Some commentators have blamed modern society at large. The Daily Telegraph struck a popular chord when it blamed a “culture of greed and impunity” that it said extended to corporate boardrooms and the government itself. Many politicians, meanwhile, have lashed out at technology — including the instant messaging that encouraged looting — for whipping up the crowds.
But as more details of the crimes emerge, the picture has become infinitely more complicated, and confusing. In some of the more shocking cases, the crimes seemed to be rooted in nothing more than split-second decisions made by normally orderly people seduced by the disorder around them.
An aspiring social worker, Natasha Reid, 24, turned herself in after stealing a $500 television. Nicolas Robinson, a young engineering student who had never been in trouble with the law, grabbed bottles of water because, his lawyer said, he was thirsty.
The 11-year-old, the youngest looter arrested, stole a trash can.
At several of the riots last week, those perpetrating the violence had no ready explanation for their behavior. One young man, kicking trash cans into the street, shrugged when asked why. And the atmosphere in Hackney’s Pembury Road low-income housing projects was sometimes one of adrenaline-driven glee. Looters whooped as they stripped a convenience store bare, yards from the police.
Even some Londoners who had initially condemned the riotous behavior joined in. Bystanders had watched in shock as rioters lined up against police officers on Tottenham’s main street last weekend, setting fires and looting. The mood shifted dramatically, though, after officers moved in, dogs barking and horses charging. One man, suddenly emboldened, grabbed a box of pears from outside a convenience store. A woman carried off an armful of coconuts. Another man, seemingly conflicted, sprinted, then turned back briefly to snatch a crate of bottled water.
Clifford Stott, a social psychologist at the University of Liverpool who studies riots, says that behavior, at least, is not unusual. Bystanders, he said, often turn against the police when they themselves get swept up in a broad crackdown. “That confrontation makes them start to think that the police are wrong, not the rioters,” he said.
But he added that crowd dynamics are incredibly complex and cannot be readily reduced to blame people, or to explain away their behavior.
The condemnation of social media, said Pamela Rutledge, who studies the intersection of the media and human psychology, is equally glib. It is true, she said, that social media “accelerates behaviors because it creates social modeling — people see that other people are involved and they’re encouraged.” But, she said, these “tools” are not only in the hands of the rioters; the police, for instance, have used social media to inform worried local residents about the state of rioting in their areas. “You can use a hammer to build something or destroy it,” Dr. Rutledge said. “It’s just a tool.”
Especially difficult to explain, both psychologists said, are the rapid-fire decisions behind the snatching of small and often cheap goods.
暴動誰負責？英相與警察暗較勁
英國上週爆發數十年來最嚴重暴力事件，首相卡麥隆（David Cameron）批評英警太過膽小，轉而雇用美國「超級警察」來對付街頭暴力罪犯，英國高階與低階警察今天同聲大表不滿。 英國尋找答案之際，前紐約警察局長布瑞頓（BillBratton）同意數月內訪問倫敦，建議如何對付幫派分子。
但英國資深警界人士為警方的作為辯解。8日爆發蔓延全市各區的暴動、縱火與劫掠的大規模暴亂之後，他們已經讓倫敦度過4個和平的夜晚。代表倫敦低階警官的都會區警察聯盟（MPF）主席杜里（John Tully）批評雇用布瑞頓的決定。 英國廣播公司（BBC）引述他的話說：「雖然他過去成績耀眼，但兩國警察採取的做法不同。幫派風格不同。」
大曼徹斯特警察聯盟主席韓遜（Ian Hanson）說：「對於卡麥隆的決定有憤怒，有失望，還有某種程度的無法置信。」 他說：「警方領導階層也站出來支持手下的警官與警察局，但首相現在給一巴掌，說他希望帶進布瑞頓，解決所有維安手法上的沉痾。」MPF的戴樂（Paul Dellar）說：「我們維護治安的方式是共識，美國警察用暴力。我們不想在自己國家用暴力。」
警察局長協會（Association of Chief Police Officers）領袖奧德（Sir Hugh Orde）爵士領軍開砲，凸顯警方與卡麥隆領導的聯合政府對於誰該為倫敦部分地區與其他英國城市連續4天暴動負責，有非常大的歧見。
奧德提到洛杉磯時說：「我不確定，我是否想向一個有400個幫派的美國地區，學習幫派的知識。」63歲的布瑞頓擔任洛杉磯警察局長直到2009年卸任為止。 （譯者：中央社何世煌）
菁英教育|上海托福|上海雅思|全民英檢|TOEIC|TOEFL|IELTS|SAT|美加留學|澳洲遊學|日本遊學|英美留學|英檢證照時代|菁英托福雅思|上海托福培训|上海雅思培训
留言列表
全民英檢GEPT 
