BBW keeps using "multicultural" as if this was somehow a cause.
He needs to look at the TV coverage...
The gangs looting shops are of mixed skin colour, their religion is not clear from the video, but the lack of ethnic division is clear.
The rioters have not fought much amongst themselves, which if you saw race/culture/faith as causes is something you'd expect. Britain has more Moslems than farmers, a serious Sikh population, pretty much every flavour of Christianand more French citizens than all but 5 cities in France. In much of London newsagents have up to 20 different language newspapers, so where is the inter-ethnic strife ?
The only example I've seen so far is Sikhs forming a defensive ring around their biggest temple, trust me you don't want to fuck with Skihs defending their temples.
You can of course see the idea of mixed race gangs as evidence of good or bad things.
I've never met BBW, but I suspect we have quite different social backgrounds and definitely very different friendship circles.
It's worth pointing out at this point that by British standards I am seen as a bit right wing, which by US standards puts me somewhere around Clinton.
When I first read BBW's comments that included the idea that all black kids are in gangs, I first assumed he was someone who had visited London once on holiday years ago. I find it hard to believe that he knows any black families and I suspect his background didn't involve socialising outside those his parents found suitable for a young gentleman. (I'm an Essex man, the precise opposite of a gentleman).
Yes some black kids are in gangs, too many, but unless you set a filter that would include my sons scout troup as a gang, or "me and my mates are going to watch a video" as gang related activity, it is just stupid. It's not even racist, the racists I know have at least bothered to research their topic.
Also it is more complex than immigration.
Most of the rioters are clearly white and some of the areas where rioting has happened have really quite low immigrant populations.
There is a correlation with unemployment as you'd expect, and the accents of the people do rather imply that they are N generations in this country.
Anthony raises some good points.
There is a hard core of systemically unemployed and unemployable in Britain which seems to be larger than in comparable countries; this has been there for >50 years and has not ever really been dealt with.
It has been made worse by the drift towards qualification driven employment. On QN, that may not be seen as too bad, and probably a good thing. Some kids don't take to schooling and the set of decent jobs you can get with no exams is pretty small. Because the UK has higher standards for soldiers than the US, Anthony is right, that is not a way of giving them something to do and in proportion it has few places anyway. But you can't now get a job mending cars or on a construction site without exams, which means they either can't get a job, or the ones they can get aren't much more attractive than being on benefits.
He asks what more can be done by the government and the obvious answer is education, which in some parts of Britain is almost as bad as the USA. People with employment prospects rarely join gangs and only riot when the government behaves actively badly.