of criminal offences. There is no requirement for a specific frequency of criminal behaviour. These were largely opportunistitic criminal acts. If you must ask why many of those convicted haven't committed crimes more often, the most probable answer is that rarely does there seem to be an opportunity to steal goods with apparent impunity (however disappointed the retrospective investigations may have left them). How often does a corrupt politician have to accept a bribe to be described as a criminal? If we were, though, to describe these riots as political, we would have to respond differently. If we were to do so, we would have to describe the underlying values as favouring acquisition through exploitation of strength at the expense of other members of society. What sort of politics does that sound like to you? Not quite! Some of us do not condone rioting but have sufficient insight into why these unpleasant events happen. This is not unique to the UK and generally happens when a section of society feels frustrated and helpless. Unfortunately given yesterday's financial forecast these events are likely to be repeated. Your reference to the Guardian as the newspaper of looters and vandals may have got you lots of (so far) recommends, the one curiosity in your weak comment is Why are you reading it then? No, they were the greatest consumers that this avaricious, banal excuse for a society has ever seen. Taking goods for which we have no ability to pay is what the