I didn't predict a riot

Lord knows how many days of riots now. Spreading like a rash over London, with sporadic incidents of related violence in Birmingham and Leeds and Bristol and Lord knows where else. People have died.

I am acquainted with a local rozzer and if what she's telling me is true, it's either going to, or already has kicked off in some unlikely, sleepy places.

Out of nowhere, mass uprisings of what really do appear to be nothing more than well-organised scrotes are going out and indulging in some high-impact shopping.

It's quite mind-boggling. Lefties have been quick to leap on the bandwagon of "Tory cuts", but since I see no evidence of cuts anywhere, I am forced to conclude that they're talking bullshit.

In fact, I want to say some more about this. When I was a kid, my parents were not, by any definition of the word, rich. I went to a "theme park" exactly once as a child, and we literally had just enough money to get in. We trudged around the park looking at the exhibits and stuff, did all the free things and then left. We didn't even have enough money to buy a cold drink. I was not inundated with the latest consumer playthings. As soon as I was legally able to, I went and got a job.

My parents provided me with clothes, food and a roof over my head. I never went out to riot, the idea never even occurred to me.

This just looks like a mad surge of thugs out to help themselves to new TVs and various other bits and pieces. Expect a massive surge of cheap electronics on eBay next week.

I am actually quite angered by "the left" blaming this on social deprivation and a lack of role models. First of all, the state has, for decades been visibly throwing money at "social deprivation" at the behest of the left, and now it's clearly not working and the argument is that we need to throw more money at it, because it just wasn't enough? By far the biggest component of state spending is on welfare. And now more spending on welfare will have a better result?

And the lack of role models thing really gets on my tits. By making it viable for any woman to be a single parent, by making it reasonably easy for a single woman to raise children on their own, what the cunting fuck did they think was going to happen? I mean, you can argue the case for single mum-ness, and you can argue the case for lack of good role models, but you can't have that particular cake AND eat it. All the single mothers I know take their parental duties seriously, and that included not having an abusive or useless father in the house.

And fair play to them, it's easier to be a single mother than make the effort of going off to find a decent father figure who can also provide. I don't make light of the effort required to find a decent and compatible man. But then you can't wring your hands and say that somehow this violent behaviour is excusable because the perpetrators don't have a good role model in their life. Your policies have made it much more likely that they would grow up like this.

Some of the stories I've read have been horrifying, like this tale of an injured boy being casually mugged by looters.

It is one of our worst nightmares, really, a mass insurgency of violent, amoral thugs, storming homes and shops, casually burning buildings and cars and looting with apparent impunity. And it came out of nowhere. The ostensible cause of it all, the shooting of an allegedly armed man, bears no relation to the scale and delightful social inclusiveness of the subsequent rioting.

Scuttlebutt is that the looters are using a number of social media sites and tools to organise the looting with nearly military precision.

The police have been rocked back on their feet. BoJo and the massively-foreheaded cunt have curtailed their summer holidays. Cameron has been photographed repeatedly looking serious, pensive and statesmanlike, while BoJo has apparently disgraced himself completely and made a laughingstock of himself. Both of these underscore just how much use modern politicians are.

Of course, far be it from me to point out that one of the great advantages of a state is that it protects us from things like this happening. Or so I'm told, repeatedly. Without a state, we would descend into mayhem and nihilism. Mindless violence and thuggish theft would rule the day.

I'm so glad that the state has prevented this from happening out of the blue.

The truth is, the inability of the police to bring this under control underlines the value of the state quite clearly. Eventually, the thugs will get bored and run out of easy prey and it will quieten down and the state will claim victory.

Sadly, that will not be the case.

The state has been systematically removing the normal tools of ensuring civility and cooperation from us. They claim a monopoly on defending us from violence, exhorting us not to resort to evil vigilantism. But if you look at how useless they've been at stopping this from happening, it's abundantly clear that it really cannot protect us from the one thing that "everyone" agrees that we need a state for.

The thugs will eventually get bored and go do something else. The police will arrest a trivial number of them and by the time they get to trial, the usual hand-wringing bollocks will kick in and nobody will get an appropriate punishment. Insurance and the taxpayer will pick up the pieces and a couple of businesses will be shut down, further destroying jobs and inflicting poverty and misery on innocent people.

We will be told that the state has sorted things out, when in truth boredom and apathy will be the only things that actually stop the mindless violence.

The only people who will wind up paying for this will be taxpayers and anyone who actually pays insurance. Thugs will be reassured that no-one will actually do anything to stop them if they ever feel the urge again and we will all be worse off.

And still the sheep will cry out that the state is necessary to protect us from this exact thing, that the state prevents it from happening more. Therefore we need more state, so that the state can protect us even more.

It makes me weep.