Talk:1981 Brixton riot

Is it really true that the number of people arrested during Swamp 81 in the lead-up to the uprising, and then the number of people arrested during it, was the same -- 82? So 164 arrests overall? It seems a bit of a coincidence -- has there been a mistake?

See the Daily Mail of 16/4/2011 for a source as to the three stabbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article makes a political point in countering the official version that the riots were not about racial inequality. As much as I may agree with what the article says here, I think it's clearly biased and does not give the opposite view the slightest chance. This should be an Encyclopedia, not an op-ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.211.47 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dop you have some sources to help here? All of the source material I have collated pretty much matches the article - Thatcher took a fairly strong stand that it was not about racial inequality, but academic works (historical ones) have a consensus that it was. I think we do OK reflecting that state. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a consensus among left-wing academics, but not amongst all historians. A riot that started with 3 black men trying to murder another, and developed into looting of black-owned shops and homes, is hardly about young black men fighting inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.116.193 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is saying they were fighting inequality, they're saying they were subject to inequality. Up to and including the high crime rate. The man being murdered was also black, and had he lived in a safer and whiter neighbourhood, wherein employment, infrastructure, public investment into education and healthcare etc existed, then he would probably be alive today. Combine that with the police covering up racially motivated terror attacks, and how London police have both a present and historical tendency to profile and mistreat migrants and people of colour, and it's clear that the tensions were caused by racial inequality. 78.69.180.157 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure the use of a Military Conflict box is appropriate here. No other pages on riots use military conflict, they employ either a civillian attack box or a news event box. I'd like to see it changed to Template:Infobox_news_event Kaleeyed (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The current civil conflict ibox is OK, but it needs to be would be better presented similar to its use on (the far superior) 2011 England riots article. Keri (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done Keri (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article has been lacking RS since at least 2010. This may have contributed to the large number of errors it presents as facts. A few examples: The initial contact between Michael Bailey and PC Margiotta took place at 6.10pm not 5.30pm; Margiotta did not go to a house on Atlantic Road where Bailey was first treated - and it was a 3rd floor flat on Rushcroft Road; the police didn't call a cab to take him from there, and nor did a large crowd gather as he got into the cab; etc. etc. And that's just from one paragraph (and arguably one of the most important paragraphs, describing the initial catalyst). All of the correct details about these events have been established since at least November 1981. The article needs to be thoroughly fact-checked, and RS used. Keri (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

An article that uses YouTube (4 times!) and the Daily Mail as references should always set off the spidey senses. I'm quite shocked that the Scarman Report isn't used once. Keri (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1981 Brixton riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205044315/http://www.met.police.uk/history/brixton_riots.htm to http://www.met.police.uk/history/brixton_riots.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1981 Brixton riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008022715/http://www.storyvault.com/video/view/brixton_riots_ to http://www.storyvault.com/video/view/brixton_riots_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply