Abstract
This article answers P.A.J. Waddington's uncompromising critique of the `critical consensus': that wide body of academic, official and lay theory, opinion and analysis which attributes rioting to genuine grievances arising from discrimination, deprivation and police harassment. The article constitutes a rebuttal of Waddington's claim that the critical consensus exhibits wilful political partiality by carefully selecting and distorting evidence with the intention of excusing or justifying the rioters and portraying the police in a correspondingly negative light. By examining recent examples of his own research and theorizing, the article emphasizes the fact that Waddington is prone to the type of partisanship he so thoroughly condemns in his rivals. This debate has major implications for the way that society interprets and deals with public disorder.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
