Have you seen any posts on what programs got cut - detail on the budgets for the riot areas? Is there correlation?

I suspect that one would have to listen to BBC much more thoroughly than I do to have this info. I listen for ten minutes here and there.

Plus, correlation doesn't work like that, I don't think. Correlation is almost never 1:1 when it comes to social or collective action.

It tends to run in sets--12:1. Put differently, you would have to see changes to multiple programs, which produces widespread resentment,

which then leads to anger that is set off by a "triggering event." The triggering event in this case was the shooting. That pattern

fairly general, at least, for the US context.

It is a pattern I teach in my course on civil rights, when I discuss the violence--racial hate crimes and urban riots--aspects of that mvt.

I get that the resentment spreads beyond those directly impacted by cuts so there may be no correlation to the final rioters,

but it would be good to see evidence that there was actual impact from the cuts vs rumor (I'm not looking for anyone here to provide that)

I understand that you are not asking anyone here to provide that evidence, but it is still an interesting research question that is useful

to our political conversations. What sort of evidence demonstrates impact?

testimony of a rioter that s/he has been hurt by cuts good evidence for impact? Are statistics about relative wealth trends, that the poor

get poorer, good evidence? Is evidence that unemployment in the section of town were rioting occurred increased by 2% good evidence? I'm not

asking to be confrontation, but to both illustrate the complexity of the task/research involved and to show how easy it is to disagree

about policy issues, because what is good evidence for one party is bad evidence for another. First, one agrees on the relevant question.

Then one agrees on a method for answering the question. Then one needs to agree on the evidence that illustrates the answer.

Then there is the need to at least begin to agree on an interpretation of the evidence.

This is the process that needs to happen, and it precisely that process that doesn't happen either among politicians or among citizens who

disagree about public policy.

Yes, those are good points to apply - one specific example I'd like to see would be a geographic impact of the specific program cuts blamed

as a causal factor - those could conceivably be determined by the UK govt from check records, programs shuttered or reduced

I do think testimony from residents about the impact of cuts is valuable, but discount second or third hand testimony

the research on political persuasion is pretty clear that most folks, regardless of their political preference, are persuaded not by info or

You are going to the same place I was - to an extent, facts and evidence don't matter

evidence but on whether or not the claim/message agrees with what they already believe or want to believe. divergent data is ignored or

Well, you may be going that direction

misinterpreted to support the person's original position. true of the left and the right.