This is a really, really, really bad post. First of all: I was in London, you were not. If you think that class in the UK is "nuanced" than you have been away for far too long. Or not been around enough posh folks or chavs. Class in the UK is easy to spot and easy to hear. And yes, unfortunately skin colour also still gives it away... There is no income or wealth equality between Black Brits and White Brits.

The "millionaire's daughter" is a particularly rubbish example. Why? Since the media picked up those few (VERY few) cases that surprise the reader and intrigue. ("Man bites dog" rather than "Dog bites man") This is also why there has been so much coverage, such disproportionate coverage of female rioters and looters- although they were a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the 92% male looters. Here some statistics [@ Gwen, Linda et al: PLEASE PUBLISH THE DATA]: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/aug/16/riots-poverty-map-suspects

• The majority of areas where suspect live are deprived - and 66% of them
got poorer between 2007 and 2010, when the last survey was published
• 41% of suspects live in the 10% most deprived places in England

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-magistrates-court-list

The links and pictures don't work here at Sociological Images, but they do work at Montclair SocioBlog. 

From a psychological perspective rather than a sociological one, it's clear that rioting is a behavior set that stems from a combination of "herd behavior" and hopelessness, or at least perceived disenfranchisement, in which the individual is helpless to change the social structures and institutions they face and instead attack them. Look at the Tea Party here in the states: we have demographic data on them, and they are, generally speaking, a rather privileged bunch who see the inequality in our society and are driven into "barbarians-at-the-gate" paranoia, under the spell of which they are willing to tear apart the welfare state to (they believe) protect their interests.

It's the elephant in the room that the poor are oppressed and exploited, and the same goes for the youth. It's fair to challenge any assumption, but this post seems to almost poison the well by "just asking questions." The problem isn't the assumption that race, age, class, etc. figure in these outbursts; the problem is the assumption that they are, at their core, the causes of their disadvantaged status and not the results of assigning said status. It's a case of the symptom being mistaken for the disease.

Even without data about the rioters (which we may never get as most rioters will never go before the courts) it seems to me to be a bit naive to ignore the class issues that were clearly evident in the past week. Tottenham where the riots started has unemployment rates of 8.8% double the national average,  this does not seem to be a conincidence.

I realize that it can be frustrating when the press make assumptions as
they have been doing in the past week. And sociologist really take these
things to heart. However instead of just pointing out the obvious and saying what the press say is anecdotal can we not aknowledge the brilliant job they have been doing in the past two weeks. my gut feeling from living in London for the past year is that class, race and inequality are very pertinent in Birtish society and that eventual data on the riots will very much state this.

I thought Russell Brand wrote an excellant article on the riots last week. Again just because it is anecdotal does not mean much of what he was saying did not make much sense

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron?INTCMP=SRCH

Perhaps we should not be wondering about the income of these looters, but about their apparent moral bankruptcy? It's poverty of an even more concerning sort if you ask me. Why anyone would participate in a mob acitivity that involves destroying the property in their own neighbourhood and destroying the lives of the very people they live amongst...stupid doesn't even begin to cover it. Disenfranchised indeed!

From
http://www.gatewayhouse.in/publication/gateway-house/features/why-britain-not-%E2%80%98broken%E2%80%99-society"Neither race, nor consumerist greed, nor the socio-economic environment provides a full explanation of the riots."

-snip-

The writer of that particular blog post didn't act like there was no such thing as race. But Faye Allard never mentioned race or ethnicity in this post about the recent riots in London. 

I appreciate that Faye Allard is interested in the possible influence of economic class on the London riots. But even if it is true that all those participating in those riots weren't poor or working class, that doesn't negate the possibility that race was still one of the  factors in those riots.I also realize that a person can "racialize" situations, over-considering the impact of race/ethnicity. But that doesn't meant that race/ethnicity shouldn't be considered at all. Perhaps with regard to race, it's not what you do, but when and how you do it. 

For instance, here's some quotes from 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/uk-riots-racial-dimension

"The uncomfortable question since the beginning of the disturbances on Saturday night, however, has been the degree to which tensions between different ethnic communities, and wider issues of race and cultural alienation, have played a part in some local areas. The answer, observers warn, is a complex and multifaceted one, in an area where simplistic judgments can be dangerous".

…In Hackney, residents spoke repeatedly of frustration over police stop-and-search tactics with young black men….

Far-right groups have sought to exploit the tensions."...

-snip-

It seems to me that at the very least the author of that article recognizeds that he or she couldn't accurately talk about those riots without mentioning race.

It also seems to me that Faye Allard is taking color blindness waaaay too far not to mention race at all in her post.

I'm curious what you mean when you say, "I feel class is certainly a nuanced thing in Britain, much more so than in the US." I have only lived in the US, but it seems like "nuance" is something that either exists or it doesn't; class is complicated in both societies. Do you really mean to say that class in Britain has a higher level of nuance than class in the US? or that British people have a more nuanced understanding of class? or that the nuances of British class dynamics are more obvious?

I really appreciate you challenging our assumptions about the demographics of the rioters. I had made those assumptions, too, and you've challenged me to rethink them and why I might have made them.

Still, I think it's important to recognize that we don't actually have to know the class backgrounds of the rioters themselves to talk about possible contributing factors to the riots. For example, we know that economic inequality can make violence more likely. To point out that Britain has enormous economic inequality that only stands to increase as austerity measures are enacted, and to wonder whether this has contributed to sparking riots, does not require certain knowledge that the rioters were all of a particular class. 

Speaking of Britain's inequality: The richest 10% in Britain are now 100 times more wealthy than the poorest. When society is that unequal, people we might not normally consider "poor" may begin to feel economically disenfranchised. Even if the rioters' demographics exactly matched Britain's general population, a majority of rioters could still believe themselves to be on the wrong "side" of that economic gap. 

(By the way: the link to the Guardian page doesn't work.)

This is an interesting post indeed. If you're right, that might mean that we have to come up with a new way of explaining riots like this. But then, we'll also have to be wary of how we go about it. We do know from experience that power is a very common reason for riots like this, so I think it is reasonable not to abandon it completely - maybe look for it in other aspects? Maybe the treatment of youth is the cause or maybe it has to do with other groups. What we have to make sure not to do though, is to go the route of some common media and simply write it off as an expression of personal vices.

edit: For what it's worth, this post reminds me a lot about hwo I felt the first hours after the Norway blasts. Nothing was known and the pattern was off by a mile, and the media still pinned it on islamic terrorits as if by a knee jerk reaction. We've been trained to spot islamophobia by now and I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the only one to question the reaction even before the debate broke loose - can be really be sure that we can do the same to classism some decades after the issue disappeared from view as subject for debate?

My impressions about who the rioters are are based on news reports listing unemployment and hopelessness -- the "nothing to lose" descriptor commentators have used, as contributing factors.

Plus, don't people historically riot because of injustice (perceived or real) - like anger over "stop and search" is one factor, but "other people having better circumstances/jobs/buying power to pay for the things we're taking from shops" is another. People who have jobs and can afford jeans and flat-screen televisions don't usually join in a rioting mob to get free jeans and televisions. Though as David Estlund mentions, herd behavior can make people say, "oh why not? Everybody else is getting away with it." Maybe?

I think it's reasonable to guess that poor, or otherwise low-status people are generally behind rioting.  Because rich, high-status people are doing quite well by the existing social order, so why should they upset it?  I think it's much like how traditional values and entrenched business interests are so easily aligned:  they align around both wanting to protect existing hierarchies of wealth and status.

Things get complicated because individuals are unique and status is subjective.  Traditionally low-status people don't like being low status so they try to create a culture in which they are high status -- maybe they create a gang -- but then sometimes a traditionally high-status person falls for the lure of the gang status (in this example).  Likewise rioting and revolution and other attempts at social upheaval are attempts to upturn the traditional wealth status hierarchy but sometimes people on the other side fall for the lure.  But they are exceptions, not the rule.

Actually, something else. The picture you posted in hysterical. "SPOT THE POSH PEOPLE."
Easy!!! The guy on the right (Bystander, if 'm not entirely mistaken, he was a journalist). Why?

So many reasons:

1) The SHOES. Chavs in the UK wear sneakers. Mostly White plastic sneakers.
Here the images you get when you google chav shoes:
http://www.freewebs.com/tjcotton/Classics.bmp
http://richandcreamy.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a65f3bd1970c01347fd02f7e970c-800wi
http://theworldhates.com/chavs/files/2009/11/sexy-chav-trainers.jpg
Non-chavs in the UK with a certain type of sneakers are Americans (this type to be precise, it makes Americans stand out like a sore thumb: http://marthaaldridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/shoes.jpg).

2) The BLAZER. Chavs don't wear blazers, they wear zip jackets (sports jackets) or hoodies (hoodies are a more 'classless' item of clothing in the US, they are definitely NOT in the UK).  

3) The TROUSERS. Chavs don't wear Chinos, they wear training trousers, here: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y284/lillmisswrecked/chavs.jpg

4) The HAIR. Chav male hair is short, with a small fringe:
http://i4.bebo.com/050/18/mediuml/2010/08/26/12/5476583669a12728598128ml.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BnDMwyT6xqc/TNckW8oH7TI/AAAAAAAAACU/ORL_35H8gvs/s1600/chavs-on-holiday.jpg

You say "ideas". Well, they are based on experience.

"But perhaps in our rush to explain and apportion blame perhaps we all
missed asking some important questions.  Why did we assume that the
rioters are poor?  How do we really know the class background of the
rioters?  Why did the media depict the rioters as underprivileged?"

Indeed. Although this question seems settled for the time being, perhaps we should even question why we uncritically use the word "riot" to explain the turmoil. http://www.thesociologicalcinema.com/1/post/2011/08/framing-the-turmoil-in-london-and-the-politics-of-signification.html

"Why did we assume that the rioters are poor?"

Let's see ...

1. The clothing visible on most of the rioters is indicative of a lower-class background in contemporary British popular culture.

2. The rioting broke out and was particularly acute in low-income neighborhoods with high-unemployment.

3. By all measures a significant percentage of the rioting crowd was made up of black males in the 15-30 age range, a demographic that strongly correlates with poverty in contemporary Britain.

4. Historically, riots are almost always perpetrated by the poor as a challenge to the existing social order.

5. The dynamics that triggered the English riots (police brutality; the death of Mark Duggan) are very reminiscent of the dynamics that triggered the riots in Paris last decade and the riots in Los Angeles in the 1990s - in both cases the majority of rioters were from impoverished communities of racial minorities.

"If you thought you could tell, you’d be guessing, and you’d be basing
your decision on ideas you have about the poor.  Some might point to
history; past rioters have tended to be from the working classes. But
this only offers us the ability to make a prediction. But, most commentaries did not acknowledge that they were predicting who was involved. "

... Ludicrous. There's a monumental difference between guessing and making an informed judgment based on physical evidence and past experiences. This cuts to the heart of the scientific method. There are many open questions in science. Yet, there is a vast difference between putting forward a theory that is based on experimental tests results versus putting forward a theory that is based on nothing, despite the fact that both may be plagued by uncertainty. The media reports that have pegged the rioters as poor are based on substance (see my enumerated points above or the link to the Guardian article that Kat posted, which more or less blows everything you said out of the water). If you're serious in that you can't see why people would assume that a crowd of young, males, many of whom are racial minorities (in a country where young, minority males are one of the most poverty-afflicted demographics), who are rioting (an act usually perpetrated by the impoverished or economically disenfranchised) in areas afflicted by poverty are poor ... then you have absolutely no business trying to write sociology. That might sound harsh but it's the sincere truth ... your perspective is very divorced from reality.

"Indeed, early police reports indicate that in some cases there was
organized travelling to targeted areas and in my home borough of Waltham
Forest, initial records show that more than half of those arrested did
not live there."

That doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that young people are mobile. From what I understand, there were instances where certain stores were targeted for looting ahead of time, word was spread by SMS and then rioters converged on that spot, so this isn't unexpected. Is it really that hard to imagine that the rioters in question knew how to use public transportation or had access to some sort of vehicle?

"The very fact that these “unusual suspects” have been singled out by the
press demonstrates the power of this prejudice; we are shocked when it
isn’t poor people rioting.  But why? Is it because deep down we believe
that the poor are capable of violence, but the rich aren’t? Or is it
because this riot is more complex than simply the rage of downtrodden
people?"

I disagree. I think the media singled out these instances for two reasons:

1. The unusual always stimulates interest in journalism. Interests equals advertising revenue for many news outlets.

2. There are sectors of British society that have a vested interest in downplaying the socioeconomic issues that fed into the riots. Your post here actually echoes what David Cameron said yesterday to the media: "These riots were not about poverty." If the riots were actually about poverty and racism then they would present a very troubling challenge to the British financial and political establishment, as they would indicate that the status quo has disenfranchised millions and is unsustainable in the long-term without violence. Using the examples of well-off individuals who were caught rioting or looting (who, according to the Guardian, were in the extreme minority) allows the media to downplay the class and race aspects at play and instead pass of the riots as the product of a moral or cultural decay, rather than structural socioeconomic inequality.

The Guardian newspaper this morning had a Google map of the data about riot locations and the home addresses of
people arrested in the riots. Those data were then put against
socioeconomic information regarding particular neighborhoods.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/uk_riots_poverty_put_on_a_google_map.php

From the great book "Research in the Sociology of Sport vol. 4: Tribal play- subcultural journeys through sport":
Another term for chav (British lower class) is "Hoodies". "[A] Common signifier of chav culture includes hooded leisure wear. [...] young working class men ('Hoodies') whose identity is often (allegedly deliberately) concealed by their appropriation of hooded garments."

You should check it out. And yup, I own a hoodie as well. One single hoodie in all my wardrobe. Chances that me and all my friends (at university or after work) would ALL wear hoodies at the same time are NIL. Why? They provide an identity to people of the working class, not to other classes. We might all year (just an example) Longchamp bags at the same time. Or chucks. Because they also provide an identity.

Seriously, these things MEAN something. It's not random in any way.

A very different take on the riots by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman 
http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/08/the-london-riots-on-consumerism-coming-home-to-roost/

"These are not hunger or bread riots. These are riots of defective and disqualified consumers" 

Interesting!

Here are the pictures of those looters who have not been identified yet. 

http://www.met.police.uk/disordersuspects/