1) No we weren't. 2) No, they aren't. You've distorted the meaning of the quoted sentence, which refers to "some" of the looting, not even of the rioting (much of which did not include looting). The input of gangs, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged under Commons interrogation yesterday, is nowhere near as great as advertised. 3) The article in question uses the all important qualifiers "individual" and "consciously", and follows it up with the qualifying statement, which you conceal with an ellipsis, "but it cannot simply be dismissed as apolitical". (Given that you yourself dismissed the rioters as apolitical and merely "having a lark", it's not surprising you left this out). 4) Not a single one of Brian Richardson's quoted observations militates against the thrust of the SWP's analysis, which is reproduced in the quoted article. The fact that it fails to coincide with the Aunt Sally version of the SWP's position that you have been spittle-lathering about doesn't mean there's any revision in this piece. Sorry to disappoint you.