About the London riots, how can one argue that it was caused by 'inequality?'

I think that you probably want to make some arguments
about how the riots that happened in London were not necessarily the result of one
specific police action.  Rather, they were reflective of a condition that had grown over
time.

Most of the riots happened in neighborhoods that are
economically depressed.  Certainly, one can accept what the Prime Minister and others
are suggesting in that the actions of the rioters were isolated "hoodlums" and isolated
"law breakers."  Yet, if one were to argue sociological realities of inequality as part
of the reason for the riots, the analysis goes deeper than "bad
apples:"

readability="9">

Tensions have been bubbling in Britain for some
time, with the economy struggling to grow after an 18-month recession, one in five young
people out of work and high inflation squeezing incomes and hitting the poor
hardest.

The "inequality"
argument behind the riots would reside here.  The economic problems that have been a
part of the world state of affairs has impacted economically challenged neighborhoods
more.  All people have been challenged by the economic climate of the times, but those
who live in areas that were already spread thin are finding more despair.  Unemployment
seems to be everywhere, but in areas where finding work was already a challenge, this is
a condition that is even more pervasive.  Add to this that these areas lost vital
government funding, and the Prime Minister's opposition's argument that "cuts to police
budgets had contributed to the escalation in violence" resonates even louder.  The
fundamental state of economic inequality helped to create the conditions where violence
was not only a reality, but to some extent, inevitable.