The article looks at current explanations for the 2011 English riots. It critiques one dominant view that, beyond the micro-political protest in Tottenham, people primarily participated to loot lifestyle items they could not afford to buy. Empirical data is used to challenge the extent and nature of the looting in 2011, concluding that the proportion of riot events that were not focused on looting, directly contradicts the argument that criminal acquisition and consumerism were primary drivers of the unrest. Social disorder is more likely to manifest as looting in commercial areas, but it does not naturally follow that participants originally set out to loot, and economics may not be their primary motive. The article moves on to explore the role the police may have played in promoting ‘contagion’ and to reflect on the role of policing in preventing and limiting unrest, even where foregrounded by other precipitating factors.