One has to feel for David Cameron. There he was, one minute, immersed in the wonderful rolling hills of Tuscany; the next he had to bring his holiday to an abrupt end, put a tie back round his neck and set foot in the burning mayhem of London.

Practically every move he made once he returned – it would have been politically disastrous if he chose to remain – was correct. Speaking to the press in Downing Street on Wednesday he declared a “fightback”, denounced in particular the theft of goods from an injured man by people who posed as good Samaritans, and announced a reversal of plans to make cuts to the police force.

Effective or not, it was a show of leadership that largely achieved the objective of reassuring a nation, even if that nation is one of the most resilient in the world in any case whenever it is faced with a threat.

But then Mr Cameron blundered, when he suggested that the government was considering taking steps to prevent suspects using social media. Not only is such a step undesirable, it is in all likelihood unworkable. Failed attempts in the midst of the Arab uprising should have provided ample evidence of that. Yet this experience did not stop the British prime minister making such a shaky statement.

People who are determined to protest will always find a way to circumvent arbitrary measures taken by governments against them; though in Britain’s case it is not entirely clear what they were protesting about.

The police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham – a terribly deprived area which is no stranger to violence – was blamed for the riots which started in London and then spread elsewhere. Yet many of the so-called protesters caught on camera did not bear this out.

Some were seen helping themselves to a range of items that are anything but essential – like expensive stereo equipment – while others decided to raid sports shops, even having the temerity in some cases to first try on the clothing and then pack them into plastic bags. They could not care less about the shooting of Mr Duggan, if indeed they were aware of it.

Poverty has been cited as another reason. Yet while there is no doubting that youngsters are finding it tough to get jobs (presuming they want them, of course), the evidence does not support this either.

Much like Charlie Gilmour – the privileged son of the Pink Floyd guitarist who swung from the Cenotaph during student protests in London last year – some of the people who chose to turn to looting were relatively well educated and certainly nowhere near destitute. If, as many were claiming, they were driven by a lack of opportunities, it is difficult to understand how obtaining an iPod, a pair of trainers and a criminal record is going to improve their chances.

It is possible to argue that in extreme cases some limited forms of unlawful action could be justified (such as stealing an apple if one is starving), though the famine-afflicted in parts of Africa manage to act in a far more civilised manner – as they patiently queue for food – than their counterparts in the supposedly civilised West.

In England we have seen little sign of extreme cases. What we have seen is unadulterated opportunism and delinquency. Finding a cure is going to be difficult. The police can deal with the effects, but society itself (where are their parents?) must work out how it is going to deal with the causes. Addressing this is Mr Cameron’s biggest ­challenge.