You're either with Tea, or you're with the terrorists eh?
Just because somebody does not deserve to be a victim of crime, does not necessarily make the explicit perpetrator wholly and morally responsible for the effects. The effects are contextualised by social structures, as are the underlying events that lead to the criminal action. To ignore that stuff, and to simply take a binary view of blame is a very conservative way of looking at the world.
That doesn't mean I think that the rioters should have got away with it. Coming back to the recent demo (god forbid), I thought it was a bit of a strange idea and wouldn't have participated myself. And some people went too far for my tastes, and I wouldn't cry too many tears if they were arrested and dealt with proportionately. Anyone who rings them and shouts 'Hipster Die!' probably needs psychological help, but a good kicking probably wouldn't go amiss either.
My feelings around the extremely violent aspects of the rioting are similar. Ultimately anything like that will attract people with a wide variety of motivations, and giving them such a big window of opportunity is probably a good reason to be very wary of starting a riot. Does that make every participant in riots responsible for what all others do? I get that there is a notion of 'joint enterprise' but even if you agreed with that (I don't really) it seems like it's a stretch to employ it here. And does that mean I have to 'condemn' the riots, whatever that really means, else I condone them? Fuck that, and your squeamish right-wing victim's rights narrative of 'you wouldn't like it if it was you'. That doesn't mean I don't sympathise, it just means that I'm not going to let that get in the way of a proper analysis of root causes, or indeed even a certain mischievous wonder at these little earthquakes when they occur.