Young Offenders Worker and Community Campaigner Discuss the Causes of the London Riots.

[fatpie42]

Shelagh Fogarty - BBC Radio Five - Wednesday 10th August

Shelagh Fogarty: Our reporter spoke to these looters in Manchester.

Comments

[windy_lea]

I: Yeah, obviously, but it’s not about that.
RM: What is it about?
I: The government obviously, taking away. Honestly, more kids don’t get no college no more, cause they don’t get paid innit.
RM: So the fact that you are nicking shoes that you could probably afford to buy. That’s about the government, is it? I don’t understand.
I: No, honestly, it’s not about that right. It’s about like the government aren’t in control. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do it, would we?
RM: So because the government can’t stop you doing it. That’s why you’re doing it?
I: Well did the government do? They tried, they failed innit? How many people have they arrested, right? Ten! I’m not really bothered. I keep doing this every day, until I get caught.

The interviewer and rioter's lines clearly got switched somehow... Anyway, I don't think the interviewer's interpretation of the rioter's actions as bald opportunism in need of a spanking really fits with what that particular rioter said. Does a true opportunist even give a shit about what the government has taken away, or about access to education? And while an opportunist would certainly enjoy the government's inability to stop them, so might someone who feels their disenfranchisement even if they may not identify it as such justifies stealing.

I mean, I don't at all think disenfranchisement is the only factor involved in this, and I certainly don't condone what happened, but the interviewer and expert seem a little punishment happy to me and more than willing to ignore what role disenfranchisement might play in all this.

[fatpie42]

The interview pretty much repeated what the kids said to him. In any case, you can see their replies for yourself.

Yes, they do make reference to post-16 college funding which was recently withdrawn and that's obviously a really crappy decision by our current government. (Interestingly I had another transcript about that too.) However, the interviewer doesn't allow that to be an excuse and it's clearer in the way they speak in the audio clip that the rioters aren't so convinced that that's a good excuse either. (I've actually tidied that bit up in my transcript. In the original audio what they say is a bit hurried and confused at that point.)

Transcript mentioned above is here:
http://fatpie42.livejournal.com/87654.html

The thing is that the withdrawal of the EMA is not an excuse to wreck and loot the town centre. Not even close.

Also I've sorted out the mix-up at the beginning now.

[windy_lea]

Reread the interview with the expert, and I don't see where it "pretty much repeats" what the rioter said. I also think the discussion between the expert and interviewer goes beyond not allowing excuses. They're acknowledging that society and government have failed the rioters, but they've decided the rioter's "we do it 'cause we can" is about a cry for discipline. There's also a good dose of "kids these days" tossed in while the expert essentially implies that the underclass couldn't possibly be frustrated enough to commit crime because the UK has one of the most generous welfare systems.

The thing is that the withdrawal of the EMA is not an excuse to wreck and loot the town centre. Not even close.

I'm not sure if you meant this for me or just as a general disclaimer, since I already made it clear I neither condone nor excuse what's happened. Examining societal factors that may have played a role in creating a riot-friendly atmosphere is important, I think.

I'll try to have a listen to the audio later, to see what you're talking about. But I've actually pulled an all-nighter and need to hit the sack.

[fatpie42]

Reread the interview with the expert, and I don't see where it "pretty much repeats" what the rioter said.

That's not what I said. Sorry if I was confusing.

I was saying that the interviewer who was interviewing the rioters (as opposed to Shelagh Fogarty who was interviewing the two experts) was pretty much repeating what the rioters told him (basically saying "is this what you mean?").

I thought you were saying that the interviewer was twisting their words and I was disagreeing. I didn't see that you had anything to say about what the experts had said. Perhaps I missed it.

There's also a good dose of "kids these days" tossed in while the expert essentially implies that the underclass couldn't possibly be frustrated enough to commit crime because the UK has one of the most generous welfare systems.

That doesn't seem fair at all.

It's not a matter of being "frustrated enough to commit crime", it's a matter of considering crime to be acceptable in the first place. What do you mean "frustrated enough"? Is the looting by that teacher really a matter of being "frustrated" into doing it?

The point of the experts was that handling those in the worst scenarios is being prevented by a broken justice system which lacks proper authority and the willingness to apportion blame in response to criminal activity.

The welfare thing was simply noting that the rise in anti-social behaviour (which has been happening long before these riots) cannot simply be blamed on people being hard done by the system. In other countries, the disfunctional members of society could not hope for this level of support. The problem they are suggesting is rather that we are not harsh enough on those who are failing or even victimising their children and later on those children who grow up to victimise other members of their community.

This'll probably come as no surprise to you, but you know that stuff just like the whole baby P thing is happening every day and there simply aren't the resources to do anything about it, right? The argument of these experts is both that they need more resources and that they need to be given the necessary backing to their jobs with authority. - That's how you sort out these problems.

Hope I made more sense this time and that you don't find yourself going "what the hell is this rubbish" when you read this in the morning. :)

[windy_lea]

Thanks for the more in-depth explanation of your interpretation. :-) No, I definitely didn't mean to say the interviewer was twisting the rioter's words. I meant that I felt the message the interviewer and the expert took from those words seems simplistic and unnuanced. And although the interviewer was asking for clarification when paraphrasing the perceived message, the rioter kept disagreeing. That tells me the interviewer wasn't getting it.

It's not a matter of being "frustrated enough to commit crime", it's a matter of considering crime to be acceptable in the first place. What do you mean "frustrated enough"? Is the looting by that teacher really a matter of being "frustrated" into doing it?

I guess I didn't really word myself well. Do you not believe that social disenfranchisement and frustration with society can lend to creating an enviroment in which outcasts feel that crime is acceptable? It's all very well and good to talk about how people should maintain their own morals in the face of adversity, and there are people who do so, but I don't think we can write off those who do decide crime is an option as simply needing more discipline.

I understand the points they were trying to make with regards to anti-social behavior, the welfare system's perceived relative generosity, and discipline. That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with. I'm not saying there's no truth to it at all, but I think it's obtuse to the social realities. And honestly, while I believe justice should be done, and the criminals should face consequences, I'm wary of anyone who offers harsh punishment as the solution while dismissing any social factors.

I don't know, unless I'm missing something, all the talk of resources and government support seems focused on punishment. That won't put an end to this kind of behavior. These people are young, but they're not children. If they're striking out at the community, I seriously doubt it's a cry for discipline, tbh.

[fatpie42]

Do you not believe that social disenfranchisement and frustration with society can lend to creating an enviroment in which outcasts feel that crime is acceptable?

I don't think social disenfranchisement and frustration is enough to explain the kinds of anti-social behaviour we have in the country right now. After all, some it doesn't even come from people from poor backgrounds (as we are seeing from some of those arrested for looting). This isn't about the lower classes being given a bad deal. That isn't to say that the lower classes aren't often being given a bad deal, but to say that this doesn't directly correlate with the anti-social behaviour.

As Winston says, the real problem for young people today is not the welfare system, but an often almost impenetrable job market.

[windy_lea]

I don't think social disenfranchisement and frustration is enough to explain the kinds of anti-social behaviour we have in the country right now.

Has the UK had such an extraordinary rise in anti-social behavior throughout the country? If rates of crimes generally connected with anti-social behavior correlate more with the level of governmental authority than joblessness and the income gap, then I'll concede the point. But it seems to me that this riot is riding on the back of the austerity measures.

As Winston says, the real problem for young people today is not the welfare system, but an often almost impenetrable job market.

I consider the inability to get a job a part of what it is to be disenfranchised. It's not just about whether your welfare system is being hacked away at.

[red_pill]

i dont know how much of it is real, and how much is persived, but, perspstion wise, there is this idea of a real issue of anti socal behavour. look at asbos. they were brought in obstensivly to deal with the rise of anti socal behavour witch was persived to exist, and were persived to be wide spread.

[windy_lea]

Would you say this perception of anti-social behavior was frequently in discussion well before the riots? I certainly hadn't heard anything before now, but I don't live there.

I guess I'm skeptical because it's so common to hear people rant about wide spread problems with the "youth these days". I don't doubt that there is anti-social behavior, and I won't say the rates of it are always the same, but I feel like I can't see it as typical generational heckling unless someone brings out some stats, and links them to the perceived cause. If that makes sense?

[red_pill]

sure. i'll see if i can find you something concreat. the daily fail sertenly felt that england was awash with doom etc etc

like i said, the prevouses goverment brought in anti socal behavour orders (asbos) to try and deal with what was thought to be a rise in dickness. i cant find anything solid (five minites with google got me nout)

wiki gave me this "In a survey conducted by University College London during May 2006, the UK was thought by respondents to be Europe's worst country for anti-social behaviour, with 76% believing Britain had a "big or moderate problem".[7]"

[windy_lea]

Thanks for the information! :-)

[windy_lea]

Or rather "I can't see it as anything but generational heckling until [insert the rest of my comment here]." Ugh, must pay attention when typing...

[red_pill]

i was surpised they want exprenses AT SUBWAY

what? its a friggin fast food joint. jesus.

[fatpie42]

I'm wary of anyone who offers harsh punishment as the solution while dismissing any social factors.

I don't think they were saying "harsh" punishment per se. I think they were saying any punishment at all.

Do remember that we are only talking about young offenders here. That's the focus (for Winston at least).

Adults get sent to prison and have a really hard time of it and are made to feel sorry about their crime. (In the case of adults, the problem is more the lack of prison space to send them to but that's a whole different issue.) Young offenders are told that there's social reasons for their crimes, that it's not their fault and that they are victims of crime. And that's if they are actually convicted of something major enough to warrant being sent to a detention centre or to the suveillance program Winston mentions.

You've even got cases where parents will get their own children to do crimes because it leaves them off the hook and they know the punishment to the child will be minimal. That's just horrible.

If they're striking out at the community, I seriously doubt it's a cry for discipline, tbh.

If a 12 year old is stoned in a teacher's classroom and the parents don't care, the teacher can do nothing. You don't think that's not a sign that there's a lack of authority in the system?

What's more shocking about that example is that I don't think schools in more affluent areas would have that problem. It seems to me that excuses are being made for offenders in poorer areas and it's other kids in those poorer areas who suffer as a result. Imagine being a fellow classmate of a child that the school can't punish?

[windy_lea]

They bring up the prison space issue, so they seem to be conflating, at the very least, the genuine minors with the young adults. Considering there's no mention of reforming the reform programs (ha!) to have greater focus on building a sense of responsibility and community (through volunteer work rather than sports), and the expert completely disparages the set up of the detention centers (ignoring the fact that the punishment is loss of freedom), it certainly seems like the person is advocating for harsh punishment for me. Or at the very least, this person places higher priority on punishment than on actually preventing recidivism.

You've even got cases where parents will get their own children to do crimes because it leaves them off the hook and they know the punishment to the child will be minimal. That's just horrible.

Okay, but the only thing up for question should be whether youths are receiving a sentence equal to their crime. If society agrees they aren't, the standards should be re-examined. If society agrees that youths shouldn't be treated as harshly as free-moving adults, then there will always be parents who take advantage. The answer here, then, is to strike at those parents, whom I'd say it's fair to call opportunists. Regardless of whether you think the UK's youth should be punished more, I'm sure you can agree they shouldn't be tried as adults if they aren't.

If a 12 year old is stoned in a teacher's classroom and the parents don't care, the teacher can do nothing. You don't think that's not a sign that there's a lack of authority in the system?

Is this an example of the school policy, or is this national standard? I agree it speaks of a lack of authority in the school system, but I think it's unwise of this expert to conflate the two. Remember that my original point wasn't that a lack of authority isn't an issue at all in anti-social behavior. My point was that the rioting and looting, specifically, didn't seem to come from a cry for discipline, and that I felt the expert shouldn't be wholly dismissive of even the remote possiblity that disenfranchisement plays a role. Yet, they are.

What's more shocking about that example is that I don't think schools in more affluent areas would have that problem. It seems to me that excuses are being made for offenders in poorer areas and it's other kids in those poorer areas who suffer as a result.

Even assuming this school issue is as wide-spread as one person in an interview makes it sound, we haven't been given any reason to believe that kids in wealthier schools aren't able to get away with crap because their parents don't care what their teachers have to say. It's not like the wealthy don't have privelages that cushion them from consequences on a regular basis.

[fatpie42]

They bring up the prison space issue, so they seem to be conflating, at the very least, the genuine minors with the young adults.

You say "they". You mean Leslie. Winston doesn't actually mention that.

I actually wonder whether the people getting the guests in realised that Winston's book sounds potentially reactionary stuff, so they got a community campaigner who lives in these kinds of lower class areas affected to correct any dodgy elements in Winston's argument. However, Leslie, if anything, comes off as more reactionary than Winston does.

So yeah, Leslie starts saying children need a right good thrashing and starts bringing in stuff to do with adult prisons. (She deals with anti-social behaviour as a whole, whereas Winston's field of expertise is young offenders.) She says kids today don't know what deprived is.

It's notable that Winston doesn't say any of this stuff. He makes very clear that he considers himself a liberal and wants the removal of patriarchy and racism from our system. He just doesn't think that authorities are being given what they need to show authority and command respect and that punishments for young offenders are not acting as the deterrent that they ought to.

and the expert completely disparages the set up of the detention centers (ignoring the fact that the punishment is loss of freedom)

Okay, some long outdated personal insight here. A relative of mine used to work in a detention centre as a teacher. It was a detention centre that was also a farm (which is pretty unusual). Children would work on the farm while they were there and there were many children who didn't want to leave in the end. That was giving children real skills.

Then Thatcher brought in the "short sharp shock" where sentences had to be shorter and more horrible and behaviour got worse as a result. Why care about making the best of your time in the detention centre when (having taken off the time involved in the trial and such), you'll only be there a week?

But what do I know. Perhaps the next government made the sentences longer again. Still, I doubt many detention centres were as effective as that one.

The answer here, then, is to strike at those parents, whom I'd say it's fair to call opportunists.

How do you prove it? If the adult wasn't there, they can't be tried for a crime they didn't commit.

Of course, if we look to what Winston said on this issue, the point is that parents need to be held accountable. If a parent sends their child out stealing then the child has been brought up as a criminal and should feel bad about it. The fact that they've been doing it at the behest of their parents does not mean we are more lenient with them (after all, they aren't getting any punishment at home for this behaviour), but if we could hold the parents accountable, that might help.

Is this an example of the school policy, or is this national standard?

School policy is to inform the relevant authorities. If the relevant authorities say there's nothing they can do then the next option would presumably be expulsion. (It might at least be a way of getting the parents to take some interest because they've got to go through the hassle of finding a new school.) If they can't expel them either (and it's really hard to expell a child anyway) then they just have to ignore it. That's all there is to it.

My point was that the rioting and looting, specifically, didn't seem to come from a cry for discipline, and that I felt the expert shouldn't be wholly dismissive of even the remote possiblity that disenfranchisement plays a role.

I think the interviewer was the only one really making a big deal out of the "cry for discipline" thing. And actually she's right. That individual interview did bear some relation to that. "If the government didn't make this possible, I wouldn't be doing it" was the sentiment.

However, I don't think anyone was saying that this is the cause of the whole riot. The riot is opportunism (which is the other side of that rioter's comment). Winston's point was that of course there's poverty, but that doesn't instantly mean that people are going to behave anti-socially. There's something more going on here.