Current Affairs The "another stabbing in London" thread

[Number_25]

I'm going to get hacked by the Kremlin aren't I?

Обнимите его, товарищ

 

[abelard]

I agree with some of what you write, but not all. Ignoring your last paragraph, the previous two are pretty well spot on.

While I agree that the role of the state should be to establish the environment, it is not the role of the state to replace parents and this is where society is failing. The closing of Libraries as an excuse in the day of the Internet is nonsense, indeed kids in villages have never had libraries nor basketball courts or whatever and many of their parents are as poor as any in the inner cities, but don’t go around stabbing people.

The abandonment of religion and of religious support, of whatever faith, and of schools that have given up discipline, coupled with criminally feckless parents have all contributed.

This is not a problem that can be resolved just by the state or the spending of more money, this is an issue that goes to the core of family life and the values being instilled in kids at home and in school.....

Cheers, @peteblue

I am of course not saying the state should replace the role of parents. What I am saying is that the state has (deliberately) made things enormously difficult for many parents and children, and this is an important contributing factor to the problem.

Restoring the over £400 million the Tories have cut from youth services, and reviving the more than 600 after-school clubs (!!!) they have shuttered to date will not alone solve the problem. There has obviously always been crime and murder in every society at every point in human history, and there is nothing the state or anybody else can do to completely eradicate this. But reversing the cuts is a positive contribution that the state can make almost immediately, and it will produce a real impact. The Tory cuts to virtually every aspect of public life have, and will continue to have, an enormously harmful impact, in long-term, often unanticipated, and ultimately far more expensive ways than whatever trivial savings they initially delivered.

I am not myself religious, and organised religion of course has a long and dubious history which continues to this day, but I do actually think you're not wrong here. But far more than religion, which has long been on the wane in Europe, the problem has more to do with the growing breakdown in communal solidarity (which Thatcher pursued at least as much as she sought to destroy public working-class instutions). When people feel disaffected, isolated, lonely, and alienated from those around them, they are vastly more prone to harmful behaviour, most often drug and alchol abuse, but also petty crime and violence. I have never said that people are not responsible for their actions, and I am not excusing this behaviour (and have never even implied that I am). People who commit crimes should be punished. Murder is wrong. These all go (or at least should go) without saying. But if we want to explain the problem, and work towards doing what we can to solve it, then passing moral judgement is not going to get us anywhere. The state can, and has, made a real difference by tackling the problem on a structural level (unlike on an individual, moral level, where it can make no difference at all).

And this is why I think you should consider the impact of things like closing libraries more carefully. It is not simply a basic matter of providing people with information, like the internet. They serve as meeting places, as loci of community networking, and, more relevant to the question at hand, as places where kids can go after school to feel secure, to make friends, take in programs, receive guidance, build self-esteem and confidence, feel a sense of belonging, and benefit from regular interaction and structure. This is perhaps less important in tight-knit villages where people know and look out for each other, but in big anonymous cities populated by people all over the world, libraries and after-school clubs at very little cost provide a substantial positive long-term impact, in terms of health, literacy, education, crime reduction, as well as less tangible but no less significant realms like social cohesion and community. The internet, and social media in particular, encourages the exact opposite of this: isolation, lack of self-worth, anxiety, depression. When kids have nowhere to go and no-one to come home to, the resulting pull factor of camaraderie and belonging that gangs offer, when the state abdicates its role, is no small factor in explaining the UK's growing youth crime problem.

It's interesting that you don't mention once in your lengthy post the family, and the often missing father in that family. My wife works in this field, so at least some of what she does vicariously sinks in. There's a tendency among those of a leftish persuasion to portray the disadvantaged as plucky strivers who have simply been either unlucky in life or trodden on by the system. There's no room at all in that narrative for the choice they make and the contribution those choices have made to their life. All the responsibility is passed onto the state.

As a learned man, I'm sure you like to look for evidence to support your opinions, so I would ask you what is the evidence that all would be well if only we devoted much more money to what we already do/have done in the past? Where is the evidence that ~ 100 years of free public schooling has helped social mobility? Where is the evidence that a significant increase in the social safety net for children has reduced broken homes or child poverty?

You criticise people for making what are quite probably instinctive responses that are lacking in evidence to support them, but you're largely doing the same, albeit from a different perspective. There's a risk when you paint with a broad brush that you make things sound very easy, and a bit of extra money will sort things out just fine, but we see with things like education that white kids who get free school meals do significantly worse than kids from other ethnic backgrounds who get free school meals. They're something like 20% worse than Chinese kids, for instance. If there is such variance, then what are the children for whom poverty doesn't have such a big impact doing that white kids don't seem to be doing? Maybe there is your answer rather than just saying "give us more money..."

Likewise with knife crime, which in London at least is overwhelmingly likely to be done by black teenage boys on other black teenage boys. What is it that makes these kids do that to each other that doesn't make Latino, Indian or eastern European teenagers stab one another?

I don't mention family because individual family dynamics are not something that can be directly addressed in policy terms. As I mention above, I have never downplayed the role of individual choices - and I believe I've explained myself to you on this point before. Of course individuals are responsible for their choices. What do you want me to add? Murder is wrong? Crime is bad? Parents shouldn't walk away from their families? These are platitudes, and they add nothing to questions like "why is this happening?" and "what can we do to help?" Moral judgement isn't wrong, but it is useless when it comes to actually doing anything constructive. All I am doing in my posts is holding the state accountable for the things for which it is accountable, and pointing out the very obvious ways where it can make a difference. Do you really need me to acknowledge that it can't also entirely eradicate crime???

I can assure you that I am not providing instinctive responses - I just don't usually flood my posts with a million links and footnotes because even during my holidays I don't have time, and nobody actually reads them anyways. But there is a wide range of evidence to draw on here. Have you ever looked into this yourself? The volume of social science research which establishes the connection between inequality and austerity, and crime is substantial, and not controversial among scientists. And there is a good deal of research demonstrating that even programs aimed solely at reducing poverty and improving education have also had important positive effects on reducing crime - Brazil's Bolsa Familia, for instance (essentially paying parents a stipend if their kids regularly attend school) has been widely promoted by the World Bank specifically because in addition to its success tackling the problems it was designed to address, it also provided significant unexpected side benefits including in some places an 18% reduction in crime. Britain actually has a lot to learn from Lula, and large parts of the country are really not so different from Brazil. But instead we are of course doing everything we can to things here more like they were there before he took over.

There are even crime specific examples closer to home. I'm surprised you haven't heard of what is happening in Scotland, which in many areas uses what autonomy it has from the Tories to do very constructive things. Scotland once had a far more severe knife crime problem than rest of Britain; but since 2005 it has reduced the figure by 70%, and as of January, has not had a single teenager killed by knives since 2011. The two elements are: to have police in constant contact with youth gangs, by significantly increasing resources devoted toward intelligence gathering and data analysis; and to offer gang members counseling, job training assistance, secure housing opportunities, and educational initiatives. In England, Tory austerity means that neither of these is possible. In fact, we can barely even maintain the basic legal system.

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make about black teenagers in London. Liverpool and Glasgow gangs are mostly white, while Asian gangs dominate Yorkshire and Lancashire. Vietnamese and Turkish gangs control most of the drug trade - it really isn't confined to a single race or culture (unless you don't ever look beyond London, and even then I doubt you're correct on that).

wow, @abelard your contempt and distrust of the working class is blatant. Distasteful stuff from yourself.

The working class get along just fine without resorting to knifing people to death. Regardless of whether it's a Tory or a Labour government.

In your post you reveal the kind of lingering prejudices which are partly the cause of much social strife:



Not true. As evidenced by working class kids from almost all other backgrounds who are similarly disadvantaged (including Arabic youth, Asian, Indian, Pakistani, Far East etc).




This is horribly-patronising superior stuff from you. You're not giving the working class any humanity at all. I come from the working class, we were breadline for a few years, and we were quite capable of not acting like gang-warring idiots, and no one wants to be treated like lost children who don't know any better.



Another judgemental call from yourself, without grounds...just to artificially strengthen your own position.

Here are pieces from The Guardian, The Indy, and the Beeb...all considered left-leaning:

Warnings of 'public health emergency' as violent crime surges - Murders and knife crimes soar in England and Wales as police detection rate hits record low

after falling for several years, knife crime is rising again.

It is not just London. Rising crime in Greater Manchester means that people in the Northwest are more likely to be crime victims than anywhere else in England and Wales.

The Telegraph obtained via the Freedom of Information Act statistics which tell us UK, and in particular London, is descending into American-levels of black-on-black crime.

Have you heard of drill music? Now as an electronic musician myself I can appreciate some of that on a musical level, and support all of it as an outlet of creativity. Oh look they have something to do now! So what do you know of that culture and which American subculture does it remind you of (where guns replace knives)? As I said earlier, knives as a deadly weapon are part of the accepted culture (as are gangs). This wasn't the case in previous decades.

You have to be able to answer the question: why aren't similarly-disadvantaged working class kids from all sorts of enthic backgrounds rebelling in the same way as those involved in knife-happy gang culture? The answer is plain: it's because these other subcultures haven't accepted knife-carrying gang culture as being something that's socially acceptable. Ok, so why is that?

@Bruce Wayne answered this when he noted the absence of a father figure (this is also backed up by research: black kids are disproportionately raised without a father while growing up). So now that we're here, can we really blame Tory policy for this? USA betrays a very similar problem, do we blame Trump for that?

Disclaimer: while I accept USA has an awfully-hateful racist problem which adds to the nuances, UK does not.

No, we can't blame the political bogeymen. But at least we've very likely identified the root cause of kids from a black ethnic background resorting to gangs: namely lack of positive male role models in the family while they're growing up. Political social policies would first need to catch up to this reality (political-correctness is a bit of a shield against admitting such an issue), then it can think about what the system could do to help.

Drill Music! lol that's too precious! You never let us down!

 

[dholliday]

it really isn't confined to a single race or culture (unless you don't ever look beyond London, and even then I doubt you're correct on that).

Seen as you didn't bother with the rest of my post, you missed the report on black-on-black knife crime statistics and how they are disproportionate.

 

[peteblue]

And so it continues.....

 

[peteblue]

This is just a disgrace, this coward should be sacked immediately......

“The acting Metropolitan Police commissioner locked himself in his car as he watched terrorist Khalid Masood kill one of his colleagues in Westminster because he had "no protective equipment and no radio,” he has told an inquest.
Sir Craig Mackey, now deputy commissioner of Scotland Yard, said that despite witnessing Masood “purposefully” lunge at everyone in his path with a butcher’s knife, he realised that had he got out of his vehicle, he would have been a target.
Instead, he remained in his black saloon car, within the Palace of Westminster, and witnessed Masood, 52, fatally stab Pc Keith Palmer.
"I could see Pc Palmer moving backwards and then go down,” he told the jury at the Old Bailey....”

 

[orchard]

Quality leaders aots in London

 

[orchard]

This is just a disgrace, this coward should be sacked immediately......

“The acting Metropolitan Police commissioner locked himself in his car as he watched terrorist Khalid Masood kill one of his colleagues in Westminster because he had "no protective equipment and no radio,” he has told an inquest.
Sir Craig Mackey, now deputy commissioner of Scotland Yard, said that despite witnessing Masood “purposefully” lunge at everyone in his path with a butcher’s knife, he realised that had he got out of his vehicle, he would have been a target.
Instead, he remained in his black saloon car, within the Palace of Westminster, and witnessed Masood, 52, fatally stab Pc Keith Palmer.
"I could see Pc Palmer moving backwards and then go down,” he told the jury at the Old Bailey....”

No he shouldn' t.

 

[Tubey]

No he shouldn' t.

Extremely irresponsible journalism with the headlines. They should know that people are stupid and won't read the full thing.

This was his reasoning:

When asked what his reaction was following the gunshots, Sir Craig said: "First and foremost I was a police officer so I went to open the door to get out.

"One of the PCs, quite rightfully, said: 'Get out, make safe, go, shut the door,' which he did, and it was the right thing to do.

"That's when I thought: 'I have got to start putting everything we need in place. We have got no protective equipment, no radio, I have got two colleagues with me who are quite distressed,' so we moved out."

He added: "If anyone had got out, the way this Masood was looking, anyone who got in his way would have been a target."

Yes, it's a debatable call but it's a justifiable one too. At that point he would have been charging head first into a situation with a quite possibly armed suspect, getting in the way of an armed response and possibly making the situation worse.

 

[roydo]

Yes, it's a debatable call but it's a justifiable one too. At that point he would have been charging head first into a situation with a quite possibly armed suspect, getting in the way of an armed response and possibly making the situation worse.

Yep. Hindsight is great.

Headline the next day along the lines of "Met Chief responsible for the deaths of two PC's due to his irresponsible reaction" would be nailed on.

The actual headline would be a bit snappier mind, but you get the point.

 

[Harryflashman]

Extremely irresponsible journalism with the headlines. They should know that people are stupid and won't read the full thing.

This was his reasoning:



Yes, it's a debatable call but it's a justifiable one too. At that point he would have been charging head first into a situation with a quite possibly armed suspect, getting in the way of an armed response and possibly making the situation worse.

I absolutely get his reasoning and I think he makes a case for his actions but being honest I’m also not completely comfortable with it either , I’m not talking about being a hero but in his position. ultimately I’d find it incredibly difficult to drive away .

 

[PhilM]

Extremely irresponsible journalism with the headlines. They should know that people are stupid and won't read the full thing.

This was his reasoning:

Yes, it's a debatable call but it's a justifiable one too. At that point he would have been charging head first into a situation with a quite possibly armed suspect, getting in the way of an armed response and possibly making the situation worse.

No it's not. The oath is clear: "... I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property."

Regardless of rank, your duty as a Con is to ensure 'preservation of life and property' so to talk about lack of equipment or whatever is utter nonsense.

Over the years, criminals with knives or firearms have been tackled with just a 15" lignum vitae baton, a torch or even with mere fists as that's the bloody job.

The two Cons who were driving him are also blame as it was their duty to respond and if they didn't want to get out the vehicle, they should have ran him over!

I'll tell you now, there's thousands of current and ex-cops around this country who are seething as leadership is expected to lead by example; he simply hasn't.

If you wear the uniform, you have to be able to carry the burden the uniform brings, and running away when the public, even worse, a colleague needs your help...

... isn't carrying the burden. I'm not usually like this on here, but for me it's cowardice in its purest form!

 

[Tubey]

I absolutely get his reasoning and I think he makes a case for his actions but being honest I’m also not completely comfortable with it either , I’m not talking about being a hero but in his position. ultimately I’d find it incredibly difficult to drive away .

My thought process would have been...

* Can I help effectively by getting out the car and charging unarmed at an armed assailant?

Answer: Probably not.

* Can I do anything by sitting still in my car and doing nothing?

Answer: Obviously not.

* Can I do something by driving away and helping to organise the response?

Answer: Yeah probably.

So yeah, whilst on face value I share your view of it being uncomfortable in terms of instinct (which he actually acknowledges), but in terms of logic he did the right thing in my view.

 

[Tubey]

No it's not. The oath is clear: "... I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property."

Which is what he did - he took what he considered the best course of action within his power.

Unless you can tell me how he'd be 'preserving life' by ordering two of his colleagues to charge unarmed into an assailant with weaponry alongside him...

 

[PhilM]

Which is what he did - he took what he considered the best course of action within his power.

Unless you can tell me how he'd be 'preserving life' by ordering two of his colleagues to charge unarmed into an assailant with weaponry alongside him...

Preserving the potential life of others. How he could have done that? Drove at him... charge at him... it doesn't matter, it was his duty to act and he did not.

 

[Harryflashman]

My thought process would have been...

* Can I help effectively by getting out the car and charging unarmed at an armed assailant?

Answer: Probably not.

* Can I do anything by sitting still in my car and doing nothing?

Answer: Obviously not.

* Can I do something by driving away and helping to organise the response?

Answer: Yeah probably.

So yeah, whilst on face value I share your view of it being uncomfortable in terms of instinct (which he actually acknowledges), but in terms of logic he did the right thing in my view.

I’m going to paint myself as a hero on here or by the same token pretend I haven’t made bad decisions I just think it’s something I’d struggle with .

I’d also like to know why none of them had PPE , I’ll understand why the top man didn’t but I think maybe the others might have had some , that’s without knowing specifics . I’d also like to know the geography of the scene and where the car was in relation to the attack , as If he’s a threat to life and your in a vehicle then that presents an other option . I’m almost certain a bloke with a firearm was hit by a police vehicle years ago , all I mean is that the geography could make a difference as well .

No it's not. The oath is clear: "... I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property."

Regardless of rank, your duty as a Con is to ensure 'preservation of life and property' so to talk about lack of equipment or whatever is utter nonsense.

Over the years, criminals with knives or firearms have been tackled with just a 15" lignum vitae baton, a torch or even with mere fists as that's the bloody job.

The two Cons who were driving him are also blame as it was their duty to respond and if they didn't want to get out the vehicle, they should have ran him over!

I'll tell you now, there's thousands of current and ex-cops around this country who are seething as leadership is expected to lead by example; he simply hasn't.

If you wear the uniform, you have to be able to carry the burden the uniform brings, and running away when the public, even worse, a colleague needs your help...

... isn't carrying the burden. I'm not usually like this on here, but for me it's cowardice in its purest form!

To be honest Your comments chime with my own , anyone whose been in a situation or organisation where you rely on the support of colleagues and your welfare even life is potentially at risk is I think going to find it difficult to deal with the decision that was made whatever the arguments in it’s favour .