Gang and gun culture, are we dealing with it in the right way?

It could be some combination of the two. The problem with the punitive option is that politicians can (and do) continually come out with lines like 'anyone who carries a weapon will be jailed for five years' but the indirect real life implications of actually doing that successfully (closing schools and hospitals to build 100s of new prisons and chucking hundreds of thousands of young men behind bars for several years) mean there isn't even the vague possibility of it happening. A punishment system that realistic rather than rhetorical may or may not have some effect. Dealing with the causes is the long-term solution to most problems but first you'd need some agreement on what the causes are. I'm not sure we have that in terms of this issue.

The root causes of the problem are complex but the solution is simple... Send them all to France. Where, with a few carefully chosen words Krakpotkin will explain to the poor, misunderstood, victims of a uncaring world that, like Hitler and Genghis Khan, they are really good people - just slightly misguided. Realising that at last someone understands them it will put them in touch with the love and fellowship that has always been lurking just below the surface of their child-like hearts and transform them into the peace-loving anarchists they were always meant to be. Can’t fail!

The causes are poverty and no role models, or the worst possible role models. Some percentage is just playing dress up. Another percentage can successfully be de-programmed using techniques that work on cult members, but re-entry into the same environment is the problem. They are naturals for the military, readymade soldiers. Another group is in fact irredeemable and indiscriminate stone killers.

Well, part of the problem is that the media in the UK is currently reveling in the gang culture and youth violence story. So much so that an almost limitless number of incidents are being bundled in with it. For example, a young man in south London was recently killed in a fight outside a pub. It a tragic waste of life and and a horrific event for that young man's family and friends but pointless deaths in fights outside establishments serving alcohol have been a regular event since the brewing process was developed. They were considerably more regular in the 19th century than they are now. From reading the papers and watching the TV, though, you would've thought this sort of incident is somehow part of a 'trend' that's directly connected to murders by drugs gangs on inner city estates and kids taking knives into school. In reality, the only meaningful connection between many of these things is that they happen and they're bad. This sort of media driven narrative means that you often end up with the question 'how can we stop all bad things happening?' That's impossible so people just become more cynical about the world and more frightened.

If you are headed for US-style urban Darwinism, and I don’t know and would like to see this channel 4 show, then you have no viable economy in these communities (tax revenue, services, income) but only an enlarged underground under the table crime economy with turfs (economies) that have to be defended like middle age fiefdoms. One thing that worked surprisingly well and quickly was so called ‘enterprise zones’ which were tax free or very low tax havens (zoned) that made loans with payment schedules in the future and included laws to prevent corporations from predatory practices that squeeze out small and medium sized business. I don’t know what happened there, probably government couldn’t bear to see all that tax revenue sloshing around the community so didn’t send our the trucks and cops and local business got established then cashed out in a lump sum when it came time to pay loans and un expired tax rates, everybody true to form.

I agree with the points on media, news has become entertainment and actual journalism isn’t amped up enough to compete with all the glamour and sensationalism noise. Even hip hop has become pop music, which is ridiculous at face value, but bound to happen because it’s such a compelling form, although not too flexible. Some of these top shelf hip hop artists are doing the neighborhoods as much damage as the news media. If the NYC million dollar block program is focused on jump starting self-sustainability then getting out of the way, then it can only be a good thing. If it just sets up another paternalistic bureaucracy and opens doors for non-local corporate interests to wander through and take advantage, then it’s more of the same. These communities are a lot smarter than anyone gives them credit for.

I don’t know if this makes much sense as I have a stunningly mind-altering virus at the moment – but I felt it wouldn’t hurt to post it as food for thought. I am not convinced that in England at least, poverty plays a very important role in these problems. Certainly the younger kids I met would have preferred a dad, or someone to take them for a walk or to a football match, or simply parents who would spend some time with them rather than more money to buy things they didn’t need. The older kids were too far gone and their alienation had turned to something more like hate – especially the ones who used to get very angry about slavery as if it had only just been abolished here. They hated and it seemed they hated everyone who wasn’t one of them. If you go to other countries you see people with virtually nothing, living hand to mouth, but there is little gang and gun culture amongst these people since they seem to accept poverty almost as fate. In the West it is an attitude problem which is at root and no doubt home grown terrorism and gun and knife cultures share this root – alienation. Didn’t Marx predict this? Here in England and much of the West these problem kids nearly all have mobile phones, plenty to eat and can afford alcohol and cigarettes but they don’t have hope or faith in the system which provides them with these things and they are often not willing to accept the rules and laws of that system because they don’t have to. The kids know that the system is heavily biased against them, that they will never get degrees and become doctors or lawyers and will instead be expected to be low paid labourers or shop assistants. So far as they are concerned it is just as much their world as anyone else’s and they have learned that they can get away with almost anything if they stick together. It’s interesting that a couple of years before Blair swept to power I read an intriguing piece on the Internet which suggested that the West would start voting in left-wing governments so as to pass right-wing laws... I didn’t think it very likely - then :O) It soon became apparent that when your so called left-wing government swings to the right then you have essentially a right-wing government with no real opposition since your policies are much the same as the oppositions would be if they were in power. In the UK police powers have been gradually eroded over the years while the rights of the guilty have been strengthened and so the police have been largely powerless to do anything – especially with the kids of school age. The authorities knew of the growing problems and did nothing and so the problems were allowed to spread from council estates to the more affluent estates where the kids started to realise that they no longer needed to do what they were told. Now at last, the time is right for the government and the media to trumpet their shock and horror at this new and terrifying trend and no doubt very soon the state will use it as an excuse for ever increasing surveillance, ID cards and new, sweeping security measures – and if all goes to plan we will cheer and say “About time too!”.

Many good points here and I don’t know the situation in England. Youth alienation goes with the territory, and I do think Marx was right about capitalism collapsing upwards, so to speak, but only when it is unregulated, which is where we are today. When the playing field is enforced to be fair and level, local markets work in a predictable way like chemistry to create jobs and lift communities out of poverty. The victimization mentality has much to do with the inability to move forward and perpetuates a contemporary slavery that is unnecessary. Let people run their own lives and communities. The young men I am referring to here come from generations of women on welfare and males in prison, but they successfully run very complicated and dangerous businesses all day and night. Obama is saying very much the same things and if elected hopefully he does not just soak the rich, although they are long overdue for a series of repeated dunkings, but re-sets the system so people can realize their potential before these boys get their hands on some light artillery.

Capitalism certainly isn't unregulated today. The problem is that it's regulated in the interests of some people against the interests of others. "Here in England and much of the West these problem kids nearly all have mobile phones, plenty to eat and can afford alcohol and cigarettes but they don’t have hope or faith in the system which provides them with these things and they are often not willing to accept the rules and laws of that system because they don’t have to." You can over-estimate the extent to which this is true. Lots of poorer kids do have seemingly expensive consumer goods but they often don't own them in any conventional sense. And I'm sorry to say that the cost of decent meal for single young person with no cookery skills is considerably more than the cost of buying enough alcohol from an off licence to drink yourself to the point where lack of nutrition is the least of your worries. All that said, though, young people in the UK's inner cities are obviously relatively a lot better off than most young people in rural Bangladesh. The point, which has been repeatedly proved by research is that it's inequality/relative poverty that's big factor in terms of social cohesion. Even the Tory Party admit that these days now there in opposition. But both they and the Labour government continue to come with up with policies that increase inequality rather than reduce it.

Noone's going to admit it ouright because it's 'so un-pc' but it's all down to 'cultural germs'. It's all so easily re-traceable and you can probably guess where we end up. ~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

Is it only me that finds this somewhat surreal?: Today (July 2) Labour's Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "As David Cameron today joins David Davis's campaign against our policies on terrorism, CCTV and DNA evidence, I challenge him to explain to the victims of crime why he wants to make it harder for the police to put criminals behind bars." Have the Labour and Conservative Parties reversed roles? Maybe if Labour would be kind enough to explain why they need 42 days before they get around to charging people who they’ve arrested and what sort of safeguards would be put in place to make sure that CCTV evidence can’t be tampered with, or go missing when it supports the defence (remember De Menzies), it might help. As for DNA evidence is this a carefully worded attack on the Conservatives’ opposition to ID cards? Big Brother is here and he wants to get tough on crime... where was he 6 or 7 years ago when a stitch in time would have made such a huge difference? Makes you wonder if everything will go back to how it used to be when Labour lose the next election.

Well, there's certainly something in the idea that increasingly authoritarian powers are usually supported by governments and usually opposed by those in opposition. That's not to doubt the personal beliefs of David Davis in some civil liberties but my guess is that if the Tories were now the government they, as a party, would be quite keen on 90 days detention. The Tories did actually try to introduce ID cards at least once (possibly twice) during the 1979-1997 period. I doubt they've changed their minds in principle although they may (rightly) see massive scope for cock-ups and embarrassment caused by the inevitable practical challenges of trying to bring in this sort of scheme. Hard to say what'll happen if/when Labour lose the next election. I can't see the Labour frontbench going back to woolly liberalism any time soon.

I completely agree, bukh. Interesting that Labour's Home Office minister said "... explain to the victims of crime why he wants to make it harder for the police to put criminals behind bars." as if mostly about catching rapist or muggers rather than aimed at terrorists. Also interesting that Bob Geldof has taken such a strong stance against Labour on this when he has been a staunch supporter of Brown on many other issues. I noticed a headline saying that Janet Streetporter blamed the gang and gun culuture on the parents - a view which I have a great deal of sympathy with... but how does that explain a 17 year old boy forced to drink petrol and then burned to death? Maybe Oasis are on the right track blaming violent computer games and super skunk... well violent computer games definitely - super skunk Maybe... so it's Definitely Maybe again then :O)

I noticed that the Youth Justice System web page says : "No local child curfew scheme has yet been set up under these powers which were provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Use has been made, however, of the dispersal and curfew powers under section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003." Funny, as there have been plenty of curfews up and down the country for the last several years - but I suppose they didnt specifically apply to kids even if that was who they were aimed at. I was wondering if the growing gang and gun culture was in any way related to our growing reticence toward corporal punishment... According to Wikki - "Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering intended to punish a person or change his/her behavior. Historically speaking, most punishment, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings, were corporal in basis. Global progress towards achieving full prohibition of all corporal punishment of children is accelerating worldwide. The UN Study on Violence against Children sets a target date of 2009 for universal prohibition, including in the home. School discipline in the West generally avoids physical correction altogether." Has this reduced violence amoungst children? Perhaps we should legislate aginst them hitting each other :O) During my searches I found this 'discussion' http://new.abctales.com/node/73587 ABC in its heyday?

If your kids know that you love them, you are happy to spend time with them and you can earn their respect - then you have a good chance that they will be good kids. In the Prophet, Gibran says something like - we should try to be good archers, take careful aim and fire our children into the future. Once you’ve released your arrows it’s too late to run after them shouting instructions so make sure you aim is steady! However I seem to remember that the US came top of the league in a recent survey of which countries have the worst parents – we didn’t do too well either. Not that I really think it has much to do with corporal punishment although I do think we need to change our attitude to punishment in general. To my mind it is obviously a cultural problem which has spreads via the media and is therefore worst in countries which speak English because the main source is America! Once the sickness takes root it spreads like an infectious disease starting in the poorer, depressed areas because they are more susceptible. As for poverty being a leading factor in causing today’s troublesome kids as you maintain earlier in the thread, Craig... as someone pointed out to me today - crimes of robbery and theft are on the decline and it is violence which is on the increase. Poverty is a convenient excuse... as I said earlier, it does predispose some people to be more susceptible to the 'Attitude virus' but then so does anything that feeds the growing sense of alienation and dissatisfaction.

Mykle, have you any experience of bringing up kids? Judging from your posts I doubt it very much. Thanks for posting that link - it was highly amusing. You obviously have no self-awareness.

I've realised that it is not particularly punishment that is neeeded but rather discipline. Punishment is simply one of the ways to encourage disipline. Of course you can't teach old dogs new tricks so it's up to the parents and the schools... As the Jesuit motto says "Give me a child until he's seven and I will give you the man!"

i live in hackney and work in social housing - the post code wars are real (although war is stretching it) I have spoken to the police and youth offending teams in hackney who confirmed it - kids stay in their post codes E5, E8, E9. N1, N16, etc. I know of cases where kids have been attacked for straying out of their area, because they have to, going to school in another post code... not sure what the answers are, it is a big black thing in my area, as a middle aged white man, i don't notice it day to day apart from reading about it in then local papers peer pressure, one parent families, lack of male role models, poverty, poor schooling, video games, hollywood, etc etc - there are a lot of influences in the negative, and i guess few in the positive...

The picture you paint makes me laugh, Craig! The single parent mother’s of these kids rarely work and are usually constantly living on the edge of a nervous breakdown - often from too much skunk. Their children are mostly half-caste and to different fathers and they defend their children, wrong or right, come what may, with an almost hysterical animal ferocity. These parents are the bad role models, they are the ones who hate the system even though it houses, clothes and feeds them. They are the ones who shelter the gangs late at night when they have rushed back from committing their latest atrocity. They are the ones that supply drink and drugs to the kids and encourage them to defy the system. The government knows this hence the recent threats to stop benefits to the parents of troublesome kids!

Quite frankly, if a large percentage of the population viewed the people of Hackney (or other tough areas) in the way that Mykle does then you could hardly blame them for hating the system. Why would anyone respect a society that has no respect for them? I think the reality is somewhere in between Mykle and Craig's positions in that people living in poverty are no more likely to be fundamentally good or bad people than people who are wealthy. There obviously are some lazy people who claim their benefits, have lots of children and then moan about the system. There are lots more people doing their best in very difficult circumstances - whether that's working long hours doing low paid jobs and/or raising their children to the best of their ability. Being skint is both unpleasant and expensive - your food, electricity, travel costs etc. all actually cost a lot more proportionately if you have no money and can't buy stuff in bulk and have to get pay-as-you-go for utilities. The question is how to offer a positive alternative.

I admit to being biased Buk. Maybe you remember the long, hard battle I had with such families and gangs of local kids which drove me to drink and almost to ruin before I finally bit the bullet and moved. Such experiences leave deep scars.