The New Barbarism

[rynner2]

A Tale for our Times..

Peer wrong to collar foul-mouth, say police
By David Sapsted
Last Updated: 2:21am BST 22/08/2007

A peer who collared a boy who swore at him and kicked over his bicycle has been told by police that he was in the wrong.

Baron Phillips of Sudbury tackled two boys who were riding their bicycles on a crowded pavement in the Suffolk market town on Monday.

He told them they should not be cycling there and was met with abuse from one of the cyclists and an 11-year-old, who was walking.

Lord Phillips, 68 - the solicitor Andrew Phillips who for 20 years was known as the "legal eagle" on the Jimmy Young show on Radio 2 - walked away, leaving his own bicycle propped on the kerb while he went into a shop.

The boy on foot then pushed over the peer's bike and ran away but Lord Phillips caught up with him, grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and held on until a passerby stopped a passing police car.

An officer took statements from the boys and Lord Phillips before giving the boys "words of advice" about their behaviour and allowing them to go.

However, yesterday Suffolk police said Lord Phillips had not done the right thing. "Members of the public should always have a regard for their own personal safety and our advice is to call the police immediately," the force said in a statement.

Lord Phillips was unimpressed. "These were young boys who were not remotely menacing. I did nothing wrong," he said.

"I can understand why police take this cautious attitude. If they don't they will be left open if anything does happen when somebody tries to behave in a citizen-like way.

"But you cannot just leave everything to the police because they are not always around. People need to speak out directly when they see anti-social behaviour.

"I feel very strongly about this kind of thing. You can't just pass on by and hope things will get better."

http://tinyurl.com/25k9rn

Bring back flogging... er, I mean 'a clip round the ear from the local bobby'...

 

[lupinwick]

It really is a tricky one.
Lack of hope. Lets face it, what hope do kids have these days? 15 minutes of fame on big-brother or the grind of a job? The jobs available to a school leaver at 16 are basically non-existent. The traditional industries which would have soaked up hordes of 16 years olds have gone. The options are a shit job or more education, the promise at the end of that being a better paid shit job or, if you're bright enough, yet more education. At the end of the final stretch of education (university) you can look forward to to debts of £9,000 and upwards and a shit job.

There was always lack of hope. IMO there's more reason for hope now than there was 50 years ago, people at least have a chance for upward social mobility. What there's a lack of is acceptance of reality. Not everyone can afford foreign holidays and a leather 3 piece suite, we certainly couldn't, but we didn't consider ourselves hard done by and that it was anyone elses fault. To quote Victoria Wood "Life is hard...so think on't".
Christ I'm channeling my dad.
The media's image of "how we live now" is making everyone think they have to have stuff and they have to have it now, they have a right. But rights come with responsibilities and duties.

And as for teenagers having nothing to do. They should try growing up in the 60s and 70s when there literally was nothing to do. During the day and through most of the night there was no radio, no telly, we had no internet, no computer games, no mobiles...WTF did we do? I have no idea.

I'd have to dig the stats out but currently upward mobility is a myth at the moment you're more likely to remain on the same social scale as your parents.

I agree entirely on the "acceptance of reality", expectations (material etc.) have increased, failure to attain these expectations is going to cause problems.

As far nothing to do, yes there was no computer or TV, there was radio but what there was was an element of freedom, being able to roam all day during the holidays or evenings with friends. Parents are scared to let their kids roam and be children. Was I safer in the 70's than my son? No idea, probably not. As a teenager in 80s was I better off, probably not. How did I fill my days? Hmm hanging around with friends, out buying beer and getting drunk, smoking, having fun, getting into fights and all the typical past times of kids of that period.

 

[Dingo667]

I grew up in Germany. I was a teenager in the 80's. I was a Goth/New Romantic type and our rivals were the Skinheads. Now, I was once "kidnapped" by the skins and brought to a pub, where they caused real mayhem [smashing large vases, harrassing the waitress, smashing glasses etc], we all got barred [including me who really didn't want to be there]. I managed to leg it after a couple of hours with the help of a skinhead girl who literally had saved me a battering or worse [and that was only because I knew her from school]. It wasn't harmless fun, they were actually dangerous. Month later they had stomped on one of their mates head [one that was there when I was out with them, a slightly retarded guy] and he died from the injuries. Now that was as brutal as today's youth, or was it?
There are many many differences.

First of all, they were a big exception. Yes, us other youngsters were foulmouthed and cheecky to the older generation but none of us was armed and if someone was to stand up to us we would run away, not stab the person. We had utmost respect for the police. It wasn't cool to be nicked, it was embarressing. Teachers telling your parents was scary and those very few whose parents didn't give a damn were soon sorted out [including the parents] by expelling the culprit, sending the social onto the parents etc. In the eyes of other parents those who are careless were again regarded as scum and it wasn't cool to be like that in society.

Yes, gangs were fighting against each other but they left the ordinary public alone. Another difference was that most had jobs or had to go to the army as soon as they turned 18. That took them off the street at a crucial time and tought them that life wasn't revolving around them and that you can be proud enduring some hardship.

Another fact, drugs were easy enough to come by if it was smoke. However the stuff you got was solid from abroad, sometimes you had to wait for it and it cost you. When you did smoke it you had to make plans as to where and when and share with your mates. Mostly at weekends due to work, school etc. Nowadays skunk [the worst mindfuck when it comes to smoke] is in abundance. Thanks to the government having clamped down on import of weaker stuff - DUH. So everything you get nowadays is homegrown skunk. Grown by mates in their bedrooms who have nothing else to do. It is cheap and readily available at the snick of a finger. No job, no school, no army, they can smoke it everyday and it DOES mess with your mind in such amounts.

The last difference between then and now is having respect for those who deserve it. Like parents police, girls and the general public. The reason for that is that no respect is needed. The offending youths do not gain from giving respect and they don't loose if they don't.
I'm talking about cause and effect. If you disregard your parents, your teacher or the police NOTHING happens. Hence it seems like a waste of resources to them and who can blame them?
What is often forgotten is that as humans we are still animals and behave in a way that nature seems most fitting to the circumstances.
The reason for the decline in the necessity of respect is due to the inability to punish.
Parents are not allowed to smack their kids, nor shout at them. Teachers are branded paedophiles when restraining a kid, police are restricted, the public can't say anything because they get the blame, not those little urchins.

Today's kids grow up thinking they have an automatic right to be repected, nobody teaches that a) respect has to be earned and b) with respect comes responsibility. The stance is that we know automatically right from wrong from birth and hence chastising a precious child is against its human rights. Bollox. I think it is a form of abuse to let children have any rights until they have learned everything that is needed to live a productive life in society and have grown up enough to have learned enough to make decisions based on experience. Stop raising kids to the status of semi-gods and see them for what they are: Unfinished humans, blanks, things that shouldn't be listened to until they make sense.
Here we differ from the Victorians. You could intervene then when someone spat at you and if the urchin got cheeky, there were swiftly other adults who came to your help. Ergo = urchin learned a valuable lesson, don't mess with adults.
This should become norm again.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

It doesn't strike me as mere coincidence that in Britain the problem of familial breakdown is worse than in comparable countries just as our problems of anti-social behaviour are.

You see, my problem is that statements such as this are tossed around quite casually, but is there actually any evidence that anti-social behaviour is so much worse in the UK than in France? Or Australia, Canada, new Zealand?

Unicef compiled a report recently suggesting this is very much the case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... kids15.xml

 

[Quake42]

I think it is a form of abuse to let children have any rights until they have learned everything that is needed to live a productive life in society and have grown up enough to have learned enough to make decisions based on experience. Stop raising kids to the status of semi-gods and see them for what they are: Unfinished humans, blanks, things that shouldn't be listened to until they make sense.
Here we differ from the Victorians. You could intervene then when someone spat at you and if the urchin got cheeky, there were swiftly other adults who came to your help. Ergo = urchin learned a valuable lesson, don't mess with adults.
This should become norm again.

Well, I don't think anyone particularly wants to go back to a world where children were mercilessly beaten by parents and teachers for the smallest infraction. That said, I agree that things have swung too far the other way and that adults should not be afraid to challenge children and teenagers who are behaving badly.

Nowadays skunk [the worst mindfuck when it comes to smoke] is in abundance. Thanks to the government having clamped down on import of weaker stuff - DUH.

This is a bit of a cockroach of an urban myth... no matter how many times you stamp on its head it somehow staggers on.

Some of the cannabis on the market is stronger than others. This has always been the case- there was amazingly strong Afghan hash available in the 60s. All that is happening is that people are looking back on their teenage years with fond memories of their harmless weed smoking and contrasting it with the delinquents of today.

If people are really concerned about the strength of weed, the solution is to legalise it so that everyone is clear on whether they are buying the equivalent of beer or vodka.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

This ties in with what some have been saying about identity though it doesn't really explain the visciousness of the assault.


Teen stabbed because his face didn't fit

POLICE are warning of a "postcode war" after a teenager was brutally stabbed by a gang just because they didn't recognise his face.

The 17-year-old was pounced on in Seven Sisters Road, close to the junction with Green Lanes, Finsbury Park, as he chatted on the phone to his girlfriend.

As he walked past a kebab house one of the gang came running out shouting: "Oi, where are you from?", and two minutes later he was lying on the ground fighting for his life having been stabbed six times.

continues

LINK

 

[lupinwick]

Bloody awful attack, hope they catch the little bastards.

OK, so here's the question, has the mainstream media printed any redeeming stories about the youth of today? Or is the slant that by and large they're all evil sods who should be locked up?

Is the current reporting completely biased against the kids? Most of the teenagers I come across are polite and well mannered, I seem to have more problems with the arrogant 20 somethings.

Perhaps rather than blaming the kids you should be having a good look at the society (schools, parents etc. etc.) which is seeming to fail these kids.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Bloody awful attack, hope they catch the little bastards.

OK, so here's the question, has the mainstream media printed any redeeming stories about the youth of today? Or is the slant that by and large they're all evil sods who should be locked up?

Is the current reporting completely biased against the kids? Most of the teenagers I come across are polite and well mannered, I seem to have more problems with the arrogant 20 somethings.

Perhaps rather than blaming the kids you should be having a good look at the society (schools, parents etc. etc.) which is seeming to fail these kids.

To be fair the media often does portray the kind of kids involved in these sort of attacks as the exception rather than the norm. I think the danger which is being highlighted, though, is that this sort of behaviour is becoming less exceptional and more normal.

 

[Eponastill]

There are Roman writings complaining about the bad behaviour of the younger generation.
And thousands of people used to turn up for public hangings. And parading people's severed heads used to be fine.
Child labour, slavery, complete disregard for safety at workplaces..

I don't think things are as bad as all that today. Maybe because life is generally so lovely and easy for most people, we overreact when we do hear about the stupid scum of society doing what presumably stupid scum have always done.

er I dunno. But I'm sure the fact we hear about every last stabbing thanks to radio and tv makes us think it happens far more than it used to.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

There are Roman writings complaining about the bad behaviour of the younger generation.
And thousands of people used to turn up for public hangings. And parading people's severed heads used to be fine.
Child labour, slavery, complete disregard for safety at workplaces..

I don't think things are as bad as all that today. Maybe because life is generally so lovely and easy for most people, we overreact when we do hear about the stupid scum of society doing what presumably stupid scum have always done.

er I dunno. But I'm sure the fact we hear about every last stabbing thanks to radio and tv makes us think it happens far more than it used to.

It's a fair point that there have always been panics about the behaviour of the young but I'm not sure that comparisons with the Roman era or even the Victorian era are neccessarily relevant. If only two thirds of Britons today were literate and that's a higher number than in the 19th century or the first century AD we wouldn't say that's ok then. It's only recent eras that are relevant for comparison, imo, and those comparisons are not particularly favourable.

The theory that we only notice how bad things are because life is so easy for us is itself reflective of the fact that it is easy for some. I would expect that those expressing most concern for the state of delinquency are not those cloistered in comfortable suburbia or rural idylls (and are they actually so trouble-free nowadays themselves) but those who have to live with the blight of anti-social behaviour in their own neighbourhoods. Many of them, too, will have lived a long life and often in areas that might have been considered deprived in the past. If they're expressing the view that there is an increasing problem then I think's a disservice to them to suggest they're opinions are borrowed from the tabloids.

 

[rynner2]

Boy, 11, is shot dead in car park

An 11-year-boy has died after being shot in the head in the Croxteth area of Liverpool, police said.
The incident happened shortly after 1930 BST in the car park of the Fir Tree public house.

The boy was rushed to Alder Hey Hospital but police later confirmed that he had died.

Officers are at the scene and police are treating the shooting as a major incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6959562.stm

Of course, this sort of thing is nothing new - it probably happened about once a week when I was at school....


NOT!

 

[Quake42]

It's only recent eras that are relevant for comparison, imo, and those comparisons are not particularly favourable.

They're not, no. But it is also fair to point out that Britain has experienced high levels of violent crime through almost all of its history with the exception of a 70 or so year period between about 1880 and 1950.

The murder rate in 13th century Oxford would put that of present day Hackney in the shade.

That's not to say we should ignore crime or trivialise it, but we should also be aware of the context and not be swayed by illiberal and repressive quick fixes.

 

[ghostdog19]

Who are you quoting?

 

[Quake42]

Who is who quoting?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

They're not, no. But it is also fair to point out that Britain has experienced high levels of violent crime through almost all of its history with the exception of a 70 or so year period between about 1880 and 1950.

The murder rate in 13th century Oxford would put that of present day Hackney in the shade.

That's not to say we should ignore crime or trivialise it, but we should also be aware of the context and not be swayed by illiberal and repressive quick fixes.

True but in the context of today with a welfare state and increased forensic and surveillance detection one might expect the rates of offending to be decreasing throughout recent history. Had the people of the 13th century had the provision of services combined with the likelihood of being retrospectively caught for acts of criminality that we have today but still with the illiberal and repressive punishments available in that time I'd speculate that levels of criminality would not have been the same. This is not an advocacy of a return to the birch or hanging and flogging but to suggest that the context of our times is quite unlike anything from the distant past and to raise questions of how we deal with the entirely unprecedented circumstances that exist at present.

For me the issue is not one of personal morality or something innately wrong with any given generation. The fact that were higher rater of offending in a time when the country lived in fear of the church and had even tighter familial bonds suggest that the given state of any generation will ultimatley be decided by what it can get away with and what will be tolerated. One of the problems, I'd say, with the comparisons to a very different past is that by saying 'this has all happened before' we become desensitized to (and arguably encourage) what will be ever increasing levels of crime.

 

[Twin_Star]

As i mentioned before, detection rates (in the UK)for the most recent years available are somewhere between 1/5 - 1/4. At best 1 in 4 crimes are "solved", the dna database contains about 5M samples, and our population is about 65M. I'd argue some kind of parity between the percentage of a society that can effectively be monitored or "brought to justice" either now or 700 odd years ago.

The idea of surveillance society being somehow new is misconceived, in the old days you were just followed around by the sheriffs lackey, or your jealous neighbours denounced you at the first opportunity. There will always be a criminal element in society, thats what societies at the macro-level must have, and while Dostoevsky's comment concerning the relationship between different societies and their respective prisons can be seen as valid in some cases, when referring to the UKs 50sqft palaces i'd rather go with George Orwell and his experiences of "spikes", in the essay of the same title, and the conversation he has with the young carpenter.

So where was i? oh yeah, imo this is just another chapter in the eternal re-telling of the same story.

 

[rynner2]

Two held in hunt for boy's killer

Two teenage boys have been arrested by police hunting the killer of an 11-year-old boy who was shot dead on his way home from playing football.
Rhys Jones was hit by a bullet in the car park of the Fir Tree pub in Croxteth, Liverpool on Wednesday night.

Merseyside Police said two teenagers from Croxteth, aged 14 and 18, were arrested on suspicion of murder.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "I'm sure hearts go out to the family of that little boy."

Merseyside Police have appealed to local gangs for information.

.........................

The eyewitness, who did not want to be named but was drinking outside the pub, said a youth aged about 14 or 15, wearing a hoodie, rode up to the car park and fired three shots from a distance of about 30 metres.

One shot missed the boys and another hit a car, while the other bullet hit Rhys. People came from the pub to help him and his mother was also called to the scene.

'Gangs of youths'

Councillor Rose Bailey, who lives nearby and is a member of the local police authority, appealed for people with information to come forward.

She added: "It sends shockwaves through the community of Croxteth and really it must be devastating.

"To think your young son is out playing football and then to get a call to say he's been shot, I really don't know as a parent how you would handle that."

Langley Close, the area around the pub, was made a "designated area" by police last year, meaning officers could disperse groups and move people away from the area.

The decision was made in response to concerns raised by local residents about youths gathering outside the pub and local shops.

At the time, Neighbourhood Inspector Louise Harrison said: "The designated area has been introduced in response to concerns about gangs of youths who hang around the local area behaving in an anti-social way."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 959761.stm

Mindless armed violence, by and against children, is increasing, and that should be a matter for concern in a society that likes to think it is civilised and leaving behind the barbarisms of the past.

Comparisons with what happened x hundred years ago are pointless, and seem to imply "so that's all right, then!" It is not all right, and we should examine the causes for this slide into savagery and look for answers.

I and others have already suggested children need more discipline, but as the generations roll on we are getting more parents who never experienced (or learnt) discipline themselves, which makes the situation even more troubling.

 

[jefflovestone]

I don't think things are as bad as all that today. Maybe because life is generally so lovely and easy for most people, we overreact when we do hear about the stupid scum of society doing what presumably stupid scum have always done.

I'm not sure about this at all and it depends on who you are talking about. Angry of Tunbridge Wells might be getting palpatations from the safety of his armchair whilst reading the Daily Mail, but there are others that actually live amongst all this.

er I dunno. But I'm sure the fact we hear about every last stabbing thanks to radio and tv makes us think it happens far more than it used to.

Firstly, I don't think we actually do hear about "every last stabbing". Living in the North, I tend to hear quite a lot about stabbings and assaults down South on the national news but not always similar Northern occurrences.

Secondly, I think the idea of a fast network of information via the radio and tv to an extent also offsets a lot has been lost via the death of 'community grape-vine' due to the way we live now.

 

[jefflovestone]

It's only recent eras that are relevant for comparison, imo, and those comparisons are not particularly favourable.

They're not, no. But it is also fair to point out that Britain has experienced high levels of violent crime through almost all of its history with the exception of a 70 or so year period between about 1880 and 1950.

The murder rate in 13th century Oxford would put that of present day Hackney in the shade.

That's not to say we should ignore crime or trivialise it, but we should also be aware of the context and not be swayed by illiberal and repressive quick fixes.

With all due respect, I think it's meaningless to compare any 13th C. society with the 21 C. Whilst there's always been crimes such as murder, assaults and robbery I'd argue that the mechanisms behind them are different now to the extent that it renders a comparison between the apocryphal then and now impossible. Do you think proportion of drug-related crimes was as high in the 13th C.? Do you think that meaningless 'boredom' crimes were as high in the 13th C.? Do you think the deterrents and punishment were the same in the 13th C.?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

As i mentioned before, detection rates (in the UK)for the most recent years available are somewhere between 1/5 - 1/4. At best 1 in 4 crimes are "solved", the dna database contains about 5M samples, and our population is about 65M. I'd argue some kind of parity between the percentage of a society that can effectively be monitored or "brought to justice" either now or 700 odd years ago.

Well there's no reasonable way of comparing clear-up rates with that time. For a start actually detecting that a crime had taken place let alone who commited it could be problematic. Also, where crimes did lead to a conviction would we be confident that justice had actually been served? Let's not forget that a few centuries back the charge of witchcraft could lead to execution so one has to wonder how thorough the case for the prosecution had to be. That's not to mention the effect that the more rigid class system would have made in the acceptance of one man's word against another.

Besides this one also has to wonder whether or not detection rates could be increased. In case of violent crime the detection rate is above 50%. There may be forensic factors which make detection in such instances easier. However, it's probably more likely that a higher priority is given to them which raises the question of whether or not we can extend that attention to a wider range of crimes although one might suggest we're heading in the opposite direction.

The idea of surveillance society being somehow new is misconceived, in the old days you were just followed around by the sheriffs lackey, or your jealous neighbours denounced you at the first opportunity.

I have to disagree here. If I decide to assault someone on my way home tonight there will be a range of technologies that will be able to place me at or near the scene of the crime. Likewise if I'm falsely accused those same technologies are more likely to exonerate me.

There will always be a criminal element in society, thats what societies at the macro-level must have...

But that doesn't mean that we have to tolerate it, especially if it's on the increase, anymore than we should say there will always be infant mortality, unemployment and late trains.

 

[Quake42]

With all due respect, I think it's meaningless to compare any 13th C. society with the 21 C. Whilst there's always been crimes such as murder, assaults and robbery I'd argue that the mechanisms behind them are different now to the extent that it renders a comparison between the apocryphal then and now impossible.

I brought the C13th up as an example. Of course things were very different then. My point was more that what is now the UK has historically been a violent society apart from a relatively brief period between the end of the 19th century and about 1950. We associate that brief period as being the norm, but maybe in fact it was the exception and what we have seen over the last 40 years or so is things returning to how they always were.

Do you think proportion of drug-related crimes was as high in the 13th C.?

Well most narcotics were not available in 13th century Britain, but alcohol induced violence was certainly very high.

Do you think that meaningless 'boredom' crimes were as high in the 13th C.?

Probably higher than you might think I suspect.

Do you think the deterrents and punishment were the same in the 13th C.?

No, but I never suggested they were.[/code]

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I brought the C13th up as an example. Of course things were very different then. My point was more that what is now the UK has historically been a violent society apart from a relatively brief period between the end of the 19th century and about 1950. We associate that brief period as being the norm, but maybe in fact it was the exception and what we have seen over the last 40 years or so is things returning to how they always were.

But that's to suggest that there is something cyclical and intrinsic about violence in our society. It doesn't take account of the shifting context which means that we should be more like the early post-war period than the previous eras. There are many reasons why crime might have been high in the past but those reasons have been superceded by modernity and the resources we have to hand nowadays.

It seems that there is a perceived tolerance of crime based a recourse to its historical frequency irrespective of whether or not it's on the wax or the wane. However, we would never apply the same tolerance to present day rises in previously historical problems like death in child birth or poor public hygiene so I don't know why we feel a need to observe these figures for criminal issues. Obviously there are more complex issues at work here since we're essentially talking about the unquantifiable human condition and I think sometimes people perceive complaints about criminality as coming from a cliched moralistic point of view. However, I don't think for many of the complainants it's really an issue of whether kids these days are a right shower, people used to be good god-fearing upstanding citizens etc etc but that there is a real danger being posed to them.

 

[lupinwick]

To be honest its likely that there has never been a golden age. Anyway after some searching for 13th C crime figures (any clues quake?) I came up with this:

THE MYTHICAL GOLDEN AGE

Decades of headlines on "soaring" violence give the impression that society is forever becoming more dangerous. This reinforces the conservative belief that we're undergoing a moral decline from some earlier Platonic Golden Age.

Historic researchers present a totally different picture. Ted Robert Gurr, in Historical Trends in Violent Crimes, writes that, in Britain, "the incidence of homicide has fallen by a factor of at least ten to one since the thirteenth century". He adds that the "long-term declining trend" in such violence is a "manifestation of cultural change in Western society". In other words, we're becoming more civilised over time.

Manuel Eisner, in Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime, claims that "serious interpersonal violence decreased remarkably in Europe between the mid-sixteenth and the early twentieth centuries". The urban historian Eric Monkkonen concurs: "Personal violence – homicide – has declined in Western Europe from the high levels of the Middle Ages. Homicide rates fell in the early modern era and dropped even further in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

Source

This piece on anti-social behaviour is also interesting.

I think the majority of folks will agree that in general things have improved on the crime front, however.....

• UK – Since 1970, national income (GDP) has doubled, but the low-paid are worse off in real terms. In 1970 the bottom 10% of workers earned 67.3% of median earnings – equivalent in today's terms to a minimum wage of £6.55 per hour, or £262 a week, compared to the pathetic £164 of the current minimum wage (at the time of writing).

• UK – Tony Blair's promise of greater "opportunity" and "social mobility" looks like a fallacy. Research* comparing children born in 1958 and 1970 found a sharp drop in social mobility between the two generations – ie less chance of movement up the social or wages scale

Source

Folks as a whole are still being screwed by the system. Apologies for using the same site for the sources, but hey its handy. As to how accurate I don't know, I don't have the time to do all the stats myself.

I still think, that on the whole society is failing the younger generations. However this may just be a distrust of a media system which is hellbent on lying to us all.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

This piece on anti-social behaviour is also interesting.

Well the article's good on the theory but noticably short on any useful information relating to levels of anti-social behaviour. There seems to be a stubborn refusal on the part of those dismissing concerns to actually acknowledge what those concerns are ie that anti-social behaviour is higher than what was considered the norm in very recent history and not that it is at some apocalyptic all-time high.

Also, rates of offending have increased since 1970 so if that's a reasonable place to start a comparison of average wages then it's a reasonable place to start a comparison of crime. In that respect, whether people agree or not, crime has risen. The site seems a little confused, imo - why else would it be blaming Tony Blair for the limited social mobility of people who would have gone through education and training well before his party was in power (those born in 1970 having limited social mobility from 1997 onwards)?

 

[lupinwick]

Do the levels actually exist in any meaningful form? Have they been measured, can they be measured and who defines what is anti-social? Consensus of the middle or upper classes? Consensus of the working classes?

There seems to be a stubborn refusal on the part of those dismissing concerns to actually acknowledge what those concerns are ie that anti-social behaviour is higher than what was considered the norm in very recent history and not that it is at some apocalyptic all-time high.

The concern is that anti-social behaviour is on the increase, fair enough, but is this actually born out by the statistics? There would appear to be a difference between criminal and anti-social behaviour.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Do the levels actually exist in any meaningful form? Have they been measured, can they be measured and who defines what is anti-social? Consensus of the middle or upper classes? Consensus of the working classes?

I'd say consensus of any class but those who are most frequently bothered by it will be the best judge. However, I can't see that those living in sink estates are any more enthusiastic about graffiti, loud music or full scale acts of violent crime than those living in a detatched semi near the good school. In fact, I'd argue that they're less accepting of that kind of behaviour and not least because they're more likely to suffer from it.

The concern is that anti-social behaviour is on the increase, fair enough, but is this actually born out by the statistics? There would appear to be a difference between criminal and anti-social behaviour.

Yes, the difference is that what might have been considered a crime in the past is now considered anti-social behaviour. That's a good way to start reducing instances of crime. Another good way is to get credit card fraud dealt with by banks rather than the police so these instances of crime don't show up on the official stats. However, violent crime can not be swept away so easily given that people have little choice but to report it and it will be dealt with more thoroughly. It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near the lower levels of decades past.

 

[lupinwick]

However, violent crime can not be swept away so easily given that people have little choice but to report it and it will be dealt with more thoroughly. It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near the lower levels of decades past.

Which decades? According to most of the crime statistics published recently violent crime is on the decrease. 1981-1995 being the years of the rises.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf

 

[ghostdog19]

Who is who quoting?

Who were you quoting?

 

[ramonmercado]

Who is who quoting?

Who were you quoting?

OK! I'm totally lost. Probably came in too late to the discussion.

Must say though that crime detection and interrogation techniques have changed a bit since the 13th Century. Pity they got rid of sink or swim and trial by ordeal, thubscrews, branding and the stocks. Cut down on recidivism it did.

 

[jefflovestone]

I brought the C13th up as an example. Of course things were very different then. My point was more that what is now the UK has historically been a violent society apart from a relatively brief period between the end of the 19th century and about 1950. We associate that brief period as being the norm, but maybe in fact it was the exception and what we have seen over the last 40 years or so is things returning to how they always were.

I'm not denying this at all and, to tie it with lupinwick's post below, I think this actually supports what I'm saying. Whilst there's been violent periods in the past this has always been taking place in, for want of a better term, in what is less-civilised times. We're living in a post-Enlightenment, post-literacy, post-Industrialisation time where we're born with particular rights, opportunities and expectancies that make purely numerical comparisons pointless. The general advancements in our society now create a very different backdrop for violent crimes and murder than in the past.

Well most narcotics were not available in 13th century Britain, but alcohol induced violence was certainly very high.

I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware that the part alcohol played in lives was very different then too. Also, whilst alcohol-induced crime might have been prevalent, how prevalent was crime motivated by the need to procure alcohol? Surely that's a whole new ballgame?

Probably higher than you might think I suspect.

Any sources on this?

No, but I never suggested they were.

But surely the idea of some form of deterrent or punishment plays an vital part of the nature of crime? The fact that we address/redress crime now in a way that's different to the 13th C. means it's very nature places it in a very different context?