PDA

View Full Version : My battle with liberal Britain



ShadesWolf
11-28-2005, 21:29
The following is an article which appeared in yesterdays Sunday Times. I thought I would share it with you as is well worth a read. The article covers my feeling on what is going wrong with Britain.


Shaun Bailey was born on the west London estates that have been linked to investigations into the murder of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky. Here he describes how pop culture and liberal politics have created a feral generation hooked on drugs, crime and violence

I come from a black working-class environment, born and brought up by my single mother on the North Kensington estates in London. Where I live the peer pressure to offend surrounds you. Crime is everywhere. The teenage pregnancy rate is well above the national average. There is a drugs epidemic. There are significant mental health and disability issues. Most people remain trapped.

Yet just a few yards away, on the other side of Ladbroke Grove, you can find houses worth millions of pounds where bankers, celebrities and media stars discuss being attacked and the threat of burglary rather than the problems of today’s youth.

I am one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to a determined mother, I just scraped into university. But I returned to the North Kensington estates seven years ago as a volunteer youth worker and I came to see from street level how the cycle of deprivation and crime works in the inner cities of Britain.

The level of crime on the estates was already astonishing, but over the past four years the levels of violence with drugs, guns and knives among the younger kids has got much worse.

Eight years ago it would have been fantasy stuff to carjack. Four years ago maybe you would have found one person who’d entertain it and everybody would have thought he was a lunatic. Now I could show you at least 15 people who would consider it, 10 or 15 who would do it and five who have done it.

Kids are carrying guns now because guns are linked to bigger crime. They are selling crack because crack has a shorter turnaround and a higher profit than the likes of weed and heroin. People who smoke crack are so desperate they’d do anything for the money. And the dealers get high on the power.

I know one guy who’s only 17 years old and is a very successful crack dealer. “It’s not so much the money, Shaun,” he told me, “it’s the fact that I’ve got people who work for me.”

For rock he was able to get people to wash his car, clean his house, beat people up, steal stuff for him, send them on missions just because it made him feel powerful.

Crime starts younger, spreads wider and goes further. The number of kids growing out of crime is getting smaller. It’s why we get this horrible stuff with guns and knives: the serious nature of their offences is growing as the percentage of kids staying in crime rises.

The real scary thing is the young age at which it happens. Serious criminals used to be in their late twenties. If you came into my area and interviewed my boys, they have been involved in quite horrible stuff and they are not yet 16 or 17.




THE estates themselves are part of the problem. The blocks were badly designed. We are all too close to each other. On top of each other. One of the estates was built for 1,100 people but now houses 1,450.

There are a lot of Moroccans, a lot of blacks. Everybody there is poor. Overcrowding has an impact on how young people behave.

Most of the flats are built in such a way that nobody can sit around a table. Traditionally a table is where a family has discussions, where parents give attitudes to their children. If children come home and their parents are cooking them food, it establishes their dependency. It gives the parents authority. They can say: “You need to come in for dinner.” They can set rules and boundaries.

That doesn’t happen here. There is no room for a table. We all eat dinner off our laps. Families start to not eat together because there is no point. We don’t have any space at any time. That’s why some parents can’t love their children. They are too busy surviving.

If you talk to those families where children are behaving the worst, you find that the kids have no rules and no boundaries. The reason is that the parents have never had any point at which to put them in place.

Many of the young people I deal with have never spent any meaningful time with their mothers or their fathers. Their parents didn’t do anything with them and they have no set of family rules that govern them.

If you are the younger end of an overcrowded family you share a bedroom with your older brother. Maybe there are three of you in one small bedroom. You have no privacy so you come out of your flat for privacy. You stay on the block because you are comfortable there. It becomes your extended bedroom.

As time has gone on, the people who hang around the block have aged from cute little five-year-olds to 15, 16, 17, 18-year-olds. In some cases 21-year-olds are still hanging around.

On one of the estates here there are 1,600 young people and kids under the age of 19. The sight of a big group of young people just terrorises most people. This is where it starts. The kids are perceived as a threat. They are dealt with in that manner. Then they take on the role they were handed. Put that with difficult parenting and you’ve got a problem.

This was an area where poor white people were sent who couldn’t afford to live anywhere else. The estates have also become home to London’s largest Moroccan enclave and to Jamaican, Portuguese and Spanish communities. But, although we have been housed in our racial groups, racial tension is not a feature of life here. When they found the alleged July 21 bombers on our estates, no form of war took place.

Instead a child is known by the estate he comes from. Kids will fight with other kids just because they are on their road. You defend your “ends” — your locale — because you don’t want to be seen to come from where the pussies live. You club together loosely to make sure you stand up for each other. It is an easy step from here to the creation of gangs.

Some gangs have names. There is the Cold Hearted Crew, the Heartless Crew. The names are always about being mean and tough: Cutlass, Beg for Mercy. Imagine you are a nine-year-old boy living here. You see these groups of older boys. They seem to be tough. They seem to be having a good time. Nobody interferes with them. You want to be a man and these appear to be men to you.

In some of the gangs, some of the slightly older ones have already been in prison. To the kids on the street, prison has become a badge of honour. It’s almost getting to the point that you have to go to prison.

All their talk is about f****** people up. There is no notion of conflict resolution other than battering people. Violence is deeply ingrained in their culture of “respect”. They have to take people on just because what is said might be disrespectful to them. They have to batter them. They have to be in charge. To be in charge they have to be physically violent.

Not having parental love is one reason the kids argue about respect so much. Their view is you have to be a “bad boy” or people don’t leave you alone. With white boys, it’s about being a nutter. You’ve got to be a nutter. You don’t want anyone f****** with you, you’ve got to f*** them up, you’ve got to show people you’re a nutter. The black boy will say things like “bad boy, gunman, man don’t take no shit”. They talk about blowing people’s heads off and about stabbing people.

The kids here also feel they have to have money. When you are poor, you see people on telly with phones, cars, iPods. To you the gang is the best way of getting this stuff because they steal, they rob.

The great majority of them who are “going out there” — that means going out to rob, to make money — are just 14 or 15. They use terms such as “running up in your house” (aggravated burglary). They talk about needing £100-£400 a week. If you have that kind of money, you have respect and you can buy all the cool stuff and you can show them you’ve got it. If you stand around with these boys, it’s not long before someone pulls out a wedge of money. They won’t say anything; it is just to look cool.

Young people here watch a lot of television, particularly MTV. It shows them cars and cribs (houses) and girls. They want it all. They don’t learn about real economics, what’s involved in working for money. That’s why you see them performing some really ugly crimes now, because that is the only way they can finance this lifestyle.

It means they do 20 minutes of something dangerous, then bang, they’ve got all the money. They have the whole of next week, next month doing nothing, waiting for the funds to run out and being forced to do something else.

Lots of kids here, getting towards 25%, smoke weed and skunk. It’s a serious problem. Use is starting younger than it did. It affects their mental health. It undermines their schooling and their life prospects. At our local park, young schoolgirls come around and smoke, young schoolboys, too. They smoke on the way to the bus to go to school. It affects their ability to concentrate.

Weed affects their brain chemistry while their brains are still forming. These kids need all the motivation they can get. The drugs rob them of it. So they move into crime and become more addicted and need to smoke more. So they get excluded, sent to a referral unit or are truanting more or less permanently.

This is one thing that middle-class adult smokers who support liberalising drugs don’t understand. As adults it may not be affecting their brain chemistry doing it once a week. They also have jobs to go to. They may control it. But these young kids don’t.



When the liberal classes have the view that “oh, we can all smoke a bit”, they do not realise how it generates crime for young people here who need to finance their habit. By not making drugs seem like a big deal, by decriminalising the drug, they are criminalising the kids.

This sanctioning of drugs pushes poor kids into bullying at school, then into low-level crime to get the money for drugs. This introduces them to criminality. Most children don’t begin with the desire or the confidence to rob someone. But once they bully for items at school they gradually build up and their targets become more frequent and bigger until they rob adults.

Drinking, smoking and hanging around with undesirables also leads some girls to adopt a different sexual code. They let themselves be shared by the boys. I have been told that if a girl fancies your friend, you’ll make her sleep with you first to get to your friend. Young girls are starting to accept this. They mistake sex for affection.

The next step up from this is when you get girls starting to have a baby just to get real love. Many of the teenagers are the children of the first generation of single mothers to be housed here. The assumption became that it was all right for mothers to have babies on their own. So it is doubly like that for their daughters.

But what you see now is the mother and daughter fighting for attention from the men. I watch a lot of the single mothers round here. I see they are struggling with the loneliness, the depression, the mental health problems. It is getting worse with every generation.



One of the most corrosive aspects of life here is the low expectations placed on parents. Nothing happens to you if you don’t look after your child. Too much of our policy around young people is nothing to do with their parents. Yet all parents need to be involved, need to have responsibility, need to feel the pain if their teenagers are offending.

In turn they need to have higher expectations of their children. Compare what the well-off expect from their children with what the poor think they can achieve: it is so vastly different it is unbelievable.

The parents I speak to do not find parenting easy. They lack information and practical support. None of this is helped by the lack of married families. Marriage does not exist among the black community. It is why we have so many problems with the men.

If you talk to young people, they all support marriage. But people with our lives, in our circles, understand you are better off if you are a single parent. It has reached the point where a lot of people who are not single parents present themselves as such because it makes financial sense.

If anybody thinks that people like us don’t sit around and have these discussions, they are deluding themselves. We soon figure out which way it will make us the most money. And that’s an example of how we are trapped by government policy, which discourages us from raising our children in nuclear families.




SCHOOL was where young people could have gained some moral fibre, but governments have got rid of schools that gave strong moral messages. Young people want boundaries, but school has been emasculated so it can’t give them.

Removing religion and what it is to be British from school has been a disaster. Where else are young people going to learn ethics? Citizenship is not enough. That’s how we’ve had bombers here. They’ve come here and not been exposed to the good things about being British.

Put this with the failure of school to give children real skills. Some are not going to be academically sharp, yet school is finding nothing for them to do. We live in a world of trade and real skills, vocational skills. Yet school is GCSEs or nothing. This creates a separation between mainstream society and the rest of us. This is stopping our children from succeeding, because they go for a job and people start speaking and they literally cannot understand them.

The failure of the schools to impart the most basic of social skills is astonishing. The teenagers here cannot speak to people they don’t know as they only know how to speak their own slang. This estate is not conducive to our kids being socially educated.

You are talking about boys of 22, 23 and 24 who have never been anywhere near a job. They don’t have the academic skills and they definitely don’t have the social skills to attack a job.

They are not able to talk to people without just saying, “wha’d’you want, wha’d’you want?” Not getting offended, not getting scared when somebody asks them a question, not seeing it as a challenge to their respect when they are told or asked to do something — this is all beyond them.

Yet all they talk about is money, money, money. How to raise it. Ways to spend it.

The music our children listen to says you are not worth anything unless you have lots of money. Your worth is directly related to the money you have in your pocket. All this reinforces the need, especially for these children, to get stuff, to expect stuff and to have stuff. It shows them the end product; it doesn’t show them the work involved.

They see the Wayne Rooneys, the Beckhams and their huge financial success. They have false aspirations and then they don’t concentrate on what’s real, on what’s possible for us. So the kids feel they have to have money and this leads to crime.

The education that goes on in school around drugs and sex is also ridiculous, because it is just about the technicalities. It has not dealt with the pressures and realities for kids here. When I spoke in a girls’ school and used the word abstinence, only three out of 90 of them knew what it meant.

Sex education in school is just science. Science is not what happens on the street; it is not what happens in bedrooms up and down the country. The fact that young people feel they should be having sex should be addressed. When you say to them here’s condoms, you confirm that young people should have sex. What we should be saying is “No!”

Parents should be told that contraception is being handed out and absolutely they must be told if an abortion is being arranged, because you are talking about the physical and mental health of their children.

Hiding it from the parents deprives them of their responsibility and the opportunity to exercise it. It emasculates the caring parents and it gives dependency to the uncaring ones. If you take that away from them they expect everything else to be done for them.




THEN there is multiculturalism. What it does is rob Britain of its community. Among the working class, unless you are already one of those “Queen and country” sort of British people, you are lost. You don’t know what to do. You bring your children to school and they learn far more about Diwali than Christmas.

I speak to people from Brent in northwest London and they’ve been having Muslim and Hindi days off. What it does is rob Britain of its community. Without our community we slip into a crime-riddled cesspool.

There are a lot of really good things about Britain as a place and British people as a body. These are things that children should be taught straight up; they should learn about the community that is Britain and what it is to be British. But by removing the religion that British people generally take to, by removing the ethics that generally go with it, we’ve allowed people to come to Britain and bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have with them.

I can see the argument for taking religion out of the state, out of politics. But as a moral guideline, they need to be maintained. Losing them has meant that people have come here and had very little respect for us.

That lack of integration and lack of saying to people: if you are going to come to England, this is what we expect. That is why the Muslim religion is so powerful among the Muslim people (here).

It’s like we are ashamed of where we come from.

Lots of people come to Britain and think they’ll be rich. But then they find it’s not so easy and are resentful. They are alienated because they haven’t been exposed to the good things in Britain — our ethics. That’s why we’ve now got a nation of people who wouldn’t do anything for the country. They wouldn’t fight for their country. Why would they? The nation has done nothing for them as far as they are concerned.

The more liberal we’ve been, the more the poor have suffered.

Poor people don’t need all this liberalism. They need direction. Everybody talks about “my rights” — but there is some point when your behaviour needs to be balanced by your duty to your community.

The working class look to rules. The rules are important to them. Take away the rules and they are left in limbo. So they form their own: the kind that are driven by pop economics and lead to crime.

The liberal intelligentsia relax the rules for themselves, not for us.

Bailey's law: Six ways to stop youngsters growing into criminals

Establish boundaries early
Once children acquire a criminal mentality, they find it hard to lose, says Bailey. So it is important for parents and schools to lay down a clear moral framework from the outset.

This may seem obvious, but for people on deprived estates it’s not easy. They are bombarded by conspicuous consumption elsewhere but have to be taught that money and goods must be earned, not taken. Parents and schools must not shirk from making clear what is right and wrong.

Bailey believes that in other countries, including Jamaica, where his mother came from, parents and schools impose stricter discipline and better behaviour.




Keep them busy
The best way of preventing temptation turning into criminality is to keep youngsters occupied with other things. “You can’t stop people using drugs unless they are busy, unless they have some type of tie to society,” says Bailey. This requires jobs, education, sports or hobbies.

On one estate Bailey helped youngsters get licences to drive mopeds so they could deliver pizzas. “It was about giving them a link to wider society,” he says. “I found it transformed the young people involved.”

He also ran a project to help youngsters repair their mopeds, which led to some training as mechanics.




Be straight, be firm
In Bailey’s eyes, “young people want boundaries”. They want guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. But too many people and institutions are afraid of setting clear boundaries for fear of causing offence. They are, he says, too politically correct. “We make a point of telling youngsters the truth and we find that they grow from it,” he says.




Shield young people from commercial exploitation and celebrity culture
He believes the media, including some music magazines and television channels that promote the “coolness” of money and drugs, are corrosive. He suggests the promotion of violence and pornography, especially by some parts of the music industry, should be challenged.


Don’t wait for the problem to come to you: go and tackle it before it is too late
Instead of setting up a youth or drug centre in a particular building and waiting for people to drop in, go out on the streets. Bailey seeks out and befriends youngsters on the streets of North Kensington and gains their trust.

Keep it local
National initiatives may struggle to work because youngsters are territorial. It’s important to understand an area’s history, culture and needs.

This article is taken from Shaun Bailey's pamphlet. No Man's Land: how Britain's Inner City Youth are Being Failed, to be published tomorrow by the Centre for Policy Studies. www.cps.org.uk

Crazed Rabbit
11-28-2005, 22:00
What? How are these youths getting guns? Don't they know guns are outlawed? The very fact ought to negate the idea of them getting guns! The law says no guns! This concept of having guns is impossible!

In all seriousness, I'm sorry for you, and I wish you the best of luck in defeating this. Looks like too little responsiblity, too little punishment for criminals, and too much political correctness has screwed your society over.

I wonder when JAG will come in and say 'its society's fault' and then insist on continuing, or even increasing, the social programs that have caused this.

Crazed Rabbit

Duke Malcolm
11-28-2005, 22:05
It being too late and I having to write a crucial essay I only had time to skim over the article, so I shall read it properly tomorrow, along with JAG's scathing reply...

What a wonderfully accurate article. I couldn't have said it better myself

A.Saturnus
11-28-2005, 22:08
A bit too much unbased folk sociology in that for my taste.

ShadesWolf
11-28-2005, 22:10
Its back down to choice, the person who wrote the article came from the same area and it goes to show that you have a choice. People seem to accept crime as the easy choice and thats the sad truth of it. Without respect I feel it is our destiny to self-distruct.

Things have gone to far in these past eight years, these can never be undone. I feel we are heading towards a crossroads and my fear is people will choose the extremist point of view and we all know what will happen then ~:mecry:

A.Saturnus
11-28-2005, 22:17
I wonder when JAG will come in and say 'its society's fault' and then insist on continuing, or even increasing, the social programs that have caused this.


BTW, isn´t it the point of the article that it´s society´s fault?

ShadesWolf
11-28-2005, 22:23
It depends on your idea of society,


So it is important for parents and schools to lay down a clear moral framework from the outset.



He believes the media, including some music magazines and television channels that promote the “coolness” of money and drugs, are corrosive

Government has a role to play in this, schools are an important area to keep our youth on the straight and narrow. Moral values are important as is respect. If a government wont back these values what chance has society got.

The_Doctor
11-28-2005, 22:33
It was quite interesting. It could have done without religious parts. You don't need religion to have a moral code.

I already know that western civilisation will fall apart in about 30-40 years time. But don't worry about it, it will come back, one day.

Tribesman
11-28-2005, 22:37
My battle with liberal Britain
From a think tank to spread liberalism ????? Oh but its Maggies liberalism , thats a bit of a misnomer isn't it ~D ~D ~D

So give the youth jobs and hobbies , give them education and hopes , go out and meet them and understand their culture and needs .
That sounds like one of them damn liberal social workers Shades , are you for or against this liberalism in your little battle ?~;)
Overcrowding and bad council housing ...eh that means spend money on more and better council housing doesn't it , thats a bit liberal .~:confused:

People seem to accept crime as the easy choice and thats the sad truth of it.
What like make a quick buck withot thought to the morals , legality or consequences ? that sounds like extreme capitalism to me Shades .

Without respect I feel it is our destiny to self-distruct.

Is that a plug for Galloways party ? You do surprise me ~D ~D ~D

edit to addMoral values are important as is respect. If a government wont back these values what chance has society got.

True , but I think the last time the liberals in government /opposition had some moral/criminal problems was when Thorpe was in trouble over something to do with murdering his gay lover , since then it is the right that has been failing spectacularly with showing moral guidance no matter how much they talk about it , from perjury and criminality to morally questionable sexual relationships or embarrasing pesonal traits leading to embarrasing circumstances of death (anyone for an orange) . Actually didn't the son of the person who founded this group recently become involved in an attempted coup to try and make a quick buck by stealing the mineral rights and isn't her good friend and one time chairman of the party who has recently been released from prison implicated as well .
Actually as there was mention of run down estates and overcrowding in the article what was the name of that woman who was putting people into run down overcrowded housesso that she could fill up other houses with more affluent people who would be more likely to vote for her ?
Blame the liberals , yeah in your dreams .

Crazed Rabbit
11-28-2005, 22:39
BTW, isn´t it the point of the article that it´s society´s fault?

I think there are different interpretations of what it being society's fault means. In this case, kids are making trouble and society is not dealing with it. I.e., the kids are responsible for the trouble and crimes they commit, and it is up to society to do something (like more police, punishment, guidelines, etc.). This recognizes not all people will be good, and we must do what we can to minimize or negate their impact.

From what I gather of JAG's cries of 'it's society's fault' he's saying that the way society is, i.e. the culture, lack of cuddly pink prisons, etc., is causing crime, and that improve these and the people will automatically change, since it was only these conditions that caused them to be bad, not any inherent badness.

Crazed Rabbit

doc_bean
11-28-2005, 23:33
I think there are different interpretations of what it being society's fault means. In this case, kids are making trouble and society is not dealing with it. I.e., the kids are responsible for the trouble and crimes they commit, and it is up to society to do something (like more police, punishment, guidelines, etc.). This recognizes not all people will be good, and we must do what we can to minimize or negate their impact.

From what I gather of JAG's cries of 'it's society's fault' he's saying that the way society is, i.e. the culture, lack of cuddly pink prisons, etc., is causing crime, and that improve these and the people will automatically change, since it was only these conditions that caused them to be bad, not any inherent badness.

Crazed Rabbit

Actually you're both right (or you would be if JAG responded). If society doesn't impose laws and moral, you situation like this, or situations like in the French suburbs, or situations like in some part sof Africa (plundering armies consisting mostly of children). Simply because this is the easiest way for the people ivolved to gain status and power.

On the other hand, if you can give these kids a decent education, if you can present them a future with a decent job, making decent money, you can quite possibly convince most of them to lead decent lives. Now however, all they see is a future like their parents have, slaves or beggars to the righ living a few blocks away. They don't want that and it's understandable.

There is no reason to assume that the people living in a place like this are inherently worse than the people living in the rich parts of town. Pretty much every man is a potential murderer and rapist, the circumstances determine how they will behave however (look at how otherwise decent soldiers can behave in a war zone).

I'm no die hard socialist, far from it. But I believe that everyone deserves at least the same chances in live. I know it will never happen, but I could live in a dog eat dog (and whatever else is around) world like some conservatives propose, if everyone started on equal footing. If people are doomed from childhood, expect them to act like it. :bow:

PS please forgive any spelling mistakes, spellcheck isn't working

Adrian II
11-29-2005, 01:57
The article covers my feeling on what is going wrong with Britain.Interesting pamphlet. It reminds me of Theodore Dalrymple's books about the British underclass and I believe it has the same merits and flaws as his writings. Excellent diagnosis on the micro level, but a dismal grasp of the larger issues.

Many problems described above are the result of free-market policies and concomitant nonsense about consumer choice, materialistic lifestyles, celeb culture, the abominable role models presented by commercial tv, etcetera. Dalrymple actually makes this point in his latest book (Our Culture) but fails to elaborate on it. Instead he blames the British 'progressive elite' for all the woes of the underclass, as if capitalism had no role to play in it at all. Most astonishing is his claim that this elite has somehow created the underclass in the course of the past one hundred years. Dalrymple writes beautifully about Shakespeare and Zweig -- but has he never read Engels or Dickens?

Also I don't subscribe to the notion that loss of religion is a real loss to society or the individual. The problems start only if and when old-fashioned religion is lost and not replaced by other standards of behaviour and values (which are basically the same for all major religious and non-religious schools of thought).

Finally the author is not pleading against state intervention, he is pleading for a different kind of intervention. That is familiar ground for a Socialist.

Slyspy
11-29-2005, 02:17
Quite so Adrian.

JAG
11-29-2005, 02:45
From what I gather of JAG's cries of 'it's society's fault' he's saying that the way society is, i.e. the culture, lack of cuddly pink prisons, etc., is causing crime, and that improve these and the people will automatically change, since it was only these conditions that caused them to be bad, not any inherent badness.

Crazed Rabbit

I think the writer of the article himself pretty much shows how it is precisely the way our society and culture - in parts of the country - is, that causes the crime. The way we have ghetto type situations for different communities and hundreds of extremely poor families forced to live in crap side by side.

The writer does over exaggerate the problems in my opinion and comes to clearly wrong conclusions. But even if we take what he says the reality is in these poor areas as truth, the answer is more government aid in the form of redistribution of wealth, property and social positioning, not anything else.

If we spent more on areas of extreme poverty like the ones he is going on about, made them habitable, provided places for the young to go and do productive / fun things, not merely hang around on the streets, you would find a lot of the problems would cease. If the parents who apparently all don't give a damn about their children, actually had the time or money to do productive / fun / educational things with their children, you would see the situation impreove greatly. I do not deny that the parenting of children is hugely important, but what those who scream at the parents of these children never admit, is that it is not only near impossible to control the children on the estates given the situation and the means of the parents, but it is also often not the parents fault that they are in the situation they are in.

I also believe if you implement things like more rehabilitation rather than locking up and throwing away the key policies and the legalisation of drugs, you would have a society which would go a long way to solving a lot of problems.

The much hated Labour govt - by both those on the left and right - it has to be said has done a fair few things which correspond with exactly what I have stated. The raising of the minimum wage, the extra funds given to local councils for youth centres, the sure start centres, the better public services etc. Labour is helping the problems, they just are not going far enough.

GonZ
11-29-2005, 10:46
A bleak but interesting article.


I think the writer of the article himself pretty much shows how it is precisely the way our society and culture - in parts of the country - is, that causes the crime. The way we have ghetto type situations for different communities and hundreds of extremely poor families forced to live in crap side by side.

Someone might be born into a ghetto, but they are not forced to stay there - as Mr Bailey proves - there are ways out. Decent parenting, a culture of personal responsibility, and the perseverance necessary to keep trying are what's needed to get out.


The writer does over exaggerate the problems in my opinion and comes to clearly wrong conclusions. But even if we take what he says the reality is in these poor areas as truth, the answer is more government aid in the form of redistribution of wealth, property and social positioning, not anything else.

The solutions always seems to be more tax payers money. It seems to me that there's already too much tax money going into these areas. Single parent families are the prefered option because it pays better! Imo that needs to stop, and soon - and be replaced with a system that benefits two parent families.

Actually I am for more investment but it needs to be very carefully targetted.


If we spent more on areas of extreme poverty like the ones he is going on about, made them habitable, provided places for the young to go and do productive / fun things, not merely hang around on the streets, you would find a lot of the problems would cease. If the parents who apparently all don't give a damn about their children, actually had the time or money to do productive / fun / educational things with their children, you would see the situation impreove greatly. I do not deny that the parenting of children is hugely important, but what those who scream at the parents of these children never admit, is that it is not only near impossible to control the children on the estates given the situation and the means of the parents, but it is also often not the parents fault that they are in the situation they are in.

It's easy to blame the parents, but as usual blame doesn't solve anything.

What the situation needs is a concerted effort to break the cycle.

Imo this is best acheived via incentive and reward rather than handouts. e.g. if crime drops in this ward/area for three consecutive years there will be funding for e.g. This new sports centre etc. If Johnney stays out of trouble for 12 months, your benefits will be reinstated.

It needs a new approach, one that encourages resposibility, teamwork and a certain amount of social (community) cohesion...


I also believe if you implement things like more rehabilitation rather than locking up and throwing away the key policies and the legalisation of drugs, you would have a society which would go a long way to solving a lot of problems.

It appears to me that you need to push the education aspect at a very early age promotiong personal responsibility. At the same time, I think punishments for crack, smack dealers should stay harsh. Rehab should be available (nay compulsary) to addicts. Importers or manufacturers of crack should be jailed (no TV) and when they've done their time they should be exciled.


The much hated Labour govt - by both those on the left and right - it has to be said has done a fair few things which correspond with exactly what I have stated. The raising of the minimum wage, the extra funds given to local councils for youth centres, the sure start centres, the better public services etc. Labour is helping the problems, they just are not going far enough.

Actually I have seen things get better in certain areas. Take Hulme in Manchester. Once a crime ridden nightmare of high rise concrete crescents, now the crescents are gone replaced by individual, well built homes - a lot of the old problems have gone (or have moved on somewhere else...). I'm not convinced that labour can take all the credit for this.

QwertyMIDX
11-29-2005, 18:26
I love how conservatives always talk about talk taking responsibility for one's actions and not expecting the government to fix everything for you...and then blame every on "liberal government," and demand a conservative government to fix everything.

Duke Malcolm
11-29-2005, 19:14
The writer does over exaggerate the problems in my opinion and comes to clearly wrong conclusions. But even if we take what he says the reality is in these poor areas as truth, the answer is more government aid in the form of redistribution of wealth, property and social positioning, not anything else.

Really? I don't think he exaggerates too much. Perhaps about the idea of a great many children having guns, but hardly about much else.

What the government could do here, in my opinion, is to change curriculum in schools as suggested in the article, encourage suitable jobs, and better housing with a nice, simple, organised street plan to make it easy for policing and such.

The six points at the end are magnificent, and the government should encourage all parents, schools, et cetera to follow those points.

QwertyMIDX
11-29-2005, 19:42
How long have you been alive?

The worst kind of state is the one that does nothing but protect the interests of the ruling elites, theorists tend to call it a 'minimal state'. Of course coming in a close second is a totalitarian state that tries to be omnipotent and omniscient and overcome economic forces through its use of coercive force. The welfare state is an attempt to take the edge of the capitalist system without really changing anything, and while its defiantly not a serious long-term solution, nor is it particularly sustainable in an economic sense, it is a lot better than either of those options.

Also, my comment about conservatives was about 70% facetious and 25% sarcastic.

QwertyMIDX
11-29-2005, 19:56
The Welfare state is an attempt to take the edges off of a capitalist system that is already struggling itself.

That is true, capitalism is inherently unsustainable, grow or die is an unsustainable mentality and will eventually destroy itself or destroy us (or both).


Minimal state does nothing to help the ruling elite.

A minimal state does nothing but support the interests of the ruling elite because it does nothing but protect capital. Which group has control over a massive majority of capital? That’s right, the ruling elite.


The trend towards a "People-Friendly" big government has done nothing but warp economies and will not lead towards anything good in the end.

Of course the welfare state warps the market economy, having a government at all warps the market economy.

You obviously believe that an unregulated free market will make everyone rich and happy. The biggest lie liberal capitalists have peddled in the last 30 years (and there have been a lot of them) is that the entire world can eventually become a high consumption, post-industrial economy like the one we have in the minority world. The only reason the minority world is able to sustain such an economy is because we are able to exploit the cheap labor and natural resources of the majority world.

QwertyMIDX
11-30-2005, 00:53
The chances of real mobility aren't that good. Under capitalism the majority of people in the world will be born poor and die poor. Somehow I don't see much beauty in that.

Tribesman
11-30-2005, 01:43
the ultimate power lays with the Proletariat.
I knew she had returned , but I didn't know she was that powerfull ~:eek:

Welcome back Prole~:cheers:

QwertyMIDX
11-30-2005, 01:55
No. Only if the government intervenes with laws against strikes and unions. Even with capitalism, the ultimate power lays with the Proletariat.

This sounds nice, but it's not true. Capitalism is a system that is geared toward capital, not labour or land. The control of capital is what creates massive inequalities, inequalities that are, to a large degree, self-perpetuating. Further, capital is far more mobile and fluid than labour or land, as such it has an inherent advantage even without government intervention to protect capital (which any minimal state would still be based on). Unless you’re advocating a minimal state that doesn’t recognize private property it will always be a tool of the capitalist class.

Papewaio
11-30-2005, 02:00
The chances of real mobility aren't that good. Under capitalism the majority of people in the world will be born poor and die poor. Somehow I don't see much beauty in that.

Really, so how much of Asia or Africa have you been to?

Stat wise those who are uneducated and live in a country that is not a democracy are going to be born poor and die poor.

While what are called poor in the first world are generally rich compared to the rest of the world.

"You do not plan to be sick or poor. But you have to plan to be healthy or rich."

Papewaio
11-30-2005, 02:26
The thing is that the labour is also the consumer. Slaves can't consume consumer goods... so you need a healthy middle and lower 'class' that has spare cash to spend money.

So if the consumers want to have local produced goods or non-sweat shop goods it is their choice.

Crazed Rabbit
11-30-2005, 02:30
Very true, GC.

Capitalism drives itself because -ideally- it is free from gov't intervention, so that people are completely free to do as they choose. No human or gov't can run an economy that ecompasses millions of people, all living different lives, making billions or trillions of transactions.

Crazed Rabbit

Kralizec
11-30-2005, 03:20
The ideal form of capitalism is indeed one where there are different classes, but in wich anyone can work to get higher up.

The principle of classical liberalism -not American "liberalism", wich is something quite different- is that people are capable of taking care of themselves and if given room to develop themselves, they'll reach just what they deserve. It's basicly all about personal responsibility, and as little government interference as possible.

It's a good ideal, I especially like the emphasis on personal responsibility. In practice though, it happens to be so that some people start out in a disadvantaged position. If you're born poor, grow up in a crime infested environment and live in an unstable family, it's not likely you're going to do well in the future.

Socialism is a nice ideal, too. But I don't believe that is possible either. So the best solution probably lies somewhere in between.

Kralizec
11-30-2005, 03:52
You're an exception then. Ending up poor is not inevitable since those with the willpower and smarts will overcome anything that's thrown at them, but growing up poor (and in a lot of countries, therefore less likely to receive a good education) and without staunch support from good parents are definitely things that stop a lot of people in their tracks.

For example, there are students whose parents pay for everything they need (or even want), and there are students who barely get anything and have to take a job along their studies, and have to struggle far more to get their degree in the end.

Redleg
11-30-2005, 04:08
You're an exception then. Ending up poor is not inevitable since those with the willpower and smarts will overcome anything that's thrown at them, but growing up poor (and in a lot of countries, therefore less likely to receive a good education) and without staunch support from good parents are definitely things that stop a lot of people in their tracks.

No he is not the exception - he is the norm for those who wish to improve thier lives. As one who also has improved his station in life by working while going through college, paying my own way, from a "poor" rural beginning, and knowing many others like myself - I can safely say he is not an expection.




For example, there are students whose parents pay for everything they need (or even want), and there are students who barely get anything and have to take a job along their studies, and have to struggle far more to get their degree in the end.

And your point is what - both still get the education, both still have the the same potential because of the education. Only one had to work harder to get it. That is not inequality. Both individuals have the same opporunity and same potential for success.

QwertyMIDX
11-30-2005, 04:58
That's just not true. If you're born poor, grow up in a crime infested environment, and told all your life that all you have to do is sit tight and vote Democrat in order to get out, then you're not going to do well in the future.

I grew up next to homeless, in a very unstablehousehold, in various "Bad Neighborhoods" accross the country. Now i've got a job, money, a highschool diploma, and college in the near future. Everyone has a chance at rising in station. Not everyone will, but there are no inevitable poor people. Not in America, at least.


Of course its not inevitable, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. The odds are strongly against overcoming the odds when you're born poor, even in America, and the welfare state is not to blame.

I'll get back to the larger issues in this thread as soon as I have some time.

doc_bean
11-30-2005, 12:57
I still believe it's best to start everyone off as equal as possible, this includes free (or at least affordable) education affordable healthcare and affordable housing, not really much more.

The real problem with socialsim is big government (help, I'm siding with the republicans !), for instance, in belgium about half of the employed people work (directly or indirectly) for the state. This means that about 25% of the people have to be productive enough to pay for everything (about 50% is retired or unemployed, and the state doesn't really generate capital), this means that for every Euro you earn about 3 Euros have gone to the stae (it's less directly, but accounting for yearly taxes, TAV etc. it's a pretty good estimate) and your company has to pay 4€. In a situation with a small government, more people should be employed by the private sector, so a smaller percentage has to be given to the state, which lowers the real wages (for the company) which increases spending in the country (since you get more productivity for your €).

The current system is just a downward spiral, but does the problem really lie with socialism itself ? Or does it lie with the bloated government that provides this kind of socialism (in an incredible complex way of course) ? I think a *limited* amount of redistribution of wealth is possible without draining the economy dry, and even that it can be good for a country. Eisenhower once proposed to increase spending on education as it would bring a 'tactical advantage' to the US, and I don't think his reasoning was completely wrong. You're better of increasing the chances of young people to become valued members of society then to just let them be and hope occasionally one gets out.

doc_bean
11-30-2005, 13:00
We've had nothing but Liberals (be it the big government kind, the Big Brother kind (also known as "Here are my morals, now you have to follow them."), or the just plain socialist kind) for longer than i've been alive.

I, still find it hilarious that our liberals want to downsize the governlment, lower taxes, keep immigrants out and are often arguing with the socialists ~:)

Liberalism has seriously mutated across the pond ~:rolleyes:

Kralizec
11-30-2005, 16:06
I'm arguing against a brick wall ~:rolleyes:

The student example still stands. The kid with the rich kid has an obvious advantage, because he doesn't need to throw away 20+ hours working to be able to support his study, or his wasteful lifestyle. Discipline and willpower are not necessary for him to succeed, all what's needed is an occasional kick in the ass from his father with the warning "finish your studies or else go take care of yourself!"
The other kid who needs to pay for his rent, clothes, food, university fee, books etc with his own finances- is at an obvious disadvantage. The work he has to do to be able to pay for all that will take away significant time that he oculd have spent studying, or something else.
Would you say it's reasonable for a student to have to spend 60+ hours per week on work and education? It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's unfair, and I expect some people would chose not to go to university because they know they can't handle that.


And your point is what - both still get the education, both still have the the same potential because of the education. Only one had to work harder to get it. That is not inequality. Both individuals have the same opporunity and same potential for success.

Let's see, person A having to work harder then person B to get somewhere, is not inequality?

In my coutnry students can get 4 year grants. The grant itself isn't that much and won't be enough to cover monthly expenses, so people do get jobs for a limited number of hours per week. If that's not enough or if that costs them to much time wich impairs their studies, they can loan from the government at a negligable interest rate. Wich is what I like about my system- our government makes higher education accesible for everyone.

I don't know how grants work in America, but how many homeless, parentless and cashless kids end up at a good university in America? Let me rephrase that, how many Gelatinous Cube-esqe persons end up there? I don't know, but I bet it's not much. I bet it's the democrats fault, indeed, for giving them false hopes ~:rolleyes:
On the other hand, I suppose that the reason that kids with rich parents end up at Yale, Harvard and Princeton is because of their incredible ambition and hard working nature. Being born with a silver spoon up your ass must make you a better person!

Of course it's not impossible for a poor kid to end up getting a good degree, and become succesful. But only the most hardworking and determined will make it. Having to struggle to get through university is natural and I accept that some people have an easier time. But I don't think people should have to struggle just to get to university.

Idaho
11-30-2005, 17:21
No he is not the exception - he is the norm for those who wish to improve thier lives. As one who also has improved his station in life by working while going through college, paying my own way, from a "poor" rural beginning, and knowing many others like myself - I can safely say he is not an expection.

And your point is what - both still get the education, both still have the the same potential because of the education. Only one had to work harder to get it. That is not inequality. Both individuals have the same opporunity and same potential for success.

Yes Redleg, but you are not of an ethnic group widely considered criminal and problematic. You have your health, you didn't have to stay home and support dependents from a young age. You lived in an area where you could get reasonable work.

Your second paragraph says it all. To make a success of yourself you need to work hard and be smart. The tougher your starting position in life, the harder and smarter you have to be. Ergo more racers starting in pole position are going to win races than those at the back of the grid. Indeed only the truely special ones from the back will make it through.

Idaho
11-30-2005, 19:29
The point is that in our societies money is spent in the pursuit of more money. Capitalism can, on occasion, be inventive - and is a powerful force when it is. But this is the exception. The majority of capitalism is about safe bets. It is safer to invest in previously safe markets. It 'plays the percentages'. A multimillionaire can't lose in this world unless he really really tries hard to.

The facts of mature capitalism are that it's better to sell to people with money. It's better to offer insurance to those with little risk, it's better to make crappy sequels than make an original film.

The question is; do we mitigate the inequities that capitalism produces by government programmes (social democracy), do we cut our losses and expect the market to fix all - or except some 'collateral' for the benefits of capitalism (liberalism, in the true sense) or do we reinvent society in some other manner (socialism, communism, anarchism, etc).

ShadesWolf
11-30-2005, 20:56
The majority of capitalism is about safe bets

Its about safe bets because if you are too successful the Left wing governments take your hard work away from you and nationalise it.

In 1969 we had a successful motor industry, what do we have now. Nothing

We kept mines open for over 40 years that were uneconomical.

NAtionalisation is such a backward step it kills any progression. - I think I will make a new thread about this....

Redleg
11-30-2005, 21:35
I'm arguing against a brick wall ~:rolleyes:

The student example still stands. The kid with the rich kid has an obvious advantage, because he doesn't need to throw away 20+ hours working to be able to support his study, or his wasteful lifestyle. Discipline and willpower are not necessary for him to succeed, all what's needed is an occasional kick in the ass from his father with the warning "finish your studies or else go take care of yourself!"
The other kid who needs to pay for his rent, clothes, food, university fee, books etc with his own finances- is at an obvious disadvantage. The work he has to do to be able to pay for all that will take away significant time that he oculd have spent studying, or something else.
Would you say it's reasonable for a student to have to spend 60+ hours per week on work and education? It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's unfair, and I expect some people would chose not to go to university because they know they can't handle that.

Yep its unfair for the rich kid - because he has no work ethic. Those that can handle doing both work and school are better off then those who can not.




Let's see, person A having to work harder then person B to get somewhere, is not inequality?

In my coutnry students can get 4 year grants. The grant itself isn't that much and won't be enough to cover monthly expenses, so people do get jobs for a limited number of hours per week. If that's not enough or if that costs them to much time wich impairs their studies, they can loan from the government at a negligable interest rate. Wich is what I like about my system- our government makes higher education accesible for everyone.

You can get (well used to anyway) governmental loans at a low rate here in the United States also. So your point here is mute as far as I am concerned. The potential of both still remains.



I don't know how grants work in America, but how many homeless, parentless and cashless kids end up at a good university in America? Let me rephrase that, how many Gelatinous Cube-esqe persons end up there? I don't know, but I bet it's not much. I bet it's the democrats fault, indeed, for giving them false hopes ~:rolleyes:

And that is your problem right there - ~:eek:



On the other hand, I suppose that the reason that kids with rich parents end up at Yale, Harvard and Princeton is because of their incredible ambition and hard working nature. Being born with a silver spoon up your ass must make you a better person!


I know poor kids who work hard that go to Universities that are just as good if not better in their fields then those schools - the point is that if you want an education in the United States your ability and potential to get an education exists equally regardless of your income level. Some just have to work harder for it then others. Some can not afford the Ivy League schools but can get the same type of education and work themselves up the ladder of success.



Of course it's not impossible for a poor kid to end up getting a good degree, and become succesful. But only the most hardworking and determined will make it. Having to struggle to get through university is natural and I accept that some people have an easier time. But I don't think people should have to struggle just to get to university.

I think if you earn it yourself your degree means more then the one that gets it handed to them. Regardless of where you go to school.

Redleg
11-30-2005, 21:39
Yes Redleg, but you are not of an ethnic group widely considered criminal and problematic. You have your health, you didn't have to stay home and support dependents from a young age. You lived in an area where you could get reasonable work.

Yep I live in the United States - not Europe.



Your second paragraph says it all. To make a success of yourself you need to work hard and be smart. The tougher your starting position in life, the harder and smarter you have to be. Ergo more racers starting in pole position are going to win races than those at the back of the grid. Indeed only the truely special ones from the back will make it through.

But by finishing the race - they set the conditions to improve the lives of their offspring. And that is a greater success then the social welfare hand-outs.

By all means give people hand-ups to improve their lives, I am all for that, because it encourages people to be self-suficient and productive. Giving people hand-outs only encourages them to be medicore.

Idaho
11-30-2005, 22:14
Its about safe bets because if you are too successful the Left wing governments take your hard work away from you and nationalise it.

In 1969 we had a successful motor industry, what do we have now. Nothing

We kept mines open for over 40 years that were uneconomical.

NAtionalisation is such a backward step it kills any progression. - I think I will make a new thread about this....

If you think that too much government intervention killed the British car industry you have a seriously weird view on economic history mate ~:confused:

A.Saturnus
11-30-2005, 22:44
This is only because the poor have no motivation to rise in station.

Why?