Tuesday, July 13, 2010

We have our reasons

According to a report only 38% of us would intervene if we saw a bunch of teens wrecking a bus shelter as opposed to 52% of our European cousins. The only real surprise is that 38% of us would, still I suppose it depends on the area you live in. Mostly this is a direct result of socio-liberal meddling with the social ties in the UK where they've effectively disengaged the police from being seen as our friends, have given kids far more rights than adults, have emasculated the male half of the population with crb checks and the suspicion that we're all sexual predators/paedophiles.


People are less willing to intervene in anti-social behaviour than anywhere else in Europe, according to a former Downing Street strategist.
Ben Rogers, the author, blames changes to the character of the population for the apathy amid fears they are “loosening social ties". 
He suggests changes in the make-up of local populations and society, such as the impact of large inflows of migrants and more households now having both the men and women going out to work.
The study also warns the "spread of liberal or permissive" norms has left people unsure whether they can confront or admonish their neighbours or their neighbour's children.
It calls for an army of civilians, such as milkmen and pub landlords, to be trained to intervene and confront anti-social behaviour.
The report, for the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts (RSA), said Britain has the most serious problems of anti-social behaviour than any of it’s main European neighbours.
But 62 per cent of Britons say they would not intervene to stop a group of teenagers smashing up a bus stop, compared with 48 per cent across western Europe.
Only three in ten people would feel confident to intervene compared with six in ten in Germany.
The author Ben Rogers, a former team leader in the Downing Street Strategy Unit, points to a number of causes, including fewer local “authority figures” such as milkmen or postal workers and therefore fewer who are willing to intervene on the street.
But Mr Rogers, now an associate fellow at the think tanks the Institute for public Policy Research and Demos, added: “Changes to the character of local resident populations, more women going out to work and greater diversity and churn may have resulted in a loosening of social ties and expectations.”
A perception that the system is weighted against those who take a stand and in favour of offenders was also a factor, he said.
In 2008, Louise Casey, the then Government's anti-social behaviour adviser, said that Britain had become a "walk-on-by'' society where law-abiding citizens were unwilling to help victims of violent crime because of fears they would either be attacked themselves or face arrest.
The report, The Woolwich Model. Can citizens tackle anti-social behaviour?, said the UK was “seen to have the most serious problem with anti-social behaviour” among six main European countries and three quarters of people blame 14 to 25-year-olds.
Britain is also said to have the highest rates of drunkenness and violence among young people.
Mr Rogers suggested public workers such as caretakers, park keepers, milkmen and postmen could be trained to confront low-level yobbery and even learn restraint techniques.
He likened the move to the large number of people who have basic first aid skills that can be used at any point if needed.
Mr Rogers said: “We argue that community training will build up a culture of intervention beyond the police and equip citizens and public servants more generally.
“If we’re to tackle anti-social behaviour then communities need to be given the confidence that they can solve their own problems without always resorting to state-led interventions.”
This is a direct result of discriminatory legislation which removed the right to admonish anyone from doing wrong, the old clip across the ear by an adult rule. Save now any adult admonishing a yob will either be ignored, or set upon themselves as well as being subject to a campaign of terror by the feral mobs we've created. The law has tilted too far in favour of those who wish to cause trouble and many now live in fear because the police/councils wont do anything about it and if they do.......well they're usually on their own. 
Unless the police and the authorities are given the power to rigorously deal with troublemakers in communities as well as back up those who make a stand then nothing will get done. However as these feral scum seem to know their rights far better than most it will be difficult unless we rid ourselves of human rights legislation, rights should be for the law abiding, criminal behaviour should be recognised as breaking the social compact and the law should come down like a ton of bricks on those who break it, particularly when it impacts on people directly. Effectively disarming the population hasn't helped either, many have come to rely on the state for protection only to discover the state has its own agenda and its own priorities.
So our society will remain broken despite the feeble attempts by Ben Rogers to get more people involved. Unless and until people feel safe knowing they'll get back up if dealing with the ferals then they'll continue ignoring the ferals behaviour, if I remonstrate with a bunch of teens destroying a bus shelter and have to physically defend myself, then I don't want to be the one ending up in court. It really is as simple as that.

3 annotations:

DerekP said...

"People are less willing to intervene in anti-social behaviour than anywhere else in Europe"

Perhaps because those Europeans are allowed to arm and defend themselves? That would make a big difference, wouldn't it?

"Ben Rogers... points to a number of causes"
But ignores both the disarming of the law-abiding, and their prosecution when they defend themselves.

"Mr Rogers suggested public workers such as caretakers, park keepers, milkmen and postmen could be trained to confront low-level yobbery and even learn restraint techniques."

No thanks, we are already getting various 'little Hitlers' being given powers to bully the law-abiding - more bullies does not reduce crime.

In fact, crime has risen as ordinary people have been disarmed. Giving the police more powers and more weapons has not reduced crime for the obvious reason that criminals tend to go after the apparently helpless. Making more people helpless has led to more crime - what a surprise!

"A perception that the system is weighted against those who take a stand and in favour of offenders was also a factor, he said."

Not just a perception - it is the reality:
"Judge Clement Goldstone QC said the courts needed to deter people from taking the law into their own hands."

And he went on to say
"That action on you part, on the part of anyone who is confronted with this situation, requires deterrent punishment."


Sophia Pangloss said...

It's nae wonder fowk are feart tae intervene when the cases o' teen-mobs turnin oan an' assaultin an' even killin the intervener are blawn up tae monstous proportions, giein the impression that the bairns o' today eat their parents fer breakfast!

Sayin that, ah'm yin o' the 62%, ah wid be feart keichless o' gaun near a gang o' youngsters.

An' ah'm no sure where this Mr Rogers is gaunnae find his army o' 'community watchmen'. There are nae milkmen left, posties are aw 18 year-aulds, pub landlords are jist chain-employed managers, parkies hae aw been made redundant etc etc etc...

We need tae find somebody wha can turn back time. No an easy find.

Anonymous said...

I don't live in Britain but, as I understand it, you are no longer encouraged (allowed?) to defend your own property from someone who wants to rob you or damage your shed or whatnot, so why the bloody hell would you want to defend someone else's property? :)

Cheers from Canada