Eight days since I last blogged and when I did the riots had taken place only in north London. What a difference those ensuing few days made, both to the 'landscape' of the ensuing violence in a variety of cities and just as importantly to issues such as the reactions to the events, to community cohesion, to government/police relations and so on. Have a look at the link for an interesting piece on causes of the unrest.
http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/blog-posts/2011/08/the-single-biggest-cause-of-rioting.htm
The propensity for mass hysteria, evidenced by the various reactions to the News International saga, was re-affirmed massively by the sorts of reactions we've seen in the (predominantly) right-wing press and media.
The suggestion of conjoining of offences committed in city centres to someone's tenure, and not even the perpetrator's tenancy, but their mother's, is worthy of the 'knee-jerk' epithet more than any other. Local authorities and other social housing landlords have over the years strengthened tenancy agreements to allow for action against activities in relation to the proper conduct of the tenancy and actions more widely in the vicinity. This development though seems to take the sense of those agreements to a different level. If LB Wandsworth succeeds in its quest to gain possession of a social housing tenancy, one presumes the civil court judge will apply some pretty stern tests to a case based on a criminal act that has no connection to the tenant or the property in question other than a familial one, once removed at that. I would have thought the European Courts might also be asked to get involved at some point.
The more important issue however is why should those in one tenure only, face double jeopardy? There is no legal or moral basis for punishing people solely because of their tenure-and that's what this is. Will we see private sector tenants and home owners with family members who are convicted then be evicted? You answer the question. And that's called discrimination.
The government's desire to exact revenge rather than let the police and courts do their job, is a weakness, not strength. Neither of those bodies are perfect, both are under huge pressure to respond, from the press, public and also worryingly by a government demanding the harshest of penalties, some would say disproportionately harsh looking at the sentences. Also, the courts have the powers they require to deal with these matters in the criminal courts, and not to expand the scope into peoples' tenure.
It's as if the government has its Falklands War, only a year and a bit into their tenure. The manna from this particular poisoned heaven averts attention from the £60 billion (sixty billion pounds) as yet unrepaid to the taxpayer by the banks and bankers; the £6.5 (six and a half million pounds) annual bonus one banker paid himself this year; the £1b (one billion pounds) and more government owned banks set aside for last year's bankers bonuses; the massive cuts to public funding of services and so on.
I'll finish with 2 thoughts. First, that at this time what we have also seen is the wonderful, positive core of many of these communities as they respond, clean-up, band together to self-protect (and I don't include EDL-inspired vigilante groups in this) and call for peace and reconciliation. This positive core is helped by government and other parties setting the scene for repair and rehabilitation, providing effective, clear-thinking leadership and not bidding-up the revenge, all allied to some attempt to understand and explain what happened (which is NOT the same as condoning it).
And finally, an apparently prescient, forward thinking politician said this in 2010; "Imagine the Conservatives go home and get an absolute majority, on 25% of the eligible votes (they got 23%)...they turn around in the next week or two and chuck up VAT to 20%, we're going to start cutting teachers, cutting the police, and the wage bill in the public sector. I think if you're not careful in that situation...you'd get Greek-style unrest". That politician...Nicholas William Peter Clegg.
No comments:
Post a Comment