More populist madness!

[Fiona]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle1096064.ece

Speaking in Bristol, Mr Blair accused the political and legal establishment of being "still in denial" over the gap between public expectations of the system and what it delivered. He said that a "complete change of mindset" was needed to take account of "the reality of the street".

Like he would know

The Prime Minister acknowledged: "The blunt reality is that, at least in the short and medium term, the measures proposed will mean an increase in prison places." He warned it was often too late to deal with young criminals when they first offended. "We need far earlier intervention with some of these families, who are often socially excluded and socially dysfunctional. That may mean before they offend ... In truth we can identify such families virtually as they are born.

[mr_sir]

That last paragraph you quoted could easily be interpreted as 'we will focus all our attention on the poorer members of the population as we know they will do something wrong'. Its ridiculous. Label someone as a troublemaker and they probably will grow up to be one as thats what they would have been led to believe they were. Whatever happened to treating everybody equally?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by mr_sir

That last paragraph you quoted could easily be interpreted as 'we will focus all our attention on the poorer members of the population as we know they will do something wrong'. Its ridiculous. Label someone as a troublemaker and they probably will grow up to be one as thats what they would have been led to believe they were. Whatever happened to treating everybody equally?

Indeed. And "innocent till proved guilty" for that matter. I knew it was a mistake to get Tony Blair a crystal ball for his birthday!

[Chimaera182]

That may mean before they offend ... In truth we can identify such families virtually as they are born.

Something about that line made me think of creating genetically-perfect children. Weeding out babies with future defects. (I just woke up from a nap, forgive my odd off-topic thought process)

He said: "The public are anxious for a perfectly good reason: they think they play fair and play by the rules and they see too many people who don't, getting away with it."

Many of those being politicians, such as himself. It's funny; a lot of poor families are made poor due to the ineptitude of the government, and the government's solution is to attack the poor rather than the problems they themselves create.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by mr_sir

That last paragraph you quoted could easily be interpreted as 'we will focus all our attention on the poorer members of the population as we know they will do something wrong'. Its ridiculous. Label someone as a troublemaker and they probably will grow up to be one as thats what they would have been led to believe they were. Whatever happened to treating everybody equally?

I must admit that I don't neasecarily read it as such, it is perception and interpretation.

It could just as well and easily mean that "they" plan to help out in areas which are prone to ending up criminals by education, job offers etc thus helping people to stay out of trouble.
It is simply acknolwegdeing the issue exists and then acting preemptive to do something to help improve the situations.

I read often that people complain towards politicians/society for not doing enough preemptive towards troubled areas - both in Denmark and international - because once a person falls into the criminal path (as said in the quoted as well), they often stay in it.
What is needed is indeed to keep people from becomming criminals, and what better then to target a high risk area and help them? I see no negative in it at all. And I certainly see nothing populistic in it.
Funny thing is that I also read many of the same people saying that punishments for crime doesn't work - people need to be rehabilitated instead of punished in jail. However, had people interveened faster - preemptive - this might never have happened.

I see no negative in it - it just seems to me people automatically add the negative (and populistic) spin to it from the word go, because it is stated by a person (many) people dislike.


The issue though, in my view, is what infact which actual things/initiatives will be done to improve the situation.

[mr_sir]

The fact I link it to him targetting poorer families is because of the line 'who are often socially excluded and socially dysfunctional'. From my experiences during my childhood and adult life, expecially when I was teaching in secondary schools, it is pretty clear to me that a lot of the socially excluded kids, and the kids that caused problems, came from the poorer families. They were made to feel like they were less important by the more 'spoilt' kids and the more well off kids, and their behaviour became negative as a result. If you sat down with these kids, they just wanted to chat to people, to have people take an interest in their lives, not be labelled as a troublemaker, yet they behaved badly because they felt they were worthless (I admit part of this was sometimes due to how they were treated at home too). I just feel that saying that the government will target these 'socially excluded' families will make a lot of them feel like they are being labelled as a problem before even being given a chance and I feel that is unfair. I agree with trying to sort out the problem at its source, I just think Tony Blair should be careful before making statements that could be seen as targetting certain members of the community who are forced to lead a lifestyle that he knows nothing about as he has never been short of money etc. and had to survive on the bare minimum with so many people making them feel inferior members of society for various reasons (such as being unable to find work, or being ill and being forced to live off the state) and so on.

[Xandax]

Of course you'll always "target" the groups you aim to help the most and I fail to see why that in any way is negative.

If you sat down with these kids, they just wanted to chat to people, to have people take an interest in their lives, not be labelled as a troublemaker, yet they behaved badly because they felt they were worthless (I admit part of this was sometimes due to how they were treated at home too). I just feel that saying that the government will target these 'socially excluded' families will make a lot of them feel like they are being labelled as a problem before even being given a chance and I feel that is unfair.

They aren't being labled as troublemakers.
They are being recoginized as being a part of a segment where a higher then average likelyhood of ending up in a path of crime and thus help should be given to them to prevent them from falling into that path. Help could include for instance people to talk to that are willing to listen to them, education, joboffers and so on.
The difference might be subtle to some, but it is extreemly important in my view and I think this is where the bias of Tony Blair and government comes into play and get some to percive a negative spin to the words.

You can't help a group of people withouth identifing the group. By this statement the government - withouth knowing whether anything actually will be done, but that is another debate - identifying a group which needs special attention. It is far better then to to ignore these peoples problems and simply take a stance where it is solely a parenting problem, and then punish the youngsters when it is already to late - ei fallen to crime.
I still fail to see how this possible can be negative and populistic.

[Fiona]

They aren't being labled as troublemakers.

This is in the context of "reform" of the criminal justice system; not the welfare system. I think that answers that pretty comprehensively

They are being recoginized as being a part of a segment where a higher then average likelyhood of ending up in a path of crime and thus help should be given to them to prevent them from falling into that path. Help could include for instance people to talk to that are willing to listen to them, education, joboffers and so on.

They are being subjected to a stereotype which states that particular segments of the population are more likely to commit crime. That says nothing about any individual at all and it is insulting to suggest it does. Blair has clearly stated he anticipates a rise in the prison population (already very high in this country as a proportion of the population; and disproportionately made up of ethnic minorities and the mentally ill). I agree with Mr Sir, that type of labelling is wrong and it is also counter-productive

The difference might be subtle to some, but it is extreemly important in my view and I think this is where the bias of Tony Blair and government comes into play and get some to percive a negative spin to the words.

The difference is not subtle and it is important. Blair is trading on the ambiguity of words and using positive ones (like rehabilitation) to disguise the false dichotomy he adopts to justify his approach.

He described his proposals as a move to rebalance the criminal justice system "in favour of the decent law-abiding majority"

That is a telling statement, I think. When someone is accused of a crime then they are part of the decent, law-abiding majority, until proved guilty. There are not two groups here. This is underpinned by an ideology which identifies an "underclass" or a "criminal type" as different from the rest and gives the lie to his blather about "social inclusion". All that means is coercing people to accept the sordid "values" he and his ilk espouse.

You can't help a group of people withouth identifing the group. By this statement the government - withouth knowing whether anything actually will be done, but that is another debate - identifying a group which needs special attention. It is far better then to to ignore these peoples problems and simply take a stance where it is solely a parenting problem, and then punish the youngsters when it is already to late - ei fallen to crime.
I still fail to see how this possible can be negative and populistic.

Tony Blair has already supported the removal of the right to silence for the accused; he has brought in ASBO's which allows people to be jailed for acts which are not in themselves criminal and do not attract a prison sentence;he now proposes to give "victims" more rights to be heard in court and to make emotional appeals. I know that this is done in other judicial systems and I am not dismissing it out of hand. But the fact is that in our justice system the crime is against the society and not against the individual and I think there is a lot to be said for maintaining impariality and objectivity. This way lies the lynch mob.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Fiona

This is in the context of "reform" of the criminal justice system; not the welfare system. I think that answers that pretty comprehensively<snip>

He doesn't say you should throw people in jail who haven't done anything.
He simply stated, as you quoted yourself.
He warned it was often too late to deal with young criminals when they first offended. "We need far earlier intervention with some of these families, who are often socially excluded and socially dysfunctional. That may mean before they offend ... In truth we can identify such families virtually as they are born.
He simply recognizes that it is often to late to rehabilitate criminal offenders, and that you need to do an effort to prevent people from walking that path. I do not see that as negative in any way at all, and it is much of a smiliar debate which we have had in Denmark where certain segments of the population were more likely to end up as criminals. Education, free-time activities and other such initiatives are set up to help these people to stay clean.

Originally Posted by Fiona

<snip>
They are being subjected to a stereotype which states that particular segments of the population are more likely to commit crime. That says nothing about any individual at all and it is insulting to suggest it does. Blair has clearly stated he anticipates a rise in the prison population (already very high in this country as a proportion of the population; and disproportionately made up of ethnic minorities and the mentally ill). I agree with Mr Sir, that type of labelling is wrong and it is also counter-productive
<snip>

Sterotyping is not neasecarily a bad thing. It is a common human behavior which enable you to talk/think about a group of people withouth having to comprehend every single individual.
If a segment is for instance 30% more likely to commit criminal offences, then identifying that segment is not a bad thing, for the reason I've already mentioned. It allows you to ensure that you can give special attention and (possible) help to such segments, it also allows you to identify which traits are common for the segment and thus allows you to figure out why people in this segment is more likely to commit offences.


Sorry, but once more- I do not see the evil in this, nothing at all.... unless Blair states these people should be thrown in jail before they comit offenses.

The issue as I see it, the exiting and actual important one, is what initiatives Blair wants to implement.

[Fiona]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...0314_1,00.html

And the reason that it raises such profoundly disturbing questions about liberty in the modern world, is this. Because we care, rightly, about people's civil liberties, we have, traditionally, set our face against summary powers; against changing the burden of proof in fighting crime; against curbing any of the procedures and rights used by defence lawyers; against sending people back to potentially dangerous countries; against any abrogation of the normal, full legal process.

But here's the rub. Without summary powers to attack ASB – ASBO's, FPN's, dispersal and closure orders on crack houses, seizing drug dealers assets – it won't be beaten. That's reality. And the proof is that until we started to introduce this legislation, it wasn't beaten and even now it can be a struggle. The scale of what we face is such that whatever the theory, in practice, in real every day street life it can't be tackled without such powers.

There is no point in saying to an overworked immigration officer: deport this foreign criminal to country X, if country X is dangerous; because at present the courts won't allow it and the officer is met with an army of lawyers and a system stacked against him

We were being hammered for not removing enough failed asylum seekers, even though we remove roughly three times the number of the previous government. Then came the Zimbabwe case. The court held that even failed claimants, if they claimed to be from Zimbabwe couldn't be returned. <snip>
In the month after that case, asylum claims from Zimbabwe rose 50 per cent. In other words, because of the way modern mass migration works, the moment the system received a signal it reacted and numbers immediately went up.

Or you can say – many did - the right to trial by jury is inalienable and even the most serious and complex fraud cases, taking months, sometimes years to try, must be done that way. Fine: but the reality is a large proportion of such cases collapse or are never brought.

It's no use saying that in theory there should be no conflict between the traditional protections for the suspect and the rights of the law-abiding majority because, as a result of the changing nature of crime and society, there is, in practice, such a conflict; and every day we don't resolve it, by rebalancing the system, the consequence is not abstract, it is out there, very real on our streets.

At present, we can't deport people from Britain even if we suspect them of plotting terrorism unless we are sure that, if deported, they won't suffer abuse on their return home. In fact, even if we put them through a form of judicial process overseen by a High Court judge or even convict them, we cannot do it. As a result of what I announced last year, we are now seeking to deport people from various countries; but I say seeking, because the test cases in court are only now being decided. I agree the human rights of these individuals, if considered absolute, would militate against their deportation. But surely if they aren't deported and conduct acts of terrorism, their victims' rights have been violated by the failure to deport. And even if they don't commit such an act or they don't succeed in doing so, the time, energy, effort, resource in monitoring them puts a myriad of other essential task at risk and therefore the rights of the wider society.

This is not an argument about whether we respect civil liberties or not; but whose take priority. It is not about choosing hard line policies over an individual's human rights. It's about which human rights prevail. In making that decision,

Of course the danger is that we end up with rough justice, a danger even now when we use summary powers to close crack houses or seize the assets of suspects. It is exactly to guard against such danger that the rebalancing has to be done with the utmost care and scrutiny. But the brute reality is that just as with rights, rough justice works both ways too. There is not rough justice but rough injustice when neighbourhoods are terrorised by gangs and the system is not capable of protecting them.

But the truth is each suspect and then offender should be tracked throughout the system, given not just a sentence but an appropriate process for sorting their life out; and if they don’t, be followed up, brought back to court. Local authorities need to have the powers to take account of such behaviour when assessing service entitlements.

e have introduced Sure Start; the New Deal; increased Child Benefit; are spending a lot of money on innercity regeneration and all to good effect. It’s not wasted, it’s making a real difference to real lives. I also know that what happens in prison matters deeply and that the pressure on the prison population is a real problem. Moreover, the blunt reality is that, at least in the short and medium term, the measures proposed will mean an increase in prison places.

But even in tackling the causes of crime, we come back to some unpalatable choices about liberty and security. The "hardest to reach" families are often the ones we need to reach most. People know what it’s like to live on the same estate as the family from hell. Imagine what it’s like to be brought up in one. We need far earlier intervention with some of these families, who are often socially excluded and socially dysfunctional. That may mean before they offend; and certainly before they want such intervention. But in truth, we can identify such families virtually as their children are born. The power to intervene is another very tricky area; but again, on the basis of my experience, the normal processes and the programmes of help we have rightly introduced, won’t do it.

Such is the changing nature of that world and the ferocity of those forces, we need to adjust, to reclaim the system and thereby the street for the law-abiding majority. That means not disrespecting civil liberties but re-assessing what respect for them means today and placing a far higher priority, in what is a conflict of rights, on the rights of those who keep the law rather than break it.

In short: No new welfare initiatives; no new money for the kind of support you imagine he is going for; and we have to take a lot of fundamental rights away because othewise the bastards go about excercising them

This man is a lawyer. "Rebalancing" rights really boils down to reversing the burden of proof, and he knows it.

[Fiona]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5125668.stm

"The best test of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable and weakest members" - Mahatma Ghandi