Saturday, March 29, 2008

Broken Britain

two youths idling on a street corner“Newbie” has sent in this:

The UK youth today made the cover of TIME Magazine, the Article explains what we all know to be some of the causes of our problems, that are magnified in the UK.
The powers that be advocate even more
CCTV, but we all know that this is not the solution. Our neighbours, Barking and Dagenham, have introduced 16 Talking Cameras, out of the boroughs 84 CCTV cameras, "as a natural progression", to CCTV technology. How far are we prepared to go down the Orwellian predicted route of surveilance, when we know that "there is no evidence whatsoever that it actually deters crime". All the evidence points to officers going through CCTV records After the event, this is not deterence, despite a mass of CCTV in Redbridge, crime in the borough is nearly Double the national average. Parts of Britain are indeed broken, and now the rest of the world is all too aware.

Meanwhile, over at Daily (Maybe),
JimJay discusses how ASBO’s “give carte blanch to the government to criminalise the poor and that really is anti-social behaviour.” “The problems on working class estates stem from the fact that we have communities without a sense of community, and there is no law enforcement measure that can combat that.”

In that Time magazine article Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, is reported to have a 10- year plan "to make England the best place in the world for children and young people". It goes on to say that "the plan is based on the principle that it is always better to prevent failure than to tackle a crisis later".

Wakey Wakey Ed! We ARE tackling the crisis later. The failure to prevent this crisis is down to his government’s 11-year record of verbiage on “tackling the causes of crime” whilst enacting measures that exacerbate the problem.


  1. After more than 50 years of utterly misguided social tinkering we now have a largely fragmented and grossly unequal society without a common purpose; to have a society worth fighting for is an essential part of that common purpose. How many of us who would not so long ago have fought for Great Britain now consider it no longer worth fighting for I wonder?

  2. dgs - you are so right. We are in the world of Unforeseen Consequences - those who created the Welfare State were well-meaning, but unfortunately did not consider the possibility of the creation of the Client State as a result.

    The more individuals who depend upon the Government (any Government) for welfare benefits, employment, education, housing, health care etc, the more potential votes are 'in the bag'.

    Ally this to mainstream media that are largely uncultured and disrespectful but hugely vulgar, and you have the broken society we see in so many areas.

  3. When the ship is sinking two games are special fun; rearranging the deck chairs, and the blame game.

    The last 50 years have been a disaster, I agree too. Welfare dependency, corruption of democratic processes, rotten Meeja. Yes.

    How about the 1960s me, me, me generation, individualism gone mad, do your own 'thing' maan, anti-family feminism with ‘market forces‘? It’s no coincidence that there are so many like the Oz trial defendant who went on to become a multi-millionaire and ultra libertarian (anarchist) Thatcherite. And no surprise either that selfishness raised to the level of policy has undermined the family, and resulted in several generations of children being neglected physically, emotionally and morally, and ruined our country.

    Reap as you sow, Baby Boomers.

  4. I am not sure it is technically possible to be an ultra-libertarian anarchist Thatcherite.

    The Iron Lady believed in an individual's duty to family and community, not in abandoning responsibility to a nebulous concept of 'society', ie The State.


  6. Hi Judith, funnily enough, John Redwood tried to explain away these awkward issues in almost exactly the same way, in a discussion which he (or more likely his secretary) has since, it appears, censored out of the record of his blog. I know, however, that Barkingside 21 is more committed to freedom of speech than Mr Redwood, and would allow me to put the case. These matters are absolutely crucial to our understanding of British social history over the last thirty years, and deserve careful scrutiny which they rarely receive.

    However, the whole subject grew too long to be taking up a huge space her, so rather than test B21's forbearance to its limit, I thought I should post my response to your comment, Judith, on my own blog, link below.