Just found this on the Guardian. Its another one of those 'words fail me' moments

http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1683215,00.html

more in rightsnet news @

Using HB sanctions to tackle anti-social behaviour: Government publishes new Respect Action Plan

extract from tony blair's foreword in the 'Respect' action plan. (say what?)

"It is not in my gift, or that of anyone in central
Government, to guarantee good behaviour
or to impose a set of common values about
acceptable behaviour."

typical blair - he sets out the reasonable stance, then proceeds to contradict it - rather giving the game away...

"Everyone can change – if people who need help
will not take it, we will make them." (oh yeah, you and whose army?)

it's probably advisable to read the whole document, especially the title, bearing this in mind, whilst there is still a system of civil rights and freedoms...

and poor old charles kennedy only gets drunk on alcohol...

General Sir Mike? cheers!

jj

Does the government assume then, that everybody who behaves "anti-socially" is in reciept of benefits or has a low income.

The word stereotype comes to mind?

I was thinking exactly that! What if they own their own home, can't cut HB then can they?!

They'll just make them pay their council tax instead! Or refuse collect their rubbish, which ever is more undermining!

Did the government ever think of the implications on claimants who are in need social service support/mental healt issues, and haven't been highlighted as their need to receive this help?

Or they just going to tarnish all ASBO with the same brush and place claimants under house arrest with a TV remote?

I did enjoy the grilling Blair got on Sunday morning though. he he.

Wed 11-Jan-06 02:15 PM by Paul Treloar

Well, according to the epolitix website, Bliar quite clearly doesn't believe that there is an link between anti social behaviour and poverty, see their story Blair launches push for respect in which it is noted that:

Speaking later to Sky News, Blair said he did not accept poverty was to blame for anti-social behaviour.

"I'm afraid I just don't accept that the reason for this is poverty, simply," he said.

"In fact, I don't really think that is the case at all.

"The vast majority of people, including families on low incomes, behave perfectly properly."

All the stats I've seen point to the fact that wards who fall within the top thirty to forty most deprived also suffer from marginally lower educational attainment, higher numbers of disability orientated benefits, higher unemployment amongst younger people, and I would hazard a guess that they also attract the highest number of ASBO's.
Their post codes also tend to attract noticably higher household and moter insurance primiums as Insurance actuaries calculate the risks as being higher.

Those of you that live/work in the Cities will have a better overall picture of this than those of use you work in the more rural patches - if the picture I see isn't quite as set out above, then I stand to be corrected.

My personal view is that all our esteemed leaders start off with good intentions, but the longer they spend in the rarified atmosphere of Whitehall the greater the distance between them and us mere mortals.....this is what happened to Maggie & co and as we know history has a tendancy to repeat itself eventually......

"To achieve this, Blair said, the authorities of the law would have to focus on a few problem families who undermine the quality of life for the many - particularly those in poor areas."

Anyone fancy moving closer to Downing Street and causing some ASBO?

That'll confuse him.

Mike,

I agree with what you say, however, it seems that Blair has just got the wrong end of the stick with regards to welfare benefits, poor area's, the moral culpability and blame culture. Claimants that don't understand the implications, through fault of their own with underlying personal social issues, are not being helped here.

Is Blair going to explain to a claimant who really needs support and help and doesn't understand their own actions, that s/he'll have to pay half his/her rent because nobody has been helping him/her. "sorry we couldn't help you sooner mate!"

Marginally lower education attainment? NOT Blair's education reforms surely?? Or is that just the area's of this lovely country he can be bothered with?

Nothing surprises me anymore with this government. Are they clutching at straws to win popularity? Do they think people being evicted because HB is cut is really going to stop ASB!!!!? Will Tony Blair have his rental allowance from Downing Street cut because his son caused a drunken rumpus in Trafalgar Square? Sorry for being judgmental but I am so annoyed that this has been resurrected again.

Do they not realise that we will end up with more problems, because there will be vulnerable people / families not having anywhere to live because they cannot afford the rent. This in turn will increase the work of the courts, Homeless and Social Services departments, to name but a few. Where are these people going to go? Will they be forced into the depths of the Private Rented Sector, where the cheaper properties are rented cheaply because of the condition of them? What about the innocent members of the family?

Have they made any suggestions regarding owner occupiers?

Is the government trying to use people who rent and rely on benefits to acheive statistics in ASB reduction, because it will be easier to target them?!

Surely if they follow this through it would be a breach of the HRA.

As you can see no helpful thoughts just furious!!!!!

surprising how offensive tony blair's respect agenda is. it shouldn't be, especially not after all that angst in search of the essence of britishness, but i can picture it, hands over heart, big innocent eyes, raised eyebrows, sincere patient smile "oh come on...huff...Look!..."

on the stereotyping and stigmatization, i recall hearing that the sensitive official policy of the victorian work-house system was that 'hard labour' given to prisoners was not to be given to the work-house inmates. The purpose of this was to give a clear message that poverty is not criminality...and in-mates were not in those dreaded institutions as a punishment...but i gather tony doesn't do history.

off course it's arguable that the distinction was phoney, class- war propaganda, or even a line of defence.

simon jenkins taps into a rich vein of spleen here - it's as well to get it off our chests...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1683657,00.html

it's the element of compulsion behind the imperial "Look!" that I and doubtless many others find particularly disturbing.
when government defines 'anti-social' behaviour, it is also defining 'social' behaviour. isn't this something that society 'defines' for itself, by the dynamic process of _being_ society, in all its complexity and diversity? social behaviour is not a static 'thing' that can even be captured in words, much less defined by statute. so the question 'what business is it of government to legislate for and against our behaviour?' is an important one to ask.

it is uncontroversial to legislate against the socially _unacceptable_ behaviour around which there is near universal or broad agreement - offences against the person and theft. a complex society, we have a developed a complex system of criminal and civil law and not all of it is as uncontroversial as societal rejection of killing and maiming, rape, abduction, enslavery and land seizure, for examples.

we have parliament as legislature, and a democratic political system where these debates can be slugged out, for as long as respect for democracy and the rule of law holds.

we make a distinction between criminal law and civil law, the latter concerned with rights and freedoms and duties and responsibilities.

but we have not as far as i know, in modern times, attempted to legislate against the behaviour of the individual in terms of good manners, good morals, right demeanour, nice personality, what next, good looks, right trainers...? for who is to judge? and who is the governor of one's own character?

if i thought TB had gone all zen, adding a buddhist 'non-self' to Mrs. Thatcher's non- society i might not be concerned, but he's reputed to be a christian, praying on his knees with george bush, it's worrying - i almost lost control of my preopositions for a moment. we're faced in his plan with the civil right to housing benefit being used as an enforcement measure against a class of people, which would threaten their right to a home, which seems a very peculiar way of respecting that particular human right and indeed, the legislature, imho. there is also the prospect of parents being jailed, for the non-criminal offence of 'bad'-parenting and refusing help. hello! Huston, we have a problem!

ok - maybe i'm not radical enough to see the benefits of overridding due process, which he made clear on last nights 'Newsnight' was the reason for introducing ASBOS - the law doesn't work.

i should brush up on chaos theory - i don't believe that chaos is necessarily bad in and of itself - i just don't think i'd like it that much in practice.

the erosion of the protective boundaries, artificial as they are, between civil rights and state power requires much more reassurance than blair is able to give. he says he is giving that power to communities, he is empowering them. how does the evidence stack up?
over 500 charges under the Serious Crime and Police Act, brought in to move that guy demonstrating permanently in Parliament Square (failed) but catching that dangerous woman who recited the names of military personel killed in iraq. and freedom of association...er...

but maybe civil rights concept are dated, and 'silly' as David Blunkett said when he was home secretary...

if so, can somebody run it by me again why democracy for iraq is such a good idea... reminds me of the day GCHQ trade unionists were sacked for belonging to a union...Mrs. Thatcher was in Poland avowing her support for Lek Valencza and Solidarity.

ok. forget about rights for now...the link below is to another article which shows us that tony's plans can work, and why they won't. honestly, i don't only read the guardian.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1683696,00.html

we know they won't work because this positive result was obtained from a pilot 'carrot' which, read it, got loadsa money. rolled out, it won't get the money. local authorities can't afford to run these unless they get the money, which they won't. local schemes will be lucky if they get the skill levels of Pauline of Restart (League of gentlemen fans will know what i mean), and if they do, she and her team will quickly be privatised to get it done cheaper. leaving only the stick.
it will be as popular as the break up of directory enquiries, and a hundred times more damaging.

There is a need to sort the wheat from the chaff to some extent tho' jj - the example of parenting centres (whilst i agree with you on the fact of high initial investment costs for pilot projects producing results that cannot usually be matched when schemes are rolled out nationally with resultant driving down of costs) have been demonstrably successful in helping some parents in dealing with difficult family situations - therefore, energy should be focussed on ensuring sufficient fundings being available, rather than dismissing the idea out of hand.

However, remember that this thread kicked off with the example of withdrawing HB from problem families - an altogether more insidious and unsavoury proposal, that has widely been dismissed in the recent past as unworkable and undesirable, for reasons discussed in other posts.

I feel we must be careful to a degree in responding to such initiatives, cos saying "it's all crap, it won't work" means that you're going to be ignored completely if you're lucky - whereas acknowledging the fact that some aspects of this agenda could be worth supporting and developing i.e. targeting funding for regional sports and arts for children and young people in deprived communities, expansion of mentoring programmes, etc BUT equally, and justifiably criticising those aspects which are clearly arrant nonsense i.e. reinforcement of sanctions for 16/17 yos not attending Connexions interviews, introduction of financial penalties or HB measures for people evicted for anti-social behaviour who refuse help (whatever 'help' means).

Altho, having written that, I had a quick read thru the 'Respect' agenda, and i came across the following definitions of what the word respect means to young people - this is what they said:

'‘ Treating others in the way that you would like to be treated.’
‘ Being able to be the way I am without being bullied or skitted. And vice versa.’
‘ Not offending or damaging someone else’s feelings or property.’
‘ Appreciating someone, even though they’re from another country and they’re different.’
‘ Consideration for others.’

I agree with what Paul says. I think this debate is in danger of getting very polarised. and that's not always helpful. We do need to oppose
I am not surprised by the many social problems that surround poverty - none of us on Rightsnet are! What does interest me is that many of the people/comunities that I have lived and worked among don't go down the "anti social" route, but struggle to make things better. That's what the govt should be building on and listening to.
But not holding my breath. Not sure that my "optimism of the will" has the upper hand any more!

I’m sick and tired of the stigmatisation of the poor and poorly educated. They are a product of a society that has failed them and not the other way around. This happens over decades and is passed down through the generations. So it is no good pointing to the present and saying that opportunities exist. That is a red herring.

The children of today are products of parents who grew to maturity in the 1980’s and who were failed by the Thatcher government, which destroyed jobs and communities and, basically, left people to rot while promoting selfishness, greed and individualism as against the community. You do not put that right by penalising the victims.

There are a lot of kids now that have a parent or parents who were part of the heroin generation of the 1980’s. They have had a rough start in life and that should not be forgotten also.

Of course, that does not mean that bad behaviour should be condoned or excused. I don’t think anyone who uses rightsnet would say that. Certain behaviour which causes violence against the person or which makes daily life a living hell for some needs to be dealt with and dealt with effectively. The existing criminal law is perfectly adequate for this and we do not need raft upon raft of new legislation and shortsighted ‘solutions’ to deal with the problem.

Using the benefit system as a blunt instrument of state policy to discipline the working class only betrays the real class bias of the state and its officials and only creates more problems than it purports to solve.

When I was a kid it was drummed into me and countless others to “do unto others as you would have done to thee.” Respect is nothing new and is merely a cheap gimmick to disguise the complete failure of government over many years to address the real problems of poverty, poor education and ant-social behaviour.

The other day, while waiting for a bus I saw a car pull up about 50 yards away, a well dressed middle aged woman got out, threw a load of bread to the gathering pigeons and then discarded 3 or 4 empty bread wrappers on the pavement. There was a rubbish bin about 20 yards away. I have seen many similar examples.

Selfishness and thoughtless behaviour is not a preserve of the poor and underprivileged. It runs through all sections of society. The real causes are fairly plain to see if you only care to look deep enough. However, no government dares to look this far as it may lead to a questioning of the whole economic structure of society, which may produce words like socialism, real distribution of wealth, etc. A thought that would clearly terrify new labour and its rich friends.

Is there a positive aspect to this? Have we come to a pivotal moment in the new labour approach?

The respect agenda is nothing more than an attempt at Social Engineering.

Governments for a hundred years now have all gone through similar phases.

1) Come into office full of zeal and policies that will do wonders for everybody.

2) After a few years they are dissapointed to find that only a small number of policies have actually worked - and even those had some unexpected outcomes. But hey - It cannot be the policies that are wrong so it must be that they aren't being explained well enough.

3) They re-launch these policies and put massive "spin" on them in the hope they will be acceptd. Continuing failiure to get the policies accepted results in tantrum behaviour. Such as "we are determined to carry the policy through" irrespectinve of public opinion or realities (because the policies can not possibly be wrong) They call this making tough decisions.

4) The government becomes frustrated because the british public still aren't accepting or cooperating with the policies. So they decide that it is obviously public attitudes at fault (because the policies cannot possibly be wrong).

5) The government as a last resort decides to "change" public attitudes. This is nothing less than an attempt at social engineering. Every government for the last hundred years has come a cropper when they try social engineering. It starts them on a downward spiral of unpopularity and they inevitably lose the next election.

So the good news is that TB has finally gone for the Social Engineering card and history tells us that this will eventually mean political death.

The bad news is that whatever follows him will probably start the whole sorry cycle once more.

If all the good folks in rightsnet land want to see something really scary then you should take a look at the serious organised crime and police act 2005 which came into force on 1/1/2006.

Amongst other things, it removes the distinction between arrestable and non-arestable offences and thus allows for forced DNA samples to be taken from a person suspected of being about to commit, in the act of committing or having committed the most trivial of offences.

Be very very afraid.