Sneering Media and Feral Youth

I'm sure it must be possible to encourage a sense of social / individual responsibility and respect without a need to resort to 'authority'. One person's authority is another's dictatorship after all! I don't think we can blame 'the media' for an increased mistrust of authority and expertise - the media is a part of our culture, maybe at times a distillation or refraction of it, but not its source. http://telehelp.blogspot.com

I agree with camilla insofar as the contempt the media shows for the police and armed forces, although I think it's a stretch to say that the media is the source of yobbishness. That's down to parents who really ought to get a visit from Supernanny. I for one would hate to be in the police; the responsibility load for yourself and others is too high... 'I'm sure it must be possible to encourage a sense of social / individual responsibility and respect without a need to resort to 'authority'' I'll remind you of that the next time the small person in your house refuses to stop doing something you ask her not to do... ;-) If the entire world had a good sense of social and individual responsibility there would be no need for the police or the armed forces; but as most human beings in the world choose to act like stroppy toddlers and ten-year-olds, there do need to be some regulatory and enforcing bodies in place, alas.

There is something truly fucked up about that state of affairs; many kids don't get *enough* cuddles. I had a teacher friend who worked on an Indian reservation. He was a very big, scary-looking man but the kids adored him and were desperate for him to cuddle them; they often had rather dire home-lives. He felt no compunction about giving them a cuddle when they needed one, especially when they were hurt. This was a risky thing to do, but he felt the needs of the children outweighed the risk of being accused of being a paedophile. Good on him, I say.

You know, I did start to write a lengthy discourse of my opinions on these issues, but then I thought, “What the duck am I on about?” and decided that it’s really all quite simple… A. authority and discipline are necessary. B. people in authority make mistakes. C. while we should address the reasons for these mistakes, there’s no point dragging them over hot coals about it. D. there are social reasons for these “feral youths,” which we should all take responsibility for. E. the “feral youths” should also take responsibility for themselves and expect to be “punished” for their crimes. F. the media reflects, but also shapes society and its opinions. G. it’s a damned shame that we now live in a society where we have to be so careful how and to whom we show affection. I think that about covers it… ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

Game theory proves that full co-operation would not result in a stable society. Archergirl is correct in that "rules are for fools". Anarchy is a utopian ideal obliterated by the "fools" but apparently we need them to sustain our 'group'. The less we depend on co-operation in the 21st century (secularist belief systems, the legitamacy of recipricol altruism borne from evolutionary theory, and the lack of a stable family unit) our children are growing up in a society where accepted morality is constantly offset by 'choices'. Not to mention that our kids are growing up in a culture where depression and anxiety are increasing, which is probably affecting alot of our kids. When we consider the influence of pop culture on our kids we no longer have love and political angst guiding them but sex and guns. We have to remember how so very malleable and susceptible a teen's brain is during the period in their lives when they are desperately rummaging for an identity. They need to be cleansed of this selfish, materialist, gang-culture, knife-culture crap that certain groups are shovelling down their throats. And they need to take a leaf out of the french teens' book, get politically motivated - and get some fashion sense. In my opinion, religion teaches that there is a 'pure' altruism we can embrace by following certain conducts. It's that purity that transcends basic instinct that is greatlymissing in today's society. It has been replaced with tit for tat. jesus was aware of this when he preached that one should do good deeds but never boast about it or do it in public. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Well, I'm not sure the Menezes - or police killings in general - are a good starting point for this. While I'm sympathetic to the individuals officers who are placed in the position of pulling the trigger - in terms of the actions of the Police as an organisation - I wouldn't want to live in a society with a media which didn't or couldn't raise questions when authority is responsible for killing people (even when this action turns out to be correct). That would be bad for society and ultimately bad for the Police too. I'm more sympathetic to the wider point. People are generally less deferential than they used to be. There are good and bad consequences of this. The good news is that people who are mistreated, discriminated against or abused are more likely to speak out and stand up for their rights. The bad news is that unpleasant people who want to have everything their own way at the expense of others are also more likely speak out and stand up for the rights. The difficulty is developing a culture, laws, administrative systems and governing structures that can favour the first group without favouring the second. This would be quite difficult in a fantasy world where people could be neatly placed into these kind of categories. In the real world, it's impossibly complicated.

I was thinking along the same lines as our esteemed bolshevik on the way to work today. Now, more than ever, we have a freedom of movement and association hitherto unknown. No longer are we limited to certain activities, areas and modes of transport by our belonging to one group of people or another. We tend to travel about more, settle to live in places further away from where we started, work further from our homes etc. There aren't homogenous areas anymore, where everyone is of a similar background. The upshot of this is that we have far more opportunity to run into people we don't agree with, or who don't agree with us. The freedom that lets us invent our lives and identities, by doing what we want rather than doing what we have no choice but to do, is the same freedom that presents us with these problems. I think life has always been as violent, ruthless or unpleasant, it's just now that we are all 'closer' to each other, at least in exposure if not relationship. Growing up in the East End of London or the West End of Newcastle has always been a bit 'eventful'. It was usually poor people doing things to other poor people, and we know that poor people don't vote or write for national newspapers, so this was percieved, if at all, as a contained problem, an underclass or ghetto problem. What people are upset about is not the prevalence of these events, but the fact that they either are exposed to them, or feel in fear of being exposed to them. No-one really gives two hoots if it isn't on their either actual or media doorstep. In some ways we've all cast of the consensus of respectable behaviour, which was communal, moral and class-based. This is great, and allows us to become what we want to be and behave in the way we see fit. Its cost is that there isn't a consensus to draw people back to behaving in an socially responsible way. If you want to have freedoms, you have to deal with the results of those freedoms. If at any point in history you shake things up a bit, opening new opportunities and new possibilities, you have to be prepared for the fact that not all people will use these possibilities in a positive and constructive manner. Cheers, Mark

The media sneer when they think its readers will, right? They try to second guess their audience - be on our side - but also egg us on. "You're not going to take this lyring down, are you?" "Game theory proves that full co-operation would not result in a stable society." My understanding was that game theory proves cooperation results in a better outcome than each individual doing what's best for them. I don't like this use of the phrase 'feral youth'. They weren't brought up in the jungle, ffs, and it strikes me as an attempt to distance ourselves from them - "Society under threat from the savages again! Oh no!" - and deny any culpability. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'They weren't brought up in the jungle, ffs, and it strikes me as an attempt to distance ourselves from them - "Society under threat from the savages again! Oh no!" - and deny any culpability.' So what you're saying is that I am somehow culpable for the teenagers who spraypainted 'anarchy' signs all over the walls of my kids' primary school, is that it? And how would you recommend I take action to prevent further incidents like this; perhaps I should adopt the teenagers myself and raise them to have good values? Hmmm. I would have to say, 'no', I am not culpable for the behaviour of other people's children, although I think the namby-pamby reaction from the local police, parish council, and school headteacher do an awful lot to actually encourage further perpetration of mud-throwing and spraypainting by a group of local yobs-in-development. If this were the States, the villagers would have set up night patrols of the school and taken to task anyone caught defacing the property (and probably shot them, but that's another argument), but here the only reaction seems to be to close down the school's evening activities out of fear of the teenagers, and a whinging article in the local ragpaper. So, perhaps you're right in a way; perhaps society *is* culpable for the behaviour of its youth in that it refuses to aggressively address the issues, but I don't feel too sure that people are actually brave enough to deal with the problems on an individual basis, let alone in wider society. We're too chickenshit and non-confrontational.

I'm generally with Mark on this. Although I'd go further in saying that - aside from those people unfortunate in areas of inner city gun crime - most people in Britain actually face a less threat from 'feral youth' that they did ten years ago. That said, there are practical things the government could do tackle yob culture. One would be make alcohol much expensive through heavy taxation (and more difficult to get through tighter regulation). Maybe the revenues could be used for diversationary activities. Currently it's cheaper for a young person (or an older person) to go to an off licence and buy enough drink to get completely smashed - easily acheiveable for under £5, under £2 if you're prepared to drink White Lightning, Special Brew etc. which take you comfortably over the reccomended Adult male daily limit for under 80p - than it is for them to go bowling or ice skating, go to the cinema, even rent a DVD and watch it while eating a pizza. Boozing, fighting and underage sex are the cheapest available recreational activities for young people. The latter two often follow on from the first one and the government - and wider society - could make excessive alcohol consumption more expensive and less socially acceptable if it chose to.

That's a reasonable point, Buk. And it was only last week that some cabinet person (I forget who) suggested exactly that. My feeling are the present government wouldn't dare to tax alco-pops to death because they need every last poxy vote they can lay their hands on this time round.

Heavy taxation of alcohol… hmm, may work in theory, but I fear there may be a backlash from those who like a few drinks, but don’t go around spraypainting primary schools, smashing things and being generally unpleasant – i.e. most people. ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

I read something awhile back that noted that Britain has one of the worst 'drinking cultures' in Europe (how they gauged this in light of, say, Finland and Russia, I don't know). There was some reference to the fact that whilst the French and Italians outdrink Brits by four bottles to one, there is far, far less alcohol-related yobbery in either country, the thought being that 'drinking' is seen as a pastime in Britain, with little food involved; whilst in these other countries alchohol is drunk almost exclusively at mealtimes, which as we might agree, are fantastic pastimes in both places. Could we extrapolate that it's actually British cuisine that's the trouble?

wtf? Is that how you spell 'gauge'?

Well firstly, how did you manage to post that at 15:57, 6 minutes after I read it?! Secondly... British cuisine? Fish'n'chips? Pie'n'mash? Jellied eels? Finest cuisine in the world! :-) ... on the other hand, you may be right... :-/ ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

Oh I see, it's coz ABC's clocks haven't gone back yet... :-! ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

"Heavy taxation of alcohol… hmm, may work in theory, but I fear there may be a backlash from those who like a few drinks, but don’t go around spraypainting primary schools, smashing things and being generally unpleasant – i.e. most people." Yeah, there probably would be. My point is that the government and and the people who'd be lashing back are both taking a choice. It is the government and wider society's fault that getting drunk - which is a cause of yobbish behaviour - is one of cheapest and most accessible recreational activities. If the government made it less cheap and easy for young people to drink, it's likely that there would be less yobbish behaviour. That said, I'm not saying alcohol actually creates the problems in most cases but it does exacerbate them to a siginificant extent.

Ma-a-a-a-aybe-e-e-e-e... but there are many ways in which alcohol is a good thing, so the benefits may outweigh the negatives... ... Unless there was a heavy taxation just on certain types/brands of alcohol - e.g. the aforementioned Special Brew, White Lightning, etc. Wouldn't solve the problem, but might help... ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

Raise the tax on hooded tops and Nike trainers! That should sort the buggers out!

"Ma-a-a-a-aybe-e-e-e-e... but there are many ways in which alcohol is a good thing, so the benefits may outweigh the negatives..." Then what's anyone complaining about? If you follow David's logic, then it's a simple choice - cheap booze and yobs, or expensive booze and less yobs. The point is that people can't have their cake and eat it, which is what everyone seems to want. I bet damned near every single person who complains about yob culture has had more than one night on a bender and ended up acting like a twat. It *is* a cultural problem - a complicated one - and pretending that we just aren't being harsh enough on kids solves nothing. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Britain has the worst teen pregnancy rate too. And the worst std rate in Europe. Britain has the fattest people, the longest working hours, the least public holidays and NOW! The worst yobs! Oh! An we have the most cctv networks in the world. lol. Maybe if we did like the french do, introduce wine to children at the dinner table? Saying that, I wasn't exactly kept on a very tight leash when I was a kid (drink wise) and I still ended up sleeping in hedges and on A&E waiting room floors. But there's still something to be said for introducing alcohol (such as wine) to children as an accompaniment to meals and teaching them how to drink moderately, socially and responsibly. Yobs love the caricature the media likes to toss about. It's "street" to them. An ASBO is a trophy, a hoodie has been given his/her identity in the press and will feel the pressure to live up to it. They love it. People saying their scared of today's teens isn't going to help matters. Adding more muscle to the movement that's all it's doing. Someone should begin to counter-attack with some crude psychological reasons as to why they behave the way they do. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I've recently read Tom Hodgkinson's "How to be Idle" (which I think I may have mentioned) - and amongst other things, Tom actually celebrates alcohol... and rightly so! It can calm, soothe, release one's inhibitions; and in a positive way. The trick is not in declaring it evil and pretty much banning it or drastically (via taxation or whatever) limiting it's intake, but in (re Yan's comment on French children) educating its consumers in its sensible and joyful consumption. It may sound like a crazy idea to educate our children on the proper consumption of alcohol, but if the taboo-ey nature of it and the negative morality often associated with it were reversed, could this not lead to at least a decrease in the negative behaviour resulting from it? Just a thought... ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

Hmm, I'm starting to see more and more parallels between 'the media' and booze! Both are addictive, both can be fun/crap, both depend very much on how you use them, both can magnify (or belittle) experience.. Hmm 2; am not sure this is a very helpful comparison for the Mary Whitehouses among us, who believe in banning everything/making it more expensive. At least watching rubbish telly doesn't make you piss yourself and punch your friends (as much). http://telehelp.blogspot.com

I was waiting for Yan's "two-penn'th"! Most of the worst street hoodlums I've ever come across have been resident in Sandbach! :) So where are we so far? We're going to raise the tax on alco-pops, hoodies and Nike trainers, we're going to bring back the bobby who can cuff 'em round the ear, force them to read the Daily Mail in school, and - why not bring back capital punishment? The point I'm so flippantly making is that I know things aren't perfect - I hate anti-social behaviour outside my house as much as anyone - but we can't pretend that it's always someone else's fault. I think another contributor made the same point earlier, but it's worth repeating: these problems have always been with us - always been part of ENGLAND - but it's just that it's all more visible now. Not because it's worse, but because we live closer to it, and the media are happier to give it centre stage. The answer is to cope with it in an adult way; if not, make your thoughts into a poem or short story and add it to this site. Turn a negative into a positive!

'It *is* a cultural problem - a complicated one - and pretending that we just aren't being harsh enough on kids solves nothing.' I'm not suggesting that being harsher on kids will solve anything, but there is certainly something to be said for holding them accountable for their behaviour. An example: On the rec recently I spied a group of pre-teens dropping litter on the grass near the swings. I went over and told the kid who dropped the wrappers to please pick them up and put them in the nearby bin. He immediately denied having done what I had just seen him do, so I called him on it. Another smartmouth kid, who was clearly the alpha (and probably had the worst home life, given his attitude), mouthed off to me, while the litterer stood there with his other mates and shuffled uncomfortably. I pointed out that it had only been a year since they attended the primary school, and noted that I was sure they wouldn't have wanted to have had to play on a nasty playground. So I stood and waited politely until the littering kid picked up not only his own wrapper but another one as well, and scuttled off to the bin. I thanked and commended him and then walked off. The smartmouth kid started sneering about it (I could still hear him), but apart from wanting to give him the biggest belt across the face he'd ever had, I otherwise felt quite satisfied that the other kids, at least, may have understood a small lesson about littering. Until the little alpha shit goads them into something else, no doubt. The point is, if people felt more comfortable in taking a vocal stance toward yobbishness, at point of contact, things might slowly change. As it is, most people turn the other way; they don't want to get involved as it is easier and safer to pretend they didn't see it. Mind you, it is easy enough for me in my lovely little twee village to confront the youth; I wouldn't feel quite as sure of myself in Watford, for instance! So I don't know what the answer is, except maybe in part it takes calling people on their screw-ups.

Good for you, Arch! Although I can't help thinking you should be getting the call to appear on "Grumpy Old Women" any time now... ;-) gggg... of course this sort of thing has been around for, like, evah, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to try and think of ways of dealing with it. Yan... how about you and I start a "Educate the Kids With Posh Plonk" campaign? ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

Well, I was going to log back in to say, 'but maybe I'm old-fashioned in believing that the entire society/village/community ought to be involved in the raising/imprinting of children, especially other people's children,' but I don't think it's an old-fashioned idea, just one that has worked, more or less, until recently. I'm not a Grumpy Old Woman just yet (though no doubt a candidate for being one!), but I personally am pleased as punch when another adult chews my children out for playing too rambunctiously around the fountain near the restaurant, or whatever (even if I silently disagree), because it means that my kids will grow up understanding that they can't just do whatever they want, whenever they want, without considering the needs of everyone around them. That seems to be what happens all too often nowdays: people being raised with a sense of entitlement and too few boundaries.

An alcohol prohibition zone was recently enforced in the town centre and a proposal put forward to provide "seated shelters" in residential areas for the likes of your hoodies (they've obliterated all the bus shelters and phone boxes). Needless to say, none have been built yet because residents have objected to the site proposals. I'm not surprised. The 'town vision' planning is made up of local business owners who are serving themselves by ushering the kids away from their premises into the quiet, leafy areas of the town. Out of sight, out of mind. But we're expected to deal with the crap. The kids previously "hung out" in a heavily monitored, brightly lit area of the town centre so why not keep 'em there? Town image and all that! I don't have a problem with alot of the hoodies but I can't be doing with those girls who shout when they talk to each other. It goes though me. Then you've got all these mums and dads rallying together to start anti-gypsy groups (there are only 30 gypsy families in Middlewich, with a population of over 12,000) unaware that while they're dishing out verbal scorn their kids are down town pissing up lamp posts, stealing from shops, and breaking windows. :) lol ggggareth: I was waiting for Yan's "two-penn'th"! Most of the worst street hoodlums I've ever come across have been resident in Sandbach! :) is this a joke or are your perceptions all skewift? ;) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Yan - I was a bit drunk last night and probably didn't make a lot of sense. However, I stand by the Sandbach remark - I lived in Scumbach for a year and it was definitely the most horrific year of my life! All those town-centre hoodlums you mentioned have to live somewhere, and I think most of them lived in my street. You're right,though - it's all down to perception. I'm sure people living in the next street (You???) probably think Sandbach house prices are worth every penny! I moved back to Crewe in the end - not because it's any better, but because (and this chimes with what Mark wrote earlier) it's big enough to contain it's youth population. Now, I don't have to see and hear their disgusting and abusive behaviour every time I happen to look out my own front room window.

You didn't live on Palmer Road did you? :) I live out in moston anyway so it's not 100% sandbach life. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"Tom actually celebrates alcohol... and rightly so! It can calm, soothe, release one's inhibitions; and in a positive way. The trick is not in declaring it evil and pretty much banning it or drastically (via taxation or whatever) limiting it's intake, but in (re Yan's comment on French children) educating its consumers in its sensible and joyful consumption." Well, that's a cultural process and also one which ignores my economic point. A glass or two of a half-decent wine with a good meal is more expensive - and generally more difficult to access - than three, four, five cans from the off-licence. The tax point isn't a moral judgement on alcohol. It is, as Jack suggest above, a comment about a factor in an outcomes. Cheap, strong easily accessible alcohol is a factor in youthful 'yob culture'. It's also a factor in general street drinking which - certainly in many areas of London - is a pretty big problem in itself. Broadly speaking, though, I don't accept there's a specific good/evil problem with younger people nowadays compared younger people in previous eras or older people now. I spent a lot of my time attending poetry readings and a vaguely equivalent amount of time doing media work with young people in some of the poorest council wards in the country. I'm happy to report that some poets are nice people when you get to know them a bit better, and that some of the teenagers huddling menacingly on your street corner are nice people if you get to know them a bit better. In both cases, some aren't. A lot of the big stuff is about the context that you meet people in and the perception you bring to that meeting.

Yan - Moston! Not a million miles away. Marsh Green Road.