[Sloper]

Statistically one could expect c1/3 of contributors to have some racial prejudice (Greame, Geordies aren't a race so you're fine) but even given the number of closet Tories this might be a bit touchy, so I thought twice about posting it and then thought, fuck it, you've your reputation to think about.

So at what point is it reasonable to one describe a crime as being connected with a racial group?

For example, if we take the production of cannabis; if 35% of operations above 50 plants are controlled by criminals which make up <1% of the British population, is it fair to say that cannabis plantations are a 'x race /. nationality' ?

There was a census of convicted prisoners recently and an enormously disproportionate number vs the general population (by a factor of >50:1) describer themselves as gypsy / traveler. 

So when is it reasonable to say there's a racial aspect to x and when is it racist to seek to draw that connection?

[rich d]

Fuck me you actually posted that in the right part of the forum.

[Oldmanmatt]

It's a tough thing to pin down.

I mean trying to describe Gypsy/Traveler as a race. There are huge differences between origin and tradition amongst the Romany tribes alone, without adding Gypsies (different group) or Travellers (different again).

And, how "pure" do they have to be, to be classed as "Race X"?

One of my four great grandmothers was Romany.

But then, one was Italian and one Danish.

Oh, and I've got a whole set of Great Great Grandparents, from Malta...

My point being.

Race, even where there seem to be obvious physical indicators, is largely a matter of personal choice in the UK today.

Black, for instance, isn't a Race, it's term; used to describe a wide variety of skin colours, from a vast number of different Races that occupy one of the largest continents on the planet. With so many diverse civilisations, cultures and physical differences; it would be hard to catalogue them all, before they merged out of existence.

What we really mean, here in the UK, is what Community do these people identify with.

And then...

I always tick "other" on those damn  racial origin forms (why do they fucking care?) and I'll bet I'm not alone!

[psychomansam]

Statistically one could expect c1/3 of contributors to have some racial prejudice (Greame, Geordies aren't a race so you're fine) but even given the number of closet Tories this might be a bit touchy, so I thought twice about posting it and then thought, fuck it, you've your reputation to think about.

So at what point is it reasonable to one describe a crime as being connected with a racial group?

For example, if we take the production of cannabis; if 35% of operations above 50 plants are controlled by criminals which make up <1% of the British population, is it fair to say that cannabis plantations are a 'x race /. nationality' ?

There was a census of convicted prisoners recently and an enormously disproportionate number vs the general population (by a factor of >50:1) describer themselves as gypsy / traveler. 

So when is it reasonable to say there's a racial aspect to x and when is it racist to seek to draw that connection?

I think the really telling thing is to control for socioeconomic status. Once you account for % in poverty, things start to make a bit more sense - as is the case with travellers and black kids in London*.
Poor people commit crimes. A disproportionate amount of poor people are black / travellers - the result no doubt of historical and ongoing racism.
Thus, before saying that a certain group are responsible for crimes, you've got to think about how your actions will effect the current state of affairs. If you are highlighting the injustices leading to the criminal activity, then go for it**. If you're just shaking a stick, then you're only going to reinforce the negative cycle already in place.

*Lots of racist police in London who tend to treat a lot of black kids like criminals. But there's a reason for it. Lots of black kids are criminals. But once you realise that there's double the unemployment in black 18-25s, you can begin to build a picture which shows it's much more accurate to say 'poor people are criminals'. And then at least some people will realise that a hand up rather than a foot down is going to be a more successful response.

**E.g EU human rights law requires councils to provide sites for travellers, but with no deadline a large amount of (tory) councils simply say 'we're working on it' and intentionally fail to fulfill their duty.

[Oldmanmatt]

The only problem with the poverty argument (which I also believe to be true, with caveats), is that it descends into a chicken and egg argument.
What is the underlying cause of the poverty?
How can we ever really pin down a single cause?
How much is societal pressure?
Lack of intellect?
Sloth?
Cultural?
None of the above?

What makes a criminal?

Everything that ever happened to them.
Genetic predisposition (at least in as much as we all have the capability to be such).
In short, the same things that make you, you.
A different set of things to yours, for sure; but equally complex and unique to the individual.

[psychomansam]

The only problem with the poverty argument (which I also believe to be true, with caveats), is that it descends into a chicken and egg argument.
What is the underlying cause of the poverty?
How can we ever really pin down a single cause?
How much is societal pressure?
Lack of intellect?
Sloth?
Cultural?
None of the above?

What makes a criminal?

Everything that ever happened to them.
Genetic predisposition (at least in as much as we all have the capability to be such).
In short, the same things that make you, you.
A different set of things to yours, for sure; but equally complex and unique to the individual.

Take a fertilised egg from any group of poor people and implant it into a more privileged mother... you can have pretty much anyone you want. Yes, there will be genetic boundaries but environment (including the womb) is what makes a person.

Travellers are poor because our culture rejects and ostracises their culture and lifestyle and they don't want to be 'normalised'.
Black people have been in poverty in this country ever since slavery.

Of course there's a huge and complex range of factors now effecting the dynamics of cyclical poverty and inequality, but I don't think there's any great problem in identifying some major historical root causes. I.e I don't think there's a chicken/egg problem.

[tomtom]

Not answering the OP, but having just returned from 10 days in Australia, I was shocked by the levels of casual racism - at all levels of politics & media...

[battery]

One of the largest factors recognised in desistance is education which is often lacking quality in poorer areas.

Self efficacy along with social and cultural capital also play a huge role. If you are expected to achieve nothing then your expect to achieve nothing and will achieve nothing.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm not convinced the education available is poor.
Theoretically, it should be the same at any state school. The greatest problem, must surely be the attitudes of the students?
That this is concurrent with the affluence of an area, is another one of those Chicken and Egg things.
The Crab bucket analogy.

You don't need to put a lid on a bucket of crabs. Even though each is capable of climbing out, should they try, their peers drag them back in.

The Crab fisherman, doesn't worry too much about it, he knows even if one or two escape; he'll still have plenty come supper time...

[battery]

If you look at the Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics, those areas with lowest attainment in education normally correlate with those areas that have low incomes, poor housing and high crime levels.

You are right that 'theoretically' all state schools should be the same but in reality they are no where near! There are so many other factors to take into account, classroom environment and peer pressure (which I think your bucket of crabs analogy relates to) is actually just an incredibly small part of it, one of the biggest issues is that poor schools struggle to attract high quality teachers so it becomes a vicious circle of declining standards. There's also the impact of a supportive home environment to take into account and the fact that Schools in wealthy areas are more likely to have a range of extra curricular activities on offer.

Many moons ago I was a peripatetic teacher and saw a range of schools across a wide area. The ones that were in special measures were always in the poorest areas and the ones that were outstanding were always in the wealthy areas (I am sure there are exceptions to this!).

[Oldmanmatt]

If you look at the Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics, those areas with lowest attainment in education normally correlate with those areas that have low incomes, poor housing and high crime levels.

You are right that 'theoretically' all state schools should be the same but in reality they are no where near! There are so many other factors to take into account, classroom environment and peer pressure (which I think your bucket of crabs analogy relates to) is actually just an incredibly small part of it, one of the biggest issues is that poor schools struggle to attract high quality teachers so it becomes a vicious circle of declining standards. There's also the impact of a supportive home environment to take into account and the fact that Schools in wealthy areas are more likely to have a range of extra curricular activities on offer.

Many moons ago I was a peripatetic teacher and saw a range of schools across a wide area. The ones that were in special measures were always in the poorest areas and the ones that were outstanding were always in the wealthy areas (I am sure there are exceptions to this!).

To be clear, you pretty much summed up my points over the previous two post (at least, what I'd intended to say).

My Crab bucket population wasn't intended to only include the students.

Even if a poor school manage to recruit a good teacher, would not the relentless brick wall of poor behaviour, lack of ambition and non-existent parental support; soon rob that teacher of drive and enthusiasm?

To me, the problem is not one of race.

It is one of community.

The crabs would flourish so much better, taken from the bucket and spread across the reef.

How about spreading the children of poorer/deprived/low aspiration communities amongst the "better" schools?

Or even (warning! Dangerous and arrogant social engineering suggestion imminent), breaking up the communities themselves?

After all, forced relocation worked so well for Hitler, Stalin et al...

Please note. The above in no way represents a realistic opinion or anything beyond a thought experiment.

[psychomansam]

If you look at the Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics, those areas with lowest attainment in education normally correlate with those areas that have low incomes, poor housing and high crime levels.

You are right that 'theoretically' all state schools should be the same but in reality they are no where near! There are so many other factors to take into account, classroom environment and peer pressure (which I think your bucket of crabs analogy relates to) is actually just an incredibly small part of it, one of the biggest issues is that poor schools struggle to attract high quality teachers so it becomes a vicious circle of declining standards. There's also the impact of a supportive home environment to take into account and the fact that Schools in wealthy areas are more likely to have a range of extra curricular activities on offer.

Many moons ago I was a peripatetic teacher and saw a range of schools across a wide area. The ones that were in special measures were always in the poorest areas and the ones that were outstanding were always in the wealthy areas (I am sure there are exceptions to this!).

+1 to all of this. There is the odd outstanding school in tough areas and vice versa, but your general observation tends to hold fairly well - and highlights the issues teachers face. I'm moving from a school with high FSM to even higher, so I know.

One of the things that becomes manifestly clear as a teacher is that baseline intelligence and the quality of teaching are both relevant to outcomes, but pale in comparison to the effects of the home environment. The emotional and social wellbeing of the child and the level of motivation instilled in them from home are quite simply make or break factors.
Obviously we're talking about populations here. There are always exceptions. Some lucky kids might 'escape' into books from a tough home environment and thus end up highly literate and eventually well educated ... but these are far and away the exceptions.

There's an interesting study on this somewhere in primary age kids... I've linked it before... Slackers is gonna kill me!

Have some poetry instead:


This Be The Verse
By Philip Larkin
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.   
    They may not mean to, but they do.   
They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,   
Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
    And don’t have any kids yourself.


EDIT:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsta.geo.useconnect.co.uk%2Fpdf%2FInequalities%2520in%2520education%2520outcomes%2520among%2520children.pdf&ei=GZGQU92vO4mN7AaQoYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNHsiwmgXx3KvVejDxwFot6K2-RIaA&bvm=bv.68235269,d.ZGU

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CD8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrf.org.uk%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fpoorer-children-education-full.pdf&ei=GZGQU92vO4mN7AaQoYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNFkWODYchbFWKCmMagwpR7yqkbPoA&bvm=bv.68235269,d.ZGU

[psychomansam]

The crabs would flourish so much better, taken from the bucket and spread across the reef.

How about spreading the children of poorer/deprived/low aspiration communities amongst the "better" schools?

Or even (warning! Dangerous and arrogant social engineering suggestion imminent), breaking up the communities themselves?

After all, forced relocation worked so well for Hitler, Stalin et al...

Please note. The above in no way represents a realistic opinion or anything beyond a thought experiment.

The former suggestion actually happens to some degree. Some (city) areas attempt to pie slice catchments, or something similar, rather than having distinct socioeconomic areas attending their own school. It can work if done well, but sometimes it isn't.

As for the 'ghettos' of poverty, I've said lots about it on here before, but lets recognise for a start that a lot of it has been created by the urban drift of the middle classes. You need to ask yourself whether forced relocation would work even if, you know, you could get it past a human rights lawyer. It would likely be a temporary patch which further urban drift would reverse.

Secondly, one big cause is council estates. I often wondered why anyone thought it would be a good idea to build such 'ghettos' until my brother pointed out that when many such projects were built, council estates just weren't ghettos because the people there had job. It's post-Thatcher post-industry and post-employment that we've seen a huge downward slide into ghettoism.

So maybe the reality is that we need to invest in positive solutions to help lift them out of poverty - e.g. jobs. I'm not saying some of that couldn't involve relocation, assuming it was optional.

[Sloper]

JFCOAB,

'Secondly, one big cause is council estates. I often wondered why anyone thought it would be a good idea to build such 'ghettos' until my brother pointed out that when many such projects were built, council estates just weren't ghettos because the people there had job. It's post-Thatcher post-industry and post-employment that we've seen a huge downward slide into ghettoism.'

1. Who buil most of the council estates? idealistic post war lefites in the main.
2. Why did they think it was a good idea? Because they beleived that the state knew best.
3. Why did they become shitsville in so many areas? because lefty twattish ideals of social modelling underpinned the design of so many e.g. Broadwater Farm
4. There are hundreds of council estates cheek by jowl with areas of high levels of employment and high value jobs, but despite this they're shitsville because everyone who can get out does, leaving vacancies and a vaumn for dross and the scum of society to be mvoed in.

But back to race and crime; is there a general concensus that race / nationality plays no part in offending; and that it's only poverty that's at the root of it? If so it is diffuclt to explain why the poor of one racial / nationalistic group can feature so disproportionately in some types of crime, for example cannabis cultivation.

if 99% of cannabis plantations were the work of let's say people from New Zealand and Kiwis accounted for <1% of the population, would it be fair to say that cannabis cultivation is a 'kiwi crime'?

[psychomansam]

But back to race and crime; is there a general concensus that race / nationality plays no part in offending; and that it's only poverty that's at the root of it? If so it is diffuclt to explain why the poor of one racial / nationalistic group can feature so disproportionately in some types of crime, for example cannabis cultivation.

if 99% of cannabis plantations were the work of let's say people from New Zealand and Kiwis accounted for <1% of the population, would it be fair to say that cannabis cultivation is a 'kiwi crime'?

I'm not a fan of big centralised government (as stated elsewhere) and I'm not a fan of council estates and I'm not a fan of liberalism, so let's get over that, but the point still remains that council estates largely did work until neoliberal governments pulled the rug out from under them.

As I stated before, in a culture of historical and ongoing racism, before labelling something a raceX crime, you really need to think about your motivations and the likely consequences. Are you secretly chuffed at finally being able to pin something on raceX? Is your labelling likely to help alleviate or accentuate racism and social injustices against raceX?

Cannabis cultivation raises some interesting topics for me as a teacher by the way. I teach theoretical ethics and I also teach topics on crime and on drugs. Essentially I end up suggesting they respect the law, while also suggesting they have an obligation to ethically assess it. I further imply that if they decide the law is unjust and decide to break it, they should be ready to face the consequences.

P.s. the textbook we use (though I hardly use it) is actually relatively balanced on the topic of drugs (i.e doesn't include blatant anti-drug lies), all apart from one photo of some kid slumped on a street which is captioned 'drugs usually lead to a downward spiral'. Fucking hilarious. Needless to say I don't use that page.

[battery]

But back to race and crime; is there a general concensus that race / nationality plays no part in offending; and that it's only poverty that's at the root of it? If so it is diffuclt to explain why the poor of one racial / nationalistic group can feature so disproportionately in some types of crime, for example cannabis cultivation.

if 99% of cannabis plantations were the work of let's say people from New Zealand and Kiwis accounted for <1% of the population, would it be fair to say that cannabis cultivation is a 'kiwi crime'?

I appreciate you are probably trying to be deliberately provocative and I will chastise myself later for falling into your trap.. but...

It is just far too simplistic to look at it this way. You can not connect a crime to a racial group as the causes of offending behaviour are as individual as the people themselves. There are trends, patterns and compelling statistics that go far beyond race - have a look at the numbers of looked after children who end up in the criminal justice system, or the number of females in custody who have been the victim of domestic violence. These statistics tend to inform policy as the government is always looking for a model that we all fit in to - it's sometimes known as the 'what works' agenda. The problem is we are all individuals (resisting a Life of Brian quote), but and individual approach costs money.

[battery]

By the way, psychomansam, those papers are interesting - and I've used that poem with young people, they love it (we're not in the formal sector and to be honest, swearing is the least of our worries with the groups we work with so we can but I suspect you might not get away with it in schools!)

[psychomansam]

By the way, psychomansam, those papers are interesting - and I've used that poem with young people, they love it (we're not in the formal sector and to be honest, swearing is the least of our worries with the groups we work with so we can but I suspect you might not get away with it in schools!)

Good stuff! I did a project on the use of poetry in the classroom during my PGCE. Have recently taught two lessons using rap lyrics (and I hate rap).

As for language, you might be right, although *someone I know* sent a kid out today, went out to talk to them and made them say "sorry for being a tit in your class" before letting them back in.

[Sloper]

But back to race and crime; is there a general concensus that race / nationality plays no part in offending; and that it's only poverty that's at the root of it? If so it is diffuclt to explain why the poor of one racial / nationalistic group can feature so disproportionately in some types of crime, for example cannabis cultivation.

if 99% of cannabis plantations were the work of let's say people from New Zealand and Kiwis accounted for <1% of the population, would it be fair to say that cannabis cultivation is a 'kiwi crime'?

I'm not a fan of big centralised government (as stated elsewhere) and I'm not a fan of council estates and I'm not a fan of liberalism, so let's get over that, but the point still remains that council estates largely did work until neoliberal governments pulled the rug out from under them.

As I stated before, in a culture of historical and ongoing racism, before labelling something a raceX crime, you really need to think about your motivations and the likely consequences. Are you secretly chuffed at finally being able to pin something on raceX? Is your labelling likely to help alleviate or accentuate racism and social injustices against raceX?

Cannabis cultivation raises some interesting topics for me as a teacher by the way. I teach theoretical ethics and I also teach topics on crime and on drugs. Essentially I end up suggesting they respect the law, while also suggesting they have an obligation to ethically assess it. I further imply that if they decide the law is unjust and decide to break it, they should be ready to face the consequences.

P.s. the textbook we use (though I hardly use it) is actually relatively balanced on the topic of drugs (i.e doesn't include blatant anti-drug lies), all apart from one photo of some kid slumped on a street which is captioned 'drugs usually lead to a downward spiral'. Fucking hilarious. Needless to say I don't use that page.

You teach theoretical ethics  I'm almost lost for words.

However a good book is The Philosophy of Punishment a collection of essays edited by Professor Acton, probably 'accessible' by a reasonably bright 14 year old.

Also the Devlin v hart debate on positivism and natual law is; if prevented clearly a good basis for discussion.

[lagerstarfish]

Natural Law FTW (dialectic necessity and all that)

poor people should be banged up to stop them committing crimes

banged up in well designed open prisons where they receive a good education and suitable therapy to counteract all the crap that their birth circumstances left them with

this should be done from an early age

perhaps go home in the evening?

maybe only go to the institution from 8.30am to 3.30pm ?

the main problem will be staffing these institutions with suitable people given the tiny amount of money that tax payers are willing to donate - they prefer to splash out on police and the armed forces and that

[psychomansam]

Natural Law FTW (dialectic necessity and all that)

poor people should be banged up to stop them committing crimes

banged up in well designed open prisons where they receive a good education and suitable therapy to counteract all the crap that their birth circumstances left them with

this should be done from an early age

perhaps go home in the evening?

maybe only go to the institution from 8.30am to 3.30pm ?

the main problem will be staffing these institutions with suitable people given the tiny amount of money that tax payers are willing to donate - they prefer to splash out on police and the armed forces and that

Just think, if you don't pay enough, you'll get wankers like me. Waddage.

[webbo]

If you look at the Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics, those areas with lowest attainment in education normally correlate with those areas that have low incomes, poor housing and high crime levels.

You are right that 'theoretically' all state schools should be the same but in reality they are no where near! There are so many other factors to take into account, classroom environment and peer pressure (which I think your bucket of crabs analogy relates to) is actually just an incredibly small part of it, one of the biggest issues is that poor schools struggle to attract high quality teachers so it becomes a vicious circle of declining standards. There's also the impact of a supportive home environment to take into account and the fact that Schools in wealthy areas are more likely to have a range of extra curricular activities on offer.

Many moons ago I was a peripatetic teacher and saw a range of schools across a wide area. The ones that were in special measures were always in the poorest areas and the ones that were outstanding were always in the wealthy areas (I am sure there are exceptions to this!).

+1 to all of this. There is the odd outstanding school in tough areas and vice versa, but your general observation tends to hold fairly well - and highlights the issues teachers face. I'm moving from a school with high FSM to even higher, so I know.

One of the things that becomes manifestly clear as a teacher is that baseline intelligence and the quality of teaching are both relevant to outcomes, but pale in comparison to the effects of the home environment. The emotional and social wellbeing of the child and the level of motivation instilled in them from home are quite simply make or break factors.
Obviously we're talking about populations here. There are always exceptions. Some lucky kids might 'escape' into books from a tough home environment and thus end up highly literate and eventually well educated ... but these are far and away the exceptions.

There's an interesting study on this somewhere in primary age kids... I've linked it before... Slackers is gonna kill me!

Have some poetry instead:


This Be The Verse
By Philip Larkin
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.   
    They may not mean to, but they do.   
They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,   
Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
    And don’t have any kids yourself.


EDIT:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsta.geo.useconnect.co.uk%2Fpdf%2FInequalities%2520in%2520education%2520outcomes%2520among%2520children.pdf&ei=GZGQU92vO4mN7AaQoYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNHsiwmgXx3KvVejDxwFot6K2-RIaA&bvm=bv.68235269,d.ZGU

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CD8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrf.org.uk%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fpoorer-children-education-full.pdf&ei=GZGQU92vO4mN7AaQoYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNFkWODYchbFWKCmMagwpR7yqkbPoA&bvm=bv.68235269,d.ZGU

Using Larkin in a debate about crime may not be such a good choice. Rolf or DLT acording to folk who know Hull Uni English dept.