My first post about the London riots was a knee jerk reaction fuelled by fear and anger. It was also written without any understanding of who these rioters were or the situation they live in and therefore i could only think of them within the frame of reference I am familiar with. I am not familiar with how they live and the struggle they have.
If I was writing that post now, I would write it differently but I am going to leave it up as showing the shock and anger felt at the time is important, but now, having discussed it and listened to other people's experiences I felt the need to follow it up with a more reasoned and informed response.
I read an excellent article in The Sunday Times today (News Review section) by Harriet Sergeant, who has spent years communicating with gang members including those who were involved in the riots this past week. Her insight into their lives and struggles is something that every other journalist and politician can learn from. She has good ideas about how we can solve this social problem by helping the kids involved.
Conversely, the headline on the front page of the main paper was about Government making life hell for these gangs. I think it's interesting that the paper ran with such opposing views. I think it's also starkly obvious that Sergeant's view is far more likely to rebuild this broken generation and prevent further revolts, than the Government's approach of harassing them daily for any minor offence including littering.
Do they not see that this will increase the divide between the two groups; that it will alienate this section of our society even more; that it will anger them and their response will be to fight back harder. They are already gang members, until recently they have been fighting each other. We don't need to make the police force another gang for them to fight.
Of course there are those who are hardened criminals with no desire to change and the only way to deal with them maybe to lock them up. But what I learnt from Sergeant's article is that there are many that want to be a part of this society; they want to work, they want to be accepted, they want to contribute. At the moment, we aren't letting them and so they feel they have little other choice than to act as they did.
I'm still angry for the devastation they caused, the homes and lives they have destroyed forever. But the correct response is to try and heal the wound rather than put a bigger, tighter bandage on it.
In Sergeant's experience these kids invariably have young single mothers who don't know how to raise them; the fathers are not involved; teachers don't discipline them; they are bored at school and rebel; without qualifications they leave school early but can't get jobs; they go on benefits; they have nothing to do; they get involved in gangs as the only form of community they can find; they don't go beyond the boundaries of their gang's territory; they have no hope of ever getting out of this unguarded prison of a life.
So when an opportunity presents itself to have the run of the city to get things they could never afford to buy to break free of the ties of the gang culture for a night, they grab it and fully exploit it.
But a lot of them don't want to be criminals, they want jobs, if they were given any motivation at all they would work hard for a meaningful wage that would allow them a half way comfortable existence by lawful means. But they aren't given this; the job centres tell them not to bother going for jobs, they'd be better off staying on benefits. It doesn't help that many immigrants come in prepared to work very hard for long hours and little pay, because it buys them so much more back home than it does here.
So, we have failed this section of our society. And it is our society and so we need to fix this.
Single women were encouraged to have children by the last government, as their benefits increased massively, but these women were then not equipped to raise their children properly. The children were brought up without a moral framework without role models to guide them, without direction and aspiration.
Then we don't educate these children properly, so they fail school and can't get jobs. They go on benefits, they join gangs, they steal to fund a lifestyle they aspire to as seen on TV.
We are in danger of this damage being unrepairable, it might already be the case for some. But, if we can engage them in school, give them something to strive for; give them job opportunities that they want and they will work hard for then we can engage with them and make this society inclusive. So we don't have to fear each other, or live our lives within boundaries. We can share this country and take pride in it and everyone in it.
We just need the Government to listen to what the kids need, what they don't have, what it would take to integrate them properly rather than alienating them further.
I would beg David Cameron to sit down with Harriet Sergeant and the stories she has directly from the children who were burning our streets last week. And find out how we can make the most of this last chance to save our society.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
London Riots
I'm sure the whole world has now seen the images of London burning.
Having lived in London since 2001, I would like to tell the world (well all those who are reading) that this is not the London we know and love.
The rioters are a minority who are rioting, looting and setting fire to homes, shops and offices, for no particular reason. There is no agenda here. The first riots are said to have been triggered by the death of Mark Duggan, allegedly by police officers, but that started off as a peaceful protest. At some point a group of thugs decided to take it too far and then other group of mindless copycats followed them.
I can not believe the scenes I have seen; groups of kids, some very young, breaking into local independent shops as well as the big chains and taking everything. From the clothes in department stores to alcohol, rice and crisps (yes crisps) in grocery stores. They have also robbed and mugged people in the streets and in restaurants and looted charity shops.
I have copied extracts from Wikipedia below that detail what defines a human being
From this definition alone, I can not call these mindless thugs 'human'. They don't deserve the title.
This also makes them harder to deal with, they aren't threatened by punishment; they don't respect their parents or the police; they have no regard for others. They don't operate or have the same emotions and feelings that the rest of us do.
To me, they are either evil or stupid. Calling them evil gives them a level of intelligence that these actions would demand if they were for some evil purpose. I propose instead that they are moronic individuals who do not know what they are doing and whose brains can not comprehend the effect of their actions. Either that or they do know, but don't have any empathy or consideration within them to see what they are doing.
I can imagine how a young impressionable child could get pulled into this and could take things from a looted shop to be part of a gang and fit in etc, by the way I am in no way condoning it but thinking of why they do it from a psychological point of view, but what I can not understand in any way is why you would then set that shop alight. That shop that has people's homes above it.
There are a lot of CCTV pictures of the offenders. I implore every Londoner to look at these and if you recognise anyone then report them. There are leaflets going round the gangs about protecting themselves and avoiding being recognised in the pictures and to avoid prosecution.
So, as well as the amazing clean-ups that Londoners are coming together for, we also need to come together to identify these people and bring them to justice and restore the city we all love.
Sleep well London, and stay safe.
Having lived in London since 2001, I would like to tell the world (well all those who are reading) that this is not the London we know and love.
The rioters are a minority who are rioting, looting and setting fire to homes, shops and offices, for no particular reason. There is no agenda here. The first riots are said to have been triggered by the death of Mark Duggan, allegedly by police officers, but that started off as a peaceful protest. At some point a group of thugs decided to take it too far and then other group of mindless copycats followed them.
I can not believe the scenes I have seen; groups of kids, some very young, breaking into local independent shops as well as the big chains and taking everything. From the clothes in department stores to alcohol, rice and crisps (yes crisps) in grocery stores. They have also robbed and mugged people in the streets and in restaurants and looted charity shops.
I have copied extracts from Wikipedia below that detail what defines a human being
Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience,[7][8][9] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".
From this definition alone, I can not call these mindless thugs 'human'. They don't deserve the title.
This also makes them harder to deal with, they aren't threatened by punishment; they don't respect their parents or the police; they have no regard for others. They don't operate or have the same emotions and feelings that the rest of us do.
To me, they are either evil or stupid. Calling them evil gives them a level of intelligence that these actions would demand if they were for some evil purpose. I propose instead that they are moronic individuals who do not know what they are doing and whose brains can not comprehend the effect of their actions. Either that or they do know, but don't have any empathy or consideration within them to see what they are doing.
I can imagine how a young impressionable child could get pulled into this and could take things from a looted shop to be part of a gang and fit in etc, by the way I am in no way condoning it but thinking of why they do it from a psychological point of view, but what I can not understand in any way is why you would then set that shop alight. That shop that has people's homes above it.
There are a lot of CCTV pictures of the offenders. I implore every Londoner to look at these and if you recognise anyone then report them. There are leaflets going round the gangs about protecting themselves and avoiding being recognised in the pictures and to avoid prosecution.
So, as well as the amazing clean-ups that Londoners are coming together for, we also need to come together to identify these people and bring them to justice and restore the city we all love.
Sleep well London, and stay safe.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Do we need to be 'social' to be happy?
The BBC is reporting this week on happiness. One of the theories they are exploring is that of happiness being linked to having friends and family i.e. not being lonely.
Does this therefore add to what I wrote in a previous post about the socially deprived using social networks?
If we need interaction and friendship to be happy, but either don't have many friends or live alone, then it makes sense that we look to social networks for interaction when we are by ourselves.
Friendship has a bigger contribution to happiness than income. The BBC reports that the equivalent income needed to make up for the lack of friendship is £50,000. Other key elements are having meaning in life, a belief in something bigger and having goals to achieve, that you enjoy.
So with such dependency on interaction and friendship for happiness, the social media haters should perhaps use it a bit more and find themselves being a bit happier!
Does this therefore add to what I wrote in a previous post about the socially deprived using social networks?
If we need interaction and friendship to be happy, but either don't have many friends or live alone, then it makes sense that we look to social networks for interaction when we are by ourselves.
Friendship has a bigger contribution to happiness than income. The BBC reports that the equivalent income needed to make up for the lack of friendship is £50,000. Other key elements are having meaning in life, a belief in something bigger and having goals to achieve, that you enjoy.
So with such dependency on interaction and friendship for happiness, the social media haters should perhaps use it a bit more and find themselves being a bit happier!
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Social Media: only for the socially deprived?
It is an often fought debate whether social networks increase relationships with your friends or reduce face-to-face interaction and therefore reduce, or at least change the basis of, our social interaction.
We meet up and speak in person far less than we used to, instead we type rather than speak. We are 'friends' with people we perhaps haven't seen for years or even decades and yet see our closest friends less often.
It is true that we are a more mobile society and that we tend to move away from our home towns, and therefore our friends. But I think it's more than just not communicating in person. It's the way we communicate.
This lack of conversation, lack of two-way communication, will change our society even more. This is especially the case for people who live alone, who perhaps don't typically speak to anyone in the evening.
I find myself in this group and, in the evening, if I am writing or working at the computer I have Facebook and Twitter open and check them both far too often to see what people are doing. I know that I am craving interaction. If I am just relaxing then my phone is never far away, ready to instantly alert me to any messages that come through.
I find that I use Twitter to follow people I don't know, but that are tweeting about things I am interested in. Facebook is for keeping in touch with friends.
So, the benefit of Twitter is that I am connecting with new people all around the world, sharing their experiences and learning about different ways of life. It's like having modern day pen pals!
Would I prefer to have a boyfriend and spend my evenings talking with him? Of course! But I don't have one at the moment and so whilst I'm looking and until he comes along, I'm happy to stay 'social'!
I think the dangers comes when you choose to stay in a stare at a timeline rather than go out. So, even if you live by yourself, get out there and interact with the world! Even just treating yourself to Sunday lunch out with the papers will make you feel so much better.
We meet up and speak in person far less than we used to, instead we type rather than speak. We are 'friends' with people we perhaps haven't seen for years or even decades and yet see our closest friends less often.
It is true that we are a more mobile society and that we tend to move away from our home towns, and therefore our friends. But I think it's more than just not communicating in person. It's the way we communicate.
Our online communication is predominantly one-way.We make announcements or 'status updates'; we say something online without really saying it to anyone in particular, without it being a conversation. It then only turns into a conversation if someone responds. The rest of the time we are communicating by swapping statements about each other.
This lack of conversation, lack of two-way communication, will change our society even more. This is especially the case for people who live alone, who perhaps don't typically speak to anyone in the evening.
I find myself in this group and, in the evening, if I am writing or working at the computer I have Facebook and Twitter open and check them both far too often to see what people are doing. I know that I am craving interaction. If I am just relaxing then my phone is never far away, ready to instantly alert me to any messages that come through.
I find that I use Twitter to follow people I don't know, but that are tweeting about things I am interested in. Facebook is for keeping in touch with friends.
So, the benefit of Twitter is that I am connecting with new people all around the world, sharing their experiences and learning about different ways of life. It's like having modern day pen pals!
Would I prefer to have a boyfriend and spend my evenings talking with him? Of course! But I don't have one at the moment and so whilst I'm looking and until he comes along, I'm happy to stay 'social'!
I think the dangers comes when you choose to stay in a stare at a timeline rather than go out. So, even if you live by yourself, get out there and interact with the world! Even just treating yourself to Sunday lunch out with the papers will make you feel so much better.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Baby or Career? It seems we need to choose between them.
Dr Tony Falconer has advised that the ideal age to have a baby is between 20 and 35.
This has been widely reported in the national press e.g Guardian and The Times, which also talks about teaching young girls about the ideal age to start a family as part of the school sex education classes. This really means asking girls to decide if they want a career or an early family whilst they are still at school.
What about those of us who have had that choice taken away? The single 30-something women who know time is not on their side, if they want their life to go as their mothers did and how they were taught theirs should;
Do those of us approaching 35, and still single, have to give up the ideal plan on which we have based our lives so far? Will relationships now have to move far quicker than we'd like in order to keep that plan on track? Will we end up settling for second best to get on the family ladder rather than waiting for something we're really looking for?
Would it be so bad to not have children at all? I know a few women in their 50s who don't have children and have a seemingly great lifestyle. Similar to how mine is now. Do I want to give that up? Should I stop worrying and let whatever will be, be?
As a Director of a City based firm I am at a critical stage of my career. If I hang on and make the next step then I might be set up to be able to take time off for children without jeopardising my career too much. But to take a break now would be a serious set back. Probably a good job that I am currently single then!
But teaching young girls about when they need to have children is all well and good as long as you teach the boys about that too. Otherwise we'll have a generation of girls trying to tie boys down early and a generation of boys running for their lives!
Also, we have to consider that not everyone is destined to be a mother or have that perfect nuclear family unit. At what point do you decide, or is it decided for you, whether you'll be a mother or the childless career woman who supports her friends who have that idyllic family life that she was brought up to expect for herself? Maybe not all of us are destined to be mothers and we should accept that and not see it as a failure, just a different lifestyle.
The family woman and her childless friend may well have a turbulent relationship where the other is grateful for their own lifestyle but also has an element of jealousy over the other's. The mother wants the independent, cash-rich lifestyle and the career woman wants the homely family life. The grass is always greener.
Perhaps it's the start of a New Year, The Times article, or because I'm days away from another birthday that will take me closer to be the big 3-5, that has caused me to panic. Maybe I should just accept what I have, and what comes to me, when it does. If that means a husband and children, that's wonderful.
The thing is that I don't feel at all ready for children right now. I can't imagine having them now even if I was married. Maybe the desire for children only comes when that stable environment presents itself. Maybe it won't come for me at all. Well, according to The Times, I've only got a few more years for that situation, and the desire, to present itself. No pressure then!
This has been widely reported in the national press e.g Guardian and The Times, which also talks about teaching young girls about the ideal age to start a family as part of the school sex education classes. This really means asking girls to decide if they want a career or an early family whilst they are still at school.
What about those of us who have had that choice taken away? The single 30-something women who know time is not on their side, if they want their life to go as their mothers did and how they were taught theirs should;
- Meet someone special
- Move in with them
- Get engaged
- Get married
- Start a family
Do those of us approaching 35, and still single, have to give up the ideal plan on which we have based our lives so far? Will relationships now have to move far quicker than we'd like in order to keep that plan on track? Will we end up settling for second best to get on the family ladder rather than waiting for something we're really looking for?
Would it be so bad to not have children at all? I know a few women in their 50s who don't have children and have a seemingly great lifestyle. Similar to how mine is now. Do I want to give that up? Should I stop worrying and let whatever will be, be?
As a Director of a City based firm I am at a critical stage of my career. If I hang on and make the next step then I might be set up to be able to take time off for children without jeopardising my career too much. But to take a break now would be a serious set back. Probably a good job that I am currently single then!
But teaching young girls about when they need to have children is all well and good as long as you teach the boys about that too. Otherwise we'll have a generation of girls trying to tie boys down early and a generation of boys running for their lives!
Also, we have to consider that not everyone is destined to be a mother or have that perfect nuclear family unit. At what point do you decide, or is it decided for you, whether you'll be a mother or the childless career woman who supports her friends who have that idyllic family life that she was brought up to expect for herself? Maybe not all of us are destined to be mothers and we should accept that and not see it as a failure, just a different lifestyle.
The family woman and her childless friend may well have a turbulent relationship where the other is grateful for their own lifestyle but also has an element of jealousy over the other's. The mother wants the independent, cash-rich lifestyle and the career woman wants the homely family life. The grass is always greener.
Perhaps it's the start of a New Year, The Times article, or because I'm days away from another birthday that will take me closer to be the big 3-5, that has caused me to panic. Maybe I should just accept what I have, and what comes to me, when it does. If that means a husband and children, that's wonderful.
The thing is that I don't feel at all ready for children right now. I can't imagine having them now even if I was married. Maybe the desire for children only comes when that stable environment presents itself. Maybe it won't come for me at all. Well, according to The Times, I've only got a few more years for that situation, and the desire, to present itself. No pressure then!
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Do we really need a new newspaper? i newspaper from The Independent thinks so.
With the advances in online publishing and in the era of handheld devices and smartphones accessing online content, you do have to wonder why a new newspaper is launching in the UK at the time when everyone is trying to predict the death of the printed newspaper.
The Independent, not happy with one publication has produced the i, to attract a "different target market". You also have to wonder at the title, i, is it trying to make a tenuous link with the success of the iPod, iPhone, iPad etc? Is that going to resonate with the "dumbed down" segment of The Independent's readership?
It reads like one of the free London evening papers, yet with a 20p price tag. Covering a wide range of stories, but not in any particular depth. The most engaging articles being on whether Bert from Sesame Street is gay and the fact that Sony has just stopped producing walkmans. Yes, you read that correctly, the tape cassette walkman. I think the main headline there should have been that Sony was actually still producing them until recently - who knew!
As the population moves online and then online on-the-go, I feel that the 'instantly downloaded, easy to read in high winds, won't leave ink on your hands' online versions of papers will leave little room for the printed ones. As readerships decrease, the cost of those huge printing presses will look like an indulgence, similar to Wayne Rooney sipping Champagne in Dubai celebrating his new £250,000 a week salary, compared with the cost of publishing online.
So, i paper, how long shall we give it? A year? Two? I think 'the paper for today' doesn't have a very prosperous tomorrow.
The Independent, not happy with one publication has produced the i, to attract a "different target market". You also have to wonder at the title, i, is it trying to make a tenuous link with the success of the iPod, iPhone, iPad etc? Is that going to resonate with the "dumbed down" segment of The Independent's readership?
It reads like one of the free London evening papers, yet with a 20p price tag. Covering a wide range of stories, but not in any particular depth. The most engaging articles being on whether Bert from Sesame Street is gay and the fact that Sony has just stopped producing walkmans. Yes, you read that correctly, the tape cassette walkman. I think the main headline there should have been that Sony was actually still producing them until recently - who knew!
As the population moves online and then online on-the-go, I feel that the 'instantly downloaded, easy to read in high winds, won't leave ink on your hands' online versions of papers will leave little room for the printed ones. As readerships decrease, the cost of those huge printing presses will look like an indulgence, similar to Wayne Rooney sipping Champagne in Dubai celebrating his new £250,000 a week salary, compared with the cost of publishing online.
So, i paper, how long shall we give it? A year? Two? I think 'the paper for today' doesn't have a very prosperous tomorrow.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
What if Facebook died?
So, today Twitter managed to temporarily lose its following/follower counts. They were restored very quickly and everything now appears to be fine. But, it got me thinking about what would happen if they weren't.
How would we feel if Twitter lost our followers and Facebook lost our friends? Would you be able to remember them all to try and get them all back? Would you want to?
What about if all the conversations, tags and photos were lost? What if your whole profile disappeared? Or if Twitter and Facebook blew up completely, gone forever with your social world with them?
Would you see it as an opportunity to start again or would you be totally devastated? Are we more attached to our online social networks than our real world ones?
It wouldn't just be the people we lost that would be difficult to deal with, it would be the process of our engagement with them. The daily check for updates, the tweeting and liking and posting of comments etc, is what allows us to communicate with more friends than we ever could offline.
It would take weeks to see all our friends individually, and when we do we don't tend to talk about all the day to day things we've been up to. So by losing what many see as ever more distant relationships, we'd actually lose the closeness.
How would we feel if Twitter lost our followers and Facebook lost our friends? Would you be able to remember them all to try and get them all back? Would you want to?
What about if all the conversations, tags and photos were lost? What if your whole profile disappeared? Or if Twitter and Facebook blew up completely, gone forever with your social world with them?
Would you see it as an opportunity to start again or would you be totally devastated? Are we more attached to our online social networks than our real world ones?
It wouldn't just be the people we lost that would be difficult to deal with, it would be the process of our engagement with them. The daily check for updates, the tweeting and liking and posting of comments etc, is what allows us to communicate with more friends than we ever could offline.
It would take weeks to see all our friends individually, and when we do we don't tend to talk about all the day to day things we've been up to. So by losing what many see as ever more distant relationships, we'd actually lose the closeness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)