Tocqueville

Only when Bowling had inevitably committed a homicide was he dealt with properly. All the signs that he would eventually commit a seriously violent offence were there, stretching back at least seven years. Whether Mrs Greaves sees that what purports to be a criminal justice system is in fact an elaborate scam played on the public I do not know, but in a sane world we would request that a timeline of Bowling's criminal record be made known, and the names of those who determined that Bowling be given an utterly useless probation order for violent behaviour x be provided. The case is identical in tone and character to that of Dano Sonnex. No lessons will be learned: it is not in the criminal justice system's interests for lessons to be learned. The system is an industry. It is some irony that Mr Greaves was a social worker, a part of the welfare industry, which in itself, also has ties with the corrupt business of law enforcement. You will note that Bowling had been dealt with frivolously until he carried out the inevitable. But had Bowling been issued with a parking ticket at 17, he would have been terrorised by the Council until he paid the fine. The modern world is morally corrupt, intellectually vacuous and thoroughly deserved.

tinfoilhat: completely unpacking the ramifications of "Because we don't live in a police state thank god [sic]" would take me some time. I can provide a quick riposte here. First, our police have been steadily emasculated over several decades. As many note, their effect on anti-social behaviour is minimal - a member of the public is just as likely to deter a hoodlum than a police officer. See e.g. Richard Goetz's piece on Tesco, Clowne in 2009. Clearly, with regard to Killamarsh's problems, the wastrels rule and are not fearful of the police, as is the case across much of the country. Oddly, you do not seem to find this too bothersome. Second, there is a sort of non sequitur with your remark on some council house dwellers being poor. Only a fool would suggest that most poor people are criminals, or that most council house dwellers are criminals or most people who aren't owner-occupiers are criminals, or miscreants etc. The irony is that it is other poor people who are the most frequent victims of those anti-social elements who live amongst them. Anti-social types are not great travellers. It is likely that the more middle-class Killamartian will not shop on Bridge Street - they will drive out of town. The poorer citizens of Killamarsh are being let down by those who seek to excuse bad behaviour. As to board [sic] teenagers you imply that boredom is someone else's fault, or a catch-all excuse for behaviour we don't like. Yet you do go on to divide the troublecausers into two camps - those directly outside the shops and those just hanging around nearby. I'm finding it difficult to take this distinction seriously.

Dizzyblond: do I read your comment at 12:58 literally or sarcastically? I have spent a good ten minutes re-reading it and cannot come to a decision on the matter. Thanks.

The Council staff I discussed this with were fairly quick to advise me that they were not taking the official Council line on these matters - official criticism of social housing would obviously present a conundrum. There seems to be a cleft in what is taken to be official opinion and what is said in hushed tones behind closed doors. A few weeks ago I conducted a straw poll on the Wimpey estate and their views chimed with mine - they think that most of the miscreants are from areas of social housing. And I think that what they are specifically referring to is the assortment of anti-social types around Bridge Street and the leisure centre, rather than alcoholics and serious criminals (not that I'm downplaying their significance by any means). I wonder - why aren't we compiling a list of the miscreants?

gym_rat: which parts of Killamarsh do you think most of the anti-social element originates from? ---------- Post added 03-05-2013 at 23:50 ---------- willman: this is interesting indeed. I say this because the higher part of the town, say Maple Drive seems to be free of, shall we say scuffers, whereas if you pass the somewhat infamously misspelt Convienience store on your right into what appears to be an area of social housing, the character and number of youths definitely suggests a significant anti-social element. Furthermore both the Police and several council workers also point to this area as a source of trouble. So, with all this in mind, I seem to require two strands of enquiry to be cleared up. First, you need to identify which areas of owner-occupied housing are the real source of trouble, and second, why is the opinion of the Police and at least some council staff incorrect? ---------- Post added 03-05-2013 at 23:59 ---------- ging viking: you say that any node of civilisation has its good and bad places. True enough, but do you think that there might be any indicators as to what might make a good area good and a bad area bad?

willman: could you provide some evidence that supports your claim?

I do not live in Killamarsh but I know the town reasonably well. Killamarsh's social problems have grown considerably in recent years and have a straightforward and obvious cause - welfare. Almost all the town's troubles can be traced to the large Council estate. Where homes are owner occupied there is very little in the way of incivil behaviour. This is the case across England of course. If someone were to remove the welfare element at midnight tonight, they would wake up to a Killamarsh almost entirely devoid of social pathology. The many decent citizens of Cynewalds Marsh ought to reflect seriously on what the Council actually does - place the unwelcome and the unwashed right in the middle of what should be a perfectly nice town. Councillors do not live there.