Monday, 5 December 2011

Bastardy and Crime

The August riots were a God-sent opportunity for the nation's army of Sociologists and Statisticians, who have been seriously under-employed since the government halved the number of fatuous studies commissioned. First on the scene was the Ministry of Justice, with a statistical analysis that showed that 76% of those charged following the riots had a previous conviction, and they were likely to be in receipt of Free School meals or benefits, were more likely to have had special educational needs and be absent from school. 


Next up was the Riots, Communities and Victims Panel, a brand new Quango set up by Nick Clegg to report on the riots. In a weasel conclusion, they announced that  "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas." or in other words when it was clear that the rioters were getting away with it, others were encouraged to join in. 


And now the Guardian's joint study with the LSE has been published, and reveals that most rioting was opportunistic, a chance to steal and get away with it, that activity was orchestrated via Blackberry Messenger, and that many of the rioters disliked the police. With 76% of them at the time being convicted criminals, you may think their last prejudice a not unreasonable one. 


There is one question that no-one has asked of the rioters so far to my knowledge; "did you grow up with your biological father?" You see, I think I know the answer to this already - that an overwhelming majority of them will be growing up or have grown up with an absent father - but it would be nice to see the figures. 

14 comments:

Sceptical Steve said...

It seesm to be the same old story, with researchers receiving cash to produce worthy and unsurprising conclusions, only for the press to slant the coverage to suit their own agenda.
The Guardian/BBC/LSE survey became the lead item for the BBC this morning, with preposterous quotes that some of the rioters took to the streets in response to the increase in University tuition fees which, incidentally, would inevitably lead to kids having to sell heroin to make ends meet.

I was always suspicious of the high proportion of the "rioters" who already held criminal records, as I suspect that the existing criminal underclass saw the riots as a unique opportunity to do what they do best. Inevitably, they were the ones who the police could nick most easily, as they walked off down the street with their loot. It doesn't mean that they necessarily represented 76% of the actual rioters. It just suiited the authorities to maintain that the origin of the riots was criminal rather than political.

banned said...

I didn't grow up with my biological father, didn't make me riot though.
Those that got caught were the Johnny-cum-latelies who lacked the nouce to dump their stolen goods.

Raedwald said...

banned - not everyone who grew up without their biological father will become a criminal, but there is much evidence that those who don't have a dad when they grow up are far more likely to both commit and be the victims of crime.

Anonymous said...

"Did you grow up with your biological father?"

Its a question that won't be asked since it might show overrepresentation by certain groups.

Anyway, its the Police innit ?

Korenwolf said...

"did you grow up with your biological father?"

Would be better asked as "Did you grow up in a stable household". Both the kids I consider mine are technically bastards, they know who their father is, have contact with him but I fulfill the role of father.

Bastardy is not the problem, some of the upheaval caused by it can be.

Greg Tingey said...

As to the original comment - well said.
However... "obvious" conclusions and answers are NOT always right.
Think of gravity......

Elby the Beserk said...

The rioters were "protesters" for two days on the BBC, at least. Indeed, I heard on BBC radio wannabee, talking to a local councillor, calling them "protesters" again and again, despite an increasingly irritated councillor making clear they were no such thing. Extraordinary

Edward Spalton said...

The conclusion of all such research is always that MORE RESOURCES (ie taxpayers' money) ARE NEEDED.

Spalton's theorem

Crime increases proportionately to the square of the number of criminologists and social workers funded by the taxpayer..

Demetrius said...

Didn't quite a lot of the rioters have form for previous criminal activity? If you run around in gangs that are doing a lot of "business" you should not be surprised that you have had "problems" with the police.

Greg T ingey said...

Well, more resources ARE needed.

Like cctv, and err ... actual police?
Meanwhile, state-cuts mean LESS police.
Camoron does it again

James Higham said...

You're right and I want to see those figures too. Not a chance in hell of us getting our hands on those.

Nick Drew said...

there's another aspect I haven't seen mentioned:

the stats all relate to the ones who got caught !
we may be sure the real bad lads neither got caught red-handed, nor showed their mugs for the cameras

ergo, the percentage of crims must have been even higher than reported

Restoring Britain said...

It was nothing more than fatuous drivel designed to rewrite the narrative that established itself in the backlash by the majority of the British public. The Guardian and its lot decided that it had to be about victimhood.

You can ask the rioters all you want but of course they would be looking to justify it. Anyone remember years ago when articles came to the fore in which burglars justified their crime by claiming the victims wanted it so they could rip off their insurance providers?

Edward Spalton said...

Back in the mid Sixties, I knew a recently qualified social worker and got to read their "trade magazine" New Society.

The things which have stuck in my mind are (a) the intense activism to abolish any difference or distinction in treatment between the deserving and undeserving poor and
(b) an attempt to classify the work-shy as "ergophobiacs" and to award them a lifetime income (suggested amount was £500 per year, about the basic wage of a working farm labourer) without the degrading need to go on proving that they were "genuinely seeking work".

Roy Jenkins was proclaiming his "civilised society" at the same time and lauding the contribution which the "voluntary umemployed" were making to it. This was at a time of full employment.

It was also the time when social security payments were skewed to encourage single motherhood.

I cannot think that this was done with any other intention except to destroy the self-supporting family and substitute state dependency for life.