-
his speach on crime is laughable to anyone who doesn't own a 40k kitchen conversion and crosses the road as soon as they see a "youth"
Feels like the opposite to me. It seemed to me to be firmly aimed at those people who live in violent, rundown, crime-ridden areas, and feel - correctly - as though the govt doesn't give a monkeys about them:
In his speech, Starmer said it was “working people who pay the heaviest price” when antisocial behaviour was rife and there was complacency from the government because “their kids don’t go to the same schools, nobody fly-tips on their streets. The threat of violence doesn’t stalk their communities.”
I'm lucky enough to live in quite a nice area now (Leyton) but I grew up in Dagenham, and as a teenager I felt what it was like to grow up where random and severe violence were a daily risk. And I became what they call 'hypervigilant', where you're so on edge for risk that it takes over your life. Of course I didn't know it then, we just thought it was being streetwise. But that's what it was.
And I always wondered, when I went out with middle class people, how they managed to treat the city like a playground rather than an assault course. And that's why. Because they grew up somewhere they didn't have to be ready to fight at a moment's notice.
And back in the days that was a weird experience. But now it's much more common for working people.
The Tories have no idea how bad things are. Starmer is right to highlight it.
ReekBlefs-
policing does little to address why crime manifests in poor neighbourhoods (at lower rates than richer communities, drug use, antisocial, labour and financial crimes are not policed in sw1!), but does lead to the harrassment of the population by police in poor and marginalised neighbourhoods.
i for one am less peturbed by the noisy moped, or the addict on my steps struggaling as a threat to me or my estate, than i am the privatisation of public space and my stagnating wages causing greater desperation in my community which might manifest or be construed as anti social behaviour or crime. the only people who benifit from this style of speech are white gentrifiers and landlords as they do not recieve the same overpolicing of their bodies in the community, or are not active in the communuty when reporting the crime of lowering property values.
if this speech was truly to address why these people recieve this asymetrical policing, it would speak and more to the point, make promises on how they're going to address the structural racism and discrimination within the police force; how power is applied asymetrically, how capital often escapes policing and drives those under it into criminalised activity, rather than simply expand the resources the police have to enact it. it does none of this, it ignores the voices of those most marginalised, pinned between the violence of state and capital
your comment is naieve and othering, an example of when we think of policing we think of the protection of capital depending on our proximity to it or asperations of it, than we do of its effect on people at the whims of it on either side of legality.
broken windows theory is just as useless today as it was in 1982
-
And I always wondered, when I went out with middle class people, how they managed to treat the city like a playground rather than an assault course. And that's why. Because they grew up somewhere they didn't have to be ready to fight at a moment's notice.
This is something of a generalisation. I’m middle class and require the exact same amount of notice for a fight. ‘One moment while I remove my GMT Master II.’
Maj
Hefty
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/23/keir-starmer-promises-to-halve-violence-against-women-as-part-of-labour-crime-mission
his speach on crime is laughable to anyone who doesn't own a 40k kitchen conversion and crosses the road as soon as they see a "youth"
It's important to remember this guy was a laywer, was head of the pps, and is generally very knowledgable of the policing structures and the issues which face it. he's also a man who has praised cressida dick for her integrity and work as commisioner of the met after the numerous threats to women and minorities she has over seen and covered up to the point where she resigned! while having years of decisions to map possible policy angles he could approach this from.
yet he had no interest in addressing these issues when he was head of the PPS, or critiqueing the service in any meaningful capacity when the systemic failings are plain to all. his interest is firmly focused on criminalisation as a deterrent, rather than the systemic underpinnings. reflective of his wider poltic.
This is right wing drivel, even if you are a believer, as i am, that starmer is simply throwing red meat out to keep the eyre off his true ambitions, pairing this with his past work and that of the labour aparatus which supports him, it's impposible to see this going well or solving any of the issues with the police
when paired with
and his history on tackling crime for youth offendors and the process he believes fit for it is down right inseperable from a daily mail paper. this is inseperable from a carceral school to prison pipeline without offering even a breath towards the idea that these issues do not come from delinquence, but the material barriers facing people. the cowardice of subsequent labour leaderships to talk about crime and policing; especially police reform, without making a case that crime is not something to be solved carcerally, but by the state being more effective at supporting its citizens, is a disgrace for any self respecting left party.
it's impossible to see from this how he will manifest this any different from the blair government with its increase in criminialisation of antisocial behaviour while failing to address the systemic issues of policing and why public confidence is falling.
i assume the asbos will be called "community support and reform orders" and the the ankle tags will have pride flag straps. an equal numeber of women and men will be doing the overpolicing of communities veiled under the aledging of someone riding an unmuffled 2 stroke, the local teen hawking weed will will have a narcos style panorama episode.
this goes hand in hand with his thoughts on policing children, these services need to be seperate from the police, if they're to have any meaningful hope of rebuilding peoples trust in the police force understanding and prosecuting rape cases. giving police, who have shown time and time again that they'll squander the resources or hire litterall sex offendors with no oversight and internal suppression, more money to provide these services is at best, naieve, at worse, uterus washing an expansion of the police state.
external services are essential to support the imeasurable amount of victims who won't or cannot go to the police in getting support for sexual assult, but also to hold the police independantly accountable when they fuck up, rather than bury it under a steaming heap of internal corruption and embeded institutional racism and sexism.