I somewhat doubt that everyone in their right mind would prefer that brainwashing religious cult leaders never got access to their children, or if they did that you had the chance at every stage to discourage the madness with reasoned counter-argument. Why shouldn’t we expect the same from the delivery of news such as Mrs Newloves position born out of distress and mourning through the mainstream press?

It is a simple misconception to even enter into discussions over deterrence, as what is a deterrence for one is not for another, and anyway there is no way of actually judging whether a deterrent has been successful when the avoidable event has been avoided – in other words there is no such thing as a deterrence, only prevention and punishment.

For Mrs Newlove the tragedy was not prevented, but no amount of punishment will bring about a cure for her pain so she has reacted with the prescription of absolute measures instead of offering absolution.
For us to create a solution in the areas where we are failing we need to look again at what punishment is and what punishment is for.

In many legal cases a statement will be made by the injured party on the steps of the courthouse through a written note by their spokesperson or legal counsel which takes into account the full established facts of the matter, that Mrs Newlove bypassed these conventional precautions indicates either a level of bad advice or politicking behind her back.

This isn’t a case for censorship, but a serious example where the lack of intervening moderation has exacerbated the public outcry on a subject of some sensitivity, all this goes to highlight the lack of responsibility of the individual and the lack of understanding she held for the position she occupied on a public platform covering issues of wider public concern.
The undignified spectacle of her behaviour and the reporters who encouraged it damages us all.

I don’t believe the popular press is worthwhile in a modern and progressive society, as I said above, liberty is only liberty when you’re not destroying liberty elsewhere…this is precisely what tabloid media and shit like Panorama manage to do so I don’t see it as illiberal to ask or demand they don’t do things as they currently do.

If we could would Labour not just ban almost all tory policy announcements?

Do you really not appreciate the massive difference between a racist call to arms that others are likely to act upon by killing innocent people – and making an all be it emotional call for a change in government policy that if people support they are likely to do so via the ballot box?

You couldn’t make it up.

Perhaps this would be too expensive, I’m not suggesting it would be cheap, but if you could find an area that is of an appropriate size that has these problems but is surrounded by communities and societies that do not have these problems in general, then you have the perfect bed for doing some real studies over the course of (arbitrary figure alert) 5 years. If there is no change of the trends in that area away from national trends and previous local trends then I’ll put my hands up and say colour me stumped, but I really believe that with such resources and support you’ll turn an area from one that is deprived with no hope to one that is deprived but has prospects, and with it will change the trends of crime that I’d associate with the former.

I find the fixation (not by yourself) on knives and other weapons to be fascinating. We try to rationalise that by banning weapons and trying to control their use we’ll somehow stop terrible violence. It completely ignored the factors your wikipedia reference talks about and how people that are violent with a knife will be violent without one, especially in cases like Mr Newlove’s (which never involved weapons, unless you count trainers as a weapon).

We can continue to get bogged down by unfortunate side issues like knife crime, or we can look from a higher branch and do what the main article here is suggesting, finding an appropriate way to stop the cause of these problems, not just the effect…which largely we seem to all agree on.

The point I was making is that in some areas, and for some people the risk of attack whether by knife, gun or boot, is very real. If you check out stats in the US there are many places where there hasn’t been a murder for decades in others it’s a daily occurence, eg: The murder rate in Baltimore is almost 18 times what it is in El Paso.

My earlier comment relates to a huge cultural shift that has undoubtably taken place since the late sixties. There are many reasons for it, and there are reasons we haven’t worked out yet, which is why we get so many half-baked, crackpot ideas about how to solve it. The problem goes beyond simple statistics though, so we should all be careful about making too many assumptions (either way) about what are, after all, very generalised and geographically spread figures.

The important question being asked here is what kind of response should those of a left/liberal persuasion make? It’s much more difficult for those of us who see ourselves as anti-authoritarian, liberal, permissive, etc to come up with answers consistent with our world view. Zero tolerance or hug a hoodie? Are some guilty or are we ‘all guilty’? And so on…

The hang’em /flog ‘em/ National Service/ bring back the birch brigade, however, have no such difficulties and often present themselves as being vindicated in their belief that it would all end in tears.

I’ll finish with this: I was born in Brixton. I had a happy , safe childhood in this inner urban area of south London. My step-son lives close to were I was born. It’s a thriving community. Would I return there to live? No. If I did move back would I be shot, knifed or kicked to death? Almost certainly not! Does that say something about me and my attitude to risk, stress, urban living? Almost certainly. Does that move the debate forward? Hell NO! )

I seem to recall an ‘amnesty’ on weapons being called for in Easterhouse, which is a Glasgow Housing Estate, being brokered by one Frankie Vaughan. It seemed to consist of lots of dustbins full of weapons. This was, iirc, in the sixties. The following, from Wikipedia, supports some of the points you have been making:

“Easterhouse, along with other large housing projects built at that time by Glasgow Corporation, came to prominence in the wider world through its social problems and became a case study for social planners hoping to avoid the same types of problems. For example, the lack of basic amenities, such as shops, sports and other recreational grounds and cinemas, poor transport links etc. Housing was mainly of the two/three bedroom tenement type[38], off a common close. The lack of variety of housing types, such as detached and semi detached house types created a somewhat monotonous and bland townscape. This along with a lack of any stable pre-existing community structure and unemployment in the area tended to encourage the rise of youth gang culture. This became so notorious in the 1960s that celebrities including Frankie Vaughan became involved in community issues in an attempt to bring order and attract resources to the area. This was much to local bemusement as it served to focus public attention on surface problems but failing to address grass root problems, such as high unemployment and the lack of facilities.”

48. Taking alcohol from kids legally within their rights to drink it in the street (as long as it’s not a no drinking zone), suggesting that these kids then get forced in to contracts (along with their parents) about behavioural expectation simply because of the act of possessing alcohol not because of their actions, backing the use of mosquito’s as if they solve any problem whatsoever. The list is unfortunately growing, though perhaps the use of the word “implemented” was rash on my part.

What are the very recent “bullshit measures” which have been implemented?

I actually agree with most of what you have been saying on here. It is just a bit of a reality check when two commentators on here have some, albeit second hand, experience of knife crime.

You worked out the issues for yourself, and I am glad you did.

I completely agree about the levels of fear. However knife carrying is not a new thing, at least where I come from. It, along with guns, raises the stakes to unacceptably high levels, where a relatively trivial incident can result in death. Which is why I am so against it.

My point is, that I don’t think we can underestimate the level of fear that has been put in to individuals, especially in deprived areas…and we certainly shouldn’t ignore the peer pressure that may exist to such an extent that someone frightened might do something insanely stupid in order to “protect themselves” in their mind. Knife crime is really a new thing at this level, and I would be interested to see any study as to why youths have taken up the blade as a weapon more readily in recent generations. I think it would be naive however to assume it’s because they all want to go out stabbing someone.

Completely agree with the last paragraph you wrote though.

It seems perfectly rational to censor what this hypothetical person is saying yet it is seemingly the opposite that appears rational for a woman barking up the wrong tree about “binge drinking” out of grief for her lost husband. I remind you, liberalism is about allowing people the freedom to do what they want as long as they *don’t inflict on the liberties of others*. Giving Mrs Newlove’s statements the credibility that the media provides is creating a false problem in societies view and that only then ends up with these bullshit measures we’ve seen the government implement over the past few weeks against children, the vast vast majority of whom wouldn’t even think about physical abuse upon another person.

If the media was able to reflect amongst itself and actually provide balanced reporting then I wouldn’t feel the necessity for censoring or mediating victim responses, as I’d be confident there would be at least some reason in the debate. As it is we have grieving people getting up on stage and riling the nation up into believing things that simply are not true because of an emotive not logical argument.

I’m sorry to read about your grandson.

I mentioned on the other place, PP, that one of my sons friends was killed in a knife attack, a few weeks back. It is completely sad that a seventeen year old boy had his whole future wiped out. It is also quite worrying that knife crime seems to be quite prevalent, at least amongst my son’s generation.

Whatever else is said about this, it seems to me that the act of carrying a knife means premeditation.

It is also the case, I think, that sentencing for carrying a weapon should be verging on illiberal. In order to send the message that it is completely unacceptable to even contemplate that sort of act of violence.

Once they are locked away, they ought to be re-educated. However, I think that rehabilitation on release is just as important. I am less than impressed with the whole concept of the public availability of anyones record to potential employers. This seems to me to have been a ‘Topsy that just growed’, from a justifiable fear of intractable cases to a societal mind set that says, ‘aye, you’ve served your time, but we’re having nothing to do with you’. Enshrined in law.

Whoops I suspect you assumed my grandson is white? He is actually a young black male (ain’t genetics wonderfu) l and was attacked in a deprived urban area. We should have expected it. Bah!

To prevent ALL occurrences? Wow! I didn’t realise Daily Mail readers had such powers. Excellent news. What are they exactly, and how can they be marshalled to the benefit of us all?

“Mrs Newlove will raise her own awareness and understanding and that of others by now investigating the deep-rooted causal problems and wider necessary solutions to prevent a reoccurence of a similar attack (if it is in fact actually possible), rather than lashing out in the moments of her grief.”

I think you should write to her about that – I’m sure she’ll appreciate it.

Meanwhile have criminologists not been “investigating deep-rooted causes” and “wider necessary solutions” for decades?

So, until Mrs Newlove’s investigation reports its results, we might do well to look to more immediate and narrower solutions.

erm – censorship is surely not the way to go?

I’d completely agree with this, I believe there’s something over on Septicisle’s blog that says it best.