When the ‘manhunt’ finally came to an end, as Raoul Moat’s forefinger did the decent thing, he should have taught around 500 of our MPs and Peers a lesson in morality. We could hardly expect to give them a bottle of whisky and a revolver and go and do the decent thing, could we. Ambush Predator quoted some Phil Woolas’ diary entries the other day and from these we could only expect him to think the pistol was given because of our enduring love for his self-protection and that the whisky was a gift of our undying devotion.
Most social psychology has it that bullies and victims share much in common. We need to know more and do more about the environment that forms them, notably schools, peers and ‘family’. Bullies almost always do worse in school than those fated to go on as victims. People like Moat and those around him needed help when they couldn’t get it, in order not to get into the traps of paranoid narcissism, needing to be screwed early by, and capable of being impressed by over-aged losers like Moat, and generally being made into an underclass. None of us are free of blame in this, though I don’t say this to excuse those who become benefit-sponsored criminals. That police are called to the many incidents they cause is a sure sign we don’t care. They are just cheaper in keeping the lid on than the social, teaching and discipline services that are needed. Cops may deal with these people with their fuckwit stereotyping, but that’s all the training we give them, so we must know they are going to fob-off the victims and wait until someone dies before they step in.
We have already created a whole range of other class-interests to cope with and take advantage of this situation. Politicians may never have to keep promises,but they do have to make them. Having things going wrong at the core of society allows many promises to be made. Now all you need is a set of lying bureaucrats to produce ‘statistics’ that pretend something is being done. These can be juggled about for decades. On the one had burglaries can be got down by simple observation and intelligence sweeps, along with far tougher sentences for this crime than shop-lifting. Shop-lifting goes up; we know crime really doesn’t go down and that criminals adjust. This part of the argument disappears in the official claims, because cops have been told to get burglary down. We never think, as they announce yet another successful burglary sweep and 300 arrests, that these sweeps are always successful, which rather suggests there are always people about doing burglary. You might think they’d be a disappearing race with all the focus on their removal from our society; yet they seem in plentiful supply.
We might do a much better job at understanding not just the underclass, but all the classes we form. My own guess is that we are not organised efficiently at all and are inside a matrix of genetic making we need to escape as surely as some fifteen year-old needing Moat needs to escape. I suspect huge amounts of public expenditure is not created to deal with problems and provide opportunities, but is stolen by bureaucrats pretending to act on behalf of the underclass or in protecting us from it.
The way forward is to change the nature of our ‘interest group’ formation right through society, from crappy bullies like Moat to those media and political creeps who do us much more damage. New technology should already be helping, but classically it is hindering. Its use runs against management power interests, some thing found again and again in research. Proper management information systems have equality of access, and as all our dumb MPs and the rest ever have in their favour is information kept close to their chests, they will do anything to prevent widespread access to real knowledge.
To mention that the average sub-Saharan IQ is under 75 and broadly that of what we once called educationally subnormal, is often seized on as racist. Average IQ has been shown to equate in a very straight line with a set of miserable diseases afflicting populations. Once one knows both these facts, it is impossible to think along the racist lines, except for perverse racists. It may though be possible to hold that Africa may well have human populations in need a a lot of help because of disease factors and that its populations may need help in ways that would be otherwise patronising. To have prissy, patronising PC nasties doing idiot diversity dances all over attempts to produce the truth is our modern problem. Facts are often embarrassing. We need to be able to embarrass ourselves.
I’d suggest that virtually none of us now do necessary work and that we are so dumb we haven’t even realised there is no need to these days. Instead we have money circulating through a benefits’ system that would be better understood by recognising just how many are really in it and how it generates a class of worthies who make fortunes from it. Just as an example, Moat got off 14 charges. Who got the legal aid benefits? How many cops would we need if there were no Moats and so on? Such questions could lead us to a systems understanding quite different from thinking of Moat as a scumbag or hero, but as a focal point of public expenditure and benefit allocation. Just how much cop, judge, social worker pay and lawyer loot has been focused through him?
There is a lot we might investigate in this way. I noticed when I got a couple of million in research funding two decades ago and saw if frittered away. It’s really hard to spend money on real problems or ideas and very easy to do more or less nothing and with the gold medal (I have two) as long as you feed the audit evaluator well (mostly with a barrage of figures and boxes of receipts).
Moat clearly had a mental breakdown. He got more resources spent on him after the killings than we would have spent on a platoon of German paratroopers in WW2. Nasty, killing rapists have attracted much less in recent past, whilst representing a much greater threat. The expenditure cannot be justified in a society in which people with disabled kids often don’t eat because they can’t afford it. Cops who think this was a priority should have to explain themselves to the relatives of other dead or those living under threat from scum they fob-off as neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour, or the hundreds if women (and some men) raped by people a few trained baboons would have caught. Instead of honesty, we have Inspector Gadget, often right, yet hiding both from his duty and conscience, on the basis that telling the truth will make him poor (that is not a higher rate benefit scrounger?) and the usual groundless superiority of his morality over that of the criminal underclass. What we need is a new accounting in the open.
What is the real truth behind the public’s reaction to Raoul Moat? http://bit.ly/a8vSN6
Ah but do the police always “step in” when someone dies?
It depends upon who caused the death, and who the person is and what the circumstances of the situation are.
Chris Jons and his complaint of childhood sexual abuse in a North Wales care home springs to mind. Plus other cases.
A female undercover police officer for example, raped and seriously abused, reputation smeared in a blame the victim cover up, and then later robbed of a substantial amount of money…..and then she was the victim of attempted murder…..more than one attempt.
All reported to police……WHO IGNORED IT ALL, and her.
Why? To cover up huge mistakes made at a high level?
To avoid embarrassment for the government and the force?
And yet she kept on working, to serve the public good.
Regarding Moat and the tragedy which unfolded. I heard on the news that Chris Brown’s family are blaming Samantha Stobbart for the fact that Moat killed him. They are also blaming the police for not warning Samantha and Chris Brown that Moat had made threats. There appears to be a constant need to “blame” the wrong people when a tragedy happens, and yet ITV reported that PC David Rathband holds no malice towards Raoul Moat. Very generous of him, and he intends to carry on, if he can, as a police officer. The best of luck to him for the future.
I think what could be learnt from this incident is that bad things sometimes happen to good people, because that IS life, unfortunately.
There could be a re-think about how best to monitor violent offenders who make threats against their former girlfriends/wives and their families, plus new partners. There will hopefully be a review by government on how efficient and effective the CPS and the Probation Service really are at protecting the public from dangerous people.
Police were apparently informed about Moat’s threats against Samantha Stobbart and Chris Brown, but may well have been too busy, or too disinterested to take it seriously. Perhaps Samantha was regarded by police as being of no importance, because she ticked their box marked “underclass” – single mother possibly on benefits, in a council house, and an ex who is/was a known criminal.
When the proverbial poo hit the fan, it was all too easy for some police officers [on an unofficial blog] to blame Samantha for what happened. That really is below the belt.
Call me a “lefty liberal tree hugger” if you must, but I cannot see any justification for officers blaming a frightened young woman, who was shot by her violent and jealous, child beating ex partner, because she rejected him. I don’t see how Samantha can also be blamed for wanting to have the support of a new man, whom she must have hoped would protect her from the bully Moat.
Nor can she be blamed for fibbing to Moat and pretending that her new boyfriend was a police officer. Poor girl.
Her life has and is now being picked apart by the press and unofficial police blogs. I sincerely hope that Samantha gets all the help and support she needs now to re-build her life.
Perhaps what could also be taken on board by police officers and social services, is that girls and young women like Samantha are HUMAN beings, surviving in far less favourable circumstances than themselves. It is the sheer breath-taking and undisguised contempt for the poor, by those who are supposed to be public “servants”, that I cannot stand.
There but for the Grace of God…..[Go ANY of them]
The public reaction to Moat is complex, varying from wanting to see him shot down like a wounded man-eater, to belief he was subject to police persecution. Public perceptions are often vapid.
Police responses to victims are often unbelievably poor, involving crass stereotyping – police are, of course, members of the public and often as stupid as the rest of us can be. Academics have tried to formalise why our reaction, in general, towards victims is so poor.
I agree, on sentiment, with you entirely Mrs. Magoo. That our society is so poor in this respect is shown by what happens to kids who end up in “care”. The outcomes are so bad the word itself is a lie.
Most of the ‘arguments’ put forward in all this are incomplete and highly partial. We need them out in full in order to be able to make informed decisions.
“It is the sheer breath-taking and undisguised contempt for the poor, by those who are supposed to be public “servants”, that I cannot stand.”
I don’t see much contempt for ‘the poor’. I do see a lot of contempt for ‘the underclass’ which is not the same thing at all.
And that contempt is, mostly, richly deserved…
“…wanting to see him shot down like a wounded man-eater…”
Not so. Even in Jim Corbett’s books, there’s often a lot of sympathy for the beast, which is, after all, merely obeying its nature.
Moat was no brute beast – he was (supposedly) a thinking, rational being with choices. That he chose to act as if he was not, makes him undeserving of sympathy.
Admittedly, his background seems to have been awful, with parents unworthy of the name. And yet the brother is holding down a job (albeit as a tax inspector!) so it’s not entirely nurture, either…
The contempt for the underclass is very old – 19th century rags are full of it. I think it is extended to the poor generally in the manner in which the underclass is dumped on them, and the policing of this as low priority. Very little help is really on offer to help anyone escape.
There’s a 12 year old round the corner currently trying to get into crime because he thinks there is nothing else. His Mum is OK – though we wouldn’t invite her for dinner and the kid was wandering off in his nappies. He’s really just left in this situation – moves to a special school and his own teaching assistant have failed – now he’s being nicked. My neighbour and I have tried with him because he played with our kids once, but it’s too difficult and we’ve given up as it only leads to vandalism and so on. His elder brother is already a ‘Moat plus’ and a jailbird.
I’d go for something like getting these kids out of school and into work, maybe even as army cadets.
My suspicion is that a long hard look at ourselves would involve realising paying head teachers a quarter of a million (let alone arses like Rooney, bankers and so on) in a world of no jobs for so many is the problem. The biggest druggie round here (just nicked) was only taking £400 a week in profits on top of about £250 in benefits. He was an ex-squaddie who couldn’t find a job. I have no sympathy with criminality, but we do seem to be doing something very stupid and unfair across society we won’t admit to.
I have seen with my own eyes, and also experienced for myself, time and time again, the “sheer breath-taking contempt” with which the POOR, especially women, can and have been treated by the well paid public servants of the state…….who appear to feel far superior to everyone else as they look down their noses at others from their moral high ground.
People in dire long term poverty may drift into petty crime, just to survive. If they are caught and prosecuted, that black mark against their name often gives them the status of a leper for the rest of their lives. That is hardly deserving of anyones contempt, disapproval maybe, but not contempt. I would reserve feelings of contempt for scum paedophiles, in postions of authority, who prey on the children of the poor. The term “underclass” is regarded by many people who work in the public sector, as ANYONE on benefits, be they sick and unable to work, or a single mum without a well paid profession to rely upon [or a partner] for financial security. The term “underclass” itself is insulting.
JuliaM is also wrong about Moat not being a “brute beast”. He was. He was far too quick to use violence on others, including his former girlfriend and mother of two of his children. He beat her up, thrashed her with a belt, tied her to the bed and RAPED HER. Now if that is not a definition of a “brute beast”, then I must be Donald Duck.
It is the “druggie” you cite ACO, who was on £250 and topping it up with money from dealing, who give genuine claimants a bad name. That £250 benefits allowance must have been for a family and not just one single person.
And if the £250 was for a family, how many kids were in it? Perhaps s/he got into dealing drugs to pay for kids shoes and the like.
A life on benefits is not the life of Riley many in the media, and the police force claim it to be……and without some sort of safety net for those at the bottom of the ladder, there would be more crimes.
ACO regarding the abuse done to kids in care. The case of Chris Jons and the North Wales Child Abuse Enquiry relates to sexual abuse done to kids between the 1950’s and the 1990’s. That was seriously tightened up after the Children’s Act and more effective child protection. A great deal of information came out in the 90’s and that enabled better protection for kids in care. Chris Jons didn’t survive making his complaint, but he certainly was a hero and very brave because he told the media and a lawyer what had gone on in the care home.
There are case records held by police, about historical cases of serious sexual abuse, but people in high places would prefer to pretend that “it never happened”.
I wonder if the police expect another victim of that scandal to sacrifice themselves by going public, like Chris Jons did, to get it “out” into the open? That’s an unfair and very big ask, considering the historical promises and agreements made by government, et al, to certain victims and survivors of those traumatic experiences and incidents.
I really do not see how some politicians could and can justify receiving a good salary, whilst insisting they are “serving” the public and their best interests.
That’s nothing short of obtaining money by deception!
If the press reports in the Daily Mail are true, and I sincerely hope that they are NOT…..The “Justice” Sec will be considering giving shorter sentences to people who commit murders. Great way to “protect” the public Ken!
Amongst the victims, very sadly, are false complainants and even people claiming experiential expertise they do not possess. I’ve seen whole enquiries by police,local authorities and academics that were nothing better than barking madness. It is much more difficult to establish the truth than most imagine. Standards in our courts are dismal. The way forward is new forms of enquiry.
“People in dire long term poverty may drift into petty crime, just to survive.”
I see the excuse ‘I had no money and needed to feed my family’ trotted out time and again by petty shoplifters in the local paper’s report of coutrt cases. Conjures up images of ‘Les Miserables’, doesn’t it?
But most of them are known druggies. They seem to use this excuse a lot. And the mags never call them on it…
“The term “underclass” is regarded by many people who work in the public sector, as ANYONE on benefits…”
Perhaps it is. But not by me.
“Now if that is not a definition of a “brute beast”, then I must be Donald Duck. “
Calling him an ‘animal’ or a ‘brute beast’ implies that he has no choice, that he acts on instinct as an animal does.
He was a man, with choices. He made the wrong ones.
“Standards in our courts are dismal. The way forward is new forms of enquiry.”
Interesting! Such as..?
This is the rub Julia. Forgive the flattery, but reading you commenting on meejah is part of the answer. We have to find ways to laugh at the idiot undergraduate seriousness of those hogging the airspace. I might have lapsed into ‘Wittgensteinian deconstruction’ in class on this, but that’s not much use for general discussion.
To buy out an academic colleague so she can work on a project I’m expected to find £90K for a year (she may get paid £40K and it might cost £30K to replace her teaching). The same FEC (full economic costing would charge my project £85K for a PhD student). This kind of costing makes it very expensive to do social research and you might just be buying idiots and find the organisations you need information from won’t let them in anyway.
New technology lets us into groups relevant to problems that need solving without bringing up the cost problems above, and could leave the data open to critical work to cut across usual interests. The first thing positive would be stopping bureaucrats commissioning expensive surveys of the irrelevant and being able to bin what doesn’t suit. I can outline the methods and will elsewhere.
There is a partial classic done recently into the social work discipline investigation squad – done by CHRE. This can be Googled. We could repeat this across the public sector and potentially could change a lot of the lower-order justice system. It’s a big topic, but practical rather than intellectual.
Chris Jons and others who told of their experiences of abuse when they were children, were not false complainants. The abusers who harmed them were men who abused their power and positions, and who lied to escape justice by falsely accusing their victims. It stinks.
New forms of enquiry? So, having been fobbed off by those in authority as children, are survivors expected to have to go through the ordeal of recalling the childhood abuse, AGAIN, for the police, who took the details and obtained evidence of it many years ago? Barking mad!
Didn;t mean to imply they were false complainants, just that there are such. Retraumatising victims is hardly new Mrs.Magoo – it’s the norm in our system. I was on about something else entirely.
most brands of kids shoes are using synthetic leather which is sometimes hard for a kid’s feet ‘*`