Controversial, I know. But a more polite version of that question has been asked over the past few days in the wake of the riots that spread from London to some of England’s major cities.
There are many reasons as to why the rioting, violence and looting took place, and there is no one simple solution. It seems that battlelines have been drawn, with the Right blaming ‘sick’ sections of society, a lack of individual responsibility, a failure of parents and schools and a dependence on the State that has led to an assumption that it is ok to take what isn’t yours. The Left has taken the line that society as a whole is to blame, pointing fingers at the hopeless examples set by MPs and bankers – seemingly the pinnacles of our society. Liberals point their fingers at budget cuts in already socially deprived areas that have led to a fall in the number of services helping people.
Personally I fall somewhere in the middle, but with one foot very much in the Left’s camp. I have never been much for the Right’s solutions to crime, which to me seems to be more about chucking as many people in jail as possible without going after the underlying causes.
A while ago I was debating with my right-leaning, fairly liberal -minded, Tory-voting father about the possible solutions to knife crime. He is a journalist who reads The Times for his own enlightenment, The Daily Mail for amusement and to keep up with middle-England-of-the-shires (although he says the comment columns are actually quite good) and peruses The Sun for its take on current affairs.
I had the idea of imposing National Service as an alternative to jail. This might sound surprisingly right-wing from a Guardian reader, but hear me out. The problem, in my opinion, is that within the estates and communities deemed ‘sick’ and ‘lost’ by Cameron, there are those who have been brought up in this atmosphere with no sense of purpose or future. There is little money to go around, the schools aren’t great, there is very little to actually do, and there is a pervading sense of hopelessness. In my view you must respect yourself before you can respect others, but if you have never learnt self-respect, where does that leave you? Enter the armed forces. Possibly the one place where the importance of self-respect, leading to respect for others is hammered into individuals, along with some pretty intense training.
My dad then pointed out that such a policy would pass the buck of parenting on to the armed forces, which isn’t their purpose. Which brings me to parents.
I do still think military-based programmes such as the Cadets and even the Scouts can be successful. But my dad is right – this should all begin at home. So why doesn’t it always?
It’s easy to blame the problems faced by single-parent families. The absence of a father figure on young boys may be a factor, but it can’t be the only one.
Is there also a fear among parents of their own children? I remember years ago a cousin of mine saying to her mum “I’m going to tell Childline on you!” Fortunately this was an empty threat (and I doubt she would have got far with it) but we do look with a measure of disdain upon a mother disciplining her unruly child in the supermarket with a slap, tutting as her already hysterical precious one swiftly degenerates into a screaming snot-blob.
There is so much red tape around parenting that sometimes I wonder why all children aren’t growing up as rulers of their household. Parents are increasingly unsure how to discipline their children without being accused of cruelty, or simply being ignored, which can lead to children growing up without a sense of consequence for wrong-doing.
Where the parents don’t instil as much discipline as they should, we expect the schools to step in. School for me was pretty strict. My primary school had been an all boys’ boarding school. Now accepting girls and having scrapped the boarding, it retained the boys’ school mentality whilst I was there. Surnames were barked at you by the mostly male staff, it was Sir this and Miss that, standing up when a teacher entered the room, more sport than seemed possible, being told to “sit down and SHUT UP!” in Latin lessons (admittedly not something I would advocate). As harsh as that all sounds, it really just meant we knew the boundaries.
Secondary school was a completely different experience as I moved to an all-girls’ school, where it was a much more genteel system. Being told off as a class sounded as thus: “LADIES… now settle down please.” That approach certainly wouldn’t work everywhere, and indeed I think they could’ve been stricter. That said, discipline was taken as seriously here as at primary school, as I discovered during Year 7 when I was shouted at by my House Mistress and Form Teacher, and put in detention for swearing twice at Sports’ Day. Apparently the year below were very impressionable (they’d obviously never met the year below). We were also not allowed off the grounds until 6th Form, which led to a cat and mouse situation with smokers and prowling staff during lunch breaks.
Teachers now can’t discipline their pupils physically, and by this I mean restraining or breaking up fights, nor can they comfort an upset young child with a hug. What message does this send out? Your teacher can’t do anything if the class bully thumps you, and if you’re the class bully, happy days.
Cameron wants to tackle ‘problem families’, although I’m not sure how he’s going to do this. Tax cuts for married couples may not be enough of an incentive to stay in a relationship that is clearly over. Teen pregnancy rates are still high in Britain, something which again comes down to education and parenting.
There needs to be some power given back to teachers and parents. Teachers should be respected and looked up to, and not, in worst case scenarios, afraid to intervene for their own safety. Parents need to be able to instil respect, self-awareness and a positive outlook towards working hard for goals into their children without fearing them. More parenting classes where needed, less red tape.
