Just the other day, I was sitting in the office at a Supported Housing project filling in evidence of the support I'd given a 'client'. I received an email last week from someone in the policy department instructing that from now on I refer to 'residents', as they were formerly known, as 'clients'. If the term resident is somehow now offensive or disempowering they should hear what I call some of the 'clients' when Im down the pub. Have these people nothing better to do than dictate the pedantry of language? Probably not. I can think of so many better uses of taxpayer's money than funding Newspeak officials straight out of Orwell's 1984.
Anyway, as I was recording that I had successfully reminded him to pay his portion of rent and to sign on, one of our less socialised residents came to the office to see if he had any post. For someone with limited literacy skills he is very interested in being written to, but then he has us to read him his letters. As I rummaged in the post box I noticed that the resident's nose was slightly bleeding.
"Jim, do you know that you have a nose bleed?" I asked.
Taking a tissue to his nose, he responded, "Oh yeah, that happens a lot probably from taking ketamine." This is a horse tranquiliser and ironically it never seems to actually sedate Jim who is regularly involved in a variety of forms of anti-social behaviour including aggression, violence and threatening behaviour. Maybe he needs to up his dose?
"Then stop taking ketamine as it's damaging your health and is a dangerous drug," I remarked.
"But Ive been taking it for ages and Im ok," he said whilst blood trickled down his nostrils.
How do you reason with that kind of thinking? It's almost as if Jim is intrinsically incapable of sorting out his life.
I wrote this down as well. Any conversation is deemed as support. The social malaise that is stalking Britain in the twenty first century is being well documented for future historians to read, depending on whether the confidentiality of the dissolute classes will still have to be respected after their death.
If you enjoy reading my blog, if enjoy is the right word, I recommend visiting Monday books. This publisher is at the forefront of giving a platform to the chroniclers of the social demise in Britain and the complicity of government in that process. There is Frank Chalk's both hilarious and distressing dispatches from the frontlines of a crumbling comprehensive secondary school. Then there are several acclaimed books written by police officers that hightlight the absurd regulations and bureaucratic constraints that hinder the police from doing what most people expect them to do: police. Last but not least, there are two titles from Theodore Dalrymple, an inner city hospital consultant who journals the wasted and despairing lives of the inhabitants of slum Britain and who The Guardian described as "a modern master."
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Thursday, 12 November 2009
A Self Sustaining Egalitarian Redistributive Food System
Last week, whilst working with 16-25 year olds in Supported Housing, I witnessed an act of such waste and profligacy that could only occur when it is other people’s money that is being spent. Let me explain, the thirty or so residents that live in this complex of small flats have to share four kitchens between them. That is, four or five residents share a considerably large kitchen. In each of these kitchens there is a large fridge freezer. They were all working perfectly well, apart from never having been cleaned or defrosted, but then that is par for the course working with most of these young people. They probably think it is someone else’s job. I can understand why they are confused, there are already several cleaners that do most of the work around the project.
To say the kitchens were a shared space almost conjures up images of disadvantaged youths working in solidarity to cook cheap and nutritious meals and dividing up cleaning and cooking responsibilities in an equitable fashion. This was not the reality or anything like it for the simple fact that the young people I work with are so profoundly solipsistic in their motivations that terms like responsibility, solidarity and community are not only words that some of them would struggle to read, but also hollow terms that hold no significance in their lives.
Perhaps I am being too harsh, in fact, I am. They did share food with each other almost every day. Sharing was so intrinsic to their value system that no one ever asked anyone else could they borrow anything, they just took it. However, in the few weeks that I have been working at this project several new residents are taking issue with this obviously perfect system of equitable distribution. They don’t seem to understand that this egalitarian distributive food sharing scheme works perfectly, even if it seems contrary to common sense. A bit like communism really. I mean look how great both Cuba and North Korea seem to be doing.
How the system works is on the day you get your Jobseeker’s Allowance or Income Support or Disability Living Allowance or any combination of benefit payments, after you have bought some super strong skunk weed and cheap alcohol you then make your way around to the local Iceland and stock up on nutritionless artery averse ready meals. Whilst shopping, it helps to have in mind what your fellow residents like to eat, as it is they who will be eating most of what you buy anyway. The fact that they also shop in Iceland means your margin of error will be slight. It also almost guarantees that you will get the food you want when you are stealing, erm, I mean sharing their food.
This is a perfect system as long as no one complains and everyone buys some food and is open to sharing. It is both an egalitarian self sustaining non-hierarchical redistributive exchange system as well an unfettered free market where Adam Smith’s invisible hand is hard at work in the pantries and refrigerators of unemployed young adults. It is a rare system that appeals to both far left anarchists and libertarians. There is only one slight snag with this model, as soon as even one resident questions the system i.e. complains, or uses the word ‘stolen’ then the whole system implodes. Complaints tend to arise when there is nothing left to borrow from your fellow residents. As with many supposed perfect economic models they are impeded by human beings and their behaviour.
As several new residents were averse to sharing or being robbed, depending on your perspective, the manager decided to deal with the issue. In each kitchen there was a large fridge freezer of about six foot. It had ample space for the cornucopia of cheap processed foods that provided our residents with the calories they needed to sit about stoned and/or drunk for most of the day. These fridge freezers worked fine, they just needed to be cleaned and defrosted and the residents needed to learn not to steal from each other. Instead, the manager decided we should buy each resident a small refrigerator without an icebox for their room. So, we did just that and bought thirty one Amica small fridges at a rough cost of four thousand pounds. The large fridge freezers in the kitchen were thrown out even though they all worked perfectly. We then spent roughly one thousand eight hundred pound replacing these with seven large freezer units. All of this money came from public funds. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it was judicious spending or not, as Im trying to be a lot less judgemental about things these days as my employers have informed me that judging a.k.a having an opinion based on standards is somehow negative.
The one thing I don’t understand is that won't the residents still steal each other’s frozen goods from the brand new communal freezers? Did management not consider this when they were deciding how to waste thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money on how to police the shared pantries and kitchens of our young discarded on to the welfare state?
To say the kitchens were a shared space almost conjures up images of disadvantaged youths working in solidarity to cook cheap and nutritious meals and dividing up cleaning and cooking responsibilities in an equitable fashion. This was not the reality or anything like it for the simple fact that the young people I work with are so profoundly solipsistic in their motivations that terms like responsibility, solidarity and community are not only words that some of them would struggle to read, but also hollow terms that hold no significance in their lives.
Perhaps I am being too harsh, in fact, I am. They did share food with each other almost every day. Sharing was so intrinsic to their value system that no one ever asked anyone else could they borrow anything, they just took it. However, in the few weeks that I have been working at this project several new residents are taking issue with this obviously perfect system of equitable distribution. They don’t seem to understand that this egalitarian distributive food sharing scheme works perfectly, even if it seems contrary to common sense. A bit like communism really. I mean look how great both Cuba and North Korea seem to be doing.
How the system works is on the day you get your Jobseeker’s Allowance or Income Support or Disability Living Allowance or any combination of benefit payments, after you have bought some super strong skunk weed and cheap alcohol you then make your way around to the local Iceland and stock up on nutritionless artery averse ready meals. Whilst shopping, it helps to have in mind what your fellow residents like to eat, as it is they who will be eating most of what you buy anyway. The fact that they also shop in Iceland means your margin of error will be slight. It also almost guarantees that you will get the food you want when you are stealing, erm, I mean sharing their food.
This is a perfect system as long as no one complains and everyone buys some food and is open to sharing. It is both an egalitarian self sustaining non-hierarchical redistributive exchange system as well an unfettered free market where Adam Smith’s invisible hand is hard at work in the pantries and refrigerators of unemployed young adults. It is a rare system that appeals to both far left anarchists and libertarians. There is only one slight snag with this model, as soon as even one resident questions the system i.e. complains, or uses the word ‘stolen’ then the whole system implodes. Complaints tend to arise when there is nothing left to borrow from your fellow residents. As with many supposed perfect economic models they are impeded by human beings and their behaviour.
As several new residents were averse to sharing or being robbed, depending on your perspective, the manager decided to deal with the issue. In each kitchen there was a large fridge freezer of about six foot. It had ample space for the cornucopia of cheap processed foods that provided our residents with the calories they needed to sit about stoned and/or drunk for most of the day. These fridge freezers worked fine, they just needed to be cleaned and defrosted and the residents needed to learn not to steal from each other. Instead, the manager decided we should buy each resident a small refrigerator without an icebox for their room. So, we did just that and bought thirty one Amica small fridges at a rough cost of four thousand pounds. The large fridge freezers in the kitchen were thrown out even though they all worked perfectly. We then spent roughly one thousand eight hundred pound replacing these with seven large freezer units. All of this money came from public funds. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it was judicious spending or not, as Im trying to be a lot less judgemental about things these days as my employers have informed me that judging a.k.a having an opinion based on standards is somehow negative.
The one thing I don’t understand is that won't the residents still steal each other’s frozen goods from the brand new communal freezers? Did management not consider this when they were deciding how to waste thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money on how to police the shared pantries and kitchens of our young discarded on to the welfare state?
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Mind your Language
In each adolescent care home a daily log book must be kept. This is a statutory requirement. There are also separate daily logs kept for each individual adolescent. However, one can’t simply write what one experiences in a working day in these log books. This is because social services object to what they call ‘harsh’ or ‘judgmental’ language. Frontline staff are expected to write up daily reports about the events in their respective care homes about each young person as if they inhabit some kind of morally objective universe where no one makes any kind of judgments or has any kind of standards. So, just what can be construed as ‘harsh’ or ‘judgmental’ language by those on high in social services? Here’s an example from the care home where the feral and violently dangerous Liam resides.
On Tuesday afternoon of last week, Liam was taken out shopping with his clothing allowance when he should have been at his own private school at the back of the house. However, he was being rewarded for having ‘chosen’ to go to school in the morning for an hour. ‘Choosing’ to stay in a classroom for one hour is viewed as a success as the standards of behaviour and compliance are set so low for Liam that he can’t but help to live up to them. He returned later in the evening with lots of new clothes and was only averagely verbally abusive to staff for the rest of the day.
On the Wednesday, Liam ‘chose’ not to go to school for the entire day and was rewarded by being given a walk in the countryside, as well as the hiring of a rowing boat on a lake at a local stately home. This was called an ‘educational outing’ in the paperwork at the end of the day. I can understand the teacher’s rationale. Sit in a class with a feral and aggressive lout twice your size who throws things at you and insults you or take him out walking in the countryside where with any luck he might get trod on by a bull. I know which choice I’d be making.
Anyway, having his every whim pandered to up until the early afternoon had set a precedent for the rest of the day. Liam demanded to be taken back out clothes shopping with the remaining twenty pounds left in his clothing allowance from the day before. I was going to walk with Liam to the train station and head to town with him as instructed by management. Liam still wasn’t happy in that there was no driver or car available to drop us both at the train station as they were out with the other delinquents somewhere else. Liam demanded that we get the support worker with the car back immediately to drive him to the station to get the train. Liam was told this wouldn’t be happening. He then proceeded to smash up the house. He tore several paintings off the wall, he threw a clock at myself and the manager but luckily missed, he later assaulted the manager, he spat in my face and later that evening grabbed me by the throat and he also spent a good hour trying to kick the office door down. For all of these horrific actions Liam was informed he would lose his one pound incentive money for good behaviour that day. He had already lost a pound for not going to school. He shouldn’t be bribed to do these things in the first place. He can earn up to twenty pound a week in bribes and this is before his pocket money or money set aside for weekly activities such as the cinema, bowling and amusement parks.
Liam is what used to be called a spoilt brat. He is in care because his Mother never disciplined him, his father left home when he was young and Liam learned to get his way by throwing tantrums and as he got older his tantrums became violent outbursts. Liam’s mother had the option of putting him in to care as the British state allows people to voluntarily abandon their responsibilities. Having been given no boundaries in the home, a form of neglect with far reaching social ramifications, the state has continued in the same vein by medicalising Liam’s behaviour by diagnosing him with two fictitious conditions. They are ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These diagnoses are used by care management and social services to excuse Liam’s behaviour and to allow them an excuse for not successfully enforcing boundaries and discipline. Of course, I’m not suggesting this is a conspiracy to assist the state in abdicating it’s duty once the child is in care but it conveniently allows no one to be held culpable for Liam’s behaviour. At the end of the day Liam is the victim of a society that no longer enforces boundaries or instills discipline and respect in the young. Children and young people need boundaries, consequences and discipline to grow in to healthy and functional adults.
Whilst Liam might not be held responsible for any of his actions whilst in care the staff certainly are for theirs. The day after he thrashed the house and assaulted staff including myself I went to wake him for school. I went in to his room and called him. I was standing about three feet from his bed and repeatedly asked him, politely of course, I wouldn’t want him to log a complaint, to get up. He pulled the blankets over his head, ignored me and turned around to face the wall. It was a welcome change from the usual barrage of abuse and threats.
A few minutes after trying to awaken Liam from his well deserved rest after the previous day’s delinquent indulgences I wrote an entry in the daily log. It stated: “I went in to Liam’s room and attempted to wake him, he pretended to be deaf and ignored my requests to get up.” An hour after entering this in the daily log I was called in to the office by the manager. She politely informed me that what I had written would be viewed as ‘judgmental’ and ‘harsh’ language by social services in that I was “making a presumption” and “jumping to conclusions without being sure they were the facts,” according to my manager. I told her I was there and watched him ignore me but still my word and observations based on common sense were not valid as they were my opinions and not the facts as I couldn’t know for certain that he pretended to be deaf or had ignored me. I was going to argue with her but I didn’t bother. I have learned by now that this whole sector is infected with an institutional and ideological form of insanity and sometimes I haven’t the energy to argue with the insane. Another member of staff was reprimanded that day for writing that Becky was ‘‘sulking’’ as this too is ‘oppressive’ language. Liam however escaped any verbal censures for the previous day’s escapades but was told he could go on a trip to a leisure centre on Saturday if he managed to behave until then, thus inculcating him with the belief that one behaves appropriately, not because there is an inherent value in good behaviour, but because it entitles you to be indulged and rewarded with entertainment of one kind or another.
On Tuesday afternoon of last week, Liam was taken out shopping with his clothing allowance when he should have been at his own private school at the back of the house. However, he was being rewarded for having ‘chosen’ to go to school in the morning for an hour. ‘Choosing’ to stay in a classroom for one hour is viewed as a success as the standards of behaviour and compliance are set so low for Liam that he can’t but help to live up to them. He returned later in the evening with lots of new clothes and was only averagely verbally abusive to staff for the rest of the day.
On the Wednesday, Liam ‘chose’ not to go to school for the entire day and was rewarded by being given a walk in the countryside, as well as the hiring of a rowing boat on a lake at a local stately home. This was called an ‘educational outing’ in the paperwork at the end of the day. I can understand the teacher’s rationale. Sit in a class with a feral and aggressive lout twice your size who throws things at you and insults you or take him out walking in the countryside where with any luck he might get trod on by a bull. I know which choice I’d be making.
Anyway, having his every whim pandered to up until the early afternoon had set a precedent for the rest of the day. Liam demanded to be taken back out clothes shopping with the remaining twenty pounds left in his clothing allowance from the day before. I was going to walk with Liam to the train station and head to town with him as instructed by management. Liam still wasn’t happy in that there was no driver or car available to drop us both at the train station as they were out with the other delinquents somewhere else. Liam demanded that we get the support worker with the car back immediately to drive him to the station to get the train. Liam was told this wouldn’t be happening. He then proceeded to smash up the house. He tore several paintings off the wall, he threw a clock at myself and the manager but luckily missed, he later assaulted the manager, he spat in my face and later that evening grabbed me by the throat and he also spent a good hour trying to kick the office door down. For all of these horrific actions Liam was informed he would lose his one pound incentive money for good behaviour that day. He had already lost a pound for not going to school. He shouldn’t be bribed to do these things in the first place. He can earn up to twenty pound a week in bribes and this is before his pocket money or money set aside for weekly activities such as the cinema, bowling and amusement parks.
Liam is what used to be called a spoilt brat. He is in care because his Mother never disciplined him, his father left home when he was young and Liam learned to get his way by throwing tantrums and as he got older his tantrums became violent outbursts. Liam’s mother had the option of putting him in to care as the British state allows people to voluntarily abandon their responsibilities. Having been given no boundaries in the home, a form of neglect with far reaching social ramifications, the state has continued in the same vein by medicalising Liam’s behaviour by diagnosing him with two fictitious conditions. They are ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These diagnoses are used by care management and social services to excuse Liam’s behaviour and to allow them an excuse for not successfully enforcing boundaries and discipline. Of course, I’m not suggesting this is a conspiracy to assist the state in abdicating it’s duty once the child is in care but it conveniently allows no one to be held culpable for Liam’s behaviour. At the end of the day Liam is the victim of a society that no longer enforces boundaries or instills discipline and respect in the young. Children and young people need boundaries, consequences and discipline to grow in to healthy and functional adults.
Whilst Liam might not be held responsible for any of his actions whilst in care the staff certainly are for theirs. The day after he thrashed the house and assaulted staff including myself I went to wake him for school. I went in to his room and called him. I was standing about three feet from his bed and repeatedly asked him, politely of course, I wouldn’t want him to log a complaint, to get up. He pulled the blankets over his head, ignored me and turned around to face the wall. It was a welcome change from the usual barrage of abuse and threats.
A few minutes after trying to awaken Liam from his well deserved rest after the previous day’s delinquent indulgences I wrote an entry in the daily log. It stated: “I went in to Liam’s room and attempted to wake him, he pretended to be deaf and ignored my requests to get up.” An hour after entering this in the daily log I was called in to the office by the manager. She politely informed me that what I had written would be viewed as ‘judgmental’ and ‘harsh’ language by social services in that I was “making a presumption” and “jumping to conclusions without being sure they were the facts,” according to my manager. I told her I was there and watched him ignore me but still my word and observations based on common sense were not valid as they were my opinions and not the facts as I couldn’t know for certain that he pretended to be deaf or had ignored me. I was going to argue with her but I didn’t bother. I have learned by now that this whole sector is infected with an institutional and ideological form of insanity and sometimes I haven’t the energy to argue with the insane. Another member of staff was reprimanded that day for writing that Becky was ‘‘sulking’’ as this too is ‘oppressive’ language. Liam however escaped any verbal censures for the previous day’s escapades but was told he could go on a trip to a leisure centre on Saturday if he managed to behave until then, thus inculcating him with the belief that one behaves appropriately, not because there is an inherent value in good behaviour, but because it entitles you to be indulged and rewarded with entertainment of one kind or another.
Friday, 11 September 2009
A Holiday In Chernobyl
So Barnardo's chief Martin Narey thinks more children should be taken in to state care at birth. At a cost of five thousand pound a week to the taxpyer, for each child in care, is this really the sensible solution? Is extending the welfare state, which has contributed greatly to the ever expanding underclass, the correct remedy for feckless breeding? I think not. However, Mr Narey very bravely took a "judgemental" position by pointing out the obvious, that many people are not fit to be parents. However, the solution lies not in caring for the fruits of their loins but rather in ensuring that there is a lot less of their fruit about in the first place.
Instead, what should happen is that the state should remove incentives for those incapable of parenthood from becoming parents in the first place. Welfare benefits should be greatly reduced for those families and young people who breed simply to gain more in state benefits or simply to get to the head of the social housing queue. I can guarantee you that if there was less provision for the indolent and irresponsible to breed then they would do less of it. I have worked first hand with lots of young people who have told me they were getting pregnant to get a flat and an increase in benefits.
One young man I worked with in a supported housing project, who was expecting a child with his ex-girlfriend, (he has since left her and impregnated another of his ilk) refused to avail of the free condoms because as he put it, "I dont like them."
I responded, "Are you not worrying about becoming a Dad and all that entails and the expenses involved?"
"No not really, the benefits pay for everything. My ex already has a baby with another bloke and she got a flat from that and gets tax credits and benefits so it will all be allright."
As I said, he abandoned her and impregnated another girl in the project whom he also went on to leave. Now, if this lad and the women he slept with had to take financial responsibility for the consequences of not using contraception then they would be less likely to procreate. A good thing, if you ask me. It is not in the intersts of society or indeed humanity in general that the aforementioned young man should be extending his gene pool. A holiday in Chernobyl would do him the world of good.
Instead, what should happen is that the state should remove incentives for those incapable of parenthood from becoming parents in the first place. Welfare benefits should be greatly reduced for those families and young people who breed simply to gain more in state benefits or simply to get to the head of the social housing queue. I can guarantee you that if there was less provision for the indolent and irresponsible to breed then they would do less of it. I have worked first hand with lots of young people who have told me they were getting pregnant to get a flat and an increase in benefits.
One young man I worked with in a supported housing project, who was expecting a child with his ex-girlfriend, (he has since left her and impregnated another of his ilk) refused to avail of the free condoms because as he put it, "I dont like them."
I responded, "Are you not worrying about becoming a Dad and all that entails and the expenses involved?"
"No not really, the benefits pay for everything. My ex already has a baby with another bloke and she got a flat from that and gets tax credits and benefits so it will all be allright."
As I said, he abandoned her and impregnated another girl in the project whom he also went on to leave. Now, if this lad and the women he slept with had to take financial responsibility for the consequences of not using contraception then they would be less likely to procreate. A good thing, if you ask me. It is not in the intersts of society or indeed humanity in general that the aforementioned young man should be extending his gene pool. A holiday in Chernobyl would do him the world of good.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Rewarding Young Criminals
A few weeks ago,an academic study revealed that the government's Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme to deal with young offenders is useless. Many of us working with young offenders in various contexts have known this for years. We see the proof of it every day. However, many working with the underclass in various contexts keep our mouths shut. To point out the obvious that the left-liberal approach to crime and disorder doesn't work is heresy and can have a detrimental effect on your career, but then again should you be doing a job you don't believe in? I know I won't last much longer that's for sure.
One lad called Perry, that I've worked with at a Supported Housing project was on an ISSP for driving recklessly whilst drunk in a stolen vehicle. It was his second offence of this exact nature in just six months. Now, Perry committed the second of these two offences just shy of his eighteenth birthday. By the time it went to court Perry was an adult in the eyes of the law but was treated as a juvenile as he had committed the offences when he was seventeen.
According to the Youth Justice Board, an ISSP is the most rigorous non-custodial sentence for young offenders. Now, I dont know about you but when I think of the word rigorous, in the context of dealing with criminal behaviour, I imagine some kind of negative consequence being visited upon the perpetrator in the interests of justice and also to act as a deterrent to committing future crimes. Sadly, this is not so, as the case of Perry so clearly illustrates.
Whilst on his ISSP, the surveillance component required that Perry was tagged and was on a strict curfew which meant he had to be in his room in the Supported Housing project every night by eight o'clock. When Perry failed to meet his curfew, as he often did, the electronic box in his room would send out a signal to the relevant authorities informing them of Perry's non compliance with his curfew. Oh by the way, the relevant authorities were not the police, but a private security company hundreds of miles away. They rang us at the Project, usually the morning after Perry had failed to abide by his curfew, in which time he could have committed a wide variety of offences. They then informed the Youth Offending Team and Perry went back to court. Just how is this close surveillance backed up by rigorous enforcement that reaasures the community? Yet it claims so on the Youth Justice Board's website (see previous link). People have committed horrendous crimes including murder whilst on ISSPs and their adult equivalent.
The judge actually praised Perry for only violating his curfew a few times and commended Perry for engaging fully with the supervision part of the programme. This involved dealing with the underlying causes ( a euphemism for excuses) for Perry's criminal lifestyle. To be fair, some of the supervision was positive, particularly getting Perry to succesfully engage on a literacy course. If our schools were properly run Perry would already know how to read but that's a whole other blog. Over to Frank Chalk.
The most shocking aspect of Perry's supervision was the amount of leisure and recreation that was being laid on for him by the Youth Offending Team and at the taxpyer's expense. Perry showed me a copy of his weekly Supervison rota. Everyday he would meet with his Youth Offending Team Support Worker who would take him on various outings and activities. These included, bowling, swimming, he was bought an annual membership for the local snooker club, taken to a stately home, taken on a naval battleship and everyday brought out for lunch to his favourite Scottish restaurant, Mcdonalds. This went on for the several months Perry was on the ISSP.
In the words of Perry, "I thought I was going to be punished, this is mad, I might steal another car to get back on it again," he half joked.
One lad called Perry, that I've worked with at a Supported Housing project was on an ISSP for driving recklessly whilst drunk in a stolen vehicle. It was his second offence of this exact nature in just six months. Now, Perry committed the second of these two offences just shy of his eighteenth birthday. By the time it went to court Perry was an adult in the eyes of the law but was treated as a juvenile as he had committed the offences when he was seventeen.
According to the Youth Justice Board, an ISSP is the most rigorous non-custodial sentence for young offenders. Now, I dont know about you but when I think of the word rigorous, in the context of dealing with criminal behaviour, I imagine some kind of negative consequence being visited upon the perpetrator in the interests of justice and also to act as a deterrent to committing future crimes. Sadly, this is not so, as the case of Perry so clearly illustrates.
Whilst on his ISSP, the surveillance component required that Perry was tagged and was on a strict curfew which meant he had to be in his room in the Supported Housing project every night by eight o'clock. When Perry failed to meet his curfew, as he often did, the electronic box in his room would send out a signal to the relevant authorities informing them of Perry's non compliance with his curfew. Oh by the way, the relevant authorities were not the police, but a private security company hundreds of miles away. They rang us at the Project, usually the morning after Perry had failed to abide by his curfew, in which time he could have committed a wide variety of offences. They then informed the Youth Offending Team and Perry went back to court. Just how is this close surveillance backed up by rigorous enforcement that reaasures the community? Yet it claims so on the Youth Justice Board's website (see previous link). People have committed horrendous crimes including murder whilst on ISSPs and their adult equivalent.
The judge actually praised Perry for only violating his curfew a few times and commended Perry for engaging fully with the supervision part of the programme. This involved dealing with the underlying causes ( a euphemism for excuses) for Perry's criminal lifestyle. To be fair, some of the supervision was positive, particularly getting Perry to succesfully engage on a literacy course. If our schools were properly run Perry would already know how to read but that's a whole other blog. Over to Frank Chalk.
The most shocking aspect of Perry's supervision was the amount of leisure and recreation that was being laid on for him by the Youth Offending Team and at the taxpyer's expense. Perry showed me a copy of his weekly Supervison rota. Everyday he would meet with his Youth Offending Team Support Worker who would take him on various outings and activities. These included, bowling, swimming, he was bought an annual membership for the local snooker club, taken to a stately home, taken on a naval battleship and everyday brought out for lunch to his favourite Scottish restaurant, Mcdonalds. This went on for the several months Perry was on the ISSP.
In the words of Perry, "I thought I was going to be punished, this is mad, I might steal another car to get back on it again," he half joked.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Making the Right Choice (part 2)
Having had a metal weight thrown at his head, which would enrage even the most passive person, Liam went in to an apoplectic frenzy. Edwin’s instincts quickly told him that were he to remain in the vicinity of Liam he would be the victim of grievous bodily harm. Edwin, for once, made the right choice and locked himself in his room. The pregnant Becky joined him, as did the two female members of staff. Liam emerged from his room wearing a pair of steel toe capped building boots. He headed for Edwin’s door and started to kick violently with all his strength. I asked him calmly to please refrain from trying to break Edwin’s door down, always with the manners of course, it’s good for their self-esteem you see to speak to them so. Of course, he didn’t listen and threatened me as well. I reminded him that there was a pregnant teenage girl in the room with Edwin and that she was terrified (he has attacked her in the past but been restrained by staff) and that such high levels of stress were not good for a pregnant woman. All to no avail. Liam told Edwin that he was going to “mash you up”, “shank you innit blood” and “mess you right up”. Edwin, having now the protection of a door with furniture against it, had a sudden burst of verbal bravado and both himself and Liam exchanged more threats. All the while, Liam was violently kicking against the door hoping to break in. By then, Liam had also acquired a frying pan and judging by the way he was holding it, he wasn’t planning to make Edwin an omlette with it when he got in to the room.
I heard the phone ringing in the office so I went to get it leaving Liam to kick at the door further and threaten Edwin. I secretly hoped that Edwin would open the door and throw another weight at Liam hopefully getting him between the eyes. I got to the office and answered the phone and it was Louise, the Senior support worker, ringing from Edwin’s room, telling me to ring the police as she believed that the door was beginning to give way and she was genuinely concerned that Liam was going to carry through with his threats if he managed to get in. I rang the Police and surprisingly they had two officers around within twenty minutes. However, they were none too pleased to be there and were initially quite rude. I told them I empathised with their frustration (there are only two of them for several villages encompassing several thousand people). They told me no offences had been committed and that I should have dealt with the scenario myself. I politely said, “Surely this is a disturbance of the peace? If I hadn’t called you now in an hour I would be ringing you about GBH.”
They reluctantly talked to both Edwin and Liam. This seemed to do the trick. However, as soon as they were gone Liam refused to go to bed and started demanding a lift home to his mother’s in London (he’s on a section 20 i.e. his mum still has most of the rights over him but the taxpayer accommodate and look after him). Liam demanded to talk to the on-call manager, as it’s his right to have everything explained to him he was allowed to phone her, to know why he couldn’t get a lift from staff to London. It was now 0145 am and staff had been on since 0800 and some of us, including myself, were on our second day straight through. Eventually, by 0230 in the morning tiredness got the best of Liam and he went to bed. It was a close call. The night could have gone so much worse.
Now, on the Monday morning after the incident on the Friday night, the manager called me to the office. I thought maybe it was to ask how I was having gotten almost no sleep on the Friday shift and having been threatened with actual bodily harm by a person with violent tendencies. It was very naïve of me to make this presumption. I had momentarily forgotten that the care system treats its frontline staff with disdain and views them as expendable and badly paid receptacles of abuse from the spawn of the underclass. The managers, many of them nice people, some of them not, spend their days in offices filling in forms and ticking boxes. Sometimes, they too can be at the receiving end of abuse but a lot less so than the Support Workers. Anyway, the manager was calling me in because Friday night’s incident was creating some bureaucratic and form filling issues for her.
“Winston, why were the two female members of staff hiding in Edwin’s room with Becky?”
“Well, it might have something to do with a 6’2 teenager in steel toe capped boots running towards them with a frying pan?” I quipped.
“Staff should not hide from the young people, by doing so they learn that they are in charge of the house. Liam should have been restrained in that scenario.”
Yes, he should have been restrained. I agree. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be two diminutive females with whom I would be doing the restraining of a teenager twice their size and several times their combined strength. There also wouldn’t be several forms to fill out after the restraint, to justify it and let’s remember we were already up several hours past our own bed time and had to be awake and on shift by 08.00 the following morning. There also wouldn’t be the constant threat of the young person making an allegation that you used excessive force. If they carry through with such allegations it can lead to immediate suspension from work whilst you are investigated. Even if you are proved innocent the fact an allegation was made stays on your record. Teenagers in care regularly threaten to make false abuse allegations, both physical and sexual against staff, some of them carry them through ruining the careers of their victims even when the allegations are untrue. It is these teenagers’ most effective weapon and the threat of it alone makes you very weary of ever using restraints.
“Look Winston, the bottom line is that the other staff should not have been hiding. Also, why did you call the police? There was no need to do so in these circumstances. I am going to find it very hard to justify in my report to OFSTED why the police were called for this raucous. I mean Liam often kicks off and mostly never carries out his threats,” remarked the manager.
“Yes, but sometimes he does carry out his threats and in this instance I judged it wise to call the police. This was the worst I’ve seen him and we do also have a pregnant girl in this house whose safety we must guarantee", I stated.
“Well, it’s going to be a nightmare to write up and OFSTED will not be happy.”
Obviously, the issue here is how this fits in to existing bureaucratic templates and the reaction of the state inspectorate, not how do we control this boy and make sure he cannot and will not behave like this again. My two colleagues were also reprimanded for the manner in which we dealt with this scenario. No one asked us how we were.
This same day, Liam was once again refusing to attend his own private school on the premises, whilst the teacher out of boredom surfed the internet. I’d say he was delighted. When Liam is in there he threatens him and smashes up the class. The walls have the holes to prove it.
The other staff and myself followed Liam around most of the morning reminding him how much money he could earn for the entire week if he only spent an hour a day in school and behaved himself by making the right choices. The manager told us to inform Liam and his peers that another trip to the amusement park was planned for the coming weekend dependent on behaviour. In reality, there only has to be a very minimal standard of good behaviour and not even on a consistent basis.
However, the biggest question that must arise for any sane person is where are the effective consequences for this young person that will make him learn from his mistakes and will tame his aggressive and anti-social beahviour? In reality, there are none.
I heard the phone ringing in the office so I went to get it leaving Liam to kick at the door further and threaten Edwin. I secretly hoped that Edwin would open the door and throw another weight at Liam hopefully getting him between the eyes. I got to the office and answered the phone and it was Louise, the Senior support worker, ringing from Edwin’s room, telling me to ring the police as she believed that the door was beginning to give way and she was genuinely concerned that Liam was going to carry through with his threats if he managed to get in. I rang the Police and surprisingly they had two officers around within twenty minutes. However, they were none too pleased to be there and were initially quite rude. I told them I empathised with their frustration (there are only two of them for several villages encompassing several thousand people). They told me no offences had been committed and that I should have dealt with the scenario myself. I politely said, “Surely this is a disturbance of the peace? If I hadn’t called you now in an hour I would be ringing you about GBH.”
They reluctantly talked to both Edwin and Liam. This seemed to do the trick. However, as soon as they were gone Liam refused to go to bed and started demanding a lift home to his mother’s in London (he’s on a section 20 i.e. his mum still has most of the rights over him but the taxpayer accommodate and look after him). Liam demanded to talk to the on-call manager, as it’s his right to have everything explained to him he was allowed to phone her, to know why he couldn’t get a lift from staff to London. It was now 0145 am and staff had been on since 0800 and some of us, including myself, were on our second day straight through. Eventually, by 0230 in the morning tiredness got the best of Liam and he went to bed. It was a close call. The night could have gone so much worse.
Now, on the Monday morning after the incident on the Friday night, the manager called me to the office. I thought maybe it was to ask how I was having gotten almost no sleep on the Friday shift and having been threatened with actual bodily harm by a person with violent tendencies. It was very naïve of me to make this presumption. I had momentarily forgotten that the care system treats its frontline staff with disdain and views them as expendable and badly paid receptacles of abuse from the spawn of the underclass. The managers, many of them nice people, some of them not, spend their days in offices filling in forms and ticking boxes. Sometimes, they too can be at the receiving end of abuse but a lot less so than the Support Workers. Anyway, the manager was calling me in because Friday night’s incident was creating some bureaucratic and form filling issues for her.
“Winston, why were the two female members of staff hiding in Edwin’s room with Becky?”
“Well, it might have something to do with a 6’2 teenager in steel toe capped boots running towards them with a frying pan?” I quipped.
“Staff should not hide from the young people, by doing so they learn that they are in charge of the house. Liam should have been restrained in that scenario.”
Yes, he should have been restrained. I agree. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be two diminutive females with whom I would be doing the restraining of a teenager twice their size and several times their combined strength. There also wouldn’t be several forms to fill out after the restraint, to justify it and let’s remember we were already up several hours past our own bed time and had to be awake and on shift by 08.00 the following morning. There also wouldn’t be the constant threat of the young person making an allegation that you used excessive force. If they carry through with such allegations it can lead to immediate suspension from work whilst you are investigated. Even if you are proved innocent the fact an allegation was made stays on your record. Teenagers in care regularly threaten to make false abuse allegations, both physical and sexual against staff, some of them carry them through ruining the careers of their victims even when the allegations are untrue. It is these teenagers’ most effective weapon and the threat of it alone makes you very weary of ever using restraints.
“Look Winston, the bottom line is that the other staff should not have been hiding. Also, why did you call the police? There was no need to do so in these circumstances. I am going to find it very hard to justify in my report to OFSTED why the police were called for this raucous. I mean Liam often kicks off and mostly never carries out his threats,” remarked the manager.
“Yes, but sometimes he does carry out his threats and in this instance I judged it wise to call the police. This was the worst I’ve seen him and we do also have a pregnant girl in this house whose safety we must guarantee", I stated.
“Well, it’s going to be a nightmare to write up and OFSTED will not be happy.”
Obviously, the issue here is how this fits in to existing bureaucratic templates and the reaction of the state inspectorate, not how do we control this boy and make sure he cannot and will not behave like this again. My two colleagues were also reprimanded for the manner in which we dealt with this scenario. No one asked us how we were.
This same day, Liam was once again refusing to attend his own private school on the premises, whilst the teacher out of boredom surfed the internet. I’d say he was delighted. When Liam is in there he threatens him and smashes up the class. The walls have the holes to prove it.
The other staff and myself followed Liam around most of the morning reminding him how much money he could earn for the entire week if he only spent an hour a day in school and behaved himself by making the right choices. The manager told us to inform Liam and his peers that another trip to the amusement park was planned for the coming weekend dependent on behaviour. In reality, there only has to be a very minimal standard of good behaviour and not even on a consistent basis.
However, the biggest question that must arise for any sane person is where are the effective consequences for this young person that will make him learn from his mistakes and will tame his aggressive and anti-social beahviour? In reality, there are none.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Making the Right Choice (part 1)
I haven’t been posting for a while as I had to take some time off work with stress and the last thing I wanted to do was regurgitate the facts regarding the stress I was under. Anyway, here is a snippet that illustrates why people working with feral youths and the underclass regularly take time off sick and also tend not to last more than a couple of years in the sector.
A few weeks back, I was at a notorious difficult care home for teenagers. Kerry, Louise and myself were trying to settle to bed, Liam, 15, Edwin, 15 and Becky, 15 and pregnant. In the morning, we were to take them to a local amusement park to reward them for a week of verbal abuse, violence, criminal damage, truancy and inertia. Every weekend they get to go somewhere, as well as a few outings during the week, often when they should be at school. However, the management and staff had stipulated that if they didn’t settle to bed on time, this particular Friday night, then the amusement park would be cancelled. This was because they were all so hideously behaved during the week and it was felt they should have to comply with some of the house rules to ‘earn’ the trip out. Personally, on account of all the negative behavior mentioned there should be no trip at all. When I was a child this was called a consequence. However, in care homes for teenagers if they behave for even one hour they will get some kind of reward. On the other hand, when they kick off and are violent or abusive this behavior will usually lead to minimal sanctions, if any. The emphasis is put on praising the positive, it’s called ‘positive reinforcement’, but this tends to be done at the expense of ignoring the negative and not dealing with it. I am not against ‘positive reinforcement,’ it works, but only when used in conjunction with discipline and boundaries. If you only use positive reinforcement the child or teenager learns that he or she can do what they want. Simply put, they learn how to manipulate.
Anyway, as we were trying to get the youngsters to settle down Liam became argumentative and said he was going to play his music loud for as long as he wanted. He was told this would lead to him not being allowed go to the amusement park the next day with the others.
“I will be f**king going. I’d like to see you try and stop me,” he barked.
“Well Liam, it’s not a question of me stopping you, it’s a question of me refusing to take you there and if you haven’t noticed you don’t drive and live over thirty miles from the amusement park. Now, I need you to make the right choice (we have to talk to them like this its management diktat) so you can have an enjoyable activity tomorrow. I know you can make the right choice and turn your music off and go to sleep. If you don’t, then I will have to come in and turn it off as you are disturbing your peers and preventing staff from finishing their work and getting to bed,” I stated.
“If you come in to my room, I will f**king smash you right up!” he snarled, as he held a steel toe capped boot in his hand ready to throw it at me.
Liam is 6’2 and 15 stone. He is huge. He is very dangerous. He has assaulted staff on many occasions. He spits, punches, throws objects and smashes up the house several times a week. He has smashed up several staff members’ cars. His behaviour never improves, he just gets worse. He should be in a secure unit. He will probably end up there eventually, but before he does he will wreak plenty of mayhem.
At times, I am frightened of him. Tonight is one of those times. He has that vacant angry look in his eye. Going in to turn his music off will escalate his behaviour. I want to avoid this, if possible, but I may have no choice. He is always belligerent so that almost any request for him to do something even the most trivial of things turns in to a power struggle where he asserts his power. He always wins in one way or another because care is set up this way.
The other two residents, Edwin and Becky are worried that if Liam doesn’t calm down and turn his music down, they too wont be able to go to the amusement park. They have been reassured this is not the case but they don’t believe the other staff or me. Edwin appeals to Liam to turn off the music, peer pressure works a lot better than adult authority (which is almost non-existent). However, even the request of his friend doesn’t work on this occasion. Staff spend another twenty minutes talking to Liam encouraging him to make the ‘right choice’ and praising him for the few hours during the week when he wasn’t being a scumbag (as he was on his xbox he had no reason or time to be involved in anti-social behavior). None of this was working, it never does.
Edwin by then was losing his temper and shouting and threatening Liam, as was the teenage mother to be Becky. Anyone walking past the house would have heard a cacophony of angry violent threats, swearing and loud dance music. If someone was to listen close enough they would hear the staff praising the young people and offering them bribes to refrain from their behavior. By now, Edwin could take no more of Liam’s refusal to co-operate, he went to his room and picked up a large metal body building weight. He ran towards Liam and let the weight fly. Liam ducked out of the way just in time. Then, his eyes glazed over and veins were throbbing in his forehead with rage. There was going to be trouble for sure. Here is a lad who has smashed up the entire house and assaulted staff simply for being asked politely to go to school. He is never made or coerced to attend just asked and encouraged with a daily cash award if he attends. So, you can imagine what he is like when he has got a valid reason to be angry?
A few weeks back, I was at a notorious difficult care home for teenagers. Kerry, Louise and myself were trying to settle to bed, Liam, 15, Edwin, 15 and Becky, 15 and pregnant. In the morning, we were to take them to a local amusement park to reward them for a week of verbal abuse, violence, criminal damage, truancy and inertia. Every weekend they get to go somewhere, as well as a few outings during the week, often when they should be at school. However, the management and staff had stipulated that if they didn’t settle to bed on time, this particular Friday night, then the amusement park would be cancelled. This was because they were all so hideously behaved during the week and it was felt they should have to comply with some of the house rules to ‘earn’ the trip out. Personally, on account of all the negative behavior mentioned there should be no trip at all. When I was a child this was called a consequence. However, in care homes for teenagers if they behave for even one hour they will get some kind of reward. On the other hand, when they kick off and are violent or abusive this behavior will usually lead to minimal sanctions, if any. The emphasis is put on praising the positive, it’s called ‘positive reinforcement’, but this tends to be done at the expense of ignoring the negative and not dealing with it. I am not against ‘positive reinforcement,’ it works, but only when used in conjunction with discipline and boundaries. If you only use positive reinforcement the child or teenager learns that he or she can do what they want. Simply put, they learn how to manipulate.
Anyway, as we were trying to get the youngsters to settle down Liam became argumentative and said he was going to play his music loud for as long as he wanted. He was told this would lead to him not being allowed go to the amusement park the next day with the others.
“I will be f**king going. I’d like to see you try and stop me,” he barked.
“Well Liam, it’s not a question of me stopping you, it’s a question of me refusing to take you there and if you haven’t noticed you don’t drive and live over thirty miles from the amusement park. Now, I need you to make the right choice (we have to talk to them like this its management diktat) so you can have an enjoyable activity tomorrow. I know you can make the right choice and turn your music off and go to sleep. If you don’t, then I will have to come in and turn it off as you are disturbing your peers and preventing staff from finishing their work and getting to bed,” I stated.
“If you come in to my room, I will f**king smash you right up!” he snarled, as he held a steel toe capped boot in his hand ready to throw it at me.
Liam is 6’2 and 15 stone. He is huge. He is very dangerous. He has assaulted staff on many occasions. He spits, punches, throws objects and smashes up the house several times a week. He has smashed up several staff members’ cars. His behaviour never improves, he just gets worse. He should be in a secure unit. He will probably end up there eventually, but before he does he will wreak plenty of mayhem.
At times, I am frightened of him. Tonight is one of those times. He has that vacant angry look in his eye. Going in to turn his music off will escalate his behaviour. I want to avoid this, if possible, but I may have no choice. He is always belligerent so that almost any request for him to do something even the most trivial of things turns in to a power struggle where he asserts his power. He always wins in one way or another because care is set up this way.
The other two residents, Edwin and Becky are worried that if Liam doesn’t calm down and turn his music down, they too wont be able to go to the amusement park. They have been reassured this is not the case but they don’t believe the other staff or me. Edwin appeals to Liam to turn off the music, peer pressure works a lot better than adult authority (which is almost non-existent). However, even the request of his friend doesn’t work on this occasion. Staff spend another twenty minutes talking to Liam encouraging him to make the ‘right choice’ and praising him for the few hours during the week when he wasn’t being a scumbag (as he was on his xbox he had no reason or time to be involved in anti-social behavior). None of this was working, it never does.
Edwin by then was losing his temper and shouting and threatening Liam, as was the teenage mother to be Becky. Anyone walking past the house would have heard a cacophony of angry violent threats, swearing and loud dance music. If someone was to listen close enough they would hear the staff praising the young people and offering them bribes to refrain from their behavior. By now, Edwin could take no more of Liam’s refusal to co-operate, he went to his room and picked up a large metal body building weight. He ran towards Liam and let the weight fly. Liam ducked out of the way just in time. Then, his eyes glazed over and veins were throbbing in his forehead with rage. There was going to be trouble for sure. Here is a lad who has smashed up the entire house and assaulted staff simply for being asked politely to go to school. He is never made or coerced to attend just asked and encouraged with a daily cash award if he attends. So, you can imagine what he is like when he has got a valid reason to be angry?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
