Lessons in Caring and Sharing from 10 Downing Street

Kerry Howley | January 12, 2006

Because nothing says respect like forced relocation:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, introducing a key plank of his third and final term in office, has started a $140 million action plan dubbed "Respect" to attack anti-social problems ranging from street hooligans to "neighbors from hell" who could be thrown out of their homes...

The program he announced yesterday envisions evicting out-of-control families from their homes, even if privately owned, for up to three months, and rehousing them in a network of residential centers, or "sin bins," to teach them how to behave.

Whole thing here.

Comments

|1.12.06 @ 1:22PM|#

Yeah, that sounds good. Sin bins, I like it. I thought people called them ghettos these days but I guess that's out. Anyway, they teach you how to behave, alright.

|1.12.06 @ 1:30PM|#

Who decides what makes a neighbor "from hell" or "out of control" ?
So if their behavior isn't criminal, but not mainstream engouh they can get sent to boot camp like places where they are taught to "behave"?

This is some crazy shit.

|1.12.06 @ 1:32PM|#

Once you have accepted the government's tracking every single car in the country via a mandated GPS device, there doesn't seem to be much that could count as beyond the pale in terms of government intrusiveness.

|1.12.06 @ 1:34PM|#

I think they should give credit where it's due (to Ali G) and call it "Respek" ...

Captain Holly|1.12.06 @ 1:35PM|#

It's coincidence that the best Nannies are British....

|1.12.06 @ 1:37PM|#

Paging Charles Dickens...

Captain Holly|1.12.06 @ 1:41PM|#

Ack! It's no coincidence...

Captain Holly|1.12.06 @ 1:43PM|#

Ack! It's no coincidence...

|1.12.06 @ 1:45PM|#

"...and called for a system of speedy "summary justice" to bypass traditional courts.
The judge and jury process, he claimed, is "too cumbersome, too remote from reality to be effective" in today's world."

Darn, y'know, I've heard something very similar just recently. Now where was it...?

|1.12.06 @ 1:46PM|#

This is a joke right?

|1.12.06 @ 1:48PM|#

At this point, it's par for the course for Airstrip One.

Incidentally, GB has also instituted the ability to pass what are called Anti-Social Behavior Orders

Basically, in Great Britain they can now pass a law that prohibits a specified person from doing something, even if that something is completely legal.

Larry A|1.12.06 @ 1:49PM|#

For the last several decades the British government has been telling its subjects that they aren't responsible enough to run their own lives; that the government should make all those big decisions, like which doctor to go to, for them.

And now they're getting a generation of Britons who aren't responsible enough to run their own lives. Who'da thought?

"summary justice"

Isn't that why the Britons did that Magna Charta thing?

|1.12.06 @ 1:51PM|#

To recycle and mutilate:

"England, please stop expressing your sexuality. It's frightening us."

*whip-CRACK*

Sarah Brady|1.12.06 @ 2:01PM|#

The theory that if you take away the people's right to possess firearms the government will then be able to take away other rights, like trial by jury, is one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments that no reasonable person would believe.

|1.12.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Is it just me, or does the phrase "Sin Bin" remind anyone else of the classic Krusty line:

"Sex Cauldron? I thought they closed that place down!"

Jeff P.|1.12.06 @ 2:12PM|#

This means in the future some britons will be able to claim that they are from "The Asshole Section of London."
Or "Right Bastard" or "Sotty Knob" or whatever they call undesirables these days.

|1.12.06 @ 2:19PM|#

What do the "Sin Bins" mean for those subjects who hold jobs, and their children in school? Will the gov't force their employers to reinstate them in the future when they have been retrained? Or will the "Sin Bins" be located in the same area as the offender's residence so they can still work their regular job.

|1.12.06 @ 2:25PM|#

Then Tony Blair's plane will crash in a fenced off "sin bin", and we can continue an American cinematic masterpiece in...

"Escape from London"

Warren|1.12.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

Ain't I the Dickens?

|1.12.06 @ 2:35PM|#

I just want to know how joe will spin this to be a good thing while still leaving himself a rhetorical loophole for insinuating we 'murcans live in a quasi-police state.

Jim Murphy|1.12.06 @ 2:50PM|#

I'm impressed that Blair made an obvious reference to "da Ali G show" with his name for the program. He should have gone all the way and spelled it "Respek"

|1.12.06 @ 2:51PM|#

Holy manbiornblkanbnda!

Astounding.

When I went off to marry my British ex and live with him in London, my grandfather told me, "You can leave America if you want to, but all you'll discover is that it's still the best we've got going in this world."

Damn, the old man was right.

Jim Murphy|1.12.06 @ 2:52PM|#

Sorry to copy someone elses comment...that's what I get for not reading them all....still, its a good idea. The word "respek" isn't even in the dictionary any more...

|1.12.06 @ 3:32PM|#

Anyone wanna bet that areas eyed for redevelopment will suddenly see a rash of families being declared "out of control".

|1.12.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Its like we are in a race with europe to see who can become a totalitarian state first

|1.12.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Looks like Old London is taking cues from New London.

|1.12.06 @ 3:41PM|#

the best Nannies are British

Maybe for getting the spoonful of sugar down they are, but I'll take an Icelandic au pair over Mary Poppins any old day.

|1.12.06 @ 3:47PM|#

Its like we are in a race with europe to see who can become a totalitarian state first

When I am disturbed by developments here, I remember that practically all of the things that concern us in the Patriot Act et al have been established law in Europe for years. We have some catching up to do if that's the direction we want to go.

See also linguist's post 02:51 PM.

It's interesting how far Britain has gone in the direction of authoritarianism under Toady Bliar and New Labour though. It was once considered the freest country in Europe.

|1.12.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Bleah. Talk about paternalistic. At least one can serve a prison sentence with some kind of honor. Oh, and graffiti and street hooliganism are "21st century crimes"? I guess they are in the sense that they're happening in the 21st century, but I thought they dated back to the beginning of civilization. Who knew we hadn't learned how to deal with them after 10,000 years? "On the spot fines of up to $175 for street hooligans and vandals caught attacking passers-by", my tuches. Like hooligans carry that much cash? Like that isn't an incentive to police corruption? Like they shouldn't just be hauled off to jail immediately?

I can't believe Blair actually said something like this - 'The judge and jury process, he claimed, is "too cumbersome, too remote from reality to be effective" in today's world'. Sounds like he's channelling a bad SF novel.

|1.12.06 @ 4:21PM|#

"Fascism is forever descending on America - but it always seems to land in Europe." - Tom Wolfe

Not that we don't have to watch for emergency landings short of the destination...

Ed|1.12.06 @ 4:29PM|#

The British Are Loopy.

|1.12.06 @ 5:30PM|#

Tony Blair's contempt for civil liberties is pretty well-established:

"We have to balance protection for the public from terrorism with safeguarding of civil liberties. But there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050228-053756-8518r.htm

|1.12.06 @ 5:36PM|#

And another gem from Tony:

"First, in a major reform of criminal justice, we will re-balance the system emphatically in favour of the victims of crime. Offenders get away too easily. Old rules must be swept away; court procedures simplified; sentences built around the offender as well as the offence, with those on drugs getting treatment or custody. Previous convictions should be properly taken into account, so should hearsay evidence; there should be a change to the double jeopardy law. If there is overwhelming new evidence that implicates the accused again, they should go back to court."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,12079,837223,00.html

|1.12.06 @ 6:09PM|#

And Tony keeps the hits coming:

"In practice, to prove that person X with 10,000 [pounds] on them in cash in the middle of the city at 2am got this money through specific acts of drug dealing is too hard. You may know it. But how do you prove it? So it doesn't happen.

* * *

The theory is basically treating Britain as if it were in the 19th or early 20th centuries. The practice however takes place in a post-war, modern, culturally and socially diverse, globalised society and economy at the beginning of the 21st century. The old civic and family bonds have been loosened. The scale, organisation, nature of modern crime makes the traditional processes simply too cumbersome, too remote from reality to be effective.

The result is that whatever the theory behind the two principles - protection of the accused, protection of the public - in practice the second has not been realised.

Since the self reinforcing bonds of traditional community life do not exist in the same way, we need a radical new approach if we are to restore the liberty of the law-abiding citizen. My view is very clear: their freedom to be safe from fear has to come first. Yes, in theory, that is what is supposed to happen through the traditional court processes. In practice it doesn't. We are fighting 21st crime with 19th century methods.

The real choice, the choice on the street, is not between a criminal law process that protects the accused and one that doesn't; it is between a criminal law process that puts protection of the accused in all circumstances above and before that of protecting the public.

A few years ago, we began to change this. The Proceeds of Crime Act gave the police the power to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers. ASB law imposed FPN fines, instant on-the-spot (usually down at the police station, in fact). ASBOs came into being where general behaviour not specific individual offences was criminalised.

This has, bluntly reversed the burden of proof. The person who spits at the old lady is given an 80 [pound] fine. If they want to challenge it, they have to appeal. The suspected drug dealer loses the cash. He has to come to court and show how he got it lawfully.

Now, as I shall say later, we want to take these powers further. Today I focus on ASB. Shortly we will do the same on serious and organised crime."


http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8898.asp

|1.12.06 @ 7:25PM|#

I've got big problems with the attitude Tony Blair espouses, see the above posts by SR, but I also remember when my elderly in-law's town-house neighbour's juvenile kids behaved as they damn well pleased, the stereo blasting full volume all times of day and night, the trash thrown out front and back, the kid's "friends" coming and going at all times of day and night etc., etc.
Everybody get the picture?
Of course by the time the cops showed up everything was legal and the home owners' reps were too busy worrying about doors painted the wrong color.
What I wanted to do is take some of my good, big friends and clean house next door. Need I elaborate why that was not an option.
Any on of the people commenting here like ChicagoTom or zach have any good, practical, working solutions to a very real problem like that?

Oh, needless to say, when the "adults" in the place were approached, it was, like, nothing ever happened, like, what are you talking about? Our kids behave well right, we don't have a problem with them, you know? "Get the F*** out of here or we will call the police!!"

|1.12.06 @ 7:34PM|#

"'Respect?' One police officer gibed. 'They [hooligans and vandals] can't even spell the word.'"

Perhaps Aretha Franklin could help them

|1.12.06 @ 7:41PM|#

Whoops, sorry Ben, didn't realize I wasn't the first to choose this incredibly original name....

|1.13.06 @ 12:55AM|#

I appreciated the post by "Sarah Brady".

Just thought I'd share that.

the bill targets so-called "neighbors from hell" whose anti-social activities run the gamut from loud music at all hours to fighting and brawling, including yelling, screaming children and bullying others

Call me crazy, but I am pretty sure that even the British already have laws on the books against fighting and brawling. If they don't have laws about bullying they can create them, with penalties less draconian than kicking a family out of its home for the bullying offense of an individual. Loud music at all hours could be handled by a fine.

As far as yelling, screaming children go, I'm "impressed" that Blair thinks he can legislate against the process of growing up.

Apparently the Left in the UK have as much of an inferiority complex as the Left in the US does, and feel the need to flex its muscles to shoe they are touch too.

I think Blair is the one who needs to grow up.

|1.13.06 @ 12:58AM|#

shoe they are touch

Oh, for the ability to edit a post once it has been posted. Oh well.

show they are tough

|1.13.06 @ 4:27AM|#

I think Blair's wings will be clipped by parliament on this one, not to mention human rights organisations with good lawyers. Britain has notably tough laws for crimes against property and I doubt very much home owners could be removed from their own houses without conflict with common law -- all that Britain has in the way of constitutional protection. It is also likely that said human rights lawyers are already rubbing their hands with glee at the number of cases they will be able to drag before the European Court on Human Rights. I

It's a non-starter.

Ed|1.13.06 @ 8:00AM|#

Wow, first the compelling need to regulate hoodies, now relocation camps for boors. Cool Britannia!

|1.13.06 @ 10:54AM|#

The rationale for this-- the need to streamline the court system, drop anachronistic protections (habeas corpus, the Magna Carta, the Constitution), "move fast"-- rests on the same flawed assumptions implicit in the crap Bush wants to do using the same rationale. Just as Blair apparently wants to pretend that irritating neighbors and street thugs are unique 21st century problems, the Bushites want us to believe that the US as never been under such an existential threat before (even though the country was founded in the face of numerous such threats). It is yet another example of how important it is to know at least a little history. Or to remember as far back as 5-10 years ago, barring that.

|1.13.06 @ 5:06PM|#

my mom is english and 'round about 1996 i checked into the possibility of taking british citizenship. i was angered when i found out that, at the time of my birth citizenship descent was through the paternal line only, so having an english mother didn't count for me. over the past few years as i've come to hear about increasingly distressing government regulation of private citizens in the uk, i've become grateful that i don't qualify.

|1.13.06 @ 5:10PM|#

the last time i was there, i saw a sign in a woolworth's stating that it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to purchase a cooking knife.

|1.13.06 @ 6:08PM|#

The rationale for this-- the need to streamline the court system, drop anachronistic protections (habeas corpus, the Magna Carta, the Constitution), "move fast"-- rests on the same flawed assumptions implicit in the crap Bush wants to do using the same rationale.

You know, on another thread I tried to defend the NSA spying on citizens without court approval. I think this just made me change my mind. You're right, Jeff.

|1.14.06 @ 12:47AM|#

Where is the patient from room number V when you really need them.