It really is a sad occasion to be able to observe a social disease, virulent and very serious, to unfold and assume epidemic proportions, while, in a parallel fashion, its symptoms become exploited by the mass media and the politicians, without any sustainable effort aimed at its cure or prevention.
The problem of homicide incidence in big cities of Britain is a daily phenomenon. Particularly, knife crime. The problem is so acute that the Government have decided to propose a resolution to upgrade the phenomenon, which has reached epidemic proportions, to assuming primary importance as a No 1 concern of the London Metropolitan Police supplanting even terrorism in importance, despite the fact that London has been a terrorist target in the 2005 underground and bus bombings with more than 50 dead.
Knife crime occurs largely in big cities, involving mainly young people (15-25), principally Blacks (47%) but Whites as well (38%) and 90% males (source: London Metropolitan Police Statistics, 2005). In 2006/7 there were 258 fatal knife crime incidents in England and Wales alone (The Sun, Friday, October 3, 2008, p. 5). Most knife crimes are the effect of brawls of particular (opposed) gangs, mainly during the end of the week and at pub and club nights as well as during the other weekdays. Specifically for London, they tend to occur in highly-deprived, socially-excluded areas. According to the Table of Boroughs that Metropolitan Police have issued, the most dangerous areas are Hackney, Lambeth, Southwalk, Haringey, Lewisham, Brent, Islington, Ealing (MPS Recorded Crime, 12 Months, Oct. 2005). This does not mean of course that the rest of the areas are “secure” or that the probability of someone becoming a victim of a knife- or gun-related crime, particularly, knives, pocket knives, etc is less. (See Elena K. I was Attacked By A Youth Gang, in the “Experiences” column, Βημαgazino, 5 Oct. 2008, p. 12 where she narrates her terrifying experience of being mugged by a gang of five black youths in broad daylight in one of the “family” boroughs of London in 2005).
This is especially felt on buses, which despite their being equipped with closed circuit television cameras, wireless directly linked to the police and in which the bus driver is literally enclosed in an isolated cubicle and out of reach (as is evident by the fact that the Greek George Psaradakis to whom the Greek Ambassador to London, Vassilios-Achilleas Pispinis awarded the Silver Cross of the Order of the Phoenix, on behalf of the president of the Hellenic State for his humanitarian behavior after the July 2005 blast on the No 30 bus on which he was the driver, and who was the only one to walk out of the scene completely unscathed), knife-related muggings and threats have a very good probability of occurrence, especially when the upper bus deck is empty and there is a young gang that “takes it over”. Along this probability, one should also take into consideration the incidence of vandalism occurring on a daily basis, especially during night shifts. Characteristic of this fact is that certain bus routes (marked green) on the official London Transport site (http://www.londonbusroutes.net/routes.htm) are re-routed bypassing a number of stops, because the buses are defaced and vandalized to such a degree that are rendered inoperable for a considerable time period. The undersigned has had occasion when the bus was stopped literally in the middle of the road for routine check by the police.
After July 2007, even carrying an open alcoholic beverage bottle, let alone consuming its contents, is illegal in a public bus, train and tram and carries an immediate prison sentence. Despite, however, the strict punishment associated with such offences, youths either get on the bus drunk, or flaunt the regulation, especially when they are all together in a mixed gang. The undersigned has also borne witness to many such occurrences happening (both on the suburban train lines as well as on the London city buses to Camden Town and Paddington). Being drunk, these youths really “live it up”, and a sample of such behavior is being “imported” to Greece during the summer months on particular islands (Leukas, Rhodos, Santorini, Mykonos, etc). One can get a feeling of how much embedded in the city culture is the idea of carrying a knife from the latest promotional idea by the T.K.Maxx chain stores in London, which sold £ 200 (appr. 300 Euro) hooded jackets with a built-in 2.5-inch swiss blade knife. The jacket sold at the price of £ 59 (appr. 70 Euro) but after the outcry and fearing a law suit, they were removed from the supply chain (see p.j.pyatt@the-sun.co.uk, Fool Metal Jacket: Whose bright idea was this, T.K.Maxx?, The Sun, Oct. 3, p.5). And this despite the fact that Rina Panchall, one young T.K.Maxx employee, was knifed to her death in the store a year ago.
How does one deal with such inner-city pathology? On September 20, 2008, in the centre of London more than 2,000 family members and friends of knife- and gun-related, but especially knife victims demonstrated and literally booed Prime minister Gordon Brown. London Mayor Boris Johnson as well as Police Commander Mark Simmons who tried to address the people (the first two via video messages, the third by actually speaking to them, see http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Knife-Crime-Thousands-March-Against-Violence-In-London’s-Hyde Park). Why this reaction? Apparently because the people are not only dissatisfied by the “measures” purportedly taken by the state and society, but also disillusioned by promises to “eradicate the phenomenon”.
The huge exploitation of the theme by dailies and television alike notwithstanding, Home Office restricted themselves to the following “measure” which, in their opinion, would curb the incidence of knife crime: Every one involved in such a crime who has caused another person to be treated at the hospital, if of course the said person had not been gutted right there and then, is henceforth required by law to pay his victim(s) visits to the hospital. This measure is purportedly called upon to incite remorse in the (young) transgressor – criminal, so as not to attempt such a thing again, in combination, of course, with some slightly raised sentences. One would have to consider in parallel, however, that incarcerating those youths, as the same papers admit, neither guarantees nor helps their rehabilitation or reformation of such persons: Due to either the existence of in-prison networks or the fact that no one is expected to serve the complete, original sentence he was condemned to, because of space problems as well as a number of philosophies governing the inception and the application of criminal law, a prison sentence as punishment is no more an especially effective deterrent and crystallizes rather than dissolves any criminal tendency.
It is however such acts of hypocrisy that bespeak of complete ignorance of the science of criminology or of outdated preventive models, or even worse, of a superficial approach to such a social disease, which is constantly on the rise because the real structural sociopolitical conditions which cause it do not change and if anything, worsen. The problem, in other words, is located precisely on the recycling and perpetuation of the social ills, which start with the substandardization of life conditions, the failure to deal with unemployment effectively, the failure of “integration” scheme mechanisms with respect to the immigrants. This causes a shifting of the social cost and burden onto the endogenous working class population, already deprived and depraved, who suffer from the almost complete alienation of the value for education in Britain and the gap in the quality of services between the mass and the private schools. Also, and in parallel, the existence of a theoretically well-organized social security and benefit (welfare) system which, however, “creates” perpetually dependent citizens who-because they effortlessly make more than they would if gainfully employed-remain on welfare for large periods or for ever, burdening the rest of the working population with an exorbitant 40% tax on the every pro rata salary. This harms both groups, the first because it perpetuates its dependence on the state, the second because it supports a group who, despite the state rhetoric is very slow, if at all, to become socially productive again. This of course should not be taken to mean that the welfare-dependent persons are happy because there can be no one who enjoys being chronically dependent and unable to have decency, self-esteem and financial independence. So, the “dole-queuers” both seek such dependency and hate the system that reduces them to that sorry state. Something equivalent to the above, “a poverty subsidy”, is about to be institutionalized in our country, and it will cause precisely the same psychological reaction, since it does not really address the crisis by introducing a way of re-entering economically productive and psychologically-rewarding work.
The immigrants, on the other hand, basically follow the same rule of thumb. Especially those who, because of class, culture or religion, create large families all the members of which are eligible for-and actually get-state or provincial benefits, and who, along with the rest of the pathologies of the social nexus, create a curious situation of a seemingly “modern” and “organized” society, which however, is characterized and run by an incompetent or reluctant welfare state in terms of offering even a semblance of a feeling of normalness, security and citizen trust within the democratic process.
The following paradox is therefore observed: On the one hand, and within the bounds of the unequivocally declared absolute commitment to the defense of human rights, respect for difference and of one’s special rights for free expression (political, social, cultural, religious, personal, sexual), there is theoretical freedom and democracy in Britain, which in some of its expressions, is vehemently defended. On the other, this very liberal philosophy and mentality suffers in its implementation because it has failed to negotiate successfully, and teach its citizens how this is done, the problem of when one’s theoretically rightful but in principle limitless, freedom encroaches on the freedoms of others, creating in such ways conditions of injustice and social isolation.
In the case of Britain, it is indeed difficult to explain how its antiterrorist mechanism of control, the “pride” of Britain, which it also “exports” to Greece (as in the case of 17th November case) remains painfully insufficient in handling such a milder (in respect of nature, scope, organization, target, means and resources) form of crime. One wanders as to what kind of interest could possibly be served in allowing the perpetuation and worsening of the juvenile delinquency in big cities of Britain. This situation pits the people not against the ones really responsible for the financial impoverishment and the almost inhuman – for the average not directly or indirectly subsidized family – economic conditions in London (a one way, single-person bus route cost even between two stops is £ 2 and will increase in January 2009), but against itself: A frustrated proportion of the people hates, either racially or in terms of class, the others, totally misplacing their hatred, because it is not the other part that is to blame; however, the other part of the population reciprocates by marginalizing and racializing the first, who they fear and feel hatred toward, in their turn. In this manner racism against anybody black , especially against 13-17 year-old black youth, becomes widespread. Everybody looks suspiciously over his /her shoulder when they are close and may commit blatant injustices against them. Black youths reciprocate with unmitigated provocation and disregard for any law or regulation, not hesitating to cause inconvenience to innocent people. The undersigned was witness to the following episode: 2 black students, in their uniforms, got on the bus and because they are entitled to free rides if they carry a properly validated student card, they showed this card to the driver. Their card was obviously out of date and so one of them tried his Oyster card which, however, as practically empty. The driver asked to see the card and threw it out of the window, asking the two youths to step down. They refused and so the driver stopped the bus, and switched off the engine. Passengers after a while started getting off the bus (it was full) until it was empty in about 10 minutes. When the driver tried to shut the doors, the youths blocked them, so he called to the police on his radio. Just before they arrived though, the youths stepped down after swearing hard at the driver and banging hard against his cubicle. After they left, the bus started off again, with only me inside, for the next stop. This clear and pure racism is widespread. In this particular episode, it can be proven that that was racist behavior because the same driver whose bus route start point was at the university, had already accepted a busload of young people, all of whom he imagined were university students, without checking their cards because the bus touch sensor was down. Although he could have done the same thing with the 2 black students, he didn’t. If one combines to the above the ecological picture of London with its beautiful, freely-accessible royal parks, and palaces and the numerous expensive cars roaming iis city streets, along with its inaccessible suburbs (something resembling Ekali in Athens but even more expensive), s/he will understand why this social contrast is and will remain stark and provocative.
Greece is yet far from these severe levels of social pathology because in spite of the crime incidence by illegal aliens and the indisputable presence of both local and imported mafia and its turf wars, there is a misleading picture projected by the Greek mass media for a number of reasons. Greece, despite its social and class-based problems does not (as yet) suffer from such a depraved working class because its people, and certainly not its governments, with their democratic tradition, culture, intelligence and struggles has solidified a number of rights. That is the reason why it is necessary for this effort of securing and guarding for those rights to continue, lawfully and democratically, something achieved only through the continuous watch and vigilance against any attempt to encroach upon them.
The motto “let’s go west” should in no way commit Greeks to mimicking the pathology produced by western culture by adopting alien models wholesale, models which never the result and so remain unrelated to the Greek culture, either of the cities or of the country side. It goes without saying that globalization should be distilled, allowing ourselves to receive only those influences which work to our interest and spell true progress for our land, and certainly not wholesale because that is the wish of whatever government gets to power and of their controlled media.
Μ.Tzanakis,
IoE, London.
30/09/08