main

Mail on Sunday (London)

July 25, 2004

SECTION: FB; Pg. 25

HEADLINE: Crimebuster Blair? All the police did when I complained aboutyobs terrorising mystreetwas to treatme like a halfwit and offerme counselling

BYLINE: FRANK FIELD

IF YOU don’t get in that f****** building I will smash your f****** face in.’ The threat was bawled repeatedly in my face on the doorstep of my home in London.

For the past year, my street has been terrorised by a gang of sometimes up to 50 youths who get up to all sorts of riotous behaviour and shout at the top of their voices for six or seven hours a night.

Some families have moved out, knowing the chances of getting the police to do something about it are virtually nil.

The abuse at my front door is the kind of scene some of my constituents in Merseyside face every day. Now it was happening to me, 50 yards from Scotland Yard and a couple of minutes’ walk from the Houses of Parliament.

And last week even Tony Blair, unveiling new plans to tackle the epidemic of antisocial behaviour, had to concede that lawand-order policy has been on the wrong track since his arrival in Downing Street.

His frankest admission yet that New Labour has failed to get tough on crime coincided with the release of new figures showing lawlessness remains on the increase, despite a flood of Home Office initiatives over the past seven years.

All I did was ask the young people gathered in my street to pipe down. After receiving a mouthful of abuse, I went inside and called the police. Twenty minutes later, two ‘community support officers’ arrived. They are not police officers as such although I naturally expected we would go to the nearby estate to identify the lad who had threatened me. Oh no, they said, they had come to take a statement.

‘Never mind the statement,’ I insisted.

‘Let’s go and catch the young hooligan. I know who he is.’ ‘He’ll only run away,’ they said. ‘Then we’ll have to find a different way of catching him.’

Reluctantly, they agreed to follow me. It didn’t take long to spot the youth, who was well-built and white. One officer asked his name as the youth’s mates swarmed around us, like little tyrants. ‘You f****** airhead,’ said one.

‘We’ll f****** roll you one night for this.’ I turned to the officer, all 6ft 3in of him, and said: ‘Aren’t you going to stop him speaking like this?’ He just heaved his shoulders.

Anyway, they got the youth’s name, I made a statement and waited to hear when they were to bring charges for threatening behaviour. They told me they’d be in touch on the Monday. Monday came, then Tuesday nothing. On Wednesday I phoned the police and was told the case had been closed.

‘Don’t you think I should have been involved in that decision?’ I asked.

‘What do you want me to do? Lie?’ was the cynical response from a woman officer. ‘You ought to know I am making notes of this and may write a newspaper article about it,’ I told her.

I was immediately referred to a superior.

NOW I got a different patter. After 9/11 the police were more than busy, I was told. ‘I know that,’ I said, ‘but not being able to walk the streets free of fear is important, too.’ A few days later I received the first of a series of police visits. They inquired if I needed counselling. ‘No,’ I replied. ‘I do not need counselling, I need you to charge the yob who threatened me.’ I was treated like a halfwit. ‘We are worried about your welfare,’ they said.

The whole affair was Kafkaesque. ‘All I want is for the law to be enforced,’ I said.

Days later, two more officers arrived to offer counselling. I was beginning to understand why the average London policeman achieves three convictions a year.

One said: ‘It’s terrible that they threatened you, but the good thing is they didn’t punch you in the face. That would have been much easier for us.’

I took them to see another man in my street. He actually had been hit in the face by a member of the same gang. The police told him the attack was appalling but they couldn’t do much. If he had been stabbed it would have been different, they said.

We laughed and said maybe it would have been best if we had been murdered.

Weeks later, the local beat bobby arrived. The most junior policeman I had seen, he was the only one who had the courage

and common sense to do something. Charges are now to be brought against the youth.

I thought of my personal experience of law and order in today’s Britain as I listened to Mr Blair outline the Government’s latest measures, including on-the-spot fines for louts and more resources for courts tackling what is euphemistically called antisocial behaviour.

The plans contain several worthwhile initiatives, but they do not add up to a strategy to counter the rising tide of yobbishness. The rise of dysfunctional families is the key to understanding why our country is under such attack. Many parents today do not perform the basic function of teaching their children how to behave, with the result that we have a new generation of mini urban guerrillas.

David Blunkett is the best Home Secretary in living memory, but he must act to change the balance of power on our streets and sort out the problems inherited from his predecessors.

Currently, courts can impose antisocial-behaviour orders, placing curfews on tearaways, banning them from using racist or foul language, going to specific streets or places, or mixing with others. If they ignore it they can be hauled to court and sentenced. But the process takes months, even years.

POLICE should impose these orders on the spot.

If the tearaways want to challenge an order, they could do so in court.

But the burden of proof would be reversed. The hooligans would have to demonstrate why they should not be restrained. And the order would have to be obeyed until the court lifts it.

No longer would police have to endure the taunts of the teenage tyrants who torment neighbourhoods all over Britain.

The Government’s whole approach of modelling antisocialbehaviour orders on the criminal justice system is a mistake. Good parents know whether their children are misbehaving. They don’t need to go through a whole procedure of weighing evidence before issuing a caution. They act quickly, firmly and fairly.

If bad parents cannot or will not control yobbish children, the police should be allowed to do it for them. The Government is right to have more bobbies on the beat, but it will be a waste of time unless they have more power.

Once order is established, other policies can come into play, with the aim of rebuilding a selfgoverning community where law has only a small part to play. The Government’s response to this challenge will be a real test of how serious it is in trying to rid our streets of gangs such as the one that has made my and my neighbours’ lives so unpleasant.

LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2004


			CRIMEBUSTER BLAIR ?

		Copyright 2004 Associated Newspapers Ltd. Mail on Sunday (London) July 25, 2004 SECTION: FB; Pg. 25 HEADLINE: Crimebuster Blair? All the police did when I complained aboutyobs terrorising mystreetwas to treatme like a halfwit and offerme counselling BYLINE: FRANK FIELD IF YOU don’t get in that f**** building I will smash your f** face in.’ The threat was bawled repeatedly in my face on the doorstep of my home in London. For the past year, my street has been terrorised by a gang of sometimes up to 50 youths who get up to all sorts of riotous behaviour and shout at the top of their voices for six or seven hours a night. Some families have moved out, knowing the chances of getting the police to do something about it are virtually nil. The abuse at my front door is the kind of scene some of my constituents in Merseyside face every day. Now it was happening to me, 50 yards from Scotland Yard and a couple of minutes’ walk from the Houses of Parliament. And last week even Tony Blair, unveiling new plans to tackle the epidemic of antisocial behaviour, had to concede that lawand-order policy has been on the wrong track since his arrival in Downing Street. His frankest admission yet that New Labour has failed to get tough on crime coincided with the release of new figures showing lawlessness remains on the increase, despite a flood of Home Office initiatives over the past seven years. All I did was ask the young people gathered in my street to pipe down. After receiving a mouthful of abuse, I went inside and called the police. Twenty minutes later, two ‘community support officers’ arrived. They are not police officers as such although I naturally expected we would go to the nearby estate to identify the lad who had threatened me. Oh no, they said, they had come to take a statement. ‘Never mind the statement,’ I insisted. ‘Let’s go and catch the young hooligan. I know who he is.’ ‘He’ll only run away,’ they said. ‘Then we’ll have to find a different way of catching him.’ Reluctantly, they agreed to follow me. It didn’t take long to spot the youth, who was well-built and white. One officer asked his name as the youth’s mates swarmed around us, like little tyrants. ‘You f** airhead,’ said one. ‘We’ll f** roll you one night for this.’ I turned to the officer, all 6ft 3in of him, and said: ‘Aren’t you going to stop him speaking like this?’ He just heaved his shoulders. Anyway, they got the youth’s name, I made a statement and waited to hear when they were to bring charges for threatening behaviour. They told me they’d be in touch on the Monday. Monday came, then Tuesday nothing. On Wednesday I phoned the police and was told the case had been closed. ‘Don’t you think I should have been involved in that decision?’ I asked. ‘What do you want me to do? Lie?’ was the cynical response from a woman officer. ‘You ought to know I am making notes of this and may write a newspaper article about it,’ I told her. I was immediately referred to a superior. NOW I got a different patter. After 9/11 the police were more than busy, I was told. ‘I know that,’ I said, ‘but not being able to walk the streets free of fear is important, too.’ A few days later I received the first of a series of police visits. They inquired if I needed counselling. ‘No,’ I replied. ‘I do not need counselling, I need you to charge the yob who threatened me.’ I was treated like a halfwit. ‘We are worried about your welfare,’ they said. The whole affair was Kafkaesque. ‘All I want is for the law to be enforced,’ I said. Days later, two more officers arrived to offer counselling. I was beginning to understand why the average London policeman achieves three convictions a year. One said: ‘It’s terrible that they threatened you, but the good thing is they didn’t punch you in the face. That would have been much easier for us.’ I took them to see another man in my street. He actually had been hit in the face by a member of the same gang. The police told him the attack was appalling but they couldn’t do much. If he had been stabbed it would have been different, they said. We laughed and said maybe it would have been best if we had been murdered. Weeks later, the local beat bobby arrived. The most junior policeman I had seen, he was the only one who had the courage and common sense to do something. Charges are now to be brought against the youth. I thought of my personal experience of law and order in today’s Britain as I listened to Mr Blair outline the Government’s latest measures, including on-the-spot fines for louts and more resources for courts tackling what is euphemistically called antisocial behaviour. The plans contain several worthwhile initiatives, but they do not add up to a strategy to counter the rising tide of yobbishness. The rise of dysfunctional families is the key to understanding why our country is under such attack. Many parents today do not perform the basic function of teaching their children how to behave, with the result that we have a new generation of mini urban guerrillas. David Blunkett is the best Home Secretary in living memory, but he must act to change the balance of power on our streets and sort out the problems inherited from his predecessors. Currently, courts can impose antisocial-behaviour orders, placing curfews on tearaways, banning them from using racist or foul language, going to specific streets or places, or mixing with others. If they ignore it they can be hauled to court and sentenced. But the process takes months, even years. POLICE should impose these orders on the spot. If the tearaways want to challenge an order, they could do so in court. But the burden of proof would be reversed. The hooligans would have to demonstrate why they should not be restrained. And the order would have to be obeyed until the court lifts it. No longer would police have to endure the taunts of the teenage tyrants who torment neighbourhoods all over Britain. The Government’s whole approach of modelling antisocialbehaviour orders on the criminal justice system is a mistake. Good parents know whether their children are misbehaving. They don’t need to go through a whole procedure of weighing evidence before issuing a caution. They act quickly, firmly and fairly. If bad parents cannot or will not control yobbish children, the police should be allowed to do it for them. The Government is right to have more bobbies on the beat, but it will be a waste of time unless they have more power. Once order is established, other policies can come into play, with the aim of rebuilding a selfgoverning community where law has only a small part to play. The Government’s response to this challenge will be a real test of how serious it is in trying to rid our streets of gangs such as the one that has made my and my neighbours’ lives so unpleasant. LOAD-DATE:** July 27, 2004

		< Back to 2004