A Call to Action or Vacuous Virtue Signalling?
Photo from Newham website; “taking a stand against knife violence”.
Now Greens Call for an End to Knife Violence
We’ll assume that Newham Greens were intent on promoting a genuine change of policy towards knife crime, with the aim of reducing the incidence of knife violence in the borough.
We’ll assume it, but as of yet, we are not convinced. We would be very happy to be proven wrong, but let’s see if this is a real campaign or just more virtue signalling. Because of the nature of the issue, this is a much longer post than we would normally put up. In the event that it creates a genuine debate aimed at reducing knife crime in the borough, we would be very happy to host it on these pages and would welcome contributions from political parties and councillors. Youth workers. Even police officers.
At the end of September, Newham Greens released a press statement in which Cllr Keeling is prominent. (The full statement appears at the bottom of this article for reference.)
Noting the levels of violent crime, “Cllr. Danny Keeling (Green) says “We need action now, not tomorrow, now! We cannot keep going on like this, one stabbing is one too many. The Met need to get a handle on this situation quickly and I will be reaching
out to the new police chief for Newham to ensure this is not brushed over.”
In reference to his attempts to communicate with the mayor he states, “I have lived in multiple areas of this borough where knife, acid attacks and killings have happened - action should have been taken a long time ago to ensure this could not happen.”
“We cannot keep going on like this.”
We see also that Cllr Keeling is keen to ensure that “the Met get(s) a handle” on the problem. We are not sure what he means for the Met to do. Just that they should stop it.
We wondered, did this mean that the Green councillors were now converts to the idea of stop and search, so far the only demonstrable tactic for reducing knives on the street. Clearly the mayor is not. In Newham’s unofficial ‘Voice’ we see the stereotypical response of the current administration towards policing and safety.
We note however, that Cllr Keeling did see this as a problem for the police, (although elsewhere we see that the Greens suggest that tackling the “underlying causes” would be more effective).
We reached out to them for clarification.
They responded quickly, but alas their answer suggests wishful thinking rather than a policy to reduce knife crime.
“The Green Party is not in favour of the disproportionate targeting of ethnic minorities through stop and search.
In Newham, we want to tackle the underlying causes of crime more effectively than CCTV, stop and search or draconian sentencing could ever do.
Our focus is on the prevention of crime through community-based engagement and policing, alongside investment in education, youth services, and employment.
We particularly feel that more support is required for people at risk of gang violence and further campaigns for knife amnesty bins should be looked into urgently.”
The first sentence is telling, given that we didn’t ask about race, but in their minds, stop and search is linked to “ethnic minorities”.
They did not elaborate as to what they meant by disproportionate. It sounds good. It sounds equitable, but what does it mean?
Disproportionate to the population as a whole, to the population locally, to the age profile of the population locally; to the profile of those who commit most knife crime in London? Knife crime on the streets is a predominantly male activity and it is largely in the under 30s.
The most egregious inequity the police commit must surely be the stopping of almost 100% able bodied males! This is compounded by the fact that a similar proportion are under 25. Healthy young men are clearly the subject of police harassment! Just because youths and young men form 100% of those engaged in knife crime, why are they being targeted by a clearly ageist and sexist police force?
We wonder, to resolve this disparity, should an equal number of girls be stopped? Should the police be stopping 70-year-old women and wheelchair bound men?
This is to labour a point, but one of the tricks of the contemporary social justice warrior, is to decry some contemporary ill, but also to decry an attempt to put an end to it. At its worst it creates the interminable whining politicians who want to look like they’re doing the right thing without ever having to find an actual solution.
Solutions require clear and consistent policies.
Sometimes a policy works and you get the change you want. Sometimes a policy fails to produce the intended result or even produces consequences that were never envisioned. Then the policy needs to be revisited and tweaked or changed. That requires politicians who are willing to risk political capital; to risk getting it wrong in the first instance but who are willing to put in the effort to make the changes they claim to want.
Without specifying the “underlying causes” that they, (Newham Greens) believe are responsible they go on to state, “In Newham, we want to tackle the underlying causes of crime more effectively than CCTV, stop and search or draconian sentencing could ever do”.
This is something of a non-sequitur. Of the three examples they give of initiatives they don’t like, none are aimed at addressing underlying causes. They are aimed at changing behaviour. We don’t know whether the Green position is to remove CCTV and to put an end to stop and search; perhaps the ambiguity is deliberate.
Let’s see where we have some agreement.
“Draconian sentencing”, assuming that we concur on what draconian means in this context. Stiff sentences are generally regarded amongst criminologists as less likely to act as a deterrent. It may please the victim of a knife assault and the Daily Mail, but there is little to suggest that those who use knives contemplate the legal consequences in the heat of the moment.
Swift and certain apprehension and conviction however, has historically, been seen as a deterrent. This makes some sense. If every male under 25 was aware that he was likely to be stopped and searched and if possession of a ‘bladed instrument’ carried a mandatory 6 months inside, well that might well deter many young people from carrying. If the sociological research is correct, and those who carry a knife do so generally for personal defence, they would no longer need to as there would be a strong disincentive for anyone to carry. There may well be factors which mitigate against this as a policy, but it is an example lining a policy up to deliver the objectives you desire.
The last two comments in the reply indicate a desire to use community-based approaches outside of the criminal justice system. Employment probably diverts some young people away from activity that would involve them in knife crime.
However, given the mayor’s significant expansion of youth services and budgets we wondered what the Greens would add to this. They are clearly of the opinion that the current additional youth work undertaken by the borough has not had an effect in reducing knife crime, but we are unable to ascertain what changes or additions they would seek to make.
It may well be that they have done some secret research which will be released with a fanfare at the next council meeting. But we doubt it.
Then again, after four years it would be interesting to see what changes the borough can demonstrate from this noble, if expensive endeavour. Somehow, we don’t see that happening either.
The single clear policy initiative, (not original, but if it works that doesn’t matter), is knife amnesties. The data suggests that these might have a short-term effect, but in the longer term they have no lasting impact, (see references below). Perhaps alongside other initiatives they might work; perhaps if they happened every year. We’d be very interested in any experience of longer-term amnesties that readers are aware of.
There is something of an echo of the BLM demands of 2020; to defund the police and focus the spend on community-based initiatives to tackle crime. The research is now coming in about the impact of the radical changes in policing funding and policy in many metropolitan districts of the USA. The results are damning. The reduction in police funding, together with the impact on police morale led to up to 10,000 additional deaths. All of these were young men. And all of them were black. None of them died at the hands of the police. All of them were killed by other members of their “community”. See Kriegman and Fryer. So, we have a degree of scepticism about interventions outside the criminal justice system. If any of our readers can point us to examples where this has been shown to decrease violence, this will certainly cause us to re-evaluate our position. But this is as the Laconians said, “if”.
We await contributions on this topic. Until then, might we suggest a novel, if not wholly original approach. Might we see the mayor and our councillors working with the police to implement a unified policy to reduce knife and violent crime on the streets? That is something that might actually be popular with your voters.
There are a number of other references that readers might like to become familiar with:
Why knife crime is increasing; a useful overview from some of those working in the field.
Knife Crime - The Definitive Guide (workingthedoors.co.uk)
Knife crime Amnesties.
BBC NEWS | UK | Are knife amnesties worthwhile?
Amnesties fail to reduce knife crime, report says | Crime | The Guardian
Young people, knives and guns (summary) | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
Young people, knives and guns | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
Any contributions welcome via the contact link.
