Heartland

sultan2075 wrote:I think you've hit the nail on the head. Single-parent families are--not always, but frequently--a problem for the children, and therefore for societies. In the US, there is a statistical correspondence between single-parent families and crime rates in a community. The more of one, the more of the other--see D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988. In a 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute (a left-wing American think tank) published a study suggesting that family structure is a much better indicator of future criminal behavior than economic class or racial demography (William Galston, Putting Children First).

Correlation doesn't imply causation Could it be that some other factor (poverty springs to mind...) causes an increase in both the number of single-parent families and criminality?

First time I stayed over night with my friend who lives outside Munich, I got up for a wee in the middle of the night, to find that the door in the hallway stood wide open, pitch black night outside. I felt like a bolt had hit me, and stood shaking, holding my breath, contemplating Ted Bundy, and when I had gathered all my courage, leaped forward and slammed the door shut. Needless to say my heart was racing and I could hardly get back to sleep. Next morning I broke it to her - "the door stood open! !" and she was just "huh? oh, yeah, the cat more coffee?"

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:I think you've hit the nail on the head. Single-parent families are--not always, but frequently--a problem for the children, and therefore for societies. In the US, there is a statistical correspondence between single-parent families and crime rates in a community. The more of one, the more of the other--see D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988. In a 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute (a left-wing American think tank) published a study suggesting that family structure is a much better indicator of future criminal behavior than economic class or racial demography (William Galston, Putting Children First).

Correlation doesn't imply causation Could it be that some other factor (poverty springs to mind...) causes an increase in both the number of single-parent families and criminality?

It could be, but interestingly, what a lot of these studies are saying is that single-parent family is a more effective predictor of criminality than economic class or racial demographics. The interesting question is why that is the case.

Poor people in America were (financially) much worse off 50 or 60 years ago, but the family was stronger and the crime rate was much lower. Now--at least in the US--the poor are fat, well-fed, most of them have air-conditioners, cell-phones and and TV's, etc. What they don't have is a strong family structure. Why not? In part, I think, it's because some welfare state social programs dis-incentivize family.

Quiff Boy wrote:here's your lovely "protesters"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsS8kTQkjfE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmW2BFfQXh0

c*nts.

and the large, bald middle-aged man in a suit who can be seen corralling the gangs of kids like some modern-day fagin in that second video is non other than "celebrated" (read: convicted) mancunian gangster, drug dealer and bank robber, dominic noonan



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Noonan



marvellous.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:I think you've hit the nail on the head. Single-parent families are--not always, but frequently--a problem for the children, and therefore for societies. In the US, there is a statistical correspondence between single-parent families and crime rates in a community. The more of one, the more of the other--see D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988. In a 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute (a left-wing American think tank) published a study suggesting that family structure is a much better indicator of future criminal behavior than economic class or racial demography (William Galston, Putting Children First).

Correlation doesn't imply causation Could it be that some other factor (poverty springs to mind...) causes an increase in both the number of single-parent families and criminality?

Before we delve into the detailed research about family structures and their affect on criminality, can I just ask:

Do we have any actual evidence that suggests the rioters (or any significant percentage of them) were from single parent families? I didn't think anyone had had the time to do such in-depth demographic studies of all the rioters involved, especially since the majority of them are still unidentified.

So far we've had the BNP, EDL and their ilk conveniently suggesting the rioters were all black or Asians (demonstrably false based on the number of photos of rioters that are appearing) and that this proves the failure of multi-culturalism. I wouldn't want to start examining yet another internet theory if the underlying data it's based on is actually just being pulled out of thin air.

Yeah, I've seen racist comments under youtube videos, when all I can make out is your average European chav. They could pass for Germans or Italians, but certainly not African or Asian. Strange.

There's Gonna be a Clapham Clean-up!

real lump in the throat stuff this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=3ZF0Y9gdxRg
http://somethingniceforashraf.tumblr.com/
http://keepaaroncutting.blogspot.com/

see wot I did there?

lazarus corporation wrote:I wasn't excusing the police's lack of action any more than I was excusing the looters' looting - in both cases just pointing out underlying factors that can help to explain the observed behaviours.

sorry laz that wasn't meant at you personally. i know we were just thinking up reasons for the absence and there is no excuse good enough on both sides really. just got really mad in the moment as i was just so surprised.

sultan2075 wrote:

Dan wrote:

MadameButterfly wrote:sorry for the intrusion but about what mh says & does laz... what? why? they obviously lack the morals we seem to live by given down by our parents. like i try to give my children...

Many of them come from single parent families (not that there's anything wrong with that if the parent is a good parent) but with that one parent at work (or not giving a crap about the kid, or both) they don't spend as much time with their kids as they should, or their parent(s) don't give a sh!t and don't bother to teach their kids anything. And with a single parent family it's more likely to be the father who's absent, so the child has no father figure in it's life, and no discipline. Then when the child is old enough he/she starts school unable to read or write so they're disadvantaged from the outset, and with corporal punishment banned in schools (since sometime in the mid 80's?) there's no discipline at school either, so when they leave school at 16 they're sent out into the world damaged.

So how do we fix things? Maybe a bloody good shoeing to start with, but where do we go from there?

thanks for that Dan! kinda explains what type of people are in the mobs, well one part the them. if it's true that a child is in a single parent family and indeed dad is not there and mum has to earn money for a living lacking time for her kid/s it's still not an excuse. there are enough people i know that had a single parent family but the discipline definately came from mum. but then again there was also the "good way" teaching them morals, having a sh!t time as teenagers cause they were different but that violence streak was never seen. so then i think it depends what kind of background they come from. just like in a family where violence is used there are also studies that if kids are subjected to it at a very young age and it seems to be 'acceptable' in the family those kids will also use violence in their lives. but these hooligans are stealing and burning things to get back at the police? government? well it's just going to cost the tax payers more to fix & clean it all up. the mentality even from the older group of the mob is just outrageous. also the schools...corporal punishment was still in schools when i was there indeed in the 80's and that was the worst thing there was, remembering as a kid being hit with a wooden ruler on the nuckles of each hand second grade or something ridiculious. i'm against it now, saw enough caning of the boys that was so wrong, but we never started riots! we KNEW to stay away from the pigs cause we knew it would be worse than at school. just shows... if a teacher had to lay a hand on my child today there would be so much sh!t but i have good kids thank the stars...

sultan2075 wrote:I think you've hit the nail on the head. Single-parent families are--not always, but frequently--a problem for the children, and therefore for societies. In the US, there is a statistical correspondence between single-parent families and crime rates in a community. The more of one, the more of the other--see D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988. In a 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute (a left-wing American think tank) published a study suggesting that family structure is a much better indicator of future criminal behavior than economic class or racial demography (William Galston, Putting Children First).

And, since "data" is the plural of "anecdote," I will mention that my own experience growing up in the US has generally confirmed the findings of these studies, as have conversations with my students who come from single-parent homes in the worst part of the city. The link seems to be there. I'd be curious to know if that's the case in these neighborhoods as well.

I'd also add that Aristotle suggests if you have bad families, you'll have bad citizens. So this isn't exactly a new idea--but today, we need to see it proved via social science methodology.

So how do you address the moral problem? You have to rebuild the family. How do you do that?

and the moral problem.. well unfortunately i think that lies in our hands as the society to start opening our mouths when the youth get out of line and stand up for what you believe. the family is no basis so society and the government have to find a way of bring them up within the normal society. although i know people here in holland might, might not, depending on the situation, say something. i'm the kind of person if i'm with my kids and you have these "kids that hang around with nothing to do" and then they start swearing or harsh words, i ask them to watch their mouths as i have youngsters that i don't want to hear that, thank you very much. it's up to the governments to make money available that even the ones lacking in schooling to get that even if it is just reading & writing & if they don't have that mental capacity, then let them work with their hands.

i know as an outsider looking in, these things are easier said than done, but isn't it time for the mobs to stop & that also the politicians wake up?
and i'm not getting into political babble!

lazarus corporation wrote: So far we've had the BNP, EDL and their ilk conveniently suggesting the rioters were all black or Asians (demonstrably false based on the number of photos of rioters that are appearing) and that this proves the failure of multi-culturalism.

Well, to be fair when you hear of riots in North London and Toxteth assuming that it's largely black males isn't unreasonable. It was certainly being reported as a race riot in some of the Continental press. According to a chum in Liverpool it was 100+ chav-types who were mostly white.

sultan2075 wrote:Poor people in America were (financially) much worse off 50 or 60 years ago, but the family was stronger and the crime rate was much lower. Now--at least in the US--the poor are fat, well-fed, most of them have air-conditioners, cell-phones and and TV's, etc. What they don't have is a strong family structure. Why not? In part, I think, it's because some welfare state social programs dis-incentivize family.

Well, in order for everyone to have cheap white/electronic goods the work traditionally done by "the poor" was outsourced abroad. So the men were left without steady work in a society where your job is the second thing a person asks upon meeting you. Goodbye self-respect, goodbye strong positive male role model.

MadameButterfly wrote:also the politicians wake up?
and i'm not getting into political babble!

You kind of have to in this. I'm sure you've heard the Chinese proverb regarding fish rotting from the head down? Our current PM bought himself a house from public funds, despite being married to a large landowners daughter and independently wealthy. That's looting, albeit from the public funds and with a charming smile. Self-entitlement isn't something only the rioters have, that and a complete refusal to be responsible for your actions runs through the whole of our society.

http://www.newstoday.co.uk/2422/2011/08 ... eo-screen/

seek&destroy

DeWinter wrote:

MadameButterfly wrote:also the politicians wake up?
and i'm not getting into political babble!

You kind of have to in this. I'm sure you've heard the Chinese proverb regarding fish rotting from the head down? Our current PM bought himself a house from public funds, despite being married to a large landowners daughter and independently wealthy. That's looting, albeit from the public funds and with a charming smile. Self-entitlement isn't something only the rioters have, that and a complete refusal to be responsible for your actions runs through the whole of our society.

okay if so. of course i've heard of the proverb. okay what your PM did is definately not right if you look at it politically. shame on him for self-entitlement when it's not due. we had the same problem when our prince and his princess wanted to buy a holiday house in africa. the whole nation was in havoc because it was in the time of the crisis and people were saying our tax payers were paying for it... in the end they didn't do it! now we have a prince that has bought a property in adam worth millions but he is one of the many rich people in this country and because he bought it without state taxes all own money, let it be, it's what he can afford. and that right he does have, i think he's worked hard for his money so should be able to spend it the way he wants to.

responsible for your actions runs from the upbringing you have had and give, it's something we all are & if the rest of the mobs can't be responsible for their actions, let them pay the price. surely?

bearskin wrote:Which volcano? Auckland is built on 50 of them.

Yeah, I know. I meant Ruapehu - the one everyone's heard of.

Dan wrote:Many of them come from single parent families (not that there's anything wrong with that if the parent is a good parent) but with that one parent at work (or not giving a crap about the kid, or both) they don't spend as much time with their kids as they should, or their parent(s) don't give a sh!t and don't bother to teach their kids anything. And with a single parent family it's more likely to be the father who's absent, so the child has no father figure in it's life, and no discipline. Then when the child is old enough he/she starts school unable to read or write so they're disadvantaged from the outset, and with corporal punishment banned in schools (since sometime in the mid 80's?) there's no discipline at school either, so when they leave school at 16 they're sent out into the world damaged.

Not that this has anything to do with the actual rioters, as lazarus corporation has pointed out, but it's not nearly that simple. Sure parenting is important but the best parents can produce bad kids and vice versa. And plenty of mothers are discipline fugures while many fathers are not. While we're all blaming it on poverty and bad parents and lack of discipline are we expecting the people who actually committed the crimes to take responsibility for their own actions?

And instead of looking for the social causes of being an utter bastard, look to Quiffy's last post for something a bit more enlightening.

stufarq wrote:

Dan wrote:Many of them come from single parent families (not that there's anything wrong with that if the parent is a good parent) but with that one parent at work (or not giving a crap about the kid, or both) they don't spend as much time with their kids as they should, or their parent(s) don't give a sh!t and don't bother to teach their kids anything. And with a single parent family it's more likely to be the father who's absent, so the child has no father figure in it's life, and no discipline. Then when the child is old enough he/she starts school unable to read or write so they're disadvantaged from the outset, and with corporal punishment banned in schools (since sometime in the mid 80's?) there's no discipline at school either, so when they leave school at 16 they're sent out into the world damaged.

Not that this has anything to do with the actual rioters, as lazarus corporation has pointed out, but it's not nearly that simple. Sure parenting is important but the best parents can produce bad kids and vice versa. And plenty of mothers are discipline fugures while many fathers are not. While we're all blaming it on poverty and bad parents and lack of discipline are we expecting the people who actually committed the crimes to take responsibility for their own actions?

And instead of looking for the social causes of being an utter bastard, look to Quiffy's last post for something a bit more enlightening.

Oh yes I know it's not the sole reason, but definitely something to consider among various other possible reasons.
Nothing to do with poverty either, as that wouldn't explain all the rioters who had respectable jobs, the schoolteacher, the woman caught robbing the very shop she worked in etc, or the millionaire's daughter.
Peer pressure is a big factor I think, with the collective intelligence of the group being inversely proportional to the size of the group.

sultan2075 wrote: So how do you address the moral problem? You have to rebuild the family. How do you do that?

I think the problem is multi-faceted...

* You might have a point there, the slow vanishing of an ideal (but nevertheless often utopic) family model with two caring parents,
* breakdown of neighbourhoods; people used to know each other, and care for each other. This is not necessarily the case anymore, especially in city centres,
* idiotic role models on public media, and with that a society that is increasingly impoverished in manners, ethics and purpose,

but also,

* the economic gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening dramatically; essentially the sidelined don't care anymore, they have nothing to lose. They want to grab a piece of the pie.. by kicking over the table.

What society needs is more coherence and more solidarity.

---
Edit:

Ah yes, and more discipline. I almost forgot that. That might also please sultan.

I beg to differ about there being a gap between rich and poor in our European countries. India, yes, China, South America. But Europe? The gap between rich and poor in Europe must be the thinnest that has ever been in all history of man.

I agree about all your other points though.

Sita wrote:I beg to differ about there being a gap between rich and poor in our European countries. India, yes, China, South America. But Europe?

For some reason, European and U.S. media seem to portray Germany as the economic strongman and purported saviour of the EU zone, but if you look beyond that smoke screen, the sad fact is, more people are fishing bottles out of public trashcans for the deposit than ever before, (hidden) unemployment is strong, employment contracts are precarious, real incomes have been SINKING for the last 20 years, and the economical future is unpredictable for an increasingly large part of the workforce. In countries like Greece and Spain, half of the young workforce is unemployed, running on battery. I don't want to justify the British riots but it's probably safe to say that, with some exceptions, the rioters generally do not enjoy the prospect of a prosperous future by any means.

nowayjose wrote:* the economic gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening dramatically; essentially the sidelined don't care anymore, they have nothing to lose. They want to grab a piece of the pie.. by kicking over the table.

And of course that's made worse than in years gone by because of technology and all the consumerist tat that's a "must have" item.

I know and you are right about that. Living and working in Germany I'm really pi$sed off about the situation. It's just that I find rich vs poor too simple. Have you heard about the potato chart (Kartoffelgrafik, Sinus-Milieus)? I find it disturbing and fascinating at the same time. Article w graphics in the Sueddeutsche

PS - I find it interesting because they don't equal status (the vertical axis) with wealth but a combination of "[...]Einkommen und Vermögen, sondern auch Prestige, Bildung und Sicherheit. " income, wealth, prestige, education, security

Sita wrote:I beg to differ about there being a gap between rich and poor in our European countries. India, yes, China, South America. But Europe? The gap between rich and poor in Europe must be the thinnest that has ever been in all history of man.

I agree about all your other points though.

Don't know about the whole of Europe, but in the UK the gap between rich and poor is at its largest since the late 1940s:

Gap between rich and poor grows to record levels, official figures show (Daily Telegraph, 07 May 2009):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -show.html

Gap between rich and poor 'at its widest since the war' (Times, January 27, 2010):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 003694.ece

Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago' (BBC, 27 January 2010):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481534.stm

Thanks for the interesting reads, Lazarus!

lazarus corporation wrote: Don't know about the whole of Europe, but in the UK the gap between rich and poor is at its largest since the late 1940s:

Gap between rich and poor grows to record levels, official figures show (Daily Telegraph, 07 May 2009):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -show.html

Gap between rich and poor 'at its widest since the war' (Times, January 27, 2010):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 003694.ece

Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago' (BBC, 27 January 2010):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481534.stm

I think this might be where my viewpoint differs from yours a little. I'm not sure I care how rich the rich are, as long as the poor have a decent standard of living. And I don't know many people, even the ones I've met who have never worked, who live in what I would call poverty. All have enough food, often have subsidised housing, and plenty of clothing. All have televisions and dvd players and most have computers and internet access.

Dewinter, that's what I was trying to say the whole time but I didn't know how to put it in English. "Poverty" in European countries is not what poverty was defined like throughout the last 2000 years, and how it was virulent in Europe still in the 1930s. It is a problem of status and peace in society and what not, but does not have anything to do with being defenseless against illness and crime and being denied to go to school. One could argue that times are changing, but the maddening thing is that a great part of the world still lives in the old-fashioned sense of the word poverty.

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: Don't know about the whole of Europe, but in the UK the gap between rich and poor is at its largest since the late 1940s:

Gap between rich and poor grows to record levels, official figures show (Daily Telegraph, 07 May 2009):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -show.html

Gap between rich and poor 'at its widest since the war' (Times, January 27, 2010):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 003694.ece

Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago' (BBC, 27 January 2010):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481534.stm

I think this might be where my viewpoint differs from yours a little. I'm not sure I care how rich the rich are, as long as the poor have a decent standard of living. And I don't know many people, even the ones I've met who have never worked, who live in what I would call poverty. All have enough food, often have subsidised housing, and plenty of clothing. All have televisions and dvd players and most have computers and internet access.

I don't think anyone' s saying that the poor in the UK are walking 20 miles to get a bucket of water to drink while fighting off lion attacks etc. The point was made that:

nowayjose wrote:* the economic gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening dramatically; essentially the sidelined don't care anymore, they have nothing to lose. They want to grab a piece of the pie.. by kicking over the table.

Sita then queried whether the gap between rich and poor was indeed getting larger in Europe, and I so provided the data (and Sita very kindly said thank you) .

nowayjose's argument - which I tend to agree with - is that the differential between rich and poor in the UK (note: not absolute levels of poverty) was creating severe tensions in society.

If we view it in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, there's no doubt that the Physiological Needs of all but a tiny minority of the UK (i.e. the homeless) are very well provided for. However when you look at the next level of "Safety Needs" (which in our society would include such things as secure employment, safety from physical attack or harassment, etc) then we start to see a lot of gaps within certain sectors of society.

The consumer goods you highlight - TVs, DVD players, internet acces, as well as mobile phones, gaming consoles, and all the other "luxuries" of 21st century Britain - are actually about fulfilling level 4 of Maslow's Hierarchy (the ownership of those goods is about self-esteem, a sense of achievement, etc). But no amount of over-compensation in supplying that 4th level of the pyramid can possible make up for the gaping holes two levels below it.