is the title of this article Insty linked to, in which a lady reports on a year spent digging into why the gang problem in Britain has become so bad. Her two main points are:
Young boys join gangs, they told me, because they are afraid. There is nobody else to protect them, certainly no responsible adult.
Teenage boys need different treatment to girls to become responsible members of society. They need a role model.
Now, I know a lot of you are rolling your eyes over the latter and thinking things along the lines of "Well, no shit!" And a lot of people have said this over time and been ignored(I think she's probably catching a lot of crap for daring to state that 'boys need different treatment', thus violating the pc demands that there's no difference between boys and girls other than genitals). I have no hope for the upper reaches of the Brit government, it overall having shown itself to be so dedicated to nanny-state BS that no pointing out of facts will sway them. And the way their government is set up(as I understand it) the people in general have real problems trying to change things. At least until, as Kim puts it, the Glorious Day arrives.
A big part of her fix is both more male teachers, and more sports. As to the male teachers, that can have some really good benefits, but only if the teachers are more worried about teaching than about being pc:
One young man teaching in a school in a deprived area in the northeast said his “main focus” was not to offend his pupils. “I don’t want to push my middle-class values on them,” he explained earnestly.
Never mind that they NEED someone to tell them to work hard, to study, to try to become better, to shut up and behave: far more important to too many(and we've got the bastards here, too) is being 'sensitive and caring and non-judgemental'. No matter the cost.
And sports, be it said, can be a real lifeline to some kids, but in so many cases it's substituting for having a family that gives a damn and demands the kid actually perform.
Going back to her first point, there's a bit that I had to read twice:
The police and the Home Office have not taken crimes against young people seriously because they do not know they are happening. The British Crime Survey, described by the Home Office on its website as “the most reliable measure of crime” does not include crimes against anyone under 16.
Well, hell, no wonder nobody believes their idiot Crime Survey when it says things are better! How the HELL can you leave that group out? Sheer idiocy. Or completely deliberate: I very much doubt the 'they do not know they are happening' is true. Considering some of the crap that's come out in the past, I think they may deliberately have left them out so as to make the 'official figures' look better. No, as a matter of fact, I don't trust them; God knows why anyone would.
Personally, I'd say a hell of a lot of this boils down to the fallout of the multi-culti PC crap. If you don't judge people behaving badly, if you don't demand discipline and learning in school, if you have no problem with women(to use the term loosely) pumping out bastards from different fathers- none of whom bother to stay around- and think society has some obligation to provide a check and a place to live to people who don't want to take care of themselves... You get gangs, you get crime, you get social standards disappearing.
Oh, as a finish, I can't pass up this line about teenage boys: In times of war we value their aggression, their sense of immortality, their loyalty to one another. But in peacetime they are at best a nuisance, at worst a threat.
Not exactly encouraging, is she?