Again we must come to the question of what to do, seriously, with those who would ruin it for the majority of us who know that being a cowardly bullying criminal is not the way to go. And we arrive at the crux of the matter, and a question that needs to be asked and answered thoroughly and seriously:
Can the council be accused of funding anti-social and other criminal behaviour?
It seems the best that can be said at the moment is that they are, but accidentally. Maybe they need help from courts, but in many cases experience says they need to act more decisively themselves. Sometimes they act, sometimes it works, but too often it takes too long, or it's not enough. No-one should pass the buck, they should all work together, and councils need to do their part in stopping crime. If you need reminding of what councils are capable of, take a look at the news; then unfortunately you can't help but wonder, if they are there as seems to many to be the case, exactly what levels of incompetence and/or corruption are at work. Are the findings of various audits, reports, the treatment of tenants and residents and the complaints about apparently unaccountable councils simply because they have been allowed to get away with it?
Firstly this is certainly not about estates or otherwise, as we are in all areas affected, by people from all areas. And, again, the two sides of London always there, this time simply the difference between those of us who just want to care for and enjoy the areas we appreciate being a part of, and those who could share in it too but have to get off by constantly choosing to indulge in criminal activity - those who cannot be happy unless they are making someone else unhappy. Needless to say they are mostly the usual pathetic bully stereotype, if you've ever had the misfortune to confront one, but also potentially dangerous. This is where society is supposed to come into effect - laws to ensure we don't need to be dragged down and have the lunatics running the asylum, and to protect us from having to confront anyone, possibly getting ourselves charged in the process. When laws are not enforced, the criminal becomes more dangerous, to state the bleeding obvious. When police protect and take action, sometimes the only option open to them is to co-operate with the council. Especially in cases of anti-social behaviour and harassment - which are no less damaging than other, more 'obvious' clear-cut crimes, sometimes more so - the council should then also act.
However, if a council takes only one part of its remit and houses people, provides them with other support, without then enforcing the terms of their tenancy and making sure they do not ruin the lives of others, are the council not just funding the criminals? The rest of us, living on estates or not, have a right to be protected from crime, and where the council have a duty to also act they should, rather than just supporting it, inadvertently or not. It is all part of the same problem, feeding into all areas. At a meeting which had to be called because of the growing issue of anti-social behaviour even in plusher parts of SE16 (thank goodness the people there know how to and do take action) an attendee described how in nearby student housing the problem of drugs was causing issues with safety and quality of life in the whole area. A local MP was a speaker, and said that he bet those involved in creating problems were not the students themselves, but, presumably, people from outside. However, the attendee said it was the student area involved in the trouble, and what was needed was proper CCTV and security. An understandable and excusable assumption on the MP's (and probably others') part, or a kind of Sociology 101 answer, rather than a deeper understanding and explanation of what was going on? The answers have to come from all those affected. You cannot just say some people deserve to be treated well, because they are a certain 'type', or expect basic rights and behaviour for and from a certain class: haven't we got past that yet? Again, looking at the news, it's about time we did.
Unfortunately the meeting apparently didn't do too much. Again, complaints not listened to or at least not acted upon, action not taken, things allowed to get worse.
A good start would be for local authorities to support those who look after their area - estate, flat, maisonette, tower block, luxury apartment, mansion, whatever - which would then benefit everyone in every situation. It should not even really be something we should have to ask for. We need councils, especially where they have the remit, to act as they are legally supposed to and make sure people abide by their side of the agreement, not just laugh at the rest of us while indulging in their ruinous lives. As mentioned in the earlier post, councils are quick to cite crime as a reason to 'regenerate', but the housing is not the problem, particularly if you do nothing to keep safe the people in it and do not act to stop crime. And regeneration will obviously not deal with the issues. It will just be 'thanks for the new house' and things will carry on for the criminals. In some cases the removal of one person, the council using their powers as they should, would send the message needed and save the lives - sometimes literally - of many others. Why not just deal with the crime, as it should be? The network would not grow, crime would not just continue because ' nothing's gonna happen'. If crime is a problem do something about it, rather than letting it be another way in which the council does nothing, even the stuff it has a requirement to. We have a right to feel safe in and enjoy our homes. The council need to concentrate on this rather than supporting, even funding, however inadvertently, lives of crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment