One might expect the public to over-react to last week's riots, and given the standard of our media that they too would be baying for blood. One would not expect both the Prime Minister David Cameron and the justice system would also jump on the bandwagon.
Or perhaps that is naive - we should expect society's "winners" to take the opportunity to keep the "losers" down - a point which will be returned to in the next blog.
David Cameron's main reactions (aside from slating the police - see blog 12) seem to have been to claim this is a wake-up call and that severe actions should be taken against the perpetrators and their families, including imprisonment for very minor misdemeanours, withdrawal of their / their parent's social security payments and possible eviction from their homes if they are council tenants.
He is right about the wake-up call. The first of our 8 'initial steps toward globally fit leadership' is WAKE UP! The question is, how many wake up calls are needed before he takes properly thought-through effective action? He is the Prime Minister! I find it hard to stomach ordinary members of the public saying 'someone should do something' implying it is nothing to do with them, but for the Prime Minister to adopt that stance is mind blowing. OK, its a wake up call - 1, 2, 3.. WAKE UP!!
Concern over the 'toxic childhood' we give our children has been expressed very loud and clear for many years yet governments have failed to tackle the issue effectively and the current government has been reducing the attention and funding given them - while talking about the need to cut the top tax rate from the current 50%
The first phase of our ASK SIR L decision making model is ASK: Appreciate a problem exists, Specify its scale and scope, and assess the Kauses. The knee-jerk reactions listed above would not help to tackle the problem - instead make it far worse - but the main point here is that the ASK phase has not been carried out.
No proper attempt has been made to establish what the true problem underlying the riots is, its scope and underlying causes. Jumping on the bandwagon is surely what most of the rioters did yet the courts are treating them as if they had made long-term carefully thought-through actions and were part of an organised gang. A woman who was given a stolen pair of shorts by a friend has been jailed for 6 months. How will David Cameron be judged and sentenced by society for his MisLeadership?!
Pages 39 to 43 of our MisLeadership book provide an introduction to the problem of toxic childhood and its solution. It clearly goes far wider than the recent riots, which are a symptom rather than cause. Outcomes of toxic childhood covered include rising obesity, posture and eye-sight problems, lack of reasoning and social skill development, little outdoor exercise, too much time watching television and playing computer games, and consumption of large amounts of junk food. Causes outlined include the collapse of family life; misguided focus of education on developing skills for the economy; use of exam-results-based performance measures to judge schools and pupils; misinformation by the media; excessive use of vetting and barring schemes for those running youth clubs and the terrible abuse over an 80 year period of children by Catholic priests and others involved in running children's homes. Additionally, the environment in which children grow up has changed fundamentally (i-phones, social media etc) but our treatment of them has not kept pace with the challenges.
In the book we wonder whether the fundamental difficulties are a lack of a full appreciation of the issues, how significant they are, and their underlying causes, with the result that solutions implemented have not been effective. They have been piecemeal rather than a coordinated systematic response.
The recent riots and knee-jerk reactions only strengthen our concern. It is obvious that threatening withdrawal of social security payments and eviction from their homes assumes that the perpetrators came from broken homes but does nothing to help the plight of such families. The woman mentioned above who has been imprisoned for 6 months has two young children - what affect will placing her in prison for her very minor offence have on their upbringing?
The Prime Minister should get off the bandwagon, take a deep breath and start looking for real answers. Our book could help!!
Tuesday 16 August 2011
12. Riots: Who'd be a Policeman?
It has been scary watching the riots in the last week. Those involved acted in a completely irresponsible and unacceptable way and should be punished. Thieir combined actions resulted in several deaths and millions of pounds worth of property damage, including major arson that could have resulted in many more deaths.
But I have found it equally frightening watching the reaction of the media, politicians and courts: those supposed to be leaders of society. Their actions have displayed gross MisLeadership in all its guises.
Our next few blogs respond to the riots and their aftermath. This one looks at the role and actions of the police and those claiming to lead them.
Very fast criticism was made of the way the police handled the riots including the Home Secretary Theresa May saying they were too slow to act and not robust enough in their actions. She then attempted to give the impression that their subsequent change of approach was due to her intervention, including ordering them to cancel all police leave - a power which she does not and should not posess. The truth is the police were, like everyone else including the government, taken by surprise at the speed and severity of the riots, and were initially vastly outnumbered and under-equipped. They reacted extremely professionally and bravely.
Had they attempted to make arrests on the first night most of their limited numbers would have been involved, so the situation on the streets made far worse. Instead they coralled the rioters, protected lives as their main priority, then property where possible. Instead of futilely attempting to make arrests on the spot, they photographed those involved so that they could arrest them once the immediate threat had been dealt with. By the second night, police chiefs had been able to increase numbers on the street so could take more immediate actions, which they did so effectively that the rioting rapidly ceased.
Rather than criticising their actions and falsely attempting to claim credit for their change of tactic, the Home Secretary should have praised them for their ability to handle the situation with so little loss of life, relatively little damage, and ultimate ability to identify and bring to justice those involved. We should recall that the police have faced recent criticism for being too heavy-handed when dealing with rioters, yet suddenly their actions here were being lambasted as ineffective by the very politicians who should be supporting them. Further, the government had made clear their intention to reduce police budgets.
David Cameron the Prime Minister made matters even worse by announcing he would be seeking advice from William Bratton, the man credited with reducing street crime in New York, Los Angeles and Boston. Surely the most superficial analysis would make one expect that our police have little to learn from those policing such crime-ridden parts of the US but the crucial point here is the display of total lack of faith in and support for our own police despite their evdent top quality performance in handling the riots. How can he think that such a move can help relations between the government and police force?
The police continue to act professionally themselves and protect us from riots and other unruly behaviour which results in part from the government's failure to lead society effectively.
In the words of Gilbert abd Sullivan "A Policeman's Lot is Not a Nappy One". But it would be helped by proper leadership and support from the Home Secretary and Prime Minister.
But I have found it equally frightening watching the reaction of the media, politicians and courts: those supposed to be leaders of society. Their actions have displayed gross MisLeadership in all its guises.
Our next few blogs respond to the riots and their aftermath. This one looks at the role and actions of the police and those claiming to lead them.
Very fast criticism was made of the way the police handled the riots including the Home Secretary Theresa May saying they were too slow to act and not robust enough in their actions. She then attempted to give the impression that their subsequent change of approach was due to her intervention, including ordering them to cancel all police leave - a power which she does not and should not posess. The truth is the police were, like everyone else including the government, taken by surprise at the speed and severity of the riots, and were initially vastly outnumbered and under-equipped. They reacted extremely professionally and bravely.
Had they attempted to make arrests on the first night most of their limited numbers would have been involved, so the situation on the streets made far worse. Instead they coralled the rioters, protected lives as their main priority, then property where possible. Instead of futilely attempting to make arrests on the spot, they photographed those involved so that they could arrest them once the immediate threat had been dealt with. By the second night, police chiefs had been able to increase numbers on the street so could take more immediate actions, which they did so effectively that the rioting rapidly ceased.
Rather than criticising their actions and falsely attempting to claim credit for their change of tactic, the Home Secretary should have praised them for their ability to handle the situation with so little loss of life, relatively little damage, and ultimate ability to identify and bring to justice those involved. We should recall that the police have faced recent criticism for being too heavy-handed when dealing with rioters, yet suddenly their actions here were being lambasted as ineffective by the very politicians who should be supporting them. Further, the government had made clear their intention to reduce police budgets.
David Cameron the Prime Minister made matters even worse by announcing he would be seeking advice from William Bratton, the man credited with reducing street crime in New York, Los Angeles and Boston. Surely the most superficial analysis would make one expect that our police have little to learn from those policing such crime-ridden parts of the US but the crucial point here is the display of total lack of faith in and support for our own police despite their evdent top quality performance in handling the riots. How can he think that such a move can help relations between the government and police force?
The police continue to act professionally themselves and protect us from riots and other unruly behaviour which results in part from the government's failure to lead society effectively.
In the words of Gilbert abd Sullivan "A Policeman's Lot is Not a Nappy One". But it would be helped by proper leadership and support from the Home Secretary and Prime Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)