Showing posts with label Centre for Social Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Centre for Social Justice. Show all posts

27 August 2011

Talking tough on riots may have unintended consequences.

Perhaps over the last few weeks I have become mesmerised by the press coverage of the Riots.
First we got the dramatic footage of the fires and broken windows, Kids in hoods hurling stones, police in riot gear. They we had the tsunami – a relentless tide of opinion and comment.
The remarkable thing about this was that we did not know the details, none of us did. We did not know who had done what and what their motivation or circumstances might be, but this stopped no one. Having an opinion mattered, and opinion filled the 24/7 news services and the press.
The riots were frightening for many people- for very good reason. They take away the comfortable assurance that all is well, and show us just how easy it is for order to break down. For many people it was important to try and understand why things had gone wrong and to work out how re-occurrence might be prevented. For others, with a different view of what people are, there was a desire for punishment and justice. Without the benefit of facts the only thing people could do was to fall back onto their prejudices, their deep seated beliefs about the nature of the world.
Earlier this summer I stood on the spot of the last public hangings in Scotland, in the theatrical space of Edinburgh’s  Grassmarket. It was easy to imagine the crowds that would have gathered for these spectacle, and the way in which the demand for “justice” can bring out some of the cruellest instincts of our species.
I do not know what David Cameron believes. I find it impossible to see beyond the face that he presents, but these riots, at a time when country after country is experiencing unrest must have been deeply alarming for him. He will have known that he had a duty above all else to be seen to make it stop. He had to make a response, a choice, and I think he fell back on what will have felt most comfortable to him. He spoke to those instincts that we see floating to the surface each year at the Conservative party conference.
The right wing press claim to speak for the people they aim to influence. He reflected back the messages that the right wing tabloid press were giving and legitimised their demands for tough justice.  We have seen over the last weeks the way in which this has been translated into ways that the courts have handled individual cases, which does already seem to many people un balanced and unwise.
The court of appeal is already dealing with the flood of referrals, undoing some of the less acceptable sentences which have been given.
This is good. The justice system knows that it is important that there should not be long term damage to the legal system as a result of justice at a time of panic.
What finally got me back to my keyboard, blogging again, was this article – Tough Luck for the Luckless, by Zoe Williams – which gives us some deeply uncomfortable pictures of some of the very  vulnerable people who are now appearing in our courts. She shows us a young man with Schizophrenia  and a homeless young man covered in untreated tumours, both caught up at the very edges of the unrest, both jailed. These are people who need the care of a decent society and certainly should never be directed to the prisons for the tiny offences they are said to have committed.
Zoe is angry. So am I. I want to say - not in my name, this is not the kind of justice I want to see.  I hope that someone showed David Cameron Zoe Williams article and that he has the opportunity to reflect on some of the unintended consequences of calling for tough justice.

18 April 2011

Nudge, nudge, wink wink...

Headlines from 18th April 2011

The article  (istyosty link), by James Chapman, which accompanies these headlines appears authoritative, concerned and, superficially at least, convincing. 

It tells of work done on behalf of Ian Duncan Smith's Department for Work and Pensions by the think tank The Centre for Social Justice, set up at the behest of Mr. Duncan by Mark Forman, the ex Senior Deputy Treasurer of the Conservative Party. The press release for this 'study' is here.

The press release describes The Centre for Social Justice as 'independent'. One might suggest that Mr. Forman is in no way an independent Chairman!
A closer look at the background and political persuasion of personnel who make up this think tank is fascinating. It's website is here.

The full report was published in April 2011 and is entitled :
History and Family: Setting the Records Straight.
                 A Rebuttal To the British Academy Pamphlet Happy Families?

It is attributed to Professor Rebecca Probert of the University of Warwick about whom we learn:

Professor Rebecca Probert
Rebecca Probert is a Professor at the University ofWarwick, teaching family law
and child law. She has published widely on both modern family law and the
historical development of the law, her most recent books include The Rights and
Wrongs of Royal Marriage: how the law has led to heartbreak, farce and confusion
and why it must be changed (Takeaway, 2011), Cretney and Probert’s Family Law
(Sweet & Maxwell, 7th ed, 2009) and Marriage Law and Practice in the Long
Eighteenth Century: A Reassessment (Cambridge University Press, 2009).


and Dr. Samantha Callan of the Centre for Social Justice, whose brief resume reads:

Dr Samantha Callan
Samantha Callan is recognised as a research and policy expert in the field of family
relationships and work-life integration. She is an honorary research fellow at
Edinburgh University and formerly a research consultant to major UK and
international non-governmental organisations aiming to strengthen family life. In
this capacity she chaired the Family Breakdown Working Group of the Social
Justice Policy Commission and the Family Law Review and Early Years
Commission for the Centre for Social Justice. Prior to joining the CSJ full-time she
was the Family and Society Policy adviser in the Conservative Policy Unit.


One obvious purpose of this report is to show categorically that children brought up by married couples are far more likely to succeed at school and in their lives in general and that children whose parents divorce or who never tie the knot fall at every obstacle. 

However, reading the report, one is struck by the determined effort on the part of its authors to refute and disprove the tenets of the rival report, Happy Families?, published in November 2010 by Professor Pat Thane, mentioned in its title.

In other words, this report from The Centre for Social Justice resembles not so much an erudite, in-depth study of the causes and effects of childhood poverty and disadvantage as the continuation of an argument between two opposing points of view. This report is not convincing in its rigour or conclusions. Much of their evidence is drawn from polls or studies which could be described as 'obscure'.

Ian Duncan Smith's avowed intent is to promote marriage by means of incentives and tax breaks. 

The Daily Mail's journalist, James Chapman,  has based his article almost wholly on the press release and a set of prejudices the newspaper he writes for is well-known to favour. 

His piece uses the data included in the report from The Centre for Social Justice with the addition of the usual emotive and sensationalised expressions one expects when reading such an article in this particular right - leaning tabloid.

Unable to resist nefarious criticism of the record of the Labour Party in this area of Government James Chapman adds a crafty barb:

In its 13 years in power, Labour was accused of undermining the institution of marriage and the UK stands almost alone among European countries in failing to recognise traditional family structures in the tax system.
France, Germany, Denmark and Norway all recognise the role of stay-at-home spouses.

It's when the final paragraph is reached that one is able to discern perhaps the ulterior motive behind the CIJ's report and the apparent endorsement of it by this newspaper:


Today’s report will increase pressure on David Cameron to make good on his commitment to restore the transferable tax allowance for married couples to send a clear signal of support for an important institution.The Prime Minister has pledged to introduce a marriage tax incentive before the end of this Parliament in 2015.

A 'nudge', then, to David Cameron?