Started by neonsamurai, Feb 16, 2007, 02:53 AM
Fathers 'must fight gang culture' A task force has been set up after the deaths of three teenagers Tory leader David Cameron has called for more powers to "compel" fathers to look after their children in an effort to tackle gang culture. He told the BBC he backed tax breaks to help families stay together and promoting a "culture of responsibility and respecting authority". Mr Cameron's comments follow the shootings of three London teenagers in less than a fortnight. The Tory leader called for a "complete change in our values". 'More than laws' He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I believe in marriage. I believe in people making a commitment to each other and staying together and trying to bring up their children properly." Children were often attracted to gangs if they lacked a father figure, he said. Mr Cameron said: "It's not just about passing a law or getting a bit more money. "We have got to sit up and realise we are running things by the wrong values. We need to support families." The Child Support Agency was "meant" to collect money from fathers to pay for raising their children, but men in other European countries faced "tougher rules and had to stand by" their families. Mr Cameron said: "Part of it is social pressure." A Unicef report published this week put UK children at the bottom of a well-being league table of 21 industrialised countries. Mr Cameron will later tell a youth organisation in Oxfordshire that this means society is in "deep trouble". Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan will reinforce that theme in a speech in London, where he will claim Britain is becoming "de-civilised", with parents and teachers unable to exert authority over young people. After this month's third fatal shooting in south London, armed police officers are to patrol the streets as part of a new task force announced by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. Billy Cox, 15, was found dead by his 12-year-old sister at their home near Clapham North underground station on Wednesday. Michael Dosunmu, aged 15, was shot dead in the bedroom of his Peckham home on 6 February. A man has been arrested in connection with the killing. Three days earlier, 16-year-old James Andre Smartt-Ford died after he was shot at Streatham Ice Arena. The new task force will run alongside Operation Trident, which investigates gun crime in the black community. But Mr Cameron will say issues like teenage gun crime cannot be dealt with by better policing or tighter gun controls alone when the problem - and the solution - lies within families and communities. "We urgently need to encourage a culture of intervention. In a healthy society, children are the responsibility not just of their parents, but of the whole community," he will say. "I'm not talking about taking on a gang of dangerous thugs. I'm talking about treating children and teenagers with respect - with the expectation that, if they are spoken to as reasonable people, they will respond as reasonable people." Meanwhile, the Black and Minority Ethnic Education Conference will discuss gun crime when it meets in east London on Friday. Conference organiser Dr Larry Jones said young people needed to be taught how to better communicate their emotions, to help stop them using guns. "What is the most likely cause of uncontrollable emotional outburst? Insecurity. Wrong company. Choice of music and entertainment. Depression. Drug addict," he said. "These are the things that lead to this kind of problem. "Our main message to them will be - you can be who you want to be, understand yourself. Don't allow yourself to be conned into believing that carrying weapons, using weapons will be the best way forward."
...The killing of three teenagers within ten days comes after well-publicised warnings for at least two years by police and social workers that easy access to guns, grinding poverty, the grip of drugs on some drab estates, unemployment, the growth of gangs and an embedded culture of criminality were creating a chronic, violent underclass....The causes accelerating this downward spiral are as clear as they are controversial. At heart is the breakdown, or often complete absence, of family structure, especially within the black community. Much work has been done, often by black sociologists who have risked the opprobrium of community "activists", on the disastrous absence of fathers, who do not know, care about or pay for their children and who leave young black males without any role models, at home or at school, to instil values or a sense of self-worth....It is a question of changing a culture, with zero tolerance of even petty crime, confiscation of criminal assets, curfews, and above all holding to account feckless parents and criminal role models. Only then can police hope to prevent the brutal murder of boys in their beds.
A culture of violence that begins with feckless fathers and family breakdownhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1392500.eceQuote...The killing of three teenagers within ten days comes after well-publicised warnings for at least two years by police and social workers that easy access to guns, grinding poverty, the grip of drugs on some drab estates, unemployment, the growth of gangs and an embedded culture of criminality were creating a chronic, violent underclass....The causes accelerating this downward spiral are as clear as they are controversial. At heart is the breakdown, or often complete absence, of family structure, especially within the black community. Much work has been done, often by black sociologists who have risked the opprobrium of community "activists", on the disastrous absence of fathers, who do not know, care about or pay for their children and who leave young black males without any role models, at home or at school, to instil values or a sense of self-worth....It is a question of changing a culture, with zero tolerance of even petty crime, confiscation of criminal assets, curfews, and above all holding to account feckless parents and criminal role models. Only then can police hope to prevent the brutal murder of boys in their beds.Everyday events and official reactions show just how extensive is the grip of bigottry in our society. A mass social-psychosis under which a multitude of male lives are deliberately destroyed but over which many others including males are dubiously enriched. In the above article alone you see an attempt being made by journalists and bureaucrats to associate violent criminality to fatherlesness in boys. But with no attempt being made to connect fatherlessness in boys to rampant misandry. Today many an elite man in this society has grown rich and fat, judicially depriving young boys of their fathers. Not disimilar to the other men who have also grown rich and fat, politically, bureaucratically and editorially mislocating the violent criminality of sons to the wilfull absence of their fathers. That is, instead of to societies' rampant misandry from which they originally grew rich and fat !.
Mr Cameron said his support for marriage did not mean "bashing single mothers".
He said child maintenance laws needed reform "to compel men to stand by their families"."It means finding the father, it means attaching an order to their benefits or their earnings and taking the money out of their bank account and giving it to the mother. That's what compulsion means," he said.
Now, on a more positive note, although blame for these children is being misplaced, at least, the value of fathers is being acknowledged. That is a very, very positive thing.
You are quoted in the Telegraph as stating that "child maintenance laws need reform to compel men to stand by their families. It means finding the father, attaching an order to their earnings, taking the money out of their account and giving it to the mother, etc." You had just recognized accurately the problems associated with father absence and then yoursolution is to create more father absence? Mandatory child support regardless of equities or need combined with nearly automatic maternal custodyios what leads to father absence. It allows the mother to essentially the kick the father out of thefamily while forcing him to support the family regardless of maternal fault or anything else.Racheting up child support is almost guaranteed to increase father absence. It is like winning the lottery.It is much bigger than most lottery winnings, actually, if the father is fairly well to do.The solution to avoiding father absence is to punish those who break up families -- usually mothers --not to reward them. Those who break up families through fault should be punished in various waysincluding a presumption against receiving custody. This would greatly slow down the breakup of families.Now, in most of the English speaking world, the mother can commit adultery, etc. and be completelyresponsible for the breakup of the marriage and yet nevertheless be nearly sure of receiving custodyplus substantial child support. This is why family breakup is so common. If the mothers knew they would not necessarily be rewarded especially if they were at fault, there wouldbe less family breakup. Yes, most families are broken up by the mother not the father.What your contry needs (and mine) is not more of the same but a realism. This means taking intoaccount fault. This means awarding child support only when it is necessary and appropriate andequitable. The equitable thing to do when a man's wife cheats on him is to award him the childrenif he is a suitable parent not to attach his wages, etc. after he loses his children.More rigid child support collection is guaranteed to make the present situation worse. Blaming fathers for the present situation is the worst kind of "victim blaming."Fathers are usually in today's day and time the party who broke up the family.It is the vast majority of the time the mother.You think blaming fathers for problems created largely by the government is good politics?I doubt it will be for long assuming it still is. Those say the kinds of things you are sayingwill soon be political outcasts. I see it coming. You obviously don't.
Not Broken, FracturedCommunities without fathers are likely to become enclaves of their ownThis has been a week dominated by murder and children. It began with a furore and fury over the future of Learco Chindamo, who as a 15-year-old gang member stabbed Philip Lawrence to death outside his school in 1995, and it ends with the immense collective grief felt for the parents of Rhys Jones, an 11-year-old boy shot dead while playing football. He was almost certainly killed by a child of a similar age to Chindamo when he committed his crime. Children killing adults is an appalling enough event. Children killing children in this callous fashion is yet more numbing still. Politicians should be at the forefront of the national conversation that follows such atrocities and not embarrassed on the sidelines. The moment that the death of a child in circumstances such as these is deemed so commonplace that it is not the catalyst for comment is the occasion when a country has lost the struggle against its demons. In a speech yesterday David Cameron sought to place the tragedy of the Jones family in a broader context, that of his claim that Britain has a "broken society" in the same way that 30 years ago it had a broken economy. The comparison is superficially attractive. Yet it is too sweeping, encompassing more of the community than the facts on the ground suggests is valid. Stagflation in the 1970s and youth culture today are different in character. The questions that now have to be addressed are even more complicated. On one aspect, at least, Mr Cameron and his partisan opponents are in complete agreement. The Conservative leader referred to "fathers who run away from their responsibilities, who don't stick around to give their sons the discipline they need". Earlier this week Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, referred similarly to a crisis of fatherlessness in certain places, depriving the sons left behind not simply of figures of authority but also of adult male role models of any form to emulate. Whether it be council estates at home or failed states abroad, societies dominated by teenaged boys, unrestrained by fathers, are invariably dangerous locations. Gangs rapidly take the place of the orthodox family unit. Loyalties to these institutions undermine traditional respect and values. The ability to generate fear in others becomes a prized social asset. Not only do other young men want to avoid young men but so also do adults of all ages and those bodies, such as the police, that are meant to be a community's armour. Society loses its self-confidence and with that the ties which bind it together. There are manifestly enclaves in Britain where this has happened. To concede this is not, though, to admit that society as a whole is "broken". Not all poor estates have been so afflicted, nor is the damage associated with fatherlessness limited to black rather than white families, or exclusively to working-class ones. It would be more accurate to refer to fractured societies, not a broken society. The dilemma, nonetheless, is that no one has a specific policy solution for compelling or inspiring fathers either to remain with, or exercise a positive influence over, their sons. In truth, there is probably no system of either tax inducements or financial sanctions that can make fathers who have abandoned interest in sons behave in the manner that others would want them to do. This is not a fatalistic assessment. Attitudes to fatherhood did not change for the worse because of past political activities and they are capable of changing for the better for reasons other than a programme constructed in Whitehall. To an extent, fractures will heal naturally if allowed the opportunity. Mr Cameron and Mr Straw might both have been vague but by speaking out they encourage others to talk about these issues. But the most effective encouragement for this has to come through schools and not the House of Commons. It requires a remorseless concentration on those in the bottom tenth in the GCSE results in recent years -- individuals who are often paying an academic as well as a social price for the absence of their fathers. Children cannot and certainly should never be "nationalised" but the gang and its mentality cannot be the only alternative to the family. Society has not disappeared in the most deprived areas of Britain. Yet it is for its members to choose to reactivate themselves.
The mother in most instances kicks the father out of the family. She in some instances moves far away or obstructs the father from having any meaningful involvement in the child's life. The mother sometimes introduces a loser "substitute dad." Yet, when the child goes bad, it is the father's fault? The government of course assists the mother in doing these things. Actually, "assist" is too soft a word. The government actually enforces the mother's wishes literally at the point of a gun (trying ignoring family court orders). Obviously, there is only one appropriate response to the government and these mothers, screw you!!!!Now, on a more positive note, although blame for these children is being misplaced, at least, the value of fathers is being acknowledged. That is a very, very positive thing.