Editorial

Citation

Bateman, T. and Fox, C. (2012), "Editorial", Safer Communities, Vol. 11 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/sc.2012.56011caa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Safer Communities, Volume 11, Issue 3

As we remarked in our last editorial, the urban disturbances of August 2011 continue to inspire research and analysis. In volume 11.1, Safer Communities, we devoted a special themed issue entirely to the disturbances and in this edition we have further contributions to the ongoing debate that has resulted from those events.

Neil Wain from Greater Manchester Police and Peter Joyce from Manchester Metropolitan University examine the riots in Manchester, comparing the policing of the disturbances in 1981 in Moss Side, Manchester with events of 2011. The authors also evaluate the tactics that might be used in future years to police disaffected communities. This essay is a useful addition to the papers we have published so far in that it looks at the disturbances from a policing perspective. Drawing both on academic and practitioner perspectives the authors argue that although there were many similarities in the events that occurred in 1981 and 2011, there were also important differences that reflect social, economic and cultural changes that have affected society since 1981. They reject the opinion that a more aggressive style of policing is the only way to police disaffected communities to prevent a repetition of events that took place in 2011, concentrating instead on the need to win “hearts and minds”.

In the aftermath of the disturbances one strand of the debate has focused on the response of Britain’s black communities. In a controversial paper, Perry Stanislas highlights a growing dissensus within Britain’s black communities which distinguishes the responses to these disturbances from those of an earlier era such as Notting Hill Carnival 1976 and Broadwater Farm. He contends that this lack of consensus can be seen in the narratives advanced by black opinion formers and that they have failed to develop a convincing narrative which provides a framework for action. In particular the narrative has faltered around the contentious issues concerning racism, the family, and crime. Stanislas argues that an essential factor in this failure has been the actions of black opinion formers who consistently fail to hold members of their community to account for self-serving behaviour, preferring to focus on matters of institutional racist behaviour and government policy, which, although very important are much harder to influence. The result is that the mixed messages communicated by opinion formers in black communities by default support harmful behaviour making government narratives on important social issues more convincing. He contends too that sexism within black culture has tended to privilege female decision making in the context of family formation. Stanislas’ conclusions are drawn on the basis of data gained from interviews carried out with black men, community activists, and participatory observation. The themes he raises are important but contentious and are likely to provoke debate. The editors welcome responses.

We return to modern policing practices with Chih Hoong Sin, Sanah Sheikh and Mohini Khanna’s research on police readiness to tackle hate crime against people with learning disabilities. Their paper examines the extent to which the police are set up to deal with this particular form of offending. Based on research in 14 police services in England the authors conclude that many police services are committed to tackling hate crime against people with learning disabilities. However, a wide variety of individuals have responsibility for dealing with hate crime and accountability structures are often unclear. Many services do not have hate crime policies that deal specifically with people with learning disabilities, or even disabled people in general. While some areas have adopted innovative practices, the authors argue that in most police services there is a general state of unreadiness. They conclude that more training is required for front line staff to improve awareness of the issues and they recommend that structures, policies and procedures for handling hate crime against people with learning disabilities should be reviewed.

Few would dispute the assertion that modern policing is very different from policing 20 or 30 years ago. One important change has been the extent to which the police are now involved, in partnership with other agencies, in the management of offenders. An early and significant shift in approach came with the creation of Youth Offending Teams in the late 90s. These multi-agency partnerships gave police officers a formal role in the management of young offenders. Initiatives such as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and the Prolific and other Priority Offenders scheme extended this role to adult offenders. Over recent years, Integrated Offender Management (IOM) has been a key strategy shaping national and local approaches to community safety. Sule Kangulec (a Senior Policy Advisor at the Home Office) and Bernard Lane (Reducing Reoffending Unit at the Home Office) explain in their article that IOM is not a new programme or scheme. It is a locally agreed strategic framework for bringing together different offender-focused programmes and approaches. However, it raises important issues in relation to workforce development and responding to emerging support needs. Clearly these are needs that cut across the professionals involved in IOM, but, the editors of this journal would contend, perhaps they are at their starkest when one observes police officers accompanying probation staff on prison and home visits to offenders where professionals from very different backgrounds and training experiences are asked to manage risk and support desistance. Lane and Kangulec’s article is therefore extremely timely. They highlight the need for skilled work force involvement in both strategic and operational levels of IOM in order to mainstream effective and efficient offender management approaches. Further, in order to develop an agreed vision for a local IOM approach and raise awareness of it at all levels, workforce development and training needs must be recognised and supported locally. The authors highlight work underway in the Home Office to support workforce development and training and invite professionals working in the field to engage with them in helping to shape this important agenda.

An issue that has exercised the media and public opinion over recent years is “happy slapping”. Yet to date there has been little research offering insight into urban adolescents’ perspectives on the phenomenon. Marek Palasinski’s research provides an overview of British adolescents’ views on happy slapping and offers a potential framework for challenging their implicit tolerance of the phenomenon. Adolescents from three large English cities were interviewed about happy slapping. Palasinski finds that, in contrast to popular press associations between happy slapping and boredom or deviance, adolescents construe happy slapping (but not lasting-injury “unhappy slapping”) as amusing, original, controllable and deterring rather than encouraging violence.

Tim Bateman, Chris Fox