There is much of merit in the Prime Minister's speech concerning the riots. His emphasis on morality and questions of 'right and wrong' will resonate with many. However, such rhetoric may be an empty vessel unless based on robust research into the causes of and solutions to the social problems to which he refers.
There are perhaps three inter-related levels that require a response. Individual responsibility is crucial. At one end of the spectrum we all need to own and acknowledge the implications and consequences of our own actions and values. At the other end of the spectrum Government policies need to focus on public and social well-being, as well as responsibility, and to forge a strong social contract.
The rise of neoliberal, de-humanised market-driven approaches have encouraged a version of Government that has removed personal well-being from the economic. In the middle is the third level of action that is dependent on social policy and legislation and individual 'buy-in'. It is the area of social welfare. We have a system in which a person's expectations have reached a point at which there is no need for reciprocal action themselves. There is an important social welfare cushion that rightly protects vulnerable people. However, it allows some to play that system, to refuse to engage with training, work or socially responsible activity and to believe they have a right, not simply for protection, but for continued support regardless of lifestyle, behaviour and willingness to contribute to society.
Social work has developed, importantly, its commitment to people made vulnerable, marginalised and disenfranchised by social, political and economic circumstances. However, it has constructed an edifice of anti-oppressive practice sometimes decorated with the inanities of political correctness that hampers its position to mediate and negotiate a pathway that re-engages individuals with their society. By a misplaced refusal to judge behaviours and actions, or to remove services, in common language 'to punish', those who traverse, often at great cost to others, the rules of engagement with that society. What the riots indicate for social work is that personal behaviour and actions are not to be equally valued if a society is to function and serve its members appropriately. Perhaps for too long social workers have been content to stand outside of the policies and workings of society when it suits, whilst still being employed, in the main, by local government.
A voice to stand up for democratic freedoms is crucial, but so is a need to work within the society that social workers are part in this country if we are to build together, rather than tear down, supportive state welfare that benefits social, political and economic well-being for all.
Celebrity culture is spoon fed to our youth every day.Where are the positive role models? If children are not receiving sufficient care from their parent/s they seek support from friends, thus the cycle of "gangs" can and does begin.
Regarding social work. The last Children Act shifted the balance away from children's rights and towards parental responsibility. The consequence of this is that children are left with their dysfunctioning families resulting in they themselves continuing the same patterns of behaviour.
They do not do this with any malice aforethought but simply as a consequence of getting the job done.
It is time they spoke out so that the public may be better informed.
Resonate or jar? Pot…Politician
"consequences of our own actions and values"
Don’t do as I do, do as I tell you. Unless it goes mammarys uppermost. In which case I actually instructed you to do the opposite.
"willingness to contribute to society"
Over which they have no democratic influence. We take, you give. (see Banksters for further details) Which part of that is so difficult to understand?
"constructed an edifice"
which obscures observation and comment. So, why not draw aside the wizard’s curtain and let a little transparency in?
"a pathway that re-engages individuals with their society."
Let us call it Democracy 2.0, the real thing.
"punish', those who traverse"
Surely the apparatus of the State is supposed to act universally in regard to all constituent members of said State. Not function as a weapon, capable of being directed by some sections against other sections. Since that would constitute misappropriation and misuse of power. Characteristics of a Big (bullying, Syrian style) Society.
"A voice to stand up for democratic freedoms is crucial."
While a cry in the wilderness of a republic isn’t even heard.
Compare Singapore with Tony the phony Blair's Londonistan and see which one you would like to live.
The problem in Brittain is you all have a society that has grown up with government handouts and now that the government can afford them people are upset. Yes there are real problems in the UK but you all need to find ways to improve your economy and create jobs, the US is in the same situation. Either everyone finds a solution to the problem or it will only get worse over time.
The bottom line is that of course there are those who need support, and Professor Parker recognises this, but as he also states, the inanities of political correctness expands this community to those who do not need or deserve to be included. Just becasue they were rioting does not mean they were oppressed or disadvantaged. Most are just opportunistic criminals, fully aware of their actions with no regard for anyone but themselves, who should be punished.
#1 - If Moral Decline was just caused by money and services- then riots would have never happened 50+ years ago. oh wait. they did. In fact most of the time it is the impoverished who have been working rediculiously for most of their lives who riot.
#2 If Moral Decline is caused my money and services- rich people must be much much more morally unsound.
#3 There is absolutely NO science to back this up. None. There is a lot of science on group theory (people abandoning morals in the frenzy a crowd) How riots start, conditions that create riots- and a provided for society is NOT ONE OF THEM.
#4- there is a reason that SW's advocate for services for those who transverse. Most of the time there are many issues going on, and a person is more than a single action. Even people who murder are most likely in need of services (albeit from a location where they cannot harm any one else).
#5- The political agenda of 'its because we provide' is ignoring many large issues in the UK that need to be addressed. The police brutality is one.
#6- Riots can start for random causes, given enough energy. AKA- a lost soccer game. This has been documented for a VERY LONG TIME before the invention of social welfare.
I'm just angry about this one variable blame pointing.