Anti-knife chicken and chips campaign

[villain]

Yes. Because most things the government do to solve issues in this sphere will be deemed offensive, expensive and likely ineffective by a large portion of the population, sometimes you'll be on that side, sometimes you'll be on the other. You have to think very highly of yourself to believe that the times you think these things, it's an accurate assessment of the reality, and all the other times it's people just not understanding the issue as well as you.

If they only ever did the things you want them to do then the issue would likely get worse. The same is true of everyone other than perhaps the genuine experts. We are wrong about things an awful lot. So are the government. This might be one of those times but it's healthy to recognise it also might not, despite your best assessment.

The government doing nothing on crime is usually not a good thing, and doing something badly is often better than that. Some things they do are incredibly destructive. This is very tame. Redundant and laughable at worst, but hardly likely to infringe on people's rights or stoke social tensions.

If there weren’t grassroots initiatives, campaigns, events and more organised at community level that can be scaled up - I would be inclined to agree. But considering there are dozens of such things, all over the country - it’s a pathetic attempt to try to solve a complex issue.

What this shows is a lack of engagement with the communities affected by the issue from the government, in favour of a blanket solution because they think they can speak to the youth and inspire change through chicken shops. I mean, typing that sentence out is ridiculous, but this is reality.

Let’s not even get into the racial stereotypes- the people who are affected by knife crime know at least one tragic knife crime story, through either family members or friends - typing out a heartfelt paragraph on the underside of a greasy chicken box isn’t going to invoke tears or emotional response that will change their life for the better.
They’re wasting their time and money.

 

[Brwned]

If there weren’t grassroots initiatives, campaigns, events and more organised at community level that can be scaled up - I would be inclined to agree. But considering there are dozens of such things, all over the country - it’s a pathetic attempt to try to solve a complex issue.

What this shows is a lack of engagement with the communities affected by the issue from the government, in favour of a blanket solution because they think they can speak to the youth and inspire change through chicken shops. I mean, typing that sentence out is ridiculous, but this is reality.

Let’s not even get into the racial stereotypes- the people who are affected by knife crime know at least one tragic knife crime story, through either family members or friends - typing out a heartfelt paragraph on the underside of a greasy chicken box isn’t going to invoke tears or emotional response that will change their life for the better.
They’re wasting their time and money.

The government aren't saying this is a blanket solution to the problem. People like you say it and read it on the internet enough times that it sounds almost true but it's not even "truthful hyperbole", it's just a lie designed to create an opportunity to vilify or ridicule the other side.

We know the government are doing many other things which are completely unlike this, which is pretty firm evidence that they know this isn't a blanket solution. There's good evidence to believe they don't even think it'll have a significant impact. That's just reality. You can't expect to make a significant impact on big problems with every action you take.

I'm not sure why you think you know what emotionally resonates and drives attitude changes on issues as complex as this. Most experts who work on those problems have been saying for a long time that they don't really know. They try a lot of things and fail a lot. The fact it sounds silly isn't good evidence it won't work, that much we can be sure of.

 

[SteveJ]

The government aren't saying this is a blanket solution to the problem. People like you say it and read it on the internet enough times that it sounds almost true but it's not even "truthful hyperbole", it's just a lie designed to create an opportunity to vilify or ridicule the other side.

You can't realistically complain of others' vehemence when your own responses seem...vehement.

 

[villain]

The government aren't saying this is a blanket solution to the problem. People like you say it and read it on the internet enough times that it sounds almost true but it's not even "truthful hyperbole", it's just a lie designed to create an opportunity to vilify or ridicule the other side.

We know the government are doing many other things which are completely unlike this, which is pretty firm evidence that they know this isn't a blanket solution. There's good evidence to believe they don't even think it'll have a significant impact. That's just reality. You can't expect to make a significant impact on big problems with every action you take.

I'm not sure why you think you know what emotionally resonates and drives attitude changes on issues as complex as this. Most experts who work on those problems have been saying for a long time that they don't really know. They try a lot of things and fail a lot. The fact it sounds silly isn't good evidence it won't work, that much we can be sure of.

‘People like me’, you shouldn’t make assumptions - because ‘people like me’ have been involved with attempting to reduce knife crime in south London for a number of years now, and have seen first hand the effects that these type of political campaigns have on the issue, often very little, in comparison to the work put into grassroots organisations that impact the community directly.

I have no reason to vilify ‘the other side’ particularly as this isn’t a political issue that one should align themselves to like a political party. If they offered an effective solution I would be in support of it because that would mean lives would be saved.
This isn’t that, and on top of that it’s offensive as well.

Doing things just to do them in order to score political points on issues that are literally killing people shouldn’t get plaudits.

 

[Brwned]

You can't realistically complain of others' vehemence when your own responses seem...vehement.

That'd just be my own inability to communicate emotion over the Internet! Vehement certainly isn't how I would describe my position. I'm ambivalent about the entire situation and entirely aware many more people have much more informed opinions than I do.

The one thing I'm clear on is that we're all too quick to overlook our own ignorance on a subject to facilitate our desire to attack the opposition. Unlike solving crime, we understand that issue very well based on lots of conclusive scientific evidence. From my perspective its unhelpful not to acknowledge that assiduously.

 

[Brwned]

‘People like me’, you shouldn’t make assumptions - because ‘people like me’ have been involved with attempting to reduce knife crime in south London for a number of years now, and have seen first hand the effects that these type of political campaigns have on the issue, often very little, in comparison to the work put into grassroots organisations that impact the community directly.

I have no reason to vilify ‘the other side’ particularly as this isn’t a political issue that one should align themselves to like a political party. If they offered an effective solution I would be in support of it because that would mean lives would be saved.
This isn’t that, and on top of that it’s offensive as well.

Doing things just to do them in order to score political points on issues that are literally killing people shouldn’t get plaudits.

Yes, people like you. The person who both a) said it and b) read it are exactly the people I was referring to. The character judgment you inferred from it was non existent and is just a result of the many tragedies embedded in political discussion. Whether you're involved or not is neither here nor there, likewise for me, some dude who's been a victim of knife crime in the very place you mention. That experience counts for something but not a whole lot.

You think you know what works. The evidence is very clear that you don't. Because no one does. It's a complicated problem we'll still be working on for centuries after we're both dead. We have opinions that are healthy to share but giving concrete assessments of them are silly, and can only exist when ee don't challenge our own ignorance.

 

[Raees]

Can’t wait to see ‘No more bombing’ on the side of my naan next time I go grab a curry.

 

[Zlatattack]

Can’t wait to see ‘No more bombing’ on the side of my naan next time I go grab a curry.

Just on the paper your kebab is wrapped in. Not on the actual food.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I thought I liked Kentucky, until I tried it again a few years ago and the amount of grease on it made me wretch.

I do not adore fried chicken.

You don't adore anything outside of Porsche and Le Mans so pipe down.

Also, with the exception of the spicy big crunch sandwich, KFC is pretty disgusting.

 

[VorZakone]

Dijon mustard yes.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I came into this thread to scream racism and make jokes about not needing knives to eat fried chicken. Having actually read the arguements and facts in depth, i'll do neither.

Is it racist - not really.
Is there a knife and fried chicken joke - not one that hasn't been said already.

I doubt it will be effective, but no harm in trying.

I don't know about the UK but in Canada the plastic forks that you'd get at KFC were always ridiculously sharp.

 

[Sassy Colin]

There can be a huge difference in quality between individual KFC's. Having said that they have in general gone downhill in the last few years. There was a golden age of KFC for a few years. An age undreamed of. An age of crispy delicious chicken in the Colonel's secret blend of 11 different herbs and spices. Now you're lucky if the batter is fit for consumption by humans.

You get some good alternatives for sticking in the oven in both Iceland and Sainsburys though.

You don't adore anything outside of Porsche and Le Mans so pipe down.

Also, with the exception of the spicy big crunch sandwich, KFC is pretty disgusting.

I am thus vindicated.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I am thus vindicated.

They're not the be all and end all of fried chicken, though.

 

[Sassy Colin]

They're not the be all and end all of fried chicken, though.

How about Nandos? I went there once, a while ago.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

How about Nandos? I went there once, a while ago.

We have one here but I've never been, isn't that churrasco (grilled not fried)?

 

[Sassy Colin]

We have one here but I've never been, isn't that churrasco (grilled not fried)?

No, definitely chicken, apparently the kids love it (scroll down a bit):

https://www.nandos.co.uk/food/menu

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

No, definitely chicken, apparently the kids love it (scroll down a bit):

https://www.nandos.co.uk/food/menu

Yeah, yeah, it's chicken but the cooking method is grilling not frying.

 

[villain]

Yes, people like you. The person who both a) said it and b) read it are exactly the people I was referring to. The character judgment you inferred from it was non existent and is just a result of the many tragedies embedded in political discussion. Whether you're involved or not is neither here nor there, likewise for me, some dude who's been a victim of knife crime in the very place you mention. That experience counts for something but not a whole lot.

You think you know what works. The evidence is very clear that you don't. Because no one does. It's a complicated problem we'll still be working on for centuries after we're both dead. We have opinions that are healthy to share but giving concrete assessments of them are silly, and can only exist when ee don't challenge our own ignorance.

But this is the problem - there is evidence that what the government have pumped money into so far (more police presence and stop & search powers) don’t work

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/...k/files/Does stop and search reduce crime.pdf

Of course there’s no research into whether or not heartfelt messages reduce crime or alter criminal behaviour, but I won’t hold my breath.
The solution won’t take centuries considering we’ve seen the trend reversed almost completely in areas such as Glasgow after the government invested in communities and tackled the issue at the core

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45572691

Since Boris and his cabinet took office they have engaged in political point ticking rather than addressing the issue at its core, by funding initiatives which are proven not to help tackle the issue.

Nobody is saying the problem is easy or linear, but simply doing things just to be seen as doing something is nothing more than playing politics, and is a waste of money.
And that doesn’t even get into the racial stereotyping behind not just chicken shops, but the implication that the problem is a black male problem explicitly also.

I look forward to seeing initiatives of the government working with local youth campaigners and community members to tackle the issue, I will happily praise them if they choose to engage directly, such as what Scotland did in the last decade.

 

[Sweet Square]

If there weren’t grassroots initiatives, campaigns, events and more organised at community level that can be scaled up - I would be inclined to agree. But considering there are dozens of such things, all over the country - it’s a pathetic attempt to try to solve a complex issue.

What this shows is a lack of engagement with the communities affected by the issue from the government, in favour of a blanket solution because they think they can speak to the youth and inspire change through chicken shops. I mean, typing that sentence out is ridiculous, but this is reality.

Let’s not even get into the racial stereotypes- the people who are affected by knife crime know at least one tragic knife crime story, through either family members or friends - typing out a heartfelt paragraph on the underside of a greasy chicken box isn’t going to invoke tears or emotional response that will change their life for the better.
They’re wasting their time and money.

But this is the problem - there is evidence that what the government have pumped money into so far (more police presence and stop & search powers) don’t work

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Does stop and search reduce crime.pdf

Of course there’s no research into whether or not heartfelt messages reduce crime or alter criminal behaviour, but I won’t hold my breath.
The solution won’t take centuries considering we’ve seen the trend reversed almost completely in areas such as Glasgow after the government invested in communities and tackled the issue at the core

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45572691

Since Boris and his cabinet took office they have engaged in political point ticking rather than addressing the issue at its core, by funding initiatives which are proven not to help tackle the issue.

Nobody is saying the problem is easy or linear, but simply doing things just to be seen as doing something is nothing more than playing politics, and is a waste of money.
And that doesn’t even get into the racial stereotyping behind not just chicken shops, but the implication that the problem is a black male problem explicitly also.

I look forward to seeing initiatives of the government working with local youth campaigners and community members to tackle the issue, I will happily praise them if they choose to engage directly, such as what Scotland did in the last decade.

Great posts.

 

[2 man midfield]

Chicken shop, not kebab shop.

Well then it’s even worse.

 

[Red Defence]

Really? Don't you remember the shitshow when Sergio Garcia said Tiger Woods was welcome round his for dinner and he'd cook him fried chicken a few years ago?

No. The first I heard of this is reading your post.

 

[Red Defence]

The thought the stereotype of blacks and fried chicken is an American racial stereotype not a British one.

Yes but Americans think that the world thinks as they do. The world doesn’t. Fried chicken in the U.K. is KFC, which is from Kentucky, the Southern states and it was developed there. That’s as far as our interest in it stretches. Nowadays we get cheaper versions of it in chicken takeaways.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Yes but Americans think that the world thinks as they do. The world doesn’t. Fried chicken in the U.K. is KFC, which is from Kentucky, the Southern states and it was developed there. That’s as far as our interest in it stretches. Nowadays we get cheaper versions of it in chicken takeaways.

Fried chicken was developed in Scotland originally.

 

[Hammerfell]

No, definitely chicken, apparently the kids love it (scroll down a bit):

https://www.nandos.co.uk/food/menu

Imagine being so out of touch you don't know what kind of chicken Nando's serves.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Yeah, yeah, it's chicken but the cooking method is grilling not frying.

Whatever

 

[Sassy Colin]

Imagine being so out of touch you don't know what kind of chicken Nando's serves.

Whatever

 

[Sassy Colin]

In any case, grilling is better than frying

 

[Red Defence]

Fried chicken was developed in Scotland originally.

Well there you go. After all this they pinched it from us.

 

[Brwned]

But this is the problem - there is evidence that what the government have pumped money into so far (more police presence and stop & search powers) don’t work

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Does stop and search reduce crime.pdf

Of course there’s no research into whether or not heartfelt messages reduce crime or alter criminal behaviour, but I won’t hold my breath.
The solution won’t take centuries considering we’ve seen the trend reversed almost completely in areas such as Glasgow after the government invested in communities and tackled the issue at the core

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45572691

Since Boris and his cabinet took office they have engaged in political point ticking rather than addressing the issue at its core, by funding initiatives which are proven not to help tackle the issue.

Nobody is saying the problem is easy or linear, but simply doing things just to be seen as doing something is nothing more than playing politics, and is a waste of money.
And that doesn’t even get into the racial stereotyping behind not just chicken shops, but the implication that the problem is a black male problem explicitly also.

I look forward to seeing initiatives of the government working with local youth campaigners and community members to tackle the issue, I will happily praise them if they choose to engage directly, such as what Scotland did in the last decade.

Agree with 90% of that, and the points are well made. There is certainly evidence that what the government have done so far isn't working, and I don't think that's a controversial opinion across the political spectrum at this stage. Similarly I agree that Boris' work so far has been politics without substance, across many important issues. And the crime prevention tactics used in Glasgow, Boston and others are in line with my view on the best approach.

Where we differ in general is the laser-like focus on that perspective. There were many tactics used in Glasgow, Boston and others over that time that failed miserably, and it's good to let government's fail in crime prevention, because "solving crime" is an aspiration, not an achievable goal. I don't remotely agree that the solution won't take centuries, because it either ignores the previous centuries of progress and failure, or it portrays a view of the future and human nature I can't buy into. What Glasgow have done isn't a solution but progress. The total numbers of homicides in Glasgow dropped from 100 to 60. If the number of homicides in the UK were to drop from c. 750 to c. 450, I don't think we'd be describing it as a solution. Just one quite effective tool in a broad toolkit, which will always be limited by the resources available. And we also know that similar tactics have been applied and been considerably less effective elsewhere. So I would say there is clear evidence that it works well in certain conditions, which we understand quite well while still misunderstanding plenty.

So this might well be one of the tactics they try that fail, and in the grand scheme of things it would be a very small failure. We should hold the government accountable for mistakes and prevent resource wastage but I think the reaction to it is too strong, and it's driven in large part by political attitudes. The evidence says that it could fail - we all agree. I personally believe that it will fail, as you and many others do. However the evidence does not say that it will fail, that's just a prediction we can make based on very fuzzy projections of very complex social phenomena. That doesn't mean you should praise them for it, or you shouldn't criticise others for praising it, but I don't think you can be dismissive of an alternative perspective. You can just disagree, because it's not straightforward enough for you to know it's conclusively wrong. The same applies to it being "doing things just to be seen as doing something". Yes it might be. There is evidence for that. There's also evidence for the alternative, e.g. the fact the idea was not their own, nor did it originate from someone with similar views - it is something that some people thought was a good idea, without any desired political benefits. So it's possible that applies to many of the politicians involved too. You can't say conclusively that this is why it has gotten this far, you can only speculate with a pretty low level of certainty.

Where we differ fundamentally is the idea that this implies it is exclusively a black male problem. It is more common about young, black men from low income households. And young, black men from low income households are more likely to go to chicken shops in many parts of the UK. That's just the sober analysis of the results. It entirely ignores all the questions about why that may be, and what the best approach is to reverse that - and our views on those questions are likely very similar. However if you accept that people are allowed to have different opinions on the contributors to knife crime, gang violence and its disproportionate prevalence among young, black men in low income households, because it's an incredibly complex problem that has been documented well and still lacks simple, conclusive solutions, then you can't reasonably claim this demonstrates the Tories think it is just a problem among black men, and this is their single solution to it. There's too many assumptions leading to that one claim. Targeting the most "at risk" population of a particular social issue is a perfectly normal approach to all kinds of social phenomena. They might be misdiagnosing the problem but if you accept that you might also be misdiagnosing the problem, and just follow their thinking, the broad tactic of targeted messaging is not particularly noteworthy and certainly not controversial. What makes it controversial is the political sensitivities which are unavoidable with the reality of crime today.

 

[JPRouve]

Fried chicken was developed in Scotland originally.

To be fair every fried food comes from Scotland, I still can't believe that Snickers and Mars bars malarkey.

 

[Red Defence]

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t. Are you black? If so you’re going to be more aware about the stereotypes of your own race than the average person would be. I’m sure there are many stereotypes about Polish and Romanian people that the majority of Brit don’t have a clue about.

Growing up I never heard any jokes or comments about black people liking chicken. I only first heard about it when this Australian KFC advert went viral in America for being supposedly racist. It wasn’t seen as the slightest bit racist or insensitive in Australia.



“The fried-chicken/black-people stereotype is virtually unknown outside the U.S. ”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kfcs-racist-ad-reveals-american-consumers-ignorance/

Only just read this article. It’s very good. Explains so well how Americans fail to understand any culture but their own.

 

[JPRouve]

For what its worth, it's not only an american stereotype.

 

[Jippy]

No. The first I heard of this is reading your post.

Golf at it's worst, showcasing it's history of inclusivity.
The European tour chief then reignited it, attempting to defend Garcia by saying he had 'a lot of coloured friends'.

 

[villain]

Agree with 90% of that, and the points are well made. There is certainly evidence that what the government have done so far isn't working, and I don't think that's a controversial opinion across the political spectrum at this stage. Similarly I agree that Boris' work so far has been politics without substance, across many important issues. And the crime prevention tactics used in Glasgow, Boston and others are in line with my view on the best approach.

Where we differ in general is the laser-like focus on that perspective. There were many tactics used in Glasgow, Boston and others over that time that failed miserably, and it's good to let government's fail in crime prevention, because "solving crime" is an aspiration, not an achievable goal. I don't remotely agree that the solution won't take centuries, because it either ignores the previous centuries of progress and failure, or it portrays a view of the future and human nature I can't buy into. What Glasgow have done isn't a solution but progress. The total numbers of homicides in Glasgow dropped from 100 to 60. If the number of homicides in the UK were to drop from c. 750 to c. 450, I don't think we'd be describing it as a solution. Just one quite effective tool in a broad toolkit, which will always be limited by the resources available. And we also know that similar tactics have been applied and been considerably less effective elsewhere. So I would say there is clear evidence that it works well in certain conditions, which we understand quite well while still misunderstanding plenty.

So this might well be one of the tactics they try that fail, and in the grand scheme of things it would be a very small failure. We should hold the government accountable for mistakes and prevent resource wastage but I think the reaction to it is too strong, and it's driven in large part by political attitudes. The evidence says that it could fail - we all agree. I personally believe that it will fail, as you and many others do. However the evidence does not say that it will fail, that's just a prediction we can make based on very fuzzy projections of very complex social phenomena. That doesn't mean you should praise them for it, or you shouldn't criticise others for praising it, but I don't think you can be dismissive of an alternative perspective. You can just disagree, because it's not straightforward enough for you to know it's conclusively wrong. The same applies to it being "doing things just to be seen as doing something". Yes it might be. There is evidence for that. There's also evidence for the alternative, e.g. the fact the idea was not their own, nor did it originate from someone with similar views - it is something that some people thought was a good idea, without any desired political benefits. So it's possible that applies to many of the politicians involved too. You can't say conclusively that this is why it has gotten this far, you can only speculate with a pretty low level of certainty.

Where we differ fundamentally is the idea that this implies it is exclusively a black male problem. It is more common about young, black men from low income households. And young, black men from low income households are more likely to go to chicken shops in many parts of the UK. That's just the sober analysis of the results. It entirely ignores all the questions about why that may be, and what the best approach is to reverse that - and our views on those questions are likely very similar. However if you accept that people are allowed to have different opinions on the contributors to knife crime, gang violence and its disproportionate prevalence among young, black men in low income households, because it's an incredibly complex problem that has been documented well and still lacks simple, conclusive solutions, then you can't reasonably claim this demonstrates the Tories think it is just a problem among black men, and this is their single solution to it. There's too many assumptions leading to that one claim. Targeting the most "at risk" population of a particular social issue is a perfectly normal approach to all kinds of social phenomena. They might be misdiagnosing the problem but if you accept that you might also be misdiagnosing the problem, and just follow their thinking, the broad tactic of targeted messaging is not particularly noteworthy and certainly not controversial. What makes it controversial is the political sensitivities which are unavoidable with the reality of crime today.

This is where the nuance of understanding the cultural significance of individual communities comes into play, and why I keep saying my underlining point - they should’ve involved more grassroots organisations and avoided this entire backlash quite easily.

You have to ask the question - why are young people more likely to congregate at the chicken shops in the first place?
It’s because, historically they had no where else to go between the hours after school and before their parents came home from work - generations later the chicken shops have just become a hangout spot because their communities still haven’t been invested in, in the years since those traditions were first made. (This is a wider issue that has led to the rise of violent crime in these communities in the first place)
Plus social media and the rise of internet shows like ‘the pengest munch’ have glorified it as a cool hang out - even grime stars are investing in and opening their own chicken shops because of the cultural significance.
Anyone who has spent any significant amount of time in the communities affected would tell you the same thing.

So instead of the government tackling the issue at the core - and addressing why the kids are congregating there in the first place - they’re rather encouraging it further and still not fixing the reason why the phenomenon began. All while the tories have cut youth funding by over 60% since 2010

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-betrayed-generation-labour-legal-requirement

Now they’re confused as to why all the poor kids don’t have anywhere else to go. So instead they’re going to send them messages in the very place their austerity has caused them to seek refuge in, rather than invest in the communities.

This is part of the reason why it’s so offensive to thousands of people who have had some sort of childhood in these areas, or are trying to better these areas through community involvement (since the government won’t do it) and it’s more than a case of the government not just making a mistake - it’s a continuation of the lack of empathy shown towards minority groups in poor areas.

Further to that - the majority of people who visit chicken shops aren’t criminals and aren’t in gangs either. The implication that because knife crime (in London only) is more likely to affect black males - therefore any group of black males who are seen together are inherently to be feared is where this is more than just ‘political sensitivities’ it’s a lack of cultural understanding and stereotyping based on skin colour. Insulting is too kind of a word.

I don’t expect any government to be 100% right 100% of the time.
But so far Boris’ cabinet is falling well short, and this particular campaign is an embarrassment - there’s no two ways about it.

 

[Brwned]

This is where the nuance of understanding the cultural significance of individual communities comes into play, and why I keep saying my underlining point - they should’ve involved more grassroots organisations and avoided this entire backlash quite easily.

You have to ask the question - why are young people more likely to congregate at the chicken shops in the first place?
It’s because, historically they had no where else to go between the hours after school and before their parents came home from work - generations later the chicken shops have just become a hangout spot because their communities still haven’t been invested in, in the years since those traditions were first made. (This is a wider issue that has led to the rise of violent crime in these communities in the first place)
Plus social media and the rise of internet shows like ‘the pengest munch’ have glorified it as a cool hang out - even grime stars are investing in and opening their own chicken shops because of the cultural significance.
Anyone who has spent any significant amount of time in the communities affected would tell you the same thing.

So instead of the government tackling the issue at the core - and addressing why the kids are congregating there in the first place - they’re rather encouraging it further and still not fixing the reason why the phenomenon began. All while the tories have cut youth funding by over 60% since 2010

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-betrayed-generation-labour-legal-requirement

Now they’re confused as to why all the poor kids don’t have anywhere else to go. So instead they’re going to send them messages in the very place their austerity has caused them to seek refuge in, rather than invest in the communities.

This is part of the reason why it’s so offensive to thousands of people who have had some sort of childhood in these areas, or are trying to better these areas through community involvement (since the government won’t do it) and it’s more than a case of the government not just making a mistake - it’s a continuation of the lack of empathy shown towards minority groups in poor areas.

Further to that - the majority of people who visit chicken shops aren’t criminals and aren’t in gangs either. The implication that because knife crime (in London only) is more likely to affect black males - therefore any group of black males who are seen together are inherently to be feared is where this is more than just ‘political sensitivities’ it’s a lack of cultural understanding and stereotyping based on skin colour. Insulting is too kind of a word.

I don’t expect any government to be 100% right 100% of the time.
But so far Boris’ cabinet is falling well short, and this particular campaign is an embarrassment - there’s no two ways about it.

I just can't relate to your belief that you know what works and what doesn't in something that we've both agreed, and experts have endlessly demonstrated, is too complex to boil down to a simple thought and simple solution. Although I appreciate to be committed to grassroots work you need to take on a mindset that what you're doing is the right thing, and it will work, otherwise it wouldn't be sustainable. But I'd be surprised if you maintain those convictions, personally. In the same way Boris and Co. living in their bubble leads to flawed conclusions, I think the same applies to community activists and their bubble. The world isn't as simple as you're right and they're wrong, IMO.

 

[Sara125]

I just can't relate to your belief that you know what works and what doesn't in something that we've both agreed, and experts have endlessly demonstrated, is too complex to boil down to a simple thought and simple solution. Although I appreciate to be committed to grassroots work you need to take on a mindset that what you're doing is the right thing, and it will work, otherwise it wouldn't be sustainable. But I'd be surprised if you maintain those convictions, personally. In the same way Boris and Co. living in their bubble leads to flawed conclusions, I think the same applies to community activists and their bubble. The world isn't as simple as you're right and they're wrong, IMO.

It’s not the same at all imo. Community activists that work with young people are usually people that were former gang members themselves or at the very least understand the socio-environmental factors that lead people to join gangs because they’ve also grown up in this same underprivileged environment. In fact, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a black male figure or someone who grew up in such areas- even someone like Ross Kemp has shown that he understands where it stems from; he doesn’t just boil it down to ‘young black boys are killing each other left, right and centre because it’s the cool thing to do’. On the other hand, people like Boris Johnson and other members of parliament don’t understand the crux of the problem
because it’s not something that they can and have ever been able to relate to.

As villain said, chicken shops have always just been a hang out spot. For example, I went to school in Harlesden- a place in London where black people were the predominant ethnicity. After school we’d always go to the chicken and chip shops, there were about three on the road where my school was alone, and we’d link up with people from the surrounding schools and just chill out. Not everyone that went was a gang member or even a black male. There were not many other places to go such as youth clubs or the like, it was literally just those shops then we would catch the bus home.

No one is saying that they have all the answers and that there is a clear cut solution. We can acknowledge that it’s a complex problem but the point that me, villain and others in this thread are trying to make is that it’s helpful to at least understand what leads to knife crime and putting messages on chicken boxes shows that the people who run these campaigns don’t understand.

 

[Brwned]

It’s not the same at all imo. Community activists that work with young people are usually people that were former gang members themselves or at the very least understand the socio-environmental factors that lead people to join gangs because they’ve also grown up in this same underprivileged environment. In fact, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a black male figure or someone who grew up in such areas- even someone like Ross Kemp has shown that he understands where it stems from; he doesn’t just boil it down to ‘young black boys are killing each other left, right and centre because it’s the cool thing to do’. On the other hand, people like Boris Johnson and other members of parliament don’t understand the crux of the problem
because it’s not something that they can and have ever been able to relate to.

As villain said, chicken shops have always just been a hang out spot. For example, I went to school in Harlesden- a place in London where black people were the predominant ethnicity. After school we’d always go to the chicken and chip shops, there were about three on the road where my school was alone, and we’d link up with people from the surrounding schools and just chill out. Not everyone that went was a gang member or even a black male. There were not many other places to go such as youth clubs or the like, it was literally just those shops then we would catch the bus home.

No one is saying that they have all the answers and that there is a clear cut solution. We can acknowledge that it’s a complex problem but the point that me, villain and others in this thread are trying to make is that it’s helpful to at least understand what leads to knife crime and putting messages on chicken boxes shows that the people who run these campaigns don’t understand.

Undoubtedly people who have lived through it understand a lot more than the average person who hasn't lived through it. And people who have been exposed to it as community activitists or academics or police on the ground will understand it better than people who haven't been exposed to it at all. But they all misunderstand it, to varying degrees. Living through something doesn't mean you instantly have the answer to complex problems. My family lived through the Troubles, some of them right in the thick of it, and they have a better understanding of what caused it than I do, but they don't for a minute think they'll know how to prevent it if it happens again. The world's much more complicated than that.

Believing that because you are / have been involved in it means you have the answers is a very dangerous thing. But of course the opposite is true too - people who haven't seen the problem in any real sense thinking they know the answers is dangerous. And there are examples of governments doing that over the years.

It's only your interpretation that targeted messages in chicken shops means they misunderstand the vast resource needs elsewhere - one doesn't naturally lead to the other. It's entirely possible that they think targeted messages in chicken shops might have a small, positive impact while also thinking that poverty, social deprivation and a lack of purpose are much bigger problems to solve, to tackle crime on a wider scale over the longer term. Personally I think it's entirely likely they think that.

We can disagree with them on what the best approach to tackle poverty and those other things are, and there's plenty of reason to suggest they've made those things worse in part because they misunderstand the issues and in part because they have other priorities. But you have to make a lot of big leaps to say this one campaign illustrates their entire understanding of the problem and how to solve it. And I think you can challenge some of those leaps. For example I think if you had a discussion with one of the political members involved in the campaign, it wouldn't take long before you came to the conclusion that they don't in fact think only young black men go to chicken shops. But it's easy to put it out there on the internet with all of its social bubbles, the point goes unchallenged, and then it becomes normalised as a piece of evidence of how out of touch they are. When in reality you've done nothing to verify that.

I'm not saying your overall interpretation is wrong but it is wrong to think that's the only reasonable interpretation, if you agree on the same basic set of facts. I agree with you on the same basic set of facts and agree with villian on the best broad approaches, but I also disagree with your conclusions about what this campaign represents. Your conclusions are not the logical conclusions but one of many. And like everyone else's, they are flawed.

 

[villain]

I just can't relate to your belief that you know what works and what doesn't in something that we've both agreed, and experts have endlessly demonstrated, is too complex to boil down to a simple thought and simple solution. Although I appreciate to be committed to grassroots work you need to take on a mindset that what you're doing is the right thing, and it will work, otherwise it wouldn't be sustainable. But I'd be surprised if you maintain those convictions, personally. In the same way Boris and Co. living in their bubble leads to flawed conclusions, I think the same applies to community activists and their bubble. The world isn't as simple as you're right and they're wrong, IMO.

You’re under the impression I’m saying that I know everything and all my opinions are 100% correct. That’s not what I’m saying at all.
What I am saying is that this particular campaign is a waste of time and resources for the reasons I outlined previously, particularly in comparison to other tactics used in other cities that have had violent crime issues. That’s before we address the levels of insult and offence it causes also.

I’m not even saying that they have to use grassroots initiatives - I suggested that as an alternative option which has seen results & is scalable, not the only alternative - but I do think they should’ve engaged the community on the issue out of good practice because then they would’ve been far more likely to avoid the PR backlash at the very least.
You praised them for getting insights and ideas from the chicken shops, I’m simply saying they could’ve actually engaged with the people who are actively involved with the target demographic directly. I fail to see how that isn’t a more positive suggestion.

Even measuring the success of this campaign isn’t tangible - what are they hoping to achieve and how can they analyse the results?
“30% of knife crime avoided due to would-be-perpetrators being convinced by chicken shop box”? Which is part of why I said doing things just to do things isn’t necessarily a positive thing.
After the dust settles on this, how can they measure success or failure of this project?

 

[Brwned]

You’re under the impression I’m saying that I know everything and all my opinions are 100% correct. That’s not what I’m saying at all.
What I am saying is that this particular campaign is a waste of time and resources for the reasons I outlined previously, particularly in comparison to other tactics used in other cities that have had violent crime issues. That’s before we address the levels of insult and offence it causes also.

I’m not even saying that they have to use grassroots initiatives - I suggested that as an alternative option which has seen results & is scalable, not the only alternative - but I do think they should’ve engaged the community on the issue out of good practice because then they would’ve been far more likely to avoid the PR backlash at the very least.
You praised them for getting insights and ideas from the chicken shops, I’m simply saying they could’ve actually engaged with the people who are actively involved with the target demographic directly. I fail to see how that isn’t a more positive suggestion.

Even measuring the success of this campaign isn’t tangible - what are they hoping to achieve and how can they analyse the results?
“30% of knife crime avoided due to would-be-perpetrators being convinced by chicken shop box”? Which is part of why I said doing things just to do things isn’t necessarily a positive thing.
After the dust settles on this, how can they measure success or failure of this project?

I think limiting crime prevention strategies to thinks that can only be conclusively, quantitvely measured would be a really terrible thing, personally. Attitude change campaigns are a vital tool for social issues but the tools we have to measure their success are generally quite terrible. Better to live with that reality than set restrictions.

I'm any case, let's agree to disagree. I don't think you're certain about everything but I question your certainly about anything that fits under a broad header this complicated.

 

[Drainy]

Veganism

The only group with a worse reputation than gang members!