•
Yesterday I was having a look round Yahoo! Answers, as I occasionally do, and I found this question. It made me a little upset and depressed about the society the next generation are growing up in.
The question was from Maz, a 14-year-old, worried that she’d done something that could get her into trouble and end up with a criminal record. And what was the heinous crime for which she was scared of being hauled up in front of a beak (or at least given a theoretical slap-on-the-wrists down at her local police station, not to mention no doubt being added to the DNA database and a conviction she’d have to declare if she ever wanted to work with children or vulnerable adults)? She had written, in pencil, on a paving slab, a message to a boy whose number she didn’t have.
I genuinely can’t thing of anything more cute and innocent that a teenager could be caught doing. And yet rather than going to bed dreaming of the boy in question, she’d got herself so full of worry that she’d logged on to the internet and posted a question to gauge the likelihood of being thrown in the slammer as a result of her action. I don’t know what annoyed me more – that she’d be conditioned to believe that writing in pencil on a paving slab could result in a criminal conviction, or that several of the responses suggested that she should/could be in trouble for what she’d done.
Now I get as irritated of spray-can and scratched graffiti as the next person, and I’d perfectly happily send down someone caught daubing walls or etching their tag into a bus window. But I’d far prefer to live in a society that allows public expression of affection that get washed off in the rain than a society known for it’s clean pavements.
Maz, if you are reading this, I’ll buy you some chalk for next time.
Image courtesy of byronv2. Taken on a street near Park Circus in Glasgow. Used under licence.
•
One of the strange things I remember from my time at university in Bradford was that the toilets at the Interchange (the train and bus station) were lit using blue lights. This was supposedly to stop junkies from using the lavatories to shoot up—the idea being that the blue lighting made it difficult for them to find their veins—although apparently most regular heroin addicts could get a hit with their eyes closed.
The same idea is being used by Layton Burroughs Residents’ Association in Mansfield, except it’s pink light they’ve installed in a subway and their target is young people not drug users. Pink lights are used by beauticians to highlight skin blotches, and the idea is that highlighting young people’s acne makes it less desirable to hang around at that spot.
I’m glad to see the National Youth Agency appears to have criticised this, although their statement isn’t particularly strong. But it follows the Children’s Commissioner’s attacks on mosquitoes (the audio devices used to stop young people hanging around) and it’s good to see agencies that should be promoting young people’s rights publicly defending them.
I was at an RSA event in Hertfordshire last year, discussing young people and anti-social behaviour with several members of the local police force. One the frustrations a police officer said he had was that too often they were called by residents who wanted the police to do something before any crime had been committed. Media and politicians have helped fuel a perception among the public that young people are a threat if they hang around, and that hanging around is a crime.
Undoubtedly young people hanging around can be a nuisance, and their presence can make other residents feel vulnerable. But that doesn’t make it wrong or illegal. And simply introducing a device designed to make it uncomfortable for them won’t solve the problem.
At my local supermarket there are often young people hanging around outside the entrance, particularly if you go there on a Friday or Saturday night. One night recently I witnessed some young people giving the security guard some agro, which provoked the guard to react and chase one of the teenagers until he caught him. As soon as he’d grabbed him the security guard didn’t know quite what to do (he could hardly beat him up in the middle of a Tesco car-park, and equally he couldn’t hold on to him because he hadn’t committed any crime), but what I found more interesting was the reaction of the young person he’d caught. From laddish bravedo, as soon as he was caught he turned into a petrified child screaming not to be hurt and begging for forgiveness.
That incident reveals one of the key reasons young people choose to hang around the places they do. Because they feel safe. Because there are people to watch over them. Because aged 14-15, you want the independence of meeting outside of the family home, but still with the protection that adults can give.
And if we started considering that when trying to deal with the “problem” of anti-social young people, we might finally start getting somewhere.
Images courtesy of dieselbug2007. Used under licence.
•
This is a follow-up to yesterday’s post.
I wrote about five versions of the Participation doesn’t just mean parties post before I published it. Harry Phibbs comment piece covers a multitude of issues and it was difficult focusing my post on one element. The responses to it have drawn in other issues.
CB asks whether UKYP and local youth councils have led to a separation of young people away from the adult political arena, and therefore are counter-productive. It’s a genuine concern and one that I think should be seriously considered; but I don’t think young people have stopped being involved in ‘adult’ politics as a result. MYPs and local youth mayors etc all regularly meet with politicians and other stakeholders, as do many other young people. I don’t know of any research that suggests this is the case, nor whether there ever was a golden period where this happened. However, we should not be complacent.
My reason for supporting UKYP/BYC etc was that it provides a space for young people to develop the skills and experience needed for political engagement. As I was writing it, I used the term “sandbox politics”, but decided not to use it as it could belittle their work. However on reflection I think it is quite a good term. (Deprived from a sandbox computer that you can test new things on before deploying them on to a main/live system).
The danger of not having “sandboxes” is that young people who are less confident about engaging in public debate or being proactive in campaigning for something never get the opportunity to develop those skills. Or they attempt them and are put off by the rough-and-tumble of political engagement. Harry Phibbs says that young people should write a blog if they want to participate, but even that requires a fairly thick skin, not to mention confidence with the written word.
That’s not to say UKYP/BYC are just sandbox operations – and I’ve been impressed by campaigns like UKYP’s fares fair campaign for a consistent deal for young people on transport (an issue that I can’t imagine being raised by any of the existing political parties). BYC has long campaigned for Votes at 16, and that feels like it is moving closer to being a reality.
Mike’s point about UKYP/BYC being “representative” organisations I agree with more. But in defence of UKYP I don’t think its messaging recently is around that. Nor do I think that politicians, who are elected in broadly the same way, can criticise UKYP for not being representative of young people when MPs hardly reflect the UK’s population. It’s also interesting to ask how much money, outside of the political parties, is spent on improving the diversity of elective representatives in both Parliament and local councils. I’d hazard a guess at very little.
Image courtesy of Dr Craig. Used under licence.
•
Last week Harry Phibbs, writing in the Guardian, attacked the UK Youth Parliament and other young participation organisations for wasting tax-payers money on a “state-sanctioned system of bogus school elections to create smug, tame ‘youth politicians’”. His central thrust is that young people should get involved in ‘adult politics’ rather than a “segregated, pretend version”.
Harry’s justification for why there is no need for organisations like UKYP and BYC is based on his personal experience of joining a political party and writing letters to newspapers. That’s great that he did, and there are many young people who do today. But the assumption that because he did and knows others can therefore means that any young person can is both naive and quite possibly elitist. It also assumes that the only way to be involved in politics is via an existing political party, and that young people should respond to existing issues rather than be able to set the agenda themselves.
I know nothing about Harry’s background (bar the fact he went to a comprehensive school), but I’m assuming at some point – either at school or through his home life – he learned about the political process and how he could get involved in it. Not everyone is as fortunate to be in that position, and many young people in the UK have parents who have little understanding of how to engage in politics, save for sticking a cross on a ballot paper once in a while (and even that is debateable). Citizenship education, where stuff like this is learned, was only formally introduced onto the curriculum within the last ten years. It’s provision remains patchy, partly because Harry’s party, the Conservatives, have strongly hinted that they would seek to remove it should they regain power.
Outside of the education service, only the Electoral Commission has the statutory remit to promote political participation, and their publicity is aimed squarely at getting the vote out (not even understanding what you are voting about). There is not a single penny spent within government on any kind of public education about standing for election, the right to protest, how to campaign and what your MP could do for you.
Harry might see this as a good thing: that spending tax-income on trying to widen participation is pointless. But from where I’m standing, as someone who is passionate about politics but finds both the current political system and the parties totally demoralising, I struggle to comprehend why giving citizens the tools and knowledge to participate in politics is anything but a ‘no-brainer’. A view echoed by the findings of the Power Inquiry.
So both UKYP and BYC are filling a role that parliament and political parties are failing to do: teaching people about how the political process works and giving them the tools and knowledge as to how to get involved in the political process. Where Harry sees “tame”, I see rational. Where he sees “smug”, I see confident. That Harry managed to pull only two names of note, both from several decades ago, suggests that the majority of graduates of these programmes aren’t career politicians but citizens who pursue other walks of life, just having the skills to take on the politicians at their own game should the need arise.
If Harry doesn’t like UKYP, BYC and the local youth councils that span the width and breadth of the country, perhaps he’d like to suggest an alternative? From where I’m standing, it sounds like his vision is that unless you’ve inherited the knowledge and confidence to participate, and you believe in one of the established parties, then you don’t deserve an invite to get involved in politics.
As a side-point, Harry loses credibility somewhat with one of the laziest snides at students: namely that they “are too apathetic even to boycott lectures or hold a sit-in”. It’s a shame he (and the many others who use this argument) don’t appear to have given any thought to what successive governments have done to universities over the last 20 years, and the fact that those loans, tuition fees and living costs don’t magically get paid for these days. While he had the luxury of a juicy grant and free education that allowed him to spend his spare time involved in a sit-ins and protests, the average student in 2009 is spending around 20 hours a week in paid-employment. Protest is, unfortunately, a luxury of the rich.
Image courtesy of masyomo. Used under licence.
•
You may have seen the story about the 18-year old who has tried cashing in on being one of the children in the class that Thomas Hamilton opened fire in during the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Naturally the newspapers have been forthright in their condemnation, and politicians have been lining up to attack the insensitivity and arrogance of someone digging up a terrible event for the sake of a few extra bucks, while everyone else has tried to get on with their lives.
Except you won’t of seen that story. Because it hasn’t happened. What has happened is a journalist, working for a national newspaper, decided to do that. Via Facebook and Bebo she befriended some of those who survived the shooting, and then used the information she gleaned from their profiles to build a story that the newspaper then decided should lead the front-page of their Sunday edition.
And what information did she obtain to make this story giving such prominence? That some of the youngsters, now 18, had “posted shocking blogs and photographs of themselves on the internet”. The paper claimed one individual, who was injured in the attack, had a Bebo account that contained photos of them making “rude gestures” and boasting of “drunken nights out”. This, typical, legal and in-no-way-related-to-the-massacre behaviour apparently “shamed” the memory of those who had died.
It is difficult to comprehend (a) what sort of journalist thinks that is an acceptable way to get a story, and (b) what sort of newspaper editor/publisher or other members of the newspaper staff deemed it an appropriate story at all, let alone one to splash over the front page? The only reason for choosing a cover story is because it boosts sales, so the only reason that the newspaper would have placed it on their front page is because they wanted extra income.
But what is possibly most galling is the total absence of any public criticism of the journalist or newspaper by either other newspapers or by politicians. There is a groundswell of outrage in the blogsphere, including Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, as well as 30 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. But, accepting that there may be a feeling that continuing to talk about the issue prolongs the agony for the victims, there has been a distinct lack of reaction to this. It is, as if we just accept that this is what tabloid newspapers do.
Next time you see a newspaper splash a story about an out-of-control young person, consider whether the media has any right to hold these young people to account when they let one of their own get away with something as horrific as what Paula Murray and the Express pulled off.
“Be the person you want others to become.”
Update: The Sunday Express has since apologised for the story.
Images courtesy of Tillwe. Used under licence.
•
The BBC Radio 4 programme Go 4 It is being axed in May; ending Radio 4’s long-running association with children’s radio (traced back to Listen with Mother etc). There will still be occasional reading of children’s books “when children might listen”, plus of course some radio programming aimed at kids on BBC 7.
In his blog, Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer says that the problem was that kids weren’t listening. In fact, the average age of Go 4 It’s audience was 50. (Edit: The Guardian reports the RAJARs as 22,000 children out of an audience of 450,000).
Now many of those may be ‘noise-seeking listeners’, people using the radio as a distraction whilst they are doing something else. (Indeed, the only time I listen to Radio 4 other than via podcasts is when I’m in the car). But, I guess there are a fair few who actually tuned into Go 4 It, or at least made themselves available to listen, because they liked the subjects covered. There are, after all, thousands of people who love listening to the shipping forecast even though they live nowhere near the sea.
So, if the Radio 4 commissioners are reading this, here’s an idea: Why not do a show about children and young people’s issues, even if it isn’t aimed at them? And, why not use young people to make the show? There are thousands of young people involved in media projects throughout the country (see Media Box, or the BBC’s very own School Report), and there are some really brilliant audio projects that deserve a wider audience. That’s not to say it’d just be young people’s projects, but produced and researched like any other programme, but on issues that young people care about.
It’d help counter the negative perceptions of young people in the media, an issue you know is serious when even the Guardian and the Daily Mail appear to agree. And it’d give the BBC access to a whole range of new stories, and involve that demographic that serious people at the corporation are worrying about “losing”.
As I suggested in my last post, one of the problems with today’s society is that we are driving a chasm between adults and young people – stopping them understanding each other’s issues. Programmes like Newsround and Radio 1 Newsbeat go some way to explain the adult world to young people; but there isn’t anything in reverse. Perhaps this is the time to introduce it.
And if they are looking for a BBC producer with a good background in youth media projects; they could start here. Other producers are, of course, available.
PS. If you didn’t see the news, Parliament voted to allow UK Youth Parliament to hold a sitting in the House of Commons. It was great to watch the issue being debated on BBC Parliament – let’s hope the sitting gets televised as well.
Images courtesy of eyejammy. Used under licence.
•
Watching Question Time last week, which came from Toxteth in Liverpool, a member of the audience who identified himself as a youth worker asked the panel “When was the the last time you spoke to a young person who you didn’t know, but not in a professional capacity?”. David Mitchell fired back that he avoided speaking to anyone he didn’t know, but other than that, the question went unanswered.
Yet it’s an issue that’s been bugging me for a while, and I know others are concerned about it too. Whilst this blog is not intended to be about issues around Child Protection, there is a very real danger that the laudable attempts to ensure young people are protected from harm have also resulted in a seismic shift in the relationship between under 18s and those over 18. We have professionalised the relationship and lost the informal contact that existed less than a generation ago, when I was growing up.
Child Protection policies, whether directly or indirectly, have created an unwillingness among adults to interact with young people without permission (usually written) and outside of organised activities. Moreover, young people don’t get the opportunity to experience life as an adult until they become one, because their only interaction with adults prior to this is where there are clear role differences between the adult and the young person.
Does this matter? Well, I think it does. It’s part of an ongoing concern that I have of creating a cliff-edge between childhood and adulthood, rather than steps that recognise young people don’t wake up on their 18th birthday with anything new other than a bunch of birthday cards. The skills and maturity that young people develop to make them “fully-fledged members of society” (aka adults) don’t come about as a result of chemical or biological changes in their bodies. They come about because of the social norms and values the young people pick up. If we fail to give them opportunities to learn those norms we simply create a generation unable to cope with adulthood.
However, it’s very difficult to propose a solution that isn’t seen to be condoning activity that could provide cover for child abuse, or at least inferring that we have to accept an element of risk that that could occur.
Image courtesy of charliestyr. Used under licence.
•
I guess I’m pretty cynical about politicians at the best of times, but every so often something comes along that just angers me and makes me question more and more whether we live in a democracy or a dictatorship controlled by a bunch of self-appointed numpties.
And recently just such occurrence has happened. Last year the UK Youth Parliament, an organisation I’ve long had huge amounts of respect for, held a sitting in the House of Lords chamber. It was a hugely symbolic and also incredibly powerful recognition that young people have just as much of a right to debate issues as the grandiose folk who usually occupy those red benches. The House of Lords sitting came on the back of UKYP sittings at both the Welsh and Scottish chambers.
Since then, several times including to an audience that I was part of, Gordon Brown announced that he wanted to extend the invitation to UKYP to give their representatives (MYPs) the chance to hold a sitting in the House of Commons chamber. This was fairly unprecedented, and indeed it was agreed that it would be a one off rather than set a precedent; but the Prime Minister wanted to show that young people’s representatives should be at the heart of a democracy as much as their adult counterparts.
UK Youth Parliament isn’t a fly-by-night or half-baked organisation; launched 10 years ago it involves over 90% of UK local authorities and through elections in schools and youth organisations a turnout that massively puts the General Election vote to shame*. In fact, the whole UKYP structure is amazingly democratic, and the MYPs take their responsibilities very seriously.
So you’d assume that the Prime Minister’s invitation to allow the MYPs to spend one day in the House of Commons chamber would be universally supported. Sadly that’s not the case. In fact, the proposal has been put in front of the House three times, and three times it has been rejected by MPs.
There are plenty of MPs, from all parties, who support this initiative and want it to succeed. But there are also MPs who don’t. And it’s not that I object to MPs having a different viewpoint to me, it’s that I have yet to hear one sensible explanation as to why those MPs don’t want it to happen. Because the government hasn’t scheduled any time for the debate (which although is unfortunate, I actually don’t have a problem with because I think there are bigger issues for MPs to spend time worrying about), all it takes is an MP to shout ‘object’ and the proposal is dropped.
Beyond the simple issue of refusing entry to the House of Commons chamber to young people, there is a much more worrying underlying problem. I beggar to believe that there are any votes in preventing young people having their day in parliament, nor that any newspaper would get worked up by the issue. Indeed, the House of Lords debate received very positive coverage, including a showing on BBC Parliament. So, assuming that MPs aren’t acting on the whim of a tabloid editor, or because of a whip, they must be acting on a deeply-held principle. And that suggests to me, and I’m sure many others, that there are MPs who fundamentally believe that young people don’t have a right to be heard.
But apparently it’s the young people’s fault they aren’t engaging with politics…
* it’s worth saying that these are figures I remember being quotes, but I’m happy to be corrected.
Image courtesy of Masyomo. Used under licence.
