Dispatches

Comments

1. For many of these children intervention at primary school isn't soon enough. Most of the damage is done in the first year of a child's development if they are emotionally and physically neglected. It is now proven (through brain scans) that children's brain's who are neglected and/ or traumatized in infancy do not develop in the way that a child who is well cared for. Given that quite a high proportion of young offenders have been in care there's a strong possibility that many of them were subjected to early neglect or abuse. The key aspect of the way these children's brains develop, which affects their behaviour is that their 'thinking' brain does not develop in the same way as a baby who's needs are fully met.So much of their early bad behaviour may be driven not intentional. Much of their behaviour will be governed by reflexes or their behaviour is driven by the more primitive part of the brain, traits that would generally subside naturally in a healthy child's development. Unfortunately for these children when all the brain connections set at about a year old, neglected babies are left with a brain that is not equipped do deal with the frustrations of life in a rational way. Coupled with this there can be likely attachment disorder where a child has not been able to make a healthy attachment with their primary care giver and also the learning difficulties/ executive functioning issues that are also a result of what sadly within the first year of a neglected babies life is probably a brain that is not sufficiently developed for the challenges that lie ahead (school, relationships, learning). This damage can be undone but it really can be a lifetime's theraputic work to enable those brain connections to be reformed and enable these children to become happy adults, and sadly the odds are stacked against them.So it really is imperitive (not to mention much cheaper)to prevent the damage in the first place. For more research look at the work of Kate Cairns, Margot Sunderland, Dan Hughes, Bryan Post. Children's centre's are starting to educate young mothers about the effects their parenting can have have on their child's development and what positive changes they can implement, but it's just not comprehensive enough. Bear in mind some of these mothers may never have experienced good parenting themselves so they simply do not know what is required of them. I call for more education, support and if necessary supervision of mothers that are identified by social services as being at risk of emotionally neglecting their babies. Most mother's do want the best for their babies they are just not aware of the input they need to provide and are sometimes not emotionally equipped themselves to provide it without education and support. My own experience and reasons for researching all this come from being an adoptive parent to two children, one who was placed in a loving foster home from birth until we adopted her at 18 months and who seems to have suffered very little throughout her experiences and is developing quite normally and a little boy that we adopted at 13 months who had suffered a significant degree of neglect, particularly emotional neglect throughout his first year. 7 Years into the adoption we are still coping with the effects this neglect has on his behaviour now. His prognosis is good, we completely adore him and are completely committed to him despite his issues and we see progress every year. But if he hadn't been placed for adoption I wonder that he wouldn't end up being the subject of one of these street crime programmes in the future, which is just desperately sad when you see his potential. So early intervention is key and education and support for vulnerable mum's should be compulsory in my opinion.

   Posted by Laura clyne on 06/08/2009 01:33:06

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. War on street crime is indeed a WAR, so devise a points system, graded as for motoring offences, (carrying/ using/ killing, with knife or gun etc to signify acceptance of the consequences) - appropriate scores meriting admission to boot camp for mine-disposal experience. This should then be followed by such training being put to use in the current war zone thus saving lives worth saving. Anything else takes too long, and more & more lives are lost. By all means use the softly softly way eventually, but stop the fear & carnage NOW by draconian means. ZERO TOLERANCE NEEDED.

   Posted by basili5k on 04/08/2009 14:14:01

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. I am a secondary teacher in London & have a friend in Birmingham who has an inspired, practical and effective way of talking to these vulnerable youth; his approach is based on reversing the false sense of FEAR which underpins the carrying and using of knives, and the level of communication reached means that young people listen and learn from him. Cherie, in the Dispatches programme you directly asked if anyone had any answers; in the light of the unhelpful solution posed by the 'knife tsar' to bring back hanging, you have nothing to lose by trying new approaches. Please contact me for more details.

   Posted by pip smith on 04/08/2009 09:57:28

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. How many young people are killed by knives? How many young people are killed by the car?

   Posted by D. on 03/08/2009 22:00:46

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. I agree with Alan Barker... Was this just a practical joke on C4's part?... In which case, fair play. I can appreciate the humour... Or was this a deliberate attempt to infuriate and alienate the viewer?... In which case I am a little annoyed.

   Posted by Danny452 on 03/08/2009 21:22:27

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. The "what works" approach being taken in the development in crime prevention policy was encouraging, however the suggestion that people who have been violent criminals should be given jobs that graduates who studied criminal justice and social policy are struggling to get really angered me.

   Posted by Gareth R on 03/08/2009 21:04:00

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. Cherie Booth is, like myself, interested in the law and shares an obvious concern about the blighted lives of many of Britain's youth. Through her legal experience, it is heartening that she has taken the time to help make this programme and highlight the major issues affecting young people today. I have also studied this topic as part of a post-graduate degree and believe me the more you study the subject and become aware of certain young people's home life ad situations, it is both sad and very frightening. I feel we are at a point now where many young people do not care what the future holds for them and many see the gang as a 'family' due to a distinct lack of domestic support and guidance in thr home. This is not just a police issue, this affects us all. Intervention at an early age through school visits and youth workers can help. A project exists in Leeds run by the Royal Armouries ccalled the 'Weapons Awareness Project'. This project is aimed at using shock tac-tics both by graphic photographs of the physical damage weapons and guns can leave and also highlighting what it is like to take a life at such an early age. South Yorkshire Police also run a similar intervention programme. The answer in my opinion is intervention not incarceration. Programmes such as these are a must and the opportunityto utilise this tac-tic should rolled out nationwide.

   Posted by John Marsden on 03/08/2009 21:00:03

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. It looks like I am the second person to be appalled, confused, bewildered and downright outraged at the cheek of Cherie Blair QC. So many of her points are uncontroversial. Yes, peer counselling helps young people. Yes, targeted community work is vital. Yes, youth clubs are essential. Yes, consistent funding is a core issue. The trouble is Cherie Blair was a central member of the New Labour project which, over ten years, failed on all these issues. When she interviews New Labour ministers doesn't she feel any responsibility? Couldn't she have rolled over in bed and told Tony some of this stuff?

   Posted by Alan Gibbons on 03/08/2009 20:43:35

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. What is Cherie Blair and her bleeding heart doing presenting this program, its so bad ive just changed sides. Her husband had 10 years to sort it out in which time the problem rose exponentially. It makes me sick havinhg her as a presenter as though she had never anything to do with the cause of it.

   Posted by Alan Barker on 03/08/2009 20:13:41

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment