Britain eager to fulfill Orwell's vision

[The Winslow]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families
SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES

Thursday July 23,2009
By Alison Little


THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.

Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless.

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.

He said: “This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support.”

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is all much too little, much too late.

“This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse.”

Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons.

Pupils and their families will have to sign behaviour contracts known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, which will set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.

The updated Youth Crime Action Plan also called for a crackdown on violent girl gangs as well as drug and alcohol abuse among young women.

But a decision to give ministers new powers to intervene with failing local authority Youth Offending Teams was criticised by council leaders.

Les Lawrence, of the Local Government Association, said they did “crucial” work and such intervention was “completely unnecessary”.

Somebody please tell me the Express is a parody site.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5888162/Worst-families-in-Britain-will-be-put-in-sin-bins.html

And the Telegraph, too.

[Freedom Canadian]

And the opposition is denouncing this as being too weak. :grey:

[Dr. Paragon]

Sin bin projects operate in half of council areas already but Mr Balls wants every local authority to fund them.
Thank God he wasn't named "Bollocks".
:D

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is all much too little, much too late.
WTFOMGBBQ!!!11one,uno,ein!

[Dacke]

I believe the "shadow cabinet" is basically the British term for the opposition's spokespeople. So Labour has a home secretary doing whatever a home secretary does, and the Tories have a shadow home secretary saying how wrong the Labour one's policies are.

[Dr. Paragon]

Damn...
I was hoping it referred to these fellahs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(Babylon_5)

[Dacke]

Also, England has been leading the march toward fascism in Europe for quite a while now. I mean, just take the whole concept of ASBOs (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm)...

[Dr. Paragon]

I see your ASBOs, and raise you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY

[The Winslow]

Also, England has been leading the march toward fascism in Europe for quite a while now. I mean, just take the whole concept of ASBOs (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm)...

1. Earlier this year an application was made in Manchester for an ASBO on a female prostitute. It was alleged she was causing a nuisance in Manchester by accosting men and generally causing offence. The Magistrates agreed to an ASBO. One of its conditions was that she was prohibited from carrying condoms within the given area.
Proper social behaviour from a prostitute is to do her part in the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and unsanitary abortions.

[nerfherder]

Somebody please tell me the Express is a parody site.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5888162/Worst-families-in-Britain-will-be-put-in-sin-bins.html

Sadly, most of Britain's papers are.

I notice that the article doesn't mention that this is a voluntary scheme, open to people who would otherwise be sent to jail.

[Freedom Canadian]

I notice that the article doesn't mention that this is a voluntary scheme, open to people who would otherwise be sent to jail.

Oh, it's alright then. :grey:

[nerfherder]

Oh, it's alright then. :grey:

Well, if you were given the option of jail or 24 hour CCTV supervision, would you complain about the CCTV being "Orwellian"?

[nerfherder]

These are the people we are talking about:
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678

What is the problem?

In some communities there are a small number of highly problematic families that account for a disproportionate amount of anti-social behaviour. They are well known to many service providers and enforcement agencies. Some families have up to twenty different organisations involved with them.

The effect of their behaviour on communities cannot be under-estimated. Those living around these families often move home themselves if they can, many end up keeping their children indoors and changing their daily routines. Their behaviour corrodes community spirit and reduces a community’s capacity to deal with problems. These families can also have problems themselves – physical and mental health problems, domestic violence, substance misuse, poor basic and life skills. Children often have behavioural problems and are not regular school attendees.

However, services struggle to resolve these cases. Lots of different agencies are usually involved with different family members (such as children’s services, education welfare, voluntary organisations, housing departments as well as the police and criminal justice agencies). While families need help and support, they may not want to engage, or reject the help, or are offered it as an option to take up if they choose. Enforcement action has been sometimes been threatened but is not followed through.

So despite months and years of intervention from agencies, they continue to damage themselves, their children and the community around them. Tackling problems in a way that meets both the needs of communities and of the families themselves is critical to resolving problems but these needs have sometimes been seen as mutually exclusive.

Family intervention projects, through intensive support and enforcement action, can improve the quality of life for the wider community as well as the families themselves. The solution lies in confronting and changing the behaviour so that it is dealt with and not displaced.
Left to their own devices, they make the lives of others in their community a misery, and their children end up fucked up and without an education. The family intervention project at least uses a carrot and a stick.

[Freedom Canadian]

And you think growing up under the eye-present eye of government employees is not going to make kids fucked up ?

[nerfherder]

And you think growing up under the eye-present eye of government employees is not going to make kids fucked up ?
They're fucked up already. This has a chance of making them go to school, get fed, and be raised in a household without violence and abuse.

Do you think it's better to take the children away and put them in foster homes?

[Freedom Canadian]

They're fucked up already. This has a chance of making them go to school, get fed, and be raised in a household without violence and abuse.

Do you think it's better to take the children away and put them in foster homes?

If they're so bad as you say, so bad that their parents had a choice between jail and cameras ? Yes.

[AZRogue]

And you think growing up under the eye-present eye of government employees is not going to make kids fucked up ?

That's exactly right.

The fact is, more intervention is not going to solve the problems people wish could be solved. It's not going to bring back 8-track tape, or Elvis, no matter how many rainbows we clutch.

If people are willing to provide funding for it--I don't know, if it's worth it to people then it's their dime I suppose--then there should be some serious therapy and counseling available, but even that shouldn't be mandatory.

You can't force people to be better as you see it.

What you do is, you provide them with every opportunity to change, spell out the consequences of their actions the best you can, and then you leave them to their choice. And, guess what? Most of them are going to make the wrong one.

So, they then become a burden to society, you say? Not so. They're only a burden as much as you let them. If I ask a man to leave my property because he's trespassing, and then just feed him and clothe him when he doesn't comply, is it the man's fault that I am a complete and utter moron?

If the families don't partake in the counseling they're provided, or don't change, you don't stick them in prison OR under a microscope. You withdraw society's aid. No food, no money, no succor, no enabling.

[nerfherder]

That's exactly right.

The fact is, more intervention is not going to solve the problems people wish could be solved. It's not going to bring back 8-track tape, or Elvis, no matter how many rainbows we clutch.

If people are willing to provide funding for it--I don't know, if it's worth it to people then it's their dime I suppose--then there should be some serious therapy and counseling available, but even that shouldn't be mandatory.

You can't force people to be better as you see it.

What you do is, you provide them with every opportunity to change, spell out the consequences of their actions the best you can, and then you leave them to their choice. And, guess what? Most of them are going to make the wrong one.

So, they then become a burden to society, you say? Not so. They're only a burden as much as you let them. If I ask a man to leave my property because he's trespassing, and then just feed him and clothe him when he doesn't comply, is it the man's fault that I am a complete and utter moron?

If the families don't partake in the counseling they're provided, or don't change, you don't stick them in prison OR under a microscope. You withdraw society's aid. No food, no money, no succor, no enabling.
OK, so you make them homeless. What do you do with their children? Pay to support them?

[nerfherder]

That's exactly right.

The fact is, more intervention is not going to solve the problems people wish could be solved. It's not going to bring back 8-track tape, or Elvis, no matter how many rainbows we clutch.

The initial study seems to indicate that your "fact" is not entirely factual...

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/ACF44F.pdf

[Schizm]

OK, so you make them homeless. What do you do with their children? Pay to support them?

The battlecry of the American conservative is "Social Darwinism!"

Because it's always worked out *so* well.

[nerfherder]

The battlecry of the American conservative is "Social Darwinism!"

Because it's always worked out *so* well.
Strangely, as Canadian Freedom said, British conservatives think not enough intervention is being done.

[AZRogue]

Round 'em all up and put them in camps, then, whatever floats your boat. Taking away their ability to choose is, in my mind, just as messed up as eliminating the possibility of facing the consequences of your own actions. It's not good by any stretch of the imagination.

What do you propose to do with those people who tell you "no" we don't want to? Force them, right? That's pretty damn noble.

[AZRogue]

The battlecry of the American conservative is "Social Darwinism!"

Because it's always worked out *so* well.

I don't think that's true. They get part of it right sometimes, maybe, just as liberals get a lot right when it comes to the particular freedoms they endorse, but they want to control things just as much as "liberals"--they just want to control different things. Both conservatives and liberals love forcing others to live the way they think they should, for their own good of course.

[Janos]

What do you propose to do with those people who tell you "no" we don't want to? Force them, right? That's pretty damn noble.

Well, if you were given the option of jail or 24 hour CCTV supervision, would you complain about the CCTV being "Orwellian"?

Not that I agree with the UK's plan, but you tell them "you violated the terms of your sentance, and you're off to jail. Not for refusing to raise your children as you agreed to, but because you violated the terms of your sentance, just like any other commuted/parole sentancing.

[nerfherder]

Not that I agree with the UK's plan, but you tell them "you violated the terms of your sentance, and you're off to jail. Not for refusing to raise your children as you agreed to, but because you violated the terms of your sentance, just like any other commuted/parole sentancing.
I think that's basically right, although as I've read more about the subject it does seem that I overstated the jail part, so I apologise for that.

I think this part of the report I linked to earlier is relevant, and also backs up some of the points others have made:
8.2.7 Using sanctions with support

In Chapter Seven, we presented a range of interpretations of exactly what role FIP staff played in the enforcement of sanctions for families’ continued ASB. In spite of this variation, however, there seemed to be general agreement among staff and local agency partners that FIPs needed to make use of sanctions in some way, alongside support, in order to ensure families’ engagement and receptiveness to interventions.

In practice, families who agreed to work with a FIP tended to do so for one or both of the following reasons:

• They were under threat of serious sanctions (e.g. eviction, having their children removed) and perceived the FIP as a way of avoiding these.

• They recognised that they had support needs and were attracted by the support the FIP could offer.

However, genuine engagement involved more than simply agreeing to work with the FIP. It involved the family being receptive to the service and in principle being prepared to change.

It was quite typical for FIP families to be in denial about the need for them to change their behaviour. For example, they disputed certain allegations; blamed their behaviour on others’ actions; or argued subjectivity i.e. that what someone else saw as ASB, they saw as normal behaviour (e.g. ‘just children being boisterous’). Where used effectively, the possibility of sanctions being enforced provided a stark illustration to families of the severity of their actions and thus prompted them to acknowledge their ASB. Having done that, they then came to see that support from the FIP might be needed or helpful for making the necessary behavioural changes. At this point, they became genuinely engaged with the FIP (i.e. more receptive to interventions and more open to change).

The necessity for families to acknowledge the need for behavioural change had two key implications for FIPs’ use of sanctions alongside support.

• Where a family did not desire support, the simple threat of sanctions may be
sufficient to bring about initial agreement, as they may perceive themselves as being ‘at the last chance saloon’, with no option but to work with the FIP.
However, this did not necessarily amount to a genuine acknowledgement of the need for behavioural change. Our evidence suggests that when family members acknowledged the need for changes in their behaviour, and the support they required to effect these, they became more receptive to the FIP and more open to change. Thus, even where the threat of serious sanctions may in itself be sufficient to secure engagement, it could still be necessary to bring about acknowledgement and acceptance in order to deliver a truly successful service.

• Where a family desired support, sanctions may not be needed to secure initialagreement. However, a family may simply desire support for its own sake, without acknowledging the need for behavioural change. In that case, the FIP may still need to make use of sanctions in order to bring about this
acknowledgment, which was needed to ensure that the support delivered would be effective for the family and community alike.

[AZRogue]

Not that I agree with the UK's plan, but you tell them "you violated the terms of your sentance, and you're off to jail. Not for refusing to raise your children as you agreed to, but because you violated the terms of your sentance, just like any other commuted/parole sentancing.

I didn't read anything about them getting out jail in the article, but I could have missed it. If it's an alternative to jail time, then I would mellow on it a bit, provided it was still optional. Of course, given that choice, there isn't much of a choice at all.

But I'd want to know what they're doing in jail in the first place. For truancy?

Voluntary programs like this could be great--some people like and can benefit from the kind of government daycare they're talking about--but it sounded more like the government reserving the right to step in and basically imprison families while they're indoctrinated.

[nerfherder]

I didn't read anything about them getting out jail in the article, but I could have missed it. If it's an alternative to jail time, then I would mellow on it a bit, provided it was still optional. Of course, given that choice, there isn't much of a choice at all.

But I'd want to know what they're doing in jail in the first place. For truancy?

Voluntary programs like this could be great--some people like and can benefit from the kind of government daycare they're talking about--but it sounded more like the government reserving the right to step in and basically imprison families while they're indoctrinated.
Not sure if you saw my last post before you posted this. As I said, as I've done more research, the jail thing seems to have been overstated. It seems more likely to be that Social Services were close to taking the children away, or that they were to be evicted from their Council House.

The report does point out that you can't just "indoctrinate", and that you need buy-in from the families in the scheme.
Our evidence suggests that when family members acknowledged the need for changes in their behaviour, and the support they required to effect these, they became more receptive to the FIP and more open to change. Thus, even where the threat of serious sanctions may in itself be sufficient to secure engagement, it could still be necessary to bring about acknowledgement and acceptance in order to deliver a truly successful service.


It also points out that there need to be sanctions available, and they need to be used if the family don't cooperate. So, from what I can gather, the sequence seems to be that various agencies are already involved before they try the Family Intervention Programme - Social Services, Police, etc. If the family don't participate and turn round their anti-social behaviour, then the original "looming" sanctions can be applied.

[Freedom Canadian]

Not sure if you saw my last post before you posted this. As I said, as I've done more research, the jail thing seems to have been overstated. It seems more likely to be that Social Services were close to taking the children away, or that they were to be evicted from their Council House.

The report does point out that you can't just "indoctrinate", and that you need buy-in from the families in the scheme.


Yeah, you need buy-in and you get it with threats. Welcome to state-sponsored intimidation.

You can't help people by force.

I mean, it's not necessarily bad, it depends on how and whom you apply it to, but reading the policy without knowing how it will be put in place exactly is chilling. I mean "However, a family may simply desire support for its own sake, without acknowledging the need for behavioural change. In that case, the FIP may still need to make use of sanctions in order to bring about this acknowledgment, which was needed to ensure that the support delivered would be effective for the family and community alike." That's some scary shit right there.

[AZRogue]

Yeah, you need buy-in and you get it with threats. Welcome to state-sponsored intimidation.

You can't help people by force.

I mean, it's not necessarily bad, it depends on how and whom you apply it to, but reading the policy without knowing how it will be put in place exactly is chilling. I mean "However, a family may simply desire support for its own sake, without acknowledging the need for behavioural change. In that case, the FIP may still need to make use of sanctions in order to bring about this acknowledgment, which was needed to ensure that the support delivered would be effective for the family and community alike." That's some scary shit right there.

Exactly. Also, what's anti-social behavior? Are we talking about civil terrorism, minor disobedience, or just failure to conform? It seems like HOA madness, but focused on families that don't behave like the kind of families that you want in your area.

Is this just for truancy? Or are these families who are abusing their children? Are they foreigners who make the girls do the dishes?

There has to be a cultural divide that I'm not seeing past, because child protective services usually don't get involved here unless parents are criminally negligent and/or abusive. Anti-social behavior is such a blanket diagnosis, I've seen--literally and specifically--it used against a guy who had problems shitting in public toilets.

[nerfherder]

Well, you guys know how to use google, and I've provided a link to a report on how things seem to be going with FIPs, so feel free to answer your own questions :)

[AZRogue]

Well, you guys know how to use google, and I've provided a link to a report on how things seem to be going with FIPs, so feel free to answer your own questions :)

I haven't taken the time to do more than read the initial article, and then comment on the principle/policy as it described.

This looks like it could be a good conversation, though, so I'll definitely read more about it later and post again. :)