Monday 21 July 2014

Radicalised Youth

Way outside of my comfort zone but it strikes me that this current pre-occupation with extremist radicalising our youth is yet another twist on the old familiar gang culture. Teenage boys, boys with low self-esteem, boys with a disconnect from their local culture, boys without hope seem to seek out other like minded youth. It just takes some alpha male to offer identity, some, just any purpose, some bonding ritual, something that makes them special to stand out (as a group) to be taken account of. Within this special elitist (in their minds eye) group they achieve status, recognition and respect of their piers. Back turned to the society that nurtures and supports them. Their own secret group rules now are all that matter, nothing else is of any account. Whether it is a Jhad, fighting the next door gang, doing the Mod's in Clacton, it is just what Gangs do.

Once the answer was conscription, put them in the Army, let the Army act as a quasi Alpha Male Gang leader. At least there they were given identity, fellowship and some degree of  security, depending on how warmongering the times were, until they grew up enough to put silly boy gangs behind them and join the real adult world and look after their family. But we don't have the Army anymore. We do have an awful lot of disaffected youth with time, no aspirations in the their hands and no hopes of a better future. How do we go about giving these youths a sense of purpose, how do we connect with them on their terms in their language using their blinked view of the world?

No answers to offer except that without hope, without any sense of being able to better themselves, never losing this over-arching sense of unfairness, nothing will change. So our increasingly unequal society is just going to have to change instead. Stop the rot of only boys of rich families, who go to very good schools are the only ones to succeed, to get a job and a nice home and do all those things that nice people do. All boys should have that hope and chance to succeed. Without it I am very much afraid even more gangs, even more radicalised youth. Not even if every other adult was recruited into a snooper service are you going to be able to it stop. Simple. Give boys, and girls, hope.

Saturday 19 July 2014

Who is in charge?

You are put in charge. Someone has selected you above other contenders, seen some quality and has placed their faith in you, you are in charge. Keen to justify that faith you want to show leadership, you want to be seen to make a difference, you want those under you to now raise their game to match your own performance. You are in charge so you direct, you issue instruction, you resolve conflict, you are in control. Those under you begin to appear to have lost all initiative, they no longer make their own  sound judgement calls, everything is queried or requires your confirmation. You begin to suffocate under all the calls on your decisions as you bewail the lack of initiative of those working under you. Sounds all too familiar?

We are social animals, we perform at our best within the herd and with the herd's approval. That is who we are. We are also lazy, prone to just follow the next person rather than take the risk extra work or failure by going our own way. The worst performing societies, knee-jerk respond to the first skitter of reaction. The whole herd dashing off to follow that first change of direction. Like lemmings dashing off without forethought, panicking in response to some ill-define threat until they all leap off the cliff edge, following blindly that frightened first alarm call. The best performing societies the herd balances it responses with a measured view drawn across all the whole range of reactions, from the flighty, skittish, to the philosophical, the thinking out of the box, to the been there done that, to the plain weary to the stubborn not changing until it has to change. Choosing a course out of that gamut of reaction may at times be ponderous but with the wealth of experiences that range of reaction brings, may more often make a sensible lasting judgement call than the knee jerking at the first signs of a hiccup.

As individuals we bring our own unique style, experience and judgements to the task at hand. Not one of us will set about skinning the cat the exact same way as another. The variation in technique matters not. What matters is that the cat is skinned. Management may want to raise targets of time or quality or cat welfare. How those in charge of the task set about achieving a better output is vital. If they issue orders and instructions, then those doing the work switch off and submissively follow the order or instruction. More expansive orders and instruction then have to follow because those doing the work have not read the mind or seen the work the same way as those issuing the orders. The alternative is to empower those in charge to do the task their way whilst encouraging and supporting them to raise their standards to those targets. Those in charge offering gentle suggestions or meaningful comparisons along the way. Those doing the work, in the absence of direction will share experiences amongst themselves, support each other and will find a collective way to achieve the required result. Those in charge being left free to attend to other matters with just the occasional light touch to adjust output. This is collective societies working at its best, working collaboratively but accepting accountability for your own input.

In the scale of things, just tosh. Except of course that governments act and work like simplified people. Our Political Leaders exhibit that need to show they are in control and are seen to be acting divisively. Government rush in to be seen to respond to the latest emotive outburst. Control, followed by ever more detailed prescription of what is permitted and which sanctions will be applied to what defaults. We teeter, with the best of intentions, remorselessly to Totalitarianism. The citizens slowly surrender their will to think for themselves, to question, to challenge and sink into despair of just doing what is required, no matter how illogical, just for a quiet life. We lose all round. No one wins.
We have to empower people to think and act for themselves. We have reform our society so people take responsibility for their own actions. Government has to restrain itself, guiding on the long term objections but easing up on the desire to control the now.

Surely when the person in the street is baffled by the logic of the bedroom tax, penalising of the destitute, requiring access to everyone's electronic communication, official encouragement of zero-hour contracts, commercialisation of core state functions, to name but a few, then it is past time for a sea change.


Tuesday 15 July 2014

Soccer Madness

The superlatives are in full flood about the greatest ever World Cup games. I am no football lover and scarcely can bring myself to watch a game through, at the most I peep at the highlights. So no football analysis here then. However two images do stand out starkly. These two images will remain as my recollection of the World Cup Brazil 2014. One image is of a 'player' lunging forward to bite into the shoulder of an opponent, the other is of a 'player' holding an opponent by his shoulders as he bring his full weight into his knee that he then jabs into the small of the back of the held opponent.

This later incident, to my knowledge received no reprimand nor was any penalty card issued. Yes the first instance did have some sanctions applied but far too lenient. What is the message that the controlling authorities; the media that reaps rewards by beaming out the content; the advertisers hoping for sales by association and all our young players watching eagerly shaping their hopes on the role models on display? It is perfectly okay to deliberately 'take out' an opponent, cripple him so he is not game fit, even at the very possible risk is that he will be wheelchair crippled as a result!

Soccer is a physical sport, with body contact an essential part of it, but lets not pussy foot around, neither of these two incidents were anything like an accidental, over eager, clumsy, miscalculated tackle. They were cold blooded and deliberate. Their clear unambiguous intention was to do harm. How can any sport condone this. These two players should be immediately disqualified from ever playing soccer for the rest of their lives. It is simply unacceptable behaviour. It should not be condoned. Except of course they represent millions of pounds of investment, receive enormous cash and life style incentives to achieve the required outcomes and success set them apart. Such disproportionate rewards that being left crippled by 'the game' is insignificant against the tangible rewards readily available. So that makes it alright?

Not in my book. What book are you reading from? So my lasting image of the 2014 World Cup games will be of a 'sport' where it is permissible reward savage brutal behaviour.