The Tories announcements on crime seem to get stranger and stranger as time goes on. First they said they wanted to hug a hoody, then they wanted to take his phone off him. Now the advice is give him a wide berth because he’ll probably put ‘a cap in yo ass’ (or something like that).
Apparently, Chris Grayling MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, thinks that parts of Britain are now like hit US TV show “The Wire”. Which leads me to one of two conclusions:
- Chris Grayling has never actually watched “The Wire”.
- Chris Grayling is an idiot.
Please note that these two conclusions are not mutually exclusive.
Mr Grayling believes that the police are now fighting an “urban war” against gangs and that violence in society has become “a norm and not an exception”. Scary stuff. There are indeed some trouble spots within the country, this isn’t anything new. Some urban areas have significant problems with drugs, violence and guns that this government has failed to eradicate and more does need to be done.
……but the Wire? Seriously?
The Wire is a fictional programme, but is set in the very real city of Baltimore in Maryland. So let’s do some comparisons. The Baltimore Metropolitan Area has a population of around 2.7 million people, similar to the 2.5 million people of Greater Manchester, so it’s probably a fairly good comparison.
In 2006/07 the total number of Homicides in Greater Manchester was 59.
In 2007 in Baltimore, the same figure was 282.
This means that Baltimore has a homicide rate that is around 477% higher.
The Manchester stats also show something else. That those most likely to be homicide victims were white men aged between 36-50. Yes, clearly gang members. It also shows that the majority of suspects fit the same profile. In the Wire, it tends to be young, black men that end up being shot, but is this really the case in Britain? Young black men are more likely to be the victims of crime, we know this. But thankfully we do not have the situation that exists in America where gangs really are a problem in the way Chris Grayling is claiming we do here.
All this shows just how out of touch the Tories are with modern Britain. These kind of quotes may play well with Daily Mail readers who believe that urban crime is someone smashing their ornamental flower pots, but this kind of talk is not going to help those who are really suffering in our cities.
I’m not going to claim that I know the situation first hand. I’m some kid from a small English town where it made the front page when someone was shot with a BB gun. But I know that overhyping the problems and giving TV show based sound bites for some cheap publicity isn’t going help.
There’s still one thing the Tories are quiet on though – what are they going to do to sort all these problems they’ve identified?
Maybe I’ll take Chris Grayling a bit more seriously when he answers that.
Related posts:
Thanks for they synopsis of The Wire. It’s possible he’s watched the program but not understood it. Tend to find MP’s bit thick in this department re: TV.
I agree with you that it’s a ridicules comparison to make.
On a side note, one of the series of the Wire focused quite heavily on how the Maryland public (i.e. state) education system is failing to lift people out of the cycle of poverty and violence that is the focus of much of the rest of the series. Not only are the Tories quiet on how they will tackle crime, but their plans for educational reform are conspicuous by their absence also.
Interesting that the Wire’s creators have nothing but compassion for those failed by the American government, and nothing but a heartfelt desire to change things. Also, from what I have seen, they never attempted to glorify, ridicule or cheapen any of the subject matter of their series.
Can we say the same about the Tories?
It has now been established that Chris Grayling has not, in fact, watched The Wire.
I regard watching television entertainment, particularly the products of the USA, as a mark of the thick. They rarely have anything useful to say, and they subtly introduce dubious assumptions which affect people, though they do not realise it. For me, any politician who boasts of watching USA television programmes is telling me he’s someone for whom I do not wish to vote.
The extent to which people are affected may be demonstrated by Americanisms which are creeping into people’s language. For example, when I was young the word “gotten” was regarded as a very weird Americanism, no-one actually used it here, we always said “got”. There’s nothing wrong with it, simply a past participle form which survived in US English but dropped out here.
Now I find it used very often in the UK, particularly by younger people. They don’t even realise it’s an issue. Unconsciously they are using it because they are trying to be hip and sound like those they see on their US entertainment. So, if this little innocent grammatical change has slipped in here thanks to people being dominated by US entertainment, what other less innocent attitudes have unconsciously been absorbed?
That’s a really good point, Matthew (Huntbach, not O’Grady, even though O’Grady made good points too!).
Although I have to say I say “gotten” instead of “got” (despite being told by my parents not to), because to me “gotten” seems to flow better. I think some American ways of saying things sound much better than British ways (and vice-versa).
I suppose your point remains the same, though.