Horror as man in his 30s dies after his 'throat was slit with a huge knife outside off licence' - as boy, 17, is shot and left fighting for life during another night of bloodshed in London

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Police to get largest funding increase since 2010. There will be up to £970 million additional funding to enablepolice forces to recruit more officers. ... The provisionalpolice funding settlement of up to £14 billion for 2019 to 2020 is up to £970 million more than the previous year.

13 Dec 2018

That's not what the mayor said. 

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:

Can you explain the methods that you are talking about please...?


In your own words... simply and briefly...?

Thor wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/dec/03/how-scotland-reduced-knife-deaths-among-young-people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/14/scotland-knife-crime-public-health-issue-violence-uk

Thor wrote:

Thor wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/dec/03/how-scotland-reduced-knife-deaths-among-young-people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/14/scotland-knife-crime-public-health-issue-violence-uk

Read them

Laters

Guardian wrote:

Treating knife crime as a health issue has led to a dramatic drop in stabbings: of the 35 deaths of young people in Britain this year, none were in Scotland

The Scottish approach was quite conventional at first. “The police played a central role in the beginning,” explains Christine Goodall, who along with two other surgeons founded Medics Against Violence in 2008, a campaign group which works with health professionals, law enforcement, social services and other bodies to thwart violent behaviour. “They campaigned really hard to get the legislation around knife crime changed so people would be more likely to get a mandatory sentence. There was also, at the outset, a lot of stop and search.”

The average sentence for carrying a knife in Scotland has tripled, from four months in 2005-06 to an average of 13 months in 2014-15.

The issues, says Goodall, were concentrated in certain areas, particularly around Glasgow. Using intelligence from police operations, the VRU identified those people most likely to offend and asked them to voluntarily attend the sheriff’s court. “They didn’t have to come but they were encouraged to by community police, teachers and social workers and a lot of them did come,” says Goodall.

“The police had mapped all the gangs and when people got there they saw their own pictures up in the court. The session started off with a warning: ‘We know who you are and if you carry on with this lifestyle we’re going to come down on you really hard. We’re going to arrest you and we’ll arrest the rest of the gang. You will be going to prison if this carries on.’”

But at that point the intervention at the court took a more creative and holistic approach.

“We spoke about the injuries we see as a result of the violence and had a mum talk about losing her son. That really hit home,” explains Goodall. Finally, they were offered a way out. “There was help with housing, relocation, employment and training. They were given a number to call if they wanted to take the offer up. Huge numbers of them did so, were put into the programme, and are no longer in the gang lifestyle.”

The decision to treat knife crime as a public health issue – rather than simply a police matter – appears to have underpinned both the direction and support.


The fact that the initiative is publicly funded means strategies can be coordinated coherently, and organisations can concentrate on the task at hand rather than constantly looking for money to fund their next project. That makes a big difference, says Goodall.

“The problem for charities is that they have to compete for short-term funding,” she says. “So we’re able to take a more coordinated approach with more stable support.”

Susan McVie, professor of quantitative criminology at the University of Edinburgh, points out that the police, working alone, have a limited capacity to prevent knife crime.

Fewer than 2% of stop and searches in Scotland result in the recovery of a knife, she says. “It’s hard to profile kids who carry weapons because a lot of those who carry a weapon aren’t the ones you would expect. They might be kids from middle-class backgrounds who feel frightened, isolated and threatened in social situations.”

Once violence was seen as a public health issue, the conversation changed: “We started to talk to offenders and ex-offenders and to challenge behaviours and the culture of violence,” says McVie.

Giving information about the legal repercussions of violent crime has not proven to be a deterrent, notes Jane Dailly from the national youth work agency YouthLink Scotland, who is national coordinator for No Knives, Better Lives, a programme aiming to raise awareness of the consequences of carrying a knife, and which provides information for young people.

Dailly cites feedback from focus groups of young people at risk of becoming involved in knife crime, which revealed that the potential impact on people’s families – particularly on perpetrators’ mothers and victims’ families – is one of the biggest concerns.

Youth work and positive prevention have been key, she says. No Knives, Better Lives launched in 2009 when knife crime was at a high. It supports work in 24 local authorities in Scotland, and involves partners including the police, youth workers and schools.

“What we are promoting, trying to talk to people about and asking them to implement, is more positive prevention,” Dailly says. “How do we help [young people] develop the capacity to make positive decisions and, in this case, choose never to carry a knife or to do something if they know that someone else is carrying a knife?”

A purely justice-driven approach doesn’t work, agrees Goodall. “You can arrest as many people as you like. You can search as many people as you like. You can throw away the key if you want to. It just won’t solve the problem.”

McVie thinks there are three things that have made tackling knife crime in Scotland easier than tackling it in London, where this year 18 children and teenagers have been killed with knives.

The first is that the VRU managed to efficiently tackle gang culture, targeting leaders and isolating them from followers. Second, she says, Scotland has a different culture of violence: incidents have tended to be over something more immediate and spur of the moment, often involving an encounter that escalated from an insult or argument, rather than the bloody end of a protracted dispute or connected to criminal activity.

Finally there is the issue of trust with the police. “In London institutional racism creates a barrier,” argues McVie. “If people see something going wrong they are less likely to tell the police because they don’t trust them. In Scotland, where racial bias has been less of an issue, it’s been very different. There is more trust between police and minority communities.”

It also seems the existence of a Scottish parliament has provided a more accessible polity in which to experiment and innovate. “The mantra of the people who drove this was: ‘Better to apologise later than ask for permission,’” explains Goodall. “So we just did stuff. If we think something’s a good idea we’ll just do it. I’m not going to sit around having meetings about it.”

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

That's not what the mayor said. 

The mayor of London is a weaselly lying Labour scum bag...


The announcement I posted up was from the govt...

Tommy Monk wrote:

"...They campaigned really hard to get the legislation around knife crime changed so people would be more likely to get a mandatory sentence. There was also, at the outset, a lot of stop and search.”

The average sentence for carrying a knife in Scotland has tripled, from four months in 2005-06 to an average of 13 months in 2014-15..."




Read the above...


Getting the changes to sentencing so that a mandatory minimum was automatically applied... plus also getting the sentences imposed being longer and longer over time...


So...the phrase... "at the outset"... used in the context above about stop and search... would not mean that it was only used "initially" and not used throughout the following years mentioned... but would be interpreted to mean that increased stop and search was a big part of the overall strategy from the start... introduced "at the outset"...!



So... the method that worked in scotland was... increased use of stop and search... introduction of mandatory minimum sentences... increasing the length of sentences imposed...


Oh... let's not forget... setting up a few public awareness meetings for some of the likely knife offenders to attend... and telling them directly that there was going to be a large increase in stop and searches... plus an introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for anyone caught with a knife... plus the fact that minimum sentences increased from "...four months in 2005-06 to an average of 13 months in 2014-15..."



Whatever way you look at it... it was the increase in stop and search, backed up by mandatory minimum sentences, and then the increases in lengths of sentencing, that was what worked in scotland!!!

Thor wrote:I read that they "initially"  used stop and search and then went on to try the new methods

Which you seem unable to grasp

Which is why its pointless debating this with you

Who only want to read and see what you want to see

You ignore how they did actually bring the knife crime rates down

It was never stop and search that accomplished that

Like I say you are selective in what you think fits yourmindset

I even posted studies proving stop and search is ineffective and we know this even more due to the rise in knife crime we are seeing today

So my evidence has been presented many times here and you want to remain closeminded

Hopefully the Governemnt will see where new methods work

Now I am not going to get again dragged into one of your poor circular arguments

You dont want to believe the better methods, that is up to you and you will thus continue to back poor methods

Good luck with that

Tommy Monk wrote:Still waiting didge...

Thor wrote:Here is the main starting point of the article

Guardian wrote:

Treating knife crime as a health issue has led to a dramatic drop in stabbings: of the 35 deaths of young people in Britain this year, none were in Scotland

The Scottish approach was quite conventional at first. “The police played a central role in the beginning,” explains Christine Goodall, who along with two other surgeons founded Medics Against Violence in 2008, a campaign group which works with health professionals, law enforcement, social services and other bodies to thwart violent behaviour. “They campaigned really hard to get the legislation around knife crime changed so people would be more likely to get a mandatory sentence. There was also, at the outset, a lot of stop and search.”

The average sentence for carrying a knife in Scotland has tripled, from four months in 2005-06 to an average of 13 months in 2014-15.

The issues, says Goodall, were concentrated in certain areas, particularly around Glasgow. Using intelligence from police operations, the VRU identified those people most likely to offend and asked them to voluntarily attend the sheriff’s court. “They didn’t have to come but they were encouraged to by community police, teachers and social workers and a lot of them did come,” says Goodall.

“The police had mapped all the gangs and when people got there they saw their own pictures up in the court. The session started off with a warning: ‘We know who you are and if you carry on with this lifestyle we’re going to come down on you really hard. We’re going to arrest you and we’ll arrest the rest of the gang. You will be going to prison if this carries on.’”

But at that point the intervention at the court took a more creative and holistic approach.

“We spoke about the injuries we see as a result of the violence and had a mum talk about losing her son. That really hit home,” explains Goodall. Finally, they were offered a way out. “There was help with housing, relocation, employment and training. They were given a number to call if they wanted to take the offer up. Huge numbers of them did so, were put into the programme, and are no longer in the gang lifestyle.”

The decision to treat knife crime as a public health issue – rather than simply a police matter – appears to have underpinned both the direction and support.


The fact that the initiative is publicly funded means strategies can be coordinated coherently, and organisations can concentrate on the task at hand rather than constantly looking for money to fund their next project. That makes a big difference, says Goodall.

“The problem for charities is that they have to compete for short-term funding,” she says. “So we’re able to take a more coordinated approach with more stable support.”

Susan McVie, professor of quantitative criminology at the University of Edinburgh, points out that the police, working alone, have a limited capacity to prevent knife crime.

Fewer than 2% of stop and searches in Scotland result in the recovery of a knife, she says. “It’s hard to profile kids who carry weapons because a lot of those who carry a weapon aren’t the ones you would expect. They might be kids from middle-class backgrounds who feel frightened, isolated and threatened in social situations.”

Once violence was seen as a public health issue, the conversation changed: “We started to talk to offenders and ex-offenders and to challenge behaviours and the culture of violence,” says McVie.

Giving information about the legal repercussions of violent crime has not proven to be a deterrent, notes Jane Dailly from the national youth work agency YouthLink Scotland, who is national coordinator for No Knives, Better Lives, a programme aiming to raise awareness of the consequences of carrying a knife, and which provides information for young people.

Dailly cites feedback from focus groups of young people at risk of becoming involved in knife crime, which revealed that the potential impact on people’s families – particularly on perpetrators’ mothers and victims’ families – is one of the biggest concerns.

Youth work and positive prevention have been key, she says. No Knives, Better Lives launched in 2009 when knife crime was at a high. It supports work in 24 local authorities in Scotland, and involves partners including the police, youth workers and schools.

“What we are promoting, trying to talk to people about and asking them to implement, is more positive prevention,” Dailly says. “How do we help [young people] develop the capacity to make positive decisions and, in this case, choose never to carry a knife or to do something if they know that someone else is carrying a knife?”

A purely justice-driven approach doesn’t work, agrees Goodall. “You can arrest as many people as you like. You can search as many people as you like. You can throw away the key if you want to. It just won’t solve the problem.”

McVie thinks there are three things that have made tackling knife crime in Scotland easier than tackling it in London, where this year 18 children and teenagers have been killed with knives.

The first is that the VRU managed to efficiently tackle gang culture, targeting leaders and isolating them from followers. Second, she says, Scotland has a different culture of violence: incidents have tended to be over something more immediate and spur of the moment, often involving an encounter that escalated from an insult or argument, rather than the bloody end of a protracted dispute or connected to criminal activity.

Finally there is the issue of trust with the police. “In London institutional racism creates a barrier,” argues McVie. “If people see something going wrong they are less likely to tell the police because they don’t trust them. In Scotland, where racial bias has been less of an issue, it’s been very different. There is more trust between police and minority communities.”

It also seems the existence of a Scottish parliament has provided a more accessible polity in which to experiment and innovate. “The mantra of the people who drove this was: ‘Better to apologise later than ask for permission,’” explains Goodall. “So we just did stuff. If we think something’s a good idea we’ll just do it. I’m not going to sit around having meetings about it.”

You see Tommy this is why you are clearly not honest

People can see how selective you are and that you never actually bothered to read the article

Its why i asked you to do in full and the above is only in part

Maddog wrote:Didnt the Nazis and Soviets use a lot of stop and search? 

I mean in a way, one could argue that concentration camps and gulags had some impact on behavior.  

But that's a pretty steep price to pay.  

Franklin said something to this effect.  "Those that are willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security with eventually have neither".