I totally agree with this concept! If you can stop the gangs before they become a full engaged "family", then the success rate of gang elimination should be much higher. I also agree with the deglamorization concept! Gang members have a certain perception that they can become "rich and famous" and it seems that, in many cases, this is almost true. We have all heard of Latin Kings, Bloods and Crips, etc. and this seems to make the gangs thrive when they learn they can get their name out there. By removing the names and taking away their notoreity, maybe (a BIG maybe), they can better control the gang populations.
Why would you withhold the gang names from the community? You are asking for their help in minimizing the growth of it and the community has the right to know what they are in danger or liable to come across, the citizens can perform their own studies and make sure they are not in the wrong areas (places) at the wrong time (day/night). It is a great idea to try and eliminate the growing causes and providing the resources to help keep kids and adolescents in school and to seek job opportunities rather than keeping them at home, plenty of free time, and less education to go around. If I personally disagree with anything in this article it would be the deglamorization concept of withholding information that would be of useful resource to help the law officials.
First off, I’d like to say that making the firearms illegal still does not work. The criminals carry illegal weapons, so what are civilians to do for self-defense (since knives are illegal too)? Other than that, the strategy the UK police are using is a great idea! Giving the gang members a chance to disband for forfeiture of charges, sounds like a decent way to cut the head clean off - stopping future gang membership and expansion. The fact is that here in the U.S. notoriety is furnished to those in the most widely known gangs. The London police are doing a great job at not feeding into the glamorization with the media and keeping them off of a pedestal. Perhaps, we should adopt the same practice here in the states. That might have an impact on the way the community sees their “gangs” to a new perspective.
It seems like a good idea to keep the names of the gangs from out of the news for many reasons but one being that it doesn't give them the recognition they are looking for. Gangs seem to want to be the best and if they are feared by the public (which happens when we mention them in the news) then they are getting exactly what they want. I feel as though offering them the chance to start a new life style is very interesting. But, I would think it would be hard for those to take that offer because wouldn't the gang feel betrayed and want to put a hit on them? I could be wrong seeing I don't know much about gangs but that would make sense to me. I mean don't get me wrong I feel like that would be a great opportunity to get a fresh start. I think the US should begin to practice some of the same concepts here like deglamorizing the gangs and such.
I agree with what the Met police are doing. Every gang has a brand because the media has taken gang life and glamourized. The image that the media has portrayed of gangs has been burned in the mind of teens that they feel this is the life that will get you money, power, and respect quick. In the article Mark Rowley stated that in American cities they have gangs which have in some cases been in existence for generations. UK gangs are less established. Since the Metro police is keeping the name of the gangs out the media than, the brand has a lesser chance of being established. Hopefully this will be one solution that can help end the creation of gangs.
I am not sure I agree with the Metro Police by not publicizing the gangs and allowing the public to become familiar with the problem. I understand not wanting to glamorize them, but are we glamorizing them when we put warnings in the media and letting the public know who to protect themselves from?! I also think by not discussing the gang problem in the media, the British are not facing the reality that the gangs pose an imminent problem. I do agree with them attempting to demolish the gangs before their roots get to far into society that the gangs are unable to be removed, I only wish this would have happened here in America. The comment regarding how the British gangs are less established, I wonder how they know this since the information and statics are so poor in this area. If they were not established, how then can they threaten the British government with an act of deviance around the Olympics and the British government become frightened that the gangs might actually do something? I hope that the British government is able to stop the gangs before it becomes ingrown into their society, but I think the government also needs to look around at the core problem of why these gangs are forming.
I think it makes sense not to name the gangs the Met police are targeting. In war, you don’t win by letting the opposing country know your secrets. In comparison with the U.S., if a gang commits a violent act the gang receives full credit. I can understand the U.K.’s reluctance to give different gangs their “due” credit. By giving a specific gang credit, that gang receives respect with other gang groups. Also, this increases violence by indirectly encouraging gangs to be more dangerous in order to be on the news. I agree with the Met police chief’s goal in eliminating the source to rid a problem. However, I do think the reality of gang violence should not be with held from the public. By hiding a problem, the problem gets worse rather than better.
I also agree that it is better to try to stop gangs before they become more active. Since youths are, the most influenced and recruited into gangs. The deglamorization is a good way to help troubled youth to understand the lifestyle they are getting into. However, the article said that they are trying getting people out of the gang culture. The article does not say exactly how they plan to do that. Would that involve community outreach programs or mentoring programs? If the trouble youth have a role model this might or might not have an impact on that particular person. So I have one question would have some type of outreach or other type of preventable solution for these youths?
Gangs exist in the UK due to lack of research and a fundamental mindset put in place by UK officials. Public officials live in a state of denial pertaining to the subculture world of gangs in the United Kingdom. Public officials have themselves to blame for the modern gang problem. According to class lecture gangs do not exist in a civilized society. There is a subculture society of modern day gangsters which can be attributed to the sensationalized headlines in the media. The gang problem in England is a bi-product of Socialism amplified by the government’s response. Officials have been unable to nip gangs in the bud due to limited resources and barriers put in place by officials that have thin skin. If law enforcement is conscious of gangs then why not define them and allocate the resources needed to develop social programs that would deter youths from joining gangs. It seems rational that law enforcement would publicize the name of gangs. Bailey makes a good point about publicizing the gangs the public would be able to understand the subculture. However, the decision by Scotland Yard not to name the gangs might have to do with their lack of understanding what constitutes a gang. Law enforcement is failing to undertake the growing dangers of youths getting involved with gangs. It is arrogant to think law enforcement can force its will on gangsters. Also, voluntary calls for youths to leave gangs should be a national program. Most gangs members come from communities where their s extreme poverty and high unemployment, honestly do you think gangsters are scared of the police. If a government funds social program for gangsters than the government has admitted that it has a gang problem.
I think it would be safe to say that the UK knows that they have a gang problem but in order not to raise attention to the problem they are keeping their targets low-keyed, especially after saying that the UK gangs were "less established." Calling them "embryonic" gangs sounded really strange. The "glamour" of being in a gang, especially when this is the only thing they have ever done, seems reasonably said. Plus, if there are any in the gangs that want to get "out" they are probably afraid of what will happen to them and their families. The It was interesting to see that the Metropolitan Police are launching this problem totally opposite from the way it was done in Los Angeles in light of the fact the crackdown to come after known gangs didn't work. Sounds like it could be a good defensive game that could work for some young people.
I think that the Met police are making a good decision by not glamorizing these gangs. Just like Brent mentioned in an earlier post that “the media has taken gang life and glamorized it”. Not only has the media glamorized gangs, they have also helped to romanticize them as well. In the article it commented on how they see a lot of girls joining gangs, not knowing the reasons why the join. I think these girls might be attracted to the “Bad Boy” or “Bad Girl” image, an image that can be portrayed in many ways, especially by the media. Which can persuade them into joining? Hopefully by not mentioning the gangs, their activities, and which gangs they plan on targeting, it will in turn make them less appealing to the youth who are very influential. There was also a comment about how they are making an attempt to demolish gangs, before their roots get too far into society. Although I agree with the fight, I think the roots have already been established, we just don’t know how badly, due to poor statistics.
Taking the fame and appeal away from these gangs is a really good idea. Just as with any crime, it has become glamorized, as many of you have said. With the glamorization, people become interested in the criminal activity, especially the youths, and want to mirror that activity. Maybe by not giving the gang the reconition they desire and want might curb some of the crime they do and keep future youths from wanting to follow in their footsteps. I do feel though, when the gangs get arrested and sentenced for their crimes, that should really be out there for everyone to see. Glamorize the punishment, not the crime.
I can see the logic behind why the Metro police do not want to state the gang’s names. I think that this is a good idea as we have seen in the past the media is a big contributor to how gangs are portrayed. By giving out the names of the gangs this is free advertisement for them. The youth that wants to get involved in the life style can get an idea as to what gang they should join because they heard on the news which one is more dangerous and respected. I can see how some people might not agree with how the Metro police have decided to pursue this matter but in the end they are trying to do what is best for the community.
The old horrible L. A. police department is brought up again. I believe the Met police have a point, however. Banishing glamour is one way, in a broad range of approaches, to tackle the gang problem in the U. K. In the U. S., I believe it would have more of a limited effect. Our gang problem is much more entrenched and the initiative does not address underlying problems. In a way, I have a feeling that the U. K. doesn’t know what they are in for, how much worse it is going to get. The underlying problems have to be addressed early or they will come to resemble American gangs more and more every day. The Crips and Bloods have already arrived and their motives seem to be the same: money, drugs, and power.
Keeping the names of the gangs out of the media seems, to me, to be a good idea. This seems like a good idea because the gangs could the thriving off of the publicity that they are receiving and does not give them the satisfaction that they are expecting and looking for. Gangs are looking to intimidate people and to be feared and by putting their names out there, people are going to know who to avoid and who to be afraid of.
I don’t know how I feel about this. I agree that these gangs don’t need publicity, because that’s what they want: fame. However, I think I would be scared if I was a citizen and didn’t know what I needed to look out for therefore I would want to know the names of these gangs surrounding my family and I. Withholding information from the citizens and not discussing these matters through the media seems like they’re in denial that these gangs are or will be a huge problem in their society. Like mentioned above, the most productive path to gang prevention is stopping it at the root of the problem. If you shut down a small, weak gang before it gets large and mighty, you will be much more successful!
this seems to be a pretty good idea but will have some bad effects on the people. Trying to keep the gang names out of the public will probably be a good thing, but might back fire causing the gangs to lash out to make sure the people know about them. This could cause the society to not be informed about the dangers that are around places the peole work, live, and take their children. other than these two things i think they have a pretty good approach to shutting down gang activity.
I totally agree with this concept that London has taken on to attempt to cut off gang violence. After looking back over the research and comparing the variables that make a gangster where it be a domestic or international one, the trends are for the most part circular. Poverty, uneducated, joblessness, lack of a strong social bond with either a family or community, and negative influences. But i think the one thing that grabs the attention of most delinquents and young gangsters is the reputation, the attention, and the glamor that comes with being in this gang. In the gang world, bad attention is good attention. The more the media and the law enforcement brag about how deadly and vicious a gang is, the more hyped and boastful does the gang feel. I think if you take away the glamour, then some of the gang activity will begin to decrease. I only say some because i don't believe that it is the fame and glamour where all gangs are founded. I do believe that some gangs legitimately formulate as a barrier for protection much like the origination of the the MS-13 in Los Angeles after fleeing from the civil war in El Salvador.
I totally agree with this concept! If you can stop the gangs before they become a full engaged "family", then the success rate of gang elimination should be much higher. I also agree with the deglamorization concept! Gang members have a certain perception that they can become "rich and famous" and it seems that, in many cases, this is almost true. We have all heard of Latin Kings, Bloods and Crips, etc. and this seems to make the gangs thrive when they learn they can get their name out there. By removing the names and taking away their notoreity, maybe (a BIG maybe), they can better control the gang populations.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you withhold the gang names from the community? You are asking for their help in minimizing the growth of it and the community has the right to know what they are in danger or liable to come across, the citizens can perform their own studies and make sure they are not in the wrong areas (places) at the wrong time (day/night). It is a great idea to try and eliminate the growing causes and providing the resources to help keep kids and adolescents in school and to seek job opportunities rather than keeping them at home, plenty of free time, and less education to go around. If I personally disagree with anything in this article it would be the deglamorization concept of withholding information that would be of useful resource to help the law officials.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I’d like to say that making the firearms illegal still does not work. The criminals carry illegal weapons, so what are civilians to do for self-defense (since knives are illegal too)? Other than that, the strategy the UK police are using is a great idea! Giving the gang members a chance to disband for forfeiture of charges, sounds like a decent way to cut the head clean off - stopping future gang membership and expansion. The fact is that here in the U.S. notoriety is furnished to those in the most widely known gangs. The London police are doing a great job at not feeding into the glamorization with the media and keeping them off of a pedestal. Perhaps, we should adopt the same practice here in the states. That might have an impact on the way the community sees their “gangs” to a new perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a good idea to keep the names of the gangs from out of the news for many reasons but one being that it doesn't give them the recognition they are looking for. Gangs seem to want to be the best and if they are feared by the public (which happens when we mention them in the news) then they are getting exactly what they want. I feel as though offering them the chance to start a new life style is very interesting. But, I would think it would be hard for those to take that offer because wouldn't the gang feel betrayed and want to put a hit on them? I could be wrong seeing I don't know much about gangs but that would make sense to me. I mean don't get me wrong I feel like that would be a great opportunity to get a fresh start. I think the US should begin to practice some of the same concepts here like deglamorizing the gangs and such.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the Met police are doing. Every gang has a brand because the media has taken gang life and glamourized. The image that the media has portrayed of gangs has been burned in the mind of teens that they feel this is the life that will get you money, power, and respect quick. In the article Mark Rowley stated that in American cities they have gangs which have in some cases been in existence for generations. UK gangs are less established. Since the Metro police is keeping the name of the gangs out the media than, the brand has a lesser chance of being established. Hopefully this will be one solution that can help end the creation of gangs.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I agree with the Metro Police by not publicizing the gangs and allowing the public to become familiar with the problem. I understand not wanting to glamorize them, but are we glamorizing them when we put warnings in the media and letting the public know who to protect themselves from?! I also think by not discussing the gang problem in the media, the British are not facing the reality that the gangs pose an imminent problem. I do agree with them attempting to demolish the gangs before their roots get to far into society that the gangs are unable to be removed, I only wish this would have happened here in America. The comment regarding how the British gangs are less established, I wonder how they know this since the information and statics are so poor in this area. If they were not established, how then can they threaten the British government with an act of deviance around the Olympics and the British government become frightened that the gangs might actually do something? I hope that the British government is able to stop the gangs before it becomes ingrown into their society, but I think the government also needs to look around at the core problem of why these gangs are forming.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense not to name the gangs the Met police are targeting. In war, you don’t win by letting the opposing country know your secrets. In comparison with the U.S., if a gang commits a violent act the gang receives full credit. I can understand the U.K.’s reluctance to give different gangs their “due” credit. By giving a specific gang credit, that gang receives respect with other gang groups. Also, this increases violence by indirectly encouraging gangs to be more dangerous in order to be on the news. I agree with the Met police chief’s goal in eliminating the source to rid a problem. However, I do think the reality of gang violence should not be with held from the public. By hiding a problem, the problem gets worse rather than better.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it is better to try to stop gangs before they become more active. Since youths are, the most influenced and recruited into gangs. The deglamorization is a good way to help troubled youth to understand the lifestyle they are getting into. However, the article said that they are trying getting people out of the gang culture. The article does not say exactly how they plan to do that. Would that involve community outreach programs or mentoring programs? If the trouble youth have a role model this might or might not have an impact on that particular person. So I have one question would have some type of outreach or other type of preventable solution for these youths?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGangs exist in the UK due to lack of research and a fundamental mindset put in place by UK officials. Public officials live in a state of denial pertaining to the subculture world of gangs in the United Kingdom. Public officials have themselves to blame for the modern gang problem. According to class lecture gangs do not exist in a civilized society. There is a subculture society of modern day gangsters which can be attributed to the sensationalized headlines in the media. The gang problem in England is a bi-product of Socialism amplified by the government’s response. Officials have been unable to nip gangs in the bud due to limited resources and barriers put in place by officials that have thin skin. If law enforcement is conscious of gangs then why not define them and allocate the resources needed to develop social programs that would deter youths from joining gangs. It seems rational that law enforcement would publicize the name of gangs. Bailey makes a good point about publicizing the gangs the public would be able to understand the subculture. However, the decision by Scotland Yard not to name the gangs might have to do with their lack of understanding what constitutes a gang. Law enforcement is failing to undertake the growing dangers of youths getting involved with gangs. It is arrogant to think law enforcement can force its will on gangsters. Also, voluntary calls for youths to leave gangs should be a national program. Most gangs members come from communities where their s extreme poverty and high unemployment, honestly do you think gangsters are scared of the police. If a government funds social program for gangsters than the government has admitted that it has a gang problem.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be safe to say that the UK knows that they have a gang problem but in order not to raise attention to the problem they are keeping their targets low-keyed, especially after saying that the UK gangs were "less established." Calling them "embryonic" gangs sounded really strange. The "glamour" of being in a gang, especially when this is the only thing they have ever done, seems reasonably said. Plus, if there are any in the gangs that want to get "out" they are probably afraid of what will happen to them and their families. The It was interesting to see that the Metropolitan Police are launching this problem totally opposite from the way it was done in Los Angeles in light of the fact the crackdown to come after known gangs didn't work. Sounds like it could be a good defensive game that could work for some young people.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Met police are making a good decision by not glamorizing these gangs. Just like Brent mentioned in an earlier post that “the media has taken gang life and glamorized it”. Not only has the media glamorized gangs, they have also helped to romanticize them as well. In the article it commented on how they see a lot of girls joining gangs, not knowing the reasons why the join. I think these girls might be attracted to the “Bad Boy” or “Bad Girl” image, an image that can be portrayed in many ways, especially by the media. Which can persuade them into joining? Hopefully by not mentioning the gangs, their activities, and which gangs they plan on targeting, it will in turn make them less appealing to the youth who are very influential. There was also a comment about how they are making an attempt to demolish gangs, before their roots get too far into society. Although I agree with the fight, I think the roots have already been established, we just don’t know how badly, due to poor statistics.
ReplyDeleteTaking the fame and appeal away from these gangs is a really good idea. Just as with any crime, it has become glamorized, as many of you have said. With the glamorization, people become interested in the criminal activity, especially the youths, and want to mirror that activity. Maybe by not giving the gang the reconition they desire and want might curb some of the crime they do and keep future youths from wanting to follow in their footsteps. I do feel though, when the gangs get arrested and sentenced for their crimes, that should really be out there for everyone to see. Glamorize the punishment, not the crime.
ReplyDeleteI can see the logic behind why the Metro police do not want to state the gang’s names. I think that this is a good idea as we have seen in the past the media is a big contributor to how gangs are portrayed. By giving out the names of the gangs this is free advertisement for them. The youth that wants to get involved in the life style can get an idea as to what gang they should join because they heard on the news which one is more dangerous and respected. I can see how some people might not agree with how the Metro police have decided to pursue this matter but in the end they are trying to do what is best for the community.
ReplyDeleteThe old horrible L. A. police department is brought up again. I believe the Met police have a point, however. Banishing glamour is one way, in a broad range of approaches, to tackle the gang problem in the U. K. In the U. S., I believe it would have more of a limited effect. Our gang problem is much more entrenched and the initiative does not address underlying problems. In a way, I have a feeling that the U. K. doesn’t know what they are in for, how much worse it is going to get. The underlying problems have to be addressed early or they will come to resemble American gangs more and more every day. The Crips and Bloods have already arrived and their motives seem to be the same: money, drugs, and power.
ReplyDeleteKeeping the names of the gangs out of the media seems, to me, to be a good idea. This seems like a good idea because the gangs could the thriving off of the publicity that they are receiving and does not give them the satisfaction that they are expecting and looking for. Gangs are looking to intimidate people and to be feared and by putting their names out there, people are going to know who to avoid and who to be afraid of.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know how I feel about this. I agree that these gangs don’t need publicity, because that’s what they want: fame. However, I think I would be scared if I was a citizen and didn’t know what I needed to look out for therefore I would want to know the names of these gangs surrounding my family and I. Withholding information from the citizens and not discussing these matters through the media seems like they’re in denial that these gangs are or will be a huge problem in their society. Like mentioned above, the most productive path to gang prevention is stopping it at the root of the problem. If you shut down a small, weak gang before it gets large and mighty, you will be much more successful!
ReplyDeletethis seems to be a pretty good idea but will have some bad effects on the people. Trying to keep the gang names out of the public will probably be a good thing, but might back fire causing the gangs to lash out to make sure the people know about them. This could cause the society to not be informed about the dangers that are around places the peole work, live, and take their children. other than these two things i think they have a pretty good approach to shutting down gang activity.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this concept that London has taken on to attempt to cut off gang violence. After looking back over the research and comparing the variables that make a gangster where it be a domestic or international one, the trends are for the most part circular. Poverty, uneducated, joblessness, lack of a strong social bond with either a family or community, and negative influences. But i think the one thing that grabs the attention of most delinquents and young gangsters is the reputation, the attention, and the glamor that comes with being in this gang. In the gang world, bad attention is good attention. The more the media and the law enforcement brag about how deadly and vicious a gang is, the more hyped and boastful does the gang feel. I think if you take away the glamour, then some of the gang activity will begin to decrease. I only say some because i don't believe that it is the fame and glamour where all gangs are founded. I do believe that some gangs legitimately formulate as a barrier for protection much like the origination of the the MS-13 in Los Angeles after fleeing from the civil war in El Salvador.
ReplyDelete