6 Reducing knife-carrying
124. Young people who carry a knife because they
are frightened or because they perceive it to be glamorous require
different preventative interventions from those who carry one
with intent to use it. In this chapter we consider possible solutions
for the former through education about the reality of knife-carrying—particularly
to reinforce the message, in the words of Mr Levy, that "to
carry a knife is to use a knife[175]—and
helping young people to feel safer at school and on the street.
Educating children about the
realities of knife-carrying
125. One of the elements of the Government's Tackling
Knives Action Programme is a £3 million media campaign called
"It Doesn't Have to Happen". Launched in May 2008, it
aims to dissuade young people from carrying knives by depicting
graphic images of knife wounds and encouraging them to make and
share anti-knife pledges. It has included a billboard campaign
and radio and viral adverts directing young people to a dedicated
page on the social networking website Bebo. The Home Office Minister,
Alan Campbell MP, argued that:
I think the media campaign has been remarkably
successful and acknowledged as such … It is one in line with
other campaigns that we have run within the Home Office which
started by asking young people about the message that would be
most effective, and that is not just in terms of content; it is
in terms of the medium which is used too … Around three-quarters
of respondents who have seen the campaign said that it would make
them less likely to carry a knife; four out of five said it made
them more aware of the risks.[176]
126. However, some witnesses were sceptical that
the media campaign would reach, and influence the kinds of young
people who most needed to hear the message. Firstly, an anonymous
witness giving evidence with The Prince's Trust told us that "half
the kids you want to reach are not going to be watching it on
the TV; they are on the road, they are at a bus shelter or whatever."[177]
Secondly, the message may be too simplistic for the complex realities
of living in an unsafe community:
Saying No does not address the problem. You have
got to see what is the situation that this young person is facing.
Unfortunately, everyone's situation is different so it has got
to be a little bit more of an holistic approach. Instead of wasting
resources just doing another workshop or another poster campaign
or £1 million advert campaign.[178]
The joint submission from Race on the Agenda (Building
Bridges Project), the Street Weapons Action Team and the Independent
Academic Research Studies argued that "advertising campaigns,
such as the 'its not a good look' campaign fail to identify with
any real activity at street level."[179]
127. The Minister accepted that more needed to be
done to reach these young people through family members and local
champions.[180] When
asked by YouGov, on behalf of 11 MILLION, to whom they would pay
the most attention on how to stay safe from gun and knife crime,
74% said they would listen to their parents, 67% said they would
listen to the police and 46% would listen to teachers.[181]
However, Nicola Marfleet found in Why Carry a Weapon? that
parents were struggling to respond properly. Frances Crook discussed
the results:
We found that young people had conversations
about carrying knives with their parents but the response from
parents was not helpful; it was often threatening and not having
a proper conversation and not being supportive and not helping
the young people to deal with the issues they face. The research
showed that the lack of family life for these young people was
very important was an inhibitor to having that difficult conversation
about how to protect yourself and how not to be a victim and why
not to carry a knife.[182]
A 2004 Lemos&Crane report into knife use by young
people, Fear and Fashion, even found some cases of parents
giving knives to their children.[183]
Mothers Against Murder and Aggression Wales told us that some
teenagers, particularly girls, had told them they carry a penknife
given to them by their fathers: "parents are just as worried
by the press reports and are arming their children in the belief
that they will be protected."[184]
128. 11 MILLION emphasised the importance of using
"real" people, who young people can relate to, to convey
the message. Their research found that:
What they do not want are celebrities, they do
not want David Beckham rolled out as a role model. The most important
role models for them are their parents, their teachers and the
police but they also want to hear from people who have been through
the same experiences, maybe somebody who has taken a wrong path,
they have gone into prison where there were drugs, guns, knives
or whatever it might be, and they have come out, they have changed
their ways, those are the kinds of people who really have an impact
in terms of helping young people to understand what the impact
will be on them and on their families if they go down that route
themselves and to help them see there is an alternative.[185]
The young people who gave evidence to us agreed.
An anonymous witness with 11 MILLION suggested that young children
are likely to be influenced by the police:
In primary schools where the children are younger
they look up to the police more and they will see them as the
good guys and so they will listen to them. I think that is a good
way of getting the point across of gun and knife crime.
However, this may be a less useful approach for
older children:
in terms of getting to the high schools and colleges,
maybe, you want to get knife victims or victim's families to come
in and talk about it because when you get to high school you start
to tend to lose the respect for the police.[186]
Several witnesses advocated using involve former
offenders, to talk about the consequences of their actions for
themselves and their victims. For example:
I had the pleasure of seeing an organisation
do a presentation last Saturday, a group I am working with, and
they are run by former firm members. If you get the right sort
of people, if you have got respect, whether it be for positive
or negative reasons, talking to them, it might just work …
it did seem to get through. It is about education that is relevant
to their situation.[187]
129. Schools are a good place to reach young people
who lack parental guidance. Following her son's murder, Mrs Oakes-Odger
has spoken to many 11 and 12 year olds in schools in her native
Essex and around the country. She explained how she engages young
people, who have no real understanding of what death means, to
really think about the potential consequences of carrying a weapon:
I speak to them about what happened to Westley.
I show them Westley through their growing up years so that they
relate to Westley as being someone within their age field and
then the understanding comes out of his story, what relevance
that is to them going through their school years; I speak to them
about their discos, their social events, where an innocent situation
can evolve and, if you have a knife, instead of a possible disagreement
where bumps and bruises are involved, with a knife in their pocket,
potentially, therein is a life-threatening situation which they
then relate to only in terms of missing fingers. I find that showing
young people pictures of injuries that they can relate to, such
as fingers hanging off, has more relevance to them … I relate
with them about Westley's story as a mum so that they can think
about, "How would I feel if my brother or sister was missing
and my mother was hurting at the loss of my brother or sister?"[188]
In addition to explaining the consequences of knife
use for victims and their loved ones, Mrs Oakes-Odgers believed
that children should be encouraged to consider the personal consequences
of a criminal record or school exclusion for their future lives.[189]
130. During our inquiry, we saw several short films
that had been made to be shown in schools by organisations including
UNCUT and Value Life in London, and Sharpshotz in Bristol. We
considered that the graphic reconstruction of a fatal stabbing
portrayed in the UNCUT film was particularly powerful. Despite
these examples of good practice, weapons-awareness training is
patchy across the country. The Violent Crime Action Plan
sets out the Government's aim to use the organisation Be Safe
to educate 1.1 million young people over five years about the
dangers of carrying weapons.[190]
Be Safe was set up in 1998 by former police officers who were
asked to put together an educational programme about knife crime
by Newham Youth Offending Team for young offenders in that area.
An evaluation of 1000 young offenders who were habitual knife
carriers found that only 7.8% had re-offended and of those only
1.7% re-offended with a knife after completing the programme.
Since then Be Safe has trained professionals to deliver their
knife prevention workshop to young people in different parts of
the country.[191]
131. At our Leeds seminar, we heard from representatives
of the Leeds Weapons Awareness Programme, which was adapted from
the Be Safe weapons to the Leeds context. The programme is delivered
to all high schools across Leeds and is believed to be the largest-scale
crime prevention programme delivered in the UK. Since it has been
running, agencies have noted an increase in young people reporting
other young people for carrying knives.[192]
132. We considered the age at which children should
be educated about the dangers of knives. Shaun Bailey, of MyGeneration,
argued:
I do not think it is right to talk about knife
crime with primary school age children—I think it is absolute
nonsense—you either terrify them or you alert them to something
that they are not aware of and they try to become involved in.[193]
As noted in chapter three, we found that 11 appears
to be a key risk age for carrying a knife for the first time.
Mrs Oakes-Odgers advocated a national weapons awareness education
programme for all Year Seven pupils.[194]
133. The Lemos&Crane report quoted a weapons
awareness training practitioner who felt that many schools either
did not know of, or were in denial about, the extent of the knife
problem:
We have recently rolled out a scheme and only
two schools have taken it up as the majority deny that they have
a problem.[195]
PC Bowman, from the Leeds Weapons Awareness Programme,
noted that they had encountered some initial resistance from head
teachers who were worried that if they were seen to be delivering
the programme their school would gain a reputation for having
a problem with knives, but that these concerns had been overcome
over time.[196]
134. We support the aims of the Government's anti-knife
media campaign and we believe it has had some impact on making
young people think twice before carrying a knife. However, we
are concerned that such campaigns may not reach the most at-risk
young people and fail to engage with the realities of street violence.
Evidence shows that children are most likely to be influenced
by "real" stories, particularly the experiences of former
offenders and the families of knife victims. We recommend that
all Year Seven school children should participate in an assembly
or lesson, delivered by trained individuals to whom children can
relate, that focuses on the dangers of knife-carrying and the
consequences for victims, their families and offenders. We consider
that the short film made by the UNCUT Project provides a particularly
powerful means of communicating with pupils about the realities
of knife violence. In order to engage children effectively, the
programme should be adapted to the local context, along the lines
of the Leeds Weapons Awareness Programme.
Keeping children safe at school
Knife detectors
135. One of the measures proposed to prevent knife-carrying
is installing metal detectors in schools. As of June 2007, teachers
have the power to search pupils without consent whom they suspect
of carrying weapons, or to call in the police to carry out the
search. Phil Hearne installed knife detectors while he was Principle
of the London Academy and of Paddington Academy following the
fatal stabbings of pupils from these schools (outside school premises
in both cases). We asked him if he would support the installation
of knife detectors in every school:
I think the answer is less straightforward than
yes or no. The reason we introduced it was because people felt
it was necessary to do so on two counts. Without any hierarchy
to it, first, they felt safer; second, they wanted to prove to
other people that they had nothing to hide. It was their decision
to do it. I was quite happy to go along with that decision because
in a sense it came from them. I think that it is for schools to
make that decision based on what they and the community feel is
the need.[197]
136. Young people canvassed by 11 MILLION were divided
in their views: some would welcome metal detectors while others
considered that they might increase levels of fear.[198]
In April 2009, Waltham Forest claimed to be the first local authority
to introduce random police screening for weapons in all of its
secondary schools, using portable weapon detectors. As of 30 April,
12,000 pupils had been screened and no knives had been found.[199]
137. Mrs Lawrence, a former teacher and widow of
murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence, argued that "most stabbings
take place outside school and all the knife arches in the world
will not stop someone leaving a knife outside."[200]
Knife-carrying seems to be a bigger issue outside than within
schools—a survey carried out by Dr Carol Hayden of 14-15
year olds in fourteen schools in the south of England found that
over the past twelve months 3.4% had carried a knife to school
as opposed to 11.1% who had carried a knife outside of school.
The same survey found that pupils felt safer in school than elsewhere.[201]
138. The installation of knife detectors can help
to reassure pupils and their families that a school is taking
firm steps to protect them from potential knife violence. However,
they may not be appropriate for every school and also have the
potential to make some pupils more fearful. It is also debatable
whether they are necessary; a University of Portsmouth study found
that pupils feel safer and are less likely to carry knives at
school than they are in other environments. We therefore do not
recommend compulsory introduction of knife detectors in schools;
rather each school community should make the decision for themselves.
Exclusions
139. If a knife is detected, schools have to decide
what happens to the carrier. Phil Hearne told us that, under his
leadership, if a pupil was found with a knife it resulted in automatic
permanent exclusion but this is not necessarily the case in all
schools.[202] While
he accepted that there is a dilemma, in that excluded children
are more likely to go on to offend, he believed the needs and
wishes of the majority of pupils and their families must come
first. The two pupils we spoke to from Gladesmore Community School
disagreed as to the best means of handling the situation. Kane
argued "they should be permanently excluded because they
could use that knife to take someone's life or use it to hurt
someone" but Valerie said "I do not think they should
necessarily be permanently excluded because they could have been
carrying a knife to show they had trouble. They should be given
a second chance."[203]
140. Representatives from schools and youth clubs
who spoke to Lemos&Crane emphasised "the need to continue
working with young people even after they had been found in possession
of a knife, though it may be necessary to work with them in a
different way".[204]
One of the young people we met argued that expelling a pupil for
knife-carrying does not in itself do anything to address their
attitude to weapons.[205]
141. Taking a knife onto school premises is a
serious transgression and should be dealt with accordingly. In
such cases, many would argue that the child should be excluded
for the benefit of the wider school community and we do not seek
to remove the discretion of school leaders to make such decisions.
However, we continue to be concerned about the increased likelihood
of excluded children to go on to offend. For this reason, exclusion
should automatically constitute the point of serious intervention
by the relevant authority to put in place the kind of diversions
we explore in our final chapters.
Safer Schools Partnerships
142. Safer Schools Partnerships, whereby a police
officer is stationed in a school or linked to a series of schools,
were set up in 2002 with the aim of protecting pupils from victimisation
as well as reducing crime amongst young people. Deputy Assistant
Commissioner Hitchcock told us that 5,300 schools are currently
participating in Safer Schools Partnerships: around 3,800 (about
20% of all) primary schools are covered within it and 1,500 (about
45% of all) secondary schools.[206]
Mr Hearne spoke in extremely positive terms about the impact of
their introduction. In terms of the relationship between schools
and the police he said:
For us the important issue is sharing intelligence.
Invariably, schools know things before the police because of the
network of communication when youngsters talk to teachers about
things. They must be able to communicate that efficiently and
effectively to the police. Equally, when the police know something
they should be able to communicate that efficiently and effectively
to schools.[207]
However, the National Audit Office has noted that,
although senior police officers also the value these partnerships,
the Home Office has not collected reliable data on the number
of partnerships that exist nor has it done any evaluation of which
models are the most effective.[208]
143. Detective Chief Superintendent Carnochan, of
the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, described the benefits of
"campus police officers", who are dedicated community
officers who work in about 50 high schools in Scotland:
- Attendance at school has improved;
- Bullying has reduced;
- Graffiti has reduced;
- They provide a means of "dealing with the
drama before it becomes a crisis. Because relationships are established,
these officers are able to share information about individual
boys and girls in the school that otherwise they would not";
and
- Officers link into the feeder primary schools
to ease the transition period to high school.[209]
144. Safer Schools Partnerships, whereby police
officers are attached to a school or group of schools, appear
to be an effective way of keeping children safer. We heard evidence
of how they can help to reduce conflict between pupils and generate
intelligence about conflicts that have the potential to spill
over outside school. However, we note concerns expressed by the
National Audit Office about a lack of evaluation of the different
models in existence. We recommend that the Government should carry
out such an evaluation with the aim of spreading best practice
and ensuring the participation of all schools that would benefit
from involvement in such a partnership.
Keeping children safe on the
street
Increasing young people's
confidence in the police
145. As explained in chapter four, young people do
not trust their 'natural protectors' to keep them safe. Increasing
their confidence to seek help from the police should lessen their
perceived 'need' to carry a weapon. 11 MILLION found that most
young people feel very positively towards the police. Their research,
published in March 2008, found that 82% of 8-17 year olds said
they liked the police a lot or quite liked them, while 18% said
they did not really like them or did not like them at all. However,
for 16 or 17 year olds the proportion saying they really like
them dropped to only 10%. 61% of eight or nine year olds feel
very or quite respected by the police but the proportion of 16
and 17 year olds who said that they feel respected halved to 30%.
Moreover, 56% said they see police infrequently or never.[210]
146. One of the reasons for this lack if is a perception
that the police do not always respond when a crime is reported
to them. The Children's Society did a piece of research which
found that the most commonly cited reason for not going to the
police was 'nothing the police can do/not interested', 'nothing
ever happens if you phone the police', 'police don't do anything'.
[211] A
second factor is a culture in some communities which discourages
positive interactions with the police: summed up by a contributor
to the Children's Society research in the phrase 'because I
am not a grass'.[212]
This attitude was clearly demonstrated at our London seminar,
where even young people involved in trying to stop their peers
from carrying knives said they would not necessarily advise them
to go the police. Thirdly, some young people feel they are treated
badly by the police when they are innocent of any crime. For example,
11 MILLION reported "unacceptably wide variations in the
way stop-and-searches are conducted."[213]
A 15 year old witness from Merseyside told us:
I have only ever been stopped and searched once
but when they were committing this stop and search they went into
it violently and they talked down to me. It is not like they were
checking to see if you had a knife or anything wrong, any drugs
or anything, it is like they want you to have something on you
because at the end of the day that is how they see it, they get
a bonus for every one they take in, don't they?[214]
147. We heard about some positive initiatives to
improve relationships, such as role reversals which allow young
people to stop and search police officers in order for the former
to gain a better understanding of the reasons why police use the
tactic and for the latter to appreciate why the process needs
to be conducted sensitively. Schemes such as Chance UK, run in
the UK for 13 years, see serving police officers acting as mentors
to troubled children to prevent them from growing up to see the
police as the "enemy".[215]
148. Outside the school environment, young people
should feel they can rely on the police to keep them safe. However
a minority of young people view the police as an enemy, rather
than an ally, and this minority increases as children progress
through their teens. Some of these young people share the fears
of some adults that the police will not respond when needed and
in this respect our previous recommendations on improving public
confidence in the police are pertinent.[216]
However for some of these young people this attitude stems from
a negative personal experience, particularly of stop and search.
We cannot emphasise enough how crucial it is for stop and search
to be carried out in an appropriate and sensitive manner. We also
urge support for schemes that break down the barriers between
police officer and young people, such as Safer Schools Partnerships
and those that see police officers acting as mentors to young
people.
Support for victims
149. The Policy Exchange noted recently that victims
of violent crime are up to 70% more likely to become violent assailants
themselves, but there is no national programme in place to offer
trauma support and follow-up counselling to victims who receive
hospital treatment.[217]
In 2004 a youth offending team practitioner told researchers Lemos&Crane
that "we admit to struggling to engage with victims."[218]
Victim Support provide vital services but are under-resourced.
Better counselling and support for knife victims could help them
to deal with their fear in order to reduce the likelihood they
will resort to carrying a weapon themselves.
150. Given the correlation between being a victim
of violence and carrying a weapon, providing support for assault
victims is key. We hope that measures to improve the relationship
between young people and the police will encourage higher levels
of crime reporting and that when these young people do come forward,
they are given the counselling that they need.
175 Q 231 Back
176
Q 538 Back
177
Q 279 Back
178
Q 279 Back
179
Ev 110 Back
180
Q 538 Back
181
11 MILLION/YouGov, Solutions to gun and knife crime, March
2009, Summary p 5 Back
182
Q 295 Back
183
Lemos&Crane, Fear and Fashion: The use of knives and other
weapons by young people, 2004, p 11 Back
184
Ev 184 Back
185
Q 377 Back
186
Q 349 Back
187
Q 280 Back
188
Qq 218-9 Back
189
Q 220 Back
190
Home Office, Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public:
An action plan for tackling violence, 2008-2011, February
2008, p 26 Back
191
Be Safe website, http://www.besafetraining.com/Home Back
192
Annex B [Leeds seminar notes] Back
193
Q 313 Back
194
Q 226 Back
195
Lemos&Crane, Fear and Fashion: The use of knives and other
weapons by young people, 2004, p 5 Back
196
Annex B [Leeds seminar notes] Back
197
Q 430 Back
198
Ev 149 Back
199
"Schools install metal detector to screen for pupils' knives",
The Independent, 30 April 2009 Back
200
Q 462 Back
201
Dr Carol Hayden, 'Staying Safe and Out of Trouble': A survey
of young people's perceptions and experiences (University
of Portsmouth, 2008) Back
202
Q 437 Back
203
Q 463 Back
204
Lemos&Crane, Fear and Fashion: The use of knives and other
weapons by young people, 2004, p 17 Back
205
Annex C [UNCUT meeting notes] Back
206
Q 124 Back
207
Qq 431-2 Back
208
National Audit Office, The Home Office: Reducing the risk of
violent crime, February 2008, p 7 Back
209
Q 204 Back
210
11 MILLION/YouGov, Solutions to gun and knife crime, March
2009, Summary p 5 Back
211
Ev 125 Back
212
Ibid Back
213
Ev 148 Back
214
Q 350 Back
215
"Partners in crime … prevention", The Independent,
12 February 2009, p 18 Back
216
Home Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Policing
in the 21st Century, HC 364, paras 46, 56-9 Back
217
Dr Bob Golding and Jonathan McClory, Getting to the Point:
Reducing gun and knife crime in Britain: lessons from abroad
(London: Policy Exchange, 2008), p 6 Back
218
Lemos&Crane, Fear and Fashion: The use of knives and other
weapons by young people, 2004, p 21 Back
|
