When the Iron Lady Ruled Britain

Home > Other > When the Iron Lady Ruled Britain > Page 16
When the Iron Lady Ruled Britain Page 16

by Robert Chesshyre


  Why, I asked them, had there been no uprising? It was like living in an earthquake zone, they replied, people get used to the shocks. Yet they were bitter about gentrification and luxury new developments in docklands. The words ‘wine bar’ when lobbed into such a conversation have about the same effect as a hand grenade. Yuppies, they said, appeared to find it trendy to live on the fringes of working-class districts, so long as they did not have to suffer from working-class evils like crime. ‘You hear them say, “Oh it’s really not too bad, not too many black people and it’s pretty well policed, and the houses are not too bad.”’ As jacuzzis are installed in working-class blocks of flats, extended families are broken up and crammed onto the shoddy estates. The shops move out to places like Lewisham and Croydon.

  Drug-taking, they agreed, was getting ever worse, and some youth organizations were frightened of opening their doors because it was almost impossible to keep the pushers out. Cocaine made people feel super-fit. (They added that ‘many of the youth are now very physical, pumping iron and doing martial arts.’) They said: ‘Five pounds will get you out of your brain,’ and they said the pushers were replacing soft drugs with hard drugs to increase their profits. What about the police? ‘We treat them with acute suspicion,’ said a white worker. It’s outright war,’ said a black colleague. They accused the police at best of being heavy-handed and insensitive; at worst, of being corrupt, taking backhanders to allow after-hours drinking, and even feeding confiscated drugs back on to the street. ‘You know when there is going to be a bust,’ according to one worker, ‘because certain people are not on the street. They’ve been tipped off.’

  A minority of residents on estates like North Peckham pose a twin threat to society – rampant crime on the one hand and potential civil disorder on the other – which leaves the police in a dilemma. Increasingly, concern with wider disorder is reducing the time, resources and attention given to crime. In some areas, 30 per cent of police training is dedicated to riot tactics and keeping the peace. A police chief’s priority is to prevent riots on his territory, and the solving of routine crime is receiving less and less of his force’s attention. In many areas the uniformed police will spend no more than ten minutes at the scene of a burglary, and even where there are substantial clues – a description of the thief by a neighbour or a footprint on a window sill – it is very unlikely that the CID will follow up. A householder’s best chance of his burglary being ‘solved’ is if the thief is caught red-handed elsewhere, and asks for his earlier offences to be ‘taken into consideration’. The police are far more likely to be seen in clusters outside football grounds, late at night in city centres or in shopping streets than singly or in pairs in residential areas. A senior policeman said: ‘When it comes to a breakdown in society, we have got to worry first about public order.’ The onus now is on the householders themselves to protect their property, just as it was before there was a police force.

  Detective Chief Inspector Alec Ross, picked to run a pilot scheme in Southwark that will formalize the new policing priorities, said: ‘We have tried everything except standing on our heads to get people to look after their property. The vast majority may not actually invite burglars in, but they don’t take the slightest precaution – they have inadequate locks and leave their windows open. They might just as well have a revolving sign outside. It is the same with handbags; they leave them open on shop counters and walk away. Even now, people are just not sufficiently aware how prevalent crime is.’ Several times since the Second World War the Metropolitan Police have reorganized their resources to cope with the reality of being able to tackle only a decreasing proportion of crime committed. When Mr Ross’s pilot scheme is complete, effort will be devoted according to a points system based on each crime’s solvability. The value of the crime will be far less important when deciding whether to follow it up than the chances of catching the perpetrator. The practice, said Mr Ross, is similar to that employed by doctors during the Vietnam war, when some seriously injured victims were simply injected with morphine and left to die. With fewer police hours being ‘wasted’ on hopeless cases, between six and seven hundred beat police will be freed to return to the streets, which accords with public priorities.

  Mr Ross was cruelly blunt about policing areas like North Peckham where, he said, society had withdrawn its support for the police, inevitably abandoning the weak and innocent to the law of the jungle. ‘The police on their own will never win. If people will not report the crimes they see and are not prepared to come forward as witnesses, the police are unable to do anything. Even if a policeman is witness to a crime himself, he often can do little without the victim’s cooperation. It is a gradual slide downhill. If you back away and back away, you’ll get trodden on. If you want the benefits and privileges of belonging to a society, you’ve got to be willing to stand up and be counted.’

  Once cooperation has been withdrawn, said Mr Ross, there is little point even in having policemen on patrol. You might as well have cardboard cut-outs, he said. Like dead men propped against the ramparts of the fort, they don’t fool the people inside. Even policemen will eventually pick up their wages and look the other way; it is very difficult, said Mr Ross, to keep up the morale of officers when there is no public ‘thank you’. If the public are not for them, it is the same as being against them. ‘Once the police have lost consent, they have lost everything. The only other way is military-style policing, which is not acceptable in this country,’ he added.

  Non-cooperation takes two forms. There is the refusal of the criminals themselves and their associates to have anything to do with the police – Dr Ware, of the intensive care unit at King’s College Hospital, said that even victims of internecine warfare who have been ‘nigh unto death’ will not help the police – and the fear that silences the vast majority like Mrs ‘Smith’. I knew what Mr Ross was saying, and sympathize with the police predicament, but in the end society must have a responsibility to the Mrs Smiths which cannot be rationalized away. There is no neat divide between the control of crime and public order. Constant, unchecked criminality destabilizes communities like North Peckham, softening them up for riot and disorder. Mr Ross saw the inner cities in guerrilla terms; if left alone long enough, eventually the criminals have enough confidence to come out and fight in the open.

  What, I asked him, had gone wrong? Was it Tebbit’s ‘wickedness’? Alice Coleman’s architecture? Thatcherism? Mr Ross had time for Professor Coleman, and acknowledged that both left and right perceptions of the roots of crime were important. But he added: ‘It is so much easier to destroy than to build. Politicians spend all their time tearing each other down; no one wants to build a blooming thing. People who should be leading are fighting one another. There’s a terrible lack of someone standing up to say what has gone wrong.’ He was scornful of the justice system. ‘The authorities have an abject terror of punishing anyone. They say that the inevitability of detection is the deterrent, but that means very little to the class of individual who is regularly committing crime. The first five or six times he is arrested he may not even go to court. He may be thoroughly amazed when he is finally dealt with,’ he said. However, he added, the prisons are full of the wrong people. It is scarcely a punishment for inadequates, for whom ‘it is akin to heaven to have a warm, clean bed, clothing, three meals a day and be told what to do.’ For many others, it is a relief to have their overwhelming responsibilities temporarily removed and everything looked after. A probation officer told me that most south London criminals he knew were quite prepared to spend one third of their adult lives locked up, so long as they were ‘someone’ for the other two thirds – a name, a face, with a thick roll of banknotes in their back pockets. ‘You’re not anyone,’ he said, ‘unless you’re hard, a Jack the lad.’

  Increasingly, inner-city crime is committed to get money for drugs. Paul Hayes, who heads a team of probation officers in the New Kent Road, said that when he came to London in the late seventies, drug-taking had been c
onfined to middle-class drop-outs – ‘left-over hippies and eternal students’. Now, he said, it was relatively usual for working-class kids to be using heroin. It was cheaper than it had been, and was smoked rather than injected. Unemployment, social dislocation and hopelessness made it an attractive option – ‘those may be clichés, but just because someone has said something forty-three times doesn’t make it untrue.’ Crime, he argued, was deeply affected by the prevailing social conditions. In the thirties in poverty-stricken places like Jarrow – often cited by those of the Tebbit tendency who believe there is more innate evil today than there was then – nearly everyone was out of work, and those with a job were very poor also. Now, not only is there more to steal but it is more accessible. An affluent lifestyle is being lived in front of people who have nothing; it is not hidden fifty or a hundred miles away. Someone on £28 a week supplementary benefit may live next door to someone earning over £200. Even in Liverpool, from where Mr Hayes comes, there are ‘flash’ clubs and shops. If you’re seventeen or eighteen and want ‘to pull a few birds’, you’ve got to buy the right drinks and wear the right shirts. Crime is really the only source for that kind of income. The majority of people with whom probation officers deal would prefer, said Mr Hayes, to be in work than out of it, and there was still semi-skilled or unskilled work available. The black economy, he argued, was a subsidy for employers, rather than a fiddle for the workers, since in certain jobs an employer assumes workers are claiming benefit, and pays lower accordingly.

  Mr Hayes was thoroughly cynical about what he considered to be the Conservative manipulation of the law and order issue. The rhetoric might be quite tough, but the policy was liberal. The ‘short sharp shock’ introduced by William Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary, for example, had been meted out to young offenders since the war. Whitelaw had simply been pandering to the Conservative notion that life in borstal was soft. Leon Brittan announced that parole for violent sex and drug offenders would be restricted to the last few months of their sentences, thereby guaranteeing good ‘tough’ headlines. At the same time he was making arrangements to let virtually everyone else out on parole. There was permanent juggling, said Mr Hayes, between the rhetoric and the reality.

  If the government had the resources to build an airfield in the Falklands, it could easily run up a few more prisons, he said. If Conservatives genuinely believed that jailing more people for longer would reduce crime, it would be their duty to lock them up to fulfil the government’s primary responsibility for the safety and well-being of society. ‘In reality it isn’t done because it wouldn’t work, and they know it,’ he said.

  What then would work? The sixty-four-thousand-dollar question has almost an answer for each dollar. My time in and around North Peckham taught me that none of them is mutually exclusive. The walkways must come down; people must be given homes and not prison blocks to live in; the police must be returned to the streets; teenagers must be instilled with purpose – there are jobs, at least in London; police chiefs must keep their itchy fingers away from their new military-style equipment. The danger lies in the ‘no go’ mentality. American cities that have refurbished their downtown areas have wrought minor miracles: the same is beginning to be true in Liverpool. The city has to be for all its people: crumbling council properties only streets away from gentrification schemes are a recipe for social disaster. Dave Sutherland’s nightmare of ‘welfare housing’ would signal that Britain had abandoned the post-war drive towards equality of opportunity.

  On my last day at North Peckham the sun was shining. As I left one front door to step onto a walkway, I ran into about ten kids playing on bicycles. ‘Watch out, Alan,’ said a child, ‘you ran over the man’s foot.’ Two policemen were threading their way amiably between the children. It was a thoroughly reassuring scene. As in many other areas of life, we have, I suspect, a crucial last chance. In this case, getting it wrong means armoured cars, water cannon and tear gas increasingly deployed on the streets of our major cities, abandoning Mrs Smith to a world beyond the protection of law and order, and leaving tens of thousands of children to grow up in seriously impoverished communities.

  ‌Chapter 5

  ‌Serious Money

  In an estate agent’s temporary office in Shad Thames, a few yards from where Dickens put Bill Sykes to death, there was a scale model in a glass case. It showed the Anchor Brewhouse, a late Victorian brewery immediately south of Tower Bridge, which – in the early summer of 1987 – was being converted into thirty apartments which ranged in price from £270,000 to £2,500,000. The flats were being sold as fast as they could be constructed – negotiations had opened on the most expensive one, which was not due for occupation for another fifteen months – and a minority of buyers were simply making an investment, never intending to live there, owning the flat only until it was finished and then selling it for a yet greater price. They were dealing in luxury apartment ‘futures’. Given that certain classes in London were flush with money, I could understand the prices. What did catch my attention was that the sales model itself had cost £12,000, which, in certain parts of the country I had lately been visiting, could have put an adequate (if small) roof over a family’s head. The agent – I had declared myself as a scribbler rather than a purchaser – showed me a three-storey apartment at the top of what had been the brewery boiler house valued at one million pounds. It had three outside terraces, and from the top floor the Tower of London was exactly framed between the towers of Tower Bridge. A bed had been constructed on top of a head-high construction which housed the lift workings. You mounted it by means of a short ladder. Lying there, the future purchaser will have a panoramic view of some of the world’s most celebrated buildings.

  From a balcony on the other side, the near view was of feverish development beneath four giant red cranes. ‘It’s going to be another Mayfair,’ said the estate agent happily. Dust-covered navvies – shortly to sink several lunchtime pints in the Anchor Inn on Horselydown Lane – were constructing a mock Georgian square, which will include more highly priced flats, the inevitable wine bars, and a ‘grocery shop’ to be run by Laura Blond, the small, dark-haired wife of publisher Anthony Blond. ‘Mrs Blond,’ enthused that month’s Tatler, ‘will prepare rillettes, terrines, quiches, odeons sculpted from ice and fascinia sculpted from root vegetables to sate local yuppies.’ Husband and wife were pictured – he, modestly described by the Tatler as ‘the novelist, publisher, bon viveur and thinker’, in what looked like a white grocer’s coat and a back to front Martini apron – clasping a basket loaded with sandwiches and wine bottles. In the background were the cranes, the brew house and Tower Bridge.

  Looking up from the splendours to be, I saw on the skyline some familiar structures – long, low barracks, the outlines of which cut through the summer haze that lay across south London. They were, I realized – consulting the agent about which way the Old Kent Road ran – my stamping ground of the previous few weeks, North Peckham, Gloucester Grove and their linked estates, London’s ‘no go’ territory. On long, hot summer evenings, sometime in the future, brew house tenants will be able to shift their sights from the Tower of London and watch the smoke rise over Peckham.

  Even nearer to hand, perhaps taking a stroll before enjoying Mrs Blond’s gourmet comestibles, our future tenants will find dozens of destitute people. Along the length of Tooley Street, which runs at right-angles to Tower Bridge Road, they lie every few yards, drunk on the steps of banks, on benches, on pavements – one youngish man with dark hair and heavy stubble, looking weak and exhausted, like a cholera victim close to death. The favourite spot is a tiny park between Tooley Street and Queen Elizabeth Street, over which a bust of Ernest Bevin, in waistcoat and open jacket – black, heavily streaked with green – presides. ‘The Dockers’ KC’, reads the plaque. ‘A forceful and inspiring leader of democratic principles, he gained a place in men’s hearts few could equal.’ Beneath him a dozen or so down-and-outs drank cheap cider; one, a massive woman, whose gargantuan
breasts spilled over the top of her filthy blue dress, had a hand on a pushchair in which sat a small child. The rubbish basket had long since been overwhelmed by beer cans, wine and cider bottles. Smashed glass shimmered underfoot, like the first fall of snow. There could have been no more ironic juxtaposition than between Bevin and his aspirations for the British poor, and the human flotsam beneath his bronze gaze.

  Many who are not homeless live in fairly wretched conditions in the Tower Bridge area. Southwark Council had to abandon a scheme to modernize (and make more secure) several large blocks on Tooley Street for lack of money. Neighbouring Lambeth Council took action that week to deter ‘yuppies’ from buying converted flats in their borough. They passed a measure protecting large houses from conversion – one-bedroomed flats had been fetching £46,000; restricting the number of flats that could be carved out of one property; and requiring the provision of off-street parking if more than three flats were created. The divide between two Britains is far more clearly demarcated a few hundred yards from the Thames than it is by that notional boundary, the river Trent.

  I asked the estate agent whether they had ‘political’ problems, creating luxury so close to squalor, and bearing in mind that Southwark had a left-wing administration. Had anyone come marching by, demanding ‘Rich trash and yuppy scum out’? No, he replied. People understood they were creating homes out of what had been derelict industrial land – the brewery closed in 1968. We had moved to a flat on offer for £580,000 in a warehouse next to the brew house – two bedrooms, jacuzzi, balcony over the Thames, original brickwork and beams. He was anxious to know whether I thought the flats offered value for money. Bearing in mind the escalation of prices in my own suburban area, I answered truthfully, ‘Yes.’ Since the world had been turned upside-down, such money for a luxury flat in a south London warehouse was certainly no crazier than £250,000 for a semi-detached in Richmond-upon-Thames or £45,000 for the top half of an LCC overspill house in Slough.

 

‹ Prev