Headstrong.
There have always been feral kids causing problems, thieving and worse. Ever heard or seen the pictures of the East End in the 19th century? Historically even without support poor families often had large numbers of children in this country but also even now in developing countries. Children often died young, and having a large number usually meant the parent had support in old age. The children could also support each other.
I can speak from experience, my boys' grandparents and their siblings amount to 30 people, 7.5 children per family.The average number of children from each of those 30 is probably around 4.In my generation the average is probably 3-3.5. ( there's such a lot that it difficult to be exact.
It was a proud boast that up until my generation that none of the family had ever gone to the dole, as it was known.There was no other state benefit although I recall collecting free orange juice, castor oil, and tinned baby milkfor my younger sisters. I also recall getting free school dinners for a short period until my grand parents found out and told my parents of the shame that brought upon the family. Family stuck together and there were enough of us to take on the world.
Very low incomes, a little bit of stuff from somewhere in the docks or 'off the back of a lorry' though not the one dad drove. I vividly remember when we got a load of cloth that was used to make curtains, cover the sofa, cover the table when folded, and to provide new coverings for the 'quilts' on the beds. A couple of years later I realised that it was the same material that was used as seat covering on the trains that ran from Liverpool Street.
As far as I can tell the offspring of each generation had the benefit of parental and family love and care that was sometimes strict and carried it through to their children with only a few exceptions. All without handouts from the state. Indeed it was only recently that I realised that barring a very small number, all families rented private houses or flats and did not start getting council properties until the slum clearances in the mid 60's.( It is noticeable that some of the 'slum' buildings left behind now sell for up to £1million)
Government measures such as controlled rents were a great benefit which did not cost the state. By and large families stayed close for support and would know the children of other families, which encouraged a general sense of community and discouraged bad behaviour by the kids. Not always the best circumstances but it worked. It worked when a large group of the family moved to the green pastures of Dagenham with its wide avenues and abundant playing areas, even real gardens back and front! Joy of joys, most of you will find it hard to imagine the collective exhilaration, it was the promised land in 1968. Jobs at Ford, at all the other host of factories down on the river and on the industrial estates.
Two changes of Government policies turned Dagenham into the 'Nam' warzone that it is now. The first was well meaning legislation that put unmarried mothers at the front of the queue for council accommodation and provided them with additional benefits. The second was Maggie's selling of council houses under the right to buy which combined as it was with a wholesale attack on manufacturing industry really hit the children of the working class.
The council houses were sold at a huge discount to sitting tenants and councils were not allowed to use the funds generated to replace their housing stock. The council tenants with good incomes bought their houses, those without such incomes didn't. The children of the latter group had to go into the increasing expensive private market to get a home which was fine if they had good paying employment. If they didn't they were stuffed. At the same time a lot a good paying jobs disappeared and were replaced with low paying jobs in retail parks and other service industries. Full employment but lower wages for the unskilled. Dead man's shoes on a much reduced council housing stock became the only way those at the lower end of the wage structure could hope to get accommodation.
But to get council accommodation one had to have enough points to be given the opportunity. Unmarried mothers got to the front of the queue. If they had one child they were given a flat in one of the high rise areas of the Borough, if they had 3 children they got a house after a relatively short period of time. with 4 children they could get a 3 bed semi. This accommodation was provided essentially free with payment being made from State benefit. All in all a reasonable move by the Government to support those in need. Unfortunately because of other events it became the easy way to get a house. To discourage this some official had the bright idea to change benefit rules so that if a co-habiting partner shared the accommodation, benefit would be withdrawn, thus penalising those with a stable relationship. What happened was that either the partner was kicked out or moved away, perhaps back to his parents, and either visited fairly infrequently to comply with the rules or buggered off.
The result, council houses with young women with large numbers of children and no men.That equals lots of very short term relationships and by Government policy no stable relationships unless one of the partners has a very good income.
In Dagenham the problem was exacerbated. Many of the inner London Boroughs had little or no stock of council houses and to fulfill their obligations either struck deals with the council to acquire houses for the immigrant families they could not house or made substantial financial contributions to tenants of their council houses
so that they could buy former council houses in Dagenham.
Here again sod's law plays a part. The worst Inner London Council estates from which escape to Dagenham might seem attractive are in Hackney and Newham, both very multicultural. The incentives were offered to families where fewer than the maximum lived in a house.White residents tend to have lived there longest and don't want to move because they have their roots in the area and adopt a 'we have stuck it out ' attitude. The Asians generally like to stay in their existing communities and it appears that a significant number of people accepting the offer were single black women with teenage children, some of whom had left home and were keen to get their children away from some of the more unpleasant aspects of their estates. Unfortunately moving into an area that had been almost exclusvely white (not for any deliberate reason I would hope) the young black kids were not welcomed by the local yobs and there has been a rapid growth in gang culture presumably driven by self protection.
Like many working class areas throughout the country the substantial majority of the residents are decent people trying to live, raise their children properly, get along with their neighbours of whatever creed or colour and the like. The emergence (or re-emergence) of a growing, minority, feral, underclass has been the result of Government policies. Rather than address the symptoms with ASBOs and prison sentences there should be a comprehensive review of the benefits system. As AC posted don't punish the kids', every innocent life is valuable, but devise something that does not give an incentive to produce kids in order to get a house nor penalise stable relationships.
