Monday 1 December 2014

Another Survey Result That Will Surprise No-one…

England’s poorest areas are proof of a link between deprivation, litter and crime, according to a survey published on Thursday by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
It claims that poor levels of cleanliness are also associated with increases in low-level crime and social disorder.
Well…yes. If you have an area full of low-level criminals, you'll have an area full of low-level crime.

These people never learned not to shit where they eat, or they'd be a better class of criminal, wouldn't they?
Keep Britain Tidy’s chief executive, Phil Barton, said: “Our earlier research pointed to what we have always instinctively known – that more deprived areas suffer from poorer environmental quality. This report confirms it clearly and irrefutably.
“It is clear that social inequality extends to the quality of people’s surroundings and we know that if places are dirty and look ‘unloved’ this can adversely impact on health and wellbeing.”
Is there nothing this mythical 'social inequality' isn't responsible for, in the minds of progressives?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I remember a report a few years ago which concluded (straight-faced) that people in poor areas are more likely to be overweight because the sight of litter-strewn streets makes them disinclined to go jogging.

Macheath said...

Sadly there are plenty of people who would see the statement "more deprived areas suffer from poorer environmental quality" as a cue to demand that the state give extra money to the inhabitants - 'If they are less deprived, their surroundings will improve; statistics don't lie!'

Anonymous said...

Bunny

If you look at Wythenshawe, obviously not looking too hard, it has some excellent examples of garden city architecture. Unfortunately the denizens of Wythenshawe treat it like the shit tip it is. The other option is if they treat it like shit, they don't get any money spent in the area, treat it with pride and Wythenshawe could be a good place to live and who knows.

Anonymous said...

The perfect balance then.
'State' the benevolent sees the need of 'the deprived areas '
QED
Through deprivation will ye earn the warmth of state nurture.

JuliaM said...

"...more likely to be overweight because the sight of litter-strewn streets makes them disinclined to go jogging."

*speechless*

"...a cue to demand that the state give extra money to the inhabitants..."

Indeed so! When all you have is a hammer...

"The other option is if they treat it like shit, they don't get any money spent in the area, treat it with pride and Wythenshawe could be a good place to live and who knows."

The carrot AND the stick? How radical!