The sorry saga of crime

YOUR two crime articles: ‘20 vehicles burn in “arson spree”’/ ‘Three jailed after drugs ring smashed in police operation’ has led me to reflect on the possible causes for such civil insurrections.

The answer, in my opinion, surely lies in the decline of traditional family values that were prevalent during my formative years.

When I was born it was the norm to be parented by your mum and dad. My dad provided the family income and my mother stayed at home and nurtured myself/siblings. Those days of the late 1940s and early 50s are long gone and with them the assurances that mum was always there. With only one source of income, the dubious joys of gross materialism were unavailable to my parents and the majority of the population.

For instance, two-car families were virtually unknown and my father did not own one until his early forties. Indeed, I can recall my mother’s first washing machine/ fridge, and someone commenting to my father that central heating was a hotel luxury! Fitted kitchen/ diners have become the norm, and Janet and John are ferried to school in the latest limo irrespective of the fact that the schools are very often within easy walking distance.

So despite the apparent material wealth of double incomes, I would claim that the genesis for most of your crime reports are the result of some veneer-parenting. These parents in name only are obviously abdicating their parental duties, and no doubt many of them received the same indifferent upbringing from their parents. Thus the sorry saga of crime continues.

Some might consider my comments to be those of a disgruntled Victor Meldrew, but if we are to reduce arson/crime/drug-taking, perhaps a return to the civilising roles of the mums/dads of yesteryear would be a start!

R L Smith

Knowle