Perhaps the biggest irony around the 15+ Netflix drama  “Adolescence” about a 13-year old boy who knifes to death a girl at his school is not that it is being foisted on schools in a collaboration between the government, Netflix and Tender (one of those charities largely funded by the taxpayer – £3.4 million so far) with seemingly no consideration of whether it is suitable educational material, how it is to be taught or discussed, what the impact of it might be on pupils watching it, how those will be addressed, what the charity’s agenda might be, the suitability of its materials and when schools will find the time given that schools and pupils aged 15 + will be preoccupied with GCSEs and A-Levels.

No. The biggest irony is that a discussion about a drama meant to help us understand why young males are violent to girls has scarcely even mentioned the girl victim (Katie Leonard, since you ask). The plot itself suggests that the girl’s behaviour was somehow responsible for Jamie’s behaviour – she was rude to him online, instigated cyber-bullying of him, she rejected him. This is a tale old as time itself: somehow no matter how bad the man’s behaviour, the female is always in the wrong, even when she ends up dead at his hands. If only she had been nicer to him, he would not have felt compelled to do what he did. Spend a few hours in the criminal courts listening to the defences in domestic violence cases and you can hear many versions of this excuse. An ex-DPP of all people should know this. Before focusing on misogyny, we could teach children – and a large proportion of the adult population – to understand that making their own choices is not duress and that they must take responsibility for those choices. It won’t eliminate misogyny or other crime but might at least start to make us a more adult country less prone to puerile policy-making overlaid with fake sentimentality.

As for the demand that we have a national conversation about misogyny and porn, where have Starmer & co., been all these years? Women – many middle-aged, some of them pretty blunt, angry and armed with actual evidence, some of them even daring to call themselves feminists, the brazen hussies! – have been making coherent analyses of misogyny and, in particular, the impact of pornography on men of all ages, its impact on what is now increasingly deemed normal sexual activity (the quasi-strangulation of women to enhance men’s pleasure), the increasing display and acceptance of male fetishes in public spaces, regardless of its impact on women, the abandonment of sensible safeguarding measures intended to protect women and girls in favour of “inclusivity”, the refusal to take offences of voyeurism and indecent exposure seriously, exacerbated by the decisions of many organisations which have in practice made these offences easier to commit. They have sought meetings with Starmer and have been denied any such thing, let alone a Cabinet round table and instant action. Rather, the response has been to deride and ignore such unfashionable pearl-clutching bigots.

In truth, boys of this age and older are as likely to be victims of crimes of violence by other males and as likely to be violent to other males. It was in 1995 that a headmaster, Philip Lawrence was murdered in genteel St John’s Wood when he went to help a pupil being attacked by a gang. In 2000 10-year-old Damilola Taylor was killed by 2 youths, then aged 11 and 12. Jimmy Mizen aged 16 was murdered by a 19-year-old in 2008. All 3 killings were shocking and high profile; all 3 led to agonising about why and how this could happen and what we might do to stop such killings.

Well, here we are decades later, and the killings have not stopped. Nor have the misogyny and sexual assaults. What we have failed to understand or teach or show is that we – especially men and boys but not just them – must know the extent of our strength and power, the limits of it, why we have to value and exercise self-restraint and self-control and why we have to think of the effect of our behaviour on others. No matter what the immediate outrage after some tragedy, if we stand by as our society is pornified, if personal autonomy without limits, if sexual freedom no matter what the harm to others, if “I want, I get” are the only moral precepts we value and reward, we end up with dramas about 13 year old boys watching violent porn online, even in nice caring two-parent families.

Rather than making policy on the back of moral panics triggered by dramas, however well made, we might listen to those who have been raising concerns about these matters for years now to general disdain, derision, insults, and indifference. We might listen to those girls who have objected to mixed sex loos and changing rooms in schools because they know exactly what boys will do if given the chance (as the evidence shows when such a change has been made). We might try thinking about how we show boys how to use their strength, aggression, risk-taking and desire to make an impact into productive, useful, and life-enhancing channels.

Above all, could we please stop with the cringe-inducing government announcements about watching TV programmes and banning certain types of knives and start making policy on the basis of proper evidence and thorough, thoughtful analysis by those who know what they are talking about and conscientious public servants acting in the public interest, not commercial outfits seeking revenue and publicity and grifting lobby groups.

Stories can illuminate and outrage. They cannot on their own bring about effective long-lasting change. No I haven’t forgotten Mr Bates vs The Post Office. Convictions were overturned. And some got some shiny baubles. But 15 months after all the outrage, compensation still hasn’t been paid – not even to Sir Alan; the eldest sub-postmistress affected (Betty Brown) is 92 and still waiting and one of those featured in that drama (who lost his business, savings, home and job) – Lee Castleton – is suing the Post Office and Fujitsu. Had those in charge listened to those who told them the problems decades earlier and acted effectively, the scandal would never have happened and the public inquiry and drama never been needed. This statement (*) applies to pretty much every governmental and organisational FUBAR you can think of.

Our society is brilliant at the scandals, outrage, instant announcements, interminable inquiries and heart-stringing dramas. A pity it is the effective action which always seems to be missing.

Cyclefree

(*) Cyclefree’s Golden Rule of Scandals