'One eye in Toxteth, one eye in Croxteth ... - Semantic Scholar

International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(8): 496 - 519 (2010) CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org

‘One Eye in Toxteth, One Eye in Croxteth’ – Examining Youth Perspectives of Racist and Anti-Social Behaviour, Identity and the Value of Sport as an Integrative Enclave in Liverpool James Kenyon, Liverpool Hope University, UK Joel Rookwood, Liverpool Hope University, UK

Abstract: Liverpool has a rich and complex social identity, infused by various cultural influences and evolving migration patterns. Its status was recognised with the 2008 award of European Capital of Culture, reflecting Liverpool’s architectural, musical and sporting heritage, together with recent regeneration. The recent redevelopments are considered notable given the economic recession, increases in unemployment and hooliganism, and the racially-aggravated riots Merseyside experienced in the 1980s. Elements of Liverpool’s population have a long association with racist and violent identities and behaviours, and there is evidence that such characteristics continue to permeate the social fabric of the city. The murders of Anthony Walker and Rhys Jones in 2005 and 2007 respectively serve as contemporary examples. This paper will explore youth culture in two traditionally, currently and infamously troubled areas, namely Croxteth in the north of the city and Toxteth in the south. Drawing on observational data as well as interviews with teenage males, this research accesses opinion pertaining to the construction and expression of contemporary identity relative to community and ethnicity. It also examines youth engagement in racist and anti-social behaviour in both communities, and the extent to which sport serves as an integrative enclave in Liverpool. Keywords: UK, gangs, racism, community sport

Introduction - Liverpool Founded by King John’s Royal Charter of 1207, the English coastal city of Liverpool was initially nothing more than a departure point for the armies of the King’s military exploits in Ireland and Wales (Belchem, 2006). From its early development up until the seventeenth century, Liverpool was considered as little more than an insignificant fishing village which conducted its trade in the Irish Sea (Hollinshead, 2008; Kermode, Hollinshead and Gratton, 2006). However, as trade between Europe and the ‘New World’ grew during the European Renaissance, the port proved ideally placed to take advantage of these new trade links, and the first recorded cargo that landed in Liverpool from the North Atlantic in 1648 would herald a period of almost constant economic growth that would continue until after the First World War (Belchem, 2006). Initially this economic growth was driven by the port’s prominent role in the eighteenth century transatlantic slave trade (Morgan, 2007; Richardson, Schwarz and Tibbles, 2007) which turned Liverpool into ‘one of the richest and most prosperous trading centres in the world’ (Muir, 1907 cited in Belchem, 2000: 9). Its continued (post-slavery) economic expansion was achieved by trading primarily in cotton, textiles, rum, tobacco and sugar and by exploiting an emerging global emigration

496


market (Belchem, 2006; Milne, 2006; Pooley, 2006; Russell, 2007; Speake and Fox, 2008). Economic growth persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and during this time the city of Liverpool had more to offer the world than its dealings with slavery. As Grant and Gray confirm Liverpool was ‘a major centre of industry, ideas and culture, its influence [...] cannot be understated’ (2007: 1). Yet while business for Liverpool’s eighteenth and nineteenth century merchants and entrepreneurs was flourishing, most of city’s residents experienced a much more challenging existence; there was, according Harris, a ‘great deal of misery and degradation’ in the city (1968: xii). Throughout Liverpool’s economic ‘golden-age’ the majority of the population were located in low quality, overcrowded, unsanitary slums which dominated the dock and inner city areas (Harris, 1968; Power, 1992; Russell, 2007) and which is where they would remain until well into the 20th Century (Murden, 2006). Liverpool’s overcrowding problems worsened in the early 1920s when, after what as an almost completely uninterrupted period of economic growth lasting close to three centuries, the city’s economic fortunes began to change. Liverpool’s economic decline from ‘one of the richest and most prosperous trading centres in the world’ (Muir, 1907 cited in Belchem, 2000: 9) and the UK’s second most important port (Belchem, 2000, 2006; Parkinson, 1991) to its current status as the UK’s most deprived local authority (Social Disadvantage Research Centre, 2008) occurred much more quickly than that of its economic expansion. Following the First World War, military demobilization, the 1929 Wall Street Crash and consequent Great Depression, Liverpool’s unemployment problems were exacerbated to such a degree that close half of city’s population were living in poverty (Belchem and Murden, 2006). Liverpool’s socio-economic difficulties were further aggravated during the Second World War when German bombing raids obliterated most of the city (Murden, 2006) with only London suffering more damage in England (Martínez-Martín, 2005) and consequently meant that ‘for much of the next thirty-five years Liverpool would be engaged in an attempt to rebuild itself’ (Murden, 2006: 393). This city-wide reconstruction included a number of industrial and council estates that were built on the periphery of the city in an attempt to decentralise part of the city’s economy away from the overcrowded docks (Speake and Fox, 2008). In post–war Liverpool, however, despite the thousands of factory-based jobs that had been created, a reemergence in global trade meant that it was still the docks that were the city’s largest employer (Murden, 2006). What the increase in factory-based employment, the reemergence of world trade and the relocation of thousands from the inner city slums to the newly built council estates did ensure, nonetheless, was that Liverpool was able experience a mini-revival in economic growth throughout the 1950s and most of the 1960s. In the 1970’s however, the city was hit by a severe recession. Liverpool’s geographical location in the northwest of England was now proving to be a disadvantage as Europe became the UK’s favoured trading partner after joining the European Economic Community in 1973. The resultant implosion of the city’s maritime industries were exacerbated as the recently established manufacturing industry also began to deteriorate in the late 1970’s which resulted in tens of thousands of city-wide redundancies (Belchem, 2006; Murden, 2006; Speake and

497


Fox, 2008; Uduku, 1999). By 1981, more than one-in-five people in Liverpool were unemployed, a statistic which was nearly four times that of the national average at the time (Liverpool City Council, 1993). In the early 1980s Liverpool’s already-vulnerable communities were further affected by the restructuring of the wider UK economy by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. De-industrialisation, cutbacks in the government’s fiscal responsibilities in social services and an increase in income tax during a recession, in addition to Liverpool’s growing unemployment numbers engendered ‘ghettoisation’, economic marginalisation and social deprivation in sizeable sections of the city (Pitts, 2007; Speake and Fox, 2008; Uduku, 1999). Despite ‘militant’ determination to overcome these trends through local-government-backed urban regeneration schemes, Liverpool throughout the 1980s was defined by high levels of unemployment and poverty (Belchem, 2006; Murden, 2006; Speake and Fox, 2008; Taffe and Mulherne, 1988). As multiple deprivation patterns continued into the 1990s, Liverpool became eligible for European Union Objective 1 Structural Funds in 1993; grants which are aimed at improving the most destitute parts of the European Union (Murden, 2006: 475). However, it was the city-centre that would benefit from most early-to-mid 1990s city funding initiatives, rather than Liverpool’s numerous marginalised and in-need communities. Not until after the election of ‘New’ Labour in 1997 would these communities begin to benefit from targeted grants (Belchem, 2006; Murden, 2006) which would in turn lead Jones and Wilks Heeg to observe that after ‘30 years of unabated economic decline’ (2004: 345), Liverpool’s fortunes were beginning to change. Further progress was achieved in 2003 when the title of European Capital of Culture for 2008 was awarded to Liverpool, which according to Rookwood and Millward (2010) was bestowed largely in recognition of Liverpool’s extensive architectural heritage and international exposure to its popular music and sporting icons. Additionally, Bunnell indicates that ‘the [Liverpool] bid’s proponents were following in the footsteps of other cities [like Glasgow] where ‘culture’ has been mobilised for urban regeneration and re-imaging’ (2008: 251). With this in mind, since the title of European Capital of Culture for 2008 was announced, stimulated by substantial remarketing and continual urban regeneration (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004), private sector development and tourism have provided the most significant functions in improving Liverpool’s revitalised local economy (Meegan, 2003). Liverpool’s architectural heritage was recognised again, a year later, in 2004 when UNESCO named the waterfront as one of its revered World Heritage Sites (Boland, 2009). Yet after multi-generational economic marginalisation, unemployment and poverty, and away from the newly-refurbished city-centre and waterfront, Liverpool has within its communities some of the most disadvantaged areas in the country, and according to UK Government’s Social Disadvantage Research Centre (2008) it is the most deprived local authority in the UK.

Toxteth - Racism The resultant problems associated with the decline of the city’s economy have led numerous authors to consider Liverpool a microcosm of the multitude of social problems that are ingrained in British society (Parkinson, 1991; Harris, 1968;

498


Meegan, 2003; Murden, 2006). However, given that Liverpool’s cultural history is markedly influenced by the diverse immigrant population that many Scousers (i.e. Liverpudlians) can trace their descent from – including Celtic, North American, African, Caribbean, Scandinavian and Asian lineages (Belcham, 2000; Uduku, 1999) – it can be argued that Liverpool’s social problems do not reflect British society exclusively but are reflective of a combination of the city’s diverse cultures. Serving as the focal point for the city’s varying ethnic minority groups, since the early 1980s, Toxteth has been one of the most notorious and socially deprived areas of Liverpool. The area has become synonymous with the city’s ‘black community’ – which according to Uduku, ‘is a catch all phrase used to describe varied residential population of Liverpool who are not categorised as white’ (2003: 125). Situated in south of the city, Toxteth is considered locally to be the neighbourhood formed by Sefton Street, Upper Parliament Street leading into Smithdown Road and Ullet Road (Fowler and Maddock, 2005). In 1981, social unrest in the area resulted in the Toxteth Riots, ‘as the dispossessed of the inner city rose into a poor people’s revolt against authority’ (Parkinson, 1985 cited in Murden, 2006: 444). In addition to the sustained economic marginalisation that the area was witness to (Uduku, 1999), there were tensions between Toxteth’s predominantly black population and the Merseyside Police who had been accused of ‘victimization and heavy-handed policing’ (Murden, 2006: 440). While Uduku describes the Toxteth Riots as a violent protest mainly by black youths (1999), others depict an involvement by both black and white Liverpudlians to the conflict (Belchem, 2006; Boland, 2008; Fowler and Maddock, 2005; Murden, 2006). What is generally agreed on, however, is that the Toxteth Riots were a physical expression of the local population’s antipathy to both the Merseyside Police and the destitute conditions in which they were living at the time (Belchem, 2006; Fowler and Maddock, 2005; Murden, 2006; Uduku, 1999). As poverty increased in Liverpool throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s – owing mainly to Conservative-led de industrialisation, economic restructuring and reductions in state welfare – Pitts describes how ethnic minority communities became entrenched at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (2007). With this mind, there has been a ‘continued city-wide perception of Toxteth as being a problem ‘Black’ area despite […] the recent development of a stratified but mixed community as a result of the gentrification process’ (Uduku, 1999: 105). The large number of ethnic minorities who ‘have continued to reside in discrete urban neighbourhoods separate from the mainstream residential community in Liverpool (Uduku, 2003: 136) have ensured that outside of Toxteth, non-white presence is ‘almost non-existent’ (Uduku, 2003: 137). This hardly implies that Liverpool is ‘The World in One City’ – one of the 2008 European Capital of Culture slogans – but rather, as Sport England humorously state, ‘the world in one postcode, L8’ (2006: 8). With this in mind, questions can be asked of whether this has resulted from the failure and/or unwillingness in local government to develop a socially integrated Liverpool; whether this is the result of local aversion to engaging with socially diverse groups, or viceversa; or whether a combination of these factors is responsible for Liverpool’s antimelting-pot ethnic dispersion.

499


While there are those that would play down Liverpool’s problems with racism – for example the team responsible for the organisation of the Capital of Culture – there have been many occasions in Liverpool’s past to indicate that an undercurrent of racial tension has long encompassed parts of the city’s culture (see for example, Gifford, Brown and Bundley, 1989; Townsend, 2007). For example, when Jamaicanborn John Barnes signed for Liverpool Football Club in 1987, the reactions it provoked in some rival Everton fans ‘had the effect of exposing and dramatizing submerged racial issues on Merseyside’ (Hill, 2001: 131). Yet the racially motivated abuse experienced by Barnes during this time was typical of the experiences of the average non-white resident of the city. These experiences of Liverpool’s ethnic minority groups engendered the authors of the Gifford Report to consider ‘the situation with regard to racial discrimination in Liverpool [as] truly horrific’ (Gifford, Brown and Bundley, 1989). Both this report and Ackah’s mid-nineties exploration into black identity in Liverpool identified high levels of racial discrimination encountered by the city’s non-white population through the 1980s and 1990s, enacted at both the individual and institutional level (Ackah, 1994; Gifford, Brown and Bundley, 1989). Since then there have been indications suggestive of an undercurrent of intense racial tension still existing in particular parts of the city. Serving as specific example is the racially aggravated murder of teenager Anthony Walker in the Huyton suburb of the city in 2005. What the murder of this young black Liverpudlian brought about – an incident which attracted worldwide media attention – was the renewed interest in addressing racism in the city and preventing racist attitudes from manifesting in the Liverpool’s youth population.

Croxteth – Youth Gangs Since the beginning of Liverpool’s economic decline in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the city has developed a media-induced reputation for anti-social behaviour, drugs, crime, and more recently, youth-gang culture (see for example, Boland, 2008; Doward, 2007). Such associations with the place and its people were already firmly established in 1993 when two ten-year-old boys abducted, tortured and murdered twoyear-old James Bulger. The incident attracted considerable interest from the global media and reflecting on the incident 14 years later, Ferguson described how following the infant’s murder, throughout the city, ‘there seemed [to be] a kind of collective guilt, and sudden wake-up shock: what have we managed to do to our city, that our children can do this?’ (2007: 25). What followed in the media was ‘the systematic, almost obsessive, denigration […] of Liverpool’ (Scraton, 2007: 77) and within the city’s communities, Boland describes how the realisation that two of its children were capable of such a terrible crime ‘bore heavily on the city’s soul’ (2008: 362). James’s murder had significant repercussions on the subsequent direction of youth justice legislation in UK (Riley, 2007). Until recently the focus of that direction, and the focus of government youth policy, had been concerned with addressing the prevalence of anti-social behaviour in the country’s youth population; a focus which James’ death proved the catalyst for. Only recently, a key ESRC study on youth-gangs by Aldridge and Medina-Ariza observes that the direction of that previous policy focus, i.e. addressing the causes of anti-social behaviour, has made a contemporary transition,

500


‘to the more serious violence of more stable groups of juvenile offenders’ (2008: 14); i.e. youth-gangs. Although Liverpool’s recent problems with youth-gangs have attracted significant national and international media attention, elements of the city’s population have had long associations with gang culture and its related issues, for example drugs, violence, gun crime, etc (BBC Inside Out, 2008; Boland, 2008; Rookwood and Millward, 2009; Murden, 2006). Boland describes how, throughout the 1990s, a succession of gangrelated shootings resulted in Liverpool becoming the UK’s, ‘first mainland city […] to have openly armed police officers patrolling the streets’ (2008: 361). With relation to drugs, between 1994 and 1997, it is estimated that Merseyside was responsible for four-fifths of the UK’s imported heroin (Anderson cited in Campbell, 1998: 4). More recently, between 2006-2007, in the first year of the UK’s Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Liverpool was revealed as being the UK's centre for organised crime outside London (Merrick, 2007). In August 2007, Liverpool’s problems with organised crime and gang culture reached a significant juncture. A feud between rival youth-gangs from the neighbouring suburban-wards of Croxteth and Norris Green - two areas of Liverpool that share the L11 postcode and are divided by one road - resulted in 17 year old ‘Crocky Crew’ gang-member, Sean Mercer, firing three shots from a handgun across the Fir Tree pub car park in Croxteth. Out of all these shots, which were aimed at rival gang members from the ‘Nogga Dogz’ crew of Norris Green, one ricocheted off a car and hit 11-year-old Rhys Jones in the back, fatally wounding him. The incident significant coverage in the media (see for example Ferguson, 2007; Kelly, 2008, Rossington, 2008a) and prompted the filming of two documentaries, Panorama: Young Gunmen (BBC 1, June 2008) and Ross Kemp on Gangs (Sky1, January 2009) centred around the youth-gang culture that has become synonymous with Liverpool’s northern wards. During the televised programme, Panorama: Young Gunmen, Johnson (2008) described these areas of the city as ‘untouched by the Capital of Culture [investment]’, where ‘organised crime and gang culture […] exists away from the shiny new centre’. For a number of the young people interviewed in the BBC documentary, being in a gang was portrayed as the only viable option in life, given the difficulties they had experienced in securing employment with no qualifications and a limited education (Johnson, 2008). In contrast to the life of poverty these young people were most likely to have otherwise, being in a gang was perceived as an opportunity to attain glamour, celebrity, wealth and was regarded as, ‘the gateway to another world’ (Johnson, 2008). After it was broadcast, however, the reliability of Johnson’s documentary was questioned following accusations in the local press of the BBC crew paying gang members to pose with their weapons (Rossington, 2008b, 2008c). This is a particularly significant issue given that two years prior to the broadcast of the documentary, internet site YouTube was publicly accused by UK government ministers of glorifying youth-gangs by allowing its users to post homemade videos of gang members posing with weapons (Doward and Revill, 2007). The intention of these YouTube videos is to promote a particular youth-gang’s name and intimidate rival gangs by having members pose with some of the weapons that the gang would have at their disposal. The particular shots of the Panorama documentary that showed gang members flaunting their weapons were very similar in content to

501


these YouTube videos. Therefore, it could be argued that if the documentary team did indeed pay for these shots, what they have effectively achieved is the funding and high-quality filming of a youth-gang promotion video, rather than just the highquality filming of one, minus the hip-hop music in the background. Whereas the Panorama programme at least attempted to explore the underlying causes of Liverpool’s youth-gang culture based on the strength of Johnson’s journalistic approach and local knowledge – i.e. Johnson was born in Liverpool and has published a number of books on Liverpool’s gangs and gangsters – Kemp’s limited interview style and experience in Ross Kemp on Gangs – i.e. Ross Kemp is primarily a soapopera actor who portrayed a London ‘gangster’ – meant that these underlying causes of engagement were largely unexplored. Ross Kemp on Gangs accentuated the feud between the two gangs involved in the death of Rhys Jones and the measures taken by the local police and social services to prevent engagement in youth gangs and antisocial behaviour. Throughout the Ross Kemp on Gangs series, episodes have often been based around what are perceived to be some of the world’s worst gangs, for example, El Salvador’s Mara Salvatrucha gang with membership numbers of approximately 10,000 worldwide (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009) and the infamous Bloods and Crips gangs of Los Angeles. On this premise, it could be argued that by providing a platform of similar eminence for Croxteth and Norris Green’s youth gangs, this episode was nothing more than a sensationalist piece designed to exploit the city’s post-Rhys-Jones reputation. Especially given that it is estimated that there are no more than 100 people in Croxteth and Norris Green’s population of 300,000 who are involved in youth gangs (Kelly, 2008). In a later interview with the local press, Kemp does, however, offer a more intuitive insight into why engagement in gang culture might be considered appealing to elements of the UK’s youth population, ‘[the] dreadful thing among some young people [is] that so-called ‘mediocrity’ is not acceptable and that if you can’t be a footballer or a model then it’s a case of resorting to being the most feared person on the street” (cited in Shennan, 2009). Within the academic community, Bennett and Holloway (2004) argue that until recently gang culture in the UK was largely ignored by social scientists. Of the majority of research that has been undertaken, the focus of this has been approximately thirty-miles away from Liverpool in the neighbouring city of Manchester (see for example, Aldridge and Medina-Ariza, 2008; Bullock and Tilley, 2002; Mares, 2001, Shropshire and McFarquar, 2002). Mares’ (2001) ethnographic research into pre-millennium gang culture in Manchester found that, contrary to popular belief, gangs in the city had a loose structure and lacked formal leadership. This supports more current research by Aldridge and Medina-Ariza who maintain that the structure of youth-gangs is ‘fluid, loose [and] messy’ (2008: 17). Most gang members are heavily involved in violence, crime and drugs (Aldridge and MedinaAriza, 2008; Bullock and Tilley, 2002; Mares, 2001, Pitts, 2007; Shropshire and McFarquar, 2002). Bullock and Tilley (2002) found that youth-gang members are also more likely to carry guns and/or a concealed weapon than non-gang-members. These findings are consistent with those of Shropshire and McFarquar who describe how guns are used in street robberies and, ‘to settle most minor differences’ (2002: 4). With this in mind, research from the U.S. has found that young people who engage in

502


gang culture are more likely to commit and/or become a victim of crime, underachieve academically, abuse drugs and suffer from some form of social exclusion (Battin-Pearson et al., 1998). In most major cities in the UK with a significant gang problem, members are more likely to be young black males of African or Caribbean descent (Bullock and Tilley, 2002; Mares, 2001; Shropshire and McFarquhar, 2003). However, and potentially serving as an example of Liverpool’s contemporary ‘exceptionalism’ (for Liverpool ‘exceptionalism’, see Belcham, 2000), Edwards (2008) reports that the young males that make up Liverpool’s youth-gangs are almost all white. These particular findings come from the Tackling Gangs Action Programme (TGAP), which was a government initiative established in 2007 that sought to target and reduce gang-related violence and firearm offences in Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Liverpool and London. The risk factors identified in the TGAP as being the most likely reasons for engagement in youth-gang culture were: education, training and employability; criminal lifestyles and associates; and thinking and behaviour problems (Dawson, 2008). However, regardless of the perceived scope of Liverpool’s gang-related problems, youth-gangs can only be associated with a small proportion of the city’s wards (see for example, Kelly, 2008) and yet the issue still attracts a significant, and possibly disproportionate, amount of negative media attention.

Socio-Politcal Context Notwithstanding the celebration and impact of the prestigious Capital of Culture award, for many years the city has attracted a significant amount a negative media attention. In particular, racism, anti-social behaviour and youth gang culture have attracted an international audience with the widely publicised killings of Anthony Walker in 2005, Rhys Jones in 2007 and Army cadet Joseph Lappin in 2008 serving as significant examples. It is events such as these that stress the importance of addressing the causes of anti-social behaviour and preventing it from manifesting in young people. The fact that tackling anti-social behaviour is listed as the top priority in Liverpool’s Crime, Disorder, Anti-Social Behaviour & Drug Misuse Strategy 2005 – 2008 (Citysafe, 2005) seems appropriately placed given that the deaths of these local young people suggest that racist and violent characteristics continue to permeate the contemporary social fabric of the city’s culture. Anti-social behaviour is more likely to be prevalent in underprivileged neighbourhoods (Utting, 1997). This is particularly relevant in Liverpool given that it is the most deprived local authority in the UK (SRCD, 2008). The city has within its communities some of the worst areas in the country in terms of deprivation of employment, health, income, living environment and crime. Based on the widely held belief that sport can have a beneficial impact in a variety of social contexts, it is often the case that it is considered to be a practical means of addressing society’s problems. For example, in 2007 the then-government minister for sport, Richard Caborn, proposed that the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) should be adapted ‘include up to six hours of physical activity or competitive sport each week’ (Kelso, 2007). In Liverpool, the application of sport to address the problems of the community

503


maintains particular appeal given that the city is famous throughout the world for its sporting icons and institutions (Rookwood and Millward, 2009; Physick, 2005). Nevertheless, the academic community are mostly in agreement that there is a lack of evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of utilising sport to deter young people from engaging in anti-social behaviour (Utting, 1997; Morris et al., 2003). Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine the extent to which the application of sport can serve as an effective tool in preventing youth engagement in racist and anti-social behaviour in two traditionally, currently and infamously troubled areas, namely Croxteth in the north of Liverpool and Granby-Toxeth in the south. In doing so, this study will access the opinions of young teenage males and experienced sport development practitioners and explore a construction and expression of contemporary local identity in the context of community and ethnicity, and determine the extent to which sport can, and has, served as an integrative enclave in the city.

Methods Before undertaking this study, the authors identified that a qualitative, rather than a quantitative approach would provide a more suitable framework for collecting data. This is because qualitative research ‘aims to capture […] feelings, thoughts, and experiences’ (Gratton and Jones, 2004: 54) rather than ‘discover and measure facts’ (Marsh, 2000: 135). The adopted research design of this study included both online and offline ethnographic techniques, and within this ethnographic framework a triangulation of data collection methods were used. These were participant observation (PO), focus group interviews (FG), semi and unstructured interviews (IV), fanzine analysis (FA) and online ethnography, or netnography (OE) – an emerging form of ethnography that has been tailored to study online communities (Kozinets, 2002). By embracing an ethnographic position the researcher takes on the role of ‘both storyteller and scientist’ (Fetterman, 2008: 288). This approach produces ‘rich’ data which emerges from understanding and describing a social and cultural setting from an emic perspective. The two researchers who conducted this study are both native inhabitants of the city of Liverpool. Additionally, both have considerable experience in coaching community sport – in both a local and international context – and are keen amateur footballers. Therefore, it was felt that the authors had a suitable frame of reference in which to analyse the array of data produced during this study in a valid and reliable manner. In order to examine the particular issues in greater depth, semi-structured interviews were initially conducted with four experienced sports development practitioners; experienced being understood here as a person who has been employed for period of greater than ten years in a role whereby the aim is to develop and maintain targeted sports programmes and initiatives based on the needs of the community (i.e. Toxteth and Croxteth). According to Walliman (2001), conducting interviews with experts in the early stages of a research project is a useful method of obtaining information and opinions concerning pertinent issues. That is, it acts as a form of pilot work. The next phase of this research process involved conducting two focus-group interviews. The first involved interviewing youth people from the local ethnic minority

504


community to explore the perspectives, beliefs and opinions of young people living in Toxteth relating to matters of racism. The second focus group also involved interviewing local young people, but this time from Croxteth, in order to explore engagement in youth gangs and the value of sport as an integrative enclave. Ethnographic observation formed the final method of data collection to examine elements of local youth culture that were not verbally discussed but were acted out in daily routines. The data is expressed with an indication of the type of method employed to collect it (IV, interview, FG, focus group, PO, participant observation, FA, fanzine analysis, OE, netnography), followed by an indication of the role of the respondent (Ex, expert, EM, ethnic minority, YG, youth gang, M, observation during a match) and a number to distinguish between individuals and data of the same category (e.g. “FGYG2”).

Discussion - ‘One Eye in Toxteth’ The majority of black population perceive racism to be prevalent problem within the city. While there have been some positive developments in the past twenty years, the findings here are generally consistent with those of Gifford, Brown and Bundley (1989) and Ackah (1994) who found that Liverpool’s ethnic minority communities are usually subject to racism observable mainly in two forms: institutionalised discrimination within the city’s social structure (ExIV1) and racially aggravated hostility from a small, but significant, number of individuals within Liverpool’s wider population (FGEM2; PO.M5.O5; PO.M15.O4). Serving as a typical example of the latter was the overt racial abuse that was experienced by a small number of ethnic minority footballers during the course of the PO. In highlighting the extent of the city’s issues with institutionalised discrimination, one respondent proposed that in comparison to other major cities in England, Liverpool is ‘probably twenty years behind every other black community’ (ExIV1). There are similarities between the attitudes expressed here and those described by Uduku who stated that the ‘traditional areas of employment and integration for ethnic minority workers in the UK, such as minicab and taxicab industries, remain conspicuously devoid of […] AfricanCaribbean minorities in Liverpool’ (2003: 137). However, the perception is that people from Liverpool’s ethnic minority communities not only fail to gain employment in the ‘traditional areas’ (Uduku, 2003:137) for the UK’s ethnic minority worker, but they also fail to attain more prominent employment within Liverpudlian society, for example, as teachers, politicians, etc (ExIV1). However, concerns from the city’s ethnic minority communities regarding institutionalised racism are not exclusively limited to Liverpudlian society, and there are concerns of discrimination and misrepresentation within the wider UK structure (ExIV1). There were comparisons made to the United States whose current President, Barack Obama, and two previous Secretaries for State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, are all of African-American descent. The belief here is that it will be a number of years before the UK has similar developments with the appointment of a non-white member of parliament to the upper echelons of the UK Government (ExIV1).

505


The findings obtained during this investigation are consistent with those of Uduku (2003) who found that non-white presence in Liverpool is almost non-existent outside of Toxteth. One respondent offers a suggestion as to why this may be the case: ‘…where I live […] it’s like a comfort area. Like, if go out my comfort zone, I’m more aware of… one, I’m not from that area, and two, my ethnic face. If you ask any of my friends, black, Asian, Arab, whatever, they’ll feel uncomfortable too’ (FGEM2). However, the ‘comfort zone’ is not strictly limited to Granby-Toxteth, but also includes the neighbouring Liverpool wards of Allerton and Aigburth and parts of Wavertree and Kensington (FGEM1; FGEM3; ExIV1). This, in part, can be explained by the preponderance of secondary schools in these areas, with Calderstones School in Allerton being an example of a school where the number of pupils who come from ethnic minority backgrounds ‘is above average’ (OFSTED, 2007: 3). The suggestion here is that when members of Liverpool’s ethnic minority community leave the boundaries of this ‘comfort zone’ they will be looked at and treated with a certain degree of animosity (FGEM3). For example, as one respondent explains: ‘…I’d be walking around [PLACE] sometimes and groups of young lads […] staring you out because you are not a familiar face, […] ‘look at him’ type of thing…’ (FGEM3). Though it is obvious that this respondent experienced some measure of hostility from the young men described in this statement, the implications of the phrase ‘familiar face’ can infer two meanings. Firstly, and most likely in the case of this respondent, it can suggest that the observed hostility could be interpreted with a certain degree of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it could also be argued that this hostility came about simply because the respondent was someone these young people did not know, i.e. an unfamiliar face. This line of reasoning is of particular interest given that the results of this study suggest that the belief among Liverpool’s ethnic minorities is that racism is more common within certain areas of the city (FGEM1; FGEM2; FGEM3; FGEM4; ExIV1). For example, one respondent explains how they ‘almost expect people to be racist in the areas [they are] not used to…’ (FGEM2). Conversely, there is also evidence to suggest that while racism is a ‘deep-seated’ problem in Liverpool (ExIV1) its prevalence can no longer be considered as widespread as was once believed to be case. While in the past large parts of Liverpool have been considered ‘no-go’ areas for the city’s ethnic minorities, there is evidence to suggest that attitudes in a number of the city’s wards are beginning to change (FGEM2; FGEM3; ExIV1). For example: ‘I’ve already got preconceptions that [certain areas] are. When I play [football] in [PLACE], it’s fine basically, which I didn’t really expect before… Nobody’s even bothered. And that’s a place I would have expected it [to be] a bit more [racist], but generally… it’s completely fine’ (FGEM2). While the general outlook among respondents is that institutionalised discrimination is still a prominent feature within the local and national social structure there is evidence to suggest that the numbers of Liverpool’s white residents who exhibit racist behaviours is gradually beginning to decline (FGEM2; FGEM4; ExIV1; PO.M12.O2). As one respondent remarked, in contemporary Liverpool ‘few [young] people have

506


friends who are all the same race’ (FGEM2). Previous studies mentioned in the literature review have noted that as different waves of immigrants have arrived in Liverpool, historically, the majority have chosen to reside in the Toxteth district away from the mainstream community (Uduku, 1999, 2003). In the past fifteen to twenty years, however, these existing ethnic minority communities have expanded and new ones, such as Eastern European, have materialised (FGEM1; ExIV1; PO.M9.O1; PO.M13; Sport England, 2006). It is necessary here to also draw reference the relative ease in which the new Eastern European communities have integrated into Liverpudlian culture. For example, Polonia Camps F.C. is a community football team that participates in one of the city’s amateur leagues and is comprised solely of Polish immigrants. A possible explanation for this is that it is hard to visually differentiate between the average Eastern European and the average Scouser. The subsequent expansion of Liverpool’s ethnic minority communities has resulted in an increased incidence of individuals and families from these groups choosing – or being forced, depending on socio–economic status – to live in areas of the city that traditionally would have been deemed as off–limits to the non–white population (ExIV1). As a result, there is a belief that the ‘people [of Liverpool] are becoming more tolerant’ (ExIV1). While the specific reason for this development of a ‘more tolerant’ local identity is indeterminate, the majority of respondents believe that the city’s youth population is an important catalyst for this positive progression in attitudes (FGEM2; ExIV1; ExIV2). For example: ‘…some of the younger people being born now are saying ‘hang on a minute, that’s not right and I’m not listening to that [racist] shit’, whether it’s coming from their parents or not’ (ExIV1). Additionally, in the past the city’s ethnic refugee population have been housed in areas of Liverpool that are ‘considered to be dangerous and unpleasant places for asylum-seekers’ and ‘have experienced racial harassment and, in some cases, physical abuse’ (Shaughnessy, 2007). Once again, however, the city’s youth population are displaying evidence of tolerance beyond that of their elders. For example: ‘…the kids we worked with, they all get on with the asylum seekers that have started coming to the centre, like they do work with asylum seekers and the kids get on well with them’ (FGEM3). For Liverpool’s young people, participation in sport not only provides an opportunity to engage with people from a range of ethnic origins (FGEM2; FGEM3; PO.M6; PO.M8; PO.M9; PO.M13), it also provides a medium for young people to connect with experienced individuals capable of instilling positive attitudes towards race and ethnicity (ExIV1; PO.M12.O2; PO.M14.O1). For example, as one respondent remarks ‘…when I deliver a basketball session […] I’m also delivering social and life skills through my communication and my experiences’ (ExIV1). Accordingly, community sports programmes can represent a further opportunity, outside of school, for the educational development of young people in Liverpool (ExIV1; PO.M12.O2; PO.M14.O1). There are a number of local organisations that are making concerted efforts to integrate ethnic minorities into the wider community. Providing a typical example is a youth club in Walton– one of the city’s northern wards – which provides

507


free transport for young people from Toxteth (FGEM3; for issues relating to north/south Liverpool divide refer to Rookwood and Millward, 2009). The hope here is that the young people from these two unattached communities can engage with more diverse cultures, therefore contributing toward a more socially inclusive Liverpool (FGEM3). Another example of a community-based organisation that is also thought to be making this contribution is the ‘Toxteth Tigers’. Although the initiative was originally created to provide basketball-playing opportunities for the city’s young black men, since 1968 the programme has been extended to cover a variety of sports in an increasing number of the city’s wards (ExIV1). There was evidence to suggest that participation in local amateur football leagues can contribute towards the increased tolerance discussed in previously (FGEM2; FGEM3). A possible explanation for this increased tolerance might be that sport is seen to promote ethnic cohesion (FGEM2; FGEM3; FGEM4; ExIV1). When I asked the focus group to consider how sport can be used, specifically, as a tool to instil positive attitudes in Liverpool’s youth population, a common theme in the replies of respondents related to social integration. For example: ‘I know so many different people from playing football, all different races and I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to get to know them if it wasn’t for football. For the youngsters as well... erm... from a young age if you are playin’ and interacting with people from different backgrounds, it can only be beneficial I think… Say kids aren’t used to playing with black people or white people or refugees, whatever, football makes them get along’ (FGEM2). The focus of this element of the research project was to report on the perspectives of sport development practitioners and local young people regarding the extent to which involvement in community sport can prevent racist attitudes from manifesting in Liverpool’s youth population. Respondents offered insights into how sport provides a medium for positive social interaction and were quick to highlight the benefits of sports application. While participation alone cannot claim to resolve all of Liverpool’s problems with racism, it can begin to address these problems by engendering positive attitudes in the city’s youth population. However, as pointed out by one expert interviewee, the extent to which can be achieved is very much depends on whether these organisations continue to receive adequate financial support.

Discussion - One eye in Croxteth Although Liverpool’s problems with anti-social behaviour and youth gangs have received a significant amount of recent media exposure, and placing these issues within the popular consciousness of the local and national social order, there was notable divergence in the respondent’s attitudes concerning the true extent of the problem. While the outlook of the majority expert-interviewees was that youth gang culture poses a significant problem in the city (ExIV1; ExIV2; ExIV4), there was an explicit belief among the majority of the younger focus group respondents that the scale of the problem is not as widespread as is perceived to be the case (FGYG1;

508


FGYG2; FGYG3; FGYG6; FGYG8). From the polarised opinions that have emerged concerning the extent of Liverpool’s youth gang problem, seemingly according to the age of the respondent, questions are raised concerning the way in which these opinions were formed. For example, has the youth population in these deprived communities become desensitised to elements of criminality and anti-social behaviour to such a degree that they no longer consider certain behaviours to be anti-social or criminal, but more so, to be part of daily routine? Both historical from Liverpool and recent research from Manchester suggests that this may be the case (Mays, 1954; Shropshire and McFarquhar, 2007). This would, in turn, offer an explanation as to why the divergence in opinion seems to be determined by the age of the respondent. For example, when probed for opinions concerning the extent of Liverpool’s gangrelated problems, expert-interviewee attitudes included a belief that the gangs in the city, ‘have higher intake rates than academic institutions do’ (ExIV2) and, ‘the kids in [these gangs]… they’re doing all this stuff and not gettin’ anything out of it, they’re shooting each other, what for? It’s not even about drugs anymore…’ (ExIV4). Conversely, when posed the same question, the focus group respondents acknowledge that while there may have been community-based problems with gangs in the past, they are no longer ‘as much [a problem] as everyone makes out… ’ (FGYG1); ‘everyone’ in this case being used to describe the media. While one could argue that definitional issues of what is actually perceived to be a ‘gang problem’ may explain this difference in opinion, one could also argue that the opinions of expert interviewees are, in part, only furthering the criminalising representation that the media has projected of England’s young people. For example, the majority of focus group participants described how being part of a gang, when not in school or college, usually involved playing football and smoking marijuana in a local park during the day and drinking alcohol and meeting up with girls in the same park at night (FGYG1; FGYG2; FGYG3; FGYG4; FGYG5). Overall, the consumption of alcohol and marijuana was usually limited to Friday or Saturday nights. While the types of behaviour mentioned here could be defined as anti-social, i.e. underage drinking and drug-taking, these are behaviours that cannot not be exclusively limited to youthgangs; these types of behaviours could indeed describe a sizeable proportion of the UK’s young people, the only difference in this case being that these young people and their friends could be identified by a group name. For these young people, gang association came about by ‘just hanging around’ with friends who were already part of the group. There was no clearly defined gang ‘leader’, and if there was any leadership at all, it was from those who were considered to be the ‘hardest’ in the group or the best fighters (FGYG1; FGYG3; FGYG5). There was no initiation ritual or ceremony, nor was membership of the gang clearly defined, in that when questioned whether it would be possible to identify, without doubt, how many members of the group there were and, more importantly, who all the members were, not one focus group respondent was able to answer positively. For all of the focus group respondents, interest in being part of a gang usually occurred around the ages of 14 and 15. By the ages of 16 and 17, interest in gangs had started to wane as the respondents had either matured to a level whereby they no longer saw engagement as appealing as it once was, or, by that age, were now participating in various forms of community sport. For example, opinions include:

509


Facilitator: Back then, did you actually see yourself as a 'gang member'? FGYG5: Maybe for a little bit like, but not really. When I was younger, say abah [about] 15, somthin’ like that... Facilitator: And would you be arsed if you’d say to someone I’m in the [GANG] and they’d be like, “Ah, you’re not lad!”. FGYG5: Maybe, ' dunno... Prob’ly when I was abah [about] 15 again, but not long after that I wouldn’t have been arsed like, no. Facilitator: Why not? FGYG5: Just bein' kids init? For the most part, the findings of this study are consistent with those of Morris et al. (2003) who maintain that participation in community sport can achieve reductions in anti-social behaviour - a prerequisite to engagement in gang culture (Pitts, 2007) through alleviating boredom and decreasing the unsupervised leisure time of young people (FGYG1; FGYG2; FGYG3; FGYG6; FGYG7). For example, typical opinion includes: ‘… it’s mainly down to boredom. The kids I’ve coached usually say that there’s nothing for them to do. And if they’ve got an interest in football and join our team, they train so many nights a week, they haven’t got as much time to be hanging around being bored’ (FGYG6). Furthermore, there was data to indicate that the physical demands of participating in sport can be somewhat attributable to preventing engagement in anti-social behaviour (FGYG1; FGYG6). This is substantiated in the responses of those who described how tiredness and exhaustion following training sessions and matches could act in deterring such activities; for example: ‘when they get back from training, they’re tired and they just want to relax’ (FGYG6) and ‘…it just takes it out of you when you play footy […] and then goin’ out and causin’ trouble and all that… be arsed?’ (FGYG1). Morris et al.’s belief that if young people lack sufficient stimulation ‘they will seek their own, often anti-social, activities’ (2003: 2) is generally supported by the findings of this research, with responses to the following question serving as typical opinion: Facilitator: If you didn’t have footy, what would you do instead? FGYG4: Just be on the park being one of the boys… [Note: Read ‘one of the boys’ as ‘part of a gang’] FGYG6: Yeah, me too… FGYG2: I’d probably be one of them too if I didn’t have footy… FGYG4: [I] play footy because there’s nothing else to do. Either hang ‘round, fuckin’ graftin’, doin’ mad shit, boppin’ ‘round with them or sittin’ in playin’ on computers. And as soon as I realised [that] the [CENTRE] was there [to play footy], I thought it was better to do that than hang ‘round with [the gang]… Generally, there are similarities between the findings of this research and those described by both Nichols (1997) and Utting (1997). These authors found that the value of community sport in providing more than a short-term distraction from engaging in criminal and/or anti-social behaviours is dependent on whether that participation can instil certain characteristics in young people. For the first of the

510


characteristics - improvements to cognitive and social skills (Nichols, 1997; Utting, 1997) - there was evidence to suggest that through engaging in sport, participants were presented with the opportunity to ‘interact with more people’ (FGYG1) than would have otherwise been the case had they not participated. This subsequently provides an opportunity for these young participants to develop their communication skills (ExIV1) thus learning how ‘to communicate better’ (FGYG2). Another of the characteristics that determines sports effectiveness in providing sustained prevention of anti-social behaviour is whether its involvement can bring about reductions in impulsiveness and risk-taking (Nichols, 1997; Utting, 1997). The findings of this research suggest that sport can act in preventing two of the main aggravators of such tendencies, which according to Brown and Tapert (2004) are alcohol and drug use. Focus group respondents, for instance, described how prior to being involved in as much community sport as they are now, they were binge-drinking, marijuanasmoking ‘gang-members’ and ‘terrors’ who would spend their time ‘sittin’ off in the [local] park’ (FGYG2; FGYG4; FGYG5; FGYG6). Furthermore, there was evidence to suggest that participation in community sport could act in preventing young people from engaging in the binge drinking and drug-taking sessions ubiquitously associated with certain elements of contemporary UK youth culture (see for example, Engineer et al., 2003; Jarvinen and Room, 2007) in the evenings preceding weekend participation. For example: ‘Go ‘ed lad… I didn’t go out last night or anythin’. I’ve stopped all that the night before a game since I started playing for youse. Nice and fresh kid’ (PO.M4.O3). Also, there were findings in this study to suggest that for young people who regularly participate in community sport, increases in self-esteem and confidence may take place (ExIV1; FGYG4). These are the penultimate features that determine sports effectiveness in providing sustained prevention of anti-social behaviour according to Nichols (1997) and Utting (1997). Serving as a typical example of these findings, in response to being asked, ‘Why play so much [football]?’, one focus group participant offered, ‘Bein’ in a team is decent, it brings you closer to your mates… it gives you skills that you can develop… […] teaches you to be confident…’ (FGYG4). An implicit example of this confidence being instilled was displayed during the course of the PO when one of the youngest players in the team being observed was awarded the vice-captaincy to reward his positive attitude. Additionally, this mention of skill development above also implies that, for some young people, engagement in community sport can bring about improvements in education and employment prospects – the final set of characteristics mentioned by Nichols, 1997 and Utting, 1997). There were young people in this study currently engaged in, or had recently completed courses in further education, coaching and vocational job training, were had it not been for past opportunities to engage in community sport, this would unlikely be the case. For example: Facilitator: Do you reckon if you hadn’t played as much footy, or gone to Kickz as much as you have, that you’d be as arsed about going to college…? FGYG5: I don’t reckon I’d be in college now, no…. FGYG2: Neither do I to be honest…

511


For these two young respondents the skills and confidence that they have amassed throughout their involvement in community sport have meant that they are in an enhanced position in terms of employability when compared to their peers who have chosen not to engage. While the findings presented in this research generally support the previous research conducted in the area (Nichols, 1997; Utting, 1997), they should, however, be interpreted with a certain degree of caution. It would be naïve to suppose that participation in community sport alone can be successful in eliminating all traces of anti-social behaviour in all young people who make a commitment to being involved. For example, the same young footballer quoted above, who opted not go out drinking ‘the night before a game’ (PO.M4.O3) was observed at times during the course of the PO to be carrying a soft-toy baseball bat with a steel gear-stick-lock jammed over its shaft in his car (PO.M6.O1). When posed with the question as to why one would need such a contraption in their car, his reaction was one of silence accompanied by a look of almost incredulousness. Regardless of this, there is a lot be said for the valuable contribution that engagement in community sport can make to youth development. While it is obvious that participating in sport has not removed all instances of anti-social behaviour in the young footballer with the weapon in his car, it has certainly acted in a way that reduces them. By opting not to go out the night before a game this participant is less likely to engage in anti-social behaviour and, therefore, engagement in sport can still be considered useful. There also were noteworthy examples of young people who could be described as having been ‘saved by sport’. This term can be used to describe law-abiding young people who are making positive contributions to society as a result of their involvement in sport were an alternative existence, given the area in which they reside, would have almost certainly involved increased engagement in anti-social behaviour, criminality and gang culture. However, for the young people that this ‘saved by sport’ tag is relevant to, participation in sport was always accompanied by an additional involvement in community-based social inclusion and/or youth development projects.

Conclusion The aim of this paper was to examine the extent to which the application of community sport can serve both as an integrative enclave and as an effective tool in preventing youth engagement in gang culture, racism and anti-social behaviour in the city of Liverpool. There were a number of limitations of the study, the most significant being the fact that prior to analysis of the data, in order to achieve a greater understanding of how perceptions were formed, it was important to examine how the complex interactions between young people occur. Often serving as an output for these ‘complex interactions’ was the tendency for young people in this study to constantly insult or ‘rip’ one another for amusement. ‘Rips’ usually take the form of a verbal jibe, either recounting something embarrassing or an insulting ‘nickname’ often related to physical features or characteristics commonly associated with the receiver of the ‘rip’. Validation from peers concerning the wittiness of an insult and/or the way in which it was delivered is continually sought by young people. What this produces, therefore, is what appeared to be a constant and unrelenting competition of who can dispense the most humorous insult. Consequently, through developing an

512


understanding of these exchanges, a number of the observed interactions that were previously thought to be potentially useful findings were reanalysed when it was determined that such interactions were part of the normal routine. In terms of racism, not since Ackah’s (1994) exploration into black identity in Liverpool has a study attempted to qualitatively explore ethnic minority perceptions of racism in the city. In general, the perception was that although there is evidence to suggest that young people in Liverpool are becoming increasingly tolerant, racism is still a ‘deep-seated’ problem in the city. While existing research has been more concerned with identifying where the racism in Liverpool exists, the ways in which racist manifestations can be prevented have largely been ignored. The findings presented by this research suggest that participation in sport can address the city’s problems with racism by engendering positive attitudes in the city’s youth population. However, given that this study only explored the opinions of two ethnic groups, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be transferable to the experiences of other ethnic minorities in the city. While the majority of recent research based around youth gang culture in UK has, in the past, been concerned with defining and contextualising the problem, there have been few studies that determine the ways in which engagement can be prevented. An objective of this research, therefore, has been to contribute toward the growing body of literature based around youth gang culture, and create a UK-centred dialogue concerned with utilising sport in a preventative manner. In doing so this research will serve as a base for future studies. While there was a divergence in opinion concerning the extent of the youth gang problem in Liverpool, the general perception was that sport can be an effective tool in preventing engagement in gang culture and contributing towards reductions in anti-social behaviour. The extent to which this was achieved varied greatly, in reflection, the results of this study corroborate the findings of Utting (1997) and Crabbe (2000) who insist that for community sport to be successful in addressing the problems of youth engagement in anti-social behaviour then it needs to be integrated into a wider holistic programme of community development. For those young people who are still engaged in gangs, a future study might be concerned interviewing current gang members to investigate reasons behind their lack of involvement in community sports initiatives and explore whether there would be any other activity, reasonable or otherwise, that would discourage engagement in gang culture.

References Ackah, W. (1994). Explorations of Black Identity in the Granby-Toxteth Area of Liverpool. Liverpool: Educational Opportunities Initiative. Aldridge, J. and Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Youth Gangs in an English City: Social Exclusion, Drugs and Violence: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-23-0615. Swindon: ESRC

513


BBC Inside Out (2008). Gangster Town. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2008/04/15/north_west_gangs_s13_w 8_feature.shtml Belchem, J. (2000). Merseypride. Essays in Liverpool Exceptionalism. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Belchem, J. (2006). Introduction: Celebrating Liverpool. In, J. Belchem (Ed.) Liverpool 800: Culture, Character and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Belchem, J. and Murden, J. (2006). Timeline of Notable Events. In, J. Belchem (Ed.) Liverpool 800: Culture, Character and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Bennett, T & Holloway, K. (2004). Gang membership, drugs and crime in the UK. British Journal of Criminology, vol. 44, 305-323. Boland, P. (2008). The construction of images of people and place: Labelling Liverpool and stereotyping Scousers. Cities, vol. 25, 355-369. Boland, P. (2009). Sonic Geography, Place and Race in the Formation of Local Identity: Liverpool and Scousers. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, in press. Bullock, K. & Tilley, N (2002). Shootings, gangs and violent incidents in Manchester: Developing a crime reduction strategy. Crime reduction research series, Paper 13. London: Home Office. Bunnell, T. (2008). Multiculturalism’s regeneration: celebrating Merdeka (Malaysian independence) in a European Capital of Culture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 33, 251-267. Campbell, A. (1998). Mersey Kings of Evil Trade. Liverpool Echo, published 1st April, 1998 Citysafe (2005). Crime, Disorder, Anti-Social Behaviour & Drug Misuse Strategy 2005 – 2008. Retrieved 24th October, 2009 from http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-41982.pdf Crabbe, T. (2000) A Sporting Chance?: using sport to tackle drug use and crime. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, vol. 7, 381-391. Dawson, P. (2008). Monitoring Data from the Tackling Gangs Action Programme. Home Office: London. Doward, J (2007). Raised amid guns and gangs. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/26/ukcrime.ukguns

514


Doward, J. and Revill, J. (2007). Ban gang videos, says MP. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/26/ukguns.ukcrime2 Edwards, R. (2008). Gangs, Guns and Knifes. Britain in 2009. Economic and Social Research Council. Engineer, R, Phillips, A., Thompson, J. and Nicholls, J. (2003). Drunk and disorderly: a qualitative study of binge drinking among 18 to 24 year-olds. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Ferguson, E. (2007). The grief of Liverpool. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/26/ukguns.ukcrime Fetterman, X (2008). Ethnography. In, Given, L., M. (Ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Volumes 1 & 2. Sage Publications: California.

Fowler, R. and Maddock, D. (2006). Fowler. My Autobiography. London: Pan Macmillan. Gifford, L., Brown, W. and Bundley, R. (1989). Loosen the Shackles. London: Karia Press. Grant, C. and Grey, A. (2007). Liverpool’s English: Scouse, or Liverpudlian, If you Prefer… In, A. Grant and C. Grey (Eds.) The Mersey Sound. Liverpool’s Language, People and Place. Liverpool: Open House Press. Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (2004). Research Methods for Sport Studies. London: Routledge. Hallsworth, S. and Young, T. (2008). Gang talk and gang talkers: A critique. Crime, Media and Culture, vol. 4, 175-195 Harris, J. R. (1968). Introduction. In, J. Harris (Ed.) Liverpool and Merseyside. Essays in the Social and Economic History of the Port and its Hinterland. London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd. Hill, D. (2001). From Barnes to Camara: Football, Identity and Racism in Liverpool. In, J. Williams, C. Long. & S. Hopkins (Eds.) Passing Rhythms. London: Berg Publishers. Hollinshead, J. E. (2008). Liverpool in the Sixteenth Century. A Small Tudor Town. Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing. Johnson, G. (2008). Panorama: Young Gunmen. BBC 1, aired June 2008.

515


Jones, P. and Wilks-Heeg, S. (2004). Capitalising Culture: Liverpool 2008. Local Economy, vol. 19, iss. 4, 341-360. Kelly, B. (2008). Gangs and guns on Liverpool's streets. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7740265.stm Kelso, P. (2007). ASBOs should impose weekly sport on young offenders, says Caborn. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/feb/05/gdnsport3.sport Kemp, R. (2009). Ross Kemp on Gangs. Sky1, aired January 2009. Kermode, J., Hollinshead, J. and Gratton, M. (2006). Small Beginnings: Liverpool 1207 – 1680. In, J. Belchem (Ed.) Liverpool 800. Culture, Character and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 39, 61-72. Liverpool City Council (1993). Key Statistics: Liverpool Wards 1971/81/91. Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. Mares, D.(2001). Gangstas or Lager Louts? Working class street gangs in Machester’. In, M. W. Klein, H. J. Kerner, C. L. Maxson, and E. G. M. Weitekamp (Eds.) The Eurogang paradox: Street Gangs and Youth Groups in the US and Europe. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Marsh, I. (2000). Sociology. Making Sense of Society. 2nd Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Marshall, B, Webb, B. and Tilley, N. (2005). Rationalisation of current research on guns, gangs and other weapons: Phase 1. University College London Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science: London. Martínez-Martín, J. A. (2005). Monitoring intra-urban inequalities with GIS-based indicators [unpublished PhD thesis]. Utrecht: Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht. Mays, J., B. (1954). Growing up in the City: a study of juvenile delinquency in an urban neighbourhood. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Meegan, R. (2003). Urban regeneration, politics and social cohesion: the Liverpool case. In, R. Munck (Ed.) Reinventing the City: Liverpool in Comparative Perspective. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Merrick, R. (2007). Liverpool revealed as centre for organised crime in North. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/tm_headline=liverpool-revealed-as-

516


centre-for-organised-crime-innorth%26method=full%26objectid=20127351%26siteid=50061-name_page.html Milne, G. J. (2006). Maritime Liverpool. In, J. Belchem (Ed.) Liverpool 800. Culture, Character and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Morgan, K. (2007). Liverpool’s Dominance in the British Slave Trade, 1740–1807. In, D. Richardson, S. Schwarz and A. Tibbles (Eds.) Liverpool and Transatlantic Slavery. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Morris, L., Sallybanks, J., Willis, K. and Makkai, T. (2003). Sport, Physical Activity and Antisocial behaviour in Youth. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Murden, J. (2006). City of Change and Challenge. Liverpool Since 1945. In, J. Belchem, (Ed.) Liverpool 800. Culture, Character and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Nichols, G. (1997). A consideration of why active participation in sport and leisure might reduce criminal behaviour. Sport, Education and Society, vol. 2, iss. 2, 181190. OFSTED (2007) Inspection Report: Calderstones School, 5–6 November 2007 Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.calderstones.co.uk/files/ofstedreport.pdf Parkinson, M. (1991) Port Cities in Europe. Liverpool: Economic Restructuring, Social Consequences and Political Responses. Working Paper Number 20. Liverpool: Liverpool John Moores University European Institute for Urban Affairs. Physick, R. (2007) Played in Liverpool. Charting the Heritage of a City at Play. Manchester: English Heritage. Pitts, J. (2007) Violent youth gangs in the UK. Safer Society: The Journal of Crime Reduction and Community Safety, vol. 32, 14 – 17. Pooley, C. G. (2006) Living in Liverpool: The Modern City. In, J. Belchem (Ed.) Liverpool 800: Culture, Character and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Power, M., J. (1992) The Growth of Liverpool. In, J. Belchem (Ed.) Popular Politics, Riot and Labour: Essays in Liverpool History, 1790-1940. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Richardson, D., Schwarz, S. and Tibbles, A. (2007) Introduction. In, D. Richardson, S. Schwarz and A. Tibbles (Eds.) Liverpool and Transatlantic Slavery. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

517


Riley, D. (2007) Anti-social behaviour: children, schools and parents. Education and the Law, vol. 19: 221-236. Rookwood, J. and Millward, P. (2009). ‘We all dream of a team of Carraghers’: Liverpool supporters heroism of Jamie Carragher. Sport and Society, in press. Rossington, B. (2008a) Gun teens exposed. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/06/30/gun-teensexposed-100252-21170794/ Rossington, B (2008b) TV crew ‘did not pay’ city gun kids. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/localnews/2008/07/03/tv-crew-did-not-pay-city-gun-kids-100252-21219615/ Rossington, B (2008c) BBC: Mersey gang members 'were not paid'. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/breakingnews/2008/07/02/bbc-mersey-gang-members-were-not-paid-100252-21217118/ Russell, P. B. (2007) Liverpool’s Past: A Magical Mystery Tour. In, A. Grant and C. Grey (Eds.) The Mersey Sound. Liverpool’s Language, People and Place. Liverpool: Open House Press. Scraton, P. (2007) Power Conflict and Criminalisation. Routledge, London. Shaughnessy, J. (2007) City 'too dangerous' for asylum seekers. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regionalnews/2007/03/18/city-too-dangerous-for-asylum-seekers-64375-18767034/ Shennan, P. (2009) Ross Kemp on the gangs of Croxteth and Norris Green, war in Afghanistan – and why he loves Liverpool. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-life/liverpool-lifestyle/2009/07/08/rosskemp-on-the-gangs-of-croxteth-and-norris-green-war-in-afghanistan-and-why-heloves-liverpool-100252-24103154/. Shropshire, S. and Mcfarquhar, M. (2002) Developing Multi-Agency Strategies to Address Street Gang Culture and Reduce Gun Violence Among Young People Briefing No 4. Steve Shropshire and Michael Mcfarquhar Consultancy Group: Manchester. Social Disadvantage Research Centre (2008) The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. Communities and Local Government: London. Speake, J. and Fox, V. (2008) Discovering Cities: Liverpool. Sheffield: Geographical Association. Sport England (2006) Understanding the Success Factors in Sport Action Zones. Final Report. London: Sport England.

518


Taffe, P. and Mulhearn, T. (1988) Liverpool - A City that Dared to Fight. Liverpool: Fortress. Townsend, M. (2007) The gun lords' deadly legacy. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/09/ukcrime.ukguns Uduku, O. (1999) Beneficial urban redevelopment: a Cape Town-Liverpool comparison. Environment & Urbanization, vol. 11, iss. 2, 95-112. Uduku, O. (2003) Ethnic Minority Perspectives. In, R. Munck and R. Munck (Eds.) Reinventing the City. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

U.S. Department of Justice (2009) MS-13 Gang Member Pleads to Racketeering Conspiracy Participated in a Murder and Other Acts of Violence. Retrieved 12th of January, 2009 from http://baltimore.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/ba090109.htm Utting, D. (1997) Reducing Criminality Among Young People: A Sample of Relevant Programmes in the United Kingdom. London: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate. Walliman, N. (2001) Your Research Project. London: Sage Publications.

519