How Do Young People Talk About Relationships?

Interpersonal relationships are important for young people’s social, emotional and mental wellbeing. Educational Psychologists in their work with children, young people and families play a role in promoting the social, emotional and mental wellbeing of young people. A review of previous literature suggested that young people’s voice is missing from much of the research about relationships. This research is positioned within an ontological perspective of social constructionism. It aimed to explore ways in which a group of Year 8 students used their language to talk about relationships; what meaning they drew from them, who they have relationships with and what is important about them. 13 Year 8 students participated in the study and their views were explored using semi-structured interviews. Data gathered was then scrutinised using a discourse analysis technique. Three broad discourses were drawn upon by participants: ‘Social Contract’, ‘Interpersonal Aspects’ and ‘Relationship Diversity’. Within each of these there were smaller sub-discourses and interpretive repertoires drawn upon by participants to convey action and function within their talk. Participants considered relationships as very important, though they rejected the notion of a single construct of relationships, choosing instead to draw upon relationships with different people as different types of relationship. Friendship was the primary type of relationship which young people spoke about, however, they often constructed their discourse to undermine the importance of these friendships. The research findings were incorporated within the wider literature and relevant links have been drawn between the study and psychological theories. Implications for the work of Educational Psychologists were also discussed, in terms of utilising relationships for interventions and supporting those working with young people to consider young people’s views and meaning making about relationships.

Valued tradition? Armed policing in the UK

The traditional social “contract” in the UK mainland between the public and the police involves the ideal of an unarmed police service. In recent years while the public have accepted the more visible role of specialist armed officers on security duties in airports and strategic positions, the majority of officers remain unarmed. Following 7/7 in London and the Derrick Bird case in Cumbria there have been media calls for more police officers to be armed on a routine basis .This would fundamentally change the social contract and the relationship with the British public. The principle of policing by consent and the idea of the citizen in uniform are the fundamental tenets of British policing .Historically the only forces in the UK which are routinely armed are the Police Service of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Defence Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. In contrast all major police forces in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and Australia routinely carry firearms, the exceptions apart from Britain, are the Irish Republic, and New Zealand. In Norway officers carry arms in their cars but not on their person. Every time unarmed police officers are killed, as with the tragic case of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone killed in the line of duty in Manchester in 2013, the question of arming the British Police is raised.So does the current balance protect the public and safeguard officers or does it fail to satisfy either. Is the current balance between unarmed and armed police in the UK suitable for the 21st Century? There appears to be competing agendas for the Police to contend with. These have been illustrated by recent controversy in Scotland about a standing authority which allowed a small number of officers to carry guns while on routine patrol .Politicians and community leaders attacked the nationwide roll-out of officers with a standing authority to carry guns on routine patrols since the formation of Scotland’s single police force. The Forces armed police monitoring group recommended keeping the standing authority in place after it was given intelligence on serious organised crime groups in 2014.The Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) in its review of the authority (2014) said the operational need for the authority is justified by national intelligence and threat levels.