This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by McGhee, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Joined-Up Government, `Community Safety' and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender `Active Citizens'

University of Southampton, d.mcghee{at}socsci.soton.ac.uk

Joined-up government, modernizing government, community safety and multi-agency partnerships are explored here in an attempt to understand the contemporary `policing' of hate crime; in this instance, crimes and incidents motivated by homophobia (and transphobia). In the first half of the article, the focus is on the social and political context of the emergence of `participatory' modes of government and multi-agency `community safety' policing in response to the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act and the 1999 Local Government Act. In the second half of the article, the focus will be on the multi-agency response to homo-phobic and transphobic incidents and the policing of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) community in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. In this case study, the main assumptions behind the attempt to create lgbt `active citizens' and `active communities' (active in their own policing) in Southampton, in particular, will be critically evaluated. The main points that will be raised here are: 1) the multi-agency response to homophobic incidents in Southampton prioritizes, first, improving efficiency and raising awareness in the agencies and services that are in contact with the lgbt community, and, second, opening lines of communication and building trust between police and the organizations and agencies `representing' the lgbt community; and 2)empowerment programmes such as these should not be taken at face value, but must be critically examined in relation to some of the following questions: who is and who is not being invited to be the active `lgbt' citizen here? And does the lgbt community's right to fair, sympathetic and equitable policing bring with it hidden and costly responsibilities?

Key Words: hate crime • homophobia • local government • multi-agency partnerships • social cohesion

Critical Social Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3, 345-374 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/02610183030233003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Pemberton Social Inclusion and the `Get Heard' Process: Implications for the Horizontal and Vertical Integration of Governance and Policy in the UK Public Policy and Administration, April 1, 2008; 23(2): 127 - 143. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. McGhee The challenge of working with racially motivated offenders: An exercise in ambivalence? Probation Journal, September 1, 2007; 54(3): 213 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]