Karen Matthews, yet another excuse to rail at 'sink estates'

Karen Matthews has been remanded in custody, charged with child neglect and attempting to pervert the course of justice. From what we can ascertain, it would appear that her daughter, Shannon, was never kidnapped, although this is supposition, based on the fact that she has been remanded on charges - yet to be proved - that suggest this was the case. So, what we can say is that it was allegedly, a ruse, if so, it was most probably a money-making ruse and, again if these allegations are true, one in which the welfare of Shannon was an afterthought if that. There seems to be plenty to condemn Karen Matthews for.

However, in the wake of this shocking case, what we get is not just condemnation of Karen Matthews for her alleged offences, but an attempt to treat her as a typical resident of a 'sink estate'. Whatever else she is, she is far from a typical anything. The fact of having a number of children by different fathers does not turn a woman into a Karen Matthews. Ones geographical location does not make one think that the faux kidnapping of ones own daughter is a good way of making a quick buck. But that hasn't stopped the stereotyping, the call for sterilisation of young uneducated women, the cries that they should be denied benefits because that will stop them. And underlying all of this is the notion that the inhabitants of 'sink estates' are all the same. The below was posted on a talkboard earlier today:

What we are left with on these "sink estates" are those that decades of economic growth and unprecedented education have left behind. Other measures are called for - accepting there is always a small chance there is something left in the genepool there worth lavishing a uni education on.

And this was my response, this is in part what I think of the current desire to characterise all residents of these estates as potential Karen Matthews, as people who are beyond 'redemption':

No we're not. Or we're not necessarily only looking at that. Sink estates are not some homogeneous mass. All sorts of people live on them, some having a better time of it than others, many wanting to make their environment better but not having the first clue, or maybe the motivation, to do it, and some who don't give a fuck and by and large offer nothing of much or any good to society at large.

For many a sink estate is just their address and they do what they can to make the most of it. If you need housing and you get moved to a 'sink estate' you're not going to refuse it, even if that is not where you want to live. If you live on one you do not necessarily fit the stereotype that everyone conjures up when they hear the words 'sink estate'.

I was brought up on what had once been a decent estate but had become a 'sink estate' by the time we moved there. We lived there for 5 years and then moved to a better place, mostly because being transferred was easier in those days and my dad had died so we went to the top of the list on compassionate grounds. Of course it wasn't called a 'sink estate' in those days, it was more likely referred to as a shithole, but while we were there I managed to get into a grammar school and while I was well aware of everything that went on around us, the drugs, the alcohol, the muggings, burglaries and general squalor, it wasn't who my family or I were. It wasn't our next door neighbours either. It wasn't every resident on the estate then and I know it's not every resident on every 'sink estate' now.

Defining 'sink estates' by their lowest common denominator is part of the problem.