Watched the first part of this double documentary filmed in 1975 following two police officers in a deprived area of Blackburn in Lancashire who's role is to speak to young children who are accused of theaving and playing truant from school and to hopefully scare them into not doing similar again. Yes the methods shown here are blunt, basic and are the result of a system that used scare tactics over empathy and are a million miles away from how problem children are treated these days. In saying that you don't hear any lip or back chat from these kids. There is a scene where two kids are caught truanting in Woolworths. The first thing you'll notice is the way the kids react, totally unlike how kids these days usually do. That speaks miles regarding the effectiveness of this approach and how it installed respect for the officers.
4 Reviews
Heartbreaking and Brilliant
AnnieKay23 June 2007
To criticise the participants in this film, to "want to jump into the TV and start punching people" is as misguided and pointless as railing at the "racism" in the films of the Marx Brothers or Buster Keaton. These were different times (for instance the word "retarded" is no longer acceptable) and the people here were working to standards deemed normal at the time. The Sergeant depicted here, George Ray, in particular comes across as humane, yet you cringe when he towers over a seven year old boy who whimpers as he interrogates him about a stolen cowboy suit. The officers spend a lot of time visiting schools and homes in order to keep these kids OUT of court. They shout at them, humiliate them and make them cry - all seeming like abuse by today's standards - but the fact remains that the matters ended there and not in a juvenile court. Nowadays, with the bean-counting culture endemic in today's legal system, these would all be seen as easy detections and criminal records would ensue.
The lack of training in these officers is apparent when you hear "Police Woman Mrs Brooks" badgering children over and over again with unanswerable questions like "Why are you not at school? Why are you not at school?" and "Why are you stealing?" A nervous smile or shrug is met with a shout of "IT'S NOT FUNNY!" When one girl, unable by her own admission to think of anything to say to these closed questions apart from "I felt like it" flees in tears to her bedroom, the female officer follows and attempts to calm her but continues to badger her, demanding "Are you listening?" over and over again.
However, the lack of training was not the officers' fault. They were working within the parameters of the then current system. They were probably regarded as the "wet" wing of the force by their colleagues who were accustomed simply to arresting offenders.
It's heartbreaking to see George, in his filthy underwear, wailing as he is pulled out of bed and then, incongruously, putting his tie on before leaving the house in a sulk! No baseball caps or hoodies in evidence here...
Similarly, the beautiful young Asian girl, Rashida (who unfortunately continued to offend before entering into an arranged marriage) is obviously devious yet charming, and stands before Sergeant Ray as he counts out felt tip markers and grills her about a stolen apple! Watched in conjunction with the sequel from 15 years later, Juvenile Liason 2, this becomes even more heart-rending. One of the two boys caught truanting, and not much else, in Woolworths is now a career criminal and describes himself as "a loser" with no hope. Another boy featured is a petty criminal, drinking from a can and grinning as he recounts his life of crime.
Broomfield has produced a work of genius here. Sergeant Ray complains about the editing - that the good works they did were not included - but sadly unfair editing usually makes for better viewing. This is a brilliant snapshot of how we used to treat our children, and is worth watching any time you feel like going back to the old ways.
The lack of training in these officers is apparent when you hear "Police Woman Mrs Brooks" badgering children over and over again with unanswerable questions like "Why are you not at school? Why are you not at school?" and "Why are you stealing?" A nervous smile or shrug is met with a shout of "IT'S NOT FUNNY!" When one girl, unable by her own admission to think of anything to say to these closed questions apart from "I felt like it" flees in tears to her bedroom, the female officer follows and attempts to calm her but continues to badger her, demanding "Are you listening?" over and over again.
However, the lack of training was not the officers' fault. They were working within the parameters of the then current system. They were probably regarded as the "wet" wing of the force by their colleagues who were accustomed simply to arresting offenders.
It's heartbreaking to see George, in his filthy underwear, wailing as he is pulled out of bed and then, incongruously, putting his tie on before leaving the house in a sulk! No baseball caps or hoodies in evidence here...
Similarly, the beautiful young Asian girl, Rashida (who unfortunately continued to offend before entering into an arranged marriage) is obviously devious yet charming, and stands before Sergeant Ray as he counts out felt tip markers and grills her about a stolen apple! Watched in conjunction with the sequel from 15 years later, Juvenile Liason 2, this becomes even more heart-rending. One of the two boys caught truanting, and not much else, in Woolworths is now a career criminal and describes himself as "a loser" with no hope. Another boy featured is a petty criminal, drinking from a can and grinning as he recounts his life of crime.
Broomfield has produced a work of genius here. Sergeant Ray complains about the editing - that the good works they did were not included - but sadly unfair editing usually makes for better viewing. This is a brilliant snapshot of how we used to treat our children, and is worth watching any time you feel like going back to the old ways.
Sergant rays story pulls no punches
powerfulupton23 February 2018
A good film this, sort of a cross between a episode of panorama and a episode of the sweeney.
It follows members of blackburns juevenille liason team as they scour the streets looking for schoolchildren who are truanting from school.
We see a woman do this job and she comes across as sort of a prim and proper schoolmistress, 1 of the best lines she has is when she is cross examining a young girl and delivers this line "your a slut, people will call you a slut, do you want to be a slut".
The real star of this piece though is sergant ray, he pulls no punches and comes across as sort of a northern version of the terminator in his never endign quest to get kids back to school/give them a bollocking for mouthing off at their parents/ give them a walloping for doing any of the first 2 things.
Basically his job was to scare young kids so they didnt keep offending and getting in trouble ending up in jail and his methods and a tad excessive to say the least.
We see him kicking a bedroom door down and dragging a 15 year old boy out of bed to the calls of "yes and when he is done with you your going to get one from me as well" from his dad, its strange how he sort of terrorises these 12 to 15 year old kids but the worst thing for me was when he talked to this 8 year old kid in a police cell who stole a cowboy outfit, the dialogue went like this "do you like this place" "you know if you dont behave you will end up here" "they turn the lights out here at night" "it is a scary place at night" "bad things happen here at night" a few minutes later he takes the terrified young boys hand and leads him away, perhaps a moment where he let his guard down.
The film is mesmorizing for a number of reasons, it is just so brutal and real you can hardly believe he is doing this stuff to young kids but on the other hand you cant help but wonder if it was a better time when there was a bit more disipline for young kids.
A great watch if you can find it, its not a easy film to find at all and has been banned several times but they sometimes put the full film on youtube, i think that adds to the mystery of the film.
Exploited
philipwigglesworth16 January 2021
The pair of "Juvenile Liaison" films say much about a style of documentary films which purport to show uncomfortable truths, but in fact show only the story the film makers want to tell.
Broomfield's film is set in my home town, one of the most deprived in the UK. The older kids are from my school, which I attended when this was shot 44 years ago.
In the first film Broomfield portrays the response of the police to petty juvenile crime as being cruel and out of proportion. The second film suggests that the first was "banned", although by whom isn't made clear. These seem to be very selective truths, and what's left out seems to be more important than what's left in.
In one scene we see a policeman pulling "George" out of bed by the hair; at another he scares a young child accused of stealing a toy. Horrific, to Broomfield and his intended audience at least.
And yet at school we didn't fear the police, we feared our fellow pupils. Kids who truanted and stole were also violent. If they took your stuff, it was done violently. I didn't see any cowboy suits being stolen, but I did witness attempted rape of a teacher and many serious physical assaults with a range of weapons.
If you look closely, George is dragged out of bed having just given his aunty concussion and a trip to A&E with a broken wrist. The cowboy suit was stolen with menaces. At that time the school maintained a "punishment book", recording the beatings given to children by teachers with a variety of weapons, often in public. Any child referred to the police would already feature heavily in that book. The film didn't show these beatings by teachers, although they would be significantly more horrific than anything Brookfield does show us.
In another sequence a child's parent makes repeated threats of violence to his child. This parental violence isn't shown or otherwise addressed.
Contrary to the impression given by the film, these children weren't managed by the police in isolation. Broomfield made the choice to focus solely on the police involvement to the generally high level of violence whilst ignoring the much more significant violence these children would have suffered from their peers; their parents; and their teachers.
Broomfield claimed the first film was "still banned" as late as 2015, despite the film being easily available for decades as he must have been aware.
In fact the subjects portrayed in the first film withdrew their consent, so the producers decided not to release it. In the second film Broomfield attempts to get selected subjects to blame their withdrawal of consent on the police, but the contrast between privately educated Broomfield and those he tries to coach on camera is striking.
An honest film addressing the issues of violence in my school could have been useful and informative. Instead these films tell us much about the politics of the film maker and little of the real world.
I too would have withdrawn consent .
Broomfield's film is set in my home town, one of the most deprived in the UK. The older kids are from my school, which I attended when this was shot 44 years ago.
In the first film Broomfield portrays the response of the police to petty juvenile crime as being cruel and out of proportion. The second film suggests that the first was "banned", although by whom isn't made clear. These seem to be very selective truths, and what's left out seems to be more important than what's left in.
In one scene we see a policeman pulling "George" out of bed by the hair; at another he scares a young child accused of stealing a toy. Horrific, to Broomfield and his intended audience at least.
And yet at school we didn't fear the police, we feared our fellow pupils. Kids who truanted and stole were also violent. If they took your stuff, it was done violently. I didn't see any cowboy suits being stolen, but I did witness attempted rape of a teacher and many serious physical assaults with a range of weapons.
If you look closely, George is dragged out of bed having just given his aunty concussion and a trip to A&E with a broken wrist. The cowboy suit was stolen with menaces. At that time the school maintained a "punishment book", recording the beatings given to children by teachers with a variety of weapons, often in public. Any child referred to the police would already feature heavily in that book. The film didn't show these beatings by teachers, although they would be significantly more horrific than anything Brookfield does show us.
In another sequence a child's parent makes repeated threats of violence to his child. This parental violence isn't shown or otherwise addressed.
Contrary to the impression given by the film, these children weren't managed by the police in isolation. Broomfield made the choice to focus solely on the police involvement to the generally high level of violence whilst ignoring the much more significant violence these children would have suffered from their peers; their parents; and their teachers.
Broomfield claimed the first film was "still banned" as late as 2015, despite the film being easily available for decades as he must have been aware.
In fact the subjects portrayed in the first film withdrew their consent, so the producers decided not to release it. In the second film Broomfield attempts to get selected subjects to blame their withdrawal of consent on the police, but the contrast between privately educated Broomfield and those he tries to coach on camera is striking.
An honest film addressing the issues of violence in my school could have been useful and informative. Instead these films tell us much about the politics of the film maker and little of the real world.
I too would have withdrawn consent .
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
