Community experiences of serious organised crime in Scotland: research report

3. Community Experiences of Organised Crime

Overview

This chapter explores the views of local residents on the community impact of SOC, with reference to practitioner and stakeholder views where relevant. It explores the diverse range of community experiences of organised crime in Scotland, engaging with three connected themes that emerged from interviews with community residents: visibility and violence; victimisation and vulnerability; and stigma and stereotype. Taken together, these themes describe the principal forms of relationships that exist between SOC and communities in Scotland, and document the experiences and perceptions of residents regarding the extent and nature of SOC in their local area.

For local residents, organised crime was deeply interwoven into the fabric of everyday community life. While not all forms of organised criminal activity were visible, there was a clear awareness that forms of violence, intimidation, and exploitation were attributable to criminal networks 'beyond the street'. Participants expressed a range of responses to the presence of organised crime in their local area, ranging from frustration and anger to fear and resignation. Many reported anxieties about reporting organised criminal activity to the police for fear of repercussions.

Participants reported a significant indirect harm in the form of stigma and stereotype. While there was frequently pride expressed towards their local area, there was also a common frustration at the public perception of the community as one linked to crime, drugs, and violence. This was often contrasted with the fact that the individuals profiting from the local drug trade were no longer resident and had moved elsewhere, largely to more affluent areas.

It was felt that organised crime groups had a detailed knowledge of vulnerability in local areas, particularly those that may be susceptible to coercion into assisting in their criminal enterprise. Groups sought opportunities to create financial gain from exploiting or recruiting vulnerable individuals. Indeed there was a perception amongst some official participants that groups had a more detailed and up-to-date knowledge of local vulnerability than their own organisations.

Visibility and violence

The first major theme in interviews with local residents related to the visibility of organised crime on a day-to-day level. One resident explained how people in the community can be impacted by criminal activities such as drug dealing while going about their everyday lives:

Oh, watched it the other week there... Driving up, the guy, there wis a guy standing ootside this big fancy motor... next thing this moped comes down, goes down to the guy in the motor, you see them exchanging...And I thought, how brazen can you be? (Community respondent, Semi-Urban Embedded, female aged 31-50)

Yet, as much as this resident commented on how 'brazen' this behaviour was, participants' narratives also suggested that such activities are normalised to the extent that people do not recognise it as unusual until they are in a position to reflect upon it – perhaps getting older, or moving away from the area. One resident commented:

When chaos is chaos and you see it everywhere, it's normal... ye see neighbours beating lumps out of each other, it's just what you see, it's only when you're older you realise (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, male aged 18-30).

One female resident recounted an incident in which she had sent her daughter to the local shop on an errand, and received a phone call advising her to collect her daughter because there were people fighting and inflicting damage on one another using hatchets. Another resident explained that the impact is particularly felt by vulnerable people, such as the elderly:

It is tricky 'cos … it has such a huge impact on neighbourhoods and people's lives and, you could hae somebody dealing and, like, you've got blocks of four, say … and you could have a family in one, somebody dealing in another and an elderly person in the other, and then a single vulnerable young person in the next and it's, the impact on them aw's different and one might complain but the rest of them willnae (Community respondent, National Diffuse, female aged 31-50).

The cumulative effect of these experiences is the development of a level of fear, anxiety and apprehension that form part of the background to daily life, and at times a degree of resignation to such conditions.

While certain of these visible low-level crimes may not have been directly connected to SOC, there was a perception that many were. This ambiguity was caused in part by the relative invisibility of the operation of criminal businesses, with the 'organisation' of such activities largely hidden from public view. As one resident noted, the individuals behind local drug markets are seldom visible:

[Illicit drug supply] It's well organised. But those at the top of the tree, ye' never see them on the street. But ye know who's doing what, and who they're doing it for… And you wonder why it's never addressed, it's never dealt with (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, female aged 51-75).

There are benefits for those engaged in SOC activity – either as providers or users of illicit products or services – to remain 'under the radar', particularly in their attempts to avoid unwanted attention from policing agencies or from competing criminal groups. As one community respondent described:

Cos you know, at the top of the street, there's a group – on a bad day – maybe about 15 boys, standing around… Just people standing about, and then a boy turns up on a bike, then goes away, then there's a big man on the phone. And you realise that's what's happening, peddling. But yeah, the community's well aware of it. (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, male 18-30]

The visible signs of SOC activity – be it violence or drug dealing – was therefore in many ways only the 'tip of the iceberg'. The visible manifestations, practices, and transactions of SOC rely on a subterranean, 'underworld' structure that extends well beyond the confines of community street-life. However, whilst these structures may have proven invisible to an outsider, residents were all too aware of their existence. As one female resident put it, for many the presence of organised crime is something that 'everybody knows' but that 'ye just try tae stay away fae' and 'not get involved'. Some participants spoke of a culture of fear of the possibility of violence and intimidation if they tried to challenge perpetrators. One resident suggested that people risk being 'disappeared' unless they 'do what they're told'.

In every locality there were certain known areas of anti-social and criminal activity which parents would actively prevent their children from going to, and that social work personnel and teachers were equally aware of. For example, in one group discussion with young people the participants highlighted a number of areas where they would not walk or hang about due to an awareness of the issues that could arise regarding criminal activity. It was recognised that the constant background of violence in the community – what has been described by others as 'ambient violence' (Barbarin et. al. 2001) – can result in significant and long-term impacts on people's lives, at both an individual and community level.

While the majority of residents demonstrated a clear awareness of organised criminal activity, some did not always recognise street crime as being connected to larger criminal networks. As one legal expert stated:

If you step back, there are probably large parts of the community … that go about their daily life and aren't actually necessarily aware of or impacted [by organised crime]. (Local Authority Legal Officer, National Diffuse)

Many respondents highlighted the contradiction that the individuals profiting from organised crime commonly lived in more affluent areas. One resident discussed an instance when a 'posh lassie' from his school had been horrified to learn that her new neighbour was an organised criminal. Another noted that whilst those in affluent areas would 'look down' on his local area, he knew of several prominent organised criminals living there due to their accumulated wealth. Another resident discussed the relationship between visibility and power/authority within the local criminal hierarchies:

The people who are makin' all the money, aren't the ones at the front line, they're using other people to do it. And it's pretty obvious who's involved in it, ye take a walk along the street and ye'd be able tae identify that… Ye see it on every street…. They [top bosses] don't stay here. But their presence is there. And it wouldn't take ye long to notice, see the motor with the blacked oot windae. There's people and businesses, the investment is comin from somewhere … That network still exists. And it exists street by street (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, male aged 31-50).

Similar themes were raised and explored in one of the prison-based focus groups, where there was repeated mention, for example, of people 'living in big houses and driving fancy cars', or 'living in good areas but profiting off misery'.

Fieldwork disclosed a further perception that individuals involved in organised crime had successfully established a 'legitimate' business identity involving car washes, garages, taxi firms, soft play centres, and delicatessens. The 'legitimate' and 'criminal' aspects of these groups' activities were therefore intertwined.

While violent victimisation was not experienced by many participants, there was a clear perception that violence was an everyday reality for those involved in SOC activity. For these individuals, threats, intimidation, and violence were considered routine. One resident described the memorials for local crime figures, involving 'a thousand Buckfast bottles stuck to the railing'. Nevertheless, excessive violence affecting the community was considered relatively rare in the communities explored in fieldwork, and tended to involve those already participating in SOC activities.

While violence is commonly associated with organised criminal activity, almost by definition, this creates a public profile, and attracts the unwanted attention of police. Local residents therefore suggested that it is often the implicit threat of violence, rather than the explicit exercise of violence, that allows groups to exert coercive control over communities. For one social work participant, reflecting on a 'power vacuum' and subsequent instability in a local criminal market, the overuse of violence can be simply 'bad for business.'

Where violence is used by organised criminals, there was a common perception that it was targeted against others 'in the game', to retain control of criminal markets or to establish new ones. As one legal expert states:

They generally fall out amongst themselves, and the violence will usually be confined within their own groups. And they don't want to draw attention to themselves. And if they've no business with you and you've no business with them, then the chances are you'll never have any dealings with them (Local Authority Legal Officer, National Diffuse).

This was not the case everywhere, however, as 'innocent' people could be caught up in the violence associated with local disputes between organised criminals. One participant described a case in which a friend was mistaken for a local drug dealer and had his neck slashed with a Stanley knife, resulting in multiple stitches.

Victimisation and vulnerability

A persistent theme in discussions with residents was the impact of victimisation and vulnerability on community life. Victimisation came in multiple forms, from direct forms of sexual exploitation and indentured labour, to more indirect forms, where debts and coercion are used to exploit vulnerability. Issues with poverty, debt, drug and alcohol addiction, and mental health were mentioned frequently, creating vulnerability to exploitation and harm.

One resident in a rural area emphasised the vulnerability that comes with being income deprived, and how this could be exploited by members of SOC groups:

They're easy to charm, you can flash 20 or 40 quid at someone with no money, who are hungry. They're in. And they'll usually have them running around with 50 quid [worth] at a time, so it's just a possession charge… They're quite a slick operation … they've honed their craft (Community respondent, National Diffuse, female aged 31-50).

A professional working in a Type 2 community highlighted the danger of drug users accumulating debts and becoming involved in dealing drugs to 'pay off' what they owe. They reflected on 'guys who've maybe spent a bit too much on coke, who've maybe got themselves into a bit of debt, and who've ended up driving a car or having to take a parcel or whatever, and they take the 'derry' [blame] for whoever has given them the job'. She suggested that those participating know the potential risks of being involved in such activity, such as prison sentences, but said that there is both a 'culture of fear' and a 'culture of acceptance'. Vulnerable people are willing to accept the potential risk of prison because they fear the consequences of informing the police about those organised criminals involved in orchestrating, and benefitting from, such crimes.

Several participants raised a specific issue around rural drug markets in which houses were being essentially 'taken over' by SOC groups for the purposes of drug dealing. One female resident claimed that individuals were taking over people's tenancies and in some cases evicting people in order to deal drugs from the address. Participants in a focus group explained how the owner or tenant of a property is held responsible for criminal activity (such as drug dealing) taking place on the property, regardless of whether or not they have been exploited or threatened into participating. One community worker commented that 'they find someone vulnerable – not necessarily young, there's been single women in their 40s – and their houses are overrun, they openly deal from the place, until it's busted. And the homeowner gets done with intent to supply, and they're gone [the organised criminals flee without sanction].' Following the initial incentive of free drugs it is the threat of violence that binds vulnerable individuals to such exploitative relationships: 'If you don't do what you're told, you'll go into the woods and you won't come back…'. As one police officer described:

So this guy is just… he is a patsy. We're going up to his door for the tenner bags of heroin, he's not making any money out of it and the coercion, I think the vulnerability is so huge. This guy can't organise a tenancy, he's got the three foot of rubbish, he's got a telly, he's got an ashtray and his beer cans … so somebody on a daily basis – here's today's supply … and then they'll come up in the afternoon and say give us the money. He's not making anything out of it (Police Officer, National Diffuse).

One professional working with vulnerable people spoke about the experience of one of her clients who had 'gone off the radar' only for the team to discover that someone had moved themselves into his property:

What had happened, he was probably trying to score some drugs and he had come into contact with this person who was into more organised drug dealing, and my client was making very poor decisions but not on the best basis in terms of mental health, he was vulnerable. So, he allowed the man to move in, essentially, and he processed and packaged the drugs in his house… we became aware of it when my client had been threatened with a gun… he then advised us he was in over his head (Social Worker, National Diffuse).

In another case, a team using fraudulent cheques would pay the cannabis debt of a user if the user cashed the cheques for the launderers. These instances demonstrate the ways in which pre-existing individual vulnerabilities are exploited for profit. In this context, local knowledge is of vital importance. As one housing manager noted, SOC groups have a developed capacity for identifying and exploiting perceived vulnerabilities, be they related to addiction, health or old age:

If they live in the area they know who they can target… They know exactly what they're doing. They'll also then know in terms of some of our customer groups who have got severe issues with alcohol or drug addictions and on mental health issues and they play on that. So they know they can profile within the local community and identify exactly who knows what (Housing Official, Urban Embedded).

This local knowledge of the landscape of vulnerabilities in the area creates the potential for flexible forms of exploitation that react to the changing economic climate. In 2013, for example, when the UK Government announced the introduction of the 'bedroom tax', this was used by local SOC groups to exploit older people and utilise their homes for criminal activity. One participant, a housing officer, commented on how fears of the financial impact of the bedroom tax among some residents were exploited:

Your organised crime groups were identifying maybe elderly customers whose families had grown up and moved away, who knew that the whole bedroom tax agenda was on and they were basically saying to people you either move out to a smaller house or you pay the additional charge. They were then exploiting individuals in the community by saying I will give you money and you will pay that into your rent account and we'll use your room or we will use your shed, your garage, your lock-up and you'll ask no questions. (Housing Official, Urban Embedded)

The harms associated with these forms of exploitation are clear. Feelings of fear, anxiety, and insecurity were often mentioned – as one police officer noted, 'a physical fear when you mention people's names...… it does have a grip on people – but also more direct feelings of intimidation and threat'. In one case, a witness to a crime felt a daily fear of repercussion; another discussed feelings of 'powerlessness' and the ways in which this impacted on their mental health and wellbeing. A social worker reflected that 'living with high anxiety levels can be caused by this fear … the causes and stresses are very environmental', with impacts such as staying indoors, anger, substance misuse, and a lack of motivation.

Stigma and stereotype

As well as effects such as exploitation, participants also reflected on indirect consequences such as 'area stigma' and stereotype. The stigmatisation of areas based on perceptions of drugs and organised criminal activity emerged as a central theme across the fieldsites, with participants noting the existence of negative perceptions of the area both within their own communities and elsewhere.

A dominant theme that came through in each of the research sites was the negative connotations of living in the communities, as they are viewed as deprived and dangerous, regardless of residents' lived experiences. Reputations for particular types of crime, both 'low-level' and more serious and organised forms, were an important part of this stigmatisation, alongside the presence of abandoned buildings, waste-ground and unkempt public spaces.

The impact of drugs markets was central to this reputation. Young people in one of the fieldsites repeatedly discussed the presence of 'junkies' and in one of the prison-based focus groups, drugs were agreed to be the worst effect of organised crime on communities. Several participants related their involvement in drug using and dealing to early childhood trauma – increasingly referred to as 'Adverse Childhood Experience' ( ACE) – and saw drug-use as a form of escapism that created further trauma. In another fieldsite, one resident explained the aggregated impact of such drug use on the standing of their community:

Aw [the reputation is] bad. The minute ye say yer fae [area], people that know it react [negatively]. Ah don't think it's as bad as it wis, but still gets a bad name. There are decent people here, not our fault it gets a bad name (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, female aged 31-50).

Another reflected that 'whether there's just somebody sitting oot their face, the image that it projects for the area is no a positive image at all'. Drug abuse also emerged as a significant factor in semi-urban and rural communities, and the effects of addiction were widespread. Reflecting how such matters had become intrinsically linked to local perceptions, one respondent reflected that road signs for their town had been vandalised, with the label 'junkies' written over the name.

The presence of organised crime, and the associated reputational effects, was also seen by local organisations as creating stigma and barriers to economic investment. All case study areas were characterised by respondents as containing populations that were somehow 'overlooked' or 'abandoned', with this perceived neglect exacerbating local problems such as poor health and substance misuse.

In each fieldsite, there was concern around the role of the media in highlighting, accentuating, and reinforcing such stigma. As one resident reflected, 'there is … some level of stigma, because the press is always full of it, you hear all the negative stories'. Many participants assumed that the researchers would have prior knowledge of local crime stories due to the frequency of reports in the press.

The constant reinforcement of such damaging narratives was considered by some as unjustified. As one participant explained, 'I think crime happens everywhere. You only hear about it in certain locations. I kinda feel like it's more highlighted in some areas'. Importantly, however, local residents sought to challenge stereotypes and counteract stigma where possible. Respondents described the ways in which these reputations were negotiated through highlighting the positive aspects repeatedly neglected in popular representations.

For example, one local resident in an area undergoing regeneration commented that the area is 'thriving', and others mentioned new schools and facilities being built, countering this narrative of decline. One young male participant spoke about friends who had secured apprenticeships in areas with otherwise high levels of unemployment. In general, there was a sense of pride in the respective areas, many residents continue to live there out of choice despite difficulties, and benefit from close family nearby. In another area, a local group had begun publishing a newsletter highlighting the positive steps being taken in civic improvement and distributed it to local households. There was also broad agreement across the interviews that visible and public gang fighting has declined in recent years.

Yet, a common theme in each site was that positive stories of community engagement and civic improvement would not be covered by a media with preconceived notions of how their readership views the communities. One participant recalled that a local newspaper had sent their crime reporter to cover a positive story in the area, as they had most knowledge of the community. He explained that the journalist had asked him for a quote about his community:

He wanted a quote that [area] was a warzone – so he asked if I would call it that. I said I call it my home. There's a lot of good people in [area]. I'm happy to say I love [the area] (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, male aged 51-75).

The impact of this reputation on those living within communities was expressed in multiple ways. There was a clear sense that, when leaving their community or applying for work elsewhere, an address could create preconceptions about them, with one resident altering their postcode to a nearby affluent area in an attempt to avoid this.

Across the fieldsites, there was a perception that as the more successful criminal actors had relocated away from their communities, the lingering and ongoing stigmatisation was unjust. One resident expressed the view that the presence of organised crime in the area was unfair, as the principal actors had left and moved elsewhere to areas without the taint of criminal association. This double standard was seen as fundamentally unfair, and as such the reputation of the fieldsites as being 'home' to organised crime groups was strongly contested by residents: 'they aw moved away years ago'. The ill-feeling related in part to visibility of criminal markets, and partly to the perceived respectability of the more affluent neighbourhoods where more successful criminal actors reside. One local resident, for example, discussed the ways in which this double standard operates:

I know for a fact, where my brother and sister-in-law live [an affluent area] two doors up is – or was – head of one of the biggest drug families in the city. The only thing is, he's not dealing in the street. But, in this street, you'll see people dealing every day (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, male aged 31-50).

One result of the stigmatisation of communities due to the presence of organised crime are the positive, and often subtle, ways that communities resist and respond to the impacts of criminality. Rather than direct confrontation with often dangerous individuals or groups, the most common step taken across the fieldsites was the organisation of events and groups for young people to take them off of the streets and away from the impacts of crime. Those participants involved in such projects emphasised their desire to offer alternatives to young people to divert them from 'hanging around' and potentially becoming involved in criminal activity. There were several success stories across the fieldsites of young people interacting and being deterred from criminal paths, and many of those also returned to the organisations to volunteer to help others.

For those working with and delivering services within the communities, the impact of long-term stigmatisation impacted significantly on their attempts to improve place image, with a frustration expressed over the resignation that had developed among a significant number of residents. This could be seen as understandable given the constant challenges and setbacks faced when trying to secure outside investment for these areas. One participant who ran a community facility suggested that the 'big chains' do not want to open up or maintain shops in the area because of the reputation for anti-social behaviour and poverty. Moreover, investment in community facilities and programmes to support communities has also been deeply affected by cuts to funding. One participant explained that this disproportionately affects young people living in the area:

Aw' the things that's getting cut is youth services, youth work, and there's nae actual money that goes into infrastructure for young people to play (Community respondent, Urban Embedded, male aged 51-75).

Stigmatisation, therefore, has impacted upon residents, workers, service providers, and the private sector in each of the fieldsites due to the presence and reputation of criminality, and the relationships with organised criminal networks. This suggests the need for investment and improving opportunity, as well as the development of methods of combating stigma and stereotype.

Summary

This chapter has outlined a range of impacts and experiences of organised crime in community contexts across the case study areas. These have an impact on individual residents, and on the community in general. It is important to note the differences across the areas in terms of geography, history and environment that play a key role in how such impacts are internalised by local residents.

The visibility of the effects of SOC – for example, violence or local drug dealing and drug use – was contrasted with the invisibility of some of the key players, leading to a situation in which fear, rumour and intimidation were part of the community experience. Such fears had a significant impact on residents' safety and wellbeing. At the same time, residents felt that often unfair reputations for criminality – particularly drug use – negatively impacted on both external and internal perceptions of the area, creating an obstacle to recognition of the harmful instances of victimisation and vulnerability that existed below the radar of the wider public.

It is also clear that vulnerability – due to age, lack of supportive family structures, addiction, debt, poverty, or mental health issues – is exploited by SOC groups in order to reduce/divert the risk associated with their own offending. Fear, violence, resignation, and a lack of alternative opportunities, help to sustain SOC by curbing resistance to it.

Nonetheless, in each fieldsite it was clear that there were a majority of law-abiding citizens, and a great deal of grassroots community work in operation. This suggests that the best asset in responding to organised crime is the community itself. Individuals involved in harmful, exploitative or coercive practices are deeply intertwined with the majority of law-abiding residents via families, friendships and other social connections.