A day in the life of an E3 kid
Samuel Airey
He’s already round again. Same time everyday.
It’s 12:30 in east London and Dylan is already trying to sell weed to whoever he can. He comes to the door with his dog and invites himself inside where he muses over which Playstation 3 games we have. He inquires after our wellbeing and we give him short answers. We sit, awkwardly. His dog licks at my legs and then, as quick as he arrived, he’s vanished. He’s off to find someone else who might want weed, then he’ll cycle to pick up some more, steal a joint and give the customer what he wants.
At 20 he’s succumbed to the average east end boy’s life. His brother also followed suit: at 26, Derek still lives at home and has a drinking problem. He also sells drugs and the brothers have recently had a violent confrontation with each other in their local pub.
Rick, another well-known hoodlum, has been kicked out of his flat by his girlfriend who is fed up of him selling drugs around their child. His father is in prison and we don’t ask about his mother. He is also wanted by the police.
Alongside huge unemployment the suburb also has to deal with an underground, localised race war, which has left Dylan’s father claiming disability benefits. During a spontaneous interview, Dylan gave interesting but long-winded answers. He claimed a race war had spawned from an event that took place on Christmas Eve 2002. “My brother and my sister’s boyfriend got into a fight with a couple of the Asian boys. They beat them up and they didn’t like it so the next day, (Christmas day) the whole family went to the pub for lunch. It’s a tradition.”
He then tells me how on the way home from lunch, his sister’s boyfriend and his friend were surrounded by Asian youths armed with bats and hammers. “I got a phone call. We all went down there. None of us had tools (weapons) but I had a knife in my pocket. My dad came and told them to calm down because it was Christmas but they kicked off. My dad was stabbed and his ribs were broken. He was fucked and only a month after he came out of hospital with a back problem.”
Dylan goes on to tell me about the frequency of these situations. “Since then it hasn’t stopped. My dad got attacked again last march. He had huge cuts and bruises on his head.”
But why do these attacks happen? Dylan believes that the individuals responsible are racist. “They attack anyone who’s white. They don’t attack their own,” he says. The family are trying to get the council to relocate them and most of them agree that this will be the only way to solve the problem.
I asked Dylan about the problem of teenagers and young adults getting involved in selling drugs. He said that the police need to do more and increase the amount of cameras in east London; “I don’t know, get a neighbourhood watch scheme up or something…we don’t want that though (laughs).”
A Rimmel advert showcasing Kate Moss comes onto the television. I ask Dylan if he finds her attractive. He tells me that she’s not really that attractive although lots of people think the opposite; “She’s done everything mate, she’s even done crack with Pete Doherty.”
Samuel Airey is a 19 year old journalist originally hailing from Poole in Dorset. He has written for the Sunday Times and the Church of England Newspaper.
Edit: Due to comments made following the publication of this article questioning its neutrality, three instances of the phrase ‘Dylan explains’ have been substituted for ‘claims’ or simply ’says’. It was assumed that to ‘explain’ was, in this context, used to mean to ‘account for his understanding of the situation’ rather than to ‘offer facts to justify his opinions’ See comments section for further details.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
We need specifics. Where in e3 is this, and more importantly, which pub is serving lunch on xmas day?
I live in e3 and don’t see any of this happening one bit.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
James,
You’re quite right, E3 is a big place and I’m sure this article isn’t representative of ‘every’ E3 kid, it’s just one of many thousands of possible stories that take place every day in any major city. I think this story makes a statement about a certain type of life which most of us who’ve lived in inner cities have at least brushed with without being sensationalist.
While we do make every attempt to verify the factual accuracy of any reporting that is published on the website, clearly in certain circumstances we have to accept the veracity of the reporter’s story in good faith.
Al Allday,
editor / the thing is
January 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Living in E3 and being white I have seen none of the above. Racism? Is the father selling drugs as well as the two sons? Is the local community using any means necessary to keep Tower Hamlets drug free?
“we have to accept the veracity of the reporter’s story in good faith.” No you do not.
Why is the subject anonymous? If the writer promised anonymity was this agreed with you before the article was written? Ethically should you then even consider publishing the article if not. What steps did you make to verify the story. Was anybody independent of the writer able to meet the source.
This type of ‘oppressed white’ may play in Poole but not in E3. We already have an online Daily Mail there is no need to create another one.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Your point is interesting, Mike. Thank you for raising it.
I think the issue of racism you’ve raised needs to be cleared up. It is quite possible that the subject interviewed holds racist views. Yet we are not encouraged to empathise with the interviewee.
The reading I took from this article — and therefore the reason I published it, in good faith — is that the interviewees themselves are ignorant and trapped in a cycle of violence and squalor they have no way of escaping. Although the story is set in E3, it could be any other deprived area of the city, or, indeed, any other inner city.
I thought the author made his point clear. However, on a second reading of the article, I can see how this might not be the case. This probably comes from the frequency with which the author uses the phrase “Dylan explains…” in the article which could, at a glance, appear as if the author is encouraging us to take Dylan’s explanation at face value. As the author has explained from the outset that Dylan is, essentially, a criminal, I think it’s surprising that you’ve taken that reading. I didn’t. This is why I didn’t spot the potentially biased meaning of the word “explain” in this context.
This isn’t a case of “daily mail” style editorializing. I don’t think we are encouraged to side with “whites” against “Asians” at all. Let me state for the record that isn’t the view of anyone here. The “whites” in this case are engaged in unlawful activity. The article, while being unclear linguistically (something I admit I should have edited better, substituting “Dylan explains” for “Dylan claims”) was interesting in the sense that it gave me a greater insight into the motivations and beliefs of the people who live like this. Knowing the motivations of characters such as Dylan explains to me some of the origins of racial tensions. Bearing in mind that Dylan’s views aren’t what I’ve taken at “face value,” the article doesn’t encourage them.
For me, the acceptability of this article is a matter of separating author and interviewee. If anything, this is an article damning the behaviour of a teenager who, in this case, is white. I do indeed think your line of questioning “Is the local community using any means necessary to keep Tower Hamlets drug free?” is a valid one. Perhaps this is the case. Do we ‘laugh’ along with Dylan when he mocks the idea of a neighbourhood watch? I think not. Rather, the penultimate paragraph reinforces my perception that Dylan is a criminal and thus not a remotely sympathetic character. It even suggests the possibility that, as you say, the attacks are a result of his criminal behaviour.
Does it matter, in this case, if he or his family have been the subject of a racially motivated attack? No. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. There are always other explanations — such as the fact that he is a criminal. It is the fact that Dylan perceives the attack as racially motivated that interests me.
The article provides an insight into the mind of a teenage delinquent I would not have otherwise had. Therefore I published it. Anyone who reads it is free to make up their own mind, as I did, about what to think of its subjects.
I understand your concerns about this article and I do admit it should have been better edited to make the author’s neutrality and his separation from the interviewee more clear. For me, it all hinges on the incorrect use of the word ‘explains’ when ‘claims’ would have been more appropriate. I missed this because from the outset I was antipathetic to the interviewee and therefore — while I took the author’s interview at “face value” — I did not take Dylan’s “explanations” similarly.
I will try harder to spot these problems in future. With more comments like this, hopefully I’ll get better at spotting them. Hope this clears things up for you.
Thank you for your comment,
al