Questions, questions

Does stop and search reduce crime?

Stop and search is controversial and time-consuming for police but is being hailed by both main parties as the way to tackle youth violence.

Campaigners fear this is a return to the "sus" laws of the late 70s and 80s, where officers would regularly stop black people and subject them to intrusive searches on the street, and which is widely blamed for creating the large scale alienation that led to the 1981 Brixton riots.

Police have not formally asked for any new powers, but they do want the paperwork they have to do streamlined. One senior officer responsible for policing a high crime area of London opposed the plans: "I'd be nervous to go back to a position which looks like the sus laws. We have enough stop and search powers. Historically we are more prone to stop and search black people, not because an officer likes doing it, but at a subconscious level it happens due to the profile they have of offenders to do with street crime and drugs."

Another senior police officer, who also preferred to remain anonymous, took the opposite view: "No child would carry a weapon believing the police are going to stop them. Young people on the street should expect the police to talk to them and then decide if a search is needed. "

Most stops are carried out under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which says police must have reasonable grounds to stop someone. The figures repeatedly show that black people are seven times more likely to be stopped than white people.

A 2004 report by the Metropolitan Police Authority found the average cost of a stop and search was £14.50 and the force was spending over £1m a year on the tactic.

Like any power, if used wisely and with local community backing it could help. But even senior cops are nervous about what some of their officers might do with enhanced powers and the damage caused to the relationship with the communities they serve, for very little gain.
Vikram Dodd

Is it possible to teach patriotism?

Say the 'P' word and most teachers will shoot you a half-embarrassed, half-disgusted look. It's as if to say "we don't touch that". But whether or not they should teach patriotism has been up for discussion this week.

A study by academics at London University's Institute of Education decided the idea was "too controversial" to promote in schools.

"Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, it's an open question whether citizens should love their countries," they said.

The prime minister and David Cameron's calls for a curriculum that develops children's love of their country and sense of British identity should be resisted, they concluded.

Changes to citizenship classes, to be introduced later this year, will require secondary pupils to study national identity "through the prism of history" and the legacy of empire.

Will it be possible to teach patriotism?

We don't know how to teach it in this country, says Peter Tymms, professor of education at Durham University.

"You would have to be fairly explicit about what you meant by 'Britishness' for example," he says. "That would be very difficult. It means different things to different people."

History has shown it is possible to teach patriotism, Tymms says. "They did it in Nazi Germany."

And that is just it. Theoretically it's possible, but it's just too uncomfortable to contemplate.
Jessica Shepherd

Is it healthy to work with your family?

The suspension from the Commons of Derek Conway, whose son was on his payroll while studying in Newcastle, has exposed what few voters knew: the practice of employing relatives is rife among British parliamentarians. Yesterday, David Cameron admitted more than 70 of Conway's Tory colleagues had a relative on staff, while Nick Clegg said there were "about 12" Lib Dems keeping jobs in the family. Some have argued that the unsociable hours associated with the job mean taking on close relatives is the only way to keep a family together - but there can be problems bringing home life into the workplace.

Doctor Rob Yeung, a business psychologist at the consultancy Talentspace, says one of the biggest issues when employing relatives is the temptation to fall into well-rehearsed patterns when dealing with each other. "If you are working with a family member, you need to establish the ground rules very clearly," he says. "In a business setting you may have slightly different roles - you need to make sure that you are behaving in a way that is appropriate to your business roles, rather than your family roles." This can be difficult if you are in a position of authority in the office while a parent or older sibling you are used to deferring to is employed in a more junior role, he says. It can work, if you are able to crack these problems, but often says Dr Yeung "people just aren't as effective in the workforce because they tend to fall back into established roles".

Other workers may also struggle to separate work relationships from family ties, which can make it difficult for them to be open about any problems or concerns they have. Raising an issue about a fellow worker can be bad enough, but if the boss is also their mum, it is doubly difficult.

But there are advantages to taking on a relative, says Dr Yeung. "Although there are exceptions to the rule, they can be very loyal and you know you can trust them." Even if they are 250 miles away in Newcastle.
Hilary Osborne