 |
| illustration: Ging Inferior |
When deciding upon a title for my book, the myth of Robin Hood and the very ambiguity of this folk hero’s name, (Robin Hood - ‘Robbing Hood’) was very much on my mind.
I wanted the multiplicity of Hoods' central theme to be recognised; the word is a reference to not only the legend, but also the American slang for gangsters, and ’hoods - as in neighbourhoods or the ghettos which some gangsters perceive themselves to belong to or which shapes their criminality. Not to mention the form of clothing which hides and protects the head - something which young criminals do as a matter of course to hide their identity from CCTV cameras.
So how does the myth of Robin Hood link to the nature of some of today’s villains? As a completely unscientific search through newsprint databases from across the globe for the past five years brought up the name ’Robin Hood’ within the search terms ‘jail’ and ‘criminal’ in more than 1,100 separate articles, in publications ranging from the Sydney Morning Herald to The Sun in the UK. Here’s an example, from The Sun on 28 January:
"A Robin Hood-style criminal who robbed shops to give to the poor has been jailed indefinitely. Martin Kaczmarek, 39, threw chairs and threatened shopkeepers with axes and knives during his spree at 19 stores. Kaczmarek, from Leeds, said he gave some cash to Big Issue sellers to “make himself feel better”, the city’s Crown Court heard. He admitted robbery and must serve at least four years."
Here we have the classic definition of the latter-day Robin Hood; someone involved in violent criminality, yet through the act of giving away some of his booty to the poor he somehow gains redemption from his appalling deeds. We see a similar argument put forward by the supporters of Colin Gunn and the Bestwood Cartel.
There is plenty of evidence that this group - who were involved in everything from murder, extortion, robbery and class A drug dealing - engaged in acts of compassion towards needy people on the estate on which they lived. Supporters will point to the huge fireworks display they organised, the money they slipped into birthday cards for elderly residents and the recovery of precious jewellery stolen in burglaries. In many situations they even fulfilled the role of community leaders and enforcers in both resolving disputes and policing an estate that the police had long since given up on.
However, the reality of their reign was far more brutal. The link between the community and Gunn’s gang was akin to an abusive relationship for many residents. If you could get out of it and had the means to, great - but many people had come to either depend upon Colin Gunn or had become sucked into his milieu of criminality and could find no way out – he virtually owned the souls of some and created such fear in others that they would not even countenance the idea of going to the official police force.
Consequently, there was a huge under-reporting of crime on the estate whilst he was around and when he was jailed for 35 years, for his involvement in the murders of John and Joan Stirland, we actually saw crime levels rise because some people began to report crime again to the authorities.
Robin Hood the folk hero is perceived today through myth and legend as someone who enjoyed huge support from the public against the murderous forces of the establishment led by the Sheriff. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest he was no more than a violent robber by today’s standards. Colin Gunn and the litany of other gangsters who run some of our urban estates are only successful in maintaining their 'Robin Hood' status because the authorities let the public down with corruption, poor policing, and a catastrophic failure to connect with the public.
So the question remains: was the real Robin Hood a character for good or evil?
Read comments and make your own
Comments