The Limit Points of Gang Loyalties

As I have described in this chapter thus far, gangs bore an influence upon prison and prison life: their members tended to have a greater propensity for violence, and gangs could sometimes operate as informal mechanisms of governance. However, this did not mean that gang loyalties were absolute. In 'It ain't nothing like America with the Bloods and the Crips', Phillips (2012) writes of the malleable, and sometimes transient, nature of prison gang membership within English prisons. During my research, the impermanence of prison gangs – as well as the ubiquity of American imagery in popular discourse – was illustrated by a participant using almost the exact same phrase as in Phillip’s 2012 paper:

171

What can you tell me about prison gangs? It’s not like America, where you get them gangs

like Bloods and Crips. Obviously, it’s people in their own comfort zones, innit? It’s when people are in their own comfort zones, they’re making their money and putting their turf on lockdown basically, whether it’s on (the) road or in jail. But, like, in some ways, in the criminal world, in prison, being a gang member can make it a bit easy for you if you know a lot of people, but in that way, people are scared of you as well.

Martin, Non-Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank

Martin’s contention that “it’s not like America … [with the] Bloods and Crips” indicated the less entrenched nature of gangs within English prisons. This, in turn, had a strong effect on gang loyalties. Similar to the benefits attributed to street gangs, Martin described prison gangs as making life “a bit easy for you” and providing a “comfort zone” whether in prison or on the streets. However, there were very few individuals for whom the gang was so important that they would submit to the gang’s every demand. Joel (Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank) was one of the few individuals for whom attacking someone was precipitated through, “Just being rivals. Just ‘cos there’re there. If you’re from the other team and I see you, it’s on. There’s no if, ands or buts or other ways about it”. As a self-described “hardcore” gang member, simply seeing someone of a rival gang in prison would lead to violence. Furthermore, the closed, limited nature of (especially local) prisons heightened the probabilities of such meetings occurring, followed by violence. For most other participants, however, loyalty to their gang was something viewed in more nuanced terms, even for those who were self-identified gang members. Often, imprisonment meant gang loyalties had to be balanced with pragmatism, whereby, “you’re all stuck in this small space, so rival gang members will often talk, and get on. They have to. So, it does mix together sometimes; the beef gets squashed” (Martin, Non-

Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank). Some participants also spoke of family ties engendering

more loyalty than gang ties:

I was locked up with the kid that had shot me nephew. Now, me nephew was only injured. But, see, if me nephew had died from his bullet, it’s forever. All time, for ever. Doesn’t matter what wing, doesn’t matter what staff, doesn’t matter what camera. If I’d have come across the kid, he would have got hurt. Something like that it’s gone too deep. The wound’s too deep. Wings won’t stop it. Jail won’t stop it. I wouldn’t say it happens much, not that I’ve heard of over the years. And something like that is deeper than a gang thing.

172

Accordingly, even though Nathan was a gang member, for him, loyalty to family superseded loyalty to the gang. To complicate matters, Nathan was a Gooch Gang member, whereas his nephew had been a Doddington Gang member. Therefore, Nathan would have risked attacking a member of his own gang for having attacked a family member. This was a stark example of the limits of gang loyalties as compared to loyalty to one’s biological family. This can be contrasted to Joel (above), for whom there were no limits to gang loyalties: he would fight, kill and, if necessary, die for the gang. These values were, unsurprisingly, imported into the prison, where such members would have to be continually managed and kept apart from their rivals. But as most participants acknowledged, such scenarios were not the norm. Rather, loyalty to one’s gang was usually more nuanced. This extended to the gang’s norms, and how much protection the gang was willing to provide its members:

All the Asians, we sit together: call it a gang, call it whatever you want. But we tell them right from the get-go, if you smoke Mamba66 we’re not getting involved in your problems. If you got into debt because of that, and there’s any violence, we’re not getting involved in that. But, like there’s one guy in here from Pakistan, doesn’t know anything, can’t speak English properly, we look after him. Obviously if someone said something to him there’d be retaliation. And there’s 10, 12, 15 of us sat together all the time anyway. Rizwan, Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank

Rizwan, a British Pakistani gang leader, delivered an account where pragmatism shaped the limits of gang loyalties: newly arrived prisoners, before joining the collective, had these norms set out, including how far the gang would help them. Rizwan specified that his gang would not be involved in settling the drug-debts of members, something that would be an arduous, potentially dangerous process. I also encountered prisoners who had acted as witnesses for the Prosecution during their gang’s trials, in order to secure a more lenient sentence. Turning ‘Queen’s Evidence’ or Q.E’ as it was normally termed, was a perilous course to take, as being labelled an informant would put one’s life at risk. However, this was a risk some gang members were willing to take in order to spend less time in prison. Such actions not only demonstrated the limit to gang loyalty but would also lead to being instantly ostracised from one’s gang. This process of being ostracized from, or leaving, one’s gang also illustrated the different values individuals placed upon gang loyalties. Some prison gang members spoke of the physical harm they came to when leaving the gang, and the role violence played in joining the gang:

173

I took a beating to get in the gang and took a beating to get out: they broke me arm and that, knocked a few teeth out and stuff. But it was worth [it] to get out of the gang. I’m glad I’m not in a gang considering I seen me mates shot and that. I’ve seen some of me mates try to get out of the gang but never got out of it, and when they did they get out they got shot or they went too far. I got out considerably light compared to some of them.

Bradley, Former Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank

There’s rules to a gang, ain’t there? You get initiated into a gang. Case in point: there’s a lad here doing 18 years ‘cos his initiation to get into this gang was to blow someone’s fucking head off. And unfortunately, he got caught and that, like. So, how much are you willing to give up for the gang? Sam, Non-Gang Member, HMP Manchester

Bradley had to be subjected to violence both to join and leave his gang; Sam talked of a case where a potential gang member had to murder a man as part of his gang initiation. As Sam also stated, it was a question of “how much are you willing to give up for the gang?” Like gang loyalties, initiations67 and rituals to enter and exit the gang were about sacrifice: how much was one willing to forgo for their gang? For gang members, their gang was viewed in serious terms, and members had to illustrate their sincerity by engaging in, or being subjected to, serious violence. The gang, then, was unforgiving in the violence meted out, yet its members would not always reciprocate with unconditional protection. The gang was a complex organization, and therefore, its effects on daily prison life were also multifaceted and varying.