# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This section describes how work opportunities for people with disabilities were substantially reduced after the First World War as ex-servicemen returned to the labour market. The government's solution was to house disabled people in rural 'mental deficiency colonies' where they lived and worked, isolated from society.

The problems of peace

As the First World War raged across Europe, Leslie Scott, the chairman of the Central Association for the Care of the Mentally Defective, began to think about the problems that peace might bring.

In November 1917 he wrote, "There are large numbers of low-grade, even imbecile defectives, now in remunerative work who will assuredly leave their work when there is any displacement of labour, and we are anxious to make plans for their protection."

Useful members of the workforce

Before the First World War, the 'mentally deficient' had been seen as incapable of work. But when thousands of employed people signed up to fight, people with disabilities were left behind and found to be useful members of the workforce for the first time.

As the war drew to a close, this was about to change. Ex-servicemen were coming home from the front, and they wanted their jobs back.

Isolation in separate colonies

The 'science' of eugenics was in fashion at this time. Those who believed in eugenics argued that 'defective' members of the population would cause a general degeneration of the country's racial stock unless they were kept strictly controlled and segregated, and if possible, sterilised.

In line with this thinking, the 1913 Mental Deficiency Act set up a new 'Board of Control'. It specified that 'mental defectives' should either be closely supervised in the community or kept in a new type of institution, the 'mental deficiency colony'.

As a result, a network of small, self-contained 'scattered villages' was established across the country to provide permanent settlements for children and adults.

'Grading' people with disabilities

People with learning disabilities were now 'graded'. At the bottom were the 'idiots' (the profoundly disabled) and the 'imbeciles' (the 'medium grade').

As well as these, there were two types of 'feeble minded' people. The first were mildly disabled but able to support themselves to some extent. The second were the so-called 'moral defectives' - it was said they 'cannot distinguish right from wrong and represent a grave danger to the community'.

Living in the colonies

In a typical colony, 900 to 1,500 people lived in detached 'villas' with up to 60 people in each. It was thought essential to separate the sexes, so a central administrative block always formed a barrier between the male and female villas. In all of them, patients slept in multiple rows in large dormitories.

There were special villas for 'difficult cases' - people whose behaviour was thought to need controlling - and for the lowest grade 'idiots'. These villas were as far away as possible from the entrances to the hospital to avoid 'offending' visitors. The 'idiots' didn't work - they stayed in their villas, but as these had verandas, they could be out in the fresh air even in bad weather.

Villas housing the 'better class of working patients' were allowed to be furthest from the administrative block and had their own cooking and heating facilities.

No one need ever leave

Children lived separately and had their own schools where they learned useful occupational skills for their future lives as adults in the colony.

There were workshops for the adults as well as kitchens, a bakery, a laundry, a recreation hall (seating up to 750 patients and doubling as a chapel), staff quarters, playing fields (particularly for the males) and a small mortuary.

Work

Many colonies had their own farms with market gardens, stables, poultry, pigs, herds of cows and greenhouses, and most patients worked - unpaid - in the laundries and workshops, or on the farm. The colonies brought in staff too. As well as nurses, they employed farm bailiffs, firemen, engineers and, of course, gatekeepers.

In 1939 another war came, and some 'colonists' left to work, or even fight. But the colonies would live on until the 1990s.

Watch the BSL video on 'mental deficiency' between the wars

Was this page helpful?

'Mental Deficiency' between the Wars

Please click on the gallery images to enlarge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Mental Deficiency' between the Wars - Life in the Colony

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section describes how work opportunities for people with disabilities were substantially reduced after the First World War as ex-servicemen returned to the labour market. The government's solution was to house disabled people in rural 'mental deficiency colonies' where they lived and worked, isolated from society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

In 2015, HMIC commissioned Ipsos MORI to undertake a survey of public perceptions of policing in England and Wales. This report sets out the results of this survey. The results have also been summarised in the infographic below.

Click on the image below to see a summary of each topic:

Get the full report
Public views of policing in England and Wales 2015/16
Get the press release

New survey reveals that people are confident in the police

Summary of findings

Around three-quarters of all respondents are satisfied with their area and feel safe after dark.

Those living in more deprived neighbourhoods were more likely to say that they felt unsafe and that crime/anti-social behaviour was a big problem locally.

Demographic groups more likely to live in these areas, for example younger people and people from black and ethnic minority groups are also disproportionately more likely to feel unsafe and think that crime or anti-social behaviour is a problem.

Overall 26 percent of respondents felt unsafe:

24 percent feel very safe;

50 percent feel fairly safe;

21 percent feel a bit unsafe; and

5 percent feel very unsafe.

Different age groups have different opinions about their feelings of safety.

33 percent of 16-24 year olds felt unsafe, compared to 21 percent of 65+ year olds;

31 percent of people from black or minority backgrounds also felt unsafe.

Three times more people were satisfied than dissatisfied with local policing (52 percent satisfied; 17 percent dissatisfied).

When asked about changes in local police services 65 percent of people did not feel levels of services have changed over the past year.

18 percent of people felt that the level of service had got worse over the last year.

31 percent of people had contact with local police in the last year.

17 percent as a victim or witness to a crime; and

3 percent as a result of an arrest or a stop and search.

Those respondents living in more deprived areas, younger people and people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to have had contact with the police.

The extent to which someone interacted with local police officers/PCSOs was a powerful predictor of how they spoke about the police; the more frequent the contact the more positive the views expressed were.

Respondents drew heavily on personal experience when commenting on the police; just over half agreed they were treated fairly and with respect.

Value for money

Most people did not hold strong views about the value for money that their local police provide.

Half of people surveyed did not know enough to say whether their local force's budget increased or decreased over the past year.

Those who said that they have been consulted about local crime and anti-social behaviour were significantly more likely to feel that the police understood relevant local issues and were dealing with them.

Seeing a uniformed police presence is important to people. More people were dissatisfied than satisfied with levels of uniformed policing in their areas. They were over four times more likely to say they have seen a decrease than an increase in numbers of officers and PCSOs over the past year.

Those who were satisfied with police presence expressed a greater confidence in being able to access services in both emergency and non-emergency situations.

Interest

Six out of ten people have not done anything in the past year to find out about local policing.

7 percent of people said that they received a police newsletter; and

3 percent of people have attended a local police meeting.

76 percent of people said that they are interested in finding out more about local policing.

Contact

Over twice as many people did not feel well informed about local policing than did feel informed (64 percent feel uninformed; 31 percent feel informed).

Satisfaction

62 percent of those who had a contact with the police were satisfied with the services that they received.

Respondents were more likely to be satisfied if they had been told what to expect and felt that this was then what happened.

The large majority of people said that they were aware of cyber-crime but knew little about it and were unaware of any local police work to deal with it.

Less than 0.5 percent of people had been a victim or witness to cyber-crime.

Of the small number that had, only half reported it to the police.

Overall, people were twice as likely to speak positively about their local police than to express negative views.

Get the full report
Public views of policing in England and Wales 2015/16
Get the data
Public survey data file
Get the free PDF Reader from Adobe (external link)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public views of policing in England and Wales 2015/16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2015, HMIC commissioned Ipsos MORI to undertake a survey of public perceptions of policing in England and Wales. This report sets out the results of this survey. The results have also been summarised in the infographic below.

# data[].attributes.body
Policing Before and After the Police