boomer

Exactly!

Unfortunately that would require the police to actually be out patrolling the streets, rather than filling in forms or watching CCTV after the event.

It is just like the "hoodies" ban in the Bluewatsit shopping centre - pointless

But we live in hope

mb

mart360

apart from stating the obvious...

billys love all i wanna be your friend there misunderstood, human rights pc

milstone will bring this country down..

there is one option that, is available and should be enforced...


send them to prison or in the juvies case borstal

i,m sure the glass house could open a youth wing to entertain these lovable rouges...

abso,s are a weak societys answer to a failing lack of discipline and law and order...


until we have the courage to admit we failed, this country we will never recover..


as for lewis, what do you expect he,s bought and paid for by this socialy corrupt government...

he,s so left wing he cant have a sh*t without having a public enquiry!!


M

SD

Can't believe I'm gonna say this but I agree with Lewis. At the end of the day the powers that be had taken an easy option. The powers to deal with the 'drunk and disorderly' and those 'causing a public nuisance' etc already exist, it's a case of making sure that existing law is applied correctly and the police are out walking the streets enforcing a feeling a safety for the innocent people of ALL ages. None of us like the thugs that roam the streets causing criminal damage and threatening people etc, but to tar all under 16's with the same brush is worse. Deal with the actual problem kids, instead banning all the good ones - as PSL says all the problem ones would ignore the curfew (sp?) anyway. If they're bad enough to commit the crimes in the first place then a curfew isn't going to stop them.

Simon

RJMS

iTrader: (2)

This does seem to be a particular problem nowadays - create blanket rules that supposedly prevent a problem but in actual fact only end up penalising the generally law-abiding citizen. This applies at all levels - speed cameras put the fear of god into basically safe drivers but presumably have litttle effect on the uninsured driver who can't be traced. The subject of this thread and my daughters' school that recently decided that a blanket ban on any kind of MP3 player in school was necessary because a few kids had been listening to them during lessons.

On the subject of teenagers I spent an hour waiting for my daughters to turn up after a Green Day gig about a month ago, there must have been 10-20000 mostly teenagers milling around - and there was not the slightest hint of any trouble (there were about 8-10 police in attendance keeping an eye on things - surprsied they wern't taking them all home). Admitedly they'd probably just had the experience of their young lives, there were some high spirits but generally I thought that if this was the youth of today then maybe we weren't doing too badly. Sadly I think it is actually more the type of teenage fan that Green Day attract (they have taste for a start)

Jap2Scrap

Mate, you're spot on right at the end. No self-respecting, street gang, hang around outside co-op, type youth is going to listen to Green Day. It's all 'bonkers' dance music and Snoop Dogg. Trust me, I know one

FlightMan

I'm with Pete as well. Catch the yobs, flog them, humiliate them if possibly ( preferable i know but the Human Rights Lawyers would never stand for it ) But, dragging some kid off the street at 2105 because he is 15 and was walking back from;
his mates house,
the cinema,
10 pin bowling,
or the snooker club,

accomplishes what exactly? Target the law to punish the guilty, not those guilty by association.

I wonder how many here would change their tune if Subarus were banned because of the high numbers of chavs using them in manner with which they were meant to be rallied, not used on the roads? Cries of "not me guv, i'm a good driver etc" would spring up across Scoobynetland.

I want yobs off the street, and yob culture a dim and distant memory, but this law doesnt help. IMHO.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I'd be interested in how PS would handle the problem with vandals, yobs and under 16s commiting crime.

Perhaps we should get Scoobynetters to rehabilitate them and teach them how to anally change thier oil and light up their cocklinks

pslewis

I would put them into an Army Camp and knock some discipline into them - if we can't humiliate them in stocks!!

The trouble with tough laws is that you need someone to do the dirty work on the streets - and for this I would NOT pay some overweight Security Guy £12k!! I would pay ex-SAS and ex-PARAS £50k to clean the estates up!!

If a road/estate is being terrorised by some family then I would send the 'lads' in ............ would only take a week, justice would be to scare the b'jezus out of the scum!!

Pete

Jap2Scrap

Bring back National Service eh?

Leslie

Nobody should be bothered by the Police if they have not done anything wrong.

Neither should they be forced to carry ID cards.

Les

Jap2Scrap

Les

I hope you don't think that just because I started this thread I was implying that it's right for a copper to bother an innocent 15yr old lad going about his business. In no way do I condone those sorts of bullying and intrusion by the police.

However, this new ruling has now made obsolete the police's powers to impose curfews on those youths which are proven troublemakers. Every town has them, every county suffers vandalism and/or violence after dark in its city centres, often perpetrated by gangs of youths. Up until now the police have had the power to force or escort these youths home (hardly the world's worst punishment) and off the streets were they up to no good. Now the police are able to disperse a crowd but cannot make them go home which to me means that they'll all congregate again once the coppers have driven off.

I can't think why any sane policeman would want to drive around sending random youths, causing no trouble, home anyway.

jasey

Which is why any sane Politician would have passed a law stating that large groups of trouble making chavs will be asked to go home. If they refuse they will be SHOT by PSLewis's ex-SAS "Community Wardens"

Another Harsh Law from Jasey's / Lewis's Britain .

ps I'd be PM - Lewis would be transport minister responsible for removing offensive gold wheels from the streets !

OllyK

No it hasn't, the law is still applicable and enforcable for people causing trouble, it just can't be blanket applied to ALL under 16 regardless of what they are doing.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

This used to be my argument but having watched the TV programme Bad lads army last year where that chavy **** and his brother played up and no matter how many times he got locked up or beasted he continued to gob off and not play ball until he was finally sent home back to chavdom where he was greated with open arms by his mumand girlfriend. His mum and GF still said to a TV camera after seeing him on the TV that ge wasn't a bad lad really he was a good boy. With parents like that punishing the kids ain't gana make one iota of difference.

Another example was where my mum lives, a notorious 12 year old was seen vandalising a car by its owner so he went round to the kids house and confronted the kids father, he also took a cop with him and the father shielded the kid behind him then turned round and told the bloke if he persued the complaint he would smash his face in, this was in front of a cop and the cop did nothing he said he couldn't do anything unless the guy did actually smash his face in then he could arrest him but for the verbal threat there was nowt he could do.

The law is an *** and until it is changed or there is a civil war in the UK nothing is going to change.

but for once I find myself agreeing with the Lewis on sending the SAS in to clean up the dregs

The Zohan

Spot on Wurzel (shame that is the case but spot on)The law seems hell bent on protectin g the rights of the scumbags only. This must change!

warrenm2

that policeman had never heard of the charge of threatening behaviour then?

Jap2Scrap

If you're right, and I've no real reason to doubt you are from your post history, then I'll have to amend my original complaint.

I just hope that 'causing trouble' is easily defined or the police will be afraid to break up gangs and send them home for fear of cries of persecution.

I can see it now; chav (I hate that word now) kids are pissed up and sitting on cars and yelling abuse at passers by - passers by call police - police turn up (maybe) and move the lads and lasses on, taking some home - policemen end up with a complaint against them because "I weren't doin nuffin." - next time the police are called they definitely don't turn up.

Tell me you can't see that happening.

Why can't the police be trusted to use their discretion in situations like this and I again ask why would a policeman be bothering to send home an innocent 15yr old lad who's walking along the street minding his own business?

Leslie

Fair enough J2S, but I was not criticising you so much as stating a principle. The Police should certainly sort out louts and rowdies who are causing a nuisance and damaging property etc. A whack on the **** with a truncheon might go a long way to stopping problems quickly. Most of these ******* have never understoood the meaning of discipline and a bit of corporate pain might do some good.

I really do think that a government which really had the general safety of the electorate in mind would have the guts to bring back the birch to really get through to these troublemakers.

Les

OllyK

That's a slightly different issue I admit and may indeed may be hard to justify.

The problem IMO is that rather than tweaking existing laws, we seem intent on adding more new ones that are un-tested. We already have laws about underage drinking, drunk and disorderly, public disorder etc, I'm sure one of those could already be used in the cases mentioned.