Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 07:16 PM

Curfew

Because of the problems Newbury – and other areas across the country – suffer with anti social behaviour (mainly from people under the age of 18) should the police put out a curfew?

I walk my dog at about 1 in the morning – so she can go to the toilet – and I see many kids causing trouble (some as young as 8). And even if they weren’t causing trouble should such youngsters be out that time of night? When I was bringing my kids up I knew exactly where they were; tucked up in bed.

Isn’t it time to send out a message and get tough?

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 5 2009, 11:46 PM

Yes, but you also have to address the issue of the over 50's. I hear there's some of them in Newbury out after midnight walking their dogs. I mean what if they barked and woke some poor sod up

Seriously though, why not have a curfew for under 16's/18's. No reason for them to be out that late and chances are if they are out that late (and presumably bored) isn't that when people's walls lose bricks, cars gain scratches, pavements acquire bottles/cans, the air filled with expletives, etc etc?

Good kids won't be affected as they're pretty unlikely to be out after midnight anyway.

However, who will police it (would there be enough of a street presence right now, unlikely) and how would it be enforced (slap on thw wrist, parental fines)?

Posted by: Andrea Aug 6 2009, 07:32 AM

I completely agree with you, GMR. When I was growing up, I had a curfew which was given to me by my parents. If I was out with friends I had a curfew of 11pm - Only on the weekend! School nights it was 9pm. I respected this curfew so it was never a problem with me. I know that 99% of the kids out there would not respect their parents curfew so a police enforced curfew would be the only option. Unfortunately I can't see the police agreeing with this as this would just be 'extra work' for them to do and would probably say something like 'We're not babysitters'.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 6 2009, 07:45 AM

Did you see the mother with the Anti Social Kids on the TV program about crime on BBC1 the other night from Oxford?

I think the word 'pikey' springs to mind and the film Snatch.

Her kids had no chance and the only way they would have had a chance were if they were either removed from her at birth or she had been neutered to start with.

As for living next door to this clan. You could not live with it.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 6 2009, 08:32 AM

Before I was 16 and if it were past 21:00, I would sometimes be stopped by police just to ask who I was and where I was going, etc. I don't think a curfew is practical and in some cases would be a hand grenade to crack a nut, but it could be a system that is installed if an area becomes a problem.

RE: the program on Monday night, it amazed me how long it took to get to a point where a social housing tenant could be moved, a matter of years is not good enough. What it also showed, is how sometimes it doesn't require force to make a change for the good.

Posted by: Instigator Aug 6 2009, 08:52 AM

I also remember this happening, I even recall that when the the local bobby changed, they would ask me what I was doing up and about at 5 am when I would be on my way to do my paper round.

although I think that a curfew would have some benefits, it would need to be enforced strictly from the outset. most of the urchins that have ASBO's dont even respect those limitations, so I just cant see it working.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 6 2009, 08:54 AM

RE: the program on Monday night, it amazed me how long it took to get to a point where a social housing tenant could be moved, a matter of years is not good enough. What it also showed, is how sometimes it doesn't require force to make a change for the good.
[/quote]

The reason for that is that Scum have 'Human' rights - Even when they phone the poor woman beneath them and say they are sharpening their files and are going to do her.
If they had gone and killed her it would have all been hushed up anyway.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 10:04 AM

How about we reinforce it with the threat of the death penalty?


As for who will patrol it; what are the PCSO’s, wardens, police for? Apart from arresting people for minor crime.


As for ‘over 50 walking their dog’; I agree, unless they are good looking

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 10:07 AM

That is the problem; when we were kids we had boundaries. We knew that if we overstepped them we would not only cop it from our parents, but also the police. Nowadays the parents don’t seem to care and the police are more worried about the thugs human rights.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 10:26 AM

I’ve been the victim of anti social behaviour and as I am a Sovereign tenant there is a procedure to go through. First you have to fill in a log; this could take anything from months to many, many years. On top of that Sovereign expect you to go to relate with your neighbours. They also need hard proof before they will prosecute. In the end nothing was done. Sovereign’s policy is not to prosecute and they are often reminded of peoples human right, never mind mine or anybody else’s who have never done anything wrong. In other words the cards are stacked against you.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 10:29 AM

To have a curfew the police need to do their job, here lies the problem.


One of the other things; the police know who exactly the trouble makers are. But they’ve got to be careful of their human rights.

Posted by: user23 Aug 7 2009, 06:55 PM

Why should the curfew just be for under 16s/18s? As you say, isn’t it time to send out a message and get tough?


Is "walking the dog" a euphemism for something else, by the way?

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 07:00 PM

Yes, I am running a brothel and I take them for a walk occasionally; to air their souls. Obviously I couldn't use the actual words... but you saw straight through me, didn't you user23? There is certainly no flies on you

Posted by: Chesapeake Aug 7 2009, 07:23 PM

Ok, GMR, yiou have me intrigued. You have mentioned before about the fact that you have been the victim of anti-social behaviour and you don't seem to imply that you have had any help in dealing with it from the powers that be or from your landlord. I find this a challenge that i cannot let go. Firstly, your landlord has a responsibility towards you as it's tenant. All tenants especially Sovereign Housing Tenants sign contracts to say that they agree to the rules and regs. Proof is always necessary in order to prosecute but, proof can come in many forms. I am assuming they have been through the old ABC channels at the least? Please let me know a little more info if you want?



It does seem to me that the youngsters of Newbury and surrounding areas are a pain in the neck (to put it politely). There are things that can be done but nothing will happen unless endless complaints are made and therefore it flags up as a problem area. Please understand that the police usually do not know that it is a problem unless people tell them so. They cannot be everywhere being everything to everyone.

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 08:02 PM

I’ll let you know anything you want to know my friend.

It is nice all those rules you’ve mentioned; but it is just wall paper to cover over the cracks. I used to be part of Sovereign Housing tenants association so I know what’s what. It is very, very hard to evict somebody from their home. Sovereign or any land lord has to have years of abusive behaviour before they can even think about taking it to court.

I was involved with a case where one tenant family was terrorising another and this was going on for years. While this was happening – and the terrorised family was ill over it – Sovereign where compiling reports after reports. What they wanted was something solid; they had CCTV evidence but they wanted more. So I said – jokingly – how about of the bad ones murder the good ones? “That would get us an eviction” I was told, drily.

As for me; I was filling out log sheet after log sheet. Then there was a month of quiet and because I didn’t report anything for a month it was all dropped. When I complained again it started again from scratch. This went on for over 5 years; beaten by exhaustion I gave up, as most people end up doing.

I’ve also been involved in the NAG and the our local community committees so I know all about reporting things; they are a waste of time. I’ll give you two examples; kids were dismantling the roof of Fir Tree school and were caught red handed; police refused to prosecute because they were under age.

A lamppost outside the community was pulled down and people witnessed it but nobody was prosecuted... when I asked why “we haven’t got proof”. I said if you know their names then you must have proof. But nothing was done. I no longer go to such meetings as their only purpose was to give everybody a pat on the back.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 7 2009, 08:31 PM

I agree.. The NAG meetings are a wasted couple of hours of my life that I never get back. "Oooh, oooh... we've got a meeting. Shall we ask the residents what their problems are so we can produce graphs and reports but ensure nothing concrete actually gets done....?"

Hopeless waste of time and box ticking exercise in 'community policing and problem resolution'

Please spare me.....

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 09:08 PM

Exactly. I voiced my opinion on something once and I was told that this wasn’t the time and place; I then asked where was the time and place. I didn’t get an answer. It seemed certain people had an agenda. The interesting thing was that the only people who went to such meetings were the councillors, a sovereign representative and idiots like me (who, I might add was on the committee). Apart from that nobody from the area turned up.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 7 2009, 09:50 PM

And that sums it up. If the local population don't bother or care, why should the authorities?

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 09:54 PM

You miss the point. People do care, but those committees were created to slap people on the back and say they were doing a good job, when they weren’t. A few controlled it for their own ends. People who turned up didn’t get a look in.

When it was originally set up people voiced their opinions and it was worth it... but things changed and people left. It is no good having a committee if the committees objective was different than the people it was trying to/ or was supposed to represent.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 7 2009, 10:26 PM

I'll put it another way. If the neighbourhood's constituents had the same 'enthusiasm' as you, would they all have just sloped off home? I doubt it. You would have all got together and taken on the task yourselves.

I have read and watched of several instances where a regular tenants of a housing estates got fed up of the inaction of the authorities and took on the drug dealers, etc, head on. The most successful action these people took was to gel the community together. When a community gets together, they can achieve so much more. The snag is, it takes effort, from everyone.

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 10:43 PM

I agree; the trouble is people want other people to do something. As you know – or maybe not – I often put my head above the parapet, sadly it is only my head that is doing it. To achieve anything you need more than one. I have got things done on my own, but those are small cases.

Concerning NAGs and such; people had their own agenda and there was no unity. Some tried to get me thrown off because I did stick my head above the parapet. Funnily enough it was a police officer who stuck up for me (so I stayed); but that was more to do with; it was better to have me inside the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 8 2009, 10:51 AM

Are your neighbours that apathetic? Are they not affected as well? Or do they not care that their lives are blighted by the minority?


Freudian slip, or what?

Posted by: GMR Aug 8 2009, 11:00 AM

I think there are only a few of us who actually care about the state of things, to be honest.

Freudian slip sounds about right; anyway, I’ve corrected it.

Posted by: user23 Aug 9 2009, 03:13 PM

You didn't answer the question. Why should the curfew just be for under 16s/18s?

Surely crime is committed by all age groups and if one wants "zero tolerance" then the curfew should cover everyone?

Posted by: Chesapeake Aug 9 2009, 04:26 PM

I am really disapointed that you changed it! I had a little glass of wine last night and was feeling just a little bit tipsy and when I read your post I laughed and laughed. Please return it to it's original glory? Pleeeeeeeease?

Posted by: JeffG Aug 9 2009, 04:34 PM

I disagree. Adults make their own decisions. Kids need parental control, which unfortunately is lacking in many cases. Many of the complaints about anti-social behaviour involve youngsters out at night when in any "respectable" household they wouldn't be.

I didn't think we were talking about zero tolerance in this thread (maybe I need to go back and re-read). That's another issue.

A curfew for everyone?? Would you honestly support that? That is really going down the police-state road.

Posted by: user23 Aug 9 2009, 04:49 PM

Do some adults not need some sort of control too? I would guess that the largest age demographic involved in crime would be 18-24 year olds.No, and I think we would be going down the police state road if we were to lock our children inside every night by order of the Government. I was just interested to see the reaction given that many who propose getting tough on crime or zero tolerance revise this view when their own rights start to be affected.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 9 2009, 07:22 PM

Are you suggesting that it would be a police state if 14 and 15 year-olds weren't allowed to be out at two o'clock in the morning? Which is what happens in some parts.

Posted by: user23 Aug 9 2009, 09:48 PM

No, I'm suggesting we would be going down the police state road (as you put it).

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both, as someone wiser than I once said.

Locking up 18 year olds for the "crime" of being young is not the answer to our problems.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 10 2009, 02:05 AM

Hang on a moment. We're talking about youths being at their homes in the small hours of the night not denying them the rights to go into the Kennet Centre on a Sturday lunchtime - hardly a 'liberty' being given up. This is hardly Rosa Parks territory here, just putting back a little common sense into the world and if some of these parents these days weren't too lazy to set some basic groundrules we wouldn't even need this discussion.

And if by 'locking up' you mean taking them back home where they should be in the first place, what's wrong with that?

Posted by: GMR Aug 10 2009, 09:53 AM

Maybe when user replied he was thinking of his own youth.

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 07:23 PM

We're taking about 17 year olds being locked up in their homes for nothing more than being 17 years old.

In this case they're old enough to drink, drive, fight for their country but not go out after 11pm?

That doesn't sound right to me and I'm sure would be counter productive.

Posted by: GMR Aug 10 2009, 07:30 PM

The trouble is a lot of them are not just being ordinary 17 year olds. They are encroaching on other people’s space; causing hurt and pain (i.e. anti social behaviour). That can’t be right. Your reply seems that you condone this sort of behaviour by giving an off the cuff remark “for nothing more than being 17 year olds”. That maybe acceptable to you, but not the majority of people; thank god. Also I would never allow my kids to behave in such a manner. I brought them up to respect other peoples space.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 10 2009, 07:31 PM

Since when?

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 07:39 PM

Since 1933.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 10 2009, 08:14 PM

If there is a curfew for under 18 year olds, then user23's statement is correct.

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 08:24 PM

Thanks for explaining it to him. A curfew for 17 year olds tars all young people of this age with the same brush and sends the message that we think they can't be trusted.

Anyone wishing this on all our 17 years olds should think, how would they you react if they were told that they were not trusted, because of the actions of someone else their age.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 10 2009, 08:51 PM

The last time I looked, the legal age for drinking was 18.

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 08:54 PM

Last time I looked the legal age for drinking alcohol was 5 years old, and over.

Posted by: GMR Aug 10 2009, 08:56 PM

Personally I'd have a curfew just for those that deserve one.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 10 2009, 09:01 PM

Under five years old

It is illegal to give an alcoholic drink to a child under five except under medical supervision in an emergency.

Under 16s

Children under 16 can go anywhere in a pub as long as they are supervised by an adult, but cannot have any alcoholic drinks.

However, some premises may be subject to licensing conditions preventing them from entering, such as pubs which have experienced problems with underage drinking.

16 or 17 years old

Young people aged 16 or 17 can drink beer, wine or cider with a meal if it is bought by an adult and they are accompanied by an adult. It is illegal for this age group to drink spirits in pubs even with a meal.

In Scotland, 16 and 17 year olds can buy beer, wine or cider so long as it's served with a meal and consumed in an area used solely for eating meals.

Under 18 years old

It is against the law for anyone under 18 to buy alcohol in a pub, off-licence, supermarket, or other outlet, or for anyone to buy alcohol for someone under 18 to consume in a pub or a public place.

Some towns and cities have local by-laws banning drinking alcohol in public.


Source: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Yourchildshealthandsafety/WorriedAbout/DG_10026210

Posted by: JeffG Aug 10 2009, 09:02 PM

Then why did you quote 17 earlier? You are nit-picking and know exactly what I mean. Are you suggesting that a group of 14 and 15 year olds gathered in a park after dark drinking alcohol are not breaking the law (because they are over 5)?

Edit: I hadn't seen Iommi's post before I posted this. It's news to me that under-18's can drink alcohol with a meal in a pub. I stand corrected.

Edit #2: I see there was a new Licensing Act in 2003. Presumably it all changed then.

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 09:09 PM

Because as I said, one can drive and fight for one's country at that age.

Imagine it, you are returning from service for your country perhaps in Iraq. Your reward is to be locked in your house after a certain time of night. Does that seem right to you?

Posted by: GMR Aug 10 2009, 09:32 PM

No... but that is the problem; the law doesn't always make sense and needs looking at. You also can't vote until you are 18, but, and as you pointed out, can go to Iraq and fight.

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 09:42 PM

But this is law you yourself have suggested.

The only way to rectify this would be to put the joining age for the Army up to 18.

Posted by: GMR Aug 10 2009, 09:46 PM

I didn’t suggest anything, I put is as a poser at the beginning of the thread to see if anybody would bite and we’d get a debate out of it.



I have no problems with this.

Posted by: user23 Aug 10 2009, 09:52 PM

Yes you did, you suggested a course of action, "should the police put out a curfew?"

Posted by: GMR Aug 10 2009, 09:59 PM

It was as a poser so we could debate the merits of it. However, if I knew somebody was going to come along and hold a gun over my head because of it I would have worded it differently. Somebody else on here accused you of nitpicking.

By the way; i am not saying i disagree with it either.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 11 2009, 08:39 AM

Please don't use this 'oh it was great when I was a kid' & 'things ain't what they used to be' ploy.

There was just as much anti social behaviour' in the 1920's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's as there is today. There has always been ASB. It is human nature.

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 09:44 AM

I totally agree with you that it is human nature. It is also human fact that kids need guidelines to point them in the right direction. I am sure I could have been a lot worse if it wasn’t for my parents, police and school showing me the errors of my ways if I should happen to overstepped the mark. And here lies the problem. Kids had boundaries back then and if they stepped over the line they knew the consequences of their action; there are no consequences for their actions nowadays.

It shouldn't be an excuse or an answer to say that there used to be anti-social behaviour in the past; so what? At least it was dealt with then and strictly. It is a bit like saying murder has always gone on so we should accept it; no we don’t accept it, we fight it with every means we’ve got.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 11 2009, 10:54 AM

Rubbish!!



Agreed.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 11 2009, 03:54 PM

Quick question for user23.

Is there any age you would consider a curfew? I initially posted 16/18 as these are natural ages, but do feel 16 to be a more appropriate age. As most of your debate points are centered around 17 year olds would you consider 15 and under? 13 and under? Or is any such regulation abhorrent?

Just curious.

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 06:25 PM

Good question; will be interesting to see what he says.

Posted by: Belinda Aug 12 2009, 05:31 PM

Firstly, let me say right off that I don't condone yobbish, anti-social behaviour - whatever age the yobs are. And I think it's good to discuss how it might be managed/prevented/punished. However, I have some practical questions in relation to the implementation of a curfew.

1) Should a curfew be applied to all kids under a given age, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong?

• Some young people will have jobs that require them to work unsocial hours which might be covered by a curfew period (paper round, retail, hospitals, baby sitting, etc). Would they be exempt?
• If so how would this be proved their exemption?
• There are probably many other legitimate circumstances when a young person may be out (and this would be dependent on the hour set for the curfew)

2) Suppose a curfew were imposed - for whatever age limit - how would this be enforced?

• Would the police/PCSO's run patrols around all the streets/parks/woods/etc with vans?
• Would they take the kids directly back home or book them through the police station?
• If they take them home, would they hand them over to parents or drop them at the door?
• What kind of increase in resources would be required to effectively achieve all this?
• Where would the money come from?

3) Would there be some penalty for the parents of kids found breaking the curfew?

• How would this be administered? (on the spot fines, tickets, option to contest in court, etc)
• What would be the impact of this financially on the police/court services/etc?
• What happens if the fines aren't paid? Who will chase the debt? Will there be further penalties?
• Would this be a criminal offence or a civil infringement?

4) Should curfews be applied only when an offence is committed?

I may be wrong, but I thought this was already an option through the existing court system. I seem to recall reading about a young lad (13/14?) who consistently broke his curfew despite being ankle tagged.

Posted by: regor Aug 12 2009, 05:39 PM

Belinda, congratulations.

In one posting you have asked all the questions that have been studiously ignored since the start of this topic.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 07:00 PM

Hi Belinda, it is always nice to see an intelligent mind on here and good points.

Posted by: user23 Aug 12 2009, 09:22 PM

Great post Belinda, let's see if those who want to lock up our kids can answer any of your points.

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 12 2009, 09:36 PM

Like your post Belinda.

If someone wanted to break a curfew they would. Curfews to some people would be like ASBO's are to some now, just something else to break.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 09:42 PM

Yes, I think it was a well though out post, well done Belinda. This debate on this one point raises the issue that affects many problems we believe we have in society.

No one is owed a living, despite recent governments making people feel that this is not the case. If there is a problem in society, it is up to every one to pull together and sort it out. Not just politicians, not just police, not just the judiciary, not just the NHS, the social services, etc.

This is what Thatcher meant when she made that infamous and often misunderstood 'no such thing as society' remark.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 13 2009, 12:42 AM

you seem to be negatin' yourself all in one post. 10/10

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 13 2009, 12:49 AM

Looks like I'll have to go delvinbg in the PRO again.
kids have boundaries today. Your basket swinging tot is a case in point.
7


maybe if we stopped being so critical??

Posted by: GMR Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM

That is one example... and the only one I could find. The majority of kids don't have boundaries nowadays.

If we weren't so critical we'd have no forums.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 13 2009, 11:54 AM

No, it was two different answers to two different statements.

0/10