Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Summer is here and the little darlings have hatched!!
Posted by: x2lls Jun 12 2010, 03:13 PM
Unfortunately, as we have become accustomed to over the years, we are yet again privileged to experience the phenomena of drunkas pratas.
last night at around midnight we were presented with a group of four totally ratted mid teens decorating the road with wonderful green Stella glass, shouting at each other and generally doing what they obviously do best. Sadly, my other half witnessed it, as did a few of our neighbours, but I was asleep. I suspect she didn't wake me because she didn't want to visit me in clink.
The morons addressed themselves as 'Marie or Maria', Jordan, Simon and Paul.
So, Marie/Maria(I do hope you can today walk straight), Jordan, Simon and Paul, thank you for providing us with your presence.
Apparently, at around 07:00 this morning, there was a group of drunken kids outside the One Stop in Avon Way. Quite possibly the same individuals.
Any of you live nearby Kiln Road/Stoney Lane area and have the same trouble?
Posted by: GMR Jun 12 2010, 05:06 PM
last night at around midnight we were presented with a group of four totally ratted mid teens decorating the road with wonderful green Stella glass, shouting at each other and generally doing what they obviously do best. Sadly, my other half witnessed it, as did a few of our neighbours, but I was asleep. I suspect she didn't wake me because she didn't want to visit me in clink.
The morons addressed themselves as 'Marie or Maria', Jordan, Simon and Paul.
So, Marie/Maria(I do hope you can today walk straight), Jordan, Simon and Paul, thank you for providing us with your presence.
Apparently, at around 07:00 this morning, there was a group of drunken kids outside the One Stop in Avon Way. Quite possibly the same individuals.
Any of you live nearby Kiln Road/Stoney Lane area and have the same trouble?
Yes, and yes... and the time but it is a waste of time telling the police as they aren't interested. If I had a pound for every time those kids - same kids - caused trouble i'd be a millionaire.
I'll give you an example; near the community centre kids smashed a window of a house. The man chased them - while his wife called the police - and he caught one of them. But the police refused to do anything because it will give them a bad start in life. Their policy, according to the police officer, is work with the kids... not punish them. It is already known on the estate that the police have such a policy and this has caused crime to increase. And who can blame the kids? If they know they will get of Scot free... then why not!?
Posted by: JeffG Jun 12 2010, 05:33 PM
If that is so, then I am truly gobsmacked, and I sympathise with you and your neighbours. Is their right to run riot more important than your right to a peaceful crime-free existence?
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 12 2010, 05:56 PM
I'll give you an example; near the community centre kids smashed a window of a house. The man chased them - while his wife called the police - and he caught one of them. But the police refused to do anything because it will give them a bad start in life. Their policy, according to the police officer, is work with the kids... not punish them. It is already known on the estate that the police have such a policy and this has caused crime to increase. And who can blame the kids? If they know they will get of Scot free... then why not!?
New one on me if they commit the crime they should be arrested but then I don't work within a neighbourhood team or youth team.
Posted by: GMR Jun 12 2010, 06:02 PM
Well, I was quite shocked when I heard it.... and you can guess what the person thought.
They were either 15 or under.
Posted by: GMR Jun 12 2010, 06:05 PM
That is what I was told, and I know the person was livid and furious. I actually told him to take it further. But what is the point?
Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2010, 06:07 PM
That's a great shame then. It really is just a minority and they are apparently known but we have to keep the 'Youth Workers' in business don't we? Is it thinking the unthinkable to suggest we get rid of all the fads and fancy ideas and go back to simple straightforward Policing? Lets also get rid of the idea that paid officials can some how make communities better and safer. Introduce a harsh and therefore inexpensive custody regime and we might start getting somewhere again.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 12 2010, 10:21 PM
GMR, why don't you email Richard Benyon with the facts? He always seems to be pretty pro-active in constituency matters, and seems to get things done.
(delay to post while cat chases the cursor...) 
Posted by: GMR Jun 12 2010, 10:27 PM
(delay to post while cat chases the cursor...)
If it was me I would... but it wasn't, so I can't really interfere... however, I will talk to the person concerned. Personally I wouldn't ignore it, myself. It wouldn't be the first time I've made my concerns official.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2010, 10:40 PM
Can understand GMRs reluctance. This has been going on for ages and the 'powers that be' do know and have been told many times. Like I mentioned earlier - vested interests.
Posted by: x2lls Jun 12 2010, 11:27 PM
I'm sure with some thought and community spirit, the issue to which I refer could be dealt with successfully and within the law.
If only the whole street was prepared to come out at the time of any trouble to show the worthless scum that we mean business. (Didn't it happen recently with a so-called problem family)? Call the police and detain the offenders until officers arrive. Even if they managed to escape, they would certainly think twice before reoffending.
It wasn't too long ago that the bus service was disrupted due to stones being thrown. Why on earth didn't the police do something which to me was a very simple solution. Have police on board, hidden from view, or disguised as ordinary passengers. When the bus got attacked, stop the bus and give the little $hits the fright of their lives...
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 08:49 AM
It is not about 'my reluctance' but it had nothing to do with me (the incident didn't happened to me), however, through experience I do think it is a waste of time reporting things to the police because they don't do anything. They just come and take notes and then disappear. The amount of times I've reported things and nothing has happened.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 08:52 AM
That has been tried and frowned upon by the police. We are told not to interfere, that we should go to them with any problems. You then go to them and they don't do anything. People have lost confidence our Newbury police force. I know a lot of people on the estate who have told me that they don't bother reporting problems anymore.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 13 2010, 09:04 AM
People should report, regardless of the immediate, or apparent response. If you don't report, then nothing will happen. If you do, then it might.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 09:09 AM
'Might' being the operative word. But that shouldn't be the case. People report things for a reason.... not so that something 'might' happen. I always report things; I've seen damage being done etc, but nothing.
Posted by: x2lls Jun 13 2010, 09:14 AM
I agree, we should report EVERY case. Sadly, when I asked the girl in OneStop if a report had been made, the reply was, 'what's the point'?
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 09:47 AM
It is ok you saying 'report EVERY case' but the girl is right. 'What is the point?' I've reported many times and not once was anything done. Granted in one case the lad got a ticking off, but he carried on his merry ways.
The kids are strengthened by the police inaction. They feel omnipotent and just carry on. A lad near me has been consistently reported over the last 10 years and all the ticking off and warnings has never deterred him. In fact it has given him strength. As the girl in the shop said 'what is the point?' My son and daughter both work in shops, my daughter is an assistant manager and they constantly report crimes but nothing is none. They've got to a point of 'what is the point'.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 13 2010, 10:21 AM
Police do tend to act if a pattern forms, this is aided by people reporting crime.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 10:32 AM
Shouldn't they act irrespective of any patterns? Shouldn't they put the welfare of peoples interests first, before trying to find patterns? However, I am pleased that by reporting crimes it helps their graphs, sometimes we can be such an ungrateful lot!
Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2010, 10:40 AM
Regrettably they don't - that's what the other posts are demonstrating. Some do report all the time but they might as well save thier effort NOTHING happens! Yes, OK the odd incident might get sorted - but then its back. As for patterns, stones at busses, demolishing garden walls, drunken behaviour - that's not the sort of pattern that comes out in crime stats. However, what does happen when people complain is the investment in community protection goes up; so there is now a considerable amount spent on Youth Services and so on. What a waste! Rather than coming out with the usual mantras 'you must report it' or 'get the whole street out' (yes, that's happened tiwce to my knowledge in Newbury) - lets look again, and do something orginal. So, can't see anything wrong with introducing a harsh, healthy low cost penal regime and switch off all the resource diverted to community protection - in whatever guise. Frankly, we need a Police force that is respected rather than liked.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 13 2010, 12:08 PM
Both your experiences are not consistent with mine. My bets mate had a problem like that described, and in conjunction with the police, it got sorted, at least to a manageable level.
It is not un-obviousness that some of the language used here is designed to sponsor a response. The problem with that, is that it could have the 'cry wolf' effect.
Turning the place into a police state will have its unexpected consequence. I do, however, fully applaud the actions of 'The Ave', but I saw that more of a Housing Association problem, rather than the police.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2010, 12:23 PM
I don’t think anyone is suggesting a police state. Reading this thread, and the many others of a similar nature suggest to me at least, that anti social behaviour is not being dealt with efficiently or effectively. I'd agree about crying wolf - if I didn't see wolves myself. Yes, I acknowledge there are examples, and I’ve seen some myself where the Police response to is fast effective.
However, that solves point solutions – rather like paracetamol giving relief to a headache; it doesn’t cure the underlying problem. Far from suggesting more Police and more spending on penal and community corrective actions I’m suggesting rolling back the State; letting the Police just do the job they are paid for, no more no less.
Having a punishment regime in place that we respect and so act as a true deterrent would be far more effective. That isn’t police state – although how we do things today is getting that way – read Orwell’s 1984!
I've never subscribed to the view that a Housing Association is in some way responsible for its tenants' behaviour - that really is Police state! Its also socially divisive; for instance, if I was causing trouble could my Building Society be expected to step in?
Finally, I'm posting as one who just a few years back passionately believed in community policing and the exciting possibilities that might develop if communities could work together. Trying to turn theory into practice has left me totally disillusioned - vested interests again I'm afraid!
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 12:40 PM
I am pleased for your 'mate' but that is not my experience. Maybe it depends on where you live. I can only speak for my area. Maybe I should move to where you friend lives so that I can live in an area where the police force protects its citizens…
'Sponsor' a response from whom? Certainly not the police.... if you mean from other members on here? Isn't that what a forum is for? To get different views, to create a debate and learn from each other etc? Aren't forums about sharing concerns and trying to work out a solution, if possible? Or have they now been taken over by the thought police; is that is now prohibited?
Nobody wants a police state, and I would be one of the first to complaint if such a thing was put into motion. However, want the citizens do want – expect – is for action to be taken if a crime did take place. Doing nothing doesn't benefit anybody, apart from those that see crime as worthwhile because nobody does anything to stop them.
As for the 'Housing association' I agree (both should be responsible) but they won't do anything either. They refer you to the police, the police refer you to your housing officer and so it goes. If the housing association does anything it is a long blown out affair, which could take years (I know I've gone through it); in the end you are beaten.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 13 2010, 01:05 PM
If that is an option for you, then I'm surprised you don't. For many people it's not an option, and they are being let down.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 01:42 PM
I was being ironic. It isn't an option.
Posted by: spartacus Jun 13 2010, 03:10 PM
They were 'out' in my road in Thatcham last night too......I ended up rushing downstairs, into the back garden and jumping over my back wall to give them a bollocking..... drink flourishes the bravado and they thought they could get away it. They sort of sobered up and became apologetic when confronted with a 'Mr Angry' who looked like he was going to march them off to their parents.... (probably not bad kids normally....)
As for general police attitudes locally: (This genuinely happened approx one year back to a work colleague)
Sitting in front room watching TV, front door opens and someone comes in house and goes upstairs. Colleague thinks nothing of it as assumes it was his son. 5 mins later door opens again. This time his son walks in .....just as the previous 'person entering' is coming down the stairs with a 'swag bag'. Cue a bit of a scrap at the bottom of the stairs. Resulted in dad and son sitting on burglar and phoning police.
Dad got through to TVP call centre. Call centre said. "no police in the area, I advise you to release the burglar in case something happens"
Colleague is ex police! Got into an argument with Call Centre about this new 'procedure'.... Call Centre put phone down on him!
He calls Call Centre again. This time asks to speak to the organ grinders rather than the monkeys and gets to speak to the OIC who turns out to be one of his exPCs. Expalins situation and fact that the burglar is still being sat on by son....
Is informed that the unifromed police are actually in the area on an operation looking for this burglar.... 2 mins later, uniformed plod burst through the door and arrest the burglar...
You couldn't make it up!!
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 03:26 PM
As for general police attitudes locally: (This genuinely happened approx one year back to a work colleague)
Sitting in front room watching TV, front door opens and someone comes in house and goes upstairs. Colleague thinks nothing of it as assumes it was his son. 5 mins later door opens again. This time his son walks in .....just as the previous 'person entering' is coming down the stairs with a 'swag bag'. Cue a bit of a scrap at the bottom of the stairs. Resulted in dad and son sitting on burglar and phoning police.
Dad got through to TVP call centre. Call centre said. "no police in the area, I advise you to release the burglar in case something happens"
Colleague is ex police! Got into an argument with Call Centre about this new 'procedure'.... Call Centre put phone down on him!
He calls Call Centre again. This time asks to speak to the organ grinders rather than the monkeys and gets to speak to the OIC who turns out to be one of his exPCs. Expalins situation and fact that the burglar is still being sat on by son....
Is informed that the unifromed police are actually in the area on an operation looking for this burglar.... 2 mins later, uniformed plod burst through the door and arrest the burglar...
You couldn't make it up!!
I think the police gave that man excellent advice; ‘release the thief’. You’ve got to remember that criminals are a protected species and have human rights. That person who owned the house was nothing; expendable. Valueless. I am pleased to see that the police got their priorities right. We are a caring society, just not against the victims of crime.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 13 2010, 03:28 PM
Hilarious!
In view of the rest of this thread, perhaps the Tories' idea for an elected police supremo isn't such a bad idea after all.
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 13 2010, 03:39 PM
In view of the rest of this thread, perhaps the Tories' idea for an elected police supremo isn't such a bad idea after all.
Lest we not forget that the majority of policies practisied by the police are introduced by the government not always the police chief!! It's easy to blame the police for everything because they are the ones that preform these roles.
On the issue of reporting it was mentioned in the ASB thread but I will say it again. Weather you agree or not with ABC or ASB orders the only way they get issued is with persistant and continuing evidence that an individual is causing problems. The only way that evidence can be obtained is by people reporting things.
Also as someone else said if you don't report a problem then no one else knows there's a problem, the police don't have crystal balls.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 04:14 PM
But what is the point in reporting something if nothing happens? The best I've got is a police officer come out, take notes and warned the culprit. They then carried on. What is the point of that? The public report crimes because they are concerned and want action to be taken. Not so that you just have something to write down in your notebook (if one is lucky enough to get a policeman who will writes it down).
Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2010, 04:16 PM
That's the only way today - simply keep reporting. Again, this is just a paracetamol; deals with the symptom and not the cause. Certainly agree that an elected Police supremo might be of some use but only if two conditions existed. First, they were permitted to do the job. Policing and nothing else. That means no trying to sort out the woes of the community; no matter how laudible that might seem. it is not their job. Second, a penal regime that was effective primarily as a deterrent. This would mean that the 'persistance' would be the other side of the fence. That is, offend and be punished, do it again and get more punishment, do it again, still more. If the punishment was seen to be harsh and tough, only an idiot would continue. Harsh and tough does not mean inhuman should anyone harbour such thoughts. Simple, straightforward, and a far lower community cost.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 13 2010, 04:34 PM
ASB is dealt with by communities, not by the old beak. As for HA responsibilities, if they followed their own tenets, they'd get rid of problem tenants sooner. As for harsh penalties, that might help against the more rational members of the parish, but not against the idiots you are actually speaking about.
Posted by: urZah Jun 13 2010, 05:07 PM
But what is the point? wah wah wah.
Anyone that is so apathetic they won't even try anymore, can't complain.
In the same way that if you don't vote, you can't complain about the Government, if you don't report a problem, you can't complain that it is still there.
Now I do fully apreciate that people do have bad experiences when reporting problems such as this, but if that small cry for help turns to silence, then the Police are never going to give a crap and so can't be scapegoated.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 05:17 PM
Anyone that is so apathetic they won't even try anymore, can't complain.
In the same way that if you don't vote, you can't complain about the Government, if you don't report a problem, you can't complain that it is still there.
Now I do fully apreciate that people do have bad experiences when reporting problems such as this, but if that small cry for help turns to silence, then the Police are never going to give a crap and so can't be scapegoated.
The trouble is we do report, so we have a right to complain. We are just saying 'what is the point?' not we are not reporting.
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 13 2010, 05:18 PM
Kids causing a problem was what the tread was about was it not. Not actually the actions of the police that some want to digrerss to again!!
Start with the route cause, my opinion is that's the parents. I mean look around you in the supermarket, see a kid mouthing off then look for it's parent its usually obvious where they get it from! Sorry if that upsets some!
Ok so all kids go through a delinquent stage (i did) but most from good back grounds will grow out of it, learn right from wrong.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 13 2010, 06:02 PM
The police will do anything to get out of taking action, for all sorts of reasons. They need as much pressure put on them as possible, whether this comes from reporting every crime, pushing the government, complaining to the chiefs themselves or even joining NAGS and other groups.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2010, 06:20 PM
And part of the pressure on the Police just to 'do Policing' and nothing else would be to remove all the excuses and diversions. For the past 75 odd years we've suffered from the politicall;y motivated sophisticated social engineers who see responsibility for bad behaviour as that of anyone other than the culprit. Let’s turn the clock back shall we, because it certainly worked before. Taking responsibility does mean parents as well – who these days have simply abdicated theirs to the willing hands in Schools, Welfare associations and even landlords. I think you’ll find a more honest and straightforward regime would be well understood – even by the idiots causing most of the trouble; there are sufficient models worldwide to demonstrate that. Of course such action will result in hails of angush, not from the deviants, but from those likely to loose the comfort of a career; where results aren't measured and failure doesn't matter.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 13 2010, 07:14 PM
Of course it's the parents' fault - no one is going to disagree with that. It's nothing to do with whether someone's background is deprived or not, either - it's all down to attitude and whether the parents care or not. I happen to know a large family not far from me who are not well off, but who are model kids because they have good parents.
But if the parents don't do their job, who is to take over?
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 07:39 PM
Start with the route cause, my opinion is that's the parents. I mean look around you in the supermarket, see a kid mouthing off then look for it's parent its usually obvious where they get it from! Sorry if that upsets some!
Ok so all kids go through a delinquent stage (i did) but most from good back grounds will grow out of it, learn right from wrong.
I agree that parents should take action, but they don’t and if they don’t then somebody else should step in.
As for kids causing trouble; we had a case in England where a mother and daughter died – committed suicide - because the police didn’t do anything. And that wasn’t a one of. And it was reported many times, but the police still did nothing.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2010, 07:50 PM
I think we are gradually coming to realise that in some circumstances children may not be better off with their natural family. That old mantra about keeping families together at all costs doesn't stand close scrutiny. Particularly in the light of the several very serious failures which have hit thre press inrecent times. The Baby P case for instance. If a less tolerant regime had been in place, the parents would have been removed from the scene well before and the child in proper care. A fine line admitted. The knowledge that this might happen is also has a good deterent effect - to those it doesn't, well suffer the consequences but at least the child is spared.
Posted by: Jayjay Jun 13 2010, 08:45 PM
GMR posted that these trouble makers are around 15 years old. Therefore they are the responsibility of their parents. Insisting the authorities take control of these kids rather than the parents is suggesting a police state. Can the parents be charged with child neglect for allowing drunken, underage kids to roam the streets at midnight?
Posted by: Strafin Jun 13 2010, 08:51 PM
The age of criminal responsibility is ten though.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 13 2010, 09:15 PM
What can happen is HAs can start threatening and actually kicking idiot families out that cause trouble.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2010, 09:37 PM
Technically yes. Perhaps the Police should try. Indeed, that would be the sort of case I'd turn up to see what the Magistrates actually did. Not too impressed with their record of late. About 18 months back an under aged girl was in front of them (again) for, if I recall properly taking and driving a car. Anyway, she became abusive and threw a jug of water at the bench. Reports suggested she was egged on by her parents who apparently joined in. To most, a clear case of contempt, where some cooling off in custody was properly warranted. Of course that didn't happen because 'we understand......' - to be frank I didn't understand and still don't understand why there was not a firm and strong response.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 09:45 PM
I agree that the parents should be held over for their child's criminality. However, the police do have a responsibility if kids run riot and that has nothing to do with a police state.
Posted by: GMR Jun 13 2010, 09:48 PM
That is true, but they have to go through the courts first and it is not that easy. They have to have years of troubles and only as the last resort will the courts act.
We have a family near us that have been causing trouble for 15 years and Sovereign won't act. Just keep giving them visits, warning etc.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 13 2010, 10:03 PM
Young people, but not all of them and it's the few that give the majority a bad name are mouthy, sullen, inarticulate and cannot use five words withot at least two being four letter swear words. Some progress to the type of behaviour that has been described on here.
Why, we ask and the answer is that they know that they are above the law, that nobody can enforce discipline on them and this includes teachers and parents. Any force used to control their disgusting behaviour even if it's on the part of a concerned parent will be met with retribution from the law who seem very keen to uphold the rights of transgressors.
What to do, Use an enforceable three strike system.
Strike one. A trip to the police station with a parent and given a conditional, informal but recorded warning
Strike two. As above but under an official warning and advised last chance.
Strike three. Removed from parental care for a three week stint at brat camp, the staff there having the special ability to use reasonable controls over the brats to ensure the three weeks becomes total misery.
After that strike four. Well use your imagination, I'm stumped.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 13 2010, 10:10 PM
I realise that, but in my view that is one of the problems, HAs and courts not acting soon enough. Of course, if they do get the boot, they will have to go somewhere!
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 06:44 AM
March 2006 to be precise, she was sent down which was the reason for her outburst!
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 14 2010, 07:56 AM
I does not matter a jot who is at fault or who is responsible for a childs misbehaviour. The fact is that we a have right to live our lives free of crime and anti social behaviour and ASB is a crime. The police have a duty to protect us from this crime and if they are not responding then they are not adhereing to the contract that they are employed by. They are there to serve you, the public.
Every instance of police non-response must be sent to Richard Benyon.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2010, 08:46 AM
But that is still no excuse, a reason may be. Similarly, it does not excuse the behaviour of her parents. So I still fail to understand why the Magistrates chose not to take rather more appropriate action. Not doing so sent out wholly the wrong message. This was supposed to be a Court of law; not a social work convention.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 14 2010, 09:26 AM
OTE said that she should have been given custody for her actions (rightly), but that she wasn't.
ossy1 said that she was in fact sent down.
So which one of you is right? Are you still saying OTE that the court didn't take appropriate action?
(Confused)
Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2010, 02:29 PM
ossy1 said that she was in fact sent down.
So which one of you is right? Are you still saying OTE that the court didn't take appropriate action?
(Confused)
The court disposed of the actions she was charged with BUT didn't (in my view) deal with the clear contempt from her and her parents - an offence that does carry custodial penalties.
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 02:30 PM
[quote name='JeffG' date='Jun 14 2010, 10:26 AM' post='18696']
OTE said that she should have been given custody for her actions (rightly), but that she wasn't.
ossy1 said that she was in fact sent down.
So which one of you is right? Are you still saying OTE that the court didn't take appropriate action?
(Confused)
[/quote
In the article i read she was sent down as a result of the offence for which she was appearing that is why she threw a strop.
It didnt say what further sentence she received as a result of her actions.
I'd post a link but its beyond my computer capability's. You can searh old news reports here or google britains youngest drink driver.
She was in contempt of court but i'd have to wonder the point of taking her to the cells for it when she's already going to the cells??
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 04:43 PM
I agree, sadly once the Housing authorities start investigating it could take years. While all this is happening people are suffering.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 04:44 PM
Every instance of police non-response must be sent to Richard Benyon.
I agree totally.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2010, 06:41 PM
......She was in contempt of court but i'd have to wonder the point of taking her to the cells for it when she's already going to the cells??
[/quote]
Contempt used to and I suspect still does mean custody until you have purged your contempt; in other words shown remorse and started to pay some respect. It should have been in addition to any other punishment she'd been given. Wholly inappropriate to suggest she was 'just having a strop' - her Solicitor, if not her parents should have told her of the consequences of bad behaviour in Court. Now of course, doing nothing means that behaviour is reinforced - so to her, it must be OK. Worth remembering that Solicitors are officers of the supreme court to whom they have a primary duty.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 06:59 PM
How could they do that? If I remember correctly they encouraged her. Her parents said that she was ‘posh’. With that sort of mentality the parents were not in a fit state to teach her anything. That is why the state must takeover in certain cases.
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 07:01 PM
Contempt used to and I suspect still does mean custody until you have purged your contempt; in other words shown remorse and started to pay some respect. It should have been in addition to any other punishment she'd been given. Wholly inappropriate to suggest she was 'just having a strop' - her Solicitor, if not her parents should have told her of the consequences of bad behaviour in Court. Now of course, doing nothing means that behaviour is reinforced - so to her, it must be OK. Worth remembering that Solicitors are officers of the supreme court to whom they have a primary duty.
Gosh some people really need to stop taking life so seriously, having a strop was a turn of phrase!! However again if you read the article she was taken to custody and returned before the court later that day where she apologised. So what you are suggesting should have happened did in fact happen.
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381245/Drink-drive-girl-14-rampages-court.html"]
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 07:01 PM
Someone please tell me how to post a live link.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 07:09 PM
Why has your link got brackets ([]) around it? You just need to copy and past from the address bar and you've got it.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 07:13 PM
This is a serious debate and the phraseology you use will be taken seriously. Unless you state otherwise how do we know what you meant? If you are joking try using a smillies to show your intentions, otherwise we will take what you say at face value (i.e. seriously).
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 07:20 PM
I've done the link for you Ozzy1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381245/Drink-drive-girl-14-rampages-court.html
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 07:27 PM
Thanks. But I really don't take internet forums that seriously. If people want to debate things seriously they should do it in open not hidden behind a computer and where things might happen as a result. But then this stems from the very things you discuss, society now does now tolerate open debate in a place where people can actually see each other. People prefer anonimity!
Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2010, 07:31 PM
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381245/Drink-drive-girl-14-rampages-court.html"]
Frankly one of the reasons why we are in the state we are today is because certain people don't take things seriously. In the circumstances of a court hearing 'having a strop' isn't a turn of phrase - sorry Court is supposed to be a serious business. OK she apologised later but no penalty? This is one of those circumstances when sorry simply isn't enough. Some hours community service at least might have been appropriate. Indeed, re reading the report, I am very surprised that the parents were still at liberty. Perhaps the option GMR suggested would also have been appropriate.
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 07:36 PM
I disagree I think some of todays issues are because things are taken to seriously, ( not this incident). Bit difficult to explain in words so we will have to agree to disagree.
As someone here previously said it is up to communities to tackle ASB but where are these communities! How many people can say they are on speaking terms with most of their neighbours like we used to. Years ago if someones kid was being a nuisance you could tell them off without getting a mouthful from the parents now they would be on your doorstep shouting the odds at you.
This is where society has let it's self down. We now live in a world of me me me. Yes there are some good soles left but what thanks do they get!
Posted by: Iommi Jun 14 2010, 07:36 PM
I'm not sure being in person or on an Internet forum makes any difference. It is the integrity of the information that is important. Some of us have been in face to face debates, I know GMR has, often. The difference is that people tend to be politer in person, but I prefer to use the computer to communicate, so that I might compose myself better. Debating in public merely empowers those that are confident public speakers, but mutes those that might be more timid.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 07:37 PM
And where do you expect people to go to debate in the open, that isn't controlled? You may not take is seriously but people do. It also doesn't matter whether you see the person or not, it is the words that are important/ what they say. Would it really make a difference if you knew the person? And out in the open doesn't necessarily mean you will know them? Or was your point, being a police officer, that you can identify the person and if need be make a note about the 'suspect' for future reference; as one would do in a police state. If you really want to know who they are you could request the NWN give you that information so that you could make a visit; hopefully they won't criticise the police again.
Posted by: ossy1 Jun 14 2010, 07:47 PM
No my point was exactly what you have done, judged someone because of what they have written! In person you get a better understanding of a person rather than make your mind up by what they write when actually some people do not communicate well in written form.
I have had numerous arguements with my other half because of text messages that have been understood. It's the same principle.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 07:59 PM
I have had numerous arguements with my other half because of text messages that have been understood. It's the same principle.
The trouble is we don’t have that facility to talk freely in public. Can you name a place that we can speak freely and uninterrupted; face to face? I’ve been on many committees where the chairman has stopped or controlled what the speaker wanted to express. Unfortunately or fortunately forums, blogs etc are the only free way a normal citizen can voice their concerns. Even newspapers control what letters go into their pages.
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 14 2010, 08:04 PM
When posting your reply place the cursor at the position you want to place the link.
Click on the "Insert Link" button (7th from left, second row).
Where it says "Please enter the full URL" copy and paste the url from the page you want to link to in here.
Click "OK"
Where it says "Please enter the title for this item" you can put any text you want here and it will be reproduced in the post.
Click "OK" again and the link will be inserted in your post.
It will look different in the edit text to how it will appear in the final post
Try not to edit it in text after that or it will be messed up.
You can always preview before you finally post to ensure you have got it right.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 14 2010, 08:17 PM
Years ago, you could give them a clip round the ear!
(And that's what the local bobby on the beat would have done. Evenin' all!)
Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2010, 08:41 PM
I've never been convinced that there was once a golden age of 'community'. OK war time might have engendered some community spirit, but against a common threat. I would agree that in the past, people were much more willing to speak out – directly, to the local school, to the Police. All of whom did something about it. Respect had a great deal to do with it; people respected the law, their neighbours, their elders. Age makes me somewhat jaundiced, but having been involved in attempts to kick start community action unless it’s stifled by local politics it dies through lack of interest. The initiatives I’ve seen have been top down – where things are being done to people rather than for. Perhaps such initiatives would succeed if only ‘the powers that be’ chose to listen.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 14 2010, 08:49 PM
I think there was more of a community spirit back when I was a lad. We knew everyone up our street. There was also anti social behaviour. This included scrumping, smashing windows in the many derelict houses and business units, those loud car air horns, knock out ginger, deliberately winding up grown-ups you knew would take the bait. Underage drinking from 'friendly' off sales, etc. The big difference these days is that we are the 'grown ups'.
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 08:49 PM
That was because years ago the law meant something. Now the kids, parents, crooks know that they have the whip hand and you won’t do anything to curtail them. Respect comes at a price, at the moment you, the police, haven’t got it. Even the good honest respectful citizen has lost respect in the police. What is left?
Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2010, 08:54 PM
Yes, but even back then the kids still had respect. Kids caused trouble, but they never messed on their own doorstep. Nowadays they’ve lost that community respect. Also; back then when you had anti –social behaviour you knew that if you got caught you were in for it; either from the school, parents, or the police. Now nobody will touch you so that adds to one’s own self importance/ omnipotence. The more you push, and nobody pushes back, the more you try to go all the way.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2010, 09:53 PM
That was because years ago the law meant something. Now the kids, parents, crooks know that they have the whip hand and you won’t do anything to curtail them. Respect comes at a price, at the moment you, the police, haven’t got it. Even the good honest respectful citizen has lost respect in the police. What is left?
This about sums it up - but delete Police and add authority instead. When even most of the law makers are simply in it for what they can make what can we expect? Good example to demonstrate. There was a recent report in national press where a jobbing builder was gaoled for extorting money out of OAPs - charging big sums for jobs that didn't need doing. Quite right too. However, what happens to people who steal the OAPs whole pension? You know, where they lost it because of bad investments etc. etc. - well they get honours and a massive pension for themselves. So what do we expect - it is everyone for themselves, Mrs T was right, there is no such thing as society.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 15 2010, 06:39 PM
Why are you using large purple typeface. Are you shouting or insisting on getting your point across.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2010, 07:26 PM
Apart from his colour he is no different to the rest of us.
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 08:08 PM
First of me it is not large to me (it is normal size), and if I was SHOUTING IT WOULD BE IN CAPITALS (like this). As for the colour; that is the way it comes out. As for getting my point across; no matter what colour, size or font it is (I use) the wording still sounds the same.
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 08:09 PM
He’s probably got his computer set at large font.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 15 2010, 08:31 PM
It "comes out" that colour because you have put [color="#7030a0" ] tags round it.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 15 2010, 08:34 PM
On this and ther forums GMR, you have changed your font and colour. I'm quite sure it's not by accident, I don't really see it as a big deal though, it's personalisation.
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 08:36 PM
Actually I haven't. There are other ways other than what you have stated. If I am writing something long I usually write in word and transfer it over and it comes out like that. Don't always presume the obvious. I am not sure, and I could be wrong, but the text/ font that comes out isn't on here.
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 08:38 PM
I haven’t changed it on here. It is as I said. you try to duplicate this font on here. You can't (I don't think)
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 08:39 PM
I repeat, I haven't. However, I have transferred it over from word. You try to duplicate the font then.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 15 2010, 08:43 PM
What like this, you mean?
Posted by: Strafin Jun 15 2010, 08:45 PM
Am I close??
Posted by: Strafin Jun 15 2010, 08:46 PM
Got it now!
Posted by: JeffG Jun 15 2010, 08:50 PM
... but no cigar.
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 09:56 PM
Whether you've got it or not doesn't change what I said. But I didn’t do it on this forum though.
It is amazing how we can debate something so stupid, but if it makes you happy.... why not!? i am all for it.
Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2010, 09:58 PM
Why can’t he have a cigar? Monica Lewinski is doing a special offer this week. According to her they taste ‘sooooooooo gooooooood!’ Well, at least Bill Clinton thinks so.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 16 2010, 02:32 PM
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/close,_but_no_cigar
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 16 2010, 04:53 PM
Whether you've got it or not doesn't change what I said. But I didn’t do it on this forum though.
It is amazing how we can debate something so stupid, but if it makes you happy.... why not!? i am all for it.
Didn't really need a debate but there you go...You be different.
Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2010, 05:00 PM
Fascinating.
Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2010, 05:03 PM
Are you suggesting that we all should be the same? Like the Borg; assimilated, and part of a collective? We are all individuals and our uniqueness should shine through. That is the problem with society; they want conformity, manipulation and control.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 16 2010, 07:18 PM
Rest assured GMR - you are unique; there is no doubt!
Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2010, 07:36 PM
I know that..... the problem is just trying to convince the others
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)