Summer is here and the little darlings have hatched!! Options

[Jayjay]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting a police state......

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?

[Strafin]

The age of criminal responsibility is ten though.

[Iommi]

What can happen is HAs can start threatening and actually kicking idiot families out that cause trouble.

[On the edge]

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?

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.

[GMR]

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?

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.

[GMR]

What can happen is HAs can start threatening and actually kicking idiot families out that cause trouble.

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.

[Exhausted]

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.

[Iommi]

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.

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!

[ossy1]

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.

March 2006 to be precise, she was sent down which was the reason for her outburst!

[Bloggo]

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.

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.

[On the edge]

March 2006 to be precise, she was sent down which was the reason for her outburst!

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.

[JeffG]

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)

[On the edge]

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)

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.

[ossy1]

[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??

[GMR]

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!

I agree, sadly once the Housing authorities start investigating it could take years. While all this is happening people are suffering.

[GMR]

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.

I agree totally.

[On the edge]

......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.

[GMR]

....if not her parents should have told her of the consequences of bad behaviour in Court.

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.

[ossy1]

......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??


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"]

[ossy1]

Someone please tell me how to post a live link.