If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Curfew orders "against human rights"
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
A boy aged 14 in London is taking a legal fight to the High Court, arguing that blanket curfews for under-16s are a breach of his human rights, namely hsi right to privacy and freedom of movement.
Story.
I'm glad to see this happen, and I hope he wins. If this curfew was targeted against any otehr section of society there wopuld be an outcry, but because it is against kids then suddenly it's all OK. Instead of listening to what kids say about why they hang around drinking cider ("there's nowt else to do" oddly enough being a key argument) the Labour government kopw-tow to the moaning old duffers and just put a blanket ban on everyone, regardless of how law-abiding they are.
If you're a kid you can't go to the shop, you can't go to the cinema, you are tied to your house after a certain time. It is effectively house arrest, and it is wrong- being 15 is not a crime.
*sigh*
Yes, it "works", but that's a rubbish argument. Personally I think there should be a 24-hour-a-day blanket curfew on old people, congestion would drop dramatically, and so it would "work". It doesn't mean it's right, though.
Story.
I'm glad to see this happen, and I hope he wins. If this curfew was targeted against any otehr section of society there wopuld be an outcry, but because it is against kids then suddenly it's all OK. Instead of listening to what kids say about why they hang around drinking cider ("there's nowt else to do" oddly enough being a key argument) the Labour government kopw-tow to the moaning old duffers and just put a blanket ban on everyone, regardless of how law-abiding they are.
If you're a kid you can't go to the shop, you can't go to the cinema, you are tied to your house after a certain time. It is effectively house arrest, and it is wrong- being 15 is not a crime.
*sigh*
Yes, it "works", but that's a rubbish argument. Personally I think there should be a 24-hour-a-day blanket curfew on old people, congestion would drop dramatically, and so it would "work". It doesn't mean it's right, though.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
He's got a point, it'd be a different matter if we banned all muslims from the streets after 9pm on the basis of security, or even if the only under-16s were banned because of a criminal record.
I'll watch the case develop with interest. Though it may result in a blanket ban for the entire country, because then at least it'd be fair.
erm he hadn't broke any law, or done anything wrong, other than be 15 and out after 9pm. therefore it is wrong that he can be sent home, we dont live under a facist police state, no matter what heil blunkett would like to see happen
Shame they're not so tough on the causes of crime.
According to the link it says
Under the new rules police can escort home anyone under 16 who is unsupervised in a designated area after 2100BST at night.
in the real world what would most under 16's be doing in city centres, etc after 9pm anyway? And it's not just any old area it's areas with a history of trouble.
The reality of this boy winning his case is that there will be more gangs of boys on the street, it will be easier for parents who don't give a stuff about their kids to let them roam where they want, when they want.
I myself was attacked by a member of a gang of 6 who all I suspect were under 16 in Brighton at around 10pm at night - walking the street drinking neat vodka.
I'm sorry .. but I think some of you need a reality check!!
but then again we live in an unperfect world dont we
If we had a curfew on everyone after 9pm, then we'd have no problems with crime at all. Ban everyone from the streets after 9pm, and we'd have no problems with drinking, no problems with violence, no problems with anything. Levels of rapes and murders would drop dramatically. That would be wonderful, but I bet you'd complain if they brought in that law. And quite rightly.
What would an under-16 be doing on a sumemr evening out after 9pm? Talking with friends, visiting friends, visiting the cinema, visiting a restaurant. All perfectly acceptable law-abiding pastimes, but if you are under-16 you havr to sit in with mummy and daddy. The council argues "it will only be used against troublemakers", but they introduced a curfew in Wigton in Cumbria (terrible problem with kids hanging around) and every single kid out got stopped by the police, regardless of who he was and where he was going.
The police and the councils are supportive of it because they're too fucking lazy to sort the problem out properly. If kids are hanging around street corners drinking cider then there's a reason for it, and I doubt that reason is that it's the best fun they could think of.
I'm glad you see the point now.
You're just old enough to escape it, but I bet you'd still be stopped if you were out in a curfew area. And six months ago you couldn't have gone to the cinema with friends, or anything.
It's disgraceful, but because it's only "kids" it doesn't matter. As I said, lets bring in a curfew against Daily Mail readers and see how long it is before they're wailing to the "evil" ECHR.
Good luck to the lad in challenging this.
And a good example of why the human rights legislation is both very good and very important to this country. It appears to be the last bastion of civil liberties against the ever-more-oppressive New Labour fascists.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004433016,00.html
So I take it you support inaction against benefit fraud too in the case above?
Signs are quite often put up with the details of the order.
One including a picture of the kid with the words NOT WANTED underneeth. Nice!
The nanny state just gets worse and worse...
So you are saying it is right to restrict the freedoms of a majority in order to attempt to stop trouble caused by a minority?
On a related subject, do you remember an episode of Question Time where David Blunkett was on, and in response to a question he replied 'my dog's gone to sleep!'?
So you would agree if there was a a curfew on a group that included you?
cos of longer working hours etc etc.
it goes on to mention that most of these kids have their own digital cave to while away the hours in so ...it must only be the poorer kids that this is aimed at ...
Adults hang ariound in gangs.
Adults get drunk and vomit everywhere on a Saturday night.
Adults crash cars during the night.
I propose that every single person should be forced to be in their house between the hours of 11pm and 10.59pm the following evening. Offenders will be shot.
There'll be no crime, no drunken disorder, no car crashes, no children being run over by cars. No traffic jams. No pollution.
It's the perfect solution!
The source of that story is The Sun, therefore making the entire claim false. There are no facts in the story, only the opinion of some council estate busybody.
But to assume the story is true.
People have the right to freedom from harrassment and the right to a private life free from government interference. If the Government suspect a crime has been committed then they can follow, but they have to have concrete proof- some tip-off from some biddy isn't concrete proof. The information will be used to gain concrete proof, but the Government cannot take this woman's word as complete truth, because she could be victimising innocent people for all they know.
Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is. The ends don't justify the means- people, even criminals, have the right to be left alone unless the authorities have a good reason to suspect that they might be comitting criminal activity. Because what can be used against "criminals" one day can be used against innocent people the next- once a government has the legal right to pry and snoop, it is a very slippery slope towards an authoritarian dictatorship. You might trust this administration to use the information safely, but what about a government in 10 years time?
I will ask you one thing: if you found out that the police had taped your every conversation and had stalked your every movement, would you be upset? No arguments about "yeah, but I'd be innocent"- would you be angry if your privacy had been violated? Yes? Well don't be a hypocrite then.
Go back when i was about 14 i had to be in by 9:00pm on a night as did many of my friends. Our parents did not want us roaming the streets, so why do parents of today allow their children to roam the streets on a night ?
Im very annoyed, for the fact that my parents property has been damaged/vandalised by young 'hard' boys that can only target pensioners.......let them try it when im there and i will give the little shits sommat to think about.......TWATS they are.
Put em all on a curfew :mad:
When I was 14 I was allowed out, but I didn't vandalise anything or harm anyone. I went to see my mates, and I walked there.
Under these curfew regulations, I woukldn't have been allowed to. I couldn't have gone to my friend's house, I couldn't have gone to the cinema, and so on. I'm innocent, I've done nothing wrong, yet my freedom would have been infringed quite drastically.
Most of these curfews are issued for the summer holidays, when kids don't need to be in and it is light until 11pm. You don't tend to see so many kids hanging around on a snowy night in February for some reason...
Why should a child have to be in just because another child wants to smash a phone box?
Why should there be an age limit- I've seen 18 and 19 year olds put phone boxes through, but 18 year olds aren't subject to curfews. I've seen 45 year olds put phone boxes through, should all 45 year olds be subject to curfew?
no kid was out after 9 and on a friday and saturday it might if you were lucky be 10. sunday was seven cos that was bath night.
and if your honest you know it isnt just phone boxes that get smashed up. I havent got the link but in an area near to me on a Friday night, several young uns ages 12 + went on the rampage......they were still at it at 4:00am in the morning.Causing thousands of pounds of damage to vehicles/houses and play equipment.................Thats why we should curfew. Why are kids out at 11:00 pm ? Youthys finished by that time, so lets get em off the streets and back home where they should be.
Those people can be stopped even without curfews. All curfews do is allow lazy coppers to victimise any kids.
If they're behaving criminally then arrest them.
If not, then it's none of the Government's concern, really. If I want to let my child play out till 2am then it is my right to, and if my kid wants to play out until then then it is his right to, unless I say otherwise.