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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
i never imagined you to be a string vest wearer with a huge beer belly ...just goes to show dunnit!
What are you trying to say?
are you well luke?
I have the huge beer belly...halfway there at least :thumb:
Unless you say otherwise??
Isn't that against their Human Rights as you've been arguing all along?
You can't have it both ways, either your kids are smart enough to decide for themselves and can do what they want when they want or they can't ... why are YOU allowed to tell them what time to be in by but not society at large acting through the council and public police system?
Make up your mind dude, can't tell if you're coming or going these days!! I thought you wanted to be a lawyer .. I wouldn't know if you're wrking for the defence or the prosecution half the time!!
I’m even ready to forgive you all silly things you said against private education. Everything you say against curfews is just, smart, wise and wonderful.
PS to Lukesh
Hey man I'm lost a bit... did you say it seriousely? Do you support the police's 'right' to arrest anybody for the Earth's guilt (the bloody planet shows not British part of its belly to sun!) or you are just fooling around?
Which is why we have the problem that we have today.
Too many parents say the exact same thing, who in their right mind would allow their child to be out till 2am ?
and Kermit you know the law which means when kids vandalise and damage stuff they get away with it.....just like the barstewards who wrecked my Mothers garden........fook all the police can do !!!!!
and for the record curfews mean that if any kid is roaming the streets late on a night the coppers can then do something, if it was law that we had a curfew then parents would have to start obeying the law.
That is besides the point.
There is things that the police can do about it, they just can't be arsed to.
You could make a civil claim against the children, y'know, if you have proof (bearing in mind civil law has a lower burden of proof). FirstBus have started sueing kids who vandalise their buses, because it's easie4r than proving it criminally.
But the point is, unless that child is committing an offence then that kid has every right to be there. You might consider it to be morally dubious that is is (and I'd agree) but that doesn't matter. It's an irrelevance.
Two words: legal guardian.
I would be allowed to tell them the rules because they are my children, and they live in my house.
If they are behaving in a criminal manner than I would expect the police to arrest them and punish them, and I would support that.
However if I allow my child to go to the cinema then no otehr party has the right to overrule my decision. They are, after all, my children.
*bows*
Generally I believe in negative liberty, it's just sometimes society as a whole could benefit more from some proscription.
Generally though I only agree with limits to personal liberty when they interfere with the personal liberties of others, or when it interferes with a truly meritocratic state.
Making companies take responsibility for the environment they pollute is one example of the former, and banning private schools- i.e. giving everyone a level playing field to start on- is an example of the latter.
How do you know they live in your house?
You might be divorced by then and they could be living with their mother
They might have fallen under a bus by then, and the whole debate becomes meaningless as it's hard to break a bus shelter from insdie a coffin.
The word hypothetical means nothing to you, does it?
Do you actually have any kids?
Not pretend your mind to have some ... but do you actually KNOW what it's like to to create another life?
If so then I think you'll back on this thread in 15 years or so and think again about your opinions ...
I seriously doubt you'l be as care free with your real kids then the ones you've imagined in your mind.
If your kids want to see a late movie in town where there is a curfew or even where there isn't MOST decent parents will get off their butts and go pick them up.
Where as most crap parents won't ... and why curfews in places where there is known trouble can be a good idea.
If I don't mind my kids being out at all times, it is of nobody else's concern but my own, really. Especially in summer holidays.
When I was 14 and 15 I got the bus home from town, and it wasn't bad parenting, so you can shut up with that line.
Curfews set by the Government are wrong on every level of freedom and human rights. That is the simple fact.
I've been out myself late many a times and I was Ok, however, these days you get 14 year olds going to the pub for a drink. And whether you believe they have the right to get wasted or not, it's against the law.
To be honest I don't know how safe it is to let young uns out in to town late at night. There are some real fuck heads around looking for a piece of 14 year old ass and they're more likely to advance and pray on naieve little kids when they're wasted. Obviously not everyone's like that, but some people are.
Personally if I had kids, there's no way in hell I'd let them out late until they were 16.
it's very convienient of this boy's lawyers to miss out the rest of the legislation.
Section 30 of the crime and disorder act.
Basically it allows any constable or PCSO in uniform to order any group of 2 or more who are causing alarm or distress to members of the public to leave that area.
If they return to the area they are arrested. This applies to ANYONE regardless of age.
It has been used with great effect in Nottingham to stamp out the effects of drugs and other crime.
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30038--e.htm#30
It isn't a breach of human rights at all, and I hope, sincerely that a resident sues this boy and his parents for the breaches to their human rights.
An elderly person living in a flat complex has NO privacy when a horde of kids are outside throwing mud at her windows.
A young mother doesn't have freedom of movement when she is prevented from entering the shops because of the gang drinking and being abusive.
but that power just shouldnt exist, simply cause its unfair and if it was allowed to happen to say 18-21 years old, to stop them binge drinking, people would be up in arms to say "but im not breaking the law so this is unjust"
there are other ways of solving these problems you know, like ASBOs etc etc
Section 5 of the public order act covers anyone, but it used most against drunken thugs on a friday night.
It's impossible to arrest 20 kids on a friday night, and give them all criminal records.
It is possible to pick them up in a van and drop them off at home.
ASBO's can only be gotten against individuals, not big gangs of kids. The amount of evidence needed for them is massive, and when the terrified householder can only remember details which include "he was wearing a tracksuit" you can't get one.
The law may be unfair, but we try and enforce it fairly. It may be against the human rights of some people, but we argue that everyone has a right to privacy, not just a 15 year old kid.
And the curfew order has the OVERWHELMING support of the local residents. As long as people want the police to have this power, we will have it. As soon as the locals turn round and say they think the order should end then it will. So far they haven't, and I don't think they will.
Depends which class of "locals" you ask, doesn't it?
Ask old ladies and they'd have anyone under the age of 45 curfewed, and you know it.
Not that I'm saying that is the case, but, y'know.