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
The under-age drinking is an offence - all you need is someone to enforce the law.
But what has that to do with a church going kid who doesn't drink?
Over on Indymedia I enjoyed this comment:
Fuck off trying to be clever, you know the score so debate it or shut the fuck up :rolleyes:
and if you cant see the problem then its pointless anyone here trying to explain it any further to you.
Clearly you don't always have a problem with swearing then
here's the bit you didn't quote........
:yippe:
Quoting what said on page 3
Its getting really tiresome now :yeees:
Yes, well I feel intimidated by your langauage - so I think all posters called Becky should be banned from posting.........
:nervous:
No need to take the piss. At the end of the day you werent there, it wasnt just the swearing but im not gonna keep repeating myself.
From what you are saying these lads done no wrong so if you are happy with youngters drinking, swearing their head off blah blah in a park which is designed for littler ones then its pointless me debating any more on this subject cos all you do is throw replies at me like the ones you have and are trying to get a reaction from me....................well sorry your not gonna get one.
Good night.
Which part of "The under-age drinking is an offence - all you need is someone to enforce the law" didn't you understand?
Should kids have a 9 o'clock curfew based on the actions of their peers - even though the havn't commited a crime? That was the original question.
Your reply was:
Why should the well behaved majority suffer?
I'd rather that existing laws and bye-laws were used to deal with people beaching them, than for blanket restrictions to be applied to all kids regardless of their behaviour.
But I don't think I even said anything about crimalising the drinking kids, did I? I said that there were already laws in place for dealing with them - and that could well mean someone in uniform tipping their beer down a drain..........
:eek2:
A concept I don't know if people have picked up on is that people can't go around being selfish pricks not caring about other people. Your actions do effect other people and thus you must be careful of your actions. Those 'groups' who are unable to do this get blanket rules imposed on them. People who aren't involved in antisocial behaviour and just the ones who lose out, there are always some, but it's better them losing out than loads of people losing out due to intimidation and antisocial behaviour.
I don't see what the big deal is of standing around on a street corner with cheap beer at 11 o clock at night is, anyway, so I don't understand why people are fighting profusely to defend that right. Rather than being a rule for all I think this is more of a tool - in my area they were piloting curfews and it's improved the area a lot actually, but also to the point, whenever I've been coming back from my girlfriends house at 10 o clock at night on my bike the police have never stopped me. If youths are being generally antisocial though then the police do have the power to move them on.
the fact that swear words are used by the greatest writers surely means thats it's not some plague spoken by the "common" people, "chavs" as some like to call them here..."fuck" has many meanings, i wouldn't mind my child saying "fuck off2, i would mind him saying "i saw two people fuck on T.V last night" then again i wouldn't like him say "i saw two people have sex on T.V last night" either, depends on context but as i already said, swear words don't do damage so i have no quams with it...
Unacceptable? By whose standards?
But does that mean that their liberty should be curtailed even though it isn’t an offence?
Absolutely, but not at the expense of someone else’s liberty.
And the question still hasn't been answered: why should all children be banned from the streets because a small group of individuals want to stand at the rec drinking Strongbow? If a group of kids are causing a nuisance then the authorities already can confiscate their alcohol and disperse them, and I don't find anyone disputing the justification in doing that.
Dispersing trouble-makers is acceptable. Banning an entire section of the community from the streets because of those trouble-makers is not. I shall a simple question: if, for argument's sake, a man with a girlfriend called Stacey was running around the streets swearing and smashing up phone boxes, does that mean all men with girlfriends called Stacey should be subject to curfew? In the Bigg Market in Newcastle I have to step over large gangs of forty-something women puking everywhere and shouting naughty words, should all women over the age of 35 be banned from the streets because of it?
Why people are trying to argue that using a Trident missile to crack open a walnut is perfectly acceptable is beyond me.
Swearing is a very powerful and emotive literary device, but it's used to excess and it ruins it. Like firing a bazooka trying to get rid of an ant infestation
Anyway, this is a different debate really
I think often at least around my area the police have used it as a tool to move on kids who they know are often out doing no good etc. and people who keep to themselves and aren't doing any trouble are fine. It's like that new law that said if a 14 yr old girl was kissing a 16 yr old boy he could be put on the sex offenders register - at the end of the day it's up to the police officer's discretion whether they use it or not.
This is my experience anyway.
Too fucking right :yes: .
If i had children i wouldn't see myself being bothered - obviously within reason. Knowing they can't swear at teachers etc is obviously something which needs to be conveyed though.
Aggression is not necessarily implicit in swearing, it all depends on the context. I swear about everything and anything, it's just the natural manner in which i speak. Absolutely nothing wrong with it either.
Still trying to act smart eh.
I understand that there are not enough bobbies on the beat to enforce the law..I thought you would know that though.
Yes.
I see the conflict with her not wanting to take her child to a place where she might face foul language, under-age drinking and "intimidation" against the rights of the people acting in that way in doing that.
But freedom doesn't mean that we all get what we want. It doesn't mean that because she doesn't like that behaviour, that it should be banned. It means that both parties have the right to be there.
Now, unless those kids are there all the time, both can retain that right.
What Beckie seems to want is the right for her to go there, but not the kids. For me, that is wrong.
My argument is that what should happen is that the kids are asked what they would like in order to prevent them congregating in this area. What alternatives would they want. Beckie argued that there was a "youthy" nearby". Fine. But did anyone ask these kids if that is what they wanted. That they don't use it suggests that it isn't a solution, non?
I'm arguing that her right to be there is just as important as their right not to be labelled troublemakers just because they wear hoodies, congregate with their friends and do they things which they enjoy.
Surely, that isn't too much to ask.
Seriously, I have every sympathy with her. I just think that her reaction is the wrong step to take.
Ah thats bullshit.
So come on then you answer me this. What would you do if you were in the same situation and you had much younger children and youths were f-ing and blinding, drinking etc ?
You mention about what the teens want, well they have spent thousands in the same park as I mentioned earlier. Its got a skate board ramp, its got benches for them, its got basketball thingys...........teens were asked what they wanted and the council came up with this park. The park is in different sections yet the teens were using abusive language, drinking in an area designated for younger children and you think im in the wrong..........wtf,
Bloody hilarious that
Also go and find where I mentioned 'hoodies' I cant recall anyone here mentioning hoodies or calling them trouble makers.
Just because you aren't intimidated by these kids doesn't mean that everybody else won't be. Come now. We aren't talking about places where groups of young people hang out and have a good time amongst themselves. The places where these curfews are enacted have had problems with youth crime and vandalism for many years. Whither to? I think it is acceptable to clamp down on anti social behaviour whatever the age. And you will notice that Northumbria police are doing just that with Operation DVD. A poor anology. This is about the broken window theory.
If the two groups are preventing the other from using the facilities then there is an obvious conflict and it shouldn't be for one group to bully the other out.
You forget I do have young children.
What you don't/can't know is that I have faced much the same thing. I ignore it, don't make a big thing of it and if I think it has gone to far I leave. There are other thing I can do with my kids, other times I can go to the swings/ball park.
Fair enough.
I just remember that when I was a kid and I said "I want somewhere I can skate", what I actually meant was "Leave me alone to skate where I want", not "Build me a park". The whole thrill was about trying tricks in places where we weren't supposed to be.
My understanding of being a teenager is that it is time for rebellion against adults. Thus a council built area was what "they" wanted me to have.
Yes, I think you are wrong for apparently wanting them banned from any area not "designated" for them.
"Apartheid"-type systems are wrong, no matter what the motivation.
No, you are right there, forgive me.
Isn't that what I said?
I think you meant that it would be wrong for the kids to bully the parents and children out. You seem to suggest that it would be okay for the community to bully the kids out...?
However, I am a supporter of specific ASBOs because of the effect of these youths on ordinary people.
Yes, I think you are wrong for apparently wanting them banned from any area not "designated" for them.
[/QUOTE]
Nah you see I dont think they should be banned, I think if they are gonna build parks like the one im talking about then after tea when parks will be getting used then have wardens on to stop things like this happening. Again its cost lots of money for this park so lets make good use of the park and make sure everyone benefits from the park.
If they had wardens it would stop any trouble at the park, the park would be kept cleaner cos the wardens would keep an eye on that, it would also stop some of the vandalising etc etc.
Not all teens are trouble makers, not all teens are little shits but like many things its always that minority that give others a bad name.
and I will forgive you
Exactly!