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.
Options
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
Easy on the hyperbole!
As nice as it would be to live in a black and white world of right and wrong, good and evil, there are grey areas and compromises that need to be made.
If as i cited earlier, the case in hand was extreme enough, then i would put the rights of the wider community to a safe existance above the rights of the few kids who weren't causing trouble to stay out after curfew, yes.
Kids need more than computer games and the internet - they need interaction beyond a computer screen, they need excersice, fresh air, they need to be able to play together.
:yes:
Possibly the worst sign every is "No Ball Games"
Agree. I don't see how the vast majority of kids aren't allowed to do this though.
But you aren't exactly suggesting a compromise, are you?
Safe? Or perceptions of safety?
OK then, when should a child be able to vote and participate in the democratic process?
The rights of the community members (and i'm not talking whole towns, more like specific estates) to go to the shops, walk the dog or take a stroll without being verbally or phhysically intimidated and attacked. What if the parents aren't or are incapable of controling the kids? When that start effecting my life is exacly when it becomes my business.
This lovely world were everything is fair and as it should be, is a fairy tale. In order for people to exist as part of a community and a wider society as a whole, then sacrifices have to be made. Is it strictly fair, probably not, is it necessary, definitely.
Actual safety, which is why i said in the extreme cases.
If it were the case that the overwhelming majority of people in their twenties in a given area were criminally invloved and you presented a convincing arguement that a curfew was the best way to tackle it, then yes, curfew for all people in their twenties, or whatever the given demographic.
This is why, if you read the thread back, that i said i thought it could probably be reasonably argued for in the most extreme cases.
I've stated the situation in which i would accept the curfew.
If by "treated like a criminal" you mean "taken home" then yes.
Just to let you all know, though i've evidently been in the minority here (of one!) that i have taken on board a lot of what has been said and that i will be mulling it over for the rest of the evening.
I've enjoyed debating and am pleased that it hasn't turned into the usual exchange of insults!
Banning individuals that you know are causing problems is fair enough.
But banning kids because one or two steal is no different to banning all Asian people, say, because one or two Asian people shoplift.
It is an exact analogy. Shopkeepers are prejudiced against young people because of the actions of a tiny minority, but that's allowed. That's basically the equivalent of banning all Hollywood actresses from your shop because Winona Ryder has sticky fingers.
Racism is rarely borne out of ideology, to be quite honest. It is often borne out of personal experience- one black lad mugs your mum and your sister, so all black men are muggers. If you believe that black people cause most of your stock loss, is it right for you to ban them from your store? It's exactly the same principle- either you believe that the shopkeeper has the right to do what he wants, or you believe that people should be protected from prejudice.
Don't try and make a distinction where there is none.
The blame is not with the middle-classes, the blame lies solely with a political system that disproporionately grants them power at the expense of everyone else.
Marginal seats decide elections, so it is the demographic of these marginals that are catered for. It's not their fault, but that is how it is.
Young kids off the estate don't fit that demographic, so their wishes are ignored.
I think you misrepresent what I said.
They got what was coming to them. It isn't what should, but it was action borne out of great provocation, and its an understandably reaction.
MKy point was that the media represent that case as random stabs stranger, because kids are evil and the schools are unsafe. It wasn't represented as a violent bully getting the violence dished back to them.
I blame the media for a lot of the fear people have about young people.
As for curfews, about 45% of all gang rapes are committed by about 5% of black men. Should we have a curfew for all black people? I'd love to see the police try and justify that one.
Troublemakers should be moved on. You won't find many arguments about that. There is no need for curfews and banning orders to achieve this. Perhaps what we really need is the lazy coppers to stop chowing down kebabs in the nick and actually get off their arses and start walking around these estates. But a group of 10 or 20 kids should not be moved on simply because some old dear is frightened, and doesn't like hearing swearing.
What I was trying to do was find out people’s opinions when you take the example further; test what people think when the example stops being a tame scenario of the minority spoiling it for the majority. One or two individuals should never taint your opinion of an entire group of people, that’s a no-brainer. Your dissection of my argument is also skewed. I wasn’t questioning people on the basis that one group was responsible for the majority of loss, I was wondering how people would treat the scenario if the overwhelming majority of a group was causing loss.
I fail to see how you make the assumption that in marginal seats it’s the middle classes that hold the power to swing the vote or generally how the middle classes are more or less responsible for anything. This isn’t a challenge, it’s a genuine question.
I think you're in danger of making kids out to be martyrs as well.
I fail to see how I could, you made it pretty clear.
It's a straw man argument though.
Individuals should be targeted if they are thieves. But not groups. It makes sense.
It is not an assumption, it is based on facts.
The demographic of a marginal seat is middle-class, suburban and middle-to-higher income. It isn't any great conspiracy, its just that in a FPTP electoral system the seats which decide elections are those where the electorate is balanced. As you very rarely get a constituency where half the electorate are miners and the other half are farmers, landowners and stockbrokers, what basically happens is that all the political parties must target themselves at winning the votes of the marginal demographic.
It isn't a great conspiracy, really, its just the result of an outdated and unfair electoral system. A system where the second placed party gets more votes than the winners.
And idiot of the week award goes to...
Then you punish the guilty and not everyone.
Punishing others gives a perception that you will therefore be safe from them when in reality you were never at risk.
Men rape women, should we all be banned from being near them? It would mean that women were "safe"...?
And the police go for the ones playing HOPSCOTCH.
Fucks sake.
I've already given my thoughts on this piece of news. Just thought I'd stick that in for good measure.
Cracking dissection of the discussion.
Also, this thread had managed to go almost 10 pages without curt exchange of non-view. Well done for bringing it back round to the status quo.
You actually expect to be taken seriously when suggesting curfews for adults?
You don't realise people have things to do like work and look after children at night?
:rolleyes: