# Little shits out of control, Coldharbour Lane



## editor (Mar 14, 2006)

Just watched a gang of about 6 kids - most of then around 7-9 years old -  rush into the corner shop by Gresham Road, grab a load of stuff and the get chased out by the owner.

And then - and this is the bit that gets me - they came back to taunt the owner, tried to force their way back into the shop to nick more stuff before  lobbing a bottle and some stones at the window.

And then they sat across the road to taunt the shop some more before chancing their luck at the next shop

These little fuckers are _fearless._ 

And no one seemed interested in stopping them in the street either.

If I'd come head to head with them lobbing bottles as I left the shop, I fancy I might have dragged one or two of them back in to the shop and called the police.

What would you do?


----------



## Manmasi (Mar 14, 2006)

That's horrible, I am always surprised how friendly lots of convinience store owners are considering the crap they must have to put up with, it's a shame that society has ended up being scared of tearaway children, they are children afterall, so we shouldn't be scared! That said no-one wants a bottle lobbed at them. Tricky thing to deal with.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2006)

Manmasi said:
			
		

> Tricky thing to deal with.


Well, that's the thing.
The kids know that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2006)

Ha Ha, I thought this was another knobbing'n sobbing classic, Anyway,

Go and see a Doctor!.


----------



## magneze (Mar 14, 2006)

It's really difficult to know what to do. Iemanja was shown a knife by a young kid in a park after she told him off a while back - that sort of thing really makes you think about what _could_ happen. What's the solution though? I have to say that kids of 7-9 being out at this time is bad - why aren't they at home in bed?


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 14, 2006)

Magneze said:
			
		

> It's really difficult to know what to do. Iemanja was shown a knife by a young kid in a park after she told him off a while back - that sort of thing really makes you think about what _could_ happen. What's the solution though? I have to say that kids of 7-9 being out at this time is bad - why aren't they at home in bed?


i was about to bring this up - i don't know that i'd challenge kids with more confidence than adults.  tis sadly not uncommon for primary age kids to carry blades - even occasionally with parental knowledge / tacit blessing.  the mind boggles.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2006)

Yeah, but these fuckers were really young. Even if they pulled out a blade you'd have no problem slapping them down - and I'll be fucked if I'm going to get into a situation where I fear_ little fucking kids_ in my 'hood!


----------



## Manmasi (Mar 14, 2006)

Good job there are people around who will stand up to them, I personally find groups of kids on bikes etc quite scary as they're faster than me and can be irrational, would sooner deal with an angry adult I think.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 14, 2006)

Not sure if it's the same lot but I heard there's been a gang of similarly aged kids giving some of the stallholders on the market shit too.  Nicking stuff off stalls and then giving them the "you can't do anything about it" shit 'cos they know the police can't.

Don't know what the answer is but all I can hope is that if they do get into trouble it'll shit them up enough to give it a rest and behave.


----------



## magneze (Mar 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Yeah, but these fuckers were really young. Even if they pulled out a blade you'd have no problem slapping them down - and I'll be fucked if I'm going to get into a situation where I fear_ little fucking kids_ in my 'hood!


One? Yup. Six? Depends on the situation really - you'd have to be pretty sure you'd get some backup from people around you IMHO, just in case. Shit, that's depressing - I can see why some people would hesitate though.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> Not sure if it's the same lot but I heard there's been a gang of similarly aged kids giving some of the stallholders on the market shit too.  Nicking stuff off stalls and then giving them the "you can't do anything about it" shit 'cos they know the police can't.


<goes into Daily mail mode>

A good fucking clip around the ear wouldn't hurt...


----------



## rich! (Mar 14, 2006)

A good friend of mine was once chased down the street he lives on by young thugs with snowballs and abuse. He's a tall bloke, and he was *absolutely* shitting himself. So he took refuge in a shop, and got them to call the police. 

Needless to say, the police took it about as seriously as a call from a man pretending to be Lord Lucan...


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> Needless to say, the police took it about as seriously as a call from a man pretending to be Lord Lucan...


When the oiks started lobbing bottles and stones at the shop I called Brixton police.

And did they turn up? Did they fuck.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> <goes into Daily mail mode>
> 
> A good fucking clip around the ear wouldn't hurt...



Thats what I used to be afraid of when I was growing up. That or I would be recognised and somebody would tell my mum. And then I would get a *major* clip round the ear.

Thing was, I wanted people to think I was a good kid. I wanted my mum and dad, grandfather etc to think I was a good kid. 

I think think kids need both of the above, a bit of respect, even fear for authority as well as a bit of praise for doing well, for being 'good'. 

Today too many of them don't have an authority figure to respect. They don't get praise when they deserve it. Instead they get both respect and praise from their peers by being little pricks.


----------



## dogmatique (Mar 14, 2006)

The scary thing is, all the years I've lived in the "inner city", (Liverpool, Manchester, London) - it's always been the young kids that have intimidated  most - and I'm talking 14 -16 here, they've got nothing to fear, and everything to prove.

A gang of them broke my leg in about 6 places years back in Liverpool by sheer numbers, and they just stood round and laughed after they'd done it.

If it's getting to the stage that it's bleedin 7-9 year olds (ok I know it's not physical violence they're theatening, but the sheer fearlessness of them!) offering the same lip - I worry what they'll be like at twice the age.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2006)

dogmatique said:
			
		

> The scary thing is, all the years I've lived in the "inner city", (Liverpool, Manchester, London) - it's always been the young kids that have intimidated  most - and I'm talking 14 -16 here, they've got nothing to fear, and everything to prove.


For the record, there's no way I'd take on a group of 14-16 year olds around here!


----------



## paolo (Mar 14, 2006)

It's nice to think that "back in my day" and all that... but I remember 25+ years ago a mate of mine getting attacked by a 'pack' with knives. As he was losing consciousness (one knife went in his neck) my other mate did a fireman's carry to get him on a bus. The 'pack' then attacked the outside of the bus.

Most of the groups back then - ourselves included - were unarmed, but there were some from the 'bad estates' that really were trouble.

Trouble is now - as an adult - I've got no idea. Are they some rowdy teenagers I can challenge or some fearless armed fucks where I end up dead?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 15, 2006)

i wish i could say for sure that i'd try and help.  in an area i was confortable i probably might, on me own turf and everything, give one or two a smack round the head or something.  but i dunno if i would for sure.  last thig you need is an older sibling, or a father beating the crap out of you as has happened to mroe than one person i know.


----------



## Descartes (Mar 15, 2006)

Get in touch with your local Safer Neighbourhood panel, or the WPS dealing with it, Are there Community Support Officers in the borough? To often the Police are unaware of the actions of some of the street gangs, the most quoted adage, ' but, if only you would keep us informed'

Whilst i understand your feeling there is no need to act confrontational and become a target for the young hoods, but don't back down from them or you will become the target. 

The other problem, the little street urchins know what part of the law protects them from agressive adults and are too ready to use it. Slap one and you have all sorts of difficulties.


----------



## rich! (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> When the oiks started lobbing bottles and stones at the shop I called Brixton police.
> 
> And did they turn up? Did they fuck.



I thought about asking if you'd called them, but then figured it's between a baby-eating anarchist and his mobile phone...


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> I thought about asking if you'd called them, but then figured it's between a baby-eating anarchist and his mobile phone...


The way they were lobbing stuff about, it would only be a matter of time before someone got hurt.

Can't say I'm too keen on people threatening the staff and nicking from small, local shops either.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 15, 2006)

I had a similar experience when I was living in Newcastle a few years ago. Some kids of similar age got together in a gang and busied themselves making snowballs and throwing them at my windows (and banging on doors, etc, you can imagine). This went on for several hours.

It was quite distressing and if I'd been in my eighties rather than my thirties I think it would have been quite frightening. I think the thing is that if you knew they were only going to bother you that night, you'd be OK, but the thing is that as far as you know, they're going to pick on you ad infinitum, and that's what really gets to you.

At the end of the day there's not really an answer. You can call the cops, maybe they come and maybe they don't. But probably if you do stick it out, they get bored and give it a rest. After all they _are_ only kids - they can't do _anything_ for very long without losing interest.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

What people do in the USA is carry a gun.  Legally.  I reckon it should be legal in the UK too.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 15, 2006)

back when the kfc was a pizza hut  a little kid tried to pick pocket me in there...

his freind thew tomatoes from the salad bar when i caught him at it (he legged it after i grabed the book he had pulled out by mistake)


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What people do in the USA is carry a gun.  Legally.  I reckon it should be legal in the UK too.



we will need shooting ranges too  ask you need practise to hit small running kids


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> we will need shooting ranges too  ask you need practise to hit small running kids



You don't need to actually shoot them, just show it once and they won't be bothering you again.


----------



## Descartes (Mar 15, 2006)

Yer and the problem is when they pull a gun as well in answer to your pulling a gun...

Guns are NOT the answer


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Yer and the problem is when they pull a gun as well in answer to your pulling a gun...
> 
> Guns are NOT the answer



They avoid an awful lot of bother over here.  I firmly believe in the right to bear arms.  I've seen several potentially nasty situations effectively defused by a judicious display of firepower.


----------



## rich! (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What people do in the USA is carry a gun.  Legally.  I reckon it should be legal in the UK too.


then the 7-9 year olds would have nicked their dad's guns, and would shoot the shopkeeper as well as the people phoning the police?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> then the 7-9 year olds would have nicked their dad's guns, and would shoot the shopkeeper as well as the people phoning the police?



Their Dads will have guns anyway.  Criminals are always armed, its the law-abiding citizen who is disempowered by gun control.


----------



## rich! (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ... just show it once and they ...


... will go and tell their big yardie brother that some straight dude pulled a shooter on them, and then you'll have a posse arrive who think you're drawing on kiddies, and soon you'll be meat?

I see a small flaw.
How about you?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> ... will go and tell their big yardie brother that some straight dude pulled a shooter on them, and then you'll have a posse arrive who think you're drawing on kiddies, and soon you'll be meat?
> 
> I see a small flaw.
> How about you?



Not really.  Their big brother would arrive if you clipped them round the ear, and he'd give you a good kicking too.  About which he might think twice if he knew you were packing.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> They avoid an awful lot of bother over here.  I firmly believe in the right to bear arms.  I've seen several potentially nasty situations effectively defused by a judicious display of firepower.


FFS- don't you fucking dare turn this thread into some idiotic gun-nut bollocks. 

In fact, I suggest you consult the FAQ on the matter.


----------



## DG55 (Mar 15, 2006)

Just had a thought, why do they make so many guns anway? That shit is stupid. Put some serious controls on those companies so they only make enough guns for the police/army whatever, then when they're decomissioned, melt em' down.

How the fuck did it come to this?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You don't need to actually shoot them, just show it once and they won't be bothering you again.



thats no fun... i wanna practise my headshots

also you fail to take into account the fact they woun't belive you will shot them...


----------



## rich! (Mar 15, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> also you fail to take into account the fact they woun't belive you will shot them...


and if you *do* shoot a couple of them, the rest of them know that they'll earn major points by whacking you...


----------



## brix (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What people do in the USA is carry a gun.  Legally.  I reckon it should be legal in the UK too.



You really are an idiot.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 15, 2006)

I think it's really dreadful that the police didn't show up.  If they had, the kids at the very least would have had to scarper, and the incident would have ended with at least the feeling that they had done something wrong...
Maybe the cops would have caught one and escorted him home, so that his parents/carers could be made aware that he was out causing trouble.. As it is, they just feel free to do what they wish... Which is bad for the whole community.


----------



## Choc (Mar 15, 2006)

this is crazy...that we have even gotten so far...  

there used to be a time when any grown up really could tell kids the rights and the wrongs (i never  thought that i would talk like this at my age already). but i think that was better. kids should be allowed to be told off by anybody even if they are not the parents (that is for morally wrong behaviour).

this bloody american pc behavoir does no good at all really


----------



## toggle (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You don't need to actually shoot them, just show it once and they won't be bothering you again.




And in most situations, that is the way to make a bad thing worse. Waving about a weapon you're not prepared to use is suicide.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> And in most situations, that is the way to make a bad thing worse. Waving about a weapon you're not prepared to use is suicide.


Please, don't entertain his ridiculous, irrelevant bollocks.


----------



## toggle (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Please, don't entertain his ridiculous, irrelevant bollocks.




np


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just watched a gang of about 6 kids - most of then around 7-9 years old -  rush into the corner shop by Gresham Road, grab a load of stuff and the get chased out by the owner.
> 
> If I'd come head to head with them lobbing bottles as I left the shop, I fancy I might have dragged one or two of them back in to the shop and called the police.
> 
> What would you do?


Sadly, if they are under 10 years old there is NOTHING anyone but the police can do with them about them committing non-physical crime.  The law assumes that a child under the age of 10 CANNOT (as a matter of law) commit a crime and, hence, no power of arrest applies as we as citizens can only arrest if an indictable offence (which would include theft, damage, assault (ABH upwards)) HAS been committed.  Likewise our power to use reasonable force to prevent crime would not exist as, because of their age, there is no crime being committed.  

Our power to use force in self-defence is not affected by their age, though I would suggest extreme caution in deciding what is "reasonable and necessary", so if there was an imminent danger of assault on us or someone else we could use reasonable force to prevent it happening or continuing.

If they were inside the shop - i.e. on privately owned premises - then the owner and anyone acting as their agent could use reasonable and necessary force to remove them as trespassers though I would again suggest extreme caution in deciding what force that would be (there is also an arguable case that because of their age they cannot commit the civil offence of trespass though I do not think it is as clear cut as the fact that they cannot commit a criminal offence.

The police would perhaps be able to arrest as they can do so "on suspicion" of an offence being committed and unless they KNEW they were under 10 years old then that may apply.  They may also detain under the Children and Young Persons Act for their own welfare if they considered them to be out of control.  They may also be aware of the existance of parenting orders, etc. requiring the parents to control them.

I would suggest the best action would be to take photos / video and call the police (use the phrase "Theres a gang of youths smashing up the shop / steaming through stealing things" rather than "Theres some children here being a nuisance".

All in all, the law is very, very weak in relation to kids under the age of 10 - it was in relation to 10-14 year olds as well (you had to prove they specifically knew what they were doing was wrong) until about ten years ago when the law was last changed).  Under 10s may well have all been little angels in the past but perhaps times have changed to the extent that it needs to be reconsidered further.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> And did they turn up? Did they fuck.


Complain - in writing, making it plain it IS an official complaint which you wish to have investigated.

Sadly the only way anything seems to get done now is when the "stats" start going off the graph ... and the only way of getting the stats to go off the graph is to complain officially.


----------



## pogofish (Mar 15, 2006)

DG55 said:
			
		

> Put some serious controls on those companies so they only make enough guns for the police/army whatever,



Even if they get the legit makers, in countries where they can be controlled (in many places, they allready are), they then have to deal with the hundreds of home-grown operations, producing replica weapons in places with no hope of control whatsoever!  Never mind the kit dumped from cold-war armies etc which seems to be finding its way across here with disrurbing ease.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Please, don't entertain his ridiculous, irrelevant bollocks.



exactly ...  everybody knows you should use throwing knives against children...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2006)

Choc said:
			
		

> this is crazy...that we have even gotten so far...
> 
> there used to be a time when any grown up really could tell kids the rights and the wrongs (i never  thought that i would talk like this at my age already). but i think that was better. kids should be allowed to be told off by anybody even if they are not the parents (that is for morally wrong behaviour).
> 
> this bloody american pc behavoir does no good at all really


I totally agree. I'm gonna sound like an old git here, but what the hell. I am appalled at the behaviour, the lack of discipline and the bad manners of children today. I was brought up not that strictly, but if I had acted as badly towards EITHER of my parents - or anyone, who could tell said parents - as I see kids behaving today, the result would have been WHAAAACK!,  and a _guaranteed_ non-repetition of the incident. 
And yes, I do blame the parents. it's NOT teachers' fault - they are powerless, thanks to successive fuckwitted educational regimes. Good behaviour starts in the home.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I would suggest the best action would be to take photos / video and call the police (use the phrase "Theres a gang of youths smashing up the shop / steaming through stealing things" rather than "Theres some children here being a nuisance".


That was the just about the phrase I used, adding that with stuff being thrown around, bystanders might get hurt (and, to be honest, I was concerned about my girlf who was coming home at the time).

Photos aren't really possible at night.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> <goes into Daily mail mode>



I didn't like to do it myself - it may be feel dirty


----------



## colacubes (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Complain - in writing, making it plain it IS an official complaint which you wish to have investigated.
> 
> Sadly the only way anything seems to get done now is when the "stats" start going off the graph ... and the only way of getting the stats to go off the graph is to complain officially.



Thing is, from what I've heard, the police know who these kids are (if it's the same ones as on the market) but there's not a lot they can do other than catch them, give em a bollocking and then take them home and hope their parents do the same.  Which apparently they don't   

That said I did see some kid (probably about 8) who was chased and caught just outside my front gate by a slightly portly PCSO.  As soon as he caught up with him the kid stopped and burst out crying, absolutely shitting himself.  The PCSO asked why he ran off, and he just said I don't know and copntinued blubbering.  I felt really sorry for him


----------



## jæd (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Photos aren't really possible at night.



You don't have any night vision gear...?    I thought everyone had it for those "artistic night shots" of the neighbours...


----------



## toggle (Mar 15, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> That said I did see some kid (probably about 8) who was chased and caught just outside my front gate by a slightly portly PCSO.  As soon as he caught up with him the kid stopped and burst out crying, absolutely shitting himself.  The PCSO asked why he ran off, and he just said I don't know and copntinued blubbering.  I felt really sorry for him




There are some kids that age who are prefectly capable of turning on the waterworks to get sympathy.


----------



## tippee (Mar 15, 2006)

What we need here is a copper or two on the beat to catch a kid (or two or six) and scare the living shit out of him.

Bollocks to the kid's human rights.

Until he respects others he's got no rights.

What would happen to the kids if they were caught in say Jamaica or Nigeria behaving like that? Would they repeat offend?

I doubt it.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 15, 2006)

err  human rights are rights not privalages


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> Thing is, from what I've heard, the police know who these kids are (if it's the same ones as on the market) but there's not a lot they can do other than catch them, give em a bollocking and then take them home and hope their parents do the same.  Which apparently they don't


But the point is they are the only ones who can do anything, however ineffective.  They alsohave the power to commence care proceedings, etc. if kids are totally out of control (not that that usually helps either).  But not callling them because there is not a lot they can do is giving up.  We must bore the police into submission and the police must bore the parents and kids into decent behaviour.  If we let them get away with it (for whatever reason) they do NOT go away, they just get bolder and worse.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

tippee said:
			
		

> Until he respects others he's got no rights.


Sadly he has.  He also has legal rights.  And no matter how "reasonable" in the eyes of an ordinary person, if anyone, police or public, acts outside the law then they will be prosecuted if the victim and / or the family press for it.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2006)

tippee said:
			
		

> What would happen to the kids if they were caught in say Jamaica or Nigeria behaving like that?


What's Jamaica or Nigeria got to do with this?


----------



## colacubes (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> But the point is they are the only ones who can do anything, however ineffective.  They alsohave the power to commence care proceedings, etc. if kids are totally out of control (not that that usually helps either).  But not callling them because there is not a lot they can do is giving up.  We must bore the police into submission and the police must bore the parents and kids into decent behaviour.  If we let them get away with it (for whatever reason) they do NOT go away, they just get bolder and worse.



I don't disagree - the trouble is they're not a priority at the moment because there's so much other stuff going on.  Of course this causes the other problem that if they're just left to it they could become the problem in a few years time.

I don't know what the answers are but I know there's not an easy one.  If I was in the Ed's position last night I probably would think twice before challenging them at that age (but that's because I'm a girly wuss   ).  I certainly wouldn't do it with older kids.


----------



## girasol (Mar 15, 2006)

Magneze said:
			
		

> It's really difficult to know what to do. Iemanja was shown a knife by a young kid in a park after she told him off a while back - that sort of thing really makes you think about what _could_ happen. What's the solution though? I have to say that kids of 7-9 being out at this time is bad - why aren't they at home in bed?



I did call the police though.  We were surrounded by about 8 kids, some shouting at us, some talking to me - bit scary, but it just made me angry, to be honest.  

If any of them came anywhere near me I would have not hesitated to defend myself, but they didn't.  They all ran off when the police showed up later (they took their time!  , in the meantime I was telling the little buggers off).

The other day we were walking to the park and the very same little shit (he's only about 9) who showed me the knife and his mate were kicking a boy who was lying on the ground.  We shouted at them 'oi' and the two of them ran off, then we went over to see if the boy lying on the floor was ok, the little bugger was laughing!!! They were pretending to beat him up, would you believe it?

Stand up to them I say, otherwise they'll think it's ok to behave like this.  Anyway, I sort of know them now, they're just kids who aren't being raised properly and are in desperate need of good parenting.


----------



## girasol (Mar 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> You don't have any night vision gear...?    I thought everyone had it for those "artistic night shots" of the neighbours...



Where I live I overlook a park.  I have flashed my camera on a couple of occasions when it was all getting a bit too much and they were vandalising the building site (making sure they couldn't see where it was coming from) and it was funny to watch them run!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2006)

nipsla said:
			
		

> I don't disagree - the trouble is they're not a priority at the moment because there's so much other stuff going on.  Of course this causes the other problem that if they're just left to it they could become the problem in a few years time.
> 
> I don't know what the answers are but I know there's not an easy one.  If I was in the Ed's position last night I probably would think twice before challenging them at that age (but that's because I'm a girly wuss   ).  I certainly wouldn't do it with older kids.



I always thought I'd take on almost anyobody if I or someone nearby was getting attacked. I'm 33, fit and pretty well built. Then I got mugged two weeks ago by three kids just behind Brixton Post Office - 16 years old I'd guess. They all pretended to be carrying guns or knives down the back of their trousers and by the time I clocked what was happening they were on top of me and giving me a hiding. They got in between me and my girlfriend, threw her on the floor with such force that it ripped her leather coat in half and smacked her head into the pavement.  I was just trying to see what was happening to my girlfriend and looking out for a blade which luckily never came. I didn't even think to fight back. And then they legged it.

The kids were brazen enough that they weren't even wearing their hoods despite being close to a CCTV and in a well lit spot in view of the High Street(which was apparently panned out and pointing the wrong way). All for 20 quid and a stone age mobile phone.

To be honest, I got over it pretty quickly and then what started to bother me was just how blase we have become about this kind of thing. I found myself saying that it wasn't such a big deal because I've lived here 10 years and I was lucky it had never happened before. Almost as if it is just something to be expected and tolerated. Most people I know from outside London find having their car broken into a traumatic experience.


----------



## rennie (Mar 15, 2006)

thst'd terrible rushy! hope ur ok n the gf isn't too concussed or anything!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Yeah, but these fuckers were really young. Even if they pulled out a blade you'd have no problem slapping them down -




Yes, but kids seem to be getting bigger and bigger these days.  I'm only 5ft and it wouldn't surprise me if a couple of them were around the same size.  I'd be scared to take 6 of them on  even if they are only young


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

It's so depressing, and embarassing even, that we're getting scared of kids nowadays. I wouldn't take on a group of kids, they may be small (or as Minnie said actually probably the same size as you  ) but in a large enough group they could stick to you like limpets and beat you down. I had to run a series of gauntlets last night to get home made up of varying numbers of teenagers and was shitting myself all the way.


----------



## aurora green (Mar 15, 2006)

tippee said:
			
		

> What we need here is a copper or two on the beat to catch a kid (or two or six) and scare the living shit out of him.
> .




I agree (with that part of your post) 

Never really though I'd be saying this but, _where are_  the bobbies on the beat? 
I mean so much goes on, in such a reletively small area, why aren't there at least few more (if any) roaming around? 
I can't remember the last time I saw one...


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

One thing I've noticed on the streets of the UK in recent years is children who appear to be *drunk.*  Never used to see that even ten years ago, and have never seen it anywhere else either.  Its positively Hogarthian.


----------



## christonabike (Mar 15, 2006)

Cider on the streets is a tradition here

The other day I showed me mam where I used to get drunk when I was a kid


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 15, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> and was shitting myself all the way.




Well at least that might put them off if they had to deal with that


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 15, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> I agree (with that part of your post)
> 
> Never really though I'd be saying this but, _where are_  the bobbies on the beat?
> I mean so much goes on, in such a reletively small area, why aren't there at least few more (if any) roaming around?
> I can't remember the last time I saw one...




They're all disguised as Community Support Officers


----------



## onenameshelley (Mar 15, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> It's so depressing, and embarassing even, that we're getting scared of kids nowadays. I wouldn't take on a group of kids, they may be small (or as Minnie said actually probably the same size as you  ) but in a large enough group they could stick to you like limpets and beat you down. I had to run a series of gauntlets last night to get home made up of varying numbers of teenagers and was shitting myself all the way.




Watched a group of about 15 school kids start kicking some bloke who had the cheek to point out that he was getting off the bus a few weeks back. It was only me who told the driver to stop and ring the coppers, personally right now i would take kids and i would put them in cages and poke sticks at them, wanna behave like fucking ferral animals then i will treat them as such. I know that kinda of opinion is not popular on urban but there is a reason that kids are running wild and its because they have nothing and no one to fear, i am only 26 for fucks sake but even i can see a massive gap in intelligence and behaviour in kids born a few years later than me.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 15, 2006)

To be honest, the average beat bobby's fuck all use - someone once published a stat showing how rarely they'd stumble upon (and make a difference to) street crime and the figures were minuscule. Possible PR reassurance value aside, there's little to support the belief that the police can control crime by wandering around aimlessly. Look at the way the dealers used to literally play football around the CSOs and PCs by KFC corner. 

As a kid, I doubt a copper would have scared the shite out of me. I was cocky enough to belief that I could outrun them (almost certainly true). Equally many parents and family friends absolutely loathed the police - I'm sure the enmity and distrust has lessened in recent years, but most parents would have reacted badly had a copper genuinely tried to scare or hit (even a clip to the ear) their child.

I'm not defending these little shits for a second by the way. But too many folks think far too fondly of their own little angels to react well to physical intervention from the police.


----------



## Andy the Don (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> One thing I've noticed on the streets of the UK in recent years is children who appear to be *drunk.*  Never used to see that even ten years ago, and have never seen it anywhere else either.  Its positively Hogarthian.



Its not just drunk. I have seen children 12/13 on their way to school smoking strong smelling weed. Now I am not being hypocritical, because I like a smoke of strong weed, but after work at the end of the day to wind down. Not on my way to work, as I would not be able to perform my duties. So I do not know how they can concentrate in lessons whilst stoned.


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

i don't think they think fondly of their little angels tbh, i think they don't give a shit about their kids but because they are *their* kids, if some copper comes along and slaps em or just says anything to them they get all high and mighty and 'you can't touch my kid' - just an excuse to shout a bit and try and exert some power and righteous feeling.
too many times now i've seen mothers shouting at their little babies to 'shut up' or hitting them to make them stop crying or just letting them run riot on the streets/in shops/on public transport. it just does my head in to know that more than likely these kids will turn out to be troublemakers and the parents could not give a flying f***


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> Its not just drunk. I have seen children 12/13 on their way to school smoking strong smelling weed. Now I am not being hypocritical, because I like a smoke of strong weed, but after work at the end of the day to wind down. Not on my way to work, as I would not be able to perform my duties. So I do not know how they can concentrate in lessons whilst stoned.



I don't mind them being stoned, its when they're pissed that it bothers me.  Kids are reckless at the best of times, but drunken kids are something else again.  Actually, now that I recall, my car was surrounded by drunken kids and kicked/punched (with me in it) in Washington DC a couple of years ago, so maybe its not just a British thing...


----------



## Droppin' (Mar 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> When the oiks started lobbing bottles and stones at the shop I called Brixton police.
> 
> And did they turn up? Did they fuck.



Sounds familiar.

I once witnessed a group of kids harrassing this poor girl on a street corner, not letting her go past to her house and smacking her round the head every time she tried. Poor thing was in tears.

As ashamed as I am to say it I walked straight past like everyone else was doing, then, as I got to Brixton tube, I saw the police and thought I'd redeem myself (or at least try) and tell them.

They were wholly uninterested and told me they would take a wander up in a minute.

I did some shopping and went back and ten mins later they were still there doing it.  The copper had still been standing outside the tube as I left.  I couldn't walk past this time so I intervened and got a 'fuck off you prick' from the ringleader who tried to thump me.  A tall 14-16 yr old.  I managed to pin him to the wall and told him if he didn't leave her alone this instant I would drag him to the police station by his hood myself.  He shat a brick and they all went and I took her to her house.

Anyway, some of the little bastards followed me and when they knew where I lived, reported me to the police for assaulting a minor.  Police rolled up at my door next day and gave me a stern warning not to take the law into my own hands again or I'd be arrested.

I did mention to them that I had reported it to a PC at the tube and he was still there as I left the high street on my way back and what else was I supposed to do if he didn't give a fuck?  They didn't really have an answer other than they proritise incidents and this was may have been lower down the list of immediate responses.  Lower than what?  Standing outside Brixton tube staring at girls as they came up the stairs, as that is what he was doing when I approached him.

Bastards!


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

God it's a lose-lose situation isn't it?! Seems you can't do anything these days. However well intentioned you are the law will always work against you.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> Seems you can't do anything these days. However well intentioned you are the law will always work against you.


Not strictly accurate - if you know what you can and can't do and you stay within the allowed limits then you will be OK and the law will support you.  You may be expected to explain yourself but at some stage - police, CPS or Court - you will be found to have acted within the law.  

There should be far more education for the public as to what their rights and powers are (and are not!).


----------



## netbob (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Not strictly accurate - if you know what you can and can't do and you stay within the allowed limits then you will be OK and the law will support you.  You may be expected to explain yourself but at some stage - police, CPS or Court - you will be found to have acted within the law.
> 
> There should be far more education for the public as to what their rights and powers are (and are not!).



Very true, although everytime there is anything approaching a public debate on this it is dominated by the reactionaries. If the government came out and said that it was reasonable to restrain kids in only x circumstances, the Daily Mail would come out shreeking that it is 'being soft on yobs'.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> If the government came out and said that it was reasonable to restrain kids in only x circumstances, the Daily Mail would come out shreeking that it is 'being soft on yobs'.


Alternatively (or even, perhaps, simultaneously) The Sun would denounce it as a "paedophiles charter" ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2006)

phil dwyer said:
			
		

> They avoid an awful lot of bother over here. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms. I've seen several potentially nasty situations effectively defused by a judicious display of firepower.






			
				editor said:
			
		

> FFS- don't you fucking dare turn this thread into some idiotic gun-nut bollocks.
> 
> In fact, I suggest you consult the FAQ on the matter.



Thankyou editor! I had just got to the above post by you on page 2, and I was already starting to get pissed off at the way SOME were trying to turn it into a gun thread.

Never mind the delinquent kids (  ) -- it's these GUN FREAKS who need to be slapped down ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2006)

Choc said:
			
		

> this is crazy...that we have even gotten so far...
> 
> there used to be a time when any grown up really could tell kids the rights and the wrongs (i never  thought that i would talk like this at my age already). but i think that was better. kids should be allowed to be told off by anybody even if they are not the parents (that is for morally wrong behaviour).
> 
> this bloody american pc behavoir does no good at all really



Not with you Choc. Especially not with the 'american pc' bit  

It's one out of control gang in one part of Brixton -- are we really saying ALL jkids are like that?

Niot wanting toi underestimate the seriousness of the incidents editor is describing, mind, but I'm sceptical about how widespread they occur??.

ETA : and Walworth isn't exactly leafy suburbia either!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 15, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> But too many folks think far too fondly of their own little angels to react well to physical intervention from the police.



Or from bystanders. To me this is the key problem -- try and intervene, or try to get the Police to, and some outraged parent will as likely as not turn up a bit later and start screaming blue murder. It's a particular problem with school bullies and school troublemakers (IMO).


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Mar 15, 2006)

and if you get convicted of assault against a kid as a result of your intervention,  you may have real problems later on, from what I can gather.


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Not strictly accurate - if you know what you can and can't do and you stay within the allowed limits then you will be OK and the law will support you.  You may be expected to explain yourself but at some stage - police, CPS or Court - you will be found to have acted within the law.
> 
> There should be far more education for the public as to what their rights and powers are (and are not!).


 for the benefit of myself and any other interested urbanites then, do you know what we are allowed to do if confronted with a gang of little kids with trouble on their minds?


----------



## Droppin' (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Alternatively (or even, perhaps, simultaneously) The Sun would denounce it as a "paedophiles charter" ...



Indeed.  I did leave my details with the girls mother at the time I took her home in case she reported it to the police and needed my details.  Little did I know they would rock up at my place next day with an assault claim.    Anyway, she did call me the day afterwards, shortly before they came to my house, to say thanks again and to say the police had been round and had said they would be paying me a visit.  Apparently one of the things the police were very keen to know before they came to me was the exact time I got to her house with the daughter, presumably so that they could match that to the time the other kids had said the 'assault' happened to see exactly how much time had 'elapsed' in between when I was alone with her.  Luckily the kids didn't lie and the mother was accurate so it was a matter of minutes. Anyhting else and I could have been under scrutiny after having simply tried to help the poor little sod out.

Police - Wankers to amen!


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> for the benefit of myself and any other interested urbanites then, do you know what we are allowed to do if confronted with a gang of little kids with trouble on their minds?


Post No. 43 above  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4310637&postcount=43


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Post No. 43 above  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4310637&postcount=43


 yes i had read that but its all a bit subjective isn't it. what i deem reasonable the police might think is outrageous... wish there was something more concrete out there.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 15, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Never mind the delinquent kids (  ) -- it's these GUN FREAKS who need to be slapped down ...



Would you please stick to the topic of the thread and stop trying to derail it into a discussion of the merits of "gun freaks."  Thank you.


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Would you please stick to the topic of the thread and stop trying to derail it into a discussion of the merits of "gun freaks."  Thank you.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> yes i had read that but its all a bit subjective isn't it. what i deem reasonable the police might think is outrageous... wish there was something more concrete out there.


There is nothing more concrete.  What is "reasonable and necessary" would be ultimately for a Court to decide.  It is useful to carry out a quick mental balancing exercise:

1. If I do nothing, how serious is the consequence likely to be (i.e. how much injury will I suffer (in self-defence) or how serious is the offence (in the case of making an arrest or preventing a crime).

2. If I do what I am intending to do, how much damage am I likely to cause them? (remember you need to account for not just what you intend to do but what you should reasonably foresee (e.g. someone breaking their neck if you push them backwards when they happen to be at the top of a flight of stairs!)

If these are in proportion, or if (2) is less than (1), then you are probably going to be OK but no-one can say for sure except the Court if someone prosecutes or sues you.  You are allowed to strike first in self-defence (the power is to prevent the assault on you happening) and you can sometimes justify use of a signficantly higher level of force if you are only likely to get one chance to protect yourself / the other victim (e.g. if someone was brandishing a broken bottle you may well be justified in knocking them out or breaking their arm with a heavy blow as any lesser use of force may simply annoy them further and lead to you gettinng stabbed as well).

The Courts tend to look sympathetically on someone acting in good faith and they realise that there is very little time to make a decision and that it is not an exact science.  People convicted of using excessive force have usually carried on striking after the need has ceased (usually due to the "red mist" of adrenalin).

I would not recommend people getting involved in using force to prevent any crime except assault, or to make an arrest, unless it is pretty serious.   Self-defence on the other hand needs to kick in early if it is to be effective.

If you do use force, you would be well advised to call the police yourself, to remain at the scene or go directly to a police station and to avoid doing anything which may be misconstrued as destroying evidence (e.g. washing, changing clothes).  If you have caused any significant injury then you should expect the police to investigate it, with increasing thoroughness as the injury gets more serious.  That may include  being examined by a doctor, having your clothing seized as evidence, being arrested and interviewed or whatever.  This does NOT mean that the police do not believe you as they can arrest on suspicion of committing an offence and they have a duty to investigate allegations made to them (and they do not have any excuse that they do not know "who did it").  

Hopefully they will treat you in an understanding manner but it may take some considerable time - it may not feel like it at the time but being under arrest means that you have far more protection than when you are not - such as access to a solicitor for instance.  ALWAYS take the opportunity to speak to a solicitor and then listen carefully to their advice (beware that some are so used to representing people who are guilty that their standard advice is to say nothing - this may not be the best advice (at least in the short term) if you have done nothing wrong and can justify your actions).

Sorry I can't say "You can do this" or "You cannot do that" but it *IS* entirely subjective (and, in the case of self-defence, you are judged on your subjective belief not on what the truth turned out to be).  Because of this ALWAYS make full notes of what happened, what you did, why you did it, what else you considered doing, etc.  Sign, time and date them.  Do NOT give them away to the police or anyone else without taking a copy - if you have used force then you will have explain it with or without your notes, regardless of who lost them!

Hope this helps.


----------



## waverunner (Mar 15, 2006)

that does help detective boy. i was under the assumption that if you knock someone out in self defence you can get done for assault yourself. i mean imagine if you punch someone hard, they get dazed fall over backwards and smack their head on the concrete and get seriously injured... 
what with all these ridiculous stories these days of burglars suing the owners of the house they attempted to burgle cos a toy was left on the floor and they slipped on it and got injured.. it is a bit hard to understand exactly what's going on in the law today.


----------



## nick1181 (Mar 15, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Would you please stick to the topic of the thread and stop trying to derail it into a discussion of the merits of "gun freaks."  Thank you.



Aaaaand back to the gun freaks again: 

Welcome to The Phildwyer "tough-love" school of child-rearing. 

_
*Chapter two. Discipline* 

If your children misbehave, shoot them.



(see appendix II for dealing with neighbour's children (by shooting them) and unhappy parents (by a) threatening them with a gun - and failing that, b) shooting them))


_


----------



## aylee (Mar 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Sadly, if they are under 10 years old there is NOTHING anyone but the police can do with them about them committing non-physical crime.  The law assumes that a child under the age of 10 CANNOT (as a matter of law) commit a crime and, hence, no power of arrest applies as we as citizens can only arrest if an indictable offence (which would include theft, damage, assault (ABH upwards)) HAS been committed.  Likewise our power to use reasonable force to prevent crime would not exist as, because of their age, there is no crime being committed.
> 
> Our power to use force in self-defence is not affected by their age, though I would suggest extreme caution in deciding what is "reasonable and necessary", so if there was an imminent danger of assault on us or someone else we could use reasonable force to prevent it happening or continuing.
> 
> ...



Apologies if I'm repeating a reply that someone else has already given, but I think that you're wrong to say that you couldn't physically restrain a little brat who was stealing or smashing up property.  First, section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 says that you "may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of the offenders or suspected offenders ....".  I'm not aware of any decided cases in the point, but I would expect a court to interpret "prevention of crime" to include the prevention of acts by a boy under 10 which would be criminal were it not for the fact he was doli incapax (treated as not being capable of having a criminal mind).

Moreover, there are common law rights to use reasonable force to defend oneself and property, although it's not clear whether that would extend to defending the property of another.  Again I would expect the courts to decide that if there was an imminent threat to the property of another, reasonable force could be used by a third party to prevent it.

I have some sympathy with your last point, although I don't think hauling kids of that age through the youth justice system is necessarily the right way forward.  We need more imaginative solutions to problems caused by kids behaving like this, but they would cost money and the government would rather spend it on jailing single mothers who shoplift or deal small quantities of dope because they're poor.


----------



## nick1181 (Mar 15, 2006)

Well regardless of the legalities, any confrontation with gangs of kids is basically an invitation to bring a juvenile-deliquency-jihaad down on your sorry ass.

The best idea I've heard so far is to play classical music in the places where you don't want them hanging about. I wish I'd thought of that when I was living on an estate that was basically turned into a nightmare by children - and which I eventually left because it's just too much hassle.


----------



## samk (Mar 15, 2006)

Bring back the stocks.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 16, 2006)

Droppin' said:
			
		

> I once witnessed a group of kids harrassing this poor girl on a street corner, not letting her go past to her house and smacking her round the head every time she tried. Poor thing was in tears.



similar thing happened to my house mate on acre lane a few weeks back. 
gang of kids came and lamped him round the ear a few times and pushed and shoved him. luckily he managed to leg it and they couldnt be arsed.

just no need. 

just a thought - he was listening to his walkman, it was late and dark and reckons his spacial awareness was a bit impeded. mite have been a bit more aware of his surroundings if not plugged


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 16, 2006)

nick1181 said:
			
		

> Welcome to The Phildwyer "tough-love" school of child-rearing.
> 
> _
> *Chapter two. Discipline*
> ...


_

Never did me any harm._


----------



## brixtonvilla (Mar 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Never did me any harm.



*bites tongue*


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 16, 2006)

it's lucky he doesn't have to deal with hysterical people

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 16, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> i mean imagine if you punch someone hard, they get dazed fall over backwards and smack their head on the concrete and get seriously injured...


That does happen quite regularly.  You are responsible for the injury you intend to cause (split lip, maybe a cracked jaw or something, from a punch) plus anything you should reasonably have foreseen (e.g. you know they have an eggshell skull and a punch is likely to fracture it; they are at the edge of the road and a punch is likely to knock them back in front of the No38 bus; you used to be a boxer hence the injury from a punch will be much more).

You are NOT responsible if the chain of causation is broken (i.e. if something else unforeseen happens).  That is why people who hit someone who falls, hits their head badly, fractures their skull and dies tend to get found guilty of assault (or, at worse, manslaughter) rather than murder (And don't forget that is where they did NOT have any lawful right to use force at all in the first place - if you were using reasonable force to defend yourself you would be entirely acquitted). 



> what with all these ridiculous stories these days of burglars suing the owners of the house they attempted to burgle cos a toy was left on the floor and they slipped on it and got injured.. it is a bit hard to understand exactly what's going on in the law today.


Sadly the papers tend to concentrate on the extreme cases.  It is also the case that where someone is seriously injured or dies then a full investigation is carried out (quite rightly I think everyone would agree).  This may well mean someone is arrested which the media report.  If there are any inconsistencies then charges may be laid as the final arbiter is the Court, and the media report these as well.  If there is a conviction they report that and get themselves into a "political correctness / burglars charter / end of civilisation as we know it" state.  However, in the majority of cases where there is an acquittal they don't report it at all - hence your impression (and that of the vast majority of the public).  Likewise with stupid civil actions - they report the threat of an action, they don't report the fact that the vast majority are laughed out of Court!


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 16, 2006)

aylee said:
			
		

> ... but I would expect a court to interpret "prevention of crime" to include the prevention of acts by a boy under 10 which would be criminal were it not for the fact he was doli incapax (treated as not being capable of having a criminal mind).


There are numerous decided cases on the lawfulness of arrest which conclude that if an arrest is found to have been unlawful on the basis that a crime had not been committed then the arrest was unlawful and any force used was an assault.  This is why store detectives have to be very, very careful that a theft has been committed before detaining anyone - no matter how reasonable their actions at the time the matter will be decided on the facts as finally discovered (unlike self-defence where the honest belief of the persoon at the time is the basis for the decision).  Without research (which I haven't got time for!) I am not aware of any cases on the matter in hand but I would advise caution as I could see it going against you (certainly in the case of arrest, probably less so in the case of preventing theft / damage (which is likely to have aspects of self-defence and / or trespass in it anyway).

I always suggest great care and caution when dealing with children, no matter how unruly.  As has already been noted parents tend to think of their devil-spawn offspring as little angels and any action taken against them is blown out of all proportion.  I would be very wary of any physical contact with a child known to be under 10 - it is far, far more of a minefield than with a child over that age, or an adult.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Mar 16, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Would you please stick to the topic of the thread and stop trying to derail it into a discussion of the merits of "gun freaks."  Thank you.



are you trying to be clever? it's not working.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 16, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> are you trying to be clever? it's not working.



Wasn't it phil who actually brought up the subject of guns in the first place? Or did I miss something?


----------



## zoltan (Mar 16, 2006)

I Blame The Parents!


----------



## zoltan (Mar 16, 2006)

I BLAME THE PARENTS!

But seriously, As much as the acts are carried out by the kids, the fuckin vermin ignorant lazy stupid parents are to blame. They have a shitty unfulfilled life, then its going tio rub off in their kids. I dint want to get all Guadian reader on this, cos we do see kids running amok, but up to a point, its not all their fault.

Thats no excuse though and it will continue until somehow, the children or their children manage to escape this vortex..and that not easy.....dont expect a solution in the forseeable future.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 16, 2006)

I think I've seen these kids doing that particular caper about a month ago at the Ritzy end of CHL...


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 16, 2006)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> I BLAME THE PARENTS!
> 
> But seriously, As much as the acts are carried out by the kids, the fuckin vermin ignorant lazy stupid parents are to blame. They have a shitty unfulfilled life, then its going tio rub off in their kids. I dint want to get all Guadian reader on this, cos we do see kids running amok, but up to a point, its not all their fault.
> 
> Thats no excuse though and it will continue until somehow, the children or their children manage to escape this vortex..and that not easy.....dont expect a solution in the forseeable future.



I agree. Sadly, there are many chiuoldren in Brixton who aren't being 'brought up'. You can see them out buying crisps at 4am from 24hr petrol stations, my voluntary sector project frequently deals with 11 and 12 year olds who have had nothing to eat for 18 hours because thier Mum is out at boyfriends flat, etc etc.
Serious investment in schools and community-based projects might help, they can be helped on the brink of becoming seriously out of control, but there is little resource for the intensive work needed.  Many can be engaged into constructive social arts or sports activity if the right degree of pastoral support is there. 

Personally, if I can, I always challenge kids (not scary looking teenagers!)directly - it tells them that people in general care about how they behave, and sometimes they back off or back down. Sometimes they run off shouting abuse, of course!


----------



## toggle (Mar 16, 2006)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> I BLAME THE PARENTS!



At that age, you have a very good point.

I've got an 8 year old kid, and I don't let him out to roam the streets on his own or with freinds, and he lives in an area that's considerably safer than coldharbour lane.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 16, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> I've got an 8 year old kid, and I don't let him out to roam the streets on his own or with freinds, and he lives in an area that's considerably safer than coldharbour lane.




Not everyone has that luxury though do they? At 8 or thereabouts  I was catching the bus(es) to school from Brixton, along with a whole host of other single kids. I wouldn't say I was 'roaming' the streets for one second or hanging out on street corners for hours on end, but I did need to get to school some way and my parents both needed to work. I certainly used to play out on the streets with friends when I was that age - we didn't even have a garden to kick around a ball and we wanted to play somewhere.

It does slightly sadden me that I suspect that may seem slightly unusual now. I can understand why folks are so protective of their kids, but I've fond memories of the independence of travelling on my own and with friends. You can't look after or lock-away a child the whole time, whatever your best intentions - surely it's better to equip your kids with the skills and manners to get on with things for themselves to a certain extent. I think in many ways it encourages responsibility and an ability to interact with others more constructively


----------



## toggle (Mar 16, 2006)

So it's a luxury now to have parents who actually know where you are?


----------



## tarannau (Mar 16, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> So it's a luxury now to have parents who actually know where you are?



Nope, but you can't expect to have your eyes on your kids all the time. Sure, my parents knew that I was on the bus to school or thereabouts, but they couldn't physically be there - they had to trust me to a certain extent. And although we were playing just outside the house or just round the corner,  they weren't able to supervise me every second.

I was perhaps lucky in having an extended family of friends that settled nearby after immigrating - their children became my friends and the neighbourhood was protective of us I guess. 

This isn't a personal jibe at you for one second. I just do find it a little sad - perhaps as a result of Daily Mail style paedo-hysteria - that folks seem far more protective of their children than in the past, despite the lack of increasing statistical risk. And consequently the streets become ever more deserted of children, making the issue worse - the lack of children and other to look over you outside just tends to make parents even less confident of letting their own children out. It's totally understandable, but I suspect my childhood benefitted from those happy times outside.


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 16, 2006)

My childhood was like yours in many respects, Taranau.
'Takes a village to raise a child' was what my parents believed, and their friends and neighbours, too.

I am more cautious about where my children go. Because the people in the neighbourhood don't know them, much less care. Because there are idiots driving too fast with their mind on their mobile, not pedestrians, or pelican crossings, and not bothering to observe road signs - so driving across pedestrian crossings etc. 

And even if my kids were out, they wouldn't be stealling and vandalising.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 16, 2006)

OpalFruit said:
			
		

> My childhood was like yours in many respects, Taranau.
> 'Takes a village to raise a child' was what my parents believed, and their friends and neighbours, too.
> .



Blimey...and Brixton Village was just a glint in the Granville Arcade's eye when I was a nipper too...

 

More seriously, I can totally understand why people are cautious about their kids - I'll probably be as risk averse with my own children - but it doesn't stop me from being sad how things have turned out. People seem far less tolerant of kids playing out  - they don't like the noise, or tend to think of them as troublemakers or in danger if they're not supervised. I reckon my generation may have been a lot luckier - instead of being allowed to graze on telly and playstation, we were virtually expected to be in the open air and running around. Suited me down to the ground.


----------



## toggle (Mar 16, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> This isn't a personal jibe at you for one second. I just do find it a little sad - perhaps as a result of Daily Mail style paedo-hysteria - that folks seem far more protective of their children than in the past, despite the lack of increasing statistical risk. And consequently the streets become ever more deserted of children, making the issue worse - the lack of children and other to look over you outside just tends to make parents even less confident of letting their own children out. It's totally understandable, but I suspect my childhood benefitted from those happy times outside.



I'm not coming from a place of daily mail hysteria.

A hell of a lot of my concern stems from the fact that I know my son isn't aware enough to cross roads safely at his age. he gets easily distracted and will still wander into the road without looking if hes not checked. Groups of kids that age are even worse at this. 

You've also got the concern for their safety from other kids. If people are concerned that kids this age may be carrying knives, that's probably so they can protect themselves from kids a few years older. (this was the factor that i thought would differentiate my area from coldharbour lane)

There are factors involved that make it more dangerous to let kids out on their own these days that don't stem from hysteria about paediatricians on every street corner. I moved closer to my son's school with the intention of allowing him to walk there on his own as soon as I'm sure he can manage the roads.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 16, 2006)

toggle said:
			
		

> I'm not coming from a place of daily mail hysteria.
> 
> A hell of a lot of my concern stems from the fact that I know my son isn't aware enough to cross roads safely at his age. he gets easily distracted and will still wander into the road without looking if hes not checked. Groups of kids that age are even worse at this.
> .



Don't you feel that's a bit of a generalisation? There used to be plenty of us nippers out on the street when I was younger - hell we even used to play down by Marl's down by the traffic nightmare of Greyhound Lane - and there wasn't a epidemic of the younger kids being mown down. 

Granted, you know your kid better than anyone else, but I'll take a little issue with the helpless 8 year old stereotype. it wasn't a pastoral environment even then. Lots of <10 year olds used to catch the bus to school without incident. I remember - even as a little kid - laughing at how badly thought out and quaint the Green Cross Code seemed to us Londoners - you'd be waiting all day if you actually waited for the road to be clear in both directions...

 

There is of course an argument that drivers are far less careful and considerate these days, even allowing for the 'newfangled' traffic calming measures that should aid pedestrian safety. I think there's some undoutedly some truth in that, but that's also because there's a growing expectation that kids shouldn't be playing near roads - even residential ones - and drivers perhaps don't experience as many hazards and  consequently don't take the care they should. In a similar way to removing road markings seems to force drivers to slow down and take more care, the sheer presence of more children out playing would also (I guess) would also help to amend driver behaviour. 

The concern about older kids is understandable as well, but it's difficult to know where to draw the line. There's always going to be a bigger and more imposing kid out there. Has it ever been any different?


----------



## tendril (Mar 16, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Even if they pulled out a blade you'd have no problem slapping them down



Except the apologists would have *your* arse for it... sigh. What's the world coming to, in my day etc. etc.


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 17, 2006)

<<Lots of <10 year olds used to catch the bus to school without incident. I remember - even as a little kid - laughing at how badly thought out and quaint the Green Cross Code seemed to us Londoners - you'd be waiting all day if you actually waited for the road to be clear in both directions...>>

 Ah, "but in our day" we accepted a bit of light RTA damage as an occupational hazard! Come to thnk of it, at least 2 kids a year in my year were knocked down - and one was killed    The only Road accident I know of in my kids school is a boy whose dad ran him over outside their flat because he couldn't see properly reversing in his 4x4.

But yeah, the kids are either in the 4x4 or dodging them as they speed down the road, swerving in between the speed humps like a slalom!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

*Just seen this.*




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Would you please stick to the topic of the thread and stop trying to derail it into a discussion of the merits of "gun freaks."  Thank you.



You're making a twat of yourself yet again.

Your arrogance, hypocrisy and plain LYING is not at all surprising.

Did I even mention guns, or their freak lovers, on this thread, before YOU insisted on trying to derail the thread with your freak gunloving opinions?

Which derail the *editor* rebuked you for, before I even mentioned the subject.

Please note also my other posts, which unlike yours, were on topic ...

So do kindly fuck off and take your nutcase gunrants to the NRA forums if such exist. Freak.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> are you trying to be clever? it's not working.






			
				trashpony said:
			
		

> Wasn't it phil who actually brought up the subject of guns in the first place? Or did I miss something?



See, phil?

Other posters have seen right through your tranparent ridiculousness, even before I saw it.


----------



## pk (Mar 17, 2006)

Maybe guns would be useful against subconcious racists??


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 17, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Not strictly accurate - if you know what you can and can't do and you stay within the allowed limits then you will be OK and the law will support you.  You may be expected to explain yourself but at some stage - police, CPS or Court - you will be found to have acted within the law.
> 
> There should be far more education for the public as to what their rights and powers are (and are not!).





A couple of years ago, some young lads made a habit of trying to nick my bike, often when I was out.  Then they tried it when I was at home - I didn't realise what was happening and my neighbour called the police - no one came.  They came back later but this time I saw them, grabbed my coat, pulled the hood up, picked up the hammer I was using to work on the house and went out and told them not very politely to leave the vicinity hastily, which they did.

Never had any intention of using it whatsoever and didn't actually make a specific threat but was holding it as if to say I would use it on em.   What would have happened if they had then gone to the police??  They could have interpreted it as unreasonable force being threatened even though I never actually threatened them.

And whatever the law says on the matter, seeing as they never came back I think I'd happily do the same thing again.

I remember a lawyer talking about the Tony Martin case saying if a burglar is in your home you should 'run away'.  What planet was this guy living on?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 17, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You're making a twat of yourself yet again



And you are once again attempting to derail this thread with your petulant, preening pomposity.  Kindly keep your remarks on topic in future.  Thank you in advance.


----------



## waverunner (Mar 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And you are once again attempting to derail this thread with your petulant, preening pomposity.  Kindly keep your remarks on topic in future.  Thank you in advance.


 He wouldn't have had to say it if you hadn't derailed the thread in the first place with all the talk of guns


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And you are once again attempting to derail this thread



An accurate description of your initial posts on this thread about guns, before I even got involved.



> with your petulant, preening pomposity



An accurate description of many of your posts ....  



> Kindly keep your remarks on topic in future.  Thank you in advance.




Are you ern in disguise?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

waverunner said:
			
		

> He wouldn't have had to say it if you hadn't derailed the thread in the first place with all the talk of guns



Exactement. Thankyou.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 17, 2006)

Would you both *please* stop posting irrelevant personal attacks which do nothing but derail this thread?  Just stop.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 17, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> we will need shooting ranges too  ask you need practise to hit small running kids


 Demons source


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Mar 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And you are once again attempting to derail this thread with your petulant, preening pomposity.  Kindly keep your remarks on topic in future.  Thank you in advance.



Phil, I hate personal attacks too. They are purile and self defeating. 
However in your case I will make an exception, you great big steaming runny horse turd!!! 
Thats what you get for calling everyone a racist.


----------



## toggle (Mar 17, 2006)

Oh gawd, Thanks a lot for that image. I can almost smell it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Would you both *please* stop posting irrelevant personal attacks which do nothing but derail this thread?  Just stop.



The derailer is YOU.

You were the one who -- irrelevantly, derailingly --  brought up guns in the first place, remember?

Then accused others of derailing for responding. Was the editor derailing this thread by objecting to your irrelevent derail??

You've clearly learnt from the now departed trollmaster, whose prime tactic was to troll a thread with something deeply provocative and marginally relevant, then accuse those who responded/objected of being trolls ...

I'm sure the more people who object to your stuiff (and there's an awful lot of them) the more you become convinced of your own rectitude.

It's the mark of arrogance.

If I was thoroughly pissing people off as many people here as you are on a regular a basis, I'd be thinking hard about it and asking questions of myself and my posts.

Something you seem to be failing to do in your own case.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> in your case I will make an exception, you great big steaming runny horse turd!!!
> Thats what you get for calling everyone a racist.



Spot on. The more people object, the more he's right, in philworld.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 17, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> The derailer is YOU.
> 
> You were the one who -- irrelevantly, derailingly --  brought up guns in the first place, remember?
> 
> Then accused others of derailing for responding. Was the editor derailing this thread by objecting to your irrelevent derail?



This is what happened: I mentioned guns, the Editor objected that this was irrelevant, I immediately ceased mentioning guns, *you* then blundered in when it was all over and started shouting about "derailing," I asked you to stop your shouting, you continued to shout.  As you still do.  Why?  Please stop.


----------



## toggle (Mar 17, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> This is what happened: I mentioned guns, the Editor objected that this was irrelevant, I immediately ceased mentioning guns, *you* then blundered in when it was all over and started shouting about "derailing," I asked you to stop your shouting, you continued to shout.  As you still do.  Why?  Please stop.




it still really reeks.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Mar 17, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> The more people object, the more he's right, in philworld.



Unwilling as I am to contribute to philworld's gnp, the bloke is a prizewinning sanctimonious cock & his posts are the kiss of death on any thread he touches. This being a prime example.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2006)

You're talking rubbish phil ...


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 18, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You're talking rubbish phil ...



You just *can't* let it lie, can you?  Look, I'll make it simple: if you do not provoke me, I will not respond to you. Do you think you can manage that?  Will you now, at last, just shut the *fuck* up?  Have you no sense of decency, Sir?  Have you, at last, no decency left in you?  Will you now leave the rest of us in some semblance of peace, as I have requested many many times on this thread, as anyone can see... (don't know why I'm bothering tbh, he clearly isn't going to stop, buzzing drone that he is...)


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 18, 2006)

shut up dwyer.  for the love of god, just turn it in.


----------



## pk (Mar 18, 2006)

It's true. 

Phildwyer, presumably high on crack purchased from subconciously racist gun freaks, has finally lost the plot.

Ladies and gentlemen, Phildwyer has left the building.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 18, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...Have you no sense of decency, Sir?  Have you, at last, no decency left in you?...


Close, but no donut:

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, June 9 in 1954


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 18, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Close, but no donut:
> 
> "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
> Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, June 9 in 1954



Heh.  I did my best but you're right, there's nothing quite like the original.  There's an even better speech from those hearings though, the one that goes "... if you think, for one *second,* that I am going to co-operate with a bunch of... [etc etc] then, Sir... you are INSANE."  Maybe you can look it up for us Teej...


----------



## kakuma (Mar 18, 2006)

there is a serious problem with da yoot, but slapping em down isn't going to solve it

it's wierd here, cos it's really surprising the amount of kids who are playing at all hours, it reminds me of when i was a kid, but not of england nowadays where you hardly ever see kids playing innocently 

kids that age need to be treated like kids, not 'young adults' or whatever, they should be shit scared of robbing shops etc, the dude should have grabbed one and slapped him a couple of times, 

anyways little rant over


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 18, 2006)

Harold Hill said:
			
		

> Never had any intention of using it whatsoever and didn't actually make a specific threat but was holding it as if to say I would use it on em.   What would have happened if they had then gone to the police??  They could have interpreted it as unreasonable force being threatened even though I never actually threatened them.


Having something with you in case you needed it is one thing, having it visible in your hand is another - holding it so that it can be seen (even if you weren't actually brandishing it as such) could be interpreted as a threat and, as such, you would be liable to charged with having an offensive weapon.  Whilst there is no specific defence to such a charge related to you fearing you were about to be assaulted, you should be able to make out a "reasonable excuse" defence but, as the words suggest, that would be a matter for a court to decide.

As you don't mention any specific threat of violence from the bike thieves, nor any weapon in their possession, the actual use of a hammer to make a threat would quite possibly be considered excessive force in the circumstances (particularly if you could have used something less damaging - a lump of 4x2 or something).

As I said, having something with you may be wise, producing it prior to the point where you could justify using it (or certainly very much before that point) would be less so!


----------



## rascal (Mar 18, 2006)

i never read the entire of a thread esp when it is as long as this one... so maybe this opinion has already been cited... however... maybe kids would not be such little shits if there was more activities available to engage them.  Maybe they would show a little more respect if some via somewhere to go and something to do.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

Just looked out of my window and they're at it again - a gang of about 12-14 of the little shits just nicked a load of stuff from the old 'Lambet Stores' and the owner was battling to get them out of the shop while they threw chocolate bars around.

Then one kid ran over the bonnet of a parked car with people inside it - yet no-one seems to challenge them...


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

Those little cunts attacked the shopkeeper and smashed his window.

When the cops finally came out, they chased them around the back of the block with the kids (who first ran away from the police) protesting their innocence and the police seemingly unable to do fuck all about it.

Theres no reason why the local shops should have to put up with this shit.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> shut up dwyer.  for the love of god, just turn it in.



Thank you.

Stop singliing me out dwyer -- if you think it was *me* who was the troublemaker earlier in this thread, I think you'll find that you're outnumbered by other Urbanites who are capable of seeing exactly what you were up to here.

As for delinquent kids, I am very capable of achieving an appropriate level of not very constructive, yet therapeutic!, anger about them, but I'll leave it for now ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Those little cunts attacked the shopkeeper and smashed his window.
> 
> When the cops finally came out, they chased them around the back of the block with the kids (who first ran away from the police) protesting their innocence and the police seemingly unable to do fuck all about it.
> 
> Theres no reason why the local shops should have to put up with this shit.



This was today?

  

ETA : I see that it was


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 19, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Stop singliing me out dwyer -- if you think it was *me* who was the troublemaker earlier in this thread, I think you'll find that you're outnumbered by other Urbanites who are capable of seeing exactly what you were up to here.



Well, since the evidence is readily available and perfectly clear for all to see, your incessant, apprently unstoppable, whining is likey to prove counter-productive.  I advise you, yet again and for your own sake, to drop the subject once and for all, and to stick in future to the topic of this thread.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, since the evidence is readily available and perfectly clear for all to see, your incessant, apprently unstoppable, whining is likey to prove counter-productive.  I advise you, yet again and for your own sake, to drop the subject once and for all, and to stick in future to the topic of this thread.



A subject that YOU IRRELEVANTLY RAISED in the first place, you self righteous, arrogant. never-ever-wrong-in-your-own-eyes arsehole.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

Does it bother you in any way that so many people on here dislike you so much?

Stop singling me out -- I'm not alone.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 19, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> A subject that YOU IRRELEVANTLY RAISED in the first place, you self righteous, arrogant. never-ever-wrong-in-your-own-eyes arsehole.



I really, truly, would appreciate it if you would stop these personal attacks against me.  I have not retaliated, nor will I lower myself to do so, but surely you can see how disruptive you're being?  Seriously, just drop it.  Now.  Ta.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 19, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Does it bother you in any way that so many people on here dislike you so much?
> 
> Stop singling me out -- I'm not alone.



Can't you just drop it?  Why can't you?  Just *leave* it, your frantic yammering is boring me out of my mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And you are once again attempting to derail this thread with your petulant, preening pomposity.  Kindly keep your remarks on topic in future.  Thank you in advance.



Hear hear phil, WoW should leave the petulant preening pomposity to you, you're so much better at it.

Any chance of providing the material I asked you for on the "drug dealing scumbags" thread anytime this year? I wouldn't like it to be said that you can't substantiate the claims you make, after all.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

First off, phil: you brought up the ridiculous bullshit about guns in the first place and were responsible for veering this thread off topic and 'activating' WoW.

But seeing as this issue is important to me (and, I'd imagine quite a few residents), I'd be grateful if you both (no, make that 'everyone') just shut the fuck up with this irrelevant squabbling.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Hear hear phil, WoW should leave the petulant preening pomposity to you, you're so much better at it.



Maybe so.  But he surely takes the biscuit at primping, prissing pusillanimity.

QUOTE=ViolentPanda]Any chance of providing the material I asked you for on the "drug dealing scumbags" thread anytime this year?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I forgot, it all blends into one after a while.  Which material was that?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> First off, phil: you brought up the ridiculous bullshit about guns in the first place and were responsible for veering this thread off topic and 'activating' WoW.
> 
> But seeing as this issue is important to me (and, I'd imagine quite a few residents), I'd be grateful if you both (no, make that 'everyone') just shut the fuck up with this irrelevant squabbling.



Fait enough, sorry. I've not been at my best on this one admittedly ...   

<shuts up about the rest of it .... with extreme difficulty!>


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Maybe so.  But he surely takes the biscuit at primping, prissing pusillanimity**.



I've stopped. It would be great if you would too, thankyou.

**However, please feel free to run a poll and see how many others on here agree with that description


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> First off, phil: you brought up the ridiculous bullshit about guns in the first place and were responsible for veering this thread off topic and 'activating' WoW.



And I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to "de-activate" him ever since.  Could do with a hand there, actually.  And as soon as you objected to my talk of guns, I stopped it.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> But seeing as this issue is important to me (and, I'd imagine quite a few residents), I'd be grateful if you both (no, make that 'everyone') just shut the fuck up with this irrelevant squabbling.



You got it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 19, 2006)

<Buttons it!!!!>

 x 10000


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Maybe so.  But he surely takes the biscuit at primping, prissing pusillanimity.
> 
> QUOTE=ViolentPanda]Any chance of providing the material I asked you for on the "drug dealing scumbags" thread anytime this year?
> 
> Sorry, I forgot, it all blends into one after a while.  Which material was that?



The request is on the last page of the "drug dealing scumbags" thread.

Thanks awfully.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The request is on the last page of the "drug dealing scumbags" thread.
> 
> Thanks awfully.



You mean the one about whether people convicted of crimes in Britain and the USA are disproportionately black?  If so, no probs, I'm sure I can dig it out.  Do you want it in "Little Shits Out Of Order," or in "Drug Dealing Scumbags?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You mean the one about whether people convicted of crimes in Britain and the USA are disproportionately black?  If so, no probs, I'm sure I can dig it out.  Do you want it in "Little Shits Out Of Order," or in "Drug Dealing Scumbags?"



In "Scumbags" please.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just looked out of my window and they're at it again - a gang of about 12-14 of the little shits just nicked a load of stuff from the old 'Lambet Stores' and the owner was battling to get them out of the shop while they threw chocolate bars around.
> 
> Then one kid ran over the bonnet of a parked car with people inside it - yet no-one seems to challenge them...


Maybe if someone got photos of them and these photos somehow found their way into the public domain...

(a kind of diy 'crimewatch' as it were)

...I wonder if this would influence either them or their parents?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

You know when I asked people to shut the fuck up about irrelevant spats in this thread?

The next off topic posts earns the poster a 24hr ban.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Maybe if someone got photos of them and these photos somehow found their way into the public domain...


I don't think there's much problem recognising them. The problem is that they don't give a fuck.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 19, 2006)

The law may prevent people running out and grabbing them, but the law also has lots of power over children in thew area of education, social services and so forth, and 10-year olds can get ASBOs

eg: http://society.guardian.co.uk/youthjustice/story/0,11982,1379573,00.html


----------



## netbob (Mar 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Maybe if someone got photos of them and these photos somehow found their way into the public domain...




I'm not sure about photos but IMO it is important that this kind of thing gets recorded in public so everyone knows what is going on and get's their say.

I started making a website to map this kind of thing (only works when my computer is awake):

http://84.70.165.182:3000/reports

If there's anyone who could help out finishing / polishing it a bit let me know.

I think half the reason that people don't attempt to tackle kids when they do stuff like this is there's nothing approaching a community consensus on these issues and when people deal with the police it's a very one way process.


----------



## snadge (Mar 19, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You mean the one about whether people convicted of crimes in Britain and the USA are disproportionately black?  If so, no probs, I'm sure I can dig it out.  Do you want it in "Little Shits Out Of Order," or in "Drug Dealing Scumbags?"



ho hum


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> ho hum


Please. Let it lie.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2006)

memespring said:
			
		

> http://84.70.165.182:3000/reports


I'm getting: "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 84.70.165.182:3000."


----------



## netbob (Mar 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm getting: "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 84.70.165.182:3000."



computers    . 

Here's a screenshot and explanation as second best:

http://www.memedev.com/map.png


Basically the idea of complaining in public rather than a oneway report to the police. And generating a conversation around problems. In theory the police would be able to leave commenst saying what they are doing too.


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm getting: "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 84.70.165.182:3000."



http://84.70.165.182/

try that instead.


----------



## academia (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just looked out of my window and they're at it again - a gang of about 12-14 of the little shits just nicked a load of stuff from the old 'Lambet Stores' and the owner was battling to get them out of the shop while they threw chocolate bars around.
> 
> Then one kid ran over the bonnet of a parked car with people inside it - yet no-one seems to challenge them...



Saw about 30 kids aged 12-18 running around outside Brixton Academy and the shops down that end of the high street around 9pm Saturday night.

The local shopkeepers seemed a bit disturbed but I didn't ask what had been going on.

I walked through the crowd and felt a bit uneasy, but they were busy beating up one of their number at the time.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just looked out of my window and they're at it again - a gang of about 12-14 of the little shits just nicked a load of stuff from the old 'Lambet Stores' and the owner was battling to get them out of the shop while they threw chocolate bars around.


Whether or not it was the same ones, two such incidents in a short time really should be something which attracts some police _proactive_ activity even if reactive is not possible.  That would depend on the shopkeepers reporting the incidents (sounds like the second one was at least) and a relevant officer (beat officer, ward teamr whatever would be the most likely) becoming aware.  If you have any way of contacting local officers (e.g. their name on flyers, or at meetings or whatever) then anyone can let them know of the existence of the problem.

Things they _could_ do (depending on the circumstances):
- Identify the kids concerned
- Arrest (over 10 is in play) them
- Refer them to Youth Offender Team (as potential crims even if not proceeded against at this time)
- Visit families and warn re- future action
- Advise CCTV control room of nature and location of problem and request additional activity
- Circulate response teams, requesting an immediate response to any future incidents
- Ciirculate all local shopkeepers with advice on what to do if another situation happens
- Increase local patrols (or focus the activity of existing patrols) as a deterrent (this would be by far the most likely to have a long term effect) 
- Install covert CCTV (probably too soon to merit that, but if same venue is attacked repeatedly should be considered)
- Use local media to highlight problem and / or police response

If you do make contact and the response is "There's nothing we can do" then that is not good enough so complain.  It shouldn't have to be this way, but if it is then complaining repeatedly is the only way anything will ever happen.


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 20, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Whether or not it was the same ones, two such incidents in a short time really should be something which attracts some police _proactive_ activity even if reactive is not possible.  That would depend on the shopkeepers reporting the incidents (sounds like the second one was at least) and a relevant officer (beat officer, ward teamr whatever would be the most likely) becoming aware.  If you have any way of contacting local officers (e.g. their name on flyers, or at meetings or whatever) then anyone can let them know of the existence of the problem.
> 
> Things they _could_ do (depending on the circumstances):
> - Identify the kids concerned
> ...




a rough translatation ::: stigmatise the *kids* even more...


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> a rough translatation ::: stigmatise the *kids* even more...


I don't interpret it as that at all.

At the moment they're running out of control, stealing and damaging property and getting worse.

What do you propose?


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> What do you propose?



I propose the children are taken to a pre-school and asked to explain their actions to their peers and basically those that they are _impressing _...I propose that kids are given the oppurtunity to redeem themselves by example...I propose the young people are thought about and considered more generously than just given up on.

Unlike WoW I do believe kids ARE doing this ALL over the country to a lesser or GREATER degree and that something is fundamentally wrong with the _education _ given to these young people in all strata of modern society...both at home and at school.

We have all been kids, we have all been _naughty_,and I don't belittle the gravity of THIS situation, but draconian enforcement of control has and never will work.

There was a very interesting discussion about this on Start The Week R4 that is worth trying to Listen Again.


I hope that places like Here give people the chance  to consider the example they set to others and that they should take care of what they encourage or _dis_encourage come to that.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I propose the children are taken to a pre-school and asked to explain their actions to their peers and basically those that they are _impressing _..


How do you get them there, then?

Seeing as a 7 year old tried to run away from a policewoman and told her to "fuck off" when stopped, I can't see them lining up to attend lectures or whatever...


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 20, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Today too many of them don't have an authority figure to respect. get praise .



That might have something to do with the fact that most of their fathers are either 
(A) In jail. OR
(B) are absent from the home.siring kids with multipul mothers....

Fucking base ball bat the little bastards..puts a stop to it big time


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> That might have something to do with the fact that most of their fathers are either
> (A) In jail.



Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I propose the children are taken to a pre-school and asked to explain their actions to their peers and basically those that they are _impressing _...I propose that kids are given the oppurtunity to redeem themselves by example...I propose the young people are thought about and considered more generously than just given up on.


And HOW are you going to get them there?    

For your information, thats precisely the sort of stuff that the YOTS try to use to divert kids from crime (except they actually have the powers and authorities needed to do it).


----------



## Oula (Mar 20, 2006)

Last week my car window got broken when parked outside my house. Nothing taken, nothing even gone through. On saturday I saw a neighbour hoovering glass out of her car and went over to chat to her. She said that some other kids in the street had told her that they saw 2 kids (aged 7 and 8) throwing stones at her car and breaking the window. She called the police, the police went and saw the kids parents. The parents came over and apologised and offered to pay for the window. They also sent their kids around to clean up the womans car. The kids admitted they had done it to a few cars that week.

On the good side this seems to show that something can be done even if the kids are under 10. Also shows that the parents seem to care what the kids are up to and will be keeping a closer eye in future.

On the bad side I phoned by safer neighbourhood police ward thing last wednesday to discus the problems in our street and left a message. They have yet to phone back. Also, as these kids seem to almost definately have done my window too , why aren't the police contacting me. I just heard it from a neighbour. Should I phone the police and see if I can get the parents to cough up for my window too?


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?



Oh you really are fucking clueless aren't you?

Why you're still here is beyond me. 

Won't be long until you're permanently fucked off though, with any luck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?



Abolitionism?


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?



So are you advocating that certain sections of the community should be excused any form of social sanction?.
I know a lot of it ( criminality) is down to lack of employment opportunities/ lack of education and a spiral of re-cidivist activity but some of the little wankers iv`e encountered recently need a good fucking spanking.....
Maybe we could bring over some of the provisionals currently sitting on their arses in Belfast and set up some knee-capping squads..
I bet the levels of street crime would drop like a brick in the water.....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?




What if they're violent criminals?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 20, 2006)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Maybe we could bring over some of the provisionals currently sitting on their arses in Belfast and set up some knee-capping squads..



Please don't go down that route.

It's one step from advocating that, to sneering at people who might have  just _one or two_ objections to the idea of kneecapping sub-10 year olds  as  'Guardian reading liberals'


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?



Not a hope in hell of carrying that idea forward, if the fathers in question are violent criminals!

Besides which, while I have no figures, I'd have thought any absenteeism on the father's part is much more likely to be simply because he lives elsewhere, rather than because he's in jail.


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 20, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Please don't go down that route.
> 
> It's one step from advocating that, to sneering at people who might have  just _one or two_ objections to the idea of kneecapping sub-10 year olds  as  'Guardian reading liberals'



LOL.....   
Yeah i guess you have a point. but sending them on holidays for being good kids is obviously not working at the moment and the sheer level of Street criminality in South London needs to be addressed as a higher priority than it currently is.
i noticed that after a lot of " high value" individuals where attacked in some of the more prosperious areas of london the Met rushed resources left right and center to counter it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 20, 2006)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> LOL.....
> Yeah i guess you have a point. but sending them on holidays for being good kids is obviously not working at the moment



This happens does it? Really? Sounds like a Daily Mail type myth to me ...



> and the sheer level of Street criminality in South London needs to be addressed as a higher priority than it currently is.



Not disagreeing, which is why I thought detectiveboy was talking sense.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Not a hope in hell of carrying that idea forward, if the fathers in question are violent criminals!



But in most cases, I think you'll find that the fathers have been imprisoned for non-violent, often drug-related offences.  This is the direct result of the kind of punitive attitude to "crime" often expressed on these boards.  That attitude inevitably causes, as sensible people can appreciate, a *cycle* of crime.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Oh you really are fucking clueless aren't you?
> 
> Why you're still here is beyond me.
> 
> Won't be long until you're permanently fucked off though, with any luck.



I really must *insist* that you immediately cease posting your pathetic, irrelevent personal attacks to this thread.  Now.  If you want to argue against me, as William has to his credit now started doing, that's fine.  But I do insist that you stop with the personal insults immediately.


----------



## waverunner (Mar 20, 2006)

Dear Mr Phildwyer

If you would stop requesting people stop making personal attacks etc etc on you (and I'm not saying they are unjustified though) then perhaps people would stop responding about personal insults. I'm interested in the thread topic and sick of reading 'derail derail' followed by 'comment' followed by 'please stop insulting me' followed by 'another comment' follwed by 'please stop insulting me'. 

Regards

Waverunner


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Perhaps not putting their fathers in jail might be a good place to start?


And how's that going to help then?
And why should they be put in jail anyway?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> And how's that going to help then?
> And why should they be put in jail anyway?



I said *don't* put them in jail!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But in most cases, I think you'll find that the fathers have been imprisoned for non-violent, often drug-related offences.  This is the direct result of the kind of punitive attitude to "crime" often expressed on these boards.  That attitude inevitably causes, as sensible people can appreciate, a *cycle* of crime.



My actual (main) point was that a good proportion of absent dads are probably not in prison at all.

I'm not in disagreement about unnecessary jail sentences for petty offences, or about jail not being the answer for such.


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 20, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> And HOW are you going to get them there?



I'd walk them there?


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I said *don't* put them in jail!


Not even if they've just murdered someone?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Not even if they've just murdered someone?



Jail murderers, obviously.  Do *not* jail street-level drug dealers.  By doing so, you needlessly deprive many families of their fathers.  By depriving families of their fathers, you create feral kids of the kind that you witnessed yesterday.


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I really must *insist* that you immediately cease posting your pathetic, irrelevent personal attacks to this thread.  Now.  If you want to argue against me, as William has to his credit now started doing, that's fine.  But I do insist that you stop with the personal insults immediately.



It's completely relevant - the fact that you don't have a clue, as usual, and you're only a few posts away from calling everybody a racist.

You can insist all you like, but I am of the opinion that you are a complete cock, and therefore your *insisting* I treat you with anything but ridicule and derision for your offensive and ridiculous ideas about a place you clearly know little about is frankly laughable.

Regards, pk


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But in most cases, I think you'll find that the fathers have been imprisoned for non-violent, often drug-related offences.


So you have an in-depth knowledge of UK sentencing policy do you?  And, more specifically to the subject of this thread, you have a specific knowledge of the precise sentencing patterns found amongst the parents of children in the Coldharbour Lane area of Brixton?

No?

So shut the fuck up then.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Do *not* jail street-level drug dealers.  By doing so, you needlessly deprive many families of their fathers.  By depriving families of their fathers, you create feral kids of the kind that you witnessed yesterday.


So what makes you think that the fathers of these children are all "street level" drug dealers?

What are you basing this amazing claim on?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I'd walk them there?


"Fuck off!  Don't touch me you fucking paedo!!  No I ain't fucking coming anywhere with you!  I'll do you for fucking assault - I know my rights" followed by physical resistance.

So how you going to deal with that (a) practically or (b) legally then smartarse?

And to which one?  And what if they have no responsibility for them?  Or are closed (bearing in mind the time of the incidents)?


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So what makes you think that the fathers of these children are all "street level" drug dealers?
> 
> What are you basing this amazing claim on?



He's probably basing his *facts* on the idea that these kids are all black, and therefore all their fathers are drug dealers, or similarly offensive bullshit that will hopefully earn him a well deserved beating one day ...


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> He's probably basing his *facts* on the idea that these kids are all black, and therefore all their fathers are drug dealers...


The gang is made up of white and black kids.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> He's probably basing his *facts* on the idea that these kids are all black, and therefore all their fathers are drug dealers, or similarly offensive bullshit that will hopefully earn him a well deserved beating one day ...



Is that a threat mate?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So what makes you think that the fathers of these children are all "street level" drug dealers?
> 
> What are you basing this amazing claim on?



No, I'm assuming that at least some of their fathers are absent, and given the neighborhood and their behavior it seems likely that some of them are in prison, and given UK sentencing policy it is quite likely that many of them have been sent to prison for non-violent, drug-related offences.  All of this could be wrong, of course, but I find it quite likely--and also the most plausible explanation for their behaviour.  Do you find it implausible?


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Is that a threat mate?



Are you still calling me a racist, "mate", when it's YOU with the dubious stereotypes?

I dare say if you got a beating for being an ignorant cunt - I'd laugh.

Don't let me stop you hitting the Report Post button though, cock.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Are you still calling me a racist, "mate" ?



Depends on how you answer my question.  Answer it.


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Depends on how you answer my question.  Answer it.



Go fuck yourself, racist.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Go fuck yourself, racist.



Coward.  Are you threatening me or not?


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I'm assuming that at least some of their fathers are absent, and given the neighborhood and their behavior it seems likely that some of them are in prison, and given UK sentencing policy it is quite likely that many of them have been sent to prison for non-violent, drug-related offences.


Woaargh. You're filling in the gaps with a huge amount of supposition there.

Why on earth should you assume that all of the kids' fathers are currently languishing in jail for drugs offences?


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 20, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> So how you going to deal with that (a) practically or (b) legally then *smartarse* _ (a member of the Public)?
> _


_

With due respect and consideration to a fellow human, *pig**.

See! that's why I don't like your* entire Noone Knows Better Than Us bullshit....sorry...pigshit.

Bravo again  for setting the example most people in Britain expect from your* ilk...you* should try listening to Kidscape, and their efforts in Brixton, Lambeth, Southwark et al, more often than looking in your* book of rules and what we* can do and not do coz it's the Law*.

*the Police._


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

Not directly I wasn't, though you don't fucking scare me one iota.

I said: "He's probably basing his *facts* on the idea that these kids are all black, and therefore all their fathers are drug dealers, or similarly offensive bullshit that will hopefully earn him a well deserved beating one day ..."

That wasn't a threat, that was my hope that you will relate your offensive racial stereotypes to the wrong person one day and suffer violent consequences as a result.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> With due respect and consideration to a fellow human, *pig**.
> 
> See! that's why I don't like your* entire Noone Knows Better Than Us bullshit....sorry...pigshit.
> 
> ...


I am perfectly well aware of the work of Kidscape.  They do fantastic work.  But you suggested you would "walk them down there".  I notice, apart from a torrent of abuse based on stereotyping, you haven't even tried to explain how you will do that.  If you know better, then please educate everyone.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why on earth should you assume that all of the kids' fathers are currently languishing in jail for drugs offences?



Subconcious racism.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why on earth should you assume that all of the kids' fathers are currently languishing in jail for drugs offences?



Not only is that racist, it's implying that badly behaved children must be the product of single mothers    

The single mothers I know are some of the best parents I can think of - how dare you make those kind of insinuations?!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 20, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Not only is that racist, it's implying that badly behaved children must be the product of single mothers
> :



I was guilty of falling in with that assumption for a bit  largely because I was trying to refute a different aspect of phildwyer's argument/assumption 

Sorry.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Not only is that racist, it's implying that badly behaved children must be the product of single mothers


I was brought up in a single parent family too.
And look at me - a veritable pillar of society!


----------



## rich! (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I was brought up in a single parent family too.
> And look at me - a veritable pillar of society!



*kaff* *kaff* *splutter*

thanks - I've got tea all over my keyboard now.

(and it's a good IBM one)


----------



## trashpony (Mar 20, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> *kaff* *kaff* *splutter*
> 
> thanks - I've got tea all over my keyboard now.
> 
> (and it's a good IBM one)



*hands rich a tissue*


----------



## trashpony (Mar 20, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I was guilty of falling in with that assumption for a bit  largely because I was trying to refute a different aspect of phildwyer's argument/assumption
> 
> Sorry.



I do love you WoW


----------



## rich! (Mar 20, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> *hands rich a tissue*



you noticed *that* too?

*ahem*


----------



## trashpony (Mar 20, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> you noticed *that* too?
> 
> *ahem*





Lowering the tone as ever


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 20, 2006)

we have had had the tobyjug fact   now is the new dawn of the phildwer logical conclusion

it's a phildwer logical conclusion that becuase some black people deal drugs  and some drug dealers go to jail that  some children burn  because they are made of wood


----------



## toggle (Mar 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> we have had had the tobyjug fact   now is the new dawn of the phildwer logical conclusion
> 
> it's a phildwer logical conclusion that becuase some black people deal drugs  and some drug dealers go to jail that  some children burn  because they are made of wood




I'm glad someone else has noticed his liking for bizarre theories.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Not directly I wasn't.



Good.  Don't.


----------



## rich! (Mar 20, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Lowering the tone as ever



man's got to have an ambition   

besides, it was neither racist nor bigoted, so *I* think it improved the tone, don't'cha'know...


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Not only is that racist, it's implying that badly behaved children must be the product of single mothers
> 
> The single mothers I know are some of the best parents I can think of - how dare you make those kind of insinuations?!



Yes, me too, now that I come to think of it.  But isn't it statistically true that kids from families without fathers are more likely to get into trouble?


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 20, 2006)

*The Start The Week Prog is being repeated NOW!!! R4*




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> apart from a torrent of abuse based on stereotyping,



Factual experience, I don't need to stereotype the Police... I have plenty plenty experience here and in many other  countries come to that....and as for abuse?...if you patronize someone you will get an adverse reaction. QED!

^think about it.

I responded to an obtuse enquiry(HOW), in an obtuse manner(walk)....but in my experience walking and talking in a reasonable manner to kids rather than enforcing CCTV or putting down their parents etc has worked for me countless times with various kids in various situations.

I don't have to educate anyone except myself, my kids and those in my near vicinity willing to listen...but I call it seeting an example...I don't force people to be this or that becasue the rules say so. ultimately you will choose a path whether it's wrong or right for you. Hopefully you choose one that's good for you and others.

As I said, in my prior post, Kidscape have pretty much ALL the answers for the problems that occur with regards to the children of South London and probably all the issues that young people face in Britain come to that. And have done for a generation. Unfortunately as you are probably also aware Kidscape invariably get to see the young people when the "Authorities" decided they've had "enough" of them.

I know you'll probably damn it for being hippy_shit...sorry if I stereotype you again...but loving and listening to a child is a lot more productive that beating and chasing one...both metaphorically and physically.


----------



## Derian (Mar 20, 2006)

Well said


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why on earth should you assume that all of the kids' fathers are currently languishing in jail for drugs offences?



I didn't say "all."  Obviously its a supposition, I don't know these kids, for all I know they could be Etonian fourth-formers down to town for a jolly jape.  But let me make a not entirely uneducated guess.  You said, what, ten kids aged 10 to 18, mixed black and white, acting like little thugs on Coldharbour Lane, right?  My guess--and its only a guess--would be that it is more likely than not that *some* of their fathers are currently in jail, and that *some* of them are there for drug-related offences.  My opinion only.  If you'd care to confirm it with them, that would be a great help.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 20, 2006)

and so ... if  a fraction of them do happen to have dads in jail for drug offenses ... what the fuck difrence does it make...

i bet    if you did a study of trainer types aboungst them you would see that wering nike obviously makes you want to shoplift


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 20, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> and so ... if  a fraction of them do happen to have dads in jail for drug offenses ... what the fuck difrence does it make...



Well, to be honest, maybe I'm extrapolating too much from the USA.  But over here, the mass incarceration of young black men on non-violent drug charges has brought about a real, serious crisis in working-class black families, and juvenile delinquency of the type the Ed is describing is a highly visible result.  I'd be surprised if this wasn't true--to an admittedly lesser but probably significant extent--in the UK, and especially in Brixton.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## dwethenual (Mar 20, 2006)

god, how awful having those black people causing trouble in briackstahn...

and the estate agents said it was becoming such a nice lively place to live...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I know you'll probably damn it for being hippy_shit...sorry if I stereotype you again...


Not only do you stereotype (and that is *precisely* assigning characteristics to someone as a member of a particular group, based on previous experience of other members of that particular group), you are so stuck on it that you don't even "hear" what you read ...




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> I am perfectly well aware of the work of Kidscape. They do fantastic work.



Can I use you as a classic example of a "psychological block to communication"?

Anyway, at least we know that instead of a plagued shopkeeper doing any of the ridiculous things I suggested they should just call you ... your number is in the book is it?


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 20, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> your number is in the book is it?



..please stop patronising me it stinks.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, to be honest, maybe I'm extrapolating too much from the USA.  But over here, the mass incarceration of young black men on non-violent drug charges has brought about a real, serious crisis in working-class black families, and juvenile delinquency of the type the Ed is describing is a highly visible result.  I'd be surprised if this wasn't true--to an admittedly lesser but probably significant extent--in the UK, and especially in Brixton.  Wouldn't you?



another phildwyer logical conclusion

i do not belive that there is a significantly disproportionate amount of black fathers in jaill

i do not belive having a father in jail means the child will be significatly more likely to cause trouble like this (as in the statistics will be  in the 10-20s rather than the 70-80s )

therfore 

this even  and others like it will not have been effected in any real means by drugs enforcment polocy


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2006)

dwethenual said:
			
		

> god, how awful having those black people causing trouble in briackstahn....


Err, I've already said that the gang is made up of black and white kids, so why single out blacks?
Are you a _rascist_ or something?


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Good.  Don't.



The fuck I'm about to take advice from a dipshit like you...


----------



## snadge (Mar 20, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, me too, now that I come to think of it.  But isn't it statistically true that kids from families without fathers are more likely to get into trouble?




which statistics are they philly, your famous " only in my head" statistics.

if the absent father is black does that make a difference?


how about if the absent father likes a drink?


----------



## pk (Mar 20, 2006)

Innocent until proven black... thank fuck phildwyer isn't a copper... to him it seems *all* black people are drug dealers... plenty of job opportunities for him in 1960's Alabama though ...


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> another phildwyer logical conclusion
> 
> i do not belive that there is a significantly disproportionate amount of black fathers in jaill



Right.  On what basis, I wonder, don't you believe that?  Obviously you've looked into the matter, as any responsible and politically aware citizen would.  And yet I am puzzled, because every single source I've ever seen, as well as every policeman, magistrate and former prisoner, has contradicted your--doubtless perfectly valid--belief.  They tend to come up with information such as the following:

"The process of criminalisation continues; for example, 24.6% of the prison population are from Black communities; including foreign nationals, the average population of African and Caribbean prisoners has risen since 1994, by 113% and for Asian prisoners by 75% as compared with a 34% rise for White prisoners; there is a greater likelihood of custodial sentences, especially for first time offences; Black African or Caribbean people are also six times more likely to be arrested although Asian people are only slightly more likely to be arrested than White people." 

Source:

http://www.blink.org.uk/bm/manifest...on.asp?catid=22

So tell us, Chan San, where does your "belief" come from?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> The fuck I'm about to take advice from a dipshit like you...



Oh really?  So you *are* going to threaten me?  Well go right ahead, no-one's stopping you.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

note the term "significatly disproportionate"

if i were to do a study of black families in the area  i certianly wouldn't find that most of them were fatherless due to imprisonment.

just because there is a  large number of black prisoners of fathering age does not mean that most (as in significant amounts of) black families have missing fathers


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I didn't say "all."  Obviously its a supposition, I don't know these kids, for all I know they could be Etonian fourth-formers down to town for a jolly jape.  But let me make a not entirely uneducated guess.  You said, what, ten kids aged 10 to 18, mixed black and white, acting like little thugs on Coldharbour Lane, right?  My guess--and its only a guess--would be that it is more likely than not that *some* of their fathers are currently in jail, and that *some* of them are there for drug-related offences.  My opinion only.  If you'd care to confirm it with them, that would be a great help.


You actually said, "By depriving families of their fathers, you create feral kids of the kind that you witnessed yesterday" which _strongly_ suggest that you think those kids are only created in those circumstances.

But aren't you a little concerned that all your _filling-in-the-gaps_ stereotyping might be revealing some of your own prejudices here?

I haven't a clue if all or any of their fathers are in jail for drug dealing offences. 

Apart from the fact I can't see what it's got to do with anything, I fail to see what you're basing this assumption on. Perhaps you might explain. And some actual evidence might be nice too.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> note the term "significatly disproportionate"



I have noted it, Chan San.  But tell us O Wise One, how is the fact that 25% of the British *prison* population is black, and yet only 2% of the *overall* population is black not "significantly disproportionate?"


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I have noted it, Chan San.  But tell us O Wise One, how is the fact that 25% of the British *prison* is population black, and yet only 2% of the *overall* population is black not "significantly disproportionate?"



you are actually the most racist person I have ever had the misfortune to engage, I have decided that people of your ilk are more dangerous than the fucking BNP idiots....


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You actually said, "By depriving families of their fathers, you create feral kids of the kind that you witnessed yesterday" which _strongly_ suggest that you think those kids are only created in those circumstances.
> 
> But aren't you a little concerned that all your _filling-in-the-gaps_ stereotyping might be revealing some of your own prejudices here?
> 
> ...



I don't think I need to dig up evidence, as long as you'll accept the following propositions.

1.  If your father has been to jail while you were a child, you are significantly more likely to become a juvenile delinquent than if he has not.

2.  A significant number of fathers in Brixton are in prison for non-violent drug offenses.

If you accept these two propositions, you must accept that sending people to jail for non-violent drug offenses contributes to the problem of juvenile delinquency in Brixton.  Whether it did so in the case of these particular kids, I have no idea.  But I presume that this instance is symptomatic of a wider problem?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> you are actually the most racist person I have ever had the misfortune to engage, I have decided that people of your ilk are more dangerous than the fucking BNP idiots....



Please explain snadge.  Why is it racist to point out that 25% of the prison population is black while only 2% of the overall population is black?  Surely this is in fact evidence of systematic racism on the part of British *society* as a whole, and calling attention to it is therefore anti-racist?


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Please explain snadge.  Why is it racist to point out that 25% of the prison population is black while only 2% of the overall population is black?  Surely this is in fact evidence of systematic racism on the part of British *society* as a whole, and calling attention to it is therefore anti-racist?



is it really?

is that what you think you are. anti racist?

you bring race into every fucking debate you have, why?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 21, 2006)

Well I would have thought the statisitics you quote provide a reason for it to be mentioned.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I have noted it, Chan San.  But tell us O Wise One, how is the fact that 25% of the British *prison* is population black, and yet only 2% of the *overall* population is black not "significantly disproportionate?"



ahh not a phildwyer logical leep but a  phildwyer argue the wrong section of the statistics

yes that is disproportionate in terms of back and white 

but!  and this is a  very important point so read it well

25% of the british prison is black.  
the prison population is approx 74,000 (source BBC)

= approx 18500 black prisoners

3% population is black
uk population is 60,441,457 (sorce CIA website)

= approx 1813244 black uk citizens


therfore

(18500/1813244)*100

1.02% of the black population is in prison

now even with adjustments stating that  more  black males of fathering age will be in prison that any other group  that does not mean a significant number of black fathers are in jail   i doubt the number is even 5 in 100 

which means

how the fuck can such a small number of families with father in prison effect the actions of a large number of children?


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well I would have thought the statisitics you quote provide a reason for it to be mentioned.



which does nothing to explain why white kids were involved, as editor has mentioned.

yes the statistics are damning but it's another philly ploy to spout his own twisted logic.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> ahh not a phildwyer logical leep but a  phildwyer argue the wrong section of the statistics
> 
> yes that is disproportionate in terms of back and white
> 
> ...



It can't.  It can, and does, effect the actions of a *small* number of children.  And that is what we are talking about.


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It can't.  It can, and does, effect the actions of a *small* number of children.  And that is what we are talking about.




small, fucking small, how small, do you mean in size perchance as in 7-9 year olds.

it's not a small number, this type of anti social behaviour happens all over the country, regardless of colour.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

so you are seriously trying to claim that the actions of these children (both black and white)  where caused because of their fathers being in jail?

my god  that is one hell of a logical leap 

(story of a group of kids doing fucked up stuff) + (small percentage of black fathers being in jail) = (kids doing fucked up stuff because of bad drugs laws)

my god the witch burners would have been proud of you phill

where does is sudjest that these children have imprisoned fathers?

because they are doing fuck up stuff?

and why are they doing fucked up stuff?

because there fathers are in jail?

so not only are you displaying logical leaps  but circular reasoning

your argument sucks sweaty donkey balls


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 21, 2006)

I thought your argument in that post was rather less convincing than your argument in your previous post.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Mar 21, 2006)

I also can't believe I'm posting on here when I have to get up at 5.30.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> so you are seriously trying to claim that the actions of these children (both black and white)  where caused because of their fathers being in jail?
> 
> my god  that is one hell of a logical leap
> 
> ...



No, no, you don't understand. I'm saying nothing about these *particular* children: how would I know?  I was trying to address the possibility that this incident was not isolated, but was symptomatic of a more *general* problem.  I'm saying that, in *general,* and especially in Brixton, the prevelence of juvenile delinquency *must* be increased by the imprisonment rate of fathers.  I say "especially in Brixton" because Brixton is disproportionately black, and black people form a disproportionate amount of the prison population.  See?  The important thing to grasp is the distinction between "general" and "particular."  See?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I also can't believe I'm posting on here when I have to get up at 5.30.



Don't worry, the adrelenin will give you energy.  You off to sunny Spain manana then?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I thought your argument in that post was rather less convincing than your argument in your previous post.



perhaps i should have just let the nuimbers speak for themselves eh?

it's probably the sake talking

it'm just iritated by phildyers constant  readjustments to his argument ... he is either trolling or is  somewhat .. well  diffrent from my method of thinking

i should probably just leave it as this as it's onl really disruptiong a thread comenting about the really fucked up actions of one tiny group of kids (who probably do have fathers at home)


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh really?  So you *are* going to threaten me?  Well go right ahead, no-one's stopping you.



I don't need to threaten you.

You are a dipshit.

Let me spell it out for you.

You are happy to label everyone as a "subconcious racist".

I am happy to see you as an "unconcious racist".

Take that any way you want to, *dipshit*.


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> is it really?
> 
> is that what you think you are. anti racist?
> 
> you bring race into every fucking debate you have, why?



Because he judges people by the colour of their skin, and dresses it all up as some kind of all-knowing psychobabble and how we are all at fault not him, he's the only non-racist he knows - let me guess, you have *loads* of black people that are your mates, right "phildwyer"??

Get lost, dipshit.


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'm saying that, in *general,* and especially in Brixton, the prevelence of juvenile delinquency *must* be increased by the imprisonment rate of fathers.


Got any stats for this, seeing as you keep insisting that it's such an important factor?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, no, you don't understand. I'm saying nothing about these *particular* children: how would I know?  I was trying to address the possibility that this incident was not isolated, but was symptomatic of a more *general* problem.  I'm saying that, in *general,* and especially in Brixton, the prevelence of juvenile delinquency *must* be increased by the imprisonment rate of fathers.  I say "especially in Brixton" because Brixton is disproportionately black, and black people form a disproportionate amount of the prison population.  See?  The important thing to grasp is the distinction between "general" and "particular."  See?



wtf?  all i can see in that post is a series of logical leaps

as i have alredy pointed out the actualy number of black people in prison compare to black poeple in general is tiny  less than 2%  therfore the rise in brixtons  fatherless children rate  would be equally as tiny 

AND just because a child has a father in prison does not mean that they will be antisocial  therfore the  the increase in the number of   anti social children will be EVEN smaller 

so even if there is a  1% or so rise in  anti social children (and i'm not totally convince there is) ... what does this prove? what possible  meaning can you deduct from this?  and what poisible  baring can it have on this topic


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, no, you don't understand. I'm saying nothing about these *particular* children: how would I know?  I was trying to address the possibility that this incident was not isolated, but was symptomatic of a more *general* problem.  I'm saying that, in *general,* and especially in Brixton, the prevelence of juvenile delinquency *must* be increased by the imprisonment rate of fathers.  I say "especially in Brixton" because Brixton is disproportionately black, and black people form a disproportionate amount of the prison population.  See?  The important thing to grasp is the distinction between "general" and "particular."  See?



it's got fuck all to do with Brixton, it's happening everywhere, little oiks taking the piss all over the country, visit some sink estates in NE England and see the same anti social behaviour and some more.

Brixton isn't unique you know, the rest of the country also shares the same problems.



As I mentioned before, idiots like youself are more inflamatory than the BNP.



> See?  The important thing to grasp is the distinction between "general" and "particular."  See?



See? fucking what..........

you being an idiot is all I see.

I hope you don't make money spouting your inciting bollocks.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Got any stats for this, seeing as you keep insisting that it's such an important factor?



Not on me, no.  I tell you what though: fifty quid says that the son of a father who has been in prison during said son's childhood is *at least* fifty percent more likely to go to prison than the son of a father who has not.  You on?


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not on me, no.  I tell you what though: fifty quid says that the son of a father who has been in prison during said son's childhood is *at least* fifty percent more likely to go to prison than the son of a father who has not.  You on?



black or white?


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 21, 2006)

I don't think those figures are correct...

..these are prison figures for 2002

Males
White 84%
Black 11%
Asian 3%
Chinese and other 2%
Total male population (=100%) 59,100

Females
White 84%
Black 11%
Asian 1%
Chinese and other 3%
Total female population 3,500
(=100%) (thousands)

source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7363

cf the UK population 

White 92.1%
Mixed 1.2%
Black 2.0%
Asian 4.0%
Chinese and other 0.8%

source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

*surprised that skin colour isn't a factor in the dipshit's little wager*

Oh - in reality they aren't - in phildwyer's fragile little mind skin tone is everything...

The nasty race obsessed dipshit.


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> *surprised that skin colour isn't a factor in the dipshit's little wager*



It'll be hidden in the get out clause, backed up by loaded statistical evidence.


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

Fifty quid says phildwyer is a racist.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not on me, no.  I tell you what though: fifty quid says that the son of a father who has been in prison during said son's childhood is *at least* fifty percent more likely to go to prison than the son of a father who has not.  You on?



nadeyanen!!

50%??

i know a few kids who had a father in jail  and are all decent fucking blokes

the idea that they are 50% more likely to go into jail is just ... nuts

i'll accept that there may be a small increase in percentage chance accross the board  but  no where neaqr 50%  and   definatly  not influenced by race


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Not on me, no.  I tell you what though: fifty quid says that the son of a father who has been in prison during said son's childhood is *at least* fifty percent more likely to go to prison than the son of a father who has not.  You on?


What the fuck has this wriggling bollocks got to do with your evidence-free insistence that the kids causing the trouble in Brixton muct have black fathers who are in prison for street dealing?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> What the fuck has this wriggling bollocks got to do with your evidence-free insistence that the kids causing the trouble in Brixton muct have black fathers who are in prison for street dealing?



That's not what I said.  Check post 260 above.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

your original posts  stated that it was drug polocies that where causing the inflation in prison numbers 
and that there was most likely a large number of families with out father due to this 

or have you change your mind?


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> nadeyanen!!
> 
> 50%??
> 
> ...



phillys whole raison d'etre is about pointing out the race issue.

which to me points towards a fucking idiot, or a racist troll.

In his defence I think it's the former and as a self declared acedemic I can't believe how blinkered he has become, with his racial separation of incidents and actions, actually beleving that race has a card to play in such anti social behaviour.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> your original posts  stated that it was drug polocies that where causing the inflation in prison numbers
> and that there was most likely a large number of families with out father due to this
> 
> or have you change your mind?



Nooo, I still endorse those two positions.  I think perhaps you are still under the impression that I am talking about these *particular* kids, rather than suggesting a reason for the *general* problem of which they are one instance.  Are you sure you have grasped this distinction?


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

wriggle wriggle


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> In his defence I think it's the former and as a self declared acedemic I can't believe how blinkered he has become



Blimey snadge, I must have missed this.  When did you declare yourself an academic?


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's not what I said.  Check post 260 above.


It's weird. You seem to think that your new posts are somehow completely divorced from your previous posts and thus shouldn't be taken in context of opinions previously expressed.

I can't be arsed to dredge through your posts to point out your ever-changing opinion, but I will remind you that you were emphatic that the problems of the street were caused by black, drug-dealing fathers being in jail.

Despite the troublesome kids on the street being both black and white.


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, no, you don't understand. I'm saying nothing about these *particular* children: how would I know?  I was trying to address the possibility that this incident was not isolated, but was symptomatic of a more *general* problem.  I'm saying that, in *general,* and especially in Brixton, the prevelence of juvenile delinquency *must* be increased by the imprisonment rate of fathers.  I say "especially in Brixton" because Brixton is disproportionately black, and black people form a disproportionate amount of the prison population.  See?  The important thing to grasp is the distinction between "general" and "particular."  See?



that post 260 perchance?

full of condesending philly loopholes and get out clause so you can push your own agenda.

I can also do that

No philly, no, you haven't got a clue, with this type of rhetoric and cherry picked facts you can make a "general" problem look like a "particular" problem, in your case that "particular" problem focuses on the colour of a persons skin when in reality it doesn't care, the "general" problem is there regardless of colour.

See? do you get it now See?


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Blimey snadge, I must have missed this.  When did you declare yourself an academic?



sorry but out of the pair of us, I have never declared that.

you have  though.


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Blimey snadge, I must have missed this.  When did you declare yourself an academic?



Like you're an academic of anything less than the Klu Klux Klansmen Kurriculem... don't even pretend to be intellectually of higher ground, you little shit...

You're a two bit racist, dress it up how you like, the fact remains.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Nooo, I still endorse those two positions.  I think perhaps you are still under the impression that I am talking about these *particular* kids, rather than suggesting a reason for the *general* problem of which they are one instance.  Are you sure you have grasped this distinction?



so your pointing out that a tiny number of incidents may involve a small number of children from families who have a parent in prison?

SHOCK HORROR!!!!

as i have pointed out the number of people in jail is a tiny percentage of the whole even amoung groups who have a higher proportion of jailed persons.

and

even if a member of the family is in jail does not mean a child well be anti social

and

the proportion of children with imprison members of the family compared to other antisocial children is unknown

therefore  anti socail behaviour amoungst children is only marginal influnce by imprisonment

and that is not even distinguising between types of crime

so we cansafly say drugs law and anti social behaviour can't be said to have any real link


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's weird. You seem to think that your new posts are somehow completely divorced from your previous posts and thus shouldn't be taken in context of opinions previously expressed.
> 
> I can't be arsed to dredge through your posts to point out your ever-changing opinion, but I will remind you that you were emphatic that the problems of the street were caused by black, drug-dealing fathers being in jail.
> 
> Despite the troublesome kids on the street being both black and white.



My opinion is quite consistent, and very clear.  It is that many of these "kids" are made "troublesome" by virtue of the fact that their fathers are in jail.  Furthermore, many of their fathers are in jail because they are victims of the institutionally racist Bristish criminal justice system.  Moreover, that system expresses its racism by means of its drug laws, and by the manner of their enforcement.  So yes, my opinion is that, as you put it, "the problems of the street were caused by black, drug-dealing fathers being in jail."  I do not, of course, suggest that *all* of the "problems of the street" are caused by this circumstance, but I do suggest that a significant proportion of them are, and that this proportion is particularly high in Brixton.


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

Pathetic innit - trying to appeal to the dope smokers (don't jail poor innocent dads for selling the herb!) yet all the while planting the ludicrous supposition that all fathers of errant kids are obviously black, and dealing crack on a street level...

It doesn't wash at all.

I know a little shit when I see one, and the label attached to the soggy end reads "phildwyer"...


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> My opinion is quite consistent, and very clear.  It is that many of these "kids" are made "troublesome" by virtue of the fact that their fathers are in jail.  Furthermore, many of their fathers are in jail because they are victims of the institutionally racist Bristish criminal justice system.  Moreover, that system expresses its racism by means of its drug laws, and by the manner of their enforcement.  So yes, my opinion is that, as you put it, "the problems of the street were caused by black, drug-dealing fathers being in jail."  I do not, of course, suggest that *all* of the "problems of the street" are caused by this circumstance, but I do suggest that a significant proportion of them are, and that this proportion is particularly high in Brixton.



and?

As I asked before, are you making money by spouting these inciting views in public?


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> My opinion is quite consistent, and very clear.  It is that many of these "kids" are made "troublesome" by virtue of the fact that their fathers are in jail.  Furthermore, many of their fathers are in jail because they are victims of the institutionally racist Bristish criminal justice system.  Moreover, that system expresses its racism by means of its drug laws, and by the manner of their enforcement.  So yes, my opinion is that, as you put it, "the problems of the street were caused by black, drug-dealing fathers being in jail."  I do not, of course, suggest that *all* of the "problems of the street" are caused by this circumstance, but I do suggest that a significant proportion of them are, and that this proportion is particularly high in Brixton.



£50 says NONE of the kids in question have fathers in jail.

If you lose, you get to express your negative views regarding black people on a loudhailer outside the KFC on Coldharbour Lane - and we get to bet on how long it is in minutes before you get your lilywhite arse kicked into the 21st century along with the rest of the population...


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> £50 says NONE of the kids in question have fathers in jail.
> 
> If you lose, you get to express your negative views regarding black people on a loudhailer outside the KFC on Coldharbour Lane - and we get to bet on how long it is in minutes before you get your lilywhite arse kicked into the 21st century along with the rest of the population...



PK, be honest now.  You're pissed aren't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> PK, be honest now.  You're pissed aren't you?



Actually, don't bother, this explains all. But really PK, on a *Monday* night?  I'll expect your maudlin apology in the morning.




			
				pk said:
			
		

> Oh, that's OK... just as long as you're not genuinely _worried_ about feeding trolls - they're usually not worth the worry.
> 
> (includes self in that assertion)
> 
> ...


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> PK, be honest now.  You're pissed aren't you?



Why don't you be honest for once in your hermeticaly sealed existence?

I notice that you have declined to address my observations of your distorted worldview.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

also you really haven't answered the question

as statistics show such low percentages of  missing fathers (over all forms of crime)

and

no one really knows how missing fathers effect anti social behavior in children

then

how can you claim drug law influences aniti social behaviour in children


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> also you really haven't answered the question
> 
> as statistics show such low percentages of  missing fathers (over all forms of crime)
> 
> ...



because he's a self absorbed, race infatuated, gravy train chasing, self declared acedemic.

See? with an extremely patronising method of body swerving the issue to push his ("particular" dangerously inciting) blinkered views on the "general" populace. See?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

no no no!

what your thinking of is  the phildwyer logical leap!


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> no no no!
> 
> what your thinking of is  the phildwyer logical leap!



there is no logic to the leaps philldwyer makes, a conspiraloon makes a leap of faith with more ties to a subject than he ever will.

Dangerous man is our philly.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

this is the one reason i think he is trolling

just because he does make inteligent points  but he then  sends them though very twisted  statistics and logical leaps that i really thing he should see if he was doing this seriously

which leads me to belive he may well be taking the piss


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer logical leap

aka "phillogic" 

...alongside Jazzz theories and a tobyjug facts.

Leave. The. Thread. At. Once.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

phillogic

damn do i wish i had though of that


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> this is the one reason i think he is trolling
> 
> just because he does make inteligent points  but he then  sends them though very twisted  statistics and logical leaps that i really thing he should see if he was doing this seriously
> 
> which leads me to belive he may well be taking the piss



Look guys.  Chan San has admitted he's had a few drinks.  PK has admitted he's pissed.  Snadge, we assume, is more or less permanently pissed.  Please, I humbly impore you, in the cold light of morning, consider this *logically:*

25% of the British prison population is black.
2% of the British population is black.

We can draw only two possible conclusions from these facts:

1.  Black people are inherently more criminal than other racial groups

OR

2.  British society, and in particular the criminal justice system, is systematically racist against black people.

If, like me, you draw conclusion no. 2, then surely this demands drastic reform of the criminal justice system.  It demands that we rethink the policy of "cracking down" or "getting tough" on "crime."  It suggests that continuing to advocate imprisonment as a solution to "crime" is, in effect if not in intention, racist. 

There are obviously exceptions, and qualifications, and even difficulties with this argument.  But generally speaking, do you not feel that this argument is sufficiently valid to render the punitive, law'n'order mentality that--as surely no-one will deny--is frequently expressed on these boards, somewhat reprehensible?  

Thank you, and goodnight.


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> this is the one reason i think he is trolling
> 
> just because he does make inteligent points  but he then  sends them though very twisted  statistics and logical leaps that i really thing he should see if he was doing this seriously
> 
> which leads me to belive he may well be taking the piss



or has a hidden agenda maybe....

every living person on this planet has racist tendencies, deep rooted fear of the different or the other, these fears live alongside the homophopic tendencies we all have, yes, mad as it seems, being gay doesn't exclude these feelings, there are some gay men that are disguted by their camp bretheren as there are gay females that abhor the butch element.

How many time have you, as a anti-racist* passed a person of a different ethnicity and been uncomfortable, not because of their colour but because of what they might feel about you?

*tm philldwyer


I'm not ashamed to admit it but I am, not because of the skin colour, but because I don't care about colour, then I realise by looking with that attitude at that  person, I'm acknowledging a difference.

it's the modern day equivalent of divide and conquer, only 1 or 2 centuries ago we hated our neighbouring villages, now we hate whole countries, I don't though and I get the impression that a lot of people on these forums have the same sentiments.

All I strive to be is the person that I dream I could be.


We all piss in the same pot.


but I expect my tea on the table every night still


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

nadeyanen?

how the hell does what i have or haven't drunk change the  mathmatics and reasoning of what i posted previously philly (seeing as you want to play name games)

you are yet again changing your argument

yes  there are a larger percentage of black people in prison compared to whites  (though other post claim yout 25% claim is high)

but

you claim of this directly effecting the anti social behaviour of youths is compleate bull


and

pure comparison to black and white statistics leave out  other  areas  such as   percentage who live below the poverty line

your argument  is more full of holes than a truck full  of  Emmental


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 25% of the British prison population is black.
> 2% of the British population is black.


I have already shown that these numbers are wrong. The correct figures and links to their sources are given above.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We can draw only two possible conclusions from these facts:
> 
> 1.  Black people are inherently more criminal than other racial groups
> 
> ...


Look up "intervening variable" for the full explanation of why you are talking shite about there being only two possible conclusions. Here's the quick version:

_"The apparent correlation between ice cream consumption and the number of assaults occurs statistically because the hot temperatures of summer cause both ice cream consumption and assaults to increase."_

You seem to want to reduce things down to impossibly simplistic explanations. Your theories completely fail to recognise anything about people other than their skin colour. You should have a lot more respect for the extremely diverse and complex mixture of people, cultures and issues in London rather than banging your "race" drum in such a dogmatic and ridiculous manner.

Must. Try. Harder.


----------



## snadge (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> .  Snadge, we assume, is more or less permanently pissed.  Please, I humbly impore you, in the cold light of morning, consider this *logically:*



which logic rules should I apply, yours or every other persons?

and where on earth is your source for the personal abuse?

there is also no reason for you to be humble, from your posting style you have nothing that resembles humble, I think that you should re assess the meaning of that word.



> If, like me, you draw conclusion no. 2



from the insistent, plucked out of thin air statistical fest on race and crime I really think you lied for your choice of conclusion.



> Black people are inherently more criminal than other racial groups



that's what you have been telling everyone with your agenda ridden debate.

get over it, fucking grow up.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

phillogic at it's best


----------



## brixtonvilla (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Moreover, that system expresses its racism by means of its drug laws, and by the manner of their enforcement.



How are drug laws racist then?


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'll expect your maudlin apology in the morning.



I never apologise to racist little shits who need a good smack in the head.

Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 21, 2006)

There will always be a percentage of *any* group that are bad apples - cf football fans and politically influenced people as well as poor people and ethnic minorities, left handed people, gingers, people under 5'5" gays, lesbians, bus drivers etc.

Stats can be made to say anything. 

I know that you sincerely believe your arguments Phil, but I think that youre wrong. I used to live in Brixton, and now live (not through choice) in a white commuter town. This means that there is no race crime, but rather a large amount of violence to other people by whites. There are no stats that could justify the social upbringing or behaviour of these kids, and the problem is the same the country over. In fact, as the Eds said, this was an attack by a mixed group of young kids, so I'm not sure that racism is a factor, but more one of lack of education, morals and ambition.

As i said, Its not about colour. its about lack of education, and the increasing pressure of a consumer society that sells a lifestyle that for the vast majority is unachievable. Most people would like to achieve this lifestyle - some work hard to achieve it, some realise they wont achieve it, and some resort to crime to achieve it. Irrespective of colour.

And (and this is just a finger in the air here), I'd be willing to guess that the shopkeeper in th original point made by the Eds wasnt white, but a hard working individual who was trying to achieve their lifestyle through endeavour. These kids want it all *now* without working for it - the new trainers, newest phone etc, and yet again they are just a small percentage of people all over the country who resort to acting in this way to get it.

Its all a bit gloomy really...

bring back National Service


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't think I need to dig up evidence, as long as you'll accept the following propositions.









"Stands to reason, dunnit ..."


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We can draw only two possible conclusions from these facts: ...


What you mean is YOU can only draw two possible conclusions from these facts (see, you can do _emphasis_ without inventing a whole new, fucking *annoying* type of punctuation).

Maybe others could ask:  

"Are there demographic differences (e.g. poverty / housing / education) which impact on crime levels?"  and, if so, "Are there differences in the distribution of people from different ethnic groups amongst the areas with demographic differences?"   or

"Do people from different ethnic groups have differing opportunity to commit different types of crime, attracting different types of punishment (i.e. do members of all ethnic groups have an equal opportunity to commit non-violent crime (e.g. fraud) which tends to attract lower sentences)?"

Whilst there is (as has been demonstrated) some institutional or systemic racism in the UK Courts (and whilst there is probably some personal, direct racism at play from Judges in some individual cases) it is nowhere near the whole story.

Just because you want to live in a simplistic world where everything is yes or no, black or white does not make it so.

* Reads rest of posts after quoted one *

"Oh look.  Others have noticed that as well!"


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

So I think we can assume that my diagnostic points have now been carried.  British society (and in particular the criminal justice system) is institutionally racist, and this accounts for the disproportionate number of black men in jail.  This in turn contributes to the deplorable acts of juvenile delinquency that the Ed has observed of late.  Perhaps we can turn to some possible ways in which these problems might be  addressed?  Allow me to suggest the following, as preliminaries for discussion.

1.  Abolish all custodial sentences for non-violent drug crimes.  Eventually decriminalize all drugs.

2. Insitute a thoroughgoing system of affirmative action to ensure ethnic minorities are adequately represented in the police, the magistracy and the judiciary.

3.  Encourage immigration from non-European countries.  Aim to make Britain a fully multi-ethnic society.

Well, these are just my proposals for a beginning.  I believe that they are more constructive than the punitive approach that others on this thread have recommended.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Allow me to suggest the following, as preliminaries for discussion.
> 
> 1.  Abolish all custodial sentences for non-violent drug crimes.  Eventually decriminalize all drugs.
> 
> ...





> "Dear Shopkeeper.
> 
> You know those little twats that keep coming back and terrorising you, smashing your windows, nicking your stock and threatening and abusing you?  Well, you'll be glad to hear that we have taken three major steps to ensure that this will never happen again.
> 
> ...



It might work I suppose.  Makes a change from the traditional "Dear Shopkeeper.  Sorry to hear you were the victim of a crime.  Tough shit.  Love. The Cops" version ...


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> 3.  Encourage immigration from non-European countries.  Aim to make Britain a fully multi-ethnic society.


So how's that going to make any difference to the kids currently terrorising the shops in the area?

In fact, what's it got to do with anything?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> It might work I suppose.  Makes a change from the traditional "Dear Shopkeeper.  Sorry to hear you were the victim of a crime.  Tough shit.  Love. The Cops" version ...



It does make a change from that, doesn't it?  That's my point.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So how's that going to make any difference to the kids currently terrorising the shops in the area?
> 
> In fact, what's it got to do with anything?



Well, I'm arguing that anti-social behavior in Brixton of the kind you describe is, *in part,* the result of the racist character of British society, and that making Britain a genuinely multi-ethnic society would reduce its racist character.


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well, I'm arguing that anti-social behavior in Brixton of the kind you describe is, *in part,* the result of the racist character of British society, and that making Britain a genuinely multi-ethnic society would reduce its racist character.


And the white kids in the gang...?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> And the white kids in the gang...?



... would also be affected by any reduction in anti-social attitudes among their black peers.


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ... would also be affected by any reduction in anti-social attitudes among their black peers.


Ah. So it's the black kids fault for leading them astray, yes?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah. So it's the black kids fault for leading them astray, yes?



No.  Putting words in your opponent's mouth is a crap debating tactic.


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  Putting words in your opponent's mouth is a crap debating tactic.



Funny how you've built your entire posting history around that concept then isn't it, phildwyer...


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No.  Putting words in your opponent's mouth is a crap debating tactic.


I'm only responding to your own words here.

Tell me why having more immigrants will suddenly transform the white kids in the gang into little angels please.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm only responding to your own words here.
> 
> Tell me why having more immigrants will suddenly transform the white kids in the gang into little angels please.



No, you're still putting words into my mouth.  I didn't say "suddenly."  I believe that increased immigration from non-European countries would result in Britain becoming less racist, and thus diminish anti-social attitdues, among not only the direct victims of racism, but also in general. This would in turn diminish the prevelence of anti-social *behavior* of the kind you describe.


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm only responding to your own words here.
> 
> Tell me why having more immigrants will suddenly transform the white kids in the gang into little angels please.



have kids of any colour or creed ever "turned" into little angels?

by the same token when did they turn into any superior life form or deity?

By the way I thought of an answer for detective-boy to try out when he next gets the oppourtunity...have the Police asked the Sally Army or the local Youth/Religious leaders to go along with the Police to talk to the "little shits" parents and the kids themselves...to try and find out why "the little shits" feel it neccessary to draw so much attention to themselves and why they feel so aggrieved to shopkeepers et al.


I still reckon this debate should be going on with the kids themselves..so here's another answer..why not create a Forum for them to be able to state there views and opinions...I'll be up in London at the start of April and would be quite happy to try to hand out flyers for a day, to kids, to let them know of www's(eg urban75/youth etc if any other Urbs would care to join meh (not stupid I am!  ).


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> but also in general.



I also reckon this is nearer the truth of Us nation-wise atm...in general its not racism but xenophobia that I believe is at large...undeniably racism does exist but I hope and believe in general people are become less xenophobic and ergo less racist...and tbh I hope and try to believe that peple see it less and less acceptable ,and this in part gives cause to such heated debates as this.


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I also reckon this is nearer the truth of Us nation-wise atm...in general its not racism but xenophobia that I believe is at large...undeniably racism does exist but I hope and believe in general people are become less xenophobic and ergo less racist...and tbh I hope and try to believe that peple see it less and less acceptable ,and this in part gives cause to such heated debates as this.



I agree, but when you have twats like phildwyer doing their utmost to point out percieved differences between people with different coloured skin, it is depressing.

Makes me angry.

Makes me think phildwyer is a little shit out of control.

This issue has fuck all to do with race, it's to do with kids, fearless and in gangs, with no respect for adults or authority.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 21, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I agree, but when you have twats like phildwyer doing their utmost to point out percieved differences between people with different coloured skin, it is depressing.
> 
> Makes me angry.
> 
> ...



It *is* Richard Littlejohn:

"Little shits.  Out of control.  Bastards.

Its depressing.

Bleeding heart liberals.  With their long words.  

Makes me angry.

Makes me think I might do something.

No-one will let me.

Its depressing.

Makes me angry.

Drug Dealing Scumbags.  Skunk skunk skunk.

Its hard to bear.

Makes me think something should be done.

Never is.

Makes me angry.

Its depressing."

[repeat ad nauseum.  It has a certain poetry about it though, you must admit...]


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 21, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> By the way I thought of an answer for detective-boy to try out when he next gets the oppourtunity...have the Police asked the Sally Army or the local Youth/Religious leaders to go along with the Police to talk to the "little shits" parents and the kids themselves...


No.1 : You do know that the Youth Offending Teams, set up at least five years ago, are made up of people from a variety of agencies, of which the police are but one, don't you?

No.2 : Why do you think that it is the responsibility of the police to investigate and address all the underlying issues?  Do you think they are funded to do the work of education, social services, housing, health, etc.?


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 21, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> No.2 : Why do you think that it is the responsibility of the police to investigate and address all the underlying issues?  Do you think they are funded to do the work of education, social services, housing, health, etc.?



Normally i wouldn`t generally agree with most of D.B. arguments on most matters but with this   he`s spot on.
Far to often the old bill are left to pick up the pieces and deal with the after events of incidents which involve people with obvious mental health ( and other) issues.
The prison service is faced with the same dilemia in that they are having to cope and intern people who should be in other institutions...
the police should not be acting as an adjutent to the department of health.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 21, 2006)

i the light of morning (or afternoon in this case) your argument is still about as watertight as a sponge model of the titanic (post iceburg)

and your "only possible conclutions"  are premium grade examples of phillogic


----------



## pk (Mar 21, 2006)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> phillogic



Cool, I like that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2006)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> The prison service is faced with the same dilemia in that they are having to cope and intern people who should be in other institutions...



The last year I have figures for (2001) there were over 2,000 inmates (convicted and on remand) "waiting for a bed" in a special hospital or a locked ward because of their mental health issues.
The very best they can hope for in a nick is either a bed in the hospital wing, or one of the *very few* purpose-built cells that are supposed to only be used for inmates "in crisis" until they can be assessed and shipped off to a (non-existent) bed in a secure hospital. More often than not they're rotting in the general prison population because the Home Office can't get it's act together with the health minister to sort out funding (and jump through all the planning hoops) for more "special hospital" beds.


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I'll be up in London at the start of April and would be quite happy to try to hand out flyers for a day, to kids, to let them know of www's(eg urban75/youth etc if any other Urbs would care to join meh (not stupid I am!


I could be wrong, but I could hazard a pretty good guess where your flyer will end up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but I could hazard a pretty good guess where your flyer will end up.



Will it be folded so it has sharp corners first?


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 21, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> This issue has fuck all to do with race, it's to do with kids, fearless and in gangs, with no respect for adults or authority.



I reckon the fuckall to do with race is true too...however I don't think the kids are fearless...they are infact shit scared, e.g of being ignored in a society that seemly respects fame and noteriety, not being _loved_ by any adult at all etc etc 

I think they do, and would have, more respect for adults if given the chance to and are in turn respected by their elders for what they are..children...not "little shits" or kidults...but jus plain ordinary children.


Sorry to repeat myself over again...but Kidscape to my knowledge have been trying to say and demostrate this for 20 odd years and STILL they are only used in end of an adut controlled and  adult directed system which calls on them(more adults) when they The Authorities(adults) decide in their infinite wisdom that they(adults) can no longer contribute to the welfare of the child.

I don't mean kids should be dealt with by kids either ...I mean that k*ids should be listened to earlier* before they have the chance to become physically reactive to the environment They find unwelcoming and unbecoming to their expectations.

I'm not being all air fairy without experience and knowledge in this field...but no detective-boy I don't know about authorative eschelons and the names of this organisation and that organisation but I do have direct experience of a period of 20 odd years in being involved in volunteer mentoring of various kids in various circumstance in various communities...I still have yet to be totally dismissed out of hand by ANY child I've spoken to..I have however been walked up and down Brixton High St a few times with ablade stuck to my throat by kids whilst Adults have chosen to ignore my joyful calls for assistance....and some of the kids I know are now in prison..some are at university...some are being shifted from foster parent to foster parents...you win some you lose some...but if you don't try some you don't win any at all.


And I know I'm right because I've never had any of them come back to me and say you idiot you ruined my life etc etc even the one in prison have thanked me for listening etc etc...what's even funnier is some have tracked me down thru certain websites/thru Google recently to thank me agin. So I rest easy knowing I make some effort without stigmatising kids whilst others don't.  

They are kids Editor...I think you are probably wrong in your assumption but I suspect we'll never find out will we?

The offer was there I now retract it. I think I'll stick with my local kids my way and let you solve the problems you and your community have with "little shits" your way.  





PISS OFF VP..I'm having a flexible sigmoidoscopy in a couple of weeks and sharp things dunt frighten me... in that area... very much!  





*last tome in here coz I've really said my piece.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 21, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I'm not being all air fairy without experience and knowledge in this field...but no detective-boy I don't know about authorative eschelons and the names of this organisation and that organisation ...


Well perhaps you'd get a better response from them if you did find out what they are doing before slagging them off for fucking it up.


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 21, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Well perhaps you'd get a better response from them if you did find out what they are doing before slagging them off for fucking it up.



My response from Them with regards to children has always been positive..but when in regards to my adult contribution has always ended in negativity.

When I said I don't _know about_, it wasn't entirely true Occifer...I was generalising..I do have current experience and an amount of knowledge of how hard it is for those that are involved to proceed and succeed in their tasks both socially and professionally. I have often discussed these sort of issues at length and sadly They and I have come to the conclusion that the current application of resources and perceived or instructed way of providing solutions is not, inherently, working. I know plenty who are trying to work the system from within to give the children a better advantage.  

In the last three or four months I have had to having protracted dealing with the Police force and have met some very nice people therein...but sadly...eventually... I am passed onto Others who are IMO Very Unpleasent human beings...I can't understand why that is but there you go.  

Maybe They think,like you that I am a...*smartarse*?

Time to leave...agin...sorry for boring you.


----------



## aylee (Mar 22, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Bleeding heart liberals.  With their long words.



Are these short enough for you?

You're

A

Tory

Cunt.


----------



## Andy the Don (Mar 22, 2006)

Phildwyer..

How to deal with unruly kids with 410 shotguns..



> Gunned down: the teenager who dared to walk across his neighbour's prized lawn



http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,1736424,00.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> PISS OFF VP..I'm having a flexible sigmoidoscopy in a couple of weeks and sharp things dunt frighten me... in that area... very much!



You have my sympathies, I've had a few mself.

Are they just having a "looksee" or are they taking a biopsy (if you don't mind me asking)?


----------



## boskysquelch (Mar 22, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You have my sympathies, I've had a few mself.
> 
> Are they just having a "looksee" or are they taking a biopsy (if you don't mind me asking)?



both.   think of the kiddies mate, think of the kiddies!   they have Google innit?  

here's my T!


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 22, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The last year I have figures for (2001) there were over 2,000 inmates (convicted and on remand) "waiting for a bed" in a special hospital or a locked ward because of their mental health issues.
> The very best they can hope for in a nick is either a bed in the hospital wing, or one of the *very few* purpose-built cells that are supposed to only be used for inmates "in crisis" until they can be assessed and shipped off to a (non-existent) bed in a secure hospital. More often than not they're rotting in the general prison population because the Home Office can't get it's act together with the health minister to sort out funding (and jump through all the planning hoops) for more "special hospital" beds.



Hey V.P. there`s a great article in the Ecologist this week about the nature of food in the prison system and how when prisoners are given fresh food etc the level of violence within the system drops like a brick....but obviously its written in a much better way than that..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2006)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Hey V.P. there`s a great article in the Ecologist this week about the nature of food in the prison system and how when prisoners are given fresh food etc the level of violence within the system drops like a brick....but obviously its written in a much better way than that..



Cheers for letting me know. I may have to set aside my usual qualms about giving money to any of Goldsmith's offspring and buy the march issue.

Radio 4's "The Food Programme" did a good edition about this issue a couple of years back, which was taken seriously enough in some education authority areas that they started providing fresh fruit at morning break. Also that "Jamie's School Dinners" programme reflected the same thing, good nutrition = less aggro.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 22, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> Phildwyer..
> 
> How to deal with unruly kids with 410 shotguns..
> 
> ...



i was shocked to read a child dies every 3 hours in america from guns

shocked, but not suprised.

loving the regression of gun laws to allow people to carry hidden weapons to work! to fucking work!


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 23, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The last year I have figures for (2001) there were over 2,000 inmates (convicted and on remand) "waiting for a bed" in a special hospital or a locked ward because of their mental health issues.
> The very best they can hope for in a nick is either a bed in the hospital wing, or one of the *very few* purpose-built cells that are supposed to only be used for inmates "in crisis" until they can be assessed and shipped off to a (non-existent) bed in a secure hospital. More often than not they're rotting in the general prison population because the Home Office can't get it's act together with the health minister to sort out funding (and jump through all the planning hoops) for more "special hospital" beds.



With regard to prison food..
Bernard Gesch ( physiologist at the University of Oxford and behavioural research charity Natural Justice) in 2002 Gesch produched a report showing a direct link between nutritional staus and criminal behaviour.
In British prisons,231 men between the ages of 18 and 24 where divided into two study groups. one was given nutritional supplements along with there meals,the other group placebos and the results where startiling..
the prisoners given supplements for 4 consective months committed 26% fewer violations compared tp the preceding period.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 25, 2006)

just as a small aside for some of people trying to make this into a racial thing

i got on a train back from guildford last night and two gangs of solely white kids got on at two stations close by. they then interuppted each others graffiti'ng and had a huge ruck, holding the train up at a station for ages and scaring some older people and some young kids.

idiot kids are just that be they black or white. 

sorry if that appears simplistic.


----------



## potential (Mar 25, 2006)

and ?????????
kids fighting amongst themselves is one thing terrorising
peoples livleyhoods and homes and family is another ?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> just as a small aside for some of people trying to make this into a racial thing
> 
> i got on a train back from guildford last night and two gangs of solely white kids got on at two stations close by. they then interuppted each others graffiti'ng and had a huge ruck, holding the train up at a station for ages and scaring some older people and some young kids.
> 
> ...



It does a bit, yes.  The point is that, while both black and white kids certainly act like idiots (in my experience white kids are in fact much *worse* behaved than black kids), the black kids are *much* more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for their idiocy than the white ones.


----------



## potential (Mar 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It does a bit, yes.  The point is that, while both black and white kids certainly act like idiots (in my experience white kids are in fact much *worse* behaved than black kids), the black kids are *much* more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for their idiocy than the white ones.


got any statistics ?????


----------



## trashpony (Mar 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It does a bit, yes.  The point is that, while both black and white kids certainly act like idiots (in my experience white kids are in fact much *worse* behaved than black kids), the black kids are *much* more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for their idiocy than the white ones.



See, this is weird. I've just been reading the 'right to bear arms' thread where you said:



> And yes of course, don't be so ridiculous, of *course* a white guy who shot a black burglar would go to jail for it.



So white people are just as likely to be jailed as black people? Or is that just in the US? 

Or maybe it's black children who are more likely to be imprisoned ...

How very, very confusing


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> See, this is weird. I've just been reading the 'right to bear arms' thread where you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, its really perfectly simple.  Almost everyone, black or white, who commits a murder in either the UK or the USA will go to prison for it.  Black murderers are doubtless *more* likely to be convicted and imprisoned--and certainly more likely to be executed--but a white murderer is very likely to go to prison too.  

With regard to lesser crimes, where every stage of the legal system from the arresting officer to the sentencing judge has much more discretion, black people are treated far more harshly than white people, in both the UK and the USA.  They are more likely to be detected commiting a crime, more likely to be arrested for it, more likely to be found guilty in court, and they get longer sentences for the same crimes.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 25, 2006)

potential said:
			
		

> got any statistics ?????


There's an optimist born every day ....


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> They are more likely to be detected commiting a crime,...


And, seeing as until a crime is detected no-one knows who the fuck has done it, how the hell does that work in La-La land?


----------



## potential (Mar 25, 2006)

or a pie chart ????


----------



## trashpony (Mar 25, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> And, seeing as until a crime is detected no-one knows who the fuck has done it, how the hell does that work in La-La land?



I don't know why I keep coming back onto these threads. I read phillogic (copyright Shippy), it makes no sense, people point that out but still it makes no impression.

And then, every now and then I get a burst of enthusiasm and believe that I have a chance. 

I believe that I will succeed where others have failed. That I've spotted a hole in phillogic _so _large that it will be the flaw that allows me to pierce and deflate phillogic. 

But, as ever, the hard plastic shell that protects phillogic from logical argument causes it to bounce off and phillogic remains undented and undaunted to fight another day.


----------



## rennie (Mar 27, 2006)

Not sure if this is the thread to ask BUT there's an abandoned car next to my block being used by junkies/crackheads... I want the council to take action n either impound the vehicle or tell its owner to move it. 

Who do I write to? Would it make any difference if I did?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I don't know why I keep coming back onto these threads. I read phillogic (copyright Shippy), it makes no sense, people point that out but still it makes no impression.
> 
> And then, every now and then I get a burst of enthusiasm and believe that I have a chance.
> 
> ...



  



It's a tough job .... very tough!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 27, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> It does a bit, yes.  The point is that, while both black and white kids certainly act like idiots (in my experience white kids are in fact much *worse* behaved than black kids), the black kids are *much* more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for their idiocy than the white ones.





iiii arrrghhh!!!!  *shippy's soul actully tries to exit his body via the top of his head*

ridiculous and pointless claim the white children  are more unruly then black children ...which even if it is true in your experiance adds nothing to  the argument and is clearly judging a group of children based on race

secondly making the claim  that  the black children are  at high risk  when previous calculations put   it that only a tiny percent of the black population were in jail  which means only a tiny percenbt of these children will go to jail 

yes there is a descrepency in black and whit ratio of prison population but there is also a descrpency in black white ratio in other areas  such as poverty and innercity locations  which throws the first ratio into doubt

so ... you really are talking out of your arse .. even if there is institutional racism (and i'm certian there is to an extent) it does not support the wild claims you make which link these kids behaviour to the problems you claim

weapons grade phillogic


----------



## shakespearegirl (Mar 27, 2006)

Call the council. make sure that you mention it is being used by drug users as they have a special squad to clean up drug rubbish as it can be dangerous to the staff and general public. 
If they give you the 'we have to wait 14 days and notify the owner' line, reiterate the drug rubbish aspect and also throw in that you are taking photos/speaking to South London Press about it. They cleared an abondoned vehicle with 24 hours when I took this approach, originally they tried the 14 days thing and argued that I couldn't know if the vehicle had been stolen - it being up on bricks with all the windows smashed seemed to hint at stolen to me... 




			
				reNnIe said:
			
		

> Not sure if this is the thread to ask BUT there's an abandoned car next to my block being used by junkies/crackheads... I want the council to take action n either impound the vehicle or tell its owner to move it.
> 
> Who do I write to? Would it make any difference if I did?


----------



## rennie (Mar 27, 2006)

shakespearegirl said:
			
		

> Call the council. make sure that you mention it is being used by drug users as they have a special squad to clean up drug rubbish as it can be dangerous to the staff and general public.
> If they give you the 'we have to wait 14 days and notify the owner' line, reiterate the drug rubbish aspect and also throw in that you are taking photos/speaking to South London Press about it. They cleared an abondoned vehicle with 24 hours when I took this approach, originally they tried the 14 days thing and argued that I couldn't know if the vehicle had been stolen - it being up on bricks with all the windows smashed seemed to hint at stolen to me...




cheers for that. Have you got a number for them? The problem with this vehicle is that it looks alright... the windscreen is kinda smashed n there's loads of left over clothes n fuck knows what else inside BUT I shall do my best n  complain.


----------



## Team Bergerac (Mar 27, 2006)

Most of these problems are caused by living in South London, and you are therefore all advised to move  

Hope this helps.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 27, 2006)

reNnIe said:
			
		

> cheers for that. Have you got a number for them? The problem with this vehicle is that it looks alright... the windscreen is kinda smashed n there's loads of left over clothes n fuck knows what else inside BUT I shall do my best n  complain.



I'm not in Lambeth but Camden have a number on their website for abandoned vehicles - I'm pretty sure Lambeth would have the same thing 

@team bergerac. 0/10 - must try harder


----------



## netbob (Mar 27, 2006)

Team Bergerac said:
			
		

> Most of these problems are caused by living in South London, and you are therefore all advised to move
> 
> Hope this helps.




lol  

The Lambeth website has a form (although the link is brocken on the relivant page) 

http://e-forms.lambeth.gov.uk/Lambeth.EForms.NuisanceVehicles/


----------



## Dragon 24 (Mar 27, 2006)

It's ruff all over no? Thats modern living. Here, Paris, Moscow, Rio, Bogota, Kabul. Just how it is, no different anywhere. Can't stop, won't stop.

Deal with it.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2006)

Dragon 24 said:
			
		

> It's ruff all over no? Thats modern living. Here, Paris, Moscow, Rio, Bogota, Kabul. Just how it is, no different anywhere. Can't stop, won't stop.
> 
> Deal with it.


What does that mean, exactly?


----------



## Dragon 24 (Mar 27, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> What does that mean, exactly?




'Fraid I think that's how thimgs have evolved. We will evolve further and things maybe different in 30 years. But right now, this is how it is. 

Not saying you don't have a right to want to change it, be unhappy with it. But imo if we embrace it, let it happen, let things go the way they want to we will end up where we are meant to be. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 27, 2006)

Dragon 24 said:
			
		

> 'Fraid I think that's how thimgs have evolved. We will evolve further and things maybe different in 30 years. But right now, this is how it is.
> 
> Not saying you don't have a right to want to change it, be unhappy with it. But imo if we embrace it, let it happen, let things go the way they want to we will end up where we are meant to be.
> 
> Just a thought.



Not one that means anything though.

It amounts to 'sit on your arse, do nothing, see what happens.'


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2006)

Dragon 24 said:
			
		

> '
> Not saying you don't have a right to want to change it, be unhappy with it. But imo if we embrace it, let it happen, let things go the way they want to we will end up where we are meant to be.
> .


How does a shopkeeper 'embrace' having his stock being nicked and bottles being lobbed at his window?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2006)

Dragon 24 said:
			
		

> 'Fraid I think that's how thimgs have evolved. We will evolve further and things maybe different in 30 years. But right now, this is how it is.
> 
> Not saying you don't have a right to want to change it, be unhappy with it. But imo if we embrace it, let it happen, let things go the way they want to we will end up where we are meant to be.
> 
> Just a thought.



What about "marginals"?

Should we embrace them?


----------



## Choc (Mar 28, 2006)

just a little off-near-to-topic report.

i am currently visiting berlin, kreutzberg which has a high turkish population.

and the flat/friends i am staying with just had to break ins within 2 weeks (they live in shop style place on the ground floor) gangs of teenagers have been spotted at both times... it is a real problem everywhere as it seems.

the german police was very quick arriving here (they where alarmed by the neighbours as friends where out on a party) and taking fingerprints and sealing the smashed door.

however the guys where spotted on the street yesterday but the police said there would not be enough evidence/damage that was done...apparantly there is a lot of brea ins and muggings here as well. reminds me a bit of brixton somehow...


----------



## happyshopper (Mar 29, 2006)

*Young people are out of control?*

It appears that this sort of problem is not limited to Brixton, or even inner-city areas.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4853988.stm


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 30, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> phillogic (copyright Shippy)


oi!  




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> phildwyer logical leap
> 
> aka "phillogic"
> 
> ...






			
				Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> phillogic
> 
> damn do i wish i had though of that



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=4332223&highlight=phillogic#post4332223


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 30, 2006)

*Phil wants to force guns on YOU!!!!*

Phillogic : alive and barking in the highly active Right to Bear Arms thread in General 

Warning : this thred is very long, nearly 100 pages, and very contentious -- persons of a nervous disposition are warned that phil is very likely indeed to single you out, attempt to isolate you, and fly off the handle at you and attempt to bully you off the thread, should you dare to speak up for your RIGHT not to be in the *slightest bit fucking interested* in guns ... and should you dare to out his bonkers policies as those of an authoritarian gun obsessed NRA-propaganda-regurgitating extremist .... 

Plans under phil's manifesto, for YOU in the UK (just in case you think I'm exaggerating) :

1. Compulsory gun ownership for all
2. Compulsory gun lessons in schools for all kids, as part of the National Curriculum.
3. Those dissenting from compulsory gun ownership being imposed on them, to be (mainly) deprived of the vote. Unless they're an actual, genuine, phil-approved conscientious objector of course. Then they'd have to do 'community service'
4. 'Peoples militias'
5. Loads of other NRA-sourced bollocks.

Can he stand in Lambeth under the 'NRA : Liberate Your Right to Bear Arms' party?

I predict a landslide** ... 

**Against


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Mar 30, 2006)

*from phildwyer*




			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Phillogic : alive and barking in the highly active Right to Bear Arms thread in General
> 
> Plans under phil's manifesto, for YOU in the UK :
> 
> ...



Yeah but what about all those crack head squirrels? The next thing you know is that they get tooled up and start blowing people's nuts away. 
In my opinion its those black squirrels that are unfairly treated. I reckon they are more likely to be arrested and locked away than white squirrels. There is a subconsious racism towards black squirrels, don't yer know? 
Maybe they should be given their own wood and left alone away from evil law-abiding tree dwellers that discriminate against them. 
Take those robins for example. Talk about ignorant rednecks! 
And also its the fault of badgers who see everything in black and white. How illiberal is that. 
The boars then side with the robins and lock up all the squirrels and the next thing you know is that you have the blackbirds rioting again. 
Although I have not visited the wood for about 20 years, I regard myself as an expert on this matter. No other point of view will be entertained. 
You all twitter away without saying anything useful. All you care about is the price of your burrow. Actually arresting the black squirrels for stuff like rabbitacide will destroy the fabric of the wood and lead to all the trees falling down. 
Then the wood will just be like any other patch of forest in places like Tumbridge Wells - another place I have never visited - but which fits nicely into my stereotyped view of the world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Yeah but what about all those crack head squirrels? The next thing you know is that they get tooled up and start blowing people's nuts away.
> In my opinion its those black squirrels that are unfairly treated. I reckon they are more likely to be arrested and locked away than white squirrels. There is a subconsious racism towards black squirrels, don't yer know?
> Maybe they should be given their own wood and left alone away from evil law-abiding tree dwellers that discriminate against them.
> Take those robins for example. Talk about ignorant rednecks!
> ...




Classic!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 31, 2006)

Just picked up on Rushcroft Roader's post ....CLASSIC!!!!! stuff agreed


----------



## rennie (Apr 27, 2006)

shakespearegirl said:
			
		

> Call the council. make sure that you mention it is being used by drug users as they have a special squad to clean up drug rubbish as it can be dangerous to the staff and general public.
> If they give you the 'we have to wait 14 days and notify the owner' line, reiterate the drug rubbish aspect and also throw in that you are taking photos/speaking to South London Press about it. They cleared an abondoned vehicle with 24 hours when I took this approach, originally they tried the 14 days thing and argued that I couldn't know if the vehicle had been stolen - it being up on bricks with all the windows smashed seemed to hint at stolen to me...




thanks for that... I am happy to report that the car is gone!!!! yay!


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just watched a gang of about 6 kids - most of then around 7-9 years old -  rush into the corner shop by Gresham Road, grab a load of stuff and the get chased out by the owner.
> 
> And then - and this is the bit that gets me - they came back to taunt the owner, tried to force their way back into the shop to nick more stuff before  lobbing a bottle and some stones at the window.
> 
> ...


Spooky coincidences, number 94 ...

Letter in Law & Police column in Police Review this week (a sort of legal advice column for cops):



> "I would appreciate your views on the following scenario.  There is a gang of children known to be aged between seven and eight years old who have been harassing a local store woner by running in and out of the store, stealing items from the display and threatening him with violence.   When chased out of the store they start throwing stones at the front, apparently in an attempt to break the windows"



Hypotehsis 1:  The legal editor of the Police Review, an elderly bloke called David Pickover, a retired Assistant Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police is actually also our esteemed editor using a cunning _nom de plume_.

Hypothesis 2:  Our esteemed editor is actually also a retired ACC of West Yorkshire using a cunning _nom de plume_, a strangely unconvincing Welsh accent and hair extensions (well, just hair really, the Legal Editor's picture shows a bald bloke). 

Hypothesis 3:  I am really a retired ACC of West Yorkshire and I post here to get my advice.

Hypothesis 4:  The Legal Editor of Police Review lurks here to pick up good stories for when he's short of juicy letters (probably learned his trade from Dear Deirdre and her hanging round nobbing and sobbing ...) 

Hypothesis 5: We are being routinely monitored by MI5 and their new computer system (which must inevitably have been installed by Crapita or BSE or whoever) has randomly confused the files, pumping out stuff from here raw, directly into the Police Review magazine which is clearly an organ of black propoganda.

(ETA:  Hypothesis 6:  Our famed ACPO ranking poster, who has a new job in charge of something not very important because he upset Mr (I) Blair, is, in fact, the new Legal Editor of Police Review but they haven't announced it yet ... Brian knows a reliable source and a good detective when he sees one ...  )


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 9, 2006)

If you are interested, his answer was:

1. They're under 10 so they can't commit a crime.  And if they can't commit a crime, they cannot be arrested for it.  Any arrest would lay the arrester open to a civil action. (quoted Walters -v- WH Smith [1914])

2. s.3 Criminal Law Act (power to use reasonable force to prevent crime) cannot be relied upon for the same reason.  He also points out that this statute specifically repealed any rules of common law on the same subject.

3. A common law power DOES exist in relation to self-defence by the shopkeeper Palmer-v-R [1971], quoting Lord Morris "It is both good law and common sense that a man attacked may defend himself.  It is both good law and common sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary.  But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances", which was elaborated into the classic explanation of the common law self-defence principles.

4. An ancient common law power does exist to remove the children as trespassers (provided they are asked to leave first).  He extends this to using force to stop the children damaging his property whilst in the shop but says it is unclear whether it would extend to using force on them when on the street throwing stones back at the shop.

(So, pretty much my posts 43 and 101 then).

< Waves to lurking Police Review Legal Editor >


----------



## hipipol (Jul 9, 2006)

*Shoot the Parents*

Personally I reckon you need to pass atest to drive car, so some sort of test for the breeding has my support
Provided I set the quations like!!!!!

Nah, just shoot the parents
Uncontrolled breeding when you are still infantile, off with the Balls, Cut out the Eggs, then off with their heads!!!!!!


I am well understanding


----------



## Dougal (Jul 10, 2006)

"Hypothesis 2: Our esteemed editor is actually also a retired ACC of West Yorkshire using a cunning nom de plume, a strangely unconvincing Welsh accent and hair extensions (well, just hair really, the Legal Editor's picture shows a bald bloke). "


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 10, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> If you are interested, his answer was:
> 
> 1. They're under 10 so they can't commit a crime.  And if they can't commit a crime, they cannot be arrested for it.  Any arrest would lay the arrester open to a civil action. (quoted Walters -v- WH Smith [1914])


cheers for that DB. 

Are the parents are committing a crime if they're allowing their 7 year old to roam the streets unsupervised? isn't there a law about supervision of kids under the age of 14 or something?


----------



## Bob (Jul 10, 2006)

Is it illegal to dart them as well? The police could use confiscated ketamine and just leave them staring into the air on the park opposite...


----------



## thestraightman (Jul 12, 2006)

I once told a group of 10 year old kids off for racially abusing the chicken shop staff on the Brixton road. They ran off after I shouted at them. But then sneeked up behind me and hit me on the chops as I walked home,  breaking my jaw in two places and loosing my tooth. Not bad for a ten year old. Especially since I was with two other blokes at the time.

The long and the short of it is now, I would never bother getting involved again. Frankly it was up to the full grown staff to defend themselves, not me. Especially since I never got any thanks or more importantly free chicken from the tight cunts.

Fuck the lot of them.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 12, 2006)

What _is_ it with those chicken take-away places? So often I've seen people go in to them for the sole purpose of starting trouble on people who work in them (deliberately ordering the wrong thing so they can start a row with the staff when they serve what they asked for, for example  ).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2006)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> isn't there a law about supervision of kids under the age of 14 or something?


Not really, certainly not looking at it from the causing trouble angle.  There is some scope for getting parents to control their kids under the anti-social bahaviour legislation but it's never been used very much and doesn't seem to be particularly "fit for purpose".

You could try something like exposing children to harm under the Children and Young Persons Act, aimed at the childs welfare, but I wouldn't expect it to get very far off the ground.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 13, 2006)

what about all those parents who get prosecuted for going on holiday and leaving their 12 years olds at home etc? what law are they being charged with ?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 14, 2006)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> what about all those parents who get prosecuted for going on holiday and leaving their 12 years olds at home etc? what law are they being charged with ?


It's usually abandonment under the Children and Young Persons Act.  It's a very different situation though - the law would not see your kids being allowed out to run riot on to the street on their own for a few hours as anything like the same as leaving them with no adult care for days on end whilst going on holiday.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

We've had a full day of feral kid fun today.

AM/PM: gang of 6-8 young 'uns amusing themselves racing around on fucking noisy and well dodgy mopeds all day, with the odd little mini-bike adding a higher pitched note to the fucking irritating racket.

EVE: Still a few on the bikes, but the high point of the evening was at around 1am when they decided to violently throw lots - and I mean *lots -  of bottles at each other, most of which smashed into the road, covering it with broken glass.

As ever, ne'er a parent/responsible adult was to be seen or heard, despite the kinds being no older than 12 and out at 1am.

And that's the thing. No one challenges these kids.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 25, 2006)

Another thing that's pissing me off is this thing for playing football in the road at street junctions (what's wrong with Brockwell Park, FFS?) and "accidentally" kicking the ball at passers-by as they try to walk past them.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 25, 2006)

FFS Poster, I know you're an arch-miserabilist, but are you really going to portray kids playing football in the street as some kind of modern problem?

Many kids won't be let out of sight of their house, let alone down to distant Brockwell Park. Like millions have done for years in this country they play football in the street, using jumpers/cars/steaming piles of dog turd as goalposts. I'm sure that owners of the nearby cars won't be impressed, but I'd be a hypocrite to say too much bad about the little nippers - I remember doing exactly the same at their age, grabbing my football and playing outside at an opportunity.

Not sure about the ball being kicked at you deliberately though. Can't say I've ever noticed it happening to me - the worst that happens is that I occasionally have to pass a stray ball back. It's about the best opportunity I get to show my sporting 'prowess' these days...


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Another thing that's pissing me off is this thing for playing football in the road at street junctions (what's wrong with Brockwell Park, FFS?) and "accidentally" kicking the ball at passers-by as they try to walk past them.


Compared to the late night onslaught of flying bottles, it sounds like your local yoot are positively _pastoral_ in comparison!


----------



## Giles (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> We've had a full day of feral kid fun today.
> 
> AM/PM: gang of 6-8 young 'uns amusing themselves racing around on fucking noisy and well dodgy mopeds all day, with the odd little mini-bike adding a higher pitched note to the fucking irritating racket.
> 
> ...




Nowhere you could tie a washing line across the likely path of the illegal moped riders? Instant decapitation!

Giles..


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> We've had a full day of feral kid fun today.
> 
> ....
> 
> And that's the thing. No one challenges these kids.



Sounds like exactly the sort of anti-social behaviour the police should be made aware of.  I suggest you e-mail your ward neighbourhood team from the Lambeth Borough Police website  http://www.met.police.uk/lambeth/saferneighbourhoods.htm

(There is now an "e-mail your team" option for every Neighbourhood Team in every individual ward in the MPS area - go to www.met.police.uk find your borough and there will be links to the teams in that borough.)


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Sounds like exactly the sort of anti-social behaviour the police should be made aware of.  I suggest you e-mail your ward neighbourhood team from the Lambeth Borough Police website  http://www.met.police.uk/lambeth/saferneighbourhoods.htm
> 
> (There is now an "e-mail your team" option for every Neighbourhood Team in every individual ward in the MPS area - go to www.met.police.uk find your borough and there will be links to the teams in that borough.)


do you know how many times this lot of little shits have been reported and nothing ever happens


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Sounds like exactly the sort of anti-social behaviour the police should be made aware of.  I suggest you e-mail your ward neighbourhood team from the Lambeth Borough Police website  http://www.met.police.uk/lambeth/saferneighbourhoods.htm



FFS.  I know we've been through this before, but I can't believe that anyone really thinks ratting on a group of over-boisterous under-12 year-olds to the cops is going to do anyone any good.


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> FFS.  I know we've been through this before, but I can't believe that anyone really thinks ratting on a group of over-boisterous under-12 year-olds to the cops is going to do anyone any good.


What will do any good?

Should we start up an u75 kids activity programme or something?

Or maybe the narchos can recruit the bottle throwers and ship them up to Westminster for a bit of rioting?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What will do any good?
> 
> Should we start up an u75 kids activity programme or something?
> 
> Or maybe the narchos can recruit the bottle throwers and ship them up to Westminster for a bit of rioting?



Wouldn't be a bad idea, would it?  Ratting to the cops is just going to alienate the kids, endanger yourself and waste police time.  Quite apart from the fact that such ratting is despicable in itself--we're hardly talking about the crime of the century here after all.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> FFS.  I know we've been through this before, but I can't believe that anyone really thinks ratting on a group of over-boisterous under-12 year-olds to the cops is going to do anyone any good.


Over-boisterous 
that's one way of putting it.
On my way over to the country show one of these "over-boisterous under-12s"who I don't remember seeing before threw a rock at my head just missing and when a asked him if he wanted to kill someone he screamed at me he wished he'd fucking killed me.i'm over 6ft and 20 stone and the little bastard didn't give a fuck.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> On my way over to the country show one of these "over-boisterous under-12s"who I don't remember seeing before threw a rock at my head just missing and when a asked him if he wanted to kill someone he screamed at me he wished he'd fucking killed me.i'm over 6ft and 20 stone and the little bastard didn't give a fuck.



That's a bit different to the behavior described earlier.  But anyway, ratting him out will only make him more angry at the world than he already is.  The only solution is to address the sources of that anger.


----------



## pk (Jul 25, 2006)

Yeah, just let the little shit throw rocks at passers by.

He'll grow out of it.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> <goes into Daily mail mode>
> 
> A good fucking clip around the ear wouldn't hurt...


do it properly and it farking would


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's a bit different to the behavior described earlier.  But anyway, ratting him out will only make him more angry at the world than he already is.  The only solution is to address the sources of that anger.


Right. And exactly how might that be achieved then?

An impromptu role playing exercise perhaps?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Right. And exactly how might that be achieved then?
> 
> An impromptu role playing exercise perhaps?


get him to pretend to be a tree and extend the cause of his anger down and expunge it through his 'roots'...


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Right. And exactly how might that be achieved then?



How about starting with decent housing, education and health care, employment for his parents, some prospects for his future?  Or is that too much to ask these days?


----------



## pk (Jul 25, 2006)

Dream on dwyer....


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> How about starting with decent housing, education and health care, employment for his parents, some prospects for his future?  Or is that too much to ask these days?


Might be a bit difficult to sort that all out when you're on the way to the park.

But how the fuck can you claim to know he hasn't already got decent housing, access to good education, health care, employment for his parents and prospects for his future?

Feel free to elaborate.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Dream on dwyer....



Don't know what you mean really.  Do you mean that an equitable society is a pipe-dream, or do you mean that such a society would still be full of brick-chucking twelve year olds?  I'd agree on the former, but disagree with the latter.  But I still think that ratting rowdy kids out to the police is disgusting behavior.


----------



## Giles (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's a bit different to the behavior described earlier.  But anyway, ratting him out will only make him more angry at the world than he already is.  The only solution is to address the sources of that anger.



He probably has no reason to be "angry at the world". 

Like most teenage kids, he will try to get away with as much as he can. 

If no-one causes him to stop, he will behave more and more outrageously until one day he will do something sufficiently bad that he gets into real shit, either with the police, or until he picks on the wrong person.

Giles..


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> But how the fuck can you claim to know he hasn't already got decent housing, access to good education, health care, employment for his parents and prospects for his future?



Social deprivation causes anti-social tendencies.  Well it would, wouldn't it?


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's a bit different to the behavior described earlier.  But anyway, ratting him out will only make him more angry at the world than he already is.  The only solution is to address the sources of that anger.


Try reading page 1 of this thread,it sounds exactly like I described and you even make an appearance.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> Try reading page 1 of this thread,it sounds exactly like I described and you even make an appearance.



Aye, we do go round in circles a bit but that's half the fun.  Anyway look, I'll admit that anti-social 12-year-olds are not easily explained.  But neither are they natural or inevitable phenomena.  I can tell you that in the Muslim world, for instance, you will not find 12-year-olds randomly chucking bricks at passers-by.  So this isn't just a phase that all kids go through, it must have something to do with the kind of society that has produced the kid.  In which case the way to stop the anti-social behavior is to change the society.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Social deprivation causes anti-social tendencies.  Well it would, wouldn't it?


sometimes just being and antisocail cunt causes antisocail tendencies... what about all the lad's out on the piss on a saturday who have the bling the cash the time spend 5 hours in a pub getting hammered and then kick the crap out of each other and everything surrounding them... they have the cash the education to get the jobs to support themselves.... they are just anti social twats... 

kids don't necessarly think of the consicquences of their actions, that's part of being a kid, you are indestructable, invincible and in a group untouchable... childhood is all about testing the boundaries seeing what you can get away with, testing the limits, you expect sometimes you'll bite the dog sometimes it'll bite you... if it doens't bite then you become more caviler until it does... it's how kids learn.... 

so they won't see their actions as anti social, they'll just chugging around as a pack doing what kids do... sadly if you are on the end of this it's a pain in the harris...and some times a quick upside the head wouldn't go amiss...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Aye, we do go round in circles a bit but that's half the fun.  Anyway look, I'll admit that anti-social 12-year-olds are not easily explained.  But neither are they natural or inevitable phenomena.  I can tell you that in the Muslim world, for instance, you will not find 12-year-olds randomly chucking bricks at passers-by.  So this isn't just a phase that all kids go through, it must have something to do with the kind of society that has produced the kid.  In which case the way to stop the anti-social behavior is to change the society.


yes you fucking do... you muppet... 

what do you reckon kids are arrested for in isreal driving tanks with out a licence... ????

ignorant misguided racist comment.. 

also in islamic states you'll fnd that they are intrintically hierarchical....


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> sometimes just being and antisocail cunt causes antisocail tendencies... what about all the lad's out on the piss on a saturday who have the bling the cash the time spend 5 hours in a pub getting hammered and then kick the crap out of each other and everything surrounding them... they have the cash the education to get the jobs to support themselves.... they are just anti social twats...



No, I don't think anyone is "just" anything.  I think people are formed by their environments, and that a bad environment will produce bad people.  So I conclude that the way to change people is to change the environment that forms them.  Your example does suggest that poverty is not the only cause of anti-social behavior (although it surely doesn't help).  I suppose I'd describe the problem as "alienation," meaning that people feel alien to society, as though they were not a part of society, and therefore free to behave destructively towards it.  I think poverty greatly exacerbates such feelings of alienation--as would being arrested or imprisoned.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> yes you fucking do... you muppet...
> 
> what do you reckon kids are arrested for in isreal driving tanks with out a licence... ????
> 
> ...



Sorry mate you've lost me here.  Are you saying that kids also throw rocks in Israel?  Yes they do, but not at *random* passers-by.  As for your accusation of ignorance, I am willing to bet that--whatever your ethnicity--I have spent more time in Islamic countries than you over the last five years.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Aye, we do go round in circles a bit but that's half the fun.  Anyway look, I'll admit that anti-social 12-year-olds are not easily explained.  But neither are they natural or inevitable phenomena.  I can tell you that in the Muslim world, for instance, you will not find 12-year-olds randomly chucking bricks at passers-by.  So this isn't just a phase that all kids go through, it must have something to do with the kind of society that has produced the kid.  In which case the way to stop the anti-social behavior is to change the society.


I don't see this as going round in circles just one big problem.
Also I should have said earlier but the "child" who threw the rock at my head could not have been older than 9 years old.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> I don't see this as going round in circles just one big problem.
> Also I should have said earlier but the "child" who threw the rock at my head could not have been older than 9 years old.



In which case there's bugger all the police could do in any case.  Kid must have had a good arm though.  Maybe you could recruit him to your local cricket club, that'd teach the little blighter proper behavior, eh what?


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Social deprivation causes anti-social tendencies. ?


I'd wager that these kids aren't 'socially deprived' at all.

They're just teenagers, out of control who are busy finding how just far they can push it (answer: "too fucking far").


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Maybe you could recruit him to your local cricket club, that'd teach the little blighter proper behavior, eh what?


Yeah, you can't move for chaps walking around in cricket whites in Brixton.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In which case there's bugger all the police could do in any case.  Kid must have had a good arm though.  Maybe you could recruit him to your local cricket club, that'd teach the little blighter proper behavior, eh what?


hoo-fucking-ray,I think he at last understands the problem the rest of us have been talking about for the last 17 pages.
If the little cunt had a good arm I would have been in hospital.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 25, 2006)

Why don't you just bake them some cakes ?

No seriously I had a similar problems with local yoot a few years ago, begging for change and cigarettes, and gobbing on, throwing shit and trying to set fire to anyone that wouldn't comply to their little demands.  Steaming local shops persitently etc

Police couldn't do anything but make them disperse for a few minutes only to return again. No fault of the plod they can't be there 24/7.

What worked for me and some local mates was to find out from other kids their age in the area where they lived and to go and confront the parents.  In the majority of cases it kept the little runts in check, but some of the more hardcore elements had parents/guardians/older siblings that were more cuntish than the kids.

The only way to deal with these lot was using the only language they understand. A subtle mix of good cop/bad cop.  We tried to befriend them in a way and do them the odd favour, give them the odd spliff and cigarette buy them a beer from the offy etc.  The rules were quite simple locals and shopkeepers were our eyes and ears and if any of them were caught getting out of line they'd get a hiding for it, and no more favours from any of us. If they got any trouble from older kids or problems from other kids out the area we'd be their as back up for them.

We also gave them the responsibility of keeping any of the ones younger than them in check. There was always still the odd bit of trouble, but on the whole things changed dramatically.  The local shopkeepers appreciated it and were always there to bak us up as witness's if any shit kicked off (evem if it was us dealing out a bit of rough justice  )

I still see some of these kids now they have grown up a bit, and they are now using  the same approach as we did. It makes me laugh when they are now the ones saying that the local yoot are mad up and out of control.  I just give them a little reminder of how they used to be.

Im not in anyway trying to advocate any form of vigilantism btw it's just that sometimes you need the older yoot to keep the younger ones in check. They are the only ones to get away with it, and who they will always inevitably look up to.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Yeah, you can't move for chaps walking around in cricket whites in Brixton.


The last thing I want is load of kids with cricket bats wondering the streets looking for a 'game'


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer,

Many "islamic countries" have precisely the sort of excessively harsh "law n' order" policies you'd (presumably) disapprove of if implemented in the UK. What do you have to say about this?


----------



## trashpony (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be a bad idea, would it?  Ratting to the cops is just going to alienate the kids, endanger yourself and waste police time.  Quite apart from the fact that such ratting is despicable in itself--we're hardly talking about the crime of the century here after all.



How is it going to endanger yourself? How is it wasting police time? 

Why is 'ratting' despicable? You sound like you're talking about a few harmless pranks at school


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> If the little cunt had a good arm I would have been in hospital.



He's only nine, give him a break.  I could barely *lift* a brick at that age, let alone chuck it at a 6ft guy's head.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> phildwyer,
> 
> Many "islamic countries" have precisely the sort of excessively harsh "law n' order" policies you'd (presumably) disapprove of if implemented in the UK. What do you have to say about this?



Good point, fair enough.  I was actually thinking specifically of Turkey, where they have neither especially punitive laws nor a significant problem with juvenile delinquency.  Its certainly a deeply divided society, with at least four violent revolutionary movements, but random, pointless, anti-social behavior is very rare, although they drink like fishes.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 25, 2006)

.....


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> How is it going to endanger yourself? How is it wasting police time?
> 
> Why is 'ratting' despicable? You sound like you're talking about a few harmless pranks at school



Because the kids will try to take revenge.  Because the police have better things to do.  Because nobody likes a rat, that's just common sense.  And because the behavior described in the post to which I was responding (riding motorbikes, throwing bottles) do indeed sound like pranks at school to me.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He's only nine, give him a break.  I could barely *lift* a brick at that age, let alone chuck it at a 6ft guy's head.


I do doorwork in Brixton i don't scare easily,this freaked me out,when I got over to the Country show I was shaking,the rock smacked into a wall just behind my head.
I don't give a fuck what age someone is if they try to kill me then they aint no friend of mine.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> I do doorwork in Brixton i don't scare easily,this freaked me out,when I got over to the Country show I was shaking,the rock smacked into a wall just behind my head.
> I don't give a fuck what age someone is if they try to kill me then they aint no friend of mine.



Why do *you* think he did it?  Serious question.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 25, 2006)

Bullies don't need to _have _a reason to do something like that.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Why do *you* think he did it?  Serious question.


I have no idea,really not a clue,i was walking along the street in a good mood,going over to Brockwell Part for one of the best weekend events of the year and out of the blue I was attacked,I'm big enough and old enough(44years old) that the local rudeboys never give me any shit and then I nearly get 'cabbaged' by a child.I have never grassed anyone up in my life and don't know what to do about something like this.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 25, 2006)

I was a party a few years' ago and there were some kids throwing stones into the garden. We ignored them. The stones eventually became rocks and hit someone on the head who was quite badly hurt. 

You might call that schoolboy pranks - I call that thoughtless and dangerous.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer,

Is "grassing up" someone who assaults you without provocation (or attempts to do so) a worse act than the actual assault itself?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 25, 2006)

I would think that reporting it at this stage whilst it's still a relatively minor offence could potentially save that same child from committing a far more serious offence next time round when the brick actually does kill someone.

Lots of young children have brushes with the law and do stupid things, I know I did, my brother did, many of my friends did.  It made me think again.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No, I don't think anyone is "just" anything.  I think people are formed by their environments, and that a bad environment will produce bad people.  So I conclude that the way to change people is to change the environment that forms them.  Your example does suggest that poverty is not the only cause of anti-social behavior (although it surely doesn't help).  I suppose I'd describe the problem as "alienation," meaning that people feel alien to society, as though they were not a part of society, and therefore free to behave destructively towards it.  I think poverty greatly exacerbates such feelings of alienation--as would being arrested or imprisoned.


this kind of fuckwad hand wringging get's on my dick it really does some people will with out a concept of consiquences go to extreme lenghts, if in a group where they feel shielded from consiquneces will collectively go to extreme lengths... this doesn't have to be born from poverty, alienation or any other fucking syndrome, socail disease, made up moral panic or any other bollocks... nor does it need classified filing stamping defining in some sort of attempt to explain away the consiquences of the actions of a group or indivual who just doesn't think. 

There are case, genuine cases of real people who are alienated, who are in poverty, who do act perfectly reasonably or can act in this manner but the majority of people cannot be "syndromised" in some catch all pop pysch, saw it on Op-fucking-era sot hat you can "understand" and get "closure" on the subject, til the entire humantiy of the situation is explained away like it was nothing more than inevitable. 

Actions have consiquneces adults, people, every fucking one accept this but you seem to thing that a pancea of cliche's can explain away a group of kids acting like twat's cos that's what kids do ... 

Fuck right off dwyer...

montel williams has more sincerity than you do is his anal seepage...


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Bullies don't need to _have _a reason to do something like that.



Hang on, a nine year-old kid "bullying" a six-foot, forty-four year-old bouncer?  I think not.  Look, surely it is obvious that something extremely traumatic has happened to this kid and that he is filled with misdirected anger against the world as a result.  I suggest that ratting on him to the cops would only make these circumstances worse.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> this kind of fuckwad hand wringging get's on my dick it really does some people will with out a concept of consiquences go to extreme lenghts, if in a group where they feel shielded from consiquneces will collectively go to extreme lengths... this doesn't have to be born from poverty, alienation or any other fucking syndrome, socail disease, made up moral panic or any other bollocks... nor does it need classified filing stamping defining in some sort of attempt to explain away the consiquences of the actions of a group or indivual who just doesn't think.
> 
> There are case, genuine cases of real people who are alienated, who are in poverty, who do act perfectly reasonably or can act in this manner but the majority of people cannot be "syndromised" in some catch all pop pysch, saw it on Op-fucking-era sot hat you can "understand" and get "closure" on the subject, til the entire humantiy of the situation is explained away like it was nothing more than inevitable.
> 
> ...



Look twat, I've no idea what the fuck is wrong with you, but I can tell its pretty bad.  You can't spell, you can't think, you can't write--why do you fucking bother inflicting your embittered shite on us while we're trying to have a sensible conversation?  We don't need a craphead like you distracting us.  Fuck off, and stay far away.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Hang on, a nine year-old kid "bullying" a six-foot, forty-four year-old bouncer?  I think not.  Look, surely it is obvious that something extremely traumatic has happened to this kid and that he is filled with misdirected anger against the world as a result.  I suggest that ratting on him to the cops would only make these circumstances worse.


I find nearly getting my head caved in with a rock pretty traumatic and I don't think that is any more or less because of my size.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Look twat, I've no idea what the fuck is wrong with you, but I can tell its pretty bad.  You can't spell, you can't think, you can't write--why do you fucking bother inflicting your embittered shite on us while we're trying to have a sensible conversation?  We don't need a craphead like you distracting us.  Fuck off, and stay far away.


why don't you pop pych me then  

I'm sure it's with in your bgi bag of catch all comments of no real application...

0/10 don't try hard you need that brain power to breath love...


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> why don't you pop pych me then
> 
> I'm sure it's with in your bgi bag of catch all comments of no real application...
> 
> 0/10 don't try hard you need that brain power to breath love...



I cannot understand a word you say and have therefore concluded that you are a lunatic.  As such, it would be best if you did not bother us any longer.  Thank you in advance.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> I find nearly getting my head caved in with a rock pretty traumatic and I don't think that is any more or less because of my size.



Fine, I'm with you so far.  Having rocks chucked at your head is traumatic, yes.  But what I'm wondering is *why* a nine year-old might have come to feel so angry at the world that his instinctive response to it is to throw rocks at random passers-by.  Surely this is not normal.  Do you really have no idea at all?


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fine, I'm with you so far.  Having rocks chucked at your head is traumatic, yes.  But what I'm wondering is *why* a nine year-old might have come to feel so angry at the world that his instinctive response to it is to throw rocks at random passers-by.


Why do you assume that he's angry? And why do you automatically assume he must be from a "socially deprived" background or suffered "something extremely traumatic" or without "decent housing, education and health care, employment for his parents and prospects for his future"?

Maybe he's just having a laugh and throwing stones because _he can._

Last night - at around 1am - there were around 10 little shits aged no more than 11 throwing bottles at one guy. And enjoying themselves.

That's just how it is.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 25, 2006)

So should we lower the age of criminal responsibility?  That is one option, and if the answer is yes then to what age and what do we do to punish the guilty?

My answers would be yes, age 6 and mumble mumble.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why do you assume that he's angry?



Er... because he threw a rock at the head of a large man with whom he was previously unacquainted?  Does that seem like the act of a happy, well-adjusted nine year-old to you?


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fine, I'm with you so far.  Having rocks chucked at your head is traumatic, yes.  But what I'm wondering is *why* a nine year-old might have come to feel so angry at the world that his instinctive response to it is to throw rocks at random passers-by.  Surely this is not normal.  Do you really have no idea at all?




I don't think it's necessarily an "angry at the world" thing... like I said before, children often do stupid things and don't always necessarily realise the potential consequences of their actions - shoplifting, torturing small animals, throwing stones... it's not unusual for children to do this sort of thing.  This is why it's a good idea to report it - _especially_ if their parents aren't teaching them right from wrong.  If anything you'll be doing that child a favour.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I don't think it's necessarily an "angry at the world" thing... like I said before, children often do stupid things and don't always necessarily realise the potential consequences of their actions - shoplifting, torturing small animals, throwing stones... it's not unusual for children to do this sort of thing.  This is why it's a good idea to report it - _especially_ if their parents aren't teaching them right from wrong.  If anything you'll be doing that child a favour.



Shoplifting is one thing.  But any child who tortures small animals or throws rocks at people's heads has serious problems if you ask me.  So the best thing for society, purely from the point of view of self-interest, is to address those problems.  I doubt the capacity of the British legal system to do so, and I suspect that getting involved with the police at so young an age would make them even more psychotic than they already are. That said, I can't offer any solutiuons more practical than sweeping social change either.  But there's nowt wrong with sweeping social change...


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fine, I'm with you so far.  Having rocks chucked at your head is traumatic, yes.  But what I'm wondering is *why* a nine year-old might have come to feel so angry at the world that his instinctive response to it is to throw rocks at random passers-by.  Surely this is not normal.  Do you really have no idea at all?


This thread started about a gang of kids steaming a shop and then throwing bottles at the shop after they were throw out.
People then talked about gangs in other areas doing the same sort of thing.
Then I'm attacked by one kid on his own,so we can rule out peer pressure in this case.
Around this way,to some kids this appears to be *normal* behaviour.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Er... because he threw a rock at the head of a large man with whom he was previously unacquainted?  Does that seem like the act of a happy, well-adjusted nine year-old to you?


It's the action of a kid doing what any kid that age does: pushing it to find his boundaries and doing what he can get away until someone challenges him and forces him to stop.

All your clueless handwringing waffle about social deprivation just gives them an excuse.

_ "Aw poor kids, don't blame them for trying to smash my face in with a brick.... it's not their fault... it's the anger and that's our fault"_

My fucking arse.

These kids don't need white water rafting holidays or weekly sessions with overpaid anger management psychologists: they need a responsible adult to tell them to fucking stop *NOW* and they need an adult to pay them attention, give them something to do and discipline them whenever necessary.

No rubber dinghy needed!


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> This thread started about a gang of kids steaming a shop and then throwing bottles at the shop after the were throw out.
> People then talked about gangs in other areas doing the same sort of thing.
> Then I'm attacked by one kid on his own,so we can rule out peer pressure in this case.
> Around this way,to some kids this appears to be *normal* behaviour.




I understand that.  So now we need to ask *why* this is so.  What is it about Brixton (or maybe the problem is more widespread?) that makes kids think it is acceptable to throw rocks at strangers?  Because most kids, in most places, do not think that.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's the action of a kid doing what any kid that age does: pushing it to find his boundaries and doing what he can get away until someone challenges him and forces him to stop.
> 
> All your clueless handwringing waffle about social deprivation just gives them an excuse.
> 
> ...


It's societies fault and no mistake


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> These kids don't need white water rafting holidays or weekly sessions with overpaid anger management psychologists: they need a responsible adult to tell them to fucking stop *NOW* and they need an adult to pay them attention, give them something to do and discipline them whenever necessary.


 
Depends on which adult.  A father, or a father-figure, yes.  A policeman, no.  So maybe the problem is a lack of father-figures.  In which case we must ask why there is such a lack, and then we will be back to wider social questions again.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Shoplifting is one thing.  But any child who tortures small animals or throws rocks at people's heads has serious problems if you ask me.  So the best thing for society, purely from the point of view of self-interest, is to address those problems.  I doubt the capacity of the British legal system to do so, and I suspect that getting involved with the police at so young an age would make them even more psychotic than they already are. That said, I can't offer any solutiuons more practical than sweeping social change either.  But there's nowt wrong with sweeping social change...



Loads of small kids pull legs of spiders or throw stones/rocks at people.  I know I did all kinds of horrible things when I was a kid.  But I had parents who made sure that when they caught me doing that sort of thing they put a stop to it quick sharp!  In my experience with young people in South London, the ones that tend to be problematic are the ones whose parents are equally as problematic.  Often these kids have no real structure or boundaries in their lives and welcome or at least respond to guidance and rules.  Sweeping social structure is all very well, but the kids creating mayhem on CHL at the moment don't really have time to wait for that to happen.  Meanwhile, a few strong words from the OB might just help them out.  Especially if they manage to get through to their parents at the same time.  I know when I got in trouble as a kid being hauled to the police station scared me.

To be honest, having experienced some of the parents of problematic kids at work, I can completely see why they are the way they are and frankly, some of them haven't got a hope in hell...


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> It's societies fault and no mistake



When you can offer a more coherent explanation ("he's just a little cunt" doesn't cut it) *then* you can mock.  Can you?


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I understand that.  So now we need to ask *why* this is so.  What is it about Brixton (or maybe the problem is more widespread?) that makes kids think it is acceptable to throw rocks at strangers?  Because most kids, in most places, do not think that.


It's alot more widespread than just Brixton,we happen to be talking about the problem in Brixton because this is the Brixton forum.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> a few strong words from the OB might just help them out.



I doubt it.  I don't think the OB are much good at social work.  I think their response would be solely punitive, and I think that would make the situation worse.  Maybe you'd have a point if we were talking about some village in Dorset, but the necessary level of trust between the community and the OB just isn't present in Brixton.  Calling the cops on these kids would confirm what they already think--that the world is out to get them.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> When you can offer a more coherent explanation ("he's just a little cunt" doesn't cut it) *then* you can mock.  Can you?


I have said that I haven't got a clue why I had a rock chucked at me maybe he's just a little cunt.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> I have said that I haven't got a clue why I had a rock chucked at me maybe he's just a little cunt.



No nine year-old is "just a little cunt."


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No nine year-old is "just a little cunt."


Of course not.
But how am I going to psychoanalyse a nine year old as he runs away from me shouting that he wished he had killed me


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> Of course not.
> But how am I going to psychoanalyse a nine year old as he runs away from me shouting that he wished he had killed me



I don't think you have to psychoanalyze him as an individual, because I believe that his actions express and are the result of a wider social malaise--one which is readily understood.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Calling the cops on these kids would confirm what they already think--that the world is out to get them.



Why do you think that kids think this?  

What a lot of kids I have met actually seem to think is that no one gives a shit about them.  When you're a kid and you see other kids being allowed to do what they want, behave how they want you might think that they're lucky and have cool parents.  It's not so cool if you're that kid.  They can do this kind of stuff and it's "ok".... often their parents don't care.  Pulling them up on it often (obviously not always) helps.  Even this is quite a simplistic view to be honest, obviously it's more complicated than that.  But ignoring the problem or seeing it as "snitching" really doesn't help.. IMHO.  

Certainly if it were my child I'd rather that the police were called.  I'd want them to realise the consequence of their actions.  Then I'd go to the police station, apologise for their behaviour and have strong words with my child and quite possibly, I'd make them apologise to whomever they threw the rock at.


----------



## linerider (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't think you have to psychoanalyze him as an individual, because I believe that his actions express and are the result of a wider social malaise--one which is readily understood.


It's societies fault and no mistake(part 2)


----------



## Giles (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> Of course not.
> But how am I going to psychoanalyse a nine year old as he runs away from me shouting that he wished he had killed me



If someone did that to me and I caught hold of them, I would make them regret it, no matter how old they were.

You are what you do.

Giles..


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Why do you think that kids think this?
> 
> What a lot of kids I have met actually seem to think is that no one gives a shit about them.  When you're a kid and you see other kids being allowed to do what they want, behave how they want you might think that they're lucky and have cool parents.  It's not so cool if you're that kid.  They can do this kind of stuff and it's "ok".... often their parents don't care.  Pulling them up on it often (obviously not always) helps.  Even this is quite a simplistic view to be honest, obviously it's more complicated than that.  But ignoring the problem or seeing it as "snitching" really doesn't help.. IMHO.
> 
> Certainly if it were my child I'd rather that the police were called.  I'd want them to realise the consequence of their actions.  Then I'd go to the police station, apologise for their behaviour and have strong words with my child and quite possibly, I'd make them apologise to whomever they threw the rock at.



I can't disagree with any of this.  Let's assume for a start that there is no such thing as an inherently evil nine year-old.  Therefore if nine year-olds begin behaving in an evil manner, society *must* be to blame (unless you believe in the devil).  So perhaps the question is whether to blame wider society or the parents?  But maybe this is a false dichotomy, because the parents--or lack thereof--are also products of wider society.  As for ratting to the police--and that *is* what it would be, let's call a spade a spade--that might work if we were dealing with Dixon of Dock Green.  The Brixton plod?  I wouldn't want them near any kid of mine.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 25, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> It's societies fault and no mistake(part 2)



I've no idea why you think this is amusing enough to repeat twice, especially since you seem to be at a loss to come up with any other explanation.  But actually I get the impression that you're not very interested in complicated things like explanations, and would rather just emote about this: "oh it was so traumatic, oh what a little cunt, oh I wish I could beat him up, oh I'm so upset..."  Sorry to take the piss, this has actually been a good discussion, but I'm off now...


----------



## trashpony (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can't disagree with any of this.  Let's assume for a start that there is no such thing as an inherently evil nine year-old.  Therefore if nine year-olds begin behaving in an evil manner, society *must* be to blame (unless you believe in the devil).  So perhaps the question is whether to blame wider society or the parents?  But maybe this is a false dichotomy, because the parents--or lack thereof--are also products of wider society.  As for ratting to the police--and that *is* what it would be, let's call a spade a spade--that might work if we were dealing with Dixon of Dock Green.  The Brixton plod?  I wouldn't want them near any kid of mine.



How many policemen in Brixton do you actually know? When was the last time you had any dealings with them? Come to that, when was the last time you lived in Brixton for more than a few weeks? Or even the UK?

At the school I went to there were kids who got their kicks from random acts of violence and vandalism. And they were in no way disadvantaged. So stop jumping to conclusions about the cause. You don't know anything about these kids.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 25, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can't disagree with any of this.  Let's assume for a start that there is no such thing as an inherently evil nine year-old.  Therefore if nine year-olds begin behaving in an evil manner, society *must* be to blame (unless you believe in the devil).  So perhaps the question is whether to blame wider society or the parents?  But maybe this is a false dichotomy, because the parents--or lack thereof--are also products of wider society.  As for ratting to the police--and that *is* what it would be, let's call a spade a spade--that might work if we were dealing with Dixon of Dock Green.  The Brixton plod?  I wouldn't want them near any kid of mine.



Well, the whole assumption that there is no such thing as an inherently evil 9 year old is that whole nature v nuture thing I guess.  I don't have an answer to that tbh.... Sometimes I think that nature is to blame but other times it seems so obvious to me that it's the upbringing to blame.  Maybe it's a mix of both?

As for Brixton police - or any police for that matter... I've had both good and bad experiences with them.  I tend to find the police much like any other section of community... there are good 'uns and bad 'uns.  I've met some unbelievably sarcastic and belligerent police people - I've also met some who really do want to "serve their community" and have been helpful.  I don't think you can make sweeping generalisations about the police any more than you can about 9 year old children.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've no idea why you think this is amusing enough to repeat twice, especially since you seem to be at a loss to come up with any other explanation.  But actually I get the impression that you're not very interested in complicated things like explanations, and would rather just emote about this: "oh it was so traumatic, oh what a little cunt, oh I wish I could beat him up, oh I'm so upset..."  Sorry to take the piss, this has actually been a good discussion, but I'm off now...



Oh oh! PhilD is off on another one. I can see him getting his knickers in a twist on this thread. Look out peeps, Phil is about - abandon all hope and flee - The Davey Jones of U75 is back on his Flying Bollocksman. ARRGGHHHHH!

Run I tell you, run....


----------



## linerider (Jul 26, 2006)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Oh oh! PhilD is off on another one. I can see him getting his knickers in a twist on this thread. Look out peeps, Phil is about - abandon all hope and flee - The Davey Jones of U75 is back on his Flying Bollocksman. ARRGGHHHHH!
> 
> Run I tell you, run....


I'd rather have the little shit with a brick than PhilD both barrels.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I don't think you have to psychoanalyze him as an individual, because I believe that his actions express and are the result of a wider social malaise--one which is readily understood.




......  not, by any chance, a lack of religion Phil?


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 26, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> These kids don't need white water rafting holidays or weekly sessions with overpaid anger management psychologists: they need a responsible adult to tell them to fucking stop *NOW* and they need an adult to pay them attention, give them something to do and discipline them whenever necessary.


I'd agree with this, but is a police officer the best person to do this?

I get the impression that there is a connection between kids being neglected by their parents (for whatever reason) and them getting into trouble. RaverDrew has described a kind of ad-hoc 'community based' 'good-cop/bad-cop' approach whereby local people have taken things into their own hands with a combination of talking to parents, befriending and helping out (good cop) and punishing (bad cop) kids who have got out of line. None of this sounds like it involved the police ... the police are typically a last resort when things are threatening to go too far and get totally out of hand or where only they can deal with something that has got too serious. At a lower level and before it comes to this it is far better if the parents can sort things out and if they are unwilling or unable then for other local people to take action.

I only have a limited amount of direct experience with having to deal with this - for example when I worked up at the Greenhouses we had some problems with kids coming in and knicking stuff or throwing stones at the glass roof. I found that it was best to be firm and uncowed, but at the same time talking to them with some respect and trying to engage them and find out a bit about them, rather than chase them away or threaten to call the police etc. The latter would only set up a challenge and oppostional relationship which they would then latch onto - they would then start to play a game of who could throw the biggest stone or nick the most stuff. If on the other hand they didn't get a direct confrontation and they actually started talking etc then they didn't sem to fall into this dynamic (typically they would slope off probably to find some other target who would 'play the game').

Presumably some of these kids feel the need to prove themselves and want to get attention from adults and from other kids. With no money and not much else to do one way they are guaranteed to get attention and look tough is to do stupid and sometimes violent things. The same thing often applies to people who have trouble expressing themselves - they are more likely to be violent because ultimately they can't let their feelings out or or communicate in other ways, and so will resort to hitting people instead.


----------



## John Grean (Jul 26, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I'd agree with this, but is a police officer the best person to do this?
> 
> I get the impression that there is a connection between kids being neglected by their parents (for whatever reason) and them getting into trouble. RaverDrew has described a kind of ad-hoc 'community based' 'good-cop/bad-cop' approach whereby local people have taken things into their own hands with a combination of talking to parents, befriending and helping out (good cop) and punishing (bad cop) kids who have got out of line. None of this sounds like it involved the police ... the police are typically a last resort when things are threatening to go too far and get totally out of hand or where only they can deal with something that has got too serious. At a lower level and before it comes to this it is far better if the parents can sort things out and if they are unwilling or unable then for other local people to take action.
> 
> ...




Cry me a river, liberal!


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 26, 2006)

John Grean said:
			
		

> Cry me a river, liberal!



yep

bring back corporal punishment

I'd be quite happy to give you a slap


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The only solution is to address the sources of that anger.


And how, exactly, do you propose that someone who has had a rock hurled at their head should do that then, Einstein?

How the *fuck* are they going to come into the orbit of any agency likely to "address the sources of that anger" if the police don't start the process ... ?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But I still think that ratting rowdy kids out to the police is disgusting behavior.


And I still think you're a total fucking wanker ... but it still don't make the world right, does it?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> I would think that reporting it at this stage whilst it's still a relatively minor offence could potentially save that same child from committing a far more serious offence next time round when the brick actually does kill someone.


No, no, no, no, no!  phil says it'll cause them irreparable damage.  Do try and keep up ...


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> When you can offer a more coherent explanation ("he's just a little cunt" doesn't cut it) *then* you can mock.  Can you?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I doubt it.  I don't think the OB are much good at social work.


Being all fucking seeing you are, of course, fully _au fait_ with the Youth Offender Teams which have been operating in the UK for some years now aren't you?  Who is suggesting the police get involved in social work?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> ...Innumerable posts containing acres and acres of total fucking drivel...


Oh, bollocks to it.

Fuck off Dwyer.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 26, 2006)

Phil Dwyer is best enjoyed on _*ignore*_. I think John Grean's joining him soon (don't worry Phil, he's not in your class, but he's still too silly to bother with). _Ignore_ is a great feature. Works for me  

Are some people cunts for fun? Yes. Are some people who are cunts for fun still kids? Oh, yes!  

But perhaps the habit's not too deeply ingrained with some of the kids. Some decent posters here have made serious suggestions as to how to defuse this unpleasant feral tendency. Hats off to RaverDrew for this, and to TeeJay for his contribution in response here


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 26, 2006)

John Grean said:
			
		

> Cry me a river, liberal!


What exactly is this meant to mean, if anything?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 26, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I'd agree with this, but is a police officer the best person to do this?



Obviously not, and I fully endorse your post as a whole.  Calling the police on rowdy 12 year-olds is not only absolutely despicable in itself, it is also entirely counter-productive.  Note that the poster who advocated doing this (even adding a number for convenience) is himself a "former" police officer.  No surprises there, then.  But it is sad to see posters on a board that stil seems to be made up mostly of Leftists so unwilling to consider that there might be other ways of dealing with the problem, or that the problem might have other causes than the innate viciousness of the kids themselves.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Calling the police on rowdy 12 year-olds is not only absolutely despicable in itself, it is also entirely counter-productive.


So if a "rowdy" youngster tried (or, worse, succeeded in) assualting in you in the street - what _would_ you do?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 26, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> So if a "rowdy" youngster tried (or, worse, succeeded in) assualting in you in the street - what _would_ you do?


Get my friend to hold the little shit down, while I proceed to campaign vigorously for welfare reform and social housing building programs. That'll learn 'em.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 26, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> So if a "rowdy" youngster tried (or, worse, succeeded in) assualting in you in the street - what _would_ you do?



Questions like this always remind me of Lytton Strachey's reponse when challenged about his claim to be a pacifist and so unable to fight in WWI.  The recruiting officer asked what he'd do if he saw a German soldier raping his sister.  He replied: "I should endeavor to come between them."


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Questions like this always remind me of Lytton Strachey's reponse when challenged about his claim to be a pacifist and so unable to fight in WWI.  The recruiting officer asked what he'd do if he saw a German soldier raping his sister.  He replied: "I should endeavor to come between them."


Nice bit of wriggling there. Any chance you could answer the question? 

What _would_ you do if a "rowdy" youngster tried (or, worse, succeeded in) assualting in you in the street? Would you contact the police?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 26, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Nice bit of wriggling there. Any chance you could answer the question?
> 
> What _would_ you do if a "rowdy" youngster tried (or, worse, succeeded in) assualting in you in the street?



I should endeavor to make good my escape.  Seriously, I've been mugged and/or assaulted several times.  I've never called the police.  You might argue that it would at least get a violent criminal off the streets for a bit.  But I think that prison makes people *more* violent.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've been mugged and/or assaulted several times.  I've never called the police.


Well you're rather silly then, aren't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 26, 2006)

Also seriously, I can understand why a victim of assault would call the police, though I wouldn't do it myself.  But in this context we are speaking of children.  Getting a 9 year-old involved in the criminal justice system is the best way to turn him into a lifelong criminal.  This ain't rocket science, folks.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Also seriously, I can understand why a victim of assault would call the police, though I wouldn't do it myself.  But in this context we are speaking of children.  Getting a 9 year-old involved in the criminal justice system is the best way to turn him into a lifelong criminal.  This ain't rocket science, folks.



Do you know what I actually sort of agree with you


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 26, 2006)

It makes me feel good though, that if I ever did see dwyer walking down the street, I could quite happily kick the shit out of him without fear of him ever running off to the old bill.


----------



## linerider (Jul 26, 2006)

RaverDrew said:
			
		

> It makes me feel good though, that if I ever did see dwyer walking down the street, I could happily kick the shit out of him without fear of him ever running of to the old bill.


no he would shoot you


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 26, 2006)

The thread started out with general anti-social behaviour and what to do about it, which is a far more general and day-to-day problem than the specific case of when things go to an extreme and someone gets violently attacked and even seriously injured.

I would argue that 'other approaches' to kids should be the first choice - involving the parents and the wider community, giving them some positive attention and things to do, ways of getting 'status' and self-esteem that don't involve being a bigger thug than everyone else, giving a positive outlet for their energies etc.

However when things go too far - they actually go as far as attacking someone in a serious way - then I would involve the police, not least to prevent 'community justice' escalating to the level of lynch mobs, punishment beatings/shootings and knee-capping etc. (which ultimately is where it ends up going if there is a 'no police' policy).

I don't think either extreme (always immediately involve the police in every petty thing without trying other things first versus never involve the police however bad things gets) is a sensible position.

Surely the more interesting debate about the in-between bit between these two unrealistic extremes?

Maybe Editor/u75 could set up a kids photography project - get some manufacturer to provide some a load of cheap end-of-line point-and-shoot cameras, get the council or other agency to provide a nearby venue and administrative support, get a local gallery or college to host an exhibition and teach a bunch of kids from thre Barrier Block estate about photography and get them to take photos of their life etc.

Somethig along the lines of "Shootback":

_Lana Wong, who arrived in Nairobi, Kenya, with her British husband in 1996, cannot forget the smell of her first walk through Mathare, Nairobi's largest and poorest slum: a "dense mingling of exhaust fumes, burning rubbish, sweat, sewage, and roasting corn," as she writes in Shootback: Photos by Kids from the Nairobi Slums (Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1999). Wong, a fine-art photographer trained at both Harvard and London's Royal College of Art (lanawong@yahoo.com), got Ford Foundation support to give $30 plastic cameras to 31 Mathare teenagers aged 12 to 17. The boys and girls, all players in a youth soccer league, had never held a camera. Each got one roll of film weekly, and on Saturday mornings the group critiqued their photographs with Wong. Their visually arresting, often heart-wrenching pictures are now on view in a traveling exhibition as well as in the book. Photographers have often documented the developing world, but as its name implies, the "Shootback" project turns the lens around. Many of these photographers live in one-room shacks near open sewers, without running water or electricity, on family incomes of about $1 per day. Yet their images are powerfully moving, and sometimes shimmer with beauty. Amid desperate conditions, they can be doggedly philosophical, as in one 17-year-old's cartoon man, who speaks three words: "Laugh when alive."_


----------



## Giles (Jul 26, 2006)

If someone attacks me, then they put themselves beyond my sympathy. 

My further reactions are almost automatic and certainly require no moral questioning or soul-searching:

if I can get that person back without getting killed or badly hurt - do it.

otherwise call the cops. This is what I pay my taxes for.

I don't give a shit about a person's problems once they start on me. Why should I? 

They are not my problems.

Giles..


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 26, 2006)

Exactly why turning this debate into "what to do if someone is trying to kill you" debate is completely a 'beside the point' derail of an otherwise important debate - ie dealing with general antisocial beahviour.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 26, 2006)

cor it's not like the old days:

13 year old pie stealer given 3 months:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,,1819292,00.html


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Jul 26, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I should endeavor to make good my escape.  Seriously, I've been mugged and/or assaulted several times.  I've never called the police.  You might argue that it would at least get a violent criminal off the streets for a bit.  But I think that prison makes people *more* violent.



you have been mugged several times? You amaze me...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Well you're rather silly then, aren't you?




He is, but at least all the Urbanites he pisses off with his inanity now know there's a good chance of him not "ratting on them" if they give him a kicking!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2006)

linerider said:
			
		

> no he would shoot you



Or more likely himself.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 26, 2006)

Prisons are universities of crime, no doubt about it. It would likely be a disaster for any of these kids to get caught up in the Criminal Justice system. But it's also pretty fucking disasterous to get bricks and bottles chucked at you, and to have your stuff nicked. There is a problem here. No solutions from me -- I've already highlighted a couple of the most constructive posts on this thread (from RaverDrew and TeeJay).  But let me tell you a little story instead.

One evening a few weeks back, I was sitting on the doorstep with a few neighbours, drinking beer and blowing smoke, watching Railton Road go by.  This is just the other side of Ed's estate, and kids from there come onto Railton Road to play sometimes.

Well, a group of young 'uns (no more than twelve years old, probably in fact all still in primary school) came along. A couple of them started playing about with a Pizza Delivery moped. My neighbour calls across to them "That's not yours, is it? Leave it alone then."

Some ritual lip was offered ("You're not the boss of me") but others of us (four big chaps of various colours) backed him up and some of the kids came over to argue their case (!).  One of them told me it was nothing to do with me, so I asked him "If I saw someone messing with your bike and trying to nick it, would you want me to say something? Would you be pleased if I did?"

So now we're talking.  One of the bolder kids says "So what is it? You's a snitch innit? You trying to get us in trouble" 

We laughed. "Nope. You don't seem to need any help getting into trouble. We're trying to keep you out of trouble."

Most of the kids drift off round the corner, heading back to the estate.  But two of them do not.  They go back to the moped, and wheel it away (it wasn't easy for them, how the little darlings struggled with their booty) right under our noses. Of course, we've said our stuff and know not to waste words.  They wheel the stolen Pizza Ped right past us, heading back to the estate.

A few minutes later, Pizza Man emerges from a nearby house.  He sees his Honda 50 has vanished, so I walk over and explain what has happened. "They went this way", says I, and off we go round the corner after his wheels. Now the two tough kids -- the two who made such a point of explicitly defending their liberty to steal -- see the owner of the bike striding towards them in his oil skins and crash helmet.  What do they do?

They put the bike down and run


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 27, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> It would likely be a disaster for any of these kids to get caught up in the Criminal Justice system.


Which is precisely why the Youth Offender Teams have been set up for the last ten years or more, involving probation, education, social services, etc. as well as the police.  They are coordinated by the Youth Justice Board (i.e. NOTthe police).

When a youth offender (under 18 years) comes to the notice of the police for a criminal offence the police are duty bound to refer them to the YOT who decide on the appropriate course of action (except in (the very few) grave cases like murder / rape / armed robbery where there is an immediate referral to the Courts).  The YOT have as their prime objective the DIVERSION of kids from crime.  They carry out extensive background enquiries (provided the family cooperate - some refuse) and compare that with factors established by research to increase the chances of a kid falling into crime.  They then try to put together a bespoke plan to divert them.  

In relation to the specific offences for which they were referred, they will normally either take No further action in very minor cases (minor disorder, victimless crimes, etc) or deal with it by way of a warning or reprimand (i.e. outside the formal court setting).  Usually a matter (other than a grave crime) will only end up in Court if the kid or their parents entirely refuse to cooperate.

So, by calling the police (who are the only agency who have the powers to *compel* an offending youth to enter the YOT system) you are very definitely NOT instantly putting them in Court, jail, etc.

Our Emiritus Professor of Bollocks, phildwyer, is about a decade out of date in his understanding of Youth Justice in the UK.


----------



## yourdaddy (Jul 27, 2006)

*If they had been little white kids...*

...you'd have seen it as nothing more than youthful high jinks. Instead of worrying about little kids being naughty, maybe you should worry about your own unconscious racism.


----------



## Masseuse (Jul 27, 2006)

Where does it say the kids are black?


----------



## Masseuse (Jul 28, 2006)

So you think that little shits out of control on coldharbour lane must be _black_?!!!!

That's _racist_!!!!!!


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 28, 2006)

yourdaddy said:
			
		

> ...you'd have seen it as nothing more than youthful high jinks. Instead of worrying about little kids being naughty, maybe you should worry about your own unconscious racism.


ding ding ding ding ding


----------



## linerider (Jul 28, 2006)

yourdaddy said:
			
		

> ...you'd have seen it as nothing more than youthful high jinks. Instead of worrying about little kids being naughty, maybe you should worry about your own unconscious racism.


Get back under the bridge you tosser.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2006)

Just to say the bad smell has now been wafted out of the nearest window, so please don't bother responding to his trolling.

Cheers!


----------



## Jessiedog (Jul 28, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Get my friend to hold the little shit down, while I proceed to campaign vigorously for welfare reform and social housing building programs. That'll learn 'em.


 

Class!

Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Jul 28, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Oh, bollocks to it.
> 
> Fuck off Dwyer.


Heh!



Woof


----------



## Jonti (Jul 28, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Which is precisely why the Youth Offender Teams have been set up for the last ten years or more, involving probation, education, social services, etc. as well as the police.  They are coordinated by the Youth Justice Board (i.e. NOTthe police).
> 
> When a youth offender (under 18 years) comes to the notice of the police for a criminal offence the police are duty bound to refer them to the YOT who decide on the appropriate course of action (except in (the very few) grave cases like murder / rape / armed robbery where there is an immediate referral to the Courts).  The YOT have as their prime objective the DIVERSION of kids from crime.  They carry out extensive background enquiries (provided the family cooperate - some refuse) and compare that with factors established by research to increase the chances of a kid falling into crime.  They then try to put together a bespoke plan to divert them.
> 
> ...


Thanks DB. Quite a few of our North American friends seem to live in a weird timewarp. Perhaps we should be kind to Phil, he's obviously having trouble keeping up. Mind you, I've started thinking that a mere ten years behind the times seems positively bleeding edge for one of our transatlantic cousins. 

That was a criminal incident, no doubt.  And I'm afraid another neighbour got a bit of an earful from me for appearing to be amused by the "high jinks" of the kids.  He wouldn't have found it so bloody funny if it was his own working wheels being nicked. But perhaps he was trying to ingratiate himself and stay sweet with the gang. Some of them did adopt a threatening posture.  And I'd previously seen one of them casually lob a glass bottles at a guy standing outside his house round here. It is not pleasant to contemplate having a glass Coca-Cola bottle crash through one's front window or, worse, against one's skull.  That freaks me -- the casual, thoughtless violence with (surely!) very little understanding of its impact on the victims and even witnesses.  It's bad enough coming from delinquent primary schoolers.  But to see a big teen casually and "lightly" chuck a rock at a fast moving bus, shattering a window and endangering everyone on board, is even more disturbing.  Mind you, I don't think that particular twit  lives round here.  My guess is he'd come from the suburbs to act tough in front of his ghetto friends. Looked to me as if they thought him a right tosser for attacking a bus full of tired commuters.

Some politically motivated types just don't seem to get it (or, like our fascist troll, pretend not to get it).   The people hurt and injured by delinquent kids and teens are, overwhelmingly, also working class and disadvantaged.  If you oppose the violent oppression of the poor, then you have to oppose street thugs, even cute young ones.  

It's very easy to think a group of kids have a common purpose. But that is not always the case, even if they seem to be acting in concert. Often, there are other kids in the group who are not that keen on the delinquents.  Think about it folks. If a mature citizen like youself is unwilling to stand up to delinquent behaviour, how the hell can you expect another kid (who will likely be more vulnerable to repercussions than you are) -- how can you expect the other kids to make a stand?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> It's very easy to think a group of kids have a common purpose. But that is not always the case, even if they seem to be acting in concert. Often, there are other kids in the group who are not that keen on the delinquents.


That's frequently the case - lost count of the number of times one of a group was playing the hard man when we had been called to them pissing about, gobbing off and (usually) playing the "I know my rights, you can't tell me what to do" card, and eventually talking themselves into getting nicked ... whereupon the rest started taking the piss out of him!   

The dynamics of groups of kids are very complex - peer pressure is huge (it's recently been acknowledged as a possible source of mitigation in sentencing) but often there is no specific indication of exactly what it is their being pressuured to do.  There's a little group hang round smoking dope and talking bollocks late at night (thinks ... maybe I should introduce them to U75 ...  )on a bench in the park between me and the bus stop and they started a bit of homophobic comment when my friend and I were passing.  Over time we just slowly engaged them in conversation (starting with simple acknowledgement and then working up) and now they are the most briefed up chavs on gay issues (and practices!) in Twickenham!


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 28, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> That freaks me -- the casual, thoughtless violence with (surely!) very little understanding of its impact on the victims


Or; the very little _care_ about it's impact on the victoms.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 28, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> If you oppose the violent oppression of the poor, then you have to oppose street thugs


Spot-on!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Questions like this always remind me of Lytton Strachey's reponse when challenged about his claim to be a pacifist and so unable to fight in WWI.  The recruiting officer asked what he'd do if he saw a German soldier raping his sister.  He replied: "I should endeavor to come between them."


You got the quote wrong. It's something along the lines of 
"I should attempt to interpose my body."


----------

