The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well it's rant time again and what better subject to rant about than another waste of our money? Once again taxpayer's money is being used for a pointless cause that if it goes ahead, will be like saying, "Please attack me if you're 14!" Human Rights group 'Liberty', who I'll be mentioning later on, have got the general background to the law here.
In some parts of the United Kingdom, their are trials taking place where police are allowed to seperate youngsters after 9pm and even take them home if they feel it necessary. This is due to gangs and mobs of youths causing breaches of the peace during later hours. They're still allowed out as long as they aren't causing any anti-social behaviour.
Most parents would be in support of this. Helping to ensure their kids aren't the cause of any crimes, and keeping them safe in the nights when they're hanging out with their mates and travelling to places like the cinema in the darkened hours. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion, as expressed on ITV's GMTV this morning.
A Spokesman for Liberty was under the impression that a fourteen year old boy, ready to sue his local council, was having his right to be out at night taken off of him via a curfew meaning he couldn't, for example, see a movie in a cinema after school if it finishes after 9pm. (Liberty's example). What the law actually allows is the police to carry out this curfew in certain areas where trouble is known to happen, and only if the youths involved are suspected of having intention to cause a nuicance or if they have caused a nuicance. If it is quite simply a case of a group of youths travelling to the local cinema, then they wont have a problem.
So what's gone and happened now? The fourteen year old mentioned on GMTV this morning has only gone and decided to try to sue his local council because he feels he is having certain rights taken off of him because of this 'curfew'. If he was self funded, I wouldn't have a problem so much with this rediculous case of his. However, he is being funded by joe public. That's right, those tax deductions from your hard earned wages are being used to fund him. Not only that, who's going to be paying out should he win the case? Lets me see...oh wait! The general public! How clever!
So why is this case rediculous?
If you couldn't already guess, it is because he is sueing his local council for making the streets safe. For protecting him whilst he goes off in the night enjoying himself and the company of his friends. Though, as the GMTV report stated, he had full support from his father who no doubt will get the money as his child is only a minor.
So what would it mean if he wins the case?
It would mean that the courts have decided it is perfectly fine for fourteen year old youths to terrorise the general public with their yobbish behaviour. It's bad enough they're out at all with their smarmy comments and their stupid antics just to prove to their mates that they're harder than some passer by who would rather not encounter such idiocy. I'm not suggesting for one minute that every fourteen year old who goes out in the nights is a thug. Far from it. But in fighting the courts against this police action on thuggery, this child is trying to say he has the right to be a thug.
This rule shouldn't just apply to evenings though. This should be a 24-hour ruling. Too many times have I been the victim of stupid comments from idiots trying to be 'hard'. Once I had my drivers side window smashed whilst I was driving by a gang of youths just because they didn't like the look of me and my friends as we visited their local chippy. You don't need to do anything to provoke them. Just by walking past you could have signed yourself up to be the next victim of jouvenile crime. So maybe this 'curfew' should take place all day.
I mean, what are these kids doing loitering about the place anyway? They claim they haven't got anything better to do, right? At fourteen I could think up better things to do than to hang around on pavements with my hands in my pockets with others my age doing the same whilst hobbling from foot to foot whilst seeing how many times I can swear and insult the passers by, occasionally taking a swig from a bottle of something alcoholic that had either been knicked or taken from home. How much does a cheap football cost these days? Without trying to sound too stereotypical, most of these youths from the areas suffering from their prescence tend to have many copied games and DVDs they can entertain themselves with. And there are plenty of youth organisations about that'll gladly keep them off of the streets. Claiming there's nothing to do is just their excuse for p*****g everyone else off. I'm sure they're sick of hearing, "In my day we made our own entertainment" from the old folks. Well now they've got it easy! 5 Terrestrial TV channels and a hell of a lot more digital!
As you have probably guessed, I'm in favour of this 'curfew'. A poor name for the powers granted to the police as they don't have the power to stop all fourteen year olds from walking the streets at night. Again, I stress, their powers are to stop nuicance teens from being a nuicance. So if they're causing trouble or suspected of intent, then they'll be taken home. simple as that. If I were a parent, I'd be glad of such a ruling. I'd rather my children have extra police protection than be allowed to be attacked by a gang of troublesome youths. Then again, I'd have more sense than to allow my children to be out on their own in the late hours of the night...
Originally typed for LORL
In some parts of the United Kingdom, their are trials taking place where police are allowed to seperate youngsters after 9pm and even take them home if they feel it necessary. This is due to gangs and mobs of youths causing breaches of the peace during later hours. They're still allowed out as long as they aren't causing any anti-social behaviour.
Most parents would be in support of this. Helping to ensure their kids aren't the cause of any crimes, and keeping them safe in the nights when they're hanging out with their mates and travelling to places like the cinema in the darkened hours. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion, as expressed on ITV's GMTV this morning.
A Spokesman for Liberty was under the impression that a fourteen year old boy, ready to sue his local council, was having his right to be out at night taken off of him via a curfew meaning he couldn't, for example, see a movie in a cinema after school if it finishes after 9pm. (Liberty's example). What the law actually allows is the police to carry out this curfew in certain areas where trouble is known to happen, and only if the youths involved are suspected of having intention to cause a nuicance or if they have caused a nuicance. If it is quite simply a case of a group of youths travelling to the local cinema, then they wont have a problem.
So what's gone and happened now? The fourteen year old mentioned on GMTV this morning has only gone and decided to try to sue his local council because he feels he is having certain rights taken off of him because of this 'curfew'. If he was self funded, I wouldn't have a problem so much with this rediculous case of his. However, he is being funded by joe public. That's right, those tax deductions from your hard earned wages are being used to fund him. Not only that, who's going to be paying out should he win the case? Lets me see...oh wait! The general public! How clever!
So why is this case rediculous?
If you couldn't already guess, it is because he is sueing his local council for making the streets safe. For protecting him whilst he goes off in the night enjoying himself and the company of his friends. Though, as the GMTV report stated, he had full support from his father who no doubt will get the money as his child is only a minor.
So what would it mean if he wins the case?
It would mean that the courts have decided it is perfectly fine for fourteen year old youths to terrorise the general public with their yobbish behaviour. It's bad enough they're out at all with their smarmy comments and their stupid antics just to prove to their mates that they're harder than some passer by who would rather not encounter such idiocy. I'm not suggesting for one minute that every fourteen year old who goes out in the nights is a thug. Far from it. But in fighting the courts against this police action on thuggery, this child is trying to say he has the right to be a thug.
This rule shouldn't just apply to evenings though. This should be a 24-hour ruling. Too many times have I been the victim of stupid comments from idiots trying to be 'hard'. Once I had my drivers side window smashed whilst I was driving by a gang of youths just because they didn't like the look of me and my friends as we visited their local chippy. You don't need to do anything to provoke them. Just by walking past you could have signed yourself up to be the next victim of jouvenile crime. So maybe this 'curfew' should take place all day.
I mean, what are these kids doing loitering about the place anyway? They claim they haven't got anything better to do, right? At fourteen I could think up better things to do than to hang around on pavements with my hands in my pockets with others my age doing the same whilst hobbling from foot to foot whilst seeing how many times I can swear and insult the passers by, occasionally taking a swig from a bottle of something alcoholic that had either been knicked or taken from home. How much does a cheap football cost these days? Without trying to sound too stereotypical, most of these youths from the areas suffering from their prescence tend to have many copied games and DVDs they can entertain themselves with. And there are plenty of youth organisations about that'll gladly keep them off of the streets. Claiming there's nothing to do is just their excuse for p*****g everyone else off. I'm sure they're sick of hearing, "In my day we made our own entertainment" from the old folks. Well now they've got it easy! 5 Terrestrial TV channels and a hell of a lot more digital!
As you have probably guessed, I'm in favour of this 'curfew'. A poor name for the powers granted to the police as they don't have the power to stop all fourteen year olds from walking the streets at night. Again, I stress, their powers are to stop nuicance teens from being a nuicance. So if they're causing trouble or suspected of intent, then they'll be taken home. simple as that. If I were a parent, I'd be glad of such a ruling. I'd rather my children have extra police protection than be allowed to be attacked by a gang of troublesome youths. Then again, I'd have more sense than to allow my children to be out on their own in the late hours of the night...
Originally typed for LORL
Page:
Note: The rule is only applicable to problem areas.
So the majority of areas you're free to roam about without fear of police carting you away. That is, unless you are a complete prat in which you'd deserve it :P
However, in the areas which see trouble on the nightly basis, chances are if you're with a gang of people, atleast one of them will cause trouble. And at 14, what is a person doing hanging about in the street anyway? There's nowt for a 14 year old to do. Can't legally enter clubs, can only by soft drinks from pubs and cinemas and other entertainment are contained in buildings, so there is no reason why any 14 year old should even want to just stand around in the street at such hour. Not saying they shouldn't have the right to. They do, even in these problematic areas. However, the police know who their regulars are, and so to prevent them from doing something in the first place seems like a good idea to me.
So the majority of areas you're free to roam about without fear of police carting you away. That is, unless you are a complete prat in which you'd deserve it :P
However, in the areas which see trouble on the nightly basis, chances are if you're with a gang of people, atleast one of them will cause trouble. And at 14, what is a person doing hanging about in the street anyway? There's nowt for a 14 year old to do. Can't legally enter clubs, can only by soft drinks from pubs and cinemas and other entertainment are contained in buildings, so there is no reason why any 14 year old should even want to just stand around in the street at such hour. Not saying they shouldn't have the right to. They do, even in these problematic areas. However, the police know who their regulars are, and so to prevent them from doing something in the first place seems like a good idea to me.
I'm 15. I hang out with people after 9pm. How will they know if I'm a 'common thug' or sensible guy?
I would be in support if this, but if they're stripping away their rights as well as mine I wouldn't be in favour. I read your whole post (one LORL, before realising which one it was here!), I'm just not 100% sure of how police will approach the problem.
I would be in support if this, but if they're stripping away their rights as well as mine I wouldn't be in favour. I read your whole post (one LORL, before realising which one it was here!), I'm just not 100% sure of how police will approach the problem.
Back in my day when I was 14/15 we had the good common decency to go get drunk at someones house, not in the street like yobs.
lalakersrule wrote:
>
> So it does happen, at least in the Primary school i was in. Obviously
> can't speak for the whole of the country
Alright, I was exagerating, but as you state, you can't speak for everyone, and you must admit, 'PC-ness' is such an inflated and easy target for people to moan at........
>
> So it does happen, at least in the Primary school i was in. Obviously
> can't speak for the whole of the country
Alright, I was exagerating, but as you state, you can't speak for everyone, and you must admit, 'PC-ness' is such an inflated and easy target for people to moan at........
cookie monster wrote:
> I would be interested to see a graph which compared the rates of
> teenage pregnancy and yobbish behaviour.
Check the figures for Merthyr Tydfyl. I can almost guarantee they'd be identical.
> I would be interested to see a graph which compared the rates of
> teenage pregnancy and yobbish behaviour.
Check the figures for Merthyr Tydfyl. I can almost guarantee they'd be identical.
I remember a primary school teacher explaining how she had to remove a splinter from a childs bum...not sure if she got parental permission. But the world wasn't sueing each other so much then.
Well i experienced it twice when i was at work experience at my old Primary School (where the example came from) where both times the teacher i was working with had to take time out of the lesson and go and call the child's parents to make sure it was fine because you can bet if she didn't that'd be the family who'd actually be idiotic enough to sue her for it (and the court would be even worse and actually award them their case)
So it does happen, at least in the Primary school i was in. Obviously can't speak for the whole of the country
So it does happen, at least in the Primary school i was in. Obviously can't speak for the whole of the country
lalakersrule wrote:
> Have to agree with you Borat i mean teachers have to call up parents
> to ask them if they're allowed to apply cream to soothe a wasp/bee
> sting now it's gotten so ridiculous.
>
>
But do they?
This is the point I keep on having to make. Just how many teachers and parents of kids live in mortal fear of this so-called PC-craze? In fact, you lot are in some ways creating the 'Pc-craze', by er, getting so 'crazed' about it. I mean seriously, how many teachers are going to bother, and how many parentsare going to be terrified and shocked that the teachers didn't - both parties probably whine about this Pc-ness as much as you do!
I don't deny there are silly things that DO affect people, but for Christs sake, stop using it as the blame for every flaw in society - it's just easy and inflated fodder for papers and people to scapegoat. WHO really doesn't use hanging baskets anymore, WHO doesn't give a kid a smack if they're bad, WHO doesn't apply cream if a kid's in pain, WHO doesn't call a manhole cover 'personhole' cover? Erm..perhaps......nobody?
> Have to agree with you Borat i mean teachers have to call up parents
> to ask them if they're allowed to apply cream to soothe a wasp/bee
> sting now it's gotten so ridiculous.
>
>
But do they?
This is the point I keep on having to make. Just how many teachers and parents of kids live in mortal fear of this so-called PC-craze? In fact, you lot are in some ways creating the 'Pc-craze', by er, getting so 'crazed' about it. I mean seriously, how many teachers are going to bother, and how many parentsare going to be terrified and shocked that the teachers didn't - both parties probably whine about this Pc-ness as much as you do!
I don't deny there are silly things that DO affect people, but for Christs sake, stop using it as the blame for every flaw in society - it's just easy and inflated fodder for papers and people to scapegoat. WHO really doesn't use hanging baskets anymore, WHO doesn't give a kid a smack if they're bad, WHO doesn't apply cream if a kid's in pain, WHO doesn't call a manhole cover 'personhole' cover? Erm..perhaps......nobody?
Edgy wrote:
> heh :D I quite enjoy these rants too...allows me to vent some
> frustration with the world....to the world :D
>
> Thing is, what to rant about next?
Rant about the most basic ignorance and stupidity of humanity, and then about the vile commercial culture we live in, racism, inequality, celebrtiy and poverty, usual.
OR The Mail. Always a good 'un.
> heh :D I quite enjoy these rants too...allows me to vent some
> frustration with the world....to the world :D
>
> Thing is, what to rant about next?
Rant about the most basic ignorance and stupidity of humanity, and then about the vile commercial culture we live in, racism, inequality, celebrtiy and poverty, usual.
OR The Mail. Always a good 'un.
Have to agree with you Borat i mean teachers have to call up parents to ask them if they're allowed to apply cream to soothe a wasp/bee sting now it's gotten so ridiculous.
One of my old Primary School teachers had his own unique way of dealing with us if we were being naughty, he'd just get a piece of chalk and chuck it at you (and now i think back to it he really was a damn good shot) and then get everyone to be silent and get you to pick it up and walk up to him hand him the chalk back and say sorry. It always worked but if he tried that now the PC muppets would be all over him complaining, wagging their fingers accusingly and tut tuting at him.
One of my old Primary School teachers had his own unique way of dealing with us if we were being naughty, he'd just get a piece of chalk and chuck it at you (and now i think back to it he really was a damn good shot) and then get everyone to be silent and get you to pick it up and walk up to him hand him the chalk back and say sorry. It always worked but if he tried that now the PC muppets would be all over him complaining, wagging their fingers accusingly and tut tuting at him.
Page: