The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
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: