Redruth curfew

I think you've missed the point, or maybe I didn't put it across eloquently enough.

Where did I mention that I wanted peoples liberties to be restrained?

I don't think it's right or just to penalise or judge people for what they wear, and I most certainly don't. But one must understand how certain types of dress could intimidate the elderly or vulnerable. Also, lets be fair, in this age of CCTV being able to hide your face on the sly is a boon in the opportunist criminal. That's not to say that I am in any way in favour of stopping people from dressing how they choose.

Getting back on topic, I think putting a curfew in place is a good solution for anti-social behaviour in certain young people, there are 'parents' about that couldn't give a two-bob-bit about where their kids are or what they're up to, communities can't enforce individual rules on negligent parents so they're left with little other option.

I think there needs to be a strong line drawn between being a kid and being a bad person though, the two get muddled up far too often.

This post has been edited by m15hun: Aug 15 2008, 03:35 PM

Yeah I would agree that curfew on kids with behavioral problems, and fines for parents who allow their children to brutalise a neighborhood would make more sense than blanket curfews on all....

Absolutely I understand... I understand that many elderly people think anyone under the age of 31 is out to steal their pension book. I understand that many people cross the road when they see a black male walking their way after dusk. I understand that many people may be be intimidated by a dark skinned, bearded man with a rucksack sitting next to them on the tube train... However, like I said, other people's misconceptions based on stereotypes or flawed and erroneous perceptions of threat, are not a valid reason to curtail the rights of other people.


Since when was it compulsory for people lawfully going about there business to submit to facial recognition by CCTV cameras? If anything, the ridiculously intrusive nature of the growing CCTV culture here in the UK is a major causal effect of the hoodie subculture. TBH, these kids, in a round about way are demonstrating their disregard and disdain for the increasing intrusiveness of our surveillance society.

Perhaps if EVERYONE became a hoodie, CCTV would be consigned to the scrapheap where it belongs, and we could stop using them as an excuse not to put actual coppers back on the beat.


What horseshit (with respect)

We can't enforce civilised behaviour on a minority of people, so were going to punish the ENTIRE demographic group?

Good God, there are tons of other options... saying there is "no other option is" is reactionary nonsense... TBH, that particular option, isn't even a proper option to start with.

Let me make this abundantly clear so there is no mistake... I have absolutely no problem enforcing curfews on kids who are on ASBO's or as part of a community punishment for a criminal conviction... but NOT for all kids, who are, by and large, and on the whole, good and misrepresented people.

I see where you're coming from but the majority old people aren't that way inclined, by suggesting that they are you're no better than what you're complaining about.

Also, we should be trying to stop people feeling intimidated on the streets, not saying to hell with it because it infringes on the thinnest of civil liberties.



I never suggested that it should be compulsory. You're far too quick with the knee-jerk eppie-scoppie!

The point I was making is that everyone knows about the saturation of CCTV in this country, and so it stands to reason that an opportunist criminal would benefit from a decent bit of concealment.



To get an ASBO a kid has to have done something pretty noticeable and caught the eye of the law, gone through an appearance in court and been found guilty of said offence. This is a pretty protracted way of punishing petty, nuisance kids. Not to mention the fact that many of the people causing problems make sure they're well acquainted with the letter of law so they know just how far to push their luck so that they can get up to what they like and avoid being punished for it (not dissimilar to Pikeys, in fact). If their parents aren't going to do anything about them it's down to the Council.

You can call it horseshit all you want Sir Jimmy, but whether you like it or not kids today are by and large NOT the respectful little angels you myopically paint them to be.

This post has been edited by m15hun: Aug 15 2008, 06:18 PM

Freedom of association, expression, movement and congregation are NOT the thinnest of civil liberties, they are among the most important and fundamental elements of it.


If it's not compulsory, then you literally have no argument as to why deliberately avoiding it is wrong. If opting out has consequences such as confinement to the home, or the banning of clothing which allows you to opt out (or the selective criminalisation/harassment of those who choose to wear it) then to all intents and purposes, it IS compulsory.


Yep, in the US they call it due process and it's one of their most cherished protections against tyranny... For some reason, though, you seem to see it as an inconvenience... not just in this thread, but in other threads dealing with the justice system too.


The problem is, that when the curtain twitches and slipper wearing clucking classes get their way, and insist the state be allowed interfere with the raising of children, what happens is, the state REALLY does start to interfere with the raising of children

They invariably get it wrong, time after time, after time. For the most part, the state needs to butt the fuck out of raising families, not get more involved.


I never painted them as respectful little angles... I pointed out that they are not the demonic, criminal, ASBO-esque terrors that they are being painted as by a misinformed society. The overwhelming majority (three quarters of them) get to adulthood without so much as a police caution, which is far lower ratio than your generation or mine.

I appreciate that all civil liberties are important, what about being able to live without fear? What happens if a person can't have a civil liberty because it might infringe on anothers?



The point was that it shouldn't have to be compulsory. People should be able to realise that something they're doing is intimidating others and stop doing it without the need for the law to step in.



You're speaking out of your hoop there. You have no idea about my perceptions, clearly.

What I meant was that sometimes people can cause a great deal of discomfort and intimidation to others without actually breaking a criminal law and that nuisance behaviour shouldn't, in all cases, be filed alongside criminal behaviour. At the same time though, it must be treated as a serious social issue as it can make lives miserable.



You crow on about generalisation so much yet you seem blissfully unaware that you do it with almost every keystroke!

Sure there are 'curtain twitchers' just the same as there are anti-social little shit-wits, but they don't make up the majority! When a group of people get together and take a stand against behaviour that's upsetting their lives they're so often labelled as busybodies and jobsworths, why? Why can't they speak up? Why aren't they allowed the same liberty that your upstanding kids are entitled to?



If it was so much worse in your day and mine why are rates of violence against the person steadily climbing, every single year?

I don't really know how you can sit there and say that the state of the country now is better than it was 15 or even 25 years ago.

To add a bit to m15hun's observation about violent crimes:

In the area of violent crime such reporting is lazy and inadequate. Think for a moment about what a telephone poll involves. There would be no value in asking the question, "were you murdered at any time in the last twelve months?", for example. Nor would so much as one person in that whole sample of 50,000 been likely to have had somebody try to kill them. In fact, as the Home Office bulletin concedes in a little note on p. 83 (eight pages into the "Violent Crime" subsection): "Due to the relatively small numbers of woundings experienced by the BCS respondents, separate BCS figures for serious woundings cannot be provided."

Serious woundings. In other words, because it is statistically insignificant, the kind of assault which is reported in the media - violent, lurid, usually involving a knife or a gun, often fatal - is totally outside the scope of the BCS.

So the truth is that "violent crime" has not "fallen by 43%" at all. It may well be true that people's aggregated experiences of "pushing and shoving" (p. 76) have declined since 1995. But the BCS has nothing at all to say about the kind of violence that makes headlines and that really worries people. Murders up from 679 in 1995 to 765 last year (a rise of 13%). Attempted murders up to 922 from 674 (a 37% increase). "More serious wounding or other act endangering life": 18,825 offences, up from 12,169 (a rise of 55%).

http://elliottjoseph.blogspot.com/2007/04/...tish-crime.html

Also:

One in four boys aged 14 to 17 in England and Wales has been classified as a serious or prolific offender in a study by the British Government.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Survey-li...6415668653.html

I think one fourth of a given demographic being considered serious or prolific offenders is a problem.

Civil Liberties are not an absolute. There are many cases where a person, or group of people, need to have their liberties curtailed for the good of others or even themselves.

Being able to dress the way you want, leave your home when you want and carry on in a lawful manner does not infringe anybodies civil liberties.

Telling people they can't because some people don't think they should be allowed to, does


I'm confused... now you're saying it IS compulsory, but wouldn't have to be if everybody just complied?

F*ck me, I've heard some shat logic in my time mate, but that really is a beauty.

Nuicance behaviour IS a criminal offence... Your problem seems to lie with the fact that in order to punish somebody for it, they first have to properly established that a nuisance has been caused.


Yes they do... as was pointed out earlier, two thirds of adults believe youth crime is increasing, when in fact it is falling. On the flip side, three quarters of kids get in no bother at all, yet they are ALL tared with the same criminal brush.

You see, some generalisations are true, and accurately reflect the majority (generally speaking - lol) whilst other are not and are based on ignorance.



Your figures are clearly wrong, because they are not climbing, they are falling.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf

 crime.GIF ( 26.12K ) Number of downloads: 0



Because crime wise, it really is.... that's how.

Do you even know what you're talking about, YMG?

I said that laws and curfews and the like shouldn't be necessary and you start mincing on about me saying something should be compulsory..what on earth are you babbling about? Please, go back and read from the beginning - read the whole post, don't just do your usual and skim and pick. You might understand what I mean then.

Oh and 'my' statistics are wrong are they? Did you bother to check the link source? Here, I'll pop the full link in for you to look at:

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/soti.html

Face it, you're wrong.


(Oh and mate, 'shat' is a past tense or past participle - what you wanted was 'shit'.)

This post has been edited by m15hun: Aug 15 2008, 10:28 PM

I know exactly what I'm talking about... It is you that seems to have forgotten that the "compulsory" element of this discussion is referring to the clothing style that allows kids to hide their faces from CCTV.

You claimed that this was not right, and I rebutted that allowing facial recognition by CCTV was not compulsory. Want reminding?



Now, on to your claim that violent crime is rising....



Well not so much wrong but not represented correctly. Lets look at the important bits:

 2002_3.gif ( 3.09K ) Number of downloads: 0
 2003_4.gif ( 3.2K ) Number of downloads: 0
 2004_5.gif ( 3.11K ) Number of downloads: 0


 2005_6.gif ( 3.13K ) Number of downloads: 0
 2006_7.gif ( 3.22K ) Number of downloads: 0
 2007_8.gif ( 3.08K ) Number of downloads: 0


Right... Firstly, the figures don't show violent crime is rising "every single year" as you claimed. As you'll see, they rose in just over half the instances, and fell in just under half. The figure for last year is lower than all but one other year (the first one listed). Secondly, the figures are over too short a period to establish a trend. Both the home office and the BCS (and, incidentally the international versions used by the US, EU etc) use 15 year models to establish trends. These models show that crime (including violent crime) has had a declining trend since peaking in 1995


"Shat" is a local colloquialism used as an alternative to shit, in much the same way that pee is to piss.. as in; pee off. BTW not that your failed attempt to pick on my syntax bothers me.... but for future reference, such things are frowned upon in LPP and will lead to mod action regardless of who it is aimed at.

@zoomer

Your sources are right wing blogs and foreign tabloids?