Erith 'children' found guilty at the Old Bailey

[whiffey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6972 631.stm

GOOD JOB TOO !

Apparently they cried in the dock, ah bless. Scum, cowardly vicious scum, brave enough in a 20-strong gang to stone a man into a heart attack. The youngest ever person to be convicted at the Old Bailey. I hope they go down for a long long time, and good job on the authorities for pressing this case through.

[tara20]

Isn't there a law in the UK which makes parents responsible for the supervision of their children?

If they get into trouble or even an accident the parents should be held accountable for the consequences. Then it's up to the courts. A hefty fine (where it hurts - in the pocket) would surely make them take more interest in what the brats are up to.

[mike1222]

Wait until all the tree-huggers and yoghourt-knitters who frequent this board, come on - we all know who they are - and they will have nothing but pity for the poor little darlings and the way they have been neglected, and will, no doubt blame the victim for causing the confrontation!

[aims1202]

Surely those of you who would kill the children who did this are just the same as them, worse in fact because you are adults.
Going by the answers I dont expect any of you to agree with me but these were children aged between 12 and 14. Yes they have done a terrible thing and the outcome was tragic, but i expect if these children had come from secure, loving and happy homes they more than likely would not have done such a terrible thing. These are not happy children who feel good about themselves. I'm not saying that it is ok, far from it, j ust that in order to stop this sort of thing from happening we have to look at the reasons why the children do it in the first place. And then help those children before it gets this bad. The parents are responsible and there are some who really dont care what their kids do but sometimes the parents do care and if we can help them get it right early on, things like this might be avoided.

[dyli795]

So how much money are you going to get from people whos only income is from the social services in the first place? The same social services put there and funded by people like you and me, -people braught up to believe it's better and right to work for a living.

[dyli795]

It's o.k. , tree huggers have an oppinion too, and, as an oppinion, is just as valid as any other, or opposing one.
But I still think one hundred years would be lenient enough. So that's my oppinion. Hey , I'll tell you what, if anyone comes up with a better idea during that term then o.k. ! just let them out again ! It's no problem. Who's in charge here? the honest, law abiding, tax paying public? or the evil little scroats who make our lives a misery?

[annie0000]

oneeyedvic, maybe they would be inspired to actually go out and work for their money. We as a country are bringing children into the world that are getting no moral training from their parents. I was brought up the youngest of 7 kids in a rough council estate with nothing to do and no money to spend. Did I turn into a yobbo? No, why? because my parents always worked for what they had (which wasn't much) and taught us right from wrong. Pesonally, I would remove benefits from eveybody except those that can not work, provide parenting lessons for everybody and provide kids with 3 meals a day at school. Provide basic accomodation with an inbuilt energy allowance and nothing else - if the adults want to eat they had better get of their backsides and work. I am sick of paying tax so that the poor can smoke and buy lottery tickets - and their offspring can vandalise and terrorise. I am happy to have a benefit system to protect the most vulnerable of society, but I am fed up supporting the lazy. If they can stand in the pub and walk to the shops for their fags etc then they are fit to work.

[confused79]

Hello everyone, i actually live in erith and just came on here a sec ago and see erith then immedialty knew what it would be about.

My mum knows this boys grandmother, but im talking about 10 years ago. I remember when he was born his mum was only about 16 and his dad went to school with my ex.

I knew his dad lives in same block as me when i had my first child and he was very much always in trouble with the police, and he was known to be on drugs.
I cant say much for the boy himself i never knew him and thank god i didnt.

I feel so much for the mans family and his son.
I just want to say Erith is not all like this there are decent people who live here.
I work in the adult social services side of things.

All i would say is i have a 11 year old son and id hope i am bringing him up good enough to never ever be like these boys!!!!

[Oneeyedvic]

annie - whilst I agree in principle with not giving so much 'free' benefits, there is an unfortunate consequence - there will be plenty of people who will think - sod it - I will go out and commit crimes since that is the only way I can get the things that I want.

[annie0000]

I know what you mean oneeyedvic, but I think that we need to make the consequences severe enough to discourage those, and hopefully as people engagement with society and the moral fabric improved, that would be less necessary. I am not thinking that we can have some kind of utopia, there will always be those that are downright bad and no threats or rewards will change that. We need to get back to that being the monority. Society just seems to be less accepting or more scared when they see kids vandalising or misbehaving. And I do include myself in that up to a point. When I was young, you did not misbehave even if your parents were not there as you were as likely to get in trouble from a neighbour etc. If we got told off by any adult, we would run home with our tails between our legs, try that with kids now and they will face you down and then come back and vandalise your car! I am glad to sat that my kids fall into the former category, and it is absolutely not the threat of violence that does it. But then, I spent a lot of time and energy (and I am a working parent) to ensure that my children have the ability to occupy themselves without getting in to trouble - it is not always about money.

[aims1202]

Whilst i'm sure there are people on benefits who are lazy and could go to work and some who do not look after their children properly. There are also lots of single parents who believe that being at home, spending time with their kids and being the best parent they can is better than going to work and leaving them with someone else. Children need a parent to be with them especially when they are young and benefits allow them to do this. I think we are privileged in this country to have the benefit system we do and although there will always be those who abuse that privilege it is still a good thing.

[annie0000]

Aims, there are lots of parents who are not single who would like to be able to stay at home and look after their children, but don't believe that the rest of the country should pay them for them to do that. I agree that it is important that children spend time with their parents, however, it is equally important that children grow up with the example that you earn and pay for what you need and not expect someone to hand it to you on a plate. I wouldn't want to be a single parent for all the tea in china - bringing up children is both very hard and very rewarding and it is good to be able to share that with someone. At the same time, I think that it is morally wrong to claim benefits if you are able to work. The benefit system is flawed in that it is financially better for some people to claim rather than work. That is why I strongly feel that while it is highly important to ensure that children are taken care of, it has gone to far and benefits should be removed from everybody able to work.

[aims1202]

annie, If someone is not single then surely that would mean the partner who works would support them if they stayed at home to look after the children so they would not be getting benefit.
sometimes when you are a single parent and you go to work all your earnings go on the childcare. It is also extremely hard work to do it alone and go to work and if by going to work you feel you are not being the best parent you can to your children then it is better for them not to work. The children are more important.
Bringing up children is a full time job and i believe the most important one in the world. Not everyone receiving benefit expects it. A lot of them will have worked in the past and will work when their children go to school. you can teach your children that because you do an important job looking after them you are given money by the government to do this. it is not for doing nothing as you know it is hard work.

[annie0000]

That is fine aims, however you assume that there are couples who can afford to live on one wage and therefore can support the other to bring up the children, when that is actually a rare position to be in. The point I am making is that you seem to think that it is fine for tax payers to support single parents in making their choice, but that choice is denied many couples because they would not get any benefits and yet cannot afford for one to stay at home. I am not denying that wanting to stay at home and devote your time to your child is not a good thing, but my argument is that that is not available to all parents. The tax that couples are paying which reduces their income and therefore denies them that choice is going to single parents to allow them the choice - I don't think that is fair. You also have to weigh up the impression that it gives your children. Too many grow up thinking that a life on benefits is normal and so the cycle starts again. I know that there are many people who worked before and will work after having children, so that is hopefully not the example that I am making, but I still stand by the fact that I and millions of other working parents are paying for them to stay at home when we can't afford to.

[aims1202]

so if you sent all the single parents to work not give them benefits then they wouldnt actually be able to live because all the money they earn goes on the childcare. it would mean that the childcare would need to be free and to be fair would have to be for everyone single or not, this money would have to come out of tax anyway. i'm pretty sure you would still pay the same tax as you do now. and you would have babies in childcare which in my opinion just isnt right.
i know that if i lived with someone and they worked even if they earned only �10,000 a year i would still stay at home when our kids were young and we'd just live off that, half that money is still more than what a single parent gets for them and 1 child. I really dont think parents who work are bad or wrong, i know it is a hard thing to do but i just think it is better to stay at home with them.