Voluntary curfew

[Oneeyedvic]

Proposals for a roll-out of curfews on children in Cornwall are being described as a breach of human rights.

The scheme is being trialled in part of Redruth to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Julia Goldsworthy, MP for Falmouth and Camborne, said it should be rolled out in other problem areas if it proved successful.

The voluntary curfew in Redruth, known as Operation Goodnight, means parents will be asked to have under 10s at home by 2000 BST and 16-year-olds off the streets by 2100 BST.

It will operate in the Close Hill area of the town from 25 July until 7 September.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/74 96324.stm

Good idea or not?

[naomi24]

Mmmm .... just that little smidgeon of sarcasm this time, Jake, but If that's the best you can do, you go for it. :o)

Incidentally, the answer to getting your kids home from Karate is for their parents to pick them up. Perish the thought!

[sp1214]

I suppose they will zip down on their scooters to the next nearest town and give them hell. Talk about passing the buck!

[China Doll]

Yuck. I hate groups of people that I'm not a part of or choose not to be a part of. I'd have them all home by 8pm just because I don't like them, (too many groups make crowds and I like those even less). Which pretty much means that the curfew isn't fair, (or workable as it's voluntry but I digress).

Groups of children can be intimidating, I didn't like a group of lads that hung around outside my road where I use to live... Until I dropped my shopping as I was carrying too many bags and they carried them to my house for me while lecturing me on making judgements about them becaue I'd given them 'funny looks' before, (I had). Fact is that it was my fear entirely, they were just hanging round talking because they had no where else to go and a lot of that does happen in cornwall.

As I've touched on before, I've family down that way and there isn't much for the younger generation to do, I'm thinking mainly of penzance, saltash and hayle as I'm most familiar with those areas. It seems to me that giving them a place to go and perhaps getting the community more involved in that respect would be a better way forwards. As stated, cornwall is in my experience a pretty safe place to wander round in.

[anotheoldgit]

Imagine you were told you couldn't drive your car after dark because of a spate of drink driving in the area - you'd be spitting feathers!

Imagine you were told you couldn't drive through the centre of London, unless you paid for the privilege. You can spit feathers all you want, but it won't make one hell of a difference.

Some of the other comments from jake-the-peg

are we banning things because a group of old women feel scared?

It seems that the Cornwall blue rinse brigade think the police are there specifically for them.

I guess life outside your head isn't the same as it is inside it

I work with kids in this age group on a weekly basis.

Thank goodness he only teaches them Karate, ( how to kick hell out of each other), and not the art of respect.

[Oneeyedvic]

Thank goodness he only teaches them Karate, ( how to kick hell out of each other), and not the art of respect

The funniest thing you have said in a long time (that doesn't involve a link to the Daily Mail)

[Quinlad]

Oh. My. God.

Some of you have to be on the wind up. In fact, I'm strongly suspecting that a couple of you are characters written by mischeivous wags to get a reaction.

And you've consistently stuck to those characters for years. It's brilliant writing.

Think about democracy. Think about liberty. And think about tolerance. I mean it, please have a think about what they mean.

And then honestly try to tell me that the exaggerated or irrational or genuine fear of a 70 year old woman weighs heavier than the freedom of a 16 year old who has done nothing wrong.

I feel frightened sometimes. There are things I don't like. My neighbour plays Jamie Cullum records. It makes me sad. He's 3 years younger than me. Do I get to dictate his freedoms?

No. Because I live in a society. Which is a good thing.

[naomi24]

Oh, what a witty, well thought out, and 'oh so clever' retort, Quinlad... but .... err ..... just a minute ..... where did this 70 year old woman come from? From the same place as Jake's imaginary 'blue rinse brigade' no doubt. This problem is taking place on a housing estate, and anyone with an iota of common sense will know that the residents will be a pretty mixed bunch, so why assume the complaints have come from the elderly? How do you know they haven't come from young parents whose babies and young children are being disturbed night after night because of the ruckus going on outside their homes? Why should they have to live with that? Because people like you say so? You think for a moment - and think about their right to live in peace, and about their right to get their little ones to bed for a peaceful night's sleep. And whilst you're at it, think about the children who are creating the disturbance. You and your ilk are doing them no favours whatsoever by championing their right to do as they please, regardless of the rest of society. All you're doing is teaching them that anti-social behaviour is acceptable - and it isn't.

The report says 'Young people have the right under the UN Human Rights Convention to hang around in groups unless they are causing a nuisance. '

These kids clearly are causing a nuisance, and that's the bottom line. If they weren't, the police would have no reason to plan this course of action, so you can think yourself lucky that all you have to endure is a neighbour playing Jamie Cullum.

[ludwig]

I don't understand what people are getting so worked up about here. It's voluntary...VOLUNTARY. Which means it could never possibly be unfair or breach anyone's human rights.

Voluntary also means absolutely nothing will change, so the likes of Jake and Quinlad can sleep soundly in the knowledge that the blue rinsed, curtain twitching, coffin doging old gits of Redruth that they clearly despise so much, will carry on feeling intimidated (whether justifiably or not).

[Oneeyedvic]

naomi These kids clearly are causing a nuisance, and that's the bottom line. If they weren't, the police would have no reason to plan this course of action....

Erm, no.

And that is the whole point.

Some of the children have cause problems.

Do you think every single person under the age of 16 has caused problems in the area are trouble makers?



ludwig - we are already being told that if this is successful it may be rolled out across the country. It wouldn't take a lot for this to become a law.

Slippery slope and all that.

[Quinlad]

naomi, I never suggested the complaints had come from the elderly.

It's not complicated: the 70 year old woman was an example of the people that most need the law's protection. But, sure, let's throw young parents in there as well, and single professionals and everyone else. Whoever you like. I'd still put the human rights of a 15 year old over their peace and quiet.

"And whilst you're at it, think about the children who are creating the disturbance."

I am. But I'm also thinking about the youngsters who aren't causing a disturbance - youngsters who, you suggest, are still worthy of punishment by dint of their demography.

"These kids clearly are causing a nuisance, and that's the bottom line."

Are they? All of them? I'm all for taking action against trouble-makers but this is blanket-punishing an entire section of the community because of the actions of a few. jake's analogy about drivers, however much it riles you, is spot on.

Sorry if I'm being oh-so-clever. I just don't believe that the rights of innocent individuals should be curtailed because other people want a bit more peace and quiet.

Clearly we disagree on that.

[naomi24]

Vic, If kids who aren�t causing trouble are hanging around with kids who are, then they will automatically be tarred with the same brush. Of course one alternative to asking parents to take responsibility for their children, which they ought to be doing anyway, and which is all the police are asking them to do, is to arrest the trouble makers, so would you rather that? Is that a better solution, and if not, then what would you suggest is a viable option? We have a situation here where kids are persistently disturbing residents, so something has to be done - or would you disagree with that?

[naomi24]

Quinlad, you most certainly gave the impression that you were suggesting the complaints came from the elderly, but suddenly you�re all sympathy for them. Odd that.

I wouldn�t consider children being home by 9pm, or at a friend�s home by 9pm, to be �punishment�. How is that punishment? I would say that it�s responsible parenting.

Jakes analogy is not spot on.- it�s way off the mark, simply because you can�t compare children to adults. Adults don�t need guidance, but children do. Children don�t know how to behave unless we teach them, and that�s what you don�t understand.

You may not believe that the rights of innocent individuals should be curtailed because other people want a bit of peace and quiet, what about the rights of the innocent individuals who are entitled to their peace and quiet? Their rights don�t appear to count for anything in your book? I imagine there�s a great many more people being disturbed on that estate than there are children causing a ruckus, and if that isn�t true, then living there must be hell - so let�s go with your thoughts on democracy shall we? Let�s say the majority rule.

[Quinlad]

naomi, I'm consistent on this. People of all ages deserve the protection of the law. But that doesn't mean that the rights of others should bend simply for their accomodation.

You seem to be flitting between two separate issues: good parenting and good government. It's a matter of opinion as to whether a parent should allow a 15 year old to stay out after 9pm. (Personally, I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever.)

But a law that dictates whether a 15 year old can move freely in his own street after that watershed is bizarrely draconian.

No one is saying that the law shouldn't protect the innocent people who want peace and quiet. But why must we toss up between which set of innocent people to make suffer? Why not simply take action against those children who are causing a nuisance, instead of rushing to a disproportonately harsh policy that that infringes the rights of all young people?

You say that children don't know how to behave until we teach them. Of course you're right. What does it teach a diligent well-behaved 15 year old girl if she's told that she's now being punished for the actions of her fellow teens? In what way does this provide guidance? "But Mum, that means I won't be able to walk home from school play rehearsal/my evening voluntary work at the home/my friend's house?" "Tough. Get to your room."

I know that's one extreme. Don't get me wrong. I know teenagers who are little sh*ts and who make people's lives a misery. Target them. Not every human who doesn't remember Oasis v Blur.

You're right to say that we can't expect young people to mature without setting boundaries. Isn't it also right that we should treat teenagers as responsible human beings until they behave otherwise? Isn't that responsible parenting too?

[naomi24]

Quinlad What law are you talking about that restricts a 15 year old from moving freely in his/her own street? I know of no such law. You seem to think the police are about to patrol the streets rounding kids up, but no one is taking �action� against anyone. This is a voluntary initiative, and it doesn�t prevent any child from walking home from a school play, or from voluntary work, or from a friend�s house. And who�s saying �tough - get to your room�? No one. You�re imagining that.

As a parent, I would say that there is nothing wrong with a 15 year old being out after 9pm, as long as he/she is going somewhere in particular, but groups of kids hanging around outside other people�s homes, even if they�re not vandalising property or cars, or committing any crime, and are only yelling and shouting, or kicking a football about, do become a nuisance, they do disrupt other people�s lives, and it is a parent�s responsibility to teach them that they can�t just do as they please regardless of everyone else�s right to live in peace.

continued.....

[naomi24]

�.Continued

The Human Rights Convention states that young people have a right to hang around in groups unless they are causing a nuisance, and for those who wave the banner for people�s �rights�, that�s the key. If groups of kids are causing a nuisance, in whatever way, whether you like it or not, they are in contravention of that agreement. Complaints don�t come out of thin air, and the police wouldn�t be considering this initiative unless they had good reason, so very clearly something is happening on that estate that must be addressed. The police are trying to do that in the most diplomatic way they can by attempting to remind parents of their responsibilities, and I find it very sad indeed, not only for the residents of that estate, but for the children involved, that the efforts of the police aren�t being fully supported. You say you live in society. We all live in society, Quinlad, but if we want to live in a civilised society, then consideration for others must be paramount.

[Quinlad]

Of course it's voluntary. As jake said days ago, "A blanket curfew on a group of people would be a clear breach of human rights were it not voluntary." Which is what we've been arguing about.

"If groups of kids are causing a nuisance, in whatever way, whether you like it or not, they are in contravention of that agreement."

It seems that you're still unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between the kids that are causing a nuisance and those that aren't.

The ones that aren't are being punished or taught a lesson or dictated to on the grounds of nothing more than demographics. Target the ones that are.

But it is people from that demographic group that are causing the problems! And if they're not on their way anywhere they shouldn't be hanging around! The same arguments that South Africans used to trot out when they put a curfew on blacks.

The fact is, you shouldn't need a reason to be allowed to stay outdoors. We're not a police state. It's only when you create a nuisance that your rights should be challenged. And a blanket ban skips gaily over that by extrapolating the behaviour of the few that do and pinning the blame on those that don't.

[naomi24]

Quinlad, No one's rights are being challenged. - no one is being punished or taught a lesson - and there is no blanket ban - so heaven knows why you're banging on about a police state and South Africa. You seem to be getting your knickers into somewhat of a knot. The police are simply asking parents to accept responsibility for their children - and there's nothing wrong with that. If you disagree, I feel very sorry for you - and I feel even more sorry for any children you may produce in the future. Oh boy, are you in for a rude awakening! Do let us know how you get on, won't you. Good luck!!