After-Dark Curfew For Under 16s

Turtle said:
No, it's VERY bad - what they're saying is, "we can't control the crime (much of which is caused by immigrants) so to get the crime stats down decent law-abiding people must lose freedom and sit indoors cringing and hiding from barbarians instead of being able to go out and have fun or even just walk around in their own friggin neighbourhoods" ... meanwhile they're not fixing the actual cause of the problems - the criminal-minded people are STILL THERE.

This is bad on every imaginable level.
Click to expand...

This is a ban on 16 year olds, probably in the areas where teenage delinquency is highest. What they want is to get some discipline into these
punks.

16 year olds shouldn't be walking around after 10pm anyway. Its either school night or even if its weekend they can still go places but with
responsible adults (people above 18).

Sure its not foolproof but as a stopgap measure it sounds good.

As for immigrants causing the problems, which immigrants may you be
referring to? Recent ones? Temp workers? Those who came to the UK
20-30 years ago?
 
Turtle said:
What about your own? You think your own rights should be taken away?
Click to expand...

Children under 18, do not have rights of way anyway. They can't go to
brothels. They can't go into age restricted films or into porn cinemas.
They are restricted already. I don't see how asking parents to control
their ill disciplined offspring is in any way unconstitutional. They
are not allowed to drink, drive or smoke. They are barred from
full time employment.

Next you'll have an issue with GTA not being sold to 14 year olds. :)
 
Ok i'm not too familiar with the situation in Britian, but i can imagine it's related to underage drinking and (subsequent)brawling.

Surely not every kid under 16 participates, so why should they suffer?

Rather crack down on the crimes.

And 9pm for some1 under 16 is ridicilous(think back to when u were 15.)
 
This would so work in SA. Most of the street criminals in SA are tsotsi/skollie 12-16 year old
punks.
 
daveza said:
Very interesting.
This would probably be declared unconstitutional here on the grounds of discrimination or something.
Click to expand...

Nothing unconstitutional about it as it is 100% a voluntary scheme and not compulsory at all. :)
But yes, very interesting.
 
ld13 said:
Nothing unconstitutional about it as it is 100% a voluntary scheme and not compulsory at all. :)
But yes, very interesting.
Click to expand...

If it's voluntary, then why would the 'bad guys' participate? Great, so now only decent people get to cower indoors while the hooligans get free rein, sounds ideal.

imajin said:
i wouldnt mind giving up some of my rights if it meant our crime was eradicated
Click to expand...

*Sigh* ... those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
 
DavidJ said:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

And that did so well for his country in this modern day and age. Can you spell "Patriot Act"?
 
PeterCH said:
Children under 18, do not have rights of way anyway. They can't go to brothels. They can't go into age restricted films or into porn cinemas. They are restricted already. I don't see how asking parents to control their ill disciplined offspring is in any way unconstitutional. They are not allowed to drink, drive or smoke. They are barred from full time employment.
Click to expand...

They do those things anyway... Perhaps not so much the brothels though :p
 
timgaul said:
And that did so well for his country in this modern day and age. Can you spell "Patriot Act"?
Click to expand...

What's your point, that PATRIOT Act (note you ironically spelled it wrong, it's uppercase, lol - it's an acronym) makes it OK for others to give up more rights? Are you trying to claim the US is some kind of police-state dictatorship? Or that because they have some poor laws, that invalidates the quote by Ben Franklin? I don't get it.

If anyone is interested in actual facts instead of hyperbolic hysteria about the PATRIOT Act, I suggest start by reading the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) as an overview. It's bad, yes, but at least a lot of people acknowledge it is and are fighting it, and their 'checks and balances' have already resulted in some improvements. It also doesn't bring them anywhere near some kind of dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
Its a pity its only voluntary albeit with the aim of advertising it as a good idea. This should be made law there and just about everywhere else. CHILDREN under 16 should be home, or under the DIRECT supervision of adults over say 25.

For those who think it is an infringement of 'rights'.....it is actually a protection of the rights of this age group. The right to party is a fallacy. (for under 16s unless it involves balloons, cakes in the shape of racing cars and clowns whilst mothers drink tea in the background)
 
The under 16 "suggestion" doesn't apply all the way down-under 10's are supposed to be home even earlier, hence ur clown parties are out of place.

As i said earlier, it's foolish to assume ALL under 16's are engaging in dangerous activities(which are quite likely booze related), hence it should be no more than voluntary.
 
For those who arent up to date with current events in Britain there has been an increase in knife crime. Almost all the perpetrators are young black males. This is something they want to put in place to cut down the killings. I think you will find that 90% of the people in England would be very happy if this law is pass.
 
Mastercarder said:
They do those things anyway... Perhaps not so much the brothels though :p
Click to expand...

I know they do, but the issue is that those things are OUTLAWED,
and it hasn't robbed anyone of their essential liberties. :)

Kids are kids, lock them up at home after 9pm I say (with a baby-sitter if you will).

Only after travelling to Europe did I realise how cool it is to actually go out at night, into pitch darkness sometimes and not worry about someone shooting/robbing/raping you.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curfew

After-dark curfews are not that uncommon in the developed world. I know for a fact that in some cities in California a police officer can forcefully escort minors home after a certain time (think it was ten o'clock) if they're found loitering (i.e. you were allowed out but you had to have a purpose e.g. going to a movie, dinner, on your way home).
 
PeterCH said:
Children under 18, do not have rights of way anyway. They can't go to
brothels. They can't go into age restricted films or into porn cinemas.
They are restricted already. I don't see how asking parents to control
their ill disciplined offspring is in any way unconstitutional. They
are not allowed to drink, drive or smoke. They are barred from
full time employment.

Next you'll have an issue with GTA not being sold to 14 year olds. :)
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
Dictatorship? Not at all. Police State/Nanny State? Yes

Because of their crappy laws and their nature of forcing it on others we've had to endure similar crap here a.k.a. FICA and the EC ACT. All done presumably in response to pressure from the US.
 
Turtle said:
What about your own? You think your own rights should be taken away?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about taking rights away? I am advocating a focus on responsibilities, to go with people's rights. How can a child claim a right if he/she has no clue regarding the responsibility that goes with it?

The same goes for adults - if a person demands his/her rights but at the same time tramples on the rights of others - does he/she deserve that right?

I do not think so.
 
Turiko said:
Dictatorship? Not at all. Police State/Nanny State? Yes

Because of their crappy laws and their nature of forcing it on others we've had to endure similar crap here a.k.a. FICA and the EC ACT. All done presumably in response to pressure from the US.
Click to expand...

I'm no lover of the US, but I don't think we should blame them for things the UK gets right all by itself.

Take UK knife laws for instance, a hysterical reaction to criminals using knives. Now, there's talk of having no knives, with points, in kitchens ... I know Gordon Ramsay is a nut, but this is just insane.

The UK has a tendency to over react, this is manifest, as you put it, in their crappy laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X