PDA

View Full Version : kids these days



rockypoppy2
22-08-2007, 10:25 PM
is the increasing media coverage of "youth crime" indicative of a real increase on the streets? why are children as young as 14 choosing to identify themselves with their postcode above all else? is this simply an unfortunate by-product of a valueless society, what can be done to reverse this trend?

are there more guns on the streets nowadays? could you buy one if you wanted to? has anyone here been victim of gang culture recently or are the people who really suffer just the kids themselves?

is it all down to increased alienation within the urban environment, a lack of avenues for progression, a lack of aspiration to succeed, a lack of a supporting family unit - a much more individualistic attitude to life, which would ironically contrast with the seeming emergence of a Los Angeles style gang culture in London.

kids are killing themselves a lot this year, just today an 11 year old was shot in the head and killed. but why are the children of the city turning to territorialised gang culture (if indeed they are - the media would certainly love us to think so), and is this even anything new - weren't there always gangs of kids - whats the difference between a gang and a group of friends?


lots of questions sorry - not very coherent,
im just wondering about alienation within the urban environment, not having a say - and the realisation that they cant all possibly "make it" in life as a motivating factor for co-operating and finding solidarity in gangs.
i find that kids have a very flippant attitude re life, ambition, very fatalistic - im young myself, but maybe some of the older members could comment as to whether children have always been this savvy/fatalistic/money-orientated

tom pr
22-08-2007, 11:12 PM
Well to add to the incoherency, I was having a discussion with a friend on another message board about the eleven year old in Liverpool today, and here's a c/p of one of my posts that covers my take on it (albiet a reply to something he said, and so a little out of context):

'I agree, and there are countless case of kids who live on pissy estates and don't turn to gun crime. My best mate for example grew up on a South London estate with rapes a gonzo, and he spent his spare time playing club football and cricket and is currently trading in the city. But I still think it's hugely unfair to punish a thirteen year old who probably has got a gun out of a combination of naivety, fear and a desire to be a big kid - all huge parts of my character, and I think most kids' at that age; except with me it was wanting to play footie with the older kids and get into pubs, not be able to protect myself with a gun. And I think a big part of that was that I grew up with a stable family (which is a good point you bring up- my parents are divorced [this was in response to him saying ethnicity and lack of father figures being just as big as factor as income], but both have always been there) and went to a school that generally had good kids.

The games and music scapegoat is just an easy target that's been done before; they certainly don't help but I'd imagine for every one kid that has considered shooting or stabbing because of a video game, there are two or three hundred who have considered doing it before of gang/intimidation related circumstances. And that's the thing; when you're living in estates like this there's a select few of the teenagers who don't grow up and become half-decent people, they make their living through gangs and intimidation, and that affects the youth around them more than anything, joining gangs to get in with that crowd or forming them to defend themselves from them.

And like all things (not just violence related; the amount of teens I've seen doing drugs that I wouldn't have touched at fifteen, but that's more of an upper class and I think far less important problem), in the last five years the people involved have just got younger. And so ultimately, so do the victims.'

tom pr
22-08-2007, 11:18 PM
He also recommends John Pitt's Reluctant Gangsters: Youth Gangs in Waltham Forest

rockypoppy2
22-08-2007, 11:24 PM
but what is it about kids living in "pissy estates" that makes them feel this way inclined (violence/drugs etc...) is it just the lack of the family unit/role model/stability or are there deeper reasons like lack of space for freedom of expression/a consumerist society dangling aspirations just out of their reach or lack of living space

back in the 60's the estate was seen as the ideal home (modernism) and with populations on the up (globally) we are going to be more crammed, they are not going away - is it just because they dont have a semi-detached/garden??. A lot of cities have a higher density than london, but kids arent turning to gangs - so is it more about the society we live in - i think its an alienation but i cant pin it down whether its an alienation to the built environment or to this society, or both

rockypoppy2
22-08-2007, 11:27 PM
He also recommends John Pitt's Reluctant Gangsters: Youth Gangs in Waltham Forest

thanks for that, will check it out
this does have a point i swear - not just a random rant. currently researching for a thesis on individual expression in the expanding city, and this is a little avenue of curiosity

tom pr
22-08-2007, 11:36 PM
but what is it about kids living in "pissy estates" that makes them feel this way inclined (violence/drugs etc...) is it just the lack of the family unit/role model/stability or are there deeper reasons like lack of space for freedom of expression/a consumerist society dangling aspirations just out of their reach or lack of living space
I think living space is a bit part of it: not in the sense that you're in a small flat but the fact that you can't access your flat without going via a central building or whatever, so you're inevitably greeted by the same people, every day, there's no sense of retreatment, if someone wants to batter you they know exactly where you'll be coming in. And whether people are waiting to mug/taunt/beat you there or it's just the frustration of not being able to get away from their presence (bar shutting yourself in your room), that's just going to put you in a permanent state of annoyance/resentment/fear.

tom pr
22-08-2007, 11:42 PM
ack of ... freedom of expression/a consumerist society dangling aspirations just out of their reach
This is also big: not just because of the physical amount of opportunities (I mean what can you do if things are shitty at home, cinema/sport aside, that doesn't involve hanging around your estate or going to a naff youth club), but the cultural oppression that exists: if someone wants to say, paint, and they're young and live in a rough estate, then they're inevitably going to keep it a secret to avoid teasing- which just leads to more resentment...

john eden
23-08-2007, 10:36 AM
I think a lot of the stuff about estates above is quite naive. There are loads of families who live on estates and they can be as unstable or stable as anywhere else.

If you live in suburbia in a victorian house then you probably see your neighbours on the road just as much and can get battered accordingly. If you go to school then people know where to find you anyway.

I think in some cases on estates there can be a lack of responsibility for communal areas (pissing in the lift, graff etc) which can make it all feel pretty fucked up.

We also need to look at how housing policy has changed. Before right to buy people grew up on estates and there could be a real sense of community (for good and bad) because there wasn't a lot of movement.

Right to buy has lead to a hell of a lot of sub-letting (and "white flight"). One flat in my block has new tenants in every 6 months or so.

There are also issues around doing away with "sons and daughters" policies and the fact that no new council housing is being built. This has basically lead to a situation where people who have families will inevitably end up with over crowded flats. Their kids will not be able to get a flat of their own from the council, and they will not really be able to rent on the open market in many cases. The regs about what constitutes over crowding are ridiculous from what I can remember.

I think, though, that most of the above is not as relevant as the general desperation and sense of not having a future in young people today. Where they live can compound this, but the fundamentals are that if you start out poor you will stay that way, and that you will have to work really hard just to keep your head above water. Plus, there is fuck all to do - not even a shit youth club in most instances, because the funding for them has been cut by the local councils.

rockypoppy2
23-08-2007, 11:42 AM
Plus, there is fuck all to do - not even a shit youth club in most instances, because the funding for them has been cut by the local councils.

i dont really buy that argument

sure london is an expensive place, more gentrified etc... and opportunities for people to do stuff are increasingly expensive and localised BUT we have a very good system of public libraries (when the weather's bad) a great system of parks (when its not so) and with a little imagination you could find Plenty of things to do. Go to www.londonfreelist.com for ideas, and then theres the fact that kids go free on the bus - even more of an incentive. So really its either a lack of imagination or a lack of will to engage with anything in this society (alienation). im not pointing blame here, just trying to clarify things.

one depressing thing about london though that Orwell noted in Down and Out is how much it costs to sit down (pub/bar/cafe/cinema). When the weather's not good you really have very little options of shelter in the suburbs short of hanging around in the estate.

but on the bright side there are Tons of new community centres and initiatives being set up. i cycle past all these brand new buildings with sports centres/drama schools everything very frequently, it seems like they are springing up everywhere in london

peckham library
laban dance centre
leyton community centre
hackney empire
talacre sports centre

im sure theres lots more

john eden
23-08-2007, 11:54 AM
Yeah ok fair enough. I think London is a special case, though...

Yes going to libraries is an option if you are "bookish". And yes going to the park is also an option (tho it can get very territorial). And indeed you see kids in both those places...

But it does depend on what you want to do. Some kids near me do just seem to want to hang out and smoke weed, but I dunno if they are there all the time - they might spend their days in the library reading Orwell for all I know.

I dunno maybe it's good to hang out somewhere you belong as well? People do get kicked out of libraries and community centres for being a bit raucous and non-swotty.

rockypoppy2
23-08-2007, 12:04 PM
Yeah ok fair enough. I think London is a special case, though...

I dunno maybe it's good to hang out somewhere you belong as well? People do get kicked out of libraries and community centres for being a bit raucous and non-swotty.



london is a special case, but its also the place where gang culture/gun crime is seemingly on the rise the most

you could easily replace library for museum/gallery, or even just going to visit other places in london on the bus/ get a job

i guess the demotivating factor of weed is massive though and possibly the perceived risk these youngsters feel themselves under not to stray out of their ends and the fact that most of their friends will be from the same place just adds to this territorial mentality and grounds them in the same place day after day. maybe if your life was like that then you could be excused from thinking that theres no opportunity out there.

i know a kid who wont leave his flat because he's shit scared, not at all. you couldnt imagine the strain that puts on his single mother.

tom pr
23-08-2007, 12:14 PM
If you live in suburbia in a victorian house then you probably see your neighbours on the road just as much and can get battered accordingly. If you go to school then people know where to find you anyway.
I don't know, my dad lived on a posh road in Epping when I was growing up, and people there never interacted with their neighbours; there was nowhere near the sense of knowing everybody there and everybody knowing you than I've found in estates. Same thing with where I currently live in Hackney. Also if you're living in a victorian house then there's more escapist opportunities because a) your family are more likely to holiday regularly, and b) it's simply a bigger house. If people wanted to batter you there they could, but it's much less likely to happen without the estate situation of a large amount of people cramped into a small space and the consequences of that...

swears
23-08-2007, 01:21 PM
I dunno maybe it's good to hang out somewhere you belong as well? People do get kicked out of libraries and community centres for being a bit raucous and non-swotty.

There's always groups of 13-14 year olds in my local library giving the old ladies who work there shit. I pop in now again after work to grab something top read on the train, and there's some little twat in a Lacoste tracksuit shouting at the top of his voice or pushing shelves over. I think the library system is a fantastic asset and it's depressing to see anyone spoil it.

The problem is that often kids don't want an adult-organised, safe place to go, they get enough of that at school. They want to trespass and rebel and cause shit, because that's more exciting than playing ping pong and drinking orange squash supervised by youth workers. When I was 12-16 all I wanted to do was explore disused wasteground, farmer's fields, schools and buildings that had been closed for the weekend, etc, usually while smoking fags and getting pissed. I tended not to give people grief, though.

Mr. Tea
23-08-2007, 02:35 PM
A very brief list of things I think are contributing to this situation, in no particular order, are:

- the fact that many parents spend so little time with their kids: they might eat together (although that's often in front of the TV - not exactly great for conversation) and then after dinner the kids just carry on watching TV, go outside to play/hang around with other kids or go upstairs to play computer games or muck about on the Interweb. Nothing wrong with any of those things in themselves, but if it's to the exclusion of contact with parents, then that's got to have a negative effect. When that report came out recently about how Britain has the EU's most fucked-up kids, one of the things mentioned was how kids on the Continent generally spend a lot more time with their parents, talking about stuff, learning how to behave decently (and how to drink alcohol responsibly - glasses of wine with dinner vs. cans of cider in the park...) - plus the obvious fact that if kids who're used to talking to their parents are bothered by something, it's going to be much easier for them to discuss it, and hopefully resolve it. Also, parents are more likely to know what their kids are up to: obviously, teenagers need some level of privacy and independence, but it's nonetheless important for parents to be aware if their kids are getting into trouble, drinking a lot or whatever.

- the lack of fathers, or worthwhile father figures, especially fathers of black kids. This has already been mentioned...

- ...as has the effects of cramming people into shitty delapidated tower blocks...

- and I think the league-table culture among schools is really not helping either, since any school deemed to be 'failing' (and who knows, that could be due to a favourite teacher leaving for a year to have a baby) is then branded for all to see, so parents who can afford to leave the area do so, raising house prices in areas with better schools, and only kids from less well-off families go to the 'failing' school, they're less well-behaved so many of the teachers leave to work at a school in a better area, and soon the school really is failing.

mixed_biscuits
23-08-2007, 03:06 PM
and only kids from less well-off families go to the 'failing' school, they're less behaved so many of the teachers leave to work at a school in a better area, and soon the school really is failing.

Aye, that's why I'm no longer at my NE London comp, now safely ensconced in a fee-paying prep school.

There are teachers who *can* deal with the incredibly poor behaviour you can get in this type of school, but they are few and far between (and even then, they might just be skilled at behaviour management and little else). Contrary to media representation, tough schools can often have a backbone of excellent and *very* committed staff, as anybody who isn't up to scratch jumps out of the nearest window and legs it within the first week. :eek:

What I couldn't believe was the unbelievable unhelpfulness of 95% of the children - the failure to do the little things that ease the progress of the whole (throw away their litter; help a classmate with a stack of books; not set off the fire alarm for fun etc).

rockypoppy2
23-08-2007, 03:09 PM
- the fact that many parents spend so little time with their kids:

why do you think this is the case - is it because parents can be bothered to raise children responsibly or is it because they simply dont have the time or energy to do so since we all work so hard in this country.

they work less hours generally over on the continent. perhaps that results in decreased pressure on their family life.

or is it the case that parents are out of touch and wouldnt know what to do with their kids even if they had the time? in deprived areas is it not the case that a childs peers are forming his identity to a much greater extent than his family life



what i find quite interesting is the desire to which kids seem to want to create alter ego's of themselves in order to impress upon others an image of themselves more favourable than what they consider truth. classic examples in hip hop and graffiti of acting up and looking hard. back in the day graffers used to paint imposing caricatures of themselves to let other people know not to mess with them. i guess nowadays the innocence behind that sentiment is being lost as people just carry knives to assume their desired alter-ego

Mr. Tea
23-08-2007, 05:11 PM
why do you think this is the case...


I'd guess it's probably a combination of all the things you mention.

As as mixed_miscuits says, it's often a constant uphill struggle for teachers to maintain any sort of order in schools as the kids have grown up in a home environment with no structure or discipline, which is then exacerbated by a school culture where it's 'sad' to obey rules, work hard, be (seen to be) clever and so on.

sufi
24-08-2007, 10:53 AM
no more than a Sick Media Obsession with DEAD KIDS distorting perceptions and priorities in society? :mad: absolutely ineffective in creating any actual improvement in conditions for children
http://publish.hometown.aol.com/stopcourtperjury/images/maddie-designed-by-j-roseb.gif
glorious martyr saint maddie :(

rockypoppy2
24-08-2007, 11:52 AM
my dad refuses to believe madeleine is dead, he clings on to this hope that she'll turn up one day. but i think its more out of a love for the country of portugal and a nostalgic view that its a land without crime or problems that motivates this belief. he just doesnt want his idea of that country to be slurred by this event.

but yeah, blatantly dead somewhere

Sick Boy
24-08-2007, 12:51 PM
cases on estates there can be a lack of responsibility for communal areas (pissing in the lift, graff etc) which can make it all feel pretty fucked up.


Sorry to interrupt, but wtf is up with this? On the estate I live in, the lifts get mopped every day, but by the end of the day BOTH lifts are pissed in. I really wish I understood how this happens, or the psychology of someone who pisses in a lift.

The lifts are tiny, so you're likely to get piss all over your shoes, and then also there is a good chance the doors will open and someone will see you pissing in a lift. I understand being drunk as fuck probably helps alleviate both of these concerns, but surely the bushes 10ft from the lift through the door would be a better option.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT LIFTS THAT IS SO CONDUSIVE TO PISSING GOD DAMN IT?!

john eden
24-08-2007, 01:02 PM
Sorry to interrupt, but wtf is up with this? On the estate I live in, the lifts get mopped every day, but by the end of the day BOTH lifts are pissed in. I really wish I understood how this happens, or the psychology of someone who pisses in a lift.

The lifts are tiny, so you're likely to get piss all over your shoes, and then also there is a good chance the doors will open and someone will see you pissing in a lift. I understand being drunk as fuck probably helps alleviate both of these concerns, but surely the bushes 10ft from the lift through the door would be a better option.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT LIFTS THAT IS SO CONDUSIVE TO PISSING GOD DAMN IT?!

Man we could have a whole new thread on this one... my block is quite small so no lift, but I swear I would rain down serious violence if I ever saw someone in the act in any of the other blocks I visit.

We did have someone shit in our entrance hall tho, and the stairs get it occasionally.

It HAS to be about being an anti-social cunt who wants everyone to suffer, doesn't it? Normally I like to try and find other reasons, but not for this...

Mr. Tea
24-08-2007, 02:12 PM
The pissing/shitting thing (along with graffiti, litter, vandalism etc.) must come from a sense of non-ownership; the feeling that the place where you live is just a physical piece of stuff rather than someone's home, and indeed your own home.

I mean, I can see that if you're an antisocial little bastard you might want to go over to someone else's home and smash windows, piss in lifts etc., but why the hell would you do it to your own estate? You're degrading your own living environment as much as anyone else's. Unless you happen to enjoy the smell of your own piss, or something.

Mr. Tea
24-08-2007, 02:18 PM
no more than a Sick Media Obsession with DEAD KIDS distorting perceptions and priorities in society? :mad: absolutely ineffective in creating any actual improvement in conditions for children


It's screwed up, isn't it? Thanks to cases like this (or rather, the media attention given to them) a whole generation of kids are growing up with the idea than any adult they don't know has to be stayed well away from, on the basis that they could be abducted, raped and killed at the drop of a hat - not to mention the way, as an adult, you're made to feel like a potential nonce for merely acknowledging the existence of other people's kids.
The irony being that kids are far more likely to be abused, sexually or otherwise, by adults known to them.

john eden
24-08-2007, 02:19 PM
It's an assumption that the people concerned live there tho. We also had a spate of junkies leaving their needles about and falling asleep in the stairwells, and they didn't live on the estate.

STN
24-08-2007, 03:14 PM
We also had a spate of junkies leaving their needles about and falling asleep in the stairwells, and they didn't live on the estate.

That's lame.

Did you ever issue any bollockings to them? How were they eventually made to sod off?

john eden
24-08-2007, 03:23 PM
That's lame.

Did you ever issue any bollockings to them? How were they eventually made to sod off?

Most of it was in the tower blocks, not my one, so fortunately I didn't really see much of it first hand (bar the odd syringe in the grass). Turns out someone was dealing from one of the flats so I think we've seen less of it since they were closed down by the cops.

I did occasionally hang about and stare at people who were trying to get into the tower block who I knew were junkies tho.

We just get kids smoking weed in our stairwell. I have mixed feelings about this cos they are basically harmless and can't smoke in public or at home because they'd get a bollocking off their parents.

But they do undeniably intimidate some of the older residents in my block - not sure if that is intentional or not. Me and partner try to discourage them without being too aggressive - pick up yr litter, don't hang about in big groups in here, don't take the piss etc. Seems to work ok.

don_quixote
24-08-2007, 06:10 PM
I'd guess it's probably a combination of all the things you mention.

As as mixed_miscuits says, it's often a constant uphill struggle for teachers to maintain any sort of order in schools as the kids have grown up in a home environment with no structure or discipline, which is then exacerbated by a school culture where it's 'sad' to obey rules, work hard, be (seen to be) clever and so on.

the people to blame for this are the "only want the best for my kid" parents who drag them out of comps to fee paying schools and leave all the others to rot. absolute scum with no sense of social responsibility.

Mr. Tea
25-08-2007, 09:07 AM
the people to blame for this are the "only want the best for my kid" parents who drag them out of comps to fee paying schools and leave all the others to rot. absolute scum with no sense of social responsibility.

But what if the local comprehensive has already reached the stage where the kids are carrying knives to school? Would you put 'social responsibility' above your own child's physical safety (let alone educational prospects)?

don_quixote
25-08-2007, 09:37 AM
of course! even in the worst schools these problems dont affect all students. id expect any theoretical child of mine to rise above it.

Mr. Tea
25-08-2007, 02:09 PM
of course! even in the worst schools these problems dont affect all students. id expect any theoretical child of mine to rise above it.

How do you "rise above" getting threatened with knives? How do you "rise above" exhausted, exasperated teachers who have to spend so much time trying to stop the kids running wild they're barely able to teach?

To be honest, I think rich parents sending their kids to fee-paying schools is probably much less bad than parents taking their kids out of 'failing' comprehensives and moving house so they can send them to a different comprehensive, since kids from poorer families are never going to attend fee-paying schools under any circumstances, but should in principle have the opportunity to attend a decent comprehensive - the problem is they are increasingly being priced out of the area by an influx of wealthier families.

As far as your own (hypothetical) kids' education goes, in a way I'd applaud you for sticking to your principles, but no-one's child should have to pay the price for decades of underfunding and misguided government policy. The kids at a rough-as-fuck school are paying that price already, but sending your own (presumably non-delinquent) kids there is at best going to 'dilute' the problem, not solve it, and could have serious consequences for your own children. Of course it's immoral to put yourself or your family at an advantage by actively screwing over someone else's chances, but in all seriousness, I think people who are prepared to put ideological principles ahead of their own children's safety aren't fit to be parents.

don_quixote
25-08-2007, 04:44 PM
easy, you dont get threatened in the first place! it's pretty easy to avoid.

no school is as bad as you are making out

craner
25-08-2007, 08:14 PM
There's something fishy about that 'Maddy' thing.

Remember Mum and Dad ditching their other kids in Portugal so that they could go and visit the Pope???

Ew.

noel emits
25-08-2007, 09:27 PM
easy, you dont get threatened in the first place! it's pretty easy to avoid.

no school is as bad as you are making out
Where do you live?

noel emits
25-08-2007, 09:39 PM
Thinking about it the lack of actual teaching that gets done is probably a good thing what with the pointless crap that passes for a curriculum.

And yes there's a simple solution if your child is experiencing problems at school.

Buy them a gun!

noel emits
25-08-2007, 09:53 PM
Children learn their values and attitudes from their elders.

Our culture from the top down is violent, cynical and destructive. How else do you expect them to behave?

At the same time they know there is something wrong so they end up hating everything, including themselves because they can't really make sense of the mixed messages.

It's good that they don't buy into all the bullshit wholesale, but a big shame (disastrous) if that means they feel hopeless.

Also if the media and government want to demonise young people, well that's exactly what happens.

Mr. Tea
26-08-2007, 02:27 PM
easy, you dont get threatened in the first place! it's pretty easy to avoid.
You might as well say "Well so what if kids get peer-pressured into using drugs, they should just say 'no'!" or "So what if there's a prevalent gang culture, they just shouldn't get involved!". And as for saying "easy, don't get threatened" - I suppose bullying is the victim's fault for letting it happen to them, right?


no school is as bad as you are making out
I can only assume you live under a rock because the Stephen Lawrence case has been all over the news for the past week.

don_quixote
26-08-2007, 03:27 PM
I suppose bullying is the victim's fault for letting it happen to them, right?

that's rather over-simplified. all im saying is there's ways of reducing the risk.


I can only assume you live under a rock because the Philip Lawrence case has been all over the news for the past week.

odd incidents happen in odd schools, im not denying that.

i live in leicester whoever asked.

rockypoppy2
31-08-2007, 10:32 AM
ive been reading the pamphlet "Freedom of the city" by ken worpole and someone else

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/thefreedomofthecity

and theres a proposed solution for the degraded state of social housing. that is, in every estate there needs to be a permanent caretaker who resides on the premises with his family. their argument goes that its the lack of people more than anything else that is synonymous with a lack of order and appreciation, and by having a permanent caretaker on site he would be able to alert the police if anyone was doing anything dodgy (crackhouses etc...), clean after people's mess (pissing in the lifts) to the point where there wouldnt constantly be mess, and then the excuse of adding to a bad situation would have been removed.

from reading that report on youth gangs in waltham forest, it seems that when police do crack down on crackhouses the dealers are forced to change their approach and take a while to adapt and install themselves fully again, often dealing out of cars or on the street.

if these tactics, coupled together with concerted efforts against drug wholesalers - there would be a real opportunity to clamp down on the drug trade.

if there werent crackhouses and junkies dealing on estates it would raise the quality of life substantially, and also make the entry level to crime for young people slightly more remote than just outside your front door.

rockypoppy2
31-08-2007, 10:34 AM
whoops, posted that twice

stelfox
31-08-2007, 01:57 PM
no idea if it had anything to do with gang culture or not, but i've been on the receiving end of a shank very recently and it's not cool. (wasn't actually stabbed but was threatened with the very real possibility of it.) this was all john eden's fault, btw.
i was a long way from being liberal about this in the first place, but actual personal experience has only solidified my view that a culture of going out tooled up needs to be tackled with extreme prejudice — both as punishment for the person carrying the weapon and as a deterrent for anyone else considering carrying weapons.
it's ridiculous that a stupid argument can turn into a murder so easily in many cases. of course, there are also tons of root causes that need to be tackled, like allowing kids to have a *positive* sense of ownership of their neigbourhood, better facilities, funding for youth programs etc and this needs to be done at the same time as the tough stuff, otherwise neither will work.
the thing about this being a problem specifically based around council housing is a red herring, really, given that london is a very integrated city in many ways. rich people live next door to poor, £4 million houses sit next to sink estates and some kids not involved in gangs are carrying weapons for their own protection now, because everyone else has one. my local shopkeeper told me about having to give his kid a hiding after finding out that he'd been carrying a blade for this very reason. he's a good kid, too, and shouldn't be in a position where he feels like that, so this is a problem that affects the whole city and one that needs to be tackled even-handedly, involving all members of the community. private schooling and the fact that a significant number of londoners can insulate themselves from working-class life — until something bad happens — certainly doesn't help, either.
the thing about gang culture in london is that it's not just allegiance to a certain postcode, it's more often than not allegiance to a certain *subsection* of a certain postcode. i find it interesting that this is where grime fell down, by taking american-style neighbourhood allegiance/pride and applying it in microcosm, to such small geographical areas that it no longer worked as a susainable economic model. with london street gangs we're we're not talking about neighbourhoods being involved, we're talking about sections of certain roads and it's ridiculous. not that bigger gangs are the answer, mind. i do think it shows britain as a very parochial little place at heart, though.

zhao
31-08-2007, 02:12 PM
that's terrible john. what happened?

stelfox
31-08-2007, 02:28 PM
john eden cannot hold his drink and got violent at the end of what i had previously thought was a sedate and restrained night at scritti politti's local pub. just ask paul meme or martin, he does it all the time. man's a total liability.

no, seriously, we'd gone for a couple of drinks and decided to walk home, i was on the end leg of my journey, took a shortcut downa badly lit and not especially picturesque street, where two guys decided that they had better relieve me of my wallet and phone. i put up a bit of a fight, then a knife got drawn, at which point i gave my stuff up. i got home safe and it's all ok, was a couple of month back now.

martin
31-08-2007, 02:31 PM
no, seriously, we'd gone for a couple of drinks and decided to walk home, i was on the end leg of my journey, took a shortcut downa badly lit and not especially picturesque street, where two guys decided that they had better relieve me of my wallet and phone. i put up a bit of a fight, then a knife got drawn, at which point i gave my stuff up. i got home safe and it's all ok, was a couple of month back now.

Shit, was that after we went to the Turkish? Really sorry to hear that

Mr. Tea
31-08-2007, 02:34 PM
Yeah, but you can't blame them, can you? I mean, only rich white people are morally culpable of anything at all.

zhao
31-08-2007, 02:35 PM
damn i always get you two confused.

i was held up with a knife in downtown LA once. gave the guy my 3USD watch with a smile and he ran away.

muggings are almost entirely unthinkable in berlin. there are like, 2 random stabbings a year. and the unemployment is what? last i checked 25%. no homeless, no suffering, no desperation. the streets feel absolutely safe at all hours of the night.

imagine 25% unemployment in LA... fuck. it'd be a war zone 24/7/365. people would get sprayed sprayed with AK's every half hour.

i was considering living in london for a while next year... but stuff like this makes me a little nervous.

stelfox
31-08-2007, 02:37 PM
Shit, was that after we went to the Turkish? Really sorry to hear that

nah this was before that, probably more like three months ago. anyway, it wasn't a big personal discolsure thing, more just to say that it's a serious problem that you can't really pussyfoot around. being all understanding about these things is ok until you encounter the reality of the situation, i suppose. i think there should be a mandatory jail term for carrying a knife, a much bigger one for using one and a lot of work done with communities, too, because despite having plenty of libraries(!) london can be a pretty tough place for kids to grow up.

stelfox
31-08-2007, 02:40 PM
damn i always get you two confused.

i was held up with a knife in downtown LA once. gave the guy my 3USD watch with a smile and he ran away.

muggings are almost entirely unthinkable in berlin. there are like, 2 random stabbings a year. and the unemployment is what? last i checked 25%. no homeless, no suffering, no desperation. the streets feel absolutely safe at all hours of the night.

imagine 25% unemployment in LA... fuck. it'd be a war zone 24/7/365. people would get sprayed sprayed with AK's every half hour.

i was considering living in london for a while next year... but stuff like this makes me a little nervous.

don't worry about it zhao, i've been walking around london late at night in various states of sobriety/inebriation for well over a decade and this was the first time anything bad has ever happened. it's not a regular thing for people not involved, just something that's good to be aware of. i'm much less worried about getting hurt myself than i am kids in my neighbourhood seriously hurting each other over something that probably doesn't even warrant shouting over and at worst deserves a a few noble fisticuffs, queensbury rules-style, like what would have happened when i were a lad in 1932.

rockypoppy2
31-08-2007, 02:45 PM
the thing about this being a problem specifically based around council housing is a red herring, really, given that london is a very integrated city in many ways. rich people live next door to poor, £4 million houses sit next to sink estates and some kids not involved in gangs are carrying weapons for their own protection now, because everyone else has one.

i wasnt suggesting the problem was only dominant around social housing schemes above, but i think one of the solutions proposed about the caretakers on estates is a good one, and getting rid of crackhouses on estates is also good.

the report about youth gangs in waltham forest needs to be read - someone posted the name upthread - something like Reluctant gangsters, youth gangs in Waltham Forest

in that report it estimates the number of people directly involved with gangs (as in commiting crimes/ participating/ looking out etc - not gang crime victims) at 1 or 2% of the population of 14-24 (roundabout) year olds, about 700kids in waltham forest - which isnt the worst borough in london apparently.

im not sure harsh sentencing is the way to go for kids carrying knives because they are scared. maybe harsher sentencing for those who use said knives for intimidation/robbery/stabbing - but punishing someone because they are scared shitless isnt cool either.

Mr. Tea
31-08-2007, 02:45 PM
Just goes to show that while money (or the lack of it) certainly has something to do with it, it's not the whole story by a long shot. Even the poorest people in Britain have been steadily getting better off over the past 10 years or so - something many people overlook in their hatred of Blair and all things Nu-Labour - and there's been a corresponding fall in overall crime levels: something like a third since 1995, apparently. So if poverty levels are falling, why is this particular kind of gang-related violence on the increase (which, even taking media hysteria into account, it undoubtedly is)?

Mr. Tea
31-08-2007, 02:51 PM
im not sure harsh sentencing is the way to go for kids carrying knives because they are scared. maybe harsher sentencing for those who use said knives for intimidation/robbery/stabbing - but punishing someone because they are scared shitless isnt cool either.

That's an understandable sentiment, but don't your chances of getting stabbed massively increase the moment you pick up a knife yourself? I mean, suppose someone mugs you with a knife and you are yourself unarmed: unless your attacker is a genuine psycho you're going to be badly shaken up and lose your phone and wallet, but that's all. If you pull a knife, one or both of you is going to end up stabbed. And even if you start out carrying a knife (let alone a gun) purely for personal protection, how long is it going to be before you start to get used to and even enjoy the 'respect' (read: fear) you in turn induce in other people?

stelfox
31-08-2007, 02:55 PM
yeah, those sentences would have to be handed out judiciously. after all the CPS gets to say who actually gets prosecuted anyway. the fact is kids shouldn't have to carry knives for protection so the reasons for this should be removed, they should also be scared of getting caught.

rockypoppy2
31-08-2007, 03:09 PM
That's an understandable sentiment, but don't your chances of getting stabbed massively increase the moment you pick up a knife yourself? I mean, suppose someone mugs you with a knife and you are yourself unarmed: unless your attacker is a genuine psycho you're going to be badly shaken up and lose your phone and wallet, but that's all. If you pull a knife, one or both of you is going to end up stabbed. And even if you start out carrying a knife (let alone a gun) purely for personal protection, how long is it going to be before you start to get used to and even enjoy the 'respect' (read: fear) you in turn induce in other people?


very true mr tea.
so what do you do about knife crime - isnt gun crime going down aswell?


well how about shock therapy, taking schoolkids to morgues, a&e's, prisons? dunno, just an idea. didnt prince charles do that with his kids over cannabis - maybe visits to rehab centres should be part of the school curriculum?

or maybe instead of excluding kids for carrying weapons into school - simply confiscate the weapons (they search for them now) and give the child a choice between enrollment on extra curricular classes (i dunno, plumbing/life painting/boxing classes/whatever) or a stretch inside, the idea being to tire the child out with extra classes - take him/her off the street whilst at the same time get them participating in something more practical and rewarding, with a threat of prison if the child a)re-offends, b)bunks courses

i dunno. maybe they wouldnt be workable. i'd like to see polytechnics re-instated though along with more practical courses for people once they finish the school system,

Mr. Tea
31-08-2007, 03:59 PM
or maybe instead of excluding kids for carrying weapons into school - simply confiscate the weapons (they search for them now) and give the child a choice between enrollment on extra curricular classes (i dunno, plumbing/life painting/boxing classes/whatever) or a stretch inside, the idea being to tire the child out with extra classes - take him/her off the street whilst at the same time get them participating in something more practical and rewarding, with a threat of prison if the child a)re-offends, b)bunks courses

i dunno. maybe they wouldnt be workable. i'd like to see polytechnics re-instated though along with more practical courses for people once they finish the school system,

That could be a really good idea. And I agree totally about the polytechnics, as well.

zhao
01-09-2007, 04:22 PM
2 relevent articles from our favorite hipster publication: the future of weapons (http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n6/htdocs/fashion_uk.php?country=us) an d how to rob (http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n11/htdocs/rob.php?country=us)

swears
01-09-2007, 05:52 PM
Isn't half the stuff Vice prints poorly researched, sensationalist bollocks anyway? They can be sort of funny sometimes, I suppose.

stelfox
02-09-2007, 08:57 PM
the guy in the how to rob picture with the red hat is ryan mcginley

mms
02-09-2007, 09:36 PM
2 relevent articles from our favorite hipster publication: the future of weapons (http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n6/htdocs/fashion_uk.php?country=us) an d how to rob (http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n11/htdocs/rob.php?country=us)

funny about the future of weapons, my grandad told me to put carefully shaved off rose-thorns between my knucks, but we were from the country i suppose.
Thanks grandad, never had to do it though.

rockypoppy2
02-09-2007, 09:40 PM
2 relevent articles from our favorite hipster publication: the future of weapons (http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n6/htdocs/fashion_uk.php?country=us) an d how to rob (http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n11/htdocs/rob.php?country=us)

i think vice needs to start charging for its shit. that way no one will bother to read this crap

ome
12-09-2007, 04:34 PM
- the fact that many parents spend so little time with their kids:
- the lack of fathers
- the effects of cramming people into shitty dilapidated tower blocks...
- and I think the league-table culture
.....
- sense of non-ownership; the feeling that the place where you live is just a physical piece of stuff rather than someone's home, and indeed your own home.

Recipe for disater:
1) Take young person who asks 'Who am i ... what am i worth and who too? where do i fit in, what is my role?' i.e. how can i get laid(or have others want to me)?
2) Mix a culture that minimizes the communication between child and loving adults. (i.e. key life individuals that have emotional response-ability - make the child feel adequate/loved)
3) Eloquently advertise an unattainable material value system that functions on peoples desires to be who they are not, and then identify objects as a replacement for core emotional loss.

cook for 13 years and get some low self-worth, unable to communicate how they feel to themselves(i.e. what is the cause of their pain or happiness, and so how to go about changing it) or others . i.e. "no one else gives a shit, whats the point, its not fair, fuck you, bang '

----
somewhere in this mix community is important but i'm too fucked up to emotionally understand how.

r.

Mr. Tea
25-10-2007, 06:21 PM
Two items in today's news that struck me as somehow complementary to each other...

When you wrap kids up in cotton wool and treat them Innocent Wonderful Angels: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7062424.stm

this is the sort of thing that happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7061658.stm

tht
25-10-2007, 06:44 PM
srsly do fuck off with the tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity
soon to be followed by a post containing 'in my day' and 'never did me any harm' etc

Mr. Tea
25-10-2007, 11:07 PM
srsly do fuck off with the tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity
soon to be followed by a post containing 'in my day' and 'never did me any harm' etc

Oh noes, I've engendered the wrath of the social-studies mafia!

Srlsy, there are far too many smug pretentious cunts on this board and it has to be said you are one of the worst of them. Metatextualise that, prick.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 12:21 AM
Are you trying to start a PAEDO SCARE????

How very, um, tabloid-minded...award yourself 3 Bushell points.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 12:49 AM
Well that's ME told! Your copy of Freud For Dummies must be more well-thumbed than my favourite issue of Little Kids Monthly.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 12:54 AM
If this board is so full of pretentious cunts, then why do you spend so much of your precious anti-intellectual, middlebrow status quo warrior time on it, then?

I mean, it seems like you'd have more fun date raping someone, then pounding beer with your mates while you all complained about how single mothers have ruined the earth you've inherited by having the nerve to be poor and have sex with future prison inmates. Or you could jerk off to Stuff magazine. Maybe write something 'punny' and post it on another message board. Talk about football? Wait for your parents to send you some support checks? Have dinner with the fam around the campfire all Norman Rockwell like?

Tht is a million times funnier, more engaging, and intelligent than you are. Don't confuse your lack of knowledge about philosophy and the social sciences with "pretentiousness" on the part of the Big Dissensus Other, either.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 01:15 AM
i hear "capitalist-realist mouthpieces" is taking new memberships

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 01:23 AM
Yes, mum! Sorry, mum!

And I promise to stop cluttering up Dissensus with my interminable football posts, sometimes it seems as if that's all I ever talk about, football football football...

Seriously though, this is exactly what I'm talking about: there's this set Dissensus reading list of Lacan, Baudrillard, Zzzzizzzzek and a bunch of others, and their associated academic sphere of critical theory or post-structuralism or whatever you want to call it, and anything outside that is 'anti-intellectual'. It's cliquey beyond belief, I'm sure my high school was never half this bad. I may contribute to or start threads about the development of language, evolutionary theory, contemporary politics, quantum mechanics, education policy or psychopathlogy, but because I have nothing to contribute when you and zhao start tossing each other off with this BoW stuff by 'D&G' (talented chaps, fashion designers AND philosophers!) I am anti-intellectual, a lumpen thug, a fratboy, a beer monster, urrgh ug ug.

This forum is infested with mind-boggling levels of academic chauvinism and self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual hokum.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 01:32 AM
Yes, mum! Sorry, mum!

And I promise to stop cluttering up Dissensus with my interminable football posts, sometimes it seems as if that's all I ever talk about, football football football...

Seriously though, this is exactly what I'm talking about: there's this set Dissensus reading list of Lacan, Baudrillard, Zzzzizzzzek and a bunch of others, and their associated academic sphere of critical theory or post-structuralism or whatever you want to call it, and anything outside of that is 'anti-intellectual'. It's cliquey beyond belief, I'm sure my high school was never this bad. I may contribute to or even start threads about the development of language, evolutionary theory, contemporary politics, quantum mechanics, education policy or psychopathlogy, but because I have nothing to contribute when you and zhao start tossing each other off with this BoW stuff by 'D&G' (talented chaps, fashion designers AND philosophers!) I am anti-intellectual, a lumpen thug, a fratboy, a beer monster, urrgh ug ug.

This forum is infested with mind-boggling levels of academic chauvinism and self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual hokum.


Oh please. You spent at least a couple of months ruining every thread about theory with one ignorant appeal or another to illiterate and petty attempts to discount all of "post-modernism" (which is a term that, in Mr. Tea's world, apparently means "any theory or philosophy that I have neither read nor understand") on the part of many who clearly had barely mastered the Greeks, let alone 20th century critical theory.

I do not mind people who don't read theory, or care to, and I would never call someone anti-intellectual simply because they have not read theory. I do mind people who, in their lack of knowledge and understanding, try to insist that anyone who does read theory is an "academic chauvinist" or a "pseudo-intellectual." I have had my work complimented, praised, and given astoundingly high marks by some of the founders of hypertext theory. I received a grad school scholarship based on the recommendation letter of one of the foremost post-modern scholars you hate so much.

This is not to say that I think I am better or smarter than anyone here--I like Dissensus because there are SO many posters here who understand and have read the thinkers who interest me, both within and without the confines of academia, and who can speak adeptly of them.

You cannot. You contribute nothing but pot-shots, ressentiment, and commonsensical nonsense to many many discussions.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 01:33 AM
there's this set Dissensus reading list of Lacan, Baudrillard, Zzzzizzzzek and a bunch of others, and their associated academic sphere of critical theory or post-structuralism or whatever you want to call it

These are the standard readings in any PhD program in Media Studies/Sociology/Philosophy or any number of academic disciplines at the present time.

Eric
26-10-2007, 02:12 AM
These are the standard readings in any PhD program in Media Studies/Sociology/Philosophy or any number of academic disciplines at the present time.

This is false for the philosophy case: it holds true only for those programs that focus on these kind of issues. There are many programs that do not (or at least don't have these things in their core curricula).

I think what MrT is getting at is this: one has the sense on this board (these parts of this board) that if you don't speak the `critical' slang then your opinions are not worth listening to. (Is this too strong? Maybe.) Presumably this is because many people here share this common background, as you say.

Obviously this is not the only route to take away from jacking off to Stuff magazine or whatever you said above, though (whatever that was all about). Working in the sciences might give a different perspective but not necessarily an antintellectual one.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 02:17 AM
This is false for the philosophy case: it holds true only for those programs that focus on these kind of issues. There are many programs that do not (or at least don't have these things in their core curricula).

I think what MrT is getting at is this: one has the sense on this board (these parts of this board) that if you don't speak the `critical' slang then your opinions are not worth listening to. (Is this too strong? Maybe.) Presumably this is because many people here share this common background, as you say.

Obviously this is not the only route to take away from jacking off to Stuff magazine or whatever you said above, though (whatever that was all about). Working in the sciences might give a different perspective but not necessarily an antintellectual one.

In the U.S., a lot of philosophy departments are being swallowed up by sociology and media studies, unfortunately :( Budgetary concerns.

It is not Mr. Tea's working in science that breeds his anti-intellectualism, from what I can tell. I work in the sciences as well. The difference is that I don't have to discount any and all critical theory based on so-called scientific principles. It is fine if Mr. Tea doesn't want to read D&G, but why involve yourself in discussion about them if not? Why ridicule those who do, and act as if they're trying to start some sort of "club" when Mr. Tea himself has made a point of opting out of the discussion intellectually from the start?

I think people get annoyed mostly because he is a big fan of pronouncements like the one above, where he may as well have said "spare the rod, spoil the child"!--see how the neo-liberal ivory tower academic straw men have ruined all children and caused these problems! He seems very obviously traditionalist when it comes to social values, and, surprise surprise, most of the theory hounds here are going to disagree adamantly with all of that.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 02:26 AM
Yes, mum! Sorry, mum!



chastisement fantasies

enough said

Eric
26-10-2007, 02:31 AM
Fair enough nomad. And I guess this is why I don't enter those discussions except to occasionally ask, in a plaintive voice, `but what does it all mean ?' :)


srsly do fuck off with the tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity
soon to be followed by a post containing 'in my day' and 'never did me any harm' etc

Still, it is easy to see why the above got MrT incensed.

Eric
26-10-2007, 02:33 AM
In the U.S., a lot of philosophy departments are being swallowed up by sociology and media studies, unfortunately :( Budgetary concerns.



I havent heard about this. Is this the departments that focus more on critical style stuff? Analytically oriented departments don't seem to be having this problem (?).

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 10:56 AM
I made the post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match, incidentally, because I'm pissed off with the increasingly prevalent attitude that the unfortunately sometimes necessary business of disciplining a child is indistinguishable from abuse, and I think people unable to make the distinction aren't fit to be parents, let alone lawmakers in the position of passing legislation to dictate how parents should behave.

A very large proportion of the kids who are having problems growing up and finding their way in life, and causing problems in turn for other people, have got into this fix through not having been taught that are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, and the importance of respecting themselves and other people. If anyone wants to take what I've said and turn it in their head into "a sound birching once a day is necessary to instil moral fibre", well that's up to them: grossly misrepresenting other people's opinions seems to be the order of the day on here, after all.

swears
26-10-2007, 11:27 AM
Think you are being a bit paranoid there, Mr Tea.

dHarry
26-10-2007, 11:33 AM
I made the post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match, incidentally, because I'm pissed off with the increasingly prevalent attitude that the unfortunately sometimes necessary business of disciplining a child is indistinguishable from abuse, and I think people unable to make the distinction aren't fit to be parents, let alone lawmakers in the position of passing legislation to dictate how parents should behave.

A very large proportion of the kids who are having problems growing up and finding their way in life, and causing problems in turn for other people, have got into this fix through not having been taught that are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, and the importance of respecting themselves and other people. If anyone wants to take what I've said and turn it in their head into "a sound birching once a day is necessary to instil moral fibre", well that's up to them: grossly misrepresenting other people's opinions seems to be the order of the day on here, after all.

But what has any of this to do with your "post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match" - pulling together of a story about a law (designed to protect children from abuse - why is this indistinguishable from discipline?) and an unrelated report of two children getting knocked down and killed? I think this is what tht meant by "tabloid level conflations and demotic stupidity" - it was crassly insensitive and stupid, and had absolutely nothing to do with political correctness or whatever else you were trying to imply. This from your link:



Mr Lambert said: "I don't know how I feel. I was very hysterical yesterday."

"Kieran knows not to go near the motorway, that it is dangerous. I had been teaching him the Green Cross Code only this week."

Kieran was due back in the house at 1700 BST for his evening meal.

When he did not return, Mr Lambert and his brother and 12 neighbours went to find him.

...he suspected his son was rushing home because he was afraid of the dark


- obviously an unfit parent and a victim of a cult studs conspiracy to prevent him smacking/abusing his child.

swears
26-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Bloody kids:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1704703,00.html

borderpolice
26-10-2007, 12:24 PM
Isn't it the case that less authoritarian education generally leads to less violent children? I doubt that children these days are more violent than say 100 years ago, when smacking was still commonplace. I'm sure this has been thoroughly investigated.

bassnation
26-10-2007, 12:41 PM
Isn't it the case that less authoritarian education generally leads to less violent children? I doubt that children these days are more violent than say 100 years ago, when smacking was still commonplace. I'm sure this has been thoroughly investigated.

children weren't walking round with knives and guns when i was growing up the uk and the school system was far more harsh back then.

swears
26-10-2007, 12:50 PM
Doesn't hitting kids instil the idea that violent behavior = authority, power, etc..?

So if you want to dominate a situation, you just twat someone.

borderpolice
26-10-2007, 01:15 PM
children weren't walking round with knives and guns when i was growing up the uk and the school system was far more harsh back then.

Me and my mates all got knifes when we were 16. We felt well hard. It's just part of male coming-of-age: you are still living at home, wanking all day, and being asked by mum to do the dishes, but with your mates, you are pimp daddy with lots of cash, bitches and fast cars.

We were taught by very mild hippy teachers though. That must have been it. If we'd been smacked at school, I'm sure we'd all seem the error of our ways and swapped the knifes for bibles.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 01:26 PM
The thing that struck me in the story about the kid getting killed on the motorway was not any sense that it was his parents' fault, but the immediate knee-jerk reaction that "there ought to be signs up and a big fence" to stop anything like that happening again. As if motorways are some sort of hidden menace! It just struck a chord with the modern obsession with DANGERS and HAZARDS which means everything has to carry a WARNING, on the grounds that people are presumably too stupid to realise that crossing a motorway on foot might not be a great idea. Kids never pay any attention to signs anyway, if anything it's just going to make the danger more alluring. And it might seem like a tenuous link to connect this with the smacking thing, but I think it's all part of a very pernicious and damaging trend towards treating kids as uniquely vulnerable and precious (while at the same time bombarding them with manipulative advertising from the second they pop out) which is having consequences as far-reaching as the breakdown of discipline in schools to childhood (and subsequently adult) obesity.

So that's my two cents. If I gave anyone the impression that I was indiscriminately "pro-smacking" then I'm sorry, that's certainly not what I think, any more than saying you support the availability of abortion makes you indiscriminately "pro-abortion". I support the right of parents to bring their kids up as they see fit, within reason of course, hence my point about the huge difference between admonishing a child, which is a hopefully very small but nonetheless important part of upbringing, and physical abuse. If you've got kids going to school with big bruises, that's obviously completely unacceptable, and it's very important that we have social services and police with the powers to intervene in these cases - but at the same time, I think it's a very dangerous path to go down if we could end up with parents being charged with assault for administering a basically harmless smack to a child when all verbal reasoning has failed, which would likely end up in a situation whereby the child could be taken into care, with the very real possibility of lifelong harm being inflicted as a result.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 01:29 PM
Me and my mates all got knifes when we were 16. We felt well hard. It's just part of male coming-of-age: you are still living at home, wanking all day, and being asked by mum to do the dishes, but with your mates, you are pimp daddy with lots of cash, bitches and fast cars.

We were taught by very mild hippy teachers though. That must have been it. If we'd been smacked at school, I'm sure we'd all seem the error of our ways and swapped the knifes for bibles.

*bashes head on desk*

I give up. I really do.

bassnation
26-10-2007, 01:36 PM
Me and my mates all got knifes when we were 16. We felt well hard. It's just part of male coming-of-age: you are still living at home, wanking all day, and being asked by mum to do the dishes, but with your mates, you are pimp daddy with lots of cash, bitches and fast cars.

We were taught by very mild hippy teachers though. That must have been it. If we'd been smacked at school, I'm sure we'd all seem the error of our ways and swapped the knifes for bibles.

whatever. but my experience is the same as my mates who grew up in south london, kids did not carry guns and knives as a matter of course back then. you can come up with whatever polemic you like, they do now and they didn't then. i'm not even agreeing with mr tea or anyone else, just passing on an observation from my own experiences.

swears
26-10-2007, 01:37 PM
I did have very liberal parents, but I think I was quite a well behaved kid anyway, I used to just like to chill with my lego or draw spiderman. I think hitting kids makes them worse half the time.

borderpolice
26-10-2007, 01:43 PM
kids did not carry guns and knives as a matter of course back then. you can come up with whatever polemic you like, they do now

How do you know that kids carry guns as a matter of course now? Do you do stop and search?

I'm genuinely interested. I think it is possible that a certain kind of youth is more violent than they would have been 20 years ago. But I am not sure.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 01:46 PM
How do you know that kids carry guns as a matter of course now? Do you do stop and search?

You've not been keeping up with the news much, have you?

borderpolice
26-10-2007, 02:08 PM
You've not been keeping up with the news much, have you?

It is my impression that street violence has been declining for a while now on average. But there are always conflicting reports.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 03:06 PM
I made the post that started this whole rant/argument/slanging match, incidentally, because I'm pissed off with the increasingly prevalent attitude that the unfortunately sometimes necessary business of disciplining a child is indistinguishable from abuse, and I think people unable to make the distinction aren't fit to be parents, let alone lawmakers in the position of passing legislation to dictate how parents should behave.

A very large proportion of the kids who are having problems growing up and finding their way in life, and causing problems in turn for other people, have got into this fix through not having been taught that are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, and the importance of respecting themselves and other people. If anyone wants to take what I've said and turn it in their head into "a sound birching once a day is necessary to instil moral fibre", well that's up to them: grossly misrepresenting other people's opinions seems to be the order of the day on here, after all.

oh mr. tea, I got hit like crazy, and I'm still a junkie! how do you explain me??

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 03:07 PM
Doesn't hitting kids instil the idea that violent behavior = authority, power, etc..?

So if you want to dominate a situation, you just twat someone.

yup, you're basically guaranteeing your kid a lifetime of tawdry S&M fantasies

bassnation
26-10-2007, 03:17 PM
It is my impression that street violence has been declining for a while now on average. But there are always conflicting reports.

well, i don''t have a position on smacking really, but i don't see violence declining at all, at least round here. my mates dad got stabbed ten times in the stomach last week for telling some kids off outside his boozer in tulse hill and the same week one of the bar managers had his jaw broken in three places by some random nutter while he was boarding the bus. theres shootings every week. i walk past people who i overhear moaning that kids kept them awake running round the council estate shooting guns. seriously, i think things have got much much worse. but this is anecdotal and only based on my own experience in london.

vimothy
26-10-2007, 03:18 PM
There's plenty of teen violence in Manchester, as well.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 03:20 PM
there are so many gunshot wound victims at the hospital near me that you have to wait in line at the ER for hours and hours and hours.

nevertheless, crime has STEADILY gone down by almost every estimate since the late 1970s

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 03:27 PM
Bloody kids:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1704703,00.html

eww who wrote that??

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 03:33 PM
oh mr. tea, I got hit like crazy, and I'm still a junkie! how do you explain me??

Damn, you got me there! Since I'm having to explain things to people unable to distinguish between responsible parenting and child abuse, I can only declare you a medical mystery.

Edit: I realise, too late, that the obvious answer here would have been "a misjudged attempt to appear cool and interesting". Still, better late than never.

vimothy
26-10-2007, 03:33 PM
there are so many gunshot wound victims at the hospital near me that you have to wait in line at the ER for hours and hours and hours.

nevertheless, crime has STEADILY gone down by almost every estimate since the late 1970s

Over-all levels in America, certainly. But whether youth violence in the UK is increasing or decreasing is a different matter.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 03:37 PM
Damn, you got me there! Since I'm having to explain things to people unable to distinguish between responsible parenting and child abuse, I can only declare you a medical mystery.

how hard is hitting "too hard"? should you need stitches? should you need a blood transfusion?

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 03:37 PM
Over-all levels in America, certainly. But whether youth violence in the UK is increasing or decreasing is a different matter.

this could be true, don't know

mr tea is now on ignore

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 03:45 PM
how hard is hitting "too hard"? should you need stitches? should you need a blood transfusion?

I don't see how any sane person even needs to ask this question.

Whoops, I'm on Dissensus, aren't I? Stupid point, my mistake.

Eric
26-10-2007, 03:53 PM
how hard is hitting "too hard"? should you need stitches? should you need a blood transfusion?

where did that come from?

isn't he talking about something like a spank, which is intended to convey to the child that (s)he is out of line, vs something designed to actually inflict damage?

nomad seems to be slinging random punches like daiki kameda with this one

bassnation
26-10-2007, 03:56 PM
there are so many gunshot wound victims at the hospital near me that you have to wait in line at the ER for hours and hours and hours.

nevertheless, crime has STEADILY gone down by almost every estimate since the late 1970s

well, i did say all i have is anecdotal.

but iirc, crime has gone down in the uk, but violent crime is up. i don't have any links tho.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 03:59 PM
where did that come from?

isn't he talking about something like a spank, which is intended to convey to the child that (s)he is out of line, vs something designed to actually inflict damage?

nomad seems to be slinging random punches like daiki kameda with this one

My God, someone who actually understands what I'm getting at! Thankyou so much!
Here, have a pat on the back (not too hard though, I wouldn't want to break your spine or anything. :D)

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 04:04 PM
well, i did say all i have is anecdotal.

but iirc, crime has gone down in the uk, but violent crime is up. i don't have any links tho.

This is certainly the impression I'm getting. All recorded crime has fallen by something like a third since 1995, and it may even be the case that overall levels of violent crime are remaining steady or slowly falling, but this particular kind of really nasty violent crime, often committed by kids, does seem to be on the increase.

Of course you always have to be wary of media scare stories and hype, but at the same time it's stupid to bury your head in the sand and deny that anything's going on when even a level-headed analysis of the situation indicates a serious and growing problem.

Eric
26-10-2007, 04:10 PM
My God, someone who actually understands what I'm getting at! Thankyou so much!

I have kids, you see, so I know there are times that reasoning breaks down. Hopefully no one will now call me a child abuser :D

Don't kill me!

I occasionally give my kids a swat on the butt when they are a) being uncooperative, b) it is willful and c) other methods of negotiation have been exhausted. There is no permanent damage or even temporary damage other than shock---creating that is the point. It lets everyone reevaluate their position.

bassnation
26-10-2007, 04:29 PM
Of course you always have to be wary of media scare stories and hype, but at the same time it's stupid to bury your head in the sand and deny that anything's going on when even a level-headed analysis of the situation indicates a serious and growing problem.

when its happening to friends its hard to put it down as a scare story thats the problem.

vimothy
26-10-2007, 04:34 PM
It's obviously not a scare story - you only have to walk down the wrong road or past the wrong group of people to experience it.

hundredmillionlifetimes
26-10-2007, 04:43 PM
Yes, mum! Sorry, mum!



chastisement fantasies

enough said


From http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/spanking-cupid-small.jpg To?? http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/dominatrix1.jpg

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 04:59 PM
Thankyou for that very enlightening post, Porridge.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 05:28 PM
when its happening to friends its hard to put it down as a scare story thats the problem.

Oh sure: just because a problem is exaggerated by some people, it doesn't mean there isn't a problem at all, or that it isn't devastating for the people it genuinely affects.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 06:16 PM
It's obviously not a scare story - you only have to walk down the wrong road or past the wrong group of people to experience it.

See, what's hilarious about this is the fucking assumption that poor, uneducated people DON'T spank or hit, and that's why their children are out of line and carry guns, act violently, etc.

FIVE MINUTes on the subway in NY will cure you of this delusion. Come over sometime, I'll pay for your trip.

Eric: The point I was making is that it's important that laws exist to protect children (who can't protect themselves from humans who are up to 10 times bigger than they are) from those who don't reign in their swatting or limit it to "light taps on the ass".

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 06:18 PM
From http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/spanking-cupid-small.jpg To?? http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/dominatrix1.jpg

exactly

vimothy
26-10-2007, 06:22 PM
See, what's hilarious about this is the fucking assumption that poor, uneducated people DON'T spank or hit, and that's why their children are out of line and carry guns, act violently, etc.

As far as I'm concerned spanking has pretty much nothing to do with it, one way or the other.


FIVE MINUTes on the subway in NY will cure you of this delusion.

What delusion?


Come over sometime, I'll pay for your trip.

Great - PM me and I'll forward you the details of my paypal account.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 06:27 PM
As far as I'm concerned spanking has pretty much nothing to do with it, one way or the other.


Our friend Mr. Tea did.

I don't use paypal. Where would you like to stay? How about Brownville? Canarsie? hehehe

Gavin
26-10-2007, 06:33 PM
This is certainly the impression I'm getting. All recorded crime has fallen by something like a third since 1995, and it may even be the case that overall levels of violent crime are remaining steady or slowly falling, but this particular kind of really nasty violent crime, often committed by kids, does seem to be on the increase.


All this "seeming" and impression-making... what could be the cause of that?



Of course you always have to be wary of media scare stories and hype, but at the same time it's stupid to bury your head in the sand and deny that anything's going on when even a level-headed analysis of the situation indicates a serious and growing problem.

Oh, I see you're even dimly aware at how the media exaggerates violent crime, but let's not let that dissuade you from holding tightly to your preconceived and unjustified prejudices, because obviously those are independent from media impression-making. In fact, it's reasonable to portray anyone who doubts youth crime as burying their head in the sand and committing the supreme offense of not being level-headed. I think you're right that this position is going to have few supporters on this kind of forum.

We could also check statistical measurements to see what they say.



British Crime Survey:

Violent crime accounted for 14% of all recorded crime yet over the past five years violent crime has fallen by 22%, domestic burglary is down by 39%, and vehicle crime is down by 26%.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Violence_06.gif

In 2005/06, 3.4% of people experienced a violent incident. In just under half (49%) of all such incidents there was no injury.

Of course, there are allegations that the British Crime Survey may be underreporting its figures, much like other crimes are being drastically underreported:


In December 2005 President Bush said there were 30,000 Iraqi dead. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said it was "not an official government estimate", and was based on media reports.

It just SEEMED to the President that there were only about 30,000 dead according to media reports, really only the size of small midwestern city. I remember the hard swallow he made before he said the number.


An October 12, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article reported: "Asked at the news conference what he thinks the number is now, Bush said: 'I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life.' At a separate Pentagon briefing, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that the [Lancet] figure 'seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give it that much credibility at all'."

These tricky seeming numbers! It makes me want to just hide my head in the sand!

vimothy
26-10-2007, 06:36 PM
Our friend Mr. Tea did.

I thought you were ignoring Mr Tea - and in any case you were responding to me.


I don't use paypal. Where would you like to stay? How about Brownville? Canarsie? hehehe

I'll sort out my own accomodation, just pay for the flights.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 06:39 PM
No problem. How's Christmans/New Years sound?

vimothy
26-10-2007, 06:43 PM
All this "seeming" and impression-making... what could be the cause of that?



Oh, I see you're even dimly aware at how the media exaggerates violent crime, but let's not let that dissuade you from holding tightly to your preconceived and unjustified prejudices, because obviously those are independent from media impression-making. In fact, it's reasonable to portray anyone who doubts youth crime as burying their head in the sand and committing the supreme offense of not being level-headed. I think you're right that this position is going to have few supporters on this kind of forum.

We could also check statistical measurements to see what they say.

Come on Gavin - it's quite clear that those statistics could hide a variety of things. For one, we're talking about violence and young people, not violent crime over-all. For another, total violent crime, depite falling from its 1993 high, is actually still up from the 1984 low. I don't think your graph really proves anything, it just gives you a good opportunity to make a partisan point about Iraq.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 06:44 PM
what's wrong with partisan points? you make them all the time

vimothy
26-10-2007, 06:45 PM
No problem. How's Christmans/New Years sound?

Whenever you want to fly me out to New York is totally fine. I'll even listen politely to your stories about being a drug addict.

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 06:48 PM
Oh no, that's ok. I'm a rather busy person, and it's no fun telling people who don't understand anyway.

Gavin
26-10-2007, 06:55 PM
Come on Gavin - it's quite clear that those statistics could hide a variety of things. For one, we're talking about violence and young people, not violent crime over-all. For another, total violent crime, depite falling from its 1993 high, is actually still up from the 1984 low. I don't think your graph really proves anything, it just gives you a good opportunity to make a partisan point about Iraq.

You don't think there's any relationship to the violence a society experiences domestically and the violence they wreak elsewhere? Or have a stepped into the dreaded MORAL EQUIVALENCE ZONE, irrationally and dishonestly mixing my peas into my mashed potatoes when such things must NEVER BE COMPARED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

Mr. Tea
26-10-2007, 06:57 PM
Well Gavin it SEEMS to me that there have been unusually high number of teenagers killed in Britain this year, mostly in London and mostly by other teenagers, in gang-related incidents. More so than in previous years (which I can attest to, having actually lived in London the last eight years). No doubt all these murders have been made up by the press to scare people for some sinister purpose, of course.

If you actually READ my post (fat fucking chance of that, sadly) you'd have seen that I said violent crime is probably stable or even falling, but that serious gang-related youth violence is increasing. Since that graph you've posted simply shows undifferentiated 'violent crime' (everything from bank robberies to domestic violence), it in fact reinforces one part of what I've been saying, and gives no information at all about the other part. But don't let that put you off having a totally misguided but no doubt highly enjoyable dig at me.

mixed_biscuits
26-10-2007, 07:12 PM
Laws should exist to protect children from violence (and they do). Carefully considered, occasional (<10 per annum?) swats are not violent acts (reflected in parental opinion that stopped a slapping ban from going through here recently).

The odd, carefully considered swat that is not made in anger does not leave lasting physical harm and, if framed correctly, is far less confusing to children than other parental tactics - wheedling/intimidation etc.

Swatting within a well-organised and loving family setup is not harmful. Within a disorganised environment, it is usually symptomatic of a general lack of control. Frequency of swats tells you which is the case, I would say.

Gavin
26-10-2007, 07:13 PM
Facts & figures

* Crime by young people hasn’t risen in the past five years and the number of known young offenders fell by 14% between 1995 and 2001 (Source: Criminal Statistics 2001).
* However, three-quarters of respondents in a recent survey believed the number of young offenders had risen (Source: Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public opinion in England and Wales 2004).


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/youth-crime/

So don't worry, you're in good (or at least massive) company.



Thankfully, most violent crime is relatively low-level thuggery with around half involving no injuries.

The risk of becoming a victim of any crime has fallen to the lowest level recorded since the British Crime Survey began in 1981 (Source: Crime in England and Wales 05/06 report). Still, although violent crime has fallen by 43% since its peak in 1995 (meaning an estimated 1.8 million fewer incidents), when it does occur, violence is dangerous, traumatic and distressing, and we are doing all we can to continue bringing crime rates down.


I love the conversational tone your bureaucratic offices use in their official prose.

There do appear (seem) to be more gun crimes according to the Home Office -- and if there's a better source of UK Crime Data, please enlighten me, I love looking at crime statistics (you uncover interesting nuggets, like that UK laws on crossbows have been stiffened). Mum on connecting this to UK gun crime in Iraq though. Those guys were over 18.

This site claims that gun crime is going down: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2007/ukgun_crime.html

I can't seem (although my search has been cursory) any info on specifically violent youth crime. While no doubt youth ACTUALLY are committing violent crime, could this specter owe more to (racist) media spectacle than fact?

mixed_biscuits
26-10-2007, 07:13 PM
You don't think there's any relationship to the violence a society experiences domestically and the violence they wreak elsewhere?

http://www.radiopadaone.fr/images/IDEFIX&#37;203.jpg

nomadologist
26-10-2007, 08:34 PM
I can't seem (although my search has been cursory) any info on specifically violent youth crime. While no doubt youth ACTUALLY are committing violent crime, could this specter owe more to (racist) media spectacle than fact?

Do you think it's worth it to talk about the absolute shambles our child welfare laws are in over here? How impossible it is to get a pedophile/abuser to do jail time? How horrible the foster system is?

I'm thinking it's probably not.

Eric
27-10-2007, 01:00 AM
Laws should exist to protect children from violence (and they do). Carefully considered, occasional (<10 per annum?) swats are not violent acts (reflected in parental opinion that stopped a slapping ban from going through here recently).

The odd, carefully considered swat that is not made in anger does not leave lasting physical harm and, if framed correctly, is far less confusing to children than other parental tactics - wheedling/intimidation etc.

Swatting within a well-organised and loving family setup is not harmful. Within a disorganised environment, it is usually symptomatic of a general lack of control. Frequency of swats tells you which is the case, I would say.

Precisely.

bassnation
27-10-2007, 04:10 PM
I can't seem (although my search has been cursory) any info on specifically violent youth crime. While no doubt youth ACTUALLY are committing violent crime, could this specter owe more to (racist) media spectacle than fact?

the boy who stabbed my mates dad ten times last week was white, so don't really know what racism has to do with it. and it was reality, not some media-filtered perecption. i look at whats going on around me as a more reliable indicator than papers, or figures.

Mr. Tea
27-10-2007, 06:40 PM
the boy who stabbed my mates dad ten times last week was white, so don't really know what racism has to do with it.

You forget that Gavin is one of those who see it as 'racist' to run news coverage of (say) stabbings or shootings committed by black teenagers, on the grounds that it perpetuates negative stereotypes, or something. Presumably we should effect affirmative action by only reporting crimes committed by white people.

noel emits
27-10-2007, 08:48 PM
What would be fair is if kids go around with guns and knives then their parents should be allowed to stab or shoot them. Seems reasonable to me.

Mr. Tea
27-10-2007, 09:12 PM
What would be fair is if kids go around with guns and knives then their parents should be allowed to stab or shoot them. Seems reasonable to me.

My parents used to shoot me all the time, and it never did me any harm.

nomadologist
28-10-2007, 12:51 PM
just asked a shrink...he said that while not all spanking qualifies as abuse, it is an infantile approach to child rearing that gives the "illusion" of control without requiring the parent to do the real hard work of careful discipline and training. he said it's a lot like a "short cut" that isn't really saving anyone any time in the long run.

i noted that primates do it all the time and he said that we should be holding ourselves to a higher moral standard as adult humans

and HEEELLLLLL nahh i do not want kids anytime soon

hundredmillionlifetimes
28-10-2007, 01:49 PM
I have kids, you see, so I know there are times that reasoning breaks down. Hopefully no one will now call me a child abuser :D

Don't kill me!

I occasionally give my kids a swat on the butt when they are a) being uncooperative, b) it is willful and c) other methods of negotiation have been exhausted. There is no permanent damage or even temporary damage other than shock---creating that is the point. It lets everyone reevaluate their position.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/barthenwells.jpg

"You fiend. Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul minded perversity. Have you ever considered a career in the church? .... Bend over Blackadder!"---The Baby-Eating-Bishop of Barthenwells.

If your 'kid' was an 'unreasonable' 6-foot, 16-stone, burly rugby-playing buffoon with tree-trunks where his legs should be, would you be resorting to a 'swat on the butt'? And what happens when you are being willfully 'unreasonable', or are parents constitutively immune from such a temporary collapse of their mental faculties?

Send in Supernanny!

Mr. Tea
28-10-2007, 02:57 PM
Barthenwells.

I've been there, lovely place.



or are parents constitutively immune from such a temporary collapse of their mental faculties?


No, of course not, but they are generally far less susceptible to it than children, are they not?
I mean, that's why we tell someone to "grow up" when they're acting "childish", i.e. willfull, selfish, irrational, vindictive etc.
Smacking or spanking should always be the last resort - I'm sure no-one here is advocating otherwise - to be used after all attempts at verbal reasoning, compromise and of course adequate warning of an impending smack have failed. Which they do, sometimes.

Eric
28-10-2007, 03:33 PM
If your 'kid' was an 'unreasonable' 6-foot, 16-stone, burly rugby-playing buffoon with tree-trunks where his legs should be, would you be resorting to a 'swat on the butt'? And what happens when you are being willfully 'unreasonable', or are parents constitutively immune from such a temporary collapse of their mental faculties?



Probably not, but neither would I if my `kid' was an unreasonable 5'2'' skinny buffoon either. Adults are trained to be able to handle each other without that.

If I am being wilfully unreasonable hopefully someone will shut me down, and hopefully it will not require physical means.

Just out of curiosity I wonder how many of the people who have this visceral disgust toward any way of interacting with children that involves non-mental coercion have children themselves. I would be interested to hear other suggestions.

vimothy
29-10-2007, 03:12 PM
This site claims that gun crime is going down

Down from last year, but look at the wider trend:

Analysis: UK gun crime figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif

Acording to the Beeb, most gun crime occurs in London, Manchester and the Midlands.

However,


There are almost four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings, according to recent figures.

Of the 25 violent teenager deaths nationwide since the beginning of 2007, 17 have been stabbings. The most recent was the death of 17-year-old Mohammed Ahmed in Newham, east London, on 30 August.

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London recently conducted some deeper analysis of the available Home Office's statistics.

It concluded that between 22,000 and 57,900 young people could have been victims of knife crime in 2004. However, it says without better official data it is impossible to know for sure - and that we need that data to improve the public debate.

And,


So what about perpetrators of crime? We don't have a figure for the total number of violent youth offenders because of the way data is collected. But we do know a little about where violence figures in youth crime overall.

Almost a fifth of all crimes committed by under-18s are violent offences, second only to theft - and the number of violent crimes has risen consecutively for four years.

The vast majority are minor assaults - frightening for the victim but usually dealt with by warnings from the police.

Of last year's crimes, 39,000 offences were committed by young men and 15,000 by young women. The number of offenders will be lower because one person is very often found to have assaulted more than one victim.

Only 1,500 resulted in some form of detention - nine involved a life detention order


While no doubt youth ACTUALLY are committing violent crime, could this specter owe more to (racist) media spectacle than fact?

Naturally, yes -- anything else would be unthinkable.

vimothy
29-10-2007, 03:16 PM
Also (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/233/233075_1900_children_mugged_in_the_northwest.html) ,


MORE than 1,900 children were mugged in the North West last year, figures have revealed.

Data compiled by the Conservatives showed 1,909 youngsters aged 11 to 16 were robbed in the region during 2005/06, according to police figures from England and Wales.

Because official Government data suggests only a fifth of robberies are reported to police, the true number of robberies on secondary school pupils could be as high as 9,091 a year, the Tories suggested.

Tories compiled the previously unpublished information from requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

The figures also revealed that 1,887 17 to 22 year olds were robbed during the same period.

Children under 17 accounted for 23% of all robberies, with 17-22 year olds making up another 24%. The 23-29 year old age group represented 13% of all victims, while people over 30 made up the final 37%.

nomadologist
29-10-2007, 03:32 PM
And, of course, this is because parents haven't been spanking hard or often enough.

vimothy
29-10-2007, 03:40 PM
And, of course, this is because parents haven't been spanking hard or often enough.

I've already said that I don't think that high levels of youth crime has anything to do with spanking.

nomadologist
29-10-2007, 03:57 PM
good for you

gek-opel
29-10-2007, 10:06 PM
good for you

You two still planning a beautiful xmas together then?:eek:

nomadologist
29-10-2007, 11:19 PM
yes, we'll have a lovely christmas in the ghetto. i will be tripping on multiple hits of acid (don't eat the mango slices!) and will bring vimothy to dyker heights to see the gaudy italian christmas displays.

then we'll go to FAO Schwarz and he can play on the kiddie cars and then he will probably get robbed by a homeless guy on the way back to the ghetto. one with no teeth and one leg. i will sell him to a dealer in the bushwick houses and they will make him their bitch, give him a tec 9 and make him do deliveries. they will steal his passport, change the photo, and the next thing you know he will have $300,000 in unexplained debt on his credit report.

that's my elaborate fantasy of what would happen anyway

gek-opel
29-10-2007, 11:20 PM
yes, we'll have a lovely christmas in the ghetto. i will be tripping on multiple hits of acid (don't eat the mango slices!) and will bring vimothy to dyker heights to see the gaudy italian christmas displays.

then we'll go to FAO Schwarz and he can play on the kiddie cars and then he will probably get robbed by a homeless guy on the way back to the ghetto. one with no teeth and one leg. i will sell him to a dealer in the bushwick houses and they will make him their bitch, give him a tec 9 and make him do deliveries. they will steal his passport, change the photo, and the next thing you know he will have $300,000 in unexplained debt on his credit report.

that's my elaborate fantasy of what would happen anyway

Hahahaah... just remember to video the whole thing yeah...?

nomadologist
29-10-2007, 11:21 PM
no doubt

nomadologist
29-10-2007, 11:32 PM
i'll even youtube it if people show sufficient interest

zhao
30-10-2007, 12:05 AM
i was gonna make some kind of NY jew joke but better not

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:47 AM
I've got one: I can take him to meet Zev and Bracha, the Soviet Hassid slum lords who let my loft go two months without heat one winter.

Of course, they don't represent all New Yorkers of the Jewish persuasion.

hundredmillionlifetimes
30-10-2007, 08:25 AM
yes, we'll have a lovely christmas in the ghetto. i will be tripping on multiple hits of acid (don't eat the mango slices!) and will bring vimothy to dyker heights to see the gaudy italian christmas displays.

then we'll go to FAO Schwarz and he can play on the kiddie cars and then he will probably get robbed by a homeless guy on the way back to the ghetto. one with no teeth and one leg. i will sell him to a dealer in the bushwick houses and they will make him their bitch, give him a tec 9 and make him do deliveries. they will steal his passport, change the photo, and the next thing you know he will have $300,000 in unexplained debt on his credit report.

that's my elaborate fantasy of what would happen anyway

Don't forget to include a visit to the local Crèche.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/babywithrifle.jpg

swears
30-10-2007, 10:45 AM
i will sell him to a dealer in the bushwick houses and they will make him their bitch, give him a tec 9 and make him do deliveries. they will steal his passport, change the photo, and the next thing you know he will have $300,000 in unexplained debt on his credit report.




I'm sure he won't mind, it's a free market, after all.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 11:13 AM
He'll learn what "free market" means when he works 12 hour-shifts walking 30 Brooklyn blocks an hour to shooting galleries for a big mac a day.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 11:14 AM
Don't forget to include a visit to the local Crèche.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/babywithrifle.jpg

who fucking took that picture???? jesus

bassnation
30-10-2007, 11:15 AM
But I still think it's hugely unfair to punish a thirteen year old who probably has got a gun out of a combination of naivety, fear and a desire to be a big kid

i think kids need to be punished for carrying a gun for obvious reasons. i understand the gang mentality, the peer group thing. but i'm sorry its simply unacceptable for kids to be walking round with weapons, this is not the united states, these things are illegal and for good reason. there has to be a disincentive otherwise people will continue to be killed. in the metro the other day a young kid shot his sister in the head with his mothers gun. these things should not be on the streets - whatever we need to do with enforcement needs to be done.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 11:17 AM
it's a black market, duh. the government can't do shit about it.

bassnation
30-10-2007, 11:24 AM
it's a black market, duh. the government can't do shit about it.

theres police with metal detectors at the train stations in south london every week, so yes, they are doing something - but obviously its not enough. when they are caught though, there needs to be punishment. at least we ain't flogging them from shops. thank god for small mercies.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 11:27 AM
i was partially kidding, but over here, i know where i could buy an automatic weapon in a second if i wanted to. they're mad expensive though. so most kids just saw off shotguns or get little handguns.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 12:14 PM
it's a black market, duh. the government can't do shit about it.

Well, they can try and stop people actually getting guns in the first place. As bizarre a suggestion as this might sound to an American.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:17 PM
I'd love to see them try. Maybe next they'll stop cocaine production in Bolivia, too!

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 12:22 PM
I'd love to see them try. Maybe next they'll stop cocaine production in Bolivia, too!

Thought you were Ingoring me? Or was that just bravado?

Guns are far more commonplace in the US than in the UK. There are far more shootings in the US than in the UK. It's legal for people to own guns in the US, whereas except in special cases it isn't in the UK. A cursory analysis of this data would seem to suggest that having laws against gun ownership probably helps reduce, er, gun ownership.

vimothy
30-10-2007, 12:22 PM
He'll learn what "free market" means when he works 12 hour-shifts walking 30 Brooklyn blocks an hour to shooting galleries for a big mac a day.

Hanging out with Nomadologist's rich / poor, drug-dealing gangster / CEO friends in New York will be brilliant. Now if I can only make it onto her ignore list with Mr Tea, it will be the perfect Chrismas present ...

vimothy
30-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Thought you were Ingoring me? Or was that just bravado?

Damn!

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:24 PM
Hanging out with Nomadologist's rich / poor, drug-dealing gangster / CEO friends in New York will be brilliant. Now if I can only make it onto her ignore list with Mr Tea, it will be the perfect Chrismas present ...

Done.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:26 PM
Mr. Tea, you are on ignore. Every once in a while I hit the button that says "view post" if I think there may be some merit in something you wrote. Which is not often. You're sort of on "time out"--it's like getting a spanking, but without the violence.

Eric
30-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Mr. Tea, you are on ignore. Every once in a while I hit the button that says "view post" if I think there may be some merit in something you wrote. Which is not often. You're sort of on "time out"--it's like getting a spanking, but without the violence.

if I ignored my kids except when I arbitrarily decided there might be some merit in whatever they might have been saying, they would be much more damaged than they would be by any spanking ...

vimothy
30-10-2007, 12:34 PM
Done.

Ace -- Have any of you actually ever met a rich baghead with mafia connections? Because I have, etc ...

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:35 PM
that was not the point. the point was that if you put your kids in "time out" and let them cool down, maybe take away some privileges, they learn a much more realistic model of how the negative consequences of one's actions work in the world

Eric
30-10-2007, 12:40 PM
someone finally says what the point was!!! thought I was on ignore mode too :)

questions

a) have you tried this yourself?

b) what do you do if the child does not respect the `time out' you impose?

c) what do you do in a situation where time outs are not possible or just massively impractical?

not saying that you are all necessarily wrong but some of you (assuming people getting on hi-horses here don't have kids themselves due to lack of response? dont know about that) seem like paper drivers working from the backseat ...

Eric
30-10-2007, 12:41 PM
maybe this isnt the place to debate the ins and outs of parenting though anyway?

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:43 PM
i used to babysit for my lawyer who has SEVEN kids (two of whom were twins around the age of two-three at the time). i did this for a year or so when i was a teen, and I easily controlled them and kept them happy and safe with time outs only.

so boohoo about having one or two kids who has a fit. you're supposed to ignore them, otherwise you validate them and the child emotionally manipulates YOU.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 12:45 PM
if I ignored my kids except when I arbitrarily decided there might be some merit in whatever they might have been saying, they would be much more damaged than they would be by any spanking ...

Haha, I'm imagining you treating your hapless six-year-old the way Jeremy Clarkson treats someone who's just buzzed in and interrupted him with a really stupid answer.

Eric
30-10-2007, 12:45 PM
yes OK. it is different to babysit someone else's kids and to have your own; in the one case you are working with structure someone else has imposed and in the other you have to start the training from zero.

but yes, you're right in this sense: spanking etc are not essential in childrearing, just convenient, and IMO despite it all not permanently damaging.

boohoo ...

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:47 PM
was that so hard? :D

Eric
30-10-2007, 12:48 PM
nah---just like my stubborn children I never felt you all were wrong just that I was also right :p:p:p

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 12:52 PM
hehe.

IdleRich
30-10-2007, 12:52 PM
"way Jeremy Clarkson treats someone who's just buzzed in and interrupted him with a really stupid answer."
Surely you mean someone who has just cut in front of him on a push-bike... or do you mean Jeremy Paxman?

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 12:56 PM
Surely you mean someone who has just cut in front of him on a push-bike... or do you mean Jeremy Paxman?

Hahaha! Shit, I hadn't noticed that at all. Confusing my Jeremies in the worst possible way there.

Perhaps they should have Clarkson present a special one-off game of Uni Challenge. All the questions would be about cars or why global warming is good for us and whenever someone gets one wrong he'd go off with his "That's about as wrong as ...Blackadder ridiculously-overwrought-simile]" schtick.

swears
30-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Haha, I'm imagining you treating your hapless six-year-old the way Jeremy (Paxman) treats someone who's just buzzed in and interrupted him with a really stupid answer.

That's basically how I was brought up, lol.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 01:06 PM
That's basically how I was brought up, lol.

That kinda makes sense, actually. ;)

swears
30-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Well, I was always spoken to as an adult, I appreciated that. Funny how my folks treated me with more respect at ten years old than various bosses I've worked for as an adult.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 01:43 PM
So much trouble is made by people treating children like adults and treating adults like children.

swears
30-10-2007, 02:07 PM
Hmmm...I don't mean they let me drink Scotch and smoke a pipe. They just credited me with a bit of sense. Some people talk to kids like they're training a show dog.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 03:27 PM
Hmmm...I don't mean they let me drink Scotch and smoke a pipe. They just credited me with a bit of sense. Some people talk to kids like they're training a show dog.

Oh sure, I didn't mean to imply you were treated like that. But sometimes people take things too far in one direction or the other with regards to kids' behaviour; on the one hand expecting them to behave sensibly and maturely at all times and therefore seeing it as 'aberrant' when this isn't always the case, syndromising it as ADHD or something and putting them on powerful and possibly harmful medication; or on the other hand, patronising/controlling/coddling them, as you say.

IdleRich
30-10-2007, 03:55 PM
I went to the theatre on Saturday and it was one where the centre space was surrounded on four sides by chairs, the play took place in the centre as well as at the sides and everywhere really. Amongst the audience was a woman with two really young kids, maybe three and five or something, I don't know. About four seconds after the play started they started talking/whining and kept up a steady stream of noise throughout the whole play. About five minutes in they were lounging around on their chairs staring at the ceiling, taking pictures of the audience and each other with their mobile phones, by about an hour in they were obviously totally bored and they were both crawling around the edge and actually on the stage so that at times the actors had to step over them, however their owner made no attempt to stop them at any point beyond an ineffectual shh every now and again. At two points in fact she also had to rush across the stage herself to take one to the toilet, dodging the actors on the way. I expected the children to take a bow at the end when the play finished but no, they actually weren't part of it.
I don't blame the children for that but it seemed extremely selfish of the woman. She must have known that there was fuck-all chance of the kids sitting right through the play without spoiling it for everyone else (especially as they children were clearly French and the play was in English) so she shouldn't have brought them along. If she couldn't find anyone to look after them for her she shouldn't have gone too. Seems to me that some people think that they're going to carry on having the exact same life that they had before they had kids and if anyone else doesn't like it they can lump it. I reckon people ought to realise that they are going to have to make sacrifices when they breed and not assume that having propagated the species gives them some divine right to piss everyone else.
Don't know what it teaches us about "kids these days" but it seemed to be something to do with what people are talking about and I thought I would mention it.

Eric
30-10-2007, 03:57 PM
This kind of thing is not just an imposition on everyone else but also an imposition on the kids. They are the ones who had the least choice in this situation really ...

And how could she possibly enjoy the play? Sigh.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 04:03 PM
Christ, that's so fucking selfish. And hard on the kids too, as you say. I can't believe someone else in the audience didn't say something to her.

What the hell is a three-year-old doing with a mobile phone, anyway? Are you sure the phones actually belonged to the kids?

STN
30-10-2007, 04:04 PM
God, I was dragged to all sorts of nonsense by my parents as a kid. I have seen both The Tempest and Jesus Christ Superstar rendered as Japanese Noh plays but I like to think I was quite well behaved, if often literally bored to tears.

IdleRich
30-10-2007, 04:10 PM
"This kind of thing is not just an imposition on everyone else but also an imposition on the kids. They are the ones who had the least choice in this situation really ...
And how could she possibly enjoy the play? Sigh."
Indeed. I think it's more to do with bloody-mindedness. "I went to plays before and I'm going to go now. I'm not going to let them make me feel uncomfortable and I certainly am not going to apologise because I haven't done anything wrong. As a mother I have a divine fucking right to do whatever I want because mothers are sacred and holy and a higher race than those selfish fucked up weirdos who haven't got kids or - worse - use a babysitter" is what I overheard her saying to someone at the end.
Not that I cared that much, the play was pretty boring and they provided some light relief as far as I was concerned but it's the principle of the thing.


"God, I was dragged to all sorts of nonsense by my parents as a kid. I have seen both The Tempest and Jesus Christ Superstar rendered as Japanese Noh plays but I like to think I was quite well behaved, if often literally bored to tears."
Well, there were two even smaller kids there who behaved perfectly fine so it's not just the age thing. What annoyed me is that they started so soon in, it wasn't as though they got bored (like me) when the second hour started, it was the minute the introduction began and that made me realise that the mother must have known there was no chance of it being any different.

bassnation
30-10-2007, 04:15 PM
Well, there were two even smaller kids there who behaved perfectly fine so it's not just the age thing. What annoyed me is that they started so soon in, it wasn't as though they got bored (like me) when the second hour started, it was the minute the introduction began and that made me realise that the mother must have known there was no chance of it being any different.

do you think a good smack on the botty was warranted there?

and once the mum was dealt with, maybe tell the kids off too? ;)

Eric
30-10-2007, 04:16 PM
do you think a good smack on the botty was warranted there?

and once the mum was dealt with, maybe tell the kids off too? ;)

heh heh heh

Mr. Tea
30-10-2007, 04:17 PM
do you think a good smack on the botty was warranted there?

and once the mum was dealt with, maybe tell the kids off too? ;)

Or made to write out a thousand times, I will not be an antisocial twat.

nomadologist
30-10-2007, 04:47 PM
I went to the theatre on Saturday and it was one where the centre space was surrounded on four sides by chairs, the play took place in the centre as well as at the sides and everywhere really. Amongst the audience was a woman with two really young kids, maybe three and five or something, I don't know. About four seconds after the play started they started talking/whining and kept up a steady stream of noise throughout the whole play. About five minutes in they were lounging around on their chairs staring at the ceiling, taking pictures of the audience and each other with their mobile phones, by about an hour in they were obviously totally bored and they were both crawling around the edge and actually on the stage so that at times the actors had to step over them, however their owner made no attempt to stop them at any point beyond an ineffectual shh every now and again. At two points in fact she also had to rush across the stage herself to take one to the toilet, dodging the actors on the way. I expected the children to take a bow at the end when the play finished but no, they actually weren't part of it.
I don't blame the children for that but it seemed extremely selfish of the woman. She must have known that there was fuck-all chance of the kids sitting right through the play without spoiling it for everyone else (especially as they children were clearly French and the play was in English) so she shouldn't have brought them along. If she couldn't find anyone to look after them for her she shouldn't have gone too. Seems to me that some people think that they're going to carry on having the exact same life that they had before they had kids and if anyone else doesn't like it they can lump it. I reckon people ought to realise that they are going to have to make sacrifices when they breed and not assume that having propagated the species gives them some divine right to piss everyone else.
Don't know what it teaches us about "kids these days" but it seemed to be something to do with what people are talking about and I thought I would mention it.

maannn I hate this kind of thing so much. PAY FOR A BABYSITTER. they come at like $4/hour.

i've been to 5-star restaurants (and shitty ones) where kids are whining and throwing fits, it's annoying and the parents are inconsiderate morons. also: do not allow kids under 6 into films ffs.

blubeat
31-10-2007, 07:07 PM
also: do not allow kids under 6 into films ffs.
I would rather not let anti-social people of any age in. My little boy is three and sat quietly and very still through The Simpsons movie and Ratatouille. The same could not be said of the teenagers sat a few rows behind us. One of them didn't *take* a call, he *made* a call!

Gavin
27-11-2007, 02:23 PM
Smoking ban vs. spanking ban (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14701492/detail.html)...

http://www.colors-of-leather.com/Images2/Books/Spanking%20Sex%20or%20Sadism%20by%20Hugh%20Jones%2 01965.jpg