British Politics

[UFGN]

The police do have powers to stop this. Its called the power of arrest. Charge and trial can then follow.

Why have the number of prosecutions fallen despite a rise in violent crime and police having more powers then ever before? Why exactly? It is not acceptable to do away with the need to prove guilt just because it is expensive or hard sometimes. These are the most basic principles of British justice

If its only criminals that need to worry, why are they dispensing with the need to actually convict people?

Why can't you live in the real world instead of some fantasy world where it's all politically correct sweetness and light?

Prosecutions have fallen because the CPS are terrified off bringing charges against any minority, anyone under eighteen, anyone who isn't caught with the knife still sticking in the victim on camera witnessed by at least ten people ... and even with that evidence they're liable to get a judge who just lets them go or a sentence that only 40% ever gets served.

The need to prove guilt has always only been necessary for a conviction, the suspicion of criminal activity was and is sufficient for the police to stop and search ... but now police are terrified off stopping any minority, anyone under eighteen, anyone who isn't caught with the weapon in hand on camera witnessed by at least ten people ... and even then the paperwork will take a week, and they risk being sued for doing their job.

If you've done nothing wrong why would you be worried about being stopped and questioned by a policeman? I've been stopped a few times it didn't end my civil liberties, just show respect, stop, comply, move on. What's the issue?

It's the stripping away off all common sense policing by left wing elite idiots with no concept of the real world that is exactly the problem. In fifty years police have gone from being respected pillars of the community to figures of ridicule ... political correctness well done

Your continued attempt to protect knife wielding thugs under the guise of civil liberties is truly worrying. Maybe you should go visit the next stabbing victim's family and explain why the teenage knife-man has every right to wander the streets unchallenged - I'm sure they will see your side of things.

I don't have to ask the next stab victim's family, I can read the comments of Baroness Lawrence, who opposes this move.

Please dont sink to your usual infant school tactics. Try to be honest for once. Just for once. I'm not defending criminals, I am defending the principal of innocent until proven guilty. If you have a problem with that than its you who is deeply disturbing.

Why are you on about stop and search exactly?

Did I even mention stop and search?

Or is it a convenient straw man because its harder to address what I'm actually talking about, which is forcing unconvicted people to obey a curfew?

Ufgn
Firstly I sympathize with the knife problem and I understand the legal arguement side more than probably most on here.
But just to put a bit of spin on the not guilty until proven guilty legal argument
1 some months ago an australian here in NZ shot and killed 51 people he was caught smoking gun in hand numerous witnesses obviously.
This shit head is pleading not guilty believe it or not,something not uncommon to someone who survives carrying out such an attack
Roll in the legal fat cats wanting to get rich on such an event,under the camouflage of "every man deserves a fair and just hearing and is rightfully allowed legal advice and means to argue this legal representation".
Where I part company with the legal profession here is
1- the man is obviously guilty
2-he had already said he would represent himself before fat cat legals put their hand up Imo to line their pockets knowing it would be a lengthy trial
*Book deals
*Movie deals
*Guaranteed payment from government legal aid partially funded by taxes from the families affected.
Imo the accused in this case is just after a platform to further his vile hatred,and any properly performed legal arguement will give him a sustained or lengthened platform to do this.
So in short for the sake of legal overloading of systems and the cost of such systems on all society imo the law and legal profession and governments need to take a long look and make changes,I are not going to suggest what they look like but tying shit up in an already over worked system for fat cat lawers and out of touch judges probably ain't it.

Well, I'm not sure how any of that is actually relevant to a kid getting a proper trial if accused of being a criminal.

Simply because some criminals insist on a trial despite their guilt being obvious it absolutely does not mean that that is a reason to lessen the rights of a defendant.

Taking the case of a young person to trial will cost money. Gathering evidence against them will cost time and more money.

But to insinuate that that money shouldn't be spent, or to say that its "better to be safe than sorry" is to ignore some very important points

* That young person might be completely innocent and failure to thoroughly test the evidence in a proper court might result in an unjust outcome

* The police will see this as an easy cheap fix and I predict prosecutions will drop still further as these cheap charades of process and justice are used instead.

* The defendant's reputation and that of their family is at stake

Ugh
Can I ask a couple of questions only because your view interests me
1 do you trust police to do thorough investigation ?
2 to what level of crime do you think that robust investigation starts and stops?
3 do you think the legal profession keeps the police investigation long or short fall in line at sentencing time? And at what level of crime does that stop and start?
I know they are loaded questions but after a general thought I wont jump on the answers could ask 10 lawers same question and get differing answers depending on the level they work to

The police are required by law to investigate each crime where possible. Do I trust them to do a thorough investigation? That depends on the circumstances. But do I implicitly trust them to do a thorough investigation by default? No.

This is precisely why a crown court trial is important. Firstly the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers will look at the evidence again, then the defence lawyer will see it and, (this next bit is crucial,) demand that evidence collected by the police that might HELP his client is disclosed.

Finally a professional judge will hear the case and a jury will convict or not.

In a magistrate court under civil law, all that is required is that three citizens whove done a course are convinced "on the balance of probabilities" that this order, amounting to restrictions on liberty, is justified.

Not good enough.

I think the legal system has many, many flaws but none of them are the fault of thr accused, or the victim of course.

[UFGN]

UFGN ..........

They are saying they want to make kids hanging out on the streets at night, go home.

Martial law curfews do the exact same thing as does the illegal gathering law, if London was in uprising or say for example the LA riots, the Gov't has within their power to cast a curfew on the populace while there is civil unrest.

Yes, but this is not the same thing. Under martial law nobody is being singled out. There is no stigma involved for any individual. Also martial law and similar is passed by a slightly higher authority than a magistrate.... ie Parliament

This is not about taking people to court and locking them up, its about anti-social behaviour spiralling out of control in instances where the police are not there to protect the public.

It is about taking them to court. And its about imposing curfews on individuals so in a way, it is about locking them up

[VCC]

The police do have powers to stop this. Its called the power of arrest. Charge and trial can then follow.

Why have the number of prosecutions fallen despite a rise in violent crime and police having more powers then ever before? Why exactly? It is not acceptable to do away with the need to prove guilt just because it is expensive or hard sometimes. These are the most basic principles of British justice

If its only criminals that need to worry, why are they dispensing with the need to actually convict people?

Why can't you live in the real world instead of some fantasy world where it's all politically correct sweetness and light?

Prosecutions have fallen because the CPS are terrified off bringing charges against any minority, anyone under eighteen, anyone who isn't caught with the knife still sticking in the victim on camera witnessed by at least ten people ... and even with that evidence they're liable to get a judge who just lets them go or a sentence that only 40% ever gets served.

The need to prove guilt has always only been necessary for a conviction, the suspicion of criminal activity was and is sufficient for the police to stop and search ... but now police are terrified off stopping any minority, anyone under eighteen, anyone who isn't caught with the weapon in hand on camera witnessed by at least ten people ... and even then the paperwork will take a week, and they risk being sued for doing their job.

If you've done nothing wrong why would you be worried about being stopped and questioned by a policeman? I've been stopped a few times it didn't end my civil liberties, just show respect, stop, comply, move on. What's the issue?

It's the stripping away off all common sense policing by left wing elite idiots with no concept of the real world that is exactly the problem. In fifty years police have gone from being respected pillars of the community to figures of ridicule ... political correctness well done

Your continued attempt to protect knife wielding thugs under the guise of civil liberties is truly worrying. Maybe you should go visit the next stabbing victim's family and explain why the teenage knife-man has every right to wander the streets unchallenged - I'm sure they will see your side of things.

I don't have to ask the next stab victim's family, I can read the comments of Baroness Lawrence, who opposes this move.

Please dont sink to your usual infant school tactics. Try to be honest for once. Just for once. I'm not defending criminals, I am defending the principal of innocent until proven guilty. If you have a problem with that than its you who is deeply disturbing.

Why are you on about stop and search exactly?

Did I even mention stop and search?

Or is it a convenient straw man because its harder to address what I'm actually talking about, which is forcing unconvicted people to obey a curfew?

Ufgn
Firstly I sympathize with the knife problem and I understand the legal arguement side more than probably most on here.
But just to put a bit of spin on the not guilty until proven guilty legal argument
1 some months ago an australian here in NZ shot and killed 51 people he was caught smoking gun in hand numerous witnesses obviously.
This shit head is pleading not guilty believe it or not,something not uncommon to someone who survives carrying out such an attack
Roll in the legal fat cats wanting to get rich on such an event,under the camouflage of "every man deserves a fair and just hearing and is rightfully allowed legal advice and means to argue this legal representation".
Where I part company with the legal profession here is
1- the man is obviously guilty
2-he had already said he would represent himself before fat cat legals put their hand up Imo to line their pockets knowing it would be a lengthy trial
*Book deals
*Movie deals
*Guaranteed payment from government legal aid partially funded by taxes from the families affected.
Imo the accused in this case is just after a platform to further his vile hatred,and any properly performed legal arguement will give him a sustained or lengthened platform to do this.
So in short for the sake of legal overloading of systems and the cost of such systems on all society imo the law and legal profession and governments need to take a long look and make changes,I are not going to suggest what they look like but tying shit up in an already over worked system for fat cat lawers and out of touch judges probably ain't it.

Well, I'm not sure how any of that is actually relevant to a kid getting a proper trial if accused of being a criminal.

Simply because some criminals insist on a trial despite their guilt being obvious it absolutely does not mean that that is a reason to lessen the rights of a defendant.

Taking the case of a young person to trial will cost money. Gathering evidence against them will cost time and more money.

But to insinuate that that money shouldn't be spent, or to say that its "better to be safe than sorry" is to ignore some very important points

* That young person might be completely innocent and failure to thoroughly test the evidence in a proper court might result in an unjust outcome

* The police will see this as an easy cheap fix and I predict prosecutions will drop still further as these cheap charades of process and justice are used instead.

* The defendant's reputation and that of their family is at stake

Ugh
Can I ask a couple of questions only because your view interests me
1 do you trust police to do thorough investigation ?
2 to what level of crime do you think that robust investigation starts and stops?
3 do you think the legal profession keeps the police investigation long or short fall in line at sentencing time? And at what level of crime does that stop and start?
I know they are loaded questions but after a general thought I wont jump on the answers could ask 10 lawers same question and get differing answers depending on the level they work to

The police are required by law to investigate each crime where possible. Do I trust them to do a thorough investigation? That depends on the circumstances. But do I implicitly trust them to do a thorough investigation by default? No.

This is precisely why a crown court trial is important. Firstly the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers will look at the evidence again, then the defence lawyer will see it and, (this next bit is crucial,) demand that evidence collected by the police that might HELP his client is disclosed.

Finally a professional judge will hear the case and a jury will convict or not.

In a magistrate court under civil law, all that is required is that three citizens whove done a course are convinced "on the balance of probabilities" that this order, amounting to restrictions on liberty, is justified.

Not good enough.

I think the legal system has many, many flaws but none of them are the fault of thr accused, or the victim of course.

Got to love the law and its systems
Thanks UFGN appreciate the comments

[EliteKiller]

Let's take a step back from the extreme and look at the reality:

There is an issue with out of control youths armed with knives creating a gang culture in major cities. Don't think anyone on here is denying the problem and we can all see how that escalates into the lawless 'wild-west' you now see in some US cities.

UFGN is turning this into some major civil liberties issue, which it simply isn't, where has anyone said that martial law is being imposed? where has the right to a 'day in court' been denied? what are the civil liberties under threat? Defending civil liberties particularly the right of innocent until proven guilt is a fundemental tenant of the legal system, but so is protecting the public. The two can work hand in hand.

What is being suggested is that the police get the power to stop and search individuals who they deem suspicious, a 14 year old running around the streets at midnight? how is that not suspicious. What is further being suggested is that if the individual cannot justify why he/she is out at such a late hour then the police will approach the parents (like they care) and ultimately can impose a curfew order. Not being found 'guilty' just being managed for the good of the general public (and hopefully the child)

The whole purpose of this action is to make the streets safer for the 99% of law abiding citizens, that after all is the role of the police.

If an individual so dealt with wants their day in court then they get it - guilty until proven innocent? - no not at all just managed under licence for the protection of the general public, exactly as happens to all offenders under existing UK law ... are all criminals allowed to roam free subject to their day in court? of course not if that's deemed not in the public interest they are held in custody or released under conditions, this is nothing new so stop making it into a drama, it's still not - guilty until proven innocent - just reasonable precautions for the greater good.

It's all very well to scream 'civil liberties' but when people are actually dying there comes a point when actions must be taken ... rounding up armed juvenile toerags roaming the streets in packs, that's a bloody good start ... bring it on.

The PC mob are happy to scream foul, yet it's always the areas that they control that have the most problems ... just look at the US and pray we don't end up going down the same route ... fail to plan, plan to fail ... let the gangs run free and you end up with police in flak jackets, no go areas, and cities where nobody wants to live .... do we really want all that under the guise of 'civil liberties' ....

[UFGN]

Let's take a step back from the extreme and look at the reality:

There is an issue with out of control youths armed with knives creating a gang culture in major cities. Don't think anyone on here is denying the problem and we can all see how that escalates into the lawless 'wild-west' you now see in some US cities.

UFGN is turning this into some major civil liberties issue, which it simply isn't, where has anyone said that martial law is being imposed? where has the right to a 'day in court' been denied? what are the civil liberties under threat? Defending civil liberties particularly the right of innocent until proven guilt is a fundemental tenant of the legal system, but so is protecting the public. The two can work hand in hand.

What is being suggested is that the police get the power to stop and search individuals who they deem suspicious, a 14 year old running around the streets at midnight? how is that not suspicious. What is further being suggested is that if the individual cannot justify why he/she is out at such a late hour then the police will approach the parents (like they care) and ultimately can impose a curfew order. Not being found 'guilty' just being managed for the good of the general public (and hopefully the child)

The whole purpose of this action is to make the streets safer for the 99% of law abiding citizens, that after all is the role of the police.

If an individual so dealt with wants their day in court then they get it - guilty until proven innocent? - no not at all just managed under licence for the protection of the general public, exactly as happens to all offenders under existing UK law ... are all criminals allowed to roam free subject to their day in court? of course not if that's deemed not in the public interest they are held in custody or released under conditions, this is nothing new so stop making it into a drama, it's still not - guilty until proven innocent - just reasonable precautions for the greater good.

It's all very well to scream 'civil liberties' but when people are actually dying there comes a point when actions must be taken ... rounding up armed juvenile toerags roaming the streets in packs, that's a bloody good start ... bring it on.

The PC mob are happy to scream foul, yet it's always the areas that they control that have the most problems ... just look at the US and pray we don't end up going down the same route ... fail to plan, plan to fail ... let the gangs run free and you end up with police in flak jackets, no go areas, and cities where nobody wants to live .... do we really want all that under the guise of 'civil liberties' ....

This is NOTHING TO DO WITH STOP AND SEARCH, FOR THE SECOND TIME NOW.

It is about imposing curfews on people who have not been convicted of anything, on flimsy evidence in front of magistrates, and even then, using the civil burden of proof to impose what is effectively a criminal sanction.

Instead, ARREST. PROSECUTE.

By the way.... the bold bit. Your mask slipped. You claim to support the concept of innocent until proven guilty then compare young peole facing these orders to criminals, when they are not facing criminal charges.

[EliteKiller]

This is NOTHING TO DO WITH STOP AND SEARCH, FOR THE SECOND TIME NOW.

It is about imposing curfews on people who have not been convicted of anything, on flimsy evidence in front of magistrates, and even then, using the civil burden of proof to impose what is effectively a criminal sanction.

Instead, ARREST. PROSECUTE.

By the way.... the bold bit. Your mask slipped. You claim to support the concept of innocent until proven guilty then compare young peole facing these orders to criminals, when they are not facing criminal charges.

If the police are stopping and searching these youngsters how is it nothing to do with stop and search? are the kids just volunteering for curfews?

Divorcing the real world into some hypothetical scenario isn't helping, of course this has everything to do with stop and search ... this is the real world not some social experiment classroom.

It's about identifying youngsters who are outside of parental or state control, who are clearly being disruptive towards the 99% of decent society, and who are simply not being dealt with ....

You seem to have no understanding of UK law ... the police already have the power to hold people on suspicion - 24 hours with no charges, that can be extended to 96 hours if reasonable suspicion can be demonstrated or 14 days under the terrorism act all without charges.

The police (CPS) can also apply for a court order limiting movement, banning contact, or indeed holding someone in custody prior to that person receiving his/her day in court ... despite your protestations that is already the law of the land.

You want to change the law so that murders, rapists, knife wielding thugs can't be detained until proven guilty? is that your position? or do you just want to change the law for your personal selection? What is your master-plan?

Placing a curfew on out of control youngsters is a perfectly reasonable action to protect the public, if someone is accidental caught up in the net they will get their day in court, and why would a 10-6 curfew impact a law abiding school attending child anyway? surely they're at home in bed ...

I don't have a "Mask" I call it as I see it - you on the other hand spout the politically correct nonsense that has led to these issues in the first place, stop hiding behind laws you clearly don't understated, and instead try and offer solutions ...

Just how would you get knife wielding juveniles of the street, a nice hug and a load of free stuff? ......

[UFGN]

I'm going to stop discussing this with you and I'll explain why

You are refusing to accept that people facing these curfews could be entirely innocent.

You continue to deliberately not draw a distinction between a criminal suspect who has been placed on bail or under investigation, pending criminal law proceedings, ..... and someone who is not even accused of a crime and will never have the benefit of a trial under criminal law to determine their right to not be placed under curfew. They will NOT get their day in court.

It is you who doesn't understand the law if you think appearing before magistrates and them using the Civil test of evidence constitutes a "day in court"

As usual, youve got this tiresome political agenda, bashing the left, and hilariously calling defending the most basic principles of British justice, "political correctness".

[EliteKiller]

I'm going to stop discussing this with you and I'll explain why

You are refusing to accept that people facing these curfews could be entirely innocent.

You continue to deliberately not draw a distinction between a criminal suspect who has been placed on bail or under investigation, pending criminal law proceedings, ..... and someone who is not even accused of a crime and will never have the benefit of a trial under criminal law to determine their right to not be placed under curfew. They will NOT get their day in court.

It is you who doesn't understand the law if you think appearing before magistrates and them using the Civil test of evidence constitutes a "day in court"

As usual, youve got this tiresome political agenda, bashing the left, and hilariously calling defending the most basic principles of British justice, "political correctness".

Agree to not bother wasting time on you .... three times I asked you for your alternate solutions ... three times you responded with the same bullshit misunderstood legal nonsense but made ZERO attempts to offer constructive solutions for a very obvious problem ...

It's so easy to moan and whinge about other people's attempts to fix issues, whilst at the same time coming up with nothing yourself.

Either come up with solutions or stay out of the way ... your comments add zero to genuine attempts at making the majorities life better ... hope that la la land thinking gives you a nice politically correct fuzzy feeling ... best let the real world deal with real world problems.

[Arsenal Tone]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

[Phil71]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

When I was growing up in the 70s we had f**k all. Most people I knew had f**k all. We also had no youth clubs or youth services.

There were untold people living at a level that makes poor people today look fairly well off.

This situation today is primarily down to bad parenting. Generation after generation of it. Young men living a criminal low life lifestyle, going around shagging as many women as they can and knocking out kids into a shit, fatherless household where the mothers let the kids turn feral.

This is 100% the fault of those people. The situation their children are in is 100% their fault.

On top of that our criminal justice system has over the past 40 years or so been usurped by people who have removed the natural ways of dealing with criminals. They have created an environment where instead of being punished, and being allowed to take stock of their lives, criminals are wrapped in cotton wool, with every fall they take being cushioned for them.

[EliteKiller]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

You make valid arguments, public services including the police need to be supported to deal with these issues ...

Here's a question for you - like most people my age I grew up in a working parents family, indeed my dad was away for days at a time leaving just mum to look after the kids and hold down a full time job. However I had a strict be-home-by rule, which whether mum was home or not never got broken (well almost never and there were consequences when it happened) all my friends had similar rules, and all were working class kids ... there were very few police, no social services, no school clubs, no hired halls ... we played at the park or in the local woods. We respected our parents and did as we were told, sure we could be 'naughty' but knives, assaults, children's gangs ... almost unheard off.

and no I wasn't born and bred in Surrey I lived on Seven Sisters Road near the cigarette bridge, for those old enough

So what's gone so badly wrong with today's society? why do kids today need "systematic support" did we ever need that?

[Nuggets]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

You make valid arguments, public services including the police need to be supported to deal with these issues ...

Here's a question for you - like most people my age I grew up in a working parents family, indeed my dad was away for days at a time leaving just mum to look after the kids and hold down a full time job. However I had a strict be-home-by rule, which whether mum was home or not never got broken (well almost never and there were consequences when it happened) all my friends had similar rules, and all were working class kids ... there were very few police, no social services, no school clubs, no hired halls ... we played at the park or in the local woods. We respected our parents and did as we were told, sure we could be 'naughty' but knives, assaults, children's gangs ... almost unheard off.

and no I wasn't born and bred in Surrey I lived on Seven Sisters Road near the cigarette bridge, for those old enough

So what's gone so badly wrong with today's society? why do kids today need "systematic support" did we ever need that?

It's a different value system now, another problem is the so called integration experiment.....its ain't working, different cultures bring different norms. This is only going to get worse, sadly a certain politician was right, but nobody wanted to listen to him.

[Callum]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

Great post. The Tories have cut public services for almost a decade now and then people wonder why we've an issue with crime in the UK. It's a symptom of austerity.

[StLGooner]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

Sounding more like America everyday, you guys are on your way. Congrats!

[Arsenal Tone]

Why are kids on the street at night though?

Cuts to youth services. Cuts to budgets for schools to run after school clubs. Cuts to budgets means costs of hiring halls to run clubs etc have increased to cover costs

Parents often working extra shifts cos they need the money since benefits have been cut and so can't be there to ensure kids are in

Kids who are out because what happens at home isn't nice but aren't put in care because budgets have been cut so much that the threshold for going into care is higher than in the past.

I have seen examples of all of these. The problem isn't just 'lazy parents' or 'bad parenting'. The problem is a systematic destruction of all support for any young person who is struggling.

It isn't just the young, either. Its all vulnerable people. Probably why there is a need to increase prison places. Its the elderley next, they've already said about increasing the retirement age. They'll get in despite this likely appearing in their manifesto because people are blinded by promises of brexit which will solve none of the real problems the public are facing - only proper investment in public services will provide that.

You make valid arguments, public services including the police need to be supported to deal with these issues ...

Here's a question for you - like most people my age I grew up in a working parents family, indeed my dad was away for days at a time leaving just mum to look after the kids and hold down a full time job. However I had a strict be-home-by rule, which whether mum was home or not never got broken (well almost never and there were consequences when it happened) all my friends had similar rules, and all were working class kids ... there were very few police, no social services, no school clubs, no hired halls ... we played at the park or in the local woods. We respected our parents and did as we were told, sure we could be 'naughty' but knives, assaults, children's gangs ... almost unheard off.

and no I wasn't born and bred in Surrey I lived on Seven Sisters Road near the cigarette bridge, for those old enough

So what's gone so badly wrong with today's society? why do kids today need "systematic support" did we ever need that?

1 your dad might have been away but your mum was there when you got home. Nowadays your mum would be out working.

2 I used to play football on my school field until it got dark. That field which had a crappy fence we used to climb over/through now has a 7' steel fence and the policevare called if anyone climbs it.

3 the same sh!t happened back then just not in our circles. Everybody says 'it never happened in my day' but it did.

4 the support was in place, youth clubs did exist when we were kids (i'm in my 40s) but I didn't attend them. They were places where the more vulnerable kids went (and I classify violent thugs as vulnerable btw)

5 by systematic support I mean youth clubs and family centres just as places to turn up for a chat. They can then signpost to other support. The final step being social workers. That support has always been around, I (and from your post, probably yourself) are just lucky enough not to have needed to use them.

IMO we should be becoming more civilised as a society and putting in more support. Not taking away all that support and then locking people up when they turn to illegal activities such as gangs and drugs in an attempt to get some sort of help!