25% of 14 to 17 year old boys are criminals
Discussion
Following on from the previous topic of Birth Rates and social class.
A Home office study published today has found that 25% of boys aged 14-17 is classified as a serious or prolific offender.
So you think that large areas of Britain have been rendered uninhabitable wait until the current generation,weened on government benefits, start to breed.
A Home office study published today has found that 25% of boys aged 14-17 is classified as a serious or prolific offender.
So you think that large areas of Britain have been rendered uninhabitable wait until the current generation,weened on government benefits, start to breed.
It is on the front page of today's telegraph-and I can't post a link to their website because you need to have a password to read their articles.
To be classfied as a serious or prolific offender-they had to have committed 6 or more minor offences in the previous year. Or at least one more serious crime(such as assault or theft)
To be classfied as a serious or prolific offender-they had to have committed 6 or more minor offences in the previous year. Or at least one more serious crime(such as assault or theft)
Here's the article. I still find it impossible to believe. Perhaps I've led a sheltered lfe. 
25pc of youths are revealed to be criminals
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 26/01/2005)
One in four boys aged 14 to 17 has been classified as a serious or prolific offender by a Home Office study published yesterday.
Results from the first Crime and Justice survey of households in England and Wales found evidence of 1.7 million active teenage offenders.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, described the figures as ''appalling'', while emphasising that most of the offences would have been ''low level'', such as failing to pay bus or train fares.
However, to have qualified as a serious or prolific offender, those who replied to the self-reporting survey had to admit to six or more minor offences in the previous 12 months or to one crime from a list that included assault, theft or selling drugs.
Mr Clarke said: "Too many young people are engaged in low level offences. We have to drive down the idea that crime is acceptable to even a small proportion of people in that age range.''
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "Labour's complacent approach to youth crime is in danger of creating a whole new generation of criminals.
"Their indifference is illustrated by the fact that this Government does not even bother to record youth crime in its official statistics.''
The study suggested that there were an estimated 3.8 million active offenders overall, far more than the Government had previously acknowledged. Yet only one per cent of offences resulted in a court appearance.
Richard Garside, the director of the Crime and Society Foundation, said the research "challenges the reassuring myth that a small number of persistent offenders commit most crime''.
Publication of the survey coincided with the quarterly crime figures, which the Government said showed falls in burglary, vehicle theft and robbery. However, violent crime recorded by the police was up by six per cent for the three months to last September. Ministers said this reflected ''better reporting of low level thuggery''.
The picture was confused by the publication of the two sets of data. The Government says the crime survey is more ''comprehensive and authoritative", although it does not interview anyone under 16.
By both measures, overall crime fell: by 11 per cent, the survey said, and by six per cent according to the police.
However, while the survey indicated that violent crime was waning, police records showed an increase, largely fuelled by alcohol.
Mr Clarke acknowledged that violence remained a problem that he intended to get to grips with.
''We are building a massive problem for the future if we do not really hammer alcohol-related crime,'' he said.
The number of murders in England and Wales fell in the year for the first time since 1996, with 858 deaths at first recorded as homicide, a decline of two per cent when the cases of the serial murderer Harold Shipman were excluded. The Shipman murders were not recorded until last year.
Recorded sexual offences rose by 22 per cent but this was attributed to changes in the way offences were counted after major reform of sex offence laws.
Gun crime rose by five per cent, with the number of offences committed with replica firearms up by 48 per cent.
With crime certain to be a major issue at the general election, ministers emphasised that the risk of being a victim of crime was at its lowest for more than 20 years.
But Mr Davis said: "No amount of Government spin and selective reporting of the facts will fool the public.
"Overall recorded crime is up by 12 per cent since 1998. Violent crime has spiralled out of control and is still rising. Violent crime, gun crime, violence against the person and sex offences are all higher than this time last year."
He said: "The Government has failed to crack down on guns and drugs which fuel violent crime and at the same time is planning to extend pub opening hours."
29 October 2004: Blair widens attack on anti-social behaviour
Next story: Clarke likely to free 12 foreign terror suspects held without trial
25pc of youths are revealed to be criminals
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 26/01/2005)
One in four boys aged 14 to 17 has been classified as a serious or prolific offender by a Home Office study published yesterday.
Results from the first Crime and Justice survey of households in England and Wales found evidence of 1.7 million active teenage offenders.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, described the figures as ''appalling'', while emphasising that most of the offences would have been ''low level'', such as failing to pay bus or train fares.
However, to have qualified as a serious or prolific offender, those who replied to the self-reporting survey had to admit to six or more minor offences in the previous 12 months or to one crime from a list that included assault, theft or selling drugs.
Mr Clarke said: "Too many young people are engaged in low level offences. We have to drive down the idea that crime is acceptable to even a small proportion of people in that age range.''
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "Labour's complacent approach to youth crime is in danger of creating a whole new generation of criminals.
"Their indifference is illustrated by the fact that this Government does not even bother to record youth crime in its official statistics.''
The study suggested that there were an estimated 3.8 million active offenders overall, far more than the Government had previously acknowledged. Yet only one per cent of offences resulted in a court appearance.
Richard Garside, the director of the Crime and Society Foundation, said the research "challenges the reassuring myth that a small number of persistent offenders commit most crime''.
Publication of the survey coincided with the quarterly crime figures, which the Government said showed falls in burglary, vehicle theft and robbery. However, violent crime recorded by the police was up by six per cent for the three months to last September. Ministers said this reflected ''better reporting of low level thuggery''.
The picture was confused by the publication of the two sets of data. The Government says the crime survey is more ''comprehensive and authoritative", although it does not interview anyone under 16.
By both measures, overall crime fell: by 11 per cent, the survey said, and by six per cent according to the police.
However, while the survey indicated that violent crime was waning, police records showed an increase, largely fuelled by alcohol.
Mr Clarke acknowledged that violence remained a problem that he intended to get to grips with.
''We are building a massive problem for the future if we do not really hammer alcohol-related crime,'' he said.
The number of murders in England and Wales fell in the year for the first time since 1996, with 858 deaths at first recorded as homicide, a decline of two per cent when the cases of the serial murderer Harold Shipman were excluded. The Shipman murders were not recorded until last year.
Recorded sexual offences rose by 22 per cent but this was attributed to changes in the way offences were counted after major reform of sex offence laws.
Gun crime rose by five per cent, with the number of offences committed with replica firearms up by 48 per cent.
With crime certain to be a major issue at the general election, ministers emphasised that the risk of being a victim of crime was at its lowest for more than 20 years.
But Mr Davis said: "No amount of Government spin and selective reporting of the facts will fool the public.
"Overall recorded crime is up by 12 per cent since 1998. Violent crime has spiralled out of control and is still rising. Violent crime, gun crime, violence against the person and sex offences are all higher than this time last year."
He said: "The Government has failed to crack down on guns and drugs which fuel violent crime and at the same time is planning to extend pub opening hours."
29 October 2004: Blair widens attack on anti-social behaviour
Next story: Clarke likely to free 12 foreign terror suspects held without trial
In the link Bruciebabe posted Alan Travis in the Guardian said
"A prolific offender is defined as having committed six or more offences in the past year. The crimes can be as minor as not paying a bus fare, a play ground scuffle, or stealing sweets or lipstick from a shop, and as serious as burglary, car theft and drug dealing."
How one equate not paying a bus fare and a playground scuffle, with burglary,cartheft and drug dealing is beyond me.
So, by this definition, if, in a 12 month period of your adolescence, you got involved in 3 playgound scuffles, dodged the bus conductor a couple of times and dipped the pick'nmix in Woollies once you were a prolific offender.
Anyone here pleading not guilty?
"A prolific offender is defined as having committed six or more offences in the past year. The crimes can be as minor as not paying a bus fare, a play ground scuffle, or stealing sweets or lipstick from a shop, and as serious as burglary, car theft and drug dealing."
How one equate not paying a bus fare and a playground scuffle, with burglary,cartheft and drug dealing is beyond me.
So, by this definition, if, in a 12 month period of your adolescence, you got involved in 3 playgound scuffles, dodged the bus conductor a couple of times and dipped the pick'nmix in Woollies once you were a prolific offender.
Anyone here pleading not guilty? 
This is what happens when you bring up an entire generation under the premise that they can do what they damned well like and not expect any sort of punishment. They know all about their rights and nothing about their responsibilities. What worries me is what sort of state society will be in when, in ten years time, these teenagers are all hardened criminals.
JagLover said:
They won't all turn into criminals Mon-ami-My Brotherwent through a wild phase and he is now law abiding (reasonably-except ) and employed
But I am worried that the problem is getting worse with each succesive generation.
Actually I think it's part of being British. That anarchic, agressive culture that makes us famed for football hooliganism and creates the best soldiers in the world.
bruciebabe said:
They won't all turn into criminals Mon-ami-My Brotherwent through a wild phase and he is now law abiding (reasonably-except
But I am worried that the problem is getting worse with each succesive generation.
Actually I think it's part of being British. That anarchic, agressive culture that makes us famed for football hooliganism and creates the best soldiers in the world.
I've got a 14 year old son and I can honestly say that with one exception none of his friends have ever had any dealings with the law (that I know of).
They're just not trying are they? Typical lazy F
G kids, they can't even be arsed to get into trouble. 
JagLover said:
But I am worried that the problem is getting worse with each succesive generation.
I don't suspect it's changed much over the centuries. Boys will be boys.
On the other hand, with the whole 'gangsta' thing being currently considered 'cool' by 14 yr olds, I wonder how many said 'yes' even when they are totally law-abiding middle-class mummy's boys?
Forgot to say, fear of crime rather than crime itself is now high on tony's list to sort out. Fear of crime (so his focus groups tell him) is graffitti, noisy teenagers hanging around street corners, etc.
I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if this survey was some sort of govt spin to influence public opinion prior to some new nannying law being passed. Compulsary curfews and tagging for all 14-17 yr olds?
Or I am just too cynical?
I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if this survey was some sort of govt spin to influence public opinion prior to some new nannying law being passed. Compulsary curfews and tagging for all 14-17 yr olds?
Or I am just too cynical?
sparkythecat said:Exactly. This is just another load of scare mongering crap to whip up the hard of thinking into another frenzy. Kids will be kids and it has always been this way and while it isn't acceptable to adults there's absolutely bugger all you can do about it. Now if 25% of kids are going around shop lifting and mugging people then that's a different story but that isn't what is being said.
In the link Bruciebabe posted Alan Travis in the Guardian said
"A prolific offender is defined as having committed six or more offences in the past year. The crimes can be as minor as not paying a bus fare, a play ground scuffle, or stealing sweets or lipstick from a shop, and as serious as burglary, car theft and drug dealing."
How one equate not paying a bus fare and a playground scuffle, with burglary,cartheft and drug dealing is beyond me.
So, by this definition, if, in a 12 month period of your adolescence, you got involved in 3 playgound scuffles, dodged the bus conductor a couple of times and dipped the pick'nmix in Woollies once you were a prolific offender.
To put this in perspective, how many adults do you think are habitual criminals by the letter of the law? I'd say all of them... anyone on here not broken any speed limit in the last 12 months?
Mark
sccbishop said:
I would say that by their logic, 80% of adults are prolific offenders. Anyone here stick to the speed limits rigidly?
Why of course
..... Anybody here who in the period upto 21 didn't dodge a train/bus fare? The study was also based on a questionnare. So they all filled it in with their mates going "Yeah I stole tampons from boots, and set fire to then in Jasons bag."...just to sound hard...
sccbishop said:
I would say that by their logic, 80% of adults are prolific offenders. Anyone here stick to the speed limits rigidly?
It's been said before but ALL drivers are serial offenders. Even the nice Mrs Smith at No. 42 who has never had a parking ticket will commit some sort of offence that the CPS could interpret as careless or dangerous driving, forget speeding, eating, etc.
I am sure that the percentage of non drivers who would be prolific offenders would also be well above 80%
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff