New Anti-Social Behavious Proposals
Discussion
Just seeing the news about the potential to make it easier to remove nuisance neighbours from their home and move anti-social people on, it got me thinking of how long it has taken somebody to even mention it in Whitehall and to stand up and say that it shouldn't go on any longer. About bloody time if you ask me.
Your thoughts?
Combover
>> Edited by combover on Tuesday 10th January 08:28
Your thoughts?
Combover
>> Edited by combover on Tuesday 10th January 08:28
BBC said:
Blair unveils his 'respect' plans
Mr Blair set up a 'respect' taskforce last year
The public will be able to question police about efforts to curb nuisance behaviour and demand tougher action, under new government plans.
Tony Blair is unveiling an action plan of measures for his "respect" agenda.
It includes ensuring police, councils and other officials hold regular "face the people" sessions.
Mr Blair denied the plans were a "gimmick", saying they were part of moves to "take back control of their streets for the law-abiding majority".
And Home Secretary Charles Clarke said there would be an "explicit focus on changing the culture of society".
Mr Blair set up a "respect" task force last year and the plans are the first real fruits of its work.
It is an enormous challenge and it cannot be achieved with this government's usual mish-mash of gimmicks and spin.
The local scrutiny committees, whose work would be triggered by "community calls to action", would work in a similar way to Parliament's select committees.
They would have to examine the problems and report within a deadline.
The police and other agencies would have a duty to respond to the committees' findings.
Among other measures in the plan are:
More parenting courses
A "national parenting academy", to train social workers, clinical psychologists, community safety officers and youth justice workers about advising parents
Powers to close any property which is the focus for "persistent and serious nuisance" - such powers are already in place for crack houses
Possible new fixed penalty notices and injunctions against anti-social behaviour.
Downing Street says the action plan will involve seven departments. Sixteen ministers are announcing the plan in different parts of the country on Tuesday.
A No 10 spokesman said the plan would extend the government's efforts to crack down on disorder - and tackle the causes of crime.
"We know this is an issue which is at the top of the public's list of concerns and our approach of encouraging local agencies to implement measures developed nationally is one which is working," said the spokesman.
'Misery'
He said concern had fallen by twice the national average in areas where there had been a concentrated campaign to tackle the problem, including greater use of existing powers.
"This action plan focuses on the minority who won't adhere to common rules causing individuals and families misery while devastating local communities," added the spokesman.
"Anti-social behaviour hits the poorest communities worst and this plan will tackle the problems which many estates still face."
The Conservatives are suspicious of Mr Blair's pledges of crackdowns.
Tory leader David Cameron will on Tuesday underline what he says is the "real respect" agenda when he meets voluntary group leaders in London.
'Nanny state'
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said his party would support the government if it was serious about making communities safer and helping families.
But he warned: "It is an enormous challenge and it cannot be achieved with this government's usual mish-mash of gimmicks and spin.
"The proposal for a national parenting academy sounds like the worst sort of nanny state.
"While many people with young children could benefit from meeting and talking to other families, decisions about parenting are ultimately decisions for parents."
Nick Pearce, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the new action plan should pave the way for greater local control of policing.
The former Home Office adviser added: "The risk is that we it try to revive a 'golden age' of deference where youngsters mind their 'p's and 'q's rather than investing to tackle the problems that really matter in the most deprived communities."
I step in the right direction I suppose, though these proposals are more spin than substance and full of the usual meaningless cr*p such as 'Parenting academies'
The basic problem is that MP's, civil servants. Journalists and judges do not live anywhere near the areas where these scum make peoples lives a misery. Hence the rights of these 'deprived' people has taken precedence over what is good for the majority.
Tony Blair seems to be making some effort to confront this issue now though.
idiots said:
"The risk is that we it try to revive a 'golden age' of deference where youngsters mind their 'p's and 'q's rather than investing to tackle the problems that really matter in the most deprived communities."
Er, exactly what's wrong with youngsters minding their 'p's and 'q's ?????
allnighter said:
I would say hit these troublesome families where it hurts.Cancel their benefits till they put their house in order.Everytime a chav misbehaves his parent will pay the price, after all they let him roam free.
Totally agree with this. My argument is that you cannot educate these people as they just don't want to be educated so hit them in the wallet and watch them snap back ino line. Personally, I thik they need ejecting from council property if it gets beyond a joke. Sever all benefits and tag them...then watch the lazy b
s go and get a job. Combover
The thing is, there never was a "golden age" of good behaviour and deference. Dickens was a social commentator as well as a novelist and his books reflect some Victorian problems that are jsut as cureent today. there have always been thieves, vagabonds and ruffians - it's just now they are referred to with different soubriquets.
i totally agree that there should be punishment for bad behaviour, and the punishment should fit the crime. So, if reduction in feedoms, through curfews, tagging, even house arrest, may be appropriate. Loss of benefits should be an immediate and tangible sanction - why should the law-abiding pay for scumbags to doss about, having too much time on their hands in which to dabble in often petty criminality?
Make vandals clean up their own graffiti, refit the windows they've broken, and pay for them.
get them picking up litter, scraping chewing gum and dog shit from pavements. Sit them in high streets with shoe shine kits and make them clean shoes as part of a community service. (how biblical is that!?)
Humble them. make them realise that they are part of a wider society. teach them that meritocracy is how to move on in society, and that crimes against society are unacceptable.
And FFS, get rid of this pathetic celebrity culture, which pampers to the "I want it all, for nothing, and I ain't gonna work for it" attitude. Pumped upwits like Jordan etc. are a blight on society, and the media that hype them need reining in. (But I suppose at least Jordan works for a living).
i totally agree that there should be punishment for bad behaviour, and the punishment should fit the crime. So, if reduction in feedoms, through curfews, tagging, even house arrest, may be appropriate. Loss of benefits should be an immediate and tangible sanction - why should the law-abiding pay for scumbags to doss about, having too much time on their hands in which to dabble in often petty criminality?
Make vandals clean up their own graffiti, refit the windows they've broken, and pay for them.
get them picking up litter, scraping chewing gum and dog shit from pavements. Sit them in high streets with shoe shine kits and make them clean shoes as part of a community service. (how biblical is that!?)
Humble them. make them realise that they are part of a wider society. teach them that meritocracy is how to move on in society, and that crimes against society are unacceptable.
And FFS, get rid of this pathetic celebrity culture, which pampers to the "I want it all, for nothing, and I ain't gonna work for it" attitude. Pumped up
wits like Jordan etc. are a blight on society, and the media that hype them need reining in. (But I suppose at least Jordan works for a living). nubbin said:
The thing is, there never was a "golden age" of good behaviour and deference. Dickens was a social commentator as well as a novelist and his books reflect some Victorian problems that are jsut as cureent today. there have always been thieves, vagabonds and ruffians - it's just now they are referred to with different soubriquets.
What about 1900-60?
Look at the crime statistics
nubbin said:
I totally agree that there should be punishment for bad behaviour, and the punishment should fit the crime. So, if reduction in feedoms, through curfews, tagging, even house arrest, may be appropriate. Loss of benefits should be an immediate and tangible sanction - why should the law-abiding pay for scumbags to doss about, having too much time on their hands in which to dabble in often petty criminality?
Make vandals clean up their own graffiti, refit the windows they've broken, and pay for them.
get them picking up litter, scraping chewing gum and dog shit from pavements. Sit them in high streets with shoe shine kits and make them clean shoes as part of a community service. (how biblical is that!?)
Humble them. make them realise that they are part of a wider society. teach them that meritocracy is how to move on in society, and that crimes against society are unacceptable.
And FFS, get rid of this pathetic celebrity culture, which pampers to the "I want it all, for nothing, and I ain't gonna work for it" attitude. Pumped up
Mr Nail, meet Mr Head.
Gruffy
combover said:
I would say hit these troublesome families where it hurts.Cancel their benefits till they put their house in order.Everytime a chav misbehaves his parent will pay the price, after all they let him roam free.
Totally agree with this. My argument is that you cannot educate these people as they just don't want to be educated so hit them in the wallet and watch them snap back ino line. Personally, I thik they need ejecting from council property if it gets beyond a joke. Sever all benefits and tag them...then watch the lazy b
Combover
Agreed as well. However, a thought.....Where do they all go when they've been ejected from thier houses? Does that solve the problem, or just move it on elsewhere.
Jaglover said:
The thing is, there never was a "golden age" of good behaviour and deference. Dickens was a social commentator as well as a novelist and his books reflect some Victorian problems that are jsut as cureent today. there have always been thieves, vagabonds and ruffians - it's just now they are referred to with different soubriquets.
What about 1900-60?
Look at the crime statistics
Perhaps you could summarise them for me?
However, I'm sure "Acid-bath" Haigh, Christie, Crippen at al. don't exactly reflect a Utopian society during the dates you mention. I suspect it's more to do with reporting and stats gathering, rather than a genuine decline in criminality.
nubbin said:
Perhaps you could summarise them for me?
.
Sorry Nubbin didn't see this yesterday, I was busy.
The number of indictable offences per thousand of the population was 2.4 in 1900 and in 1997 89.1.
A massive increase, some of which may be accounted for by 'new' crimes and better reporting, but I think we can agree that something has gone wrong.
The rising trend began in 1954 (when the figure was 9.7)
It is of course a cliché that every generation moans about the present and harks back to a mythical golden age.
But what if such an age existed? What changed between 1950 and the present day? If we shrug our shoulders and accept the current situation as normal then we cannot tackle the problem.
The Telegraph has more details of the proposals.
As well as evicting people from council housing he is also proposing to evict them from houses they own. All such 'problem' neighbours would be housed in 'secure' council accommodation.
A good idea, but we will see what will become law and how it is implemented. Labour promises far more than it ever delivers.
As well as evicting people from council housing he is also proposing to evict them from houses they own. All such 'problem' neighbours would be housed in 'secure' council accommodation.
A good idea, but we will see what will become law and how it is implemented. Labour promises far more than it ever delivers.
Jaglover said:
The Telegraph has more details of the proposals.
As well as evicting people from council housing he is also proposing to evict them from houses they own. All such 'problem' neighbours would be housed in 'secure' council accommodation.
A good idea, but we will see what will become law and how it is implemented. Labour promises far more than it ever delivers.
Scares the hell out of me this one - so at the behest of some neighbours you can be forcibly removed from your own house! and placed in "secure council accommodation". Relocation into secure compounds without trail.... Germany 1930s anyone.
Jinx said:
The Telegraph has more details of the proposals.
As well as evicting people from council housing he is also proposing to evict them from houses they own. All such 'problem' neighbours would be housed in 'secure' council accommodation.
A good idea, but we will see what will become law and how it is implemented. Labour promises far more than it ever delivers.
Scares the hell out of me this one - so at the behest of some neighbours you can be forcibly removed from your own house! and placed in "secure council accommodation". Relocation into secure compounds without trail.... Germany 1930s anyone.
I imagine he put that in to seem non-discimanatory.
How many of these 'problem' neighbours, with their kids on ABSO's almost before they can walk, own their own home?
As long as it is reserved for serious anti-social behaviour I don't have a problem with it.
nubbin said:
The thing is, there never was a "golden age" of good behaviour and deference. Dickens was a social commentator as well as a novelist and his books reflect some Victorian problems that are jsut as cureent today. there have always been thieves, vagabonds and ruffians - it's just now they are referred to with different soubriquets.
i totally agree that there should be punishment for bad behaviour, and the punishment should fit the crime. So, if reduction in feedoms, through curfews, tagging, even house arrest, may be appropriate. Loss of benefits should be an immediate and tangible sanction - why should the law-abiding pay for scumbags to doss about, having too much time on their hands in which to dabble in often petty criminality?
Make vandals clean up their own graffiti, refit the windows they've broken, and pay for them.
get them picking up litter, scraping chewing gum and dog shit from pavements. Sit them in high streets with shoe shine kits and make them clean shoes as part of a community service. (how biblical is that!?)
Humble them. make them realise that they are part of a wider society. teach them that meritocracy is how to move on in society, and that crimes against society are unacceptable.
And FFS, get rid of this pathetic celebrity culture, which pampers to the "I want it all, for nothing, and I ain't gonna work for it" attitude. Pumped up
My first reaction was "great, he's bringing back the stocks". Nothing of the sort unfortunately. Real community service would be good, but the stocks would have the added benefit of disenfranchised victims being able to participate in the public humiliation. What did he propose though?
One thing is for sure, you can't make them or their parents "pay" in a monetary sense. They'll rob Peter to pay Plod. The parents are often as bad as the kids (Shameless is pretty well observed). Kick the parents out of their homes and they go where? He seemed to be suggesting a return to "sink estates". We used to have Australia for that sort of thing; in the @rse end of nowhere the feckless had to start pulling their weight or die. Sink estates don't work quite the same way - or at all in fact. Its a difficult problem that Blair had pledged to address, and its almost like he has just realised he'd not actually done anything yet.
I did like the tacit admission by Blair that respect begins with discipline - yes, he smacked his kids. It came out through a clenched "I'm going to get crucified by the PC brigade" smile, but it came out nevertheless.
I agree that community service is the way to go. Not a couple of hours kicking leaves about on a Sunday morning, real service that's visible to the community and doing real service for the community, as you suggest. Make them wear naff overalls with "I paying for my crimes" emblazoned on them, in pink, and make sure their community service is done in full view of their mates.
victormeldrew said:
Kick the parents out of their homes and they go where? He seemed to be suggesting a return to "sink estates". We used to have Australia for that sort of thing; in the @rse end of nowhere the feckless had to start pulling their weight or die.
I've read that he is proposing all the problem families be located together on a 'secure' estate with a high level of security. It meets the state requirement to provide housing for these scum and means that they cannot terrorise 'innocents' in their immediate area.
Jaglover said:
Kick the parents out of their homes and they go where? He seemed to be suggesting a return to "sink estates". We used to have Australia for that sort of thing; in the @rse end of nowhere the feckless had to start pulling their weight or die.
I've read that he is proposing all the problem families be located together on a 'secure' estate with a high level of security. It meets the state requirement to provide housing for these scum and means that they cannot terrorise 'innocents' in their immediate area.
How is that new? There are already estates and streets in local towns where the council ends up housing all their problem cases. More spin and BS from Tony. How does sticking all your problem cases in one hell-hole make the problem any better? Their off-spring will grow up in a place where thievery and fraud are rampant and view that as the norm. Their prospects will be poor ("Ah, Mr. Smith, so you come from XXXX estate - please close the door as you leave"
and nothing is magically fixed.Tuna said:Exactly. My wife works in a Council housing department, and what is described is what is referred to as sink estates. Tried and failed, and councils are actively trying to dismantle them.
Kick the parents out of their homes and they go where? He seemed to be suggesting a return to "sink estates". We used to have Australia for that sort of thing; in the @rse end of nowhere the feckless had to start pulling their weight or die.
I've read that he is proposing all the problem families be located together on a 'secure' estate with a high level of security. It meets the state requirement to provide housing for these scum and means that they cannot terrorise 'innocents' in their immediate area.
How is that new? There are already estates and streets in local towns where the council ends up housing all their problem cases. More spin and BS from Tony. How does sticking all your problem cases in one hell-hole make the problem any better? Their off-spring will grow up in a place where thievery and fraud are rampant and view that as the norm. Their prospects will be poor ("Ah, Mr. Smith, so you come from XXXX estate - please close the door as you leave"
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff