Respect.....!

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Maybe we'll see him in a shell suit, a goatii and bling bling at the next Question Time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4595788.stm

[Damien]

This seems a lot more effectine that the stupid alarm topic. Target the problem with harsh penalitys. If yous kids are bullying and tourmenting people then the parents will be made to get a grip or else, if they still persist then bye bye house

[Derek S]

Another attention grabbing headline.

Betcha all the tough measures get watered down and challenged as being against their human rights and we get no-where near tackling the root causes.

[homealone]

David Cameron's view is much more realistic, in my opinion

"The real respect agenda must include long-term solutions to the causes of social breakdown, not just short-term sanctions and punishment."

Tony Bliar is doing his usual trick of trying to con us with a sound byte - remember "tough on crime & tough on the causes of crime"

When our society has broken down to the extent that gangs of youths phone the police & fire brigade, just so they can fire air rifles & throw stones at them, it will take more than a 'parenting academy' to sort out

Originally Posted by dezzo

Another attention grabbing headline.

Betcha all the tough measures get watered down and challenged as being against their human rights and we get no-where near tackling the root causes.

Well said.

You can bet Human Rights arguments are used dam fast to stop this happening.

[BBKing]

Man-of-the-people Dave 'Big C' Cameron writes at length in the grauniad...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comme...682921,00.html

He talks about 'social entrepreneurs', whatever they are (how do they differ from normal 'entrepreneurs' who the Tories have always bent over backwards to help shaft us?). I'm not sure why reducing regulation on business will stop kids graffitiing the street. Proper investment in housing might. Like most of Dave C's stuff it's Thatcherism thinly disguised as populist caring and sharing.

I note with hilarity the mention of truancy in the 'respect' agenda - Blair and co. have spent £1bn on truancy so far* and have made absolutely no difference, apart from wasting police time (which is an offence unless you're the Home Office) harassing children who have a legitimate reason to be out of school.

I confidently expect this charade of glib gimmicks, already announced programmes and Tony giving us his 'hard' look will make not an iota of difference, except that the prison population will continue to climb (already the highest in Europe - that's what tough penalties gets you) and shrill tabloid headlines without any substance will continue to dictate Home Office policy. Waste of space, the lot of them.

*http://education.guardian.co.uk/trua...563512,00.html

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Anyway how will they enforce 'parent camp' to 'teach' those parents who have troublesome/nuisance kids. are we going to be paying for their loss of earnings?

[Xaccers]

Why do I get the feeling Hazel "toy guns are bad" Blears is behind this?

[etccarmageddon]

how many times has Blair announced a clampdown on yobs etc?

I heard on the news yesterday a group of 30 yobs beat the crap out of a 60 year old man in Heald Green (nr Stockport).

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Damien

This seems a lot more effectine that the stupid alarm topic. Target the problem with harsh penalitys. If yous kids are bullying and tourmenting people then the parents will be made to get a grip or else, if they still persist then bye bye house

Begging your pardon, but if your objections in the 'stupid alarm topic' were that it unfairly targets the innocent, then how on earth can you support a measure that would see a family sent away due to the behaviour of just one of them? How is that fair on, for example, a well-behaved younger sister?

At least be consistent in what you're saying, eh?

all wind and p*ss

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Begging your pardon, but if your objections in the 'stupid alarm topic' were that it unfairly targets the innocent, then how on earth can you support a measure that would see a family sent away due to the behaviour of just one of them? How is that fair on, for example, a well-behaved younger sister?

At least be consistent in what you're saying, eh?

tbh I am not too keen on them being kicked out of a house but this would be last resort type stuff.

I think the parents have a collective responsiblity and that cannot be said of an age group.

Originally Posted by Damien

tbh I am not too keen on them being kicked out of a house but this would be last resort type stuff.

I think the parents have a collective responsiblity and that cannot be said of an age group.

we've got a 12 year old in our street he's on an asbo it hasn't stopped him smashing residents windows damaging cars abusing people etc etc.
and his parents can't stop him.
if the tenants association were to kick him and his family out no one in our street would shed a tear.
sometimes you've got to experience the aggro to realise kicking them out is the best policy.one rotten yob can ruin a street and make people lives a misery.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by dezzo

Another attention grabbing headline.

Betcha all the tough measures get watered down and challenged as being against their human rights and we get no-where near tackling the root causes.

Watered down to the point of non-existence and we will end up yet again with the people breaking the law etc having more rights than the people they are terrorising.

Originally Posted by Chris T

then how on earth can you support a measure that would see a family sent away due to the behaviour of just one of them? How is that fair on, for example, a well-behaved younger sister?

Quite right. The same with the truanting management. I know that mostly the issue there was parents not giving a stuff about their kids being out of school, but to punish the whole family (i.e. siblings etc.) for the sins of one child and/or the failings of a parent are hardly doing anything for families.

But it was a cheap way to get attention and joe average thought it was fair enough - since it wasn't going to affect him.

The same is true of all the wishy-washy ideas that the government puts forward for dealing with these social problems.

It would never occur to them to think that perhaps it is they who have created the social climate that gave rise to these problems in the first place...