Police getting powerful enough to eviict people from their homes

Originally posted by soficrowpoor people are herded together and encouraged to turn on each other so the real culprits don't get nailed. So the poor - adults and kids alike - lash out at whoever is nearby and handy - when from a certain perspective, they should be heading across town to hold the real perpetrators of their misery accountable.

I and most of my friends grew up in poor areas, we lived with it. Didn't know any different, not that that was a bad thing. Had a loving mom and dad who whould do anything for us.

I never robbed anyone. Never broke into any houses. If I thought it would be a good idea to spit on the floor cus the lads from West Bromwich Albion football club did it on the pitch on a Saturday afternoon, my mom would give me a good belt round the head for that

Yeah, sure there was always a couple of bad lads, a clip round the ear from their moms always sorted it out though

Grew up. Got a good education, got a good job.

I did it. My friends did it. Hundred of thousands of other kids did it. Why can't this generation? Had nothing to do with where we were "herded". It might be the media's influence more than anything else, all the adverts for goods these days...The consumer culture that we live in.

Mind you, if I saw something on the telly and told my mom that I wanted it, she'd always tell me where to go!

Factory... can you recall the ones who did not make it in your old neighborhood? I am sure that some had hard heads and there were the ones your mom told you about to avoid. Do they have a right to live there? and if they don't where should they go?

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]

Blackthought,

If the parent fails to do it's job as a parent and maintain a level of control over the action of their kids, does that mean we should just let them get away with it?

[EDIT] And let them grow up to become anti-social degenerates.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Produkt]

There were "hard heads" (good term by the way!), but even they were approachable...Might be a bit mouthy in class, but they weren’t fighting the local constabulary.

Everybody who I knew turned out alright...No serial killers or anything.

Originally posted by BlackThoughtDo they have a right to live there? and if they don't where should they go?

I don't think anyone who has lived next to, or encountered these problem (problem being a big word) families and put up with the crap of them day after day, year after year can really dismiss this proposal.

If someone offered me a free house next to one of these families, I wouldn't take it.


[edit on 11/1/2006 by FactoryLad]

Originally posted by Produkt

If the parent fails to do it's job as a parent and maintain a level of control over the action of their kids, does that mean we should just let them get away with it?

...And let them grow up to become anti-social degenerates.

As opposed to socio-pathic CEO's and Presidents you mean?


Just couldn't resist the one-liner - the set-up was toooo perfect.

Ah yes, because the socio-path CEO's and President's are truly the one's raising our children. You give credit where credit is due. IMO, that would be the parent's.

Originally posted by FactoryLad
Tea? Is that a reference to that American myth that everyone in the UK stops at 3pm for cups of tea and cakes?

No, no, no, no, no! That never entered my mind. Actually I have a cup of Good Earth tea most afternoons. I was mostly trying to be funny.

That's how "anti-social behaviour" is viewed in the UK, it might have a different meaning over the pond.

I think the main meaning for it here is similar to unsociable, meaning to have a bit of an aversion for social activity. I hate being social, parties, get-togethers, heck, I hate going to the store. I'm nearly a misanthrope. So, forcing me to be social would be a great punishment indeed.

Thanks for the answers. It makes more sense now. We do have laws against everything that has been mentioned as anti-sicial behaviour, and have no need for additional control or punishment.

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThanks for the answers. It makes more sense now. We do have laws against everything that has been mentioned as anti-sicial behaviour, and have no need for additional control or punishment.

Spelling "behaviour" with a "u"? There's hope for you yet! Next on the list is "colour"....Sorry, I'm teasing now!

I think that if we all agreed on the fact that if aspects of government, social policy, modern parenting and the media were changed we wouldn't be having this conversation now!

The problem with "rich" kids is that they get so much money from their parents that they spend it on drugs. I went to a private school in New York for a year and it was rediculos. They were handed about $50 dollars a day or something. Some even developed coc aine problems.

That's why the parent's need to exercise more control and be more active in what their kids are doing. We can't just blame it all on the entertainment industry or politic's... if there are actually any kids who follow it lol

Produkt you could say that about anyone even the rich who hole up in gated community. Their children act a fool. How can you hold a rich kid accountable to the law when the money keeps them from a punishment that others get on a regular. look at Robert Downy Jr.
This just in!!!
"Becasue of the Bush daughters scrape with the law
about underage drinking. Little George got kicked out
the White house. Barb Bush Peeved"

LOL

We can't just blame it all on the entertainment industry or politic's

At last! Something we agree on!!!!
It's like video games being blamed for violence, I play alot of violent video games and I'm not really affected. So do my mates actually, although I really want to join the army when I'm older....

I ALMOST joined after playing americas army ... awsome awsome awsome game.

But then I thought about the other three time's I almost joined and decided not to again.

WHOA.

Check out this thread. It's about monitoring "antisocial behaviours" with street cameras and private security system cameras, ...and linking the info centrally?

ASBO



ASBO: AntiSocial Behaviour Orders.




[edit on 13-1-2006 by soficrow]

Soficrow, I've briefly touched upon this subject earlier in the thread;

It'll probably be extremely hard to evict such families. A lot of consideration will be taken and it will probably go to a crown court judge for a decision and that's after the extremely lengthly task of obtaining evidence has been completed.

ASBO's CRASBO's and ABC's are exactly the same, you can't dish them out without solid evidence of the persons behaviour.

It takes a lot of work to justify these measures. They are slapped on these people for a reason.

I've added my ten penniths worth on the CCTV matter on the ATSNN thread you've linked.

At the end of the day, I think there is a HUGE misunderstanding about the term "Anti-Social Behaviour". It seems to mean minor acts of behaviour and personal beliefs in the US were in the UK it takes on a completely different form, being a buzz word for habitual offenders.

Originally posted by soficrow
People keep telling me how out-of-control kids are these days. I always say, "Look at their role models. Like Cheney, Nixon, Halliburton, Enron. The way kids see it, anything goes if you can get away with it. So what else can we expect?"

Enron and Halliburton are kids' role models? Most kids have no idea what Enron and Halliburton are.

I tell you what, soficrow - you walk down to a corner in Miami or NYC and ask the kid with the colors and tats about Enron. Then ask the kids about eminem or 50 Cent.

Nice job of sliding in your own personal dislikes, tho.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by jsobecky]

We have similar laws here in the US regarding eviction of lawbreakers. It happens in many big cities that have large, subsidized public housing units. The occupant can be evicted for crimes like drug dealing or even drug possession. I think it's a great idea.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Police Can Barge in Unannounced

NEW YORK - Forget the ongoing privacy debate over U.S. government spying on telephone conversations--soon you may not have the right to tell cops to wait until you open your door.

In a case involving a private citizen and police authorities of the Midwestern state of Michigan, a team of civil rights lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court this week to challenge the police practice of storming into homes to look for whatever they want as evidence of a crime.

The case was brought before the Court last year by Booker Hudson, a resident of the industrial city of Detroit. Hudson says he was arrested by several police officers after they broke into his home without any warning.

www.commondreams.org...

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

They should be allowed to barge in. Seriously what they gunna say? Hey it's the police, hide all your guns and drugs and make a quick exit out the back door, we're comming in!

everyone is not a criminal until proven innocent ok there should be some rules. if they come in saying that in my house they would be sorely informed and might catch a lawsuit!!!