New Plans Slammed

[Matthew]

Read the entire story online at NFH! (http://www.nfh.org.uk/news/index.php?category=all&id=277)

[Mistyeyeddreamer]

AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!! God save us from the bleeding heart do-gooders!!

What about the human rights of people to be able to enjoy their own homes in peace, to be able to walk the street without fear of abuse or assault from gangs of yobs?

I feel a rant coming on :o

Misty

[Matthew]

Misty, I knew you'd appreciate that news :P

I think it has the potential to be an effective/good idea personally and with some compromises/additions made it could well solve a lot of problems - I think there would need to be guidelines in place to prevent youngsters who have 'innocently' breached such a "curfew" from being penalised unfairly, but I suspect Local Police forces really do know where the 'troublemakers' are and who they are.

I can see where they're coming from in the HR angle.

For example, Article 11: Article 11: The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Association (http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/human_rights/part_4.php)

However, saying this though like in the News Article, the HRA '98 can be modified to 'suit', as per:


Such 'interference' is possible where there is either a basis in law, or where it is necessary in a democratic society (e.g. to pursue a legitimate claim, a pressing social need is fulfilled).

Also interference is possible where there are wider interests in the areas of public safety, national security, economic health of the country, crime/disorder prevention or to protect the health/morals/rights/freedoms of others.

SOURCE: NFH - Human Rights Help Sheet (http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/human_rights/part_5.php)

Be interesting to see what happens! :D

[tristar]

What a load of BLAB :angry:

Any reasonable responsible parent would have their children under 16, in by 9pm anyway. It would lead to lower teenage crime figures, less vandalism etc.

:baaa: :baaa: :baaa:

[Matthew]

Originally posted by tristar@Jul 18 2003, 1:44 PM
Any reasonable responsible parent would have their children under 16, in by 9pm anyway.
<devils advocate> :D

Is it fair to expect an almost 16 year old for instance to be in by 9pm? Especially if they are involved in legal, legitimate activities? Wouldn&#39;t a later time (e.g. 10pm) be fairer? :)

Makes me wonder too, will children/young people be expected to carry ID cards to prove their ages all the time if this was enforced? Thinking of the children that look older or younger as the case may be.

[tristar]

Two very good points Matthew

I&#39;m probably just an over-protective parent (it has been said in the past)

Didn&#39;t mean any offence by my comments :D

Tri :D

[Matthew]

Tri - absolutely no offence taken - just good, positive debate, nothing wrong in that&#33; :) :) You&#39;re entitled to your opinion too&#33; :D

Maybe if all parents were responsible like you obviously are, we wouldn&#39;t have youngsters roaming the streets at all hours eh.

I mean, how often do we drive or go through cities, towns, etc on our way to/from work, the shops, going out etc and see children aged from about 10-15 years old just hanging around? We&#39;re talking 10pm - midnight sort of times (even later sometimes) and seeing young people just milling about - I always think, where are the parents, do they care?

I suspect not :o

[Beth]

Originally posted by Matthew@Jul 18 2003, 2:35 PM

Makes me wonder too, will children/young people be expected to carry ID cards to prove their ages all the time if this was enforced? Thinking of the children that look older or younger as the case may be.
what is it you call them......?

oh yes...

jail bait&#33;

[Matthew]

:P :lol: