On 09/08/2011 17:39, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I appreciate what you're saying, Kay but Harry's remark was not
inclined towards working for the benefit of the community as a whole,
but more to hoping he could fool the trouble into becoming someone
else's problem. If there's a problem area, all the people in that
street, or on that estate, working *together* may produce a result.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack" won't do it. AIUI, there are areas where
crime has been pretty bad but where determined residents have managed
to clean it up and get their lives back in their own hands again.

But have they got rid of the crime or merely displaced it? Changing the
subject - we have a problem (as most places do) of where do older teenagers
go when they want to get together with their mates? They don't want to be
sitting under the eye of their parents - and, indeed, parents, especially
those without large houses, don't really want half a dozen noisy young males
in the house. So residents complain, and they get displaced from Morrisons
car park - but they haven't decided to stay at home, instead they've moved
to the field opposite the sheltered bungalows.

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-10 10:39:20 +0100, Kay said:




On 09/08/2011 17:39, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I appreciate what you're saying, Kay but Harry's remark was not
inclined towards working for the benefit of the community as a whole,
but more to hoping he could fool the trouble into becoming someone
else's problem. If there's a problem area, all the people in that
street, or on that estate, working *together* may produce a result.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack" won't do it. AIUI, there are areas where
crime has been pretty bad but where determined residents have managed
to clean it up and get their lives back in their own hands again.

But have they got rid of the crime or merely displaced it? Changing the
subject - we have a problem (as most places do) of where do older
teenagers
go when they want to get together with their mates? They don't want to be
sitting under the eye of their parents - and, indeed, parents, especially
those without large houses, don't really want half a dozen noisy young
males
in the house. So residents complain, and they get displaced from
Morrisons
car park - but they haven't decided to stay at home, instead they've
moved
to the field opposite the sheltered bungalows.

There are so many underlying problems leading to this sort of behaviour
that at present, I think people can only tackle what affects *them*. The
wider picture and - perhaps - a solution may then start to emerge. But
the first step seems to be to show people like Baz's criminal that
criminal acts won't be tolerated by anyone in that
street/estate/community.

I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do the
time, don't do the crime". As to what is done about youths who kicked
around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs used to
be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly, parents
should always know where thir children are, who they're with and what time
they are expected home. And secondly, children have to learn their place
on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the excuse is, does not give
them the right to be a damned nuisance to others. Perhaps *their* parents
have to get together and organise themselves and their children into areas
where they can enjoy each other's company without upsettinig neighbours.
I know this sounds simplistic and perhaps, idealistic but until parents do
start to demonstrate concern, interest and that actions have consequences,
why should their children think otherwise? I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them. We can all only do
that in our own small way, starting with ensuring those who cause nuisance
or crime are dealt with.
--
Sacha


With so many marriages, if they bother to get married in the first place,
breaking up and couples flitting from couple to couple, how do you expect
the 'Family Home' to be a Unit? Brothers and Sisters might not even know
which 'Father' is which.

As a family which has stuck together for over 54 years, I still have the
same wife, and all of the children, all four of them, have the same Mother
and Father, I am sometimes not at all amazed that the 'Family Unit' has gone
out of the window.

How many readers of this newsgroup have the same partner they started out
with over 30 years ago?

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

'Mike' wrote:
How many readers of this newsgroup have the same partner they started out
with over 30 years ago?

I'll have to hold my hand up and admit that my 'boyfriend' from primary
school has a location totally unknown to me ...

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-10 10:39:20 +0100, Kay said:




On 09/08/2011 17:39, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I appreciate what you're saying, Kay but Harry's remark was not
inclined towards working for the benefit of the community as a whole,
but more to hoping he could fool the trouble into becoming someone
else's problem. If there's a problem area, all the people in that
street, or on that estate, working *together* may produce a result.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack" won't do it. AIUI, there are areas where
crime has been pretty bad but where determined residents have managed
to clean it up and get their lives back in their own hands again.

But have they got rid of the crime or merely displaced it? Changing the
subject - we have a problem (as most places do) of where do older
teenagers
go when they want to get together with their mates? They don't want to
be
sitting under the eye of their parents - and, indeed, parents,
especially
those without large houses, don't really want half a dozen noisy young
males
in the house. So residents complain, and they get displaced from
Morrisons
car park - but they haven't decided to stay at home, instead they've
moved
to the field opposite the sheltered bungalows.

There are so many underlying problems leading to this sort of behaviour
that at present, I think people can only tackle what affects *them*. The
wider picture and - perhaps - a solution may then start to emerge. But
the first step seems to be to show people like Baz's criminal that
criminal acts won't be tolerated by anyone in that
street/estate/community.

I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do the
time, don't do the crime". As to what is done about youths who kicked
around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs used to
be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly, parents
should always know where thir children are, who they're with and what
time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to learn their
place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the excuse is, does not
give them the right to be a damned nuisance to others. Perhaps *their*
parents have to get together and organise themselves and their children
into areas where they can enjoy each other's company without upsettinig
neighbours. I know this sounds simplistic and perhaps, idealistic but
until parents do start to demonstrate concern, interest and that actions
have consequences, why should their children think otherwise? I'm
talking about a return to basic parenting where every family has to take
responsibility for how children are raised and for teaching them how to
live within the wider world without being a pain to everyone around them.
We can all only do that in our own small way, starting with ensuring
those who cause nuisance or crime are dealt with.
--
Sacha


With so many marriages, if they bother to get married in the first place,
breaking up and couples flitting from couple to couple, how do you expect
the 'Family Home' to be a Unit? Brothers and Sisters might not even know
which 'Father' is which.

As a family which has stuck together for over 54 years, I still have the
same wife, and all of the children, all four of them, have the same Mother
and Father, I am sometimes not at all amazed that the 'Family Unit' has
gone out of the window.

How many readers of this newsgroup have the same partner they started out
with over 30 years ago?

Mike

--


Governments have been trying to destroy the family unit for years now. As
you reap...

http://www.2012theawakening.com/?cat=87

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20...re_fatherl.php







...................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

...................................

On 10/08/2011 12:01, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do
the time, don't do the crime".

One-third of young men born in 1953 had acquired a conviction for a
relatively serious crime before the age of 30 (and we're not talking driving
offences here). But two-thirds of convictions were acquired by the same 6%
of offenders.

So the trick is how to identify the 6% of the 30% and deal with them
effectively, and not take action that will turn the 94% into unemployable
ex-cons rather than useful contributing members of society..

As to what is done about youths who
kicked around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs
used to be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

And those that exist are having their funding reduced.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly,
parents should always know where thir children are, who they're with
and what time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to
learn their place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the
excuse is, does not give them the right to be a damned nuisance to
others.

It seems to me that worthy ideals of giving our children learning
opportunities, coupled with probably over-exaggerated fears of paedophilia
and rather more justified fears of traffic, has led to a generation which
has lost the ability to cope with boredom. Entertainment has to be provided
by someone else.

Also, we have lost our tolerance for children. When I was being brought up,
the accepted idea was that you did most things as a family, and children
were expected to behave quietly in other people's houses. Then we moved into
an era when it became expected that children were not included in an
invitation, and you found a babysitter. So the need for children to behave
nicely lessened.

I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them.

We are are more fragmented and mobile society - we no longer have the role
models. The first baby I ever held in my arms was my own. You can see all
around you that many people lack parenting skills - parents themselves need
help.

"Kay" wrote in message
...



On 10/08/2011 12:01, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do
the time, don't do the crime".

One-third of young men born in 1953 had acquired a conviction for a
relatively serious crime before the age of 30 (and we're not talking
driving
offences here). But two-thirds of convictions were acquired by the same 6%
of offenders.

So the trick is how to identify the 6% of the 30% and deal with them
effectively, and not take action that will turn the 94% into unemployable
ex-cons rather than useful contributing members of society..

As to what is done about youths who
kicked around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs
used to be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

And those that exist are having their funding reduced.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly,
parents should always know where thir children are, who they're with
and what time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to
learn their place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the
excuse is, does not give them the right to be a damned nuisance to
others.

It seems to me that worthy ideals of giving our children learning
opportunities, coupled with probably over-exaggerated fears of paedophilia
and rather more justified fears of traffic, has led to a generation which
has lost the ability to cope with boredom. Entertainment has to be
provided
by someone else.

Also, we have lost our tolerance for children. When I was being brought
up,
the accepted idea was that you did most things as a family, and children
were expected to behave quietly in other people's houses. Then we moved
into
an era when it became expected that children were not included in an
invitation, and you found a babysitter. So the need for children to behave
nicely lessened.

I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them.

We are are more fragmented and mobile society - we no longer have the role
models. The first baby I ever held in my arms was my own. You can see all
around you that many people lack parenting skills - parents themselves
need
help.


""parents themselves need help.""


Parents themselves need help to stay together. Too many divorces and split
marriages.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

Kay wrote:
So the trick is how to identify the 6% of the 30% and deal with them
effectively, and not take action that will turn the 94% into unemployable
ex-cons rather than useful contributing members of society..

A clever trick that fits nicely into the "easier said than done" box, I
suspect.

In message , Kay
writes

On 10/08/2011 12:01, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do
the time, don't do the crime".

One-third of young men born in 1953 had acquired a conviction for a
relatively serious crime before the age of 30 (and we're not talking driving
offences here). But two-thirds of convictions were acquired by the same 6%
of offenders.

So the trick is how to identify the 6% of the 30% and deal with them
effectively, and not take action that will turn the 94% into unemployable
ex-cons rather than useful contributing members of society..

As to what is done about youths who
kicked around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs
used to be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

And those that exist are having their funding reduced.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly,
parents should always know where thir children are, who they're with
and what time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to
learn their place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the
excuse is, does not give them the right to be a damned nuisance to
others.

It seems to me that worthy ideals of giving our children learning
opportunities, coupled with probably over-exaggerated fears of paedophilia
and rather more justified fears of traffic, has led to a generation which
has lost the ability to cope with boredom. Entertainment has to be provided
by someone else.

Also, we have lost our tolerance for children. When I was being brought up,
the accepted idea was that you did most things as a family, and children
were expected to behave quietly in other people's houses. Then we moved into
an era when it became expected that children were not included in an
invitation, and you found a babysitter. So the need for children to behave
nicely lessened.

I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them.

We are are more fragmented and mobile society - we no longer have the role
models. The first baby I ever held in my arms was my own. You can see all
around you that many people lack parenting skills - parents themselves need
help.

Another thoughtful and rational post, I can add nothing.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

Sacha wrote:
We have, also, a modern culture that requires the adults to stop
speaking when mini-Fred opens his mouth. In my day - (harumph) - it
was "hush, the adults are speaking". I say that now to my
grandchildren if they interrupt and their parents say it too. But some
young parents have looked at me as if I came from Planet Monster.

I think there's a fine line there, between "wait your turn to speak" and
pushing a child into a position where they don't feel confident enough to
speak because they feel they will be ignored and their opinion isn't valid.

(I tell Nick off for his frequent dismissing of Benjamin's comments as
'silly' or 'rubbish' - it's not a healthy way to encourage a child's
development if they don't feel they can speak out)

In message ,
writes
Sacha wrote:
We have, also, a modern culture that requires the adults to stop
speaking when mini-Fred opens his mouth. In my day - (harumph) - it
was "hush, the adults are speaking". I say that now to my
grandchildren if they interrupt and their parents say it too. But some
young parents have looked at me as if I came from Planet Monster.

I think there's a fine line there, between "wait your turn to speak" and
pushing a child into a position where they don't feel confident enough to
speak because they feel they will be ignored and their opinion isn't valid.

(I tell Nick off for his frequent dismissing of Benjamin's comments as
'silly' or 'rubbish' - it's not a healthy way to encourage a child's
development if they don't feel they can speak out)

We made that mistake with our first daughter, and it took the second one
to be the rebel and become a confident person. When the lad came
along we became a lively family.
I'm afraid the elder girl still sulks at age 49. ;-)
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In article , Sacha
writes
I agree with you entirely. One can argue the point with children so as
to give them something to think about.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon



Except (imho) in instances when a quick deterrent would be infinitely
better such as when the child starts to run out in the road without
looking or waves a knife around or pokes something into a socket, or
starts lighting matches, etc, then you have no time to stand and debate
the point, sometimes it's necessary to just stop the behaviour.
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:27:20 +0100, Janet Tweedy wrote:

One can argue the point with children so as to give them something
to
think about.

Yeah, yeah, what ever...

That is all the attention you will get from a teenager if that. From
the out of control effectively parentless oiks recently running wild
you more likely to get abuse, only maybe only verbal but I wouldn't
like to bet on it not being physical abuse either.

Less than about five it reasoned discussion isn't that effective
either, they don't have the langauge or proper understanding. It
might work from five to teenage but dependant entirely on how the
child has been brought up before five. If the child has had very
little discipline instilled talking is just a waste of your breath.

Except (imho) in instances when a quick deterrent would be infinitely
better such as when the child starts to run out in the road without
looking ...

Quite, my daughter wasn't very old wehn she dashed into the road
outside the primary school. I lunged and grabbed her shoulder and I
suspect picked her up by it and plonked here back on the pavement.
Boy was she surprised, not upset, just shocked. She *never* did it
again and has always respected traffic and the road since.

or waves a knife around or pokes something into a socket, or starts
lighting matches, etc, then you have no time to stand and debate the
point, sometimes it's necessary to just stop the behaviour.

Agreed the slap on the wrist or very definate *NO* or *STOP* works
far better than a "oh darling, I'd rather you didn't poke that bit of
wire into the socket as you might get hurt".

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Sacha
writes
Ah yes, that's a different thing altogether. The only time I've smacked
our grandson was on the hand when he started showing too much interest
in a socket.
--


I also think in life there are situations where one has to comply and
there isn't the chance for discussion, Speed limits, one way streets,
most legal Either it's allowed or not and you choose to contravene regs
at your peril.

Life isn't like that, children who think they can argue the toss at
every turn will turn into adults who will feel able to do the same!

I would find it highly entertaining to go into courts and listen to the
criminal putting up a strong case for why he thumped the living
daylights out of someone or drove at 120 mph when he was ina 30 mile and
hour speed restricted zone. That's what society does, lay down general
rules which if obeyed makes life easier for the majority NOT the
minority!

But then I used to read the Telegraph NOT the Guardian
--
Janet Tweedy

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes

[....]

I would find it highly entertaining to go into courts and listen to the
criminal putting up a strong case for why he thumped the living
daylights out of someone or drove at 120 mph when he was ina 30 mile
and hour speed restricted zone. That's what society does, lay down
general rules which if obeyed makes life easier for the majority NOT
the minority!

If he/she had enough money, he/she could engage that slimy lawyer to
find some anomaly in the paperwork relating to the case, and would
likely walk free.
This country has the best justice money can buy.

But then I used to read the Telegraph NOT the Guardian

I'd never have guessed!
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In article , Gordon H
writes
But then I used to read the Telegraph NOT the Guardian

I'd never have guessed!



--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk