Kids Today

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#31
Girl, 16, hid machine pistol under bed

LIVERPOOL A 17-year-old was sentenced to three years in a secure institution after she admitted hiding a machine pistol under her bed at her family home. Police said that the case was part of a growing trend for criminals to use vulnerable teenage girls from respectable families to look after their weapons.

Lindsay Shinkfield, of Huyton, Liverpool, was 16 when police found the Czech-made Scorpion gun in her bedroom in December. The weapon is favoured by drug gangs in Liverpool. She told officers that she was “minding” the weapon for another person whom she has refused to name. Detectives believe the gun was used in an incident in 2006 in which a person was injured. A police investigation is continuing.

Detective Chief Inspector Michael Shaw, part of Merseyside Police’s gun crime unit, said: “This was the perfect example of the type of young, vulnerable female of good character being targeted by criminals to assist them in the concealment of illegally held firearms.”

He added: “They [Scorpions] are as serious a weapon as one would expect to come across.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 799271.ece
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
12,813
Likes
10,802
Points
309
#32
" . . . young, vulnerable female of good character . . ."


I read this Bobbygobble several times and was unable to relate it to the story in any way. Presumably sleeping without a gun in your litter-tray is a sign of female moral laxity these days! :shock:
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,022
Likes
167
Points
114
#33
JamesWhitehead said:
" . . . young, vulnerable female of good character . . ."


I read this Bobbygobble several times and was unable to relate it to the story in any way. Presumably sleeping without a gun in your litter-tray is a sign of female moral laxity these days! :shock:
It's all very romantic, really. In a Bonnie and Clyde, Natural Born Killers, sort of a way. :(
 

IvanVolle

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
275
Likes
14
Points
34
#34
Toys blamed for teens who hate themselves
April 25, 2008

"PRESCHOOL girls are being targeted with sexed-up dolls, which could create a generation of teenagers who hate themselves, experts say.

Queensland child protection group Bravehearts told the Senate inquiry into "the Sexualisation of Children in the Contemporary Media Environment" that sexualised dolls were being marketed to girls at a younger age than ever before.

"Barbie dolls, originally marketed at six to 10-year olds, are now appealing to three to six-year olds and highly sexualised dolls such as Bratz and MyScene dolls are at the forefront of a trend that promotes stereotyped and sexualised images," the submission's author, Hetty Johnston, said.

She said the dolls' "fishnet stockings, tight-fitting clothes, high heels and heavily made-up faces and large pouty lips" exposed little girls to dangerous stereotypes.

The Women's Forum Australia told the same inquiry the sexualisation of girls could cause them to hate themselves.

Exposure to ideals of sexual attractiveness contributed to body image dissatisfaction and eating disorders, the WFA said.

"About one in 100 adolescent girls develops anorexia nervosa, the third most common chronic illness for adolescent girls in Australia and the most fatal of all psychiatric illnesses," the WFA submission says.

Ms Johnston condemned toy makers for profiting from the premature sexualisation of children."

Full article:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... public_rss
 

IvanVolle

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
275
Likes
14
Points
34
#35
Gold Coast bashing ringleader walks free
April 25, 2008

(Walks free, is also "named & shamed" by press since she just turned 18.)

"THE ringleader of a vicious gang attack that left an off-duty police officer lying unconscious in a pool of blood has walked free from court.

Appearing in Southport District Court yesterday, Tiani Slockee, 18, was identified as the instigator of a brutal and unprovoked attack on Constable Rawson Armitage and his girlfriend, Michelle Dodge, at Coolangatta in November.

Three of the nine teens who pleaded guilty to the assault were sent to jail by Judge John Newton, who ruled that Slockee, who spent 91 days in custody after the incident, did not have to spend any more time behind bars.

Judge Newton was condemning of Slockee's role in the bashing but decided against further jail time.

"Neither of these attacks would have happened if it wasn't for your disgraceful behaviour," Judge Newton said.

The Chinderah teenager, who left the court in tears with her terminally ill grandmother, said she was sorry for her actions.

But some of her colleagues did not appear as upset, laughing and joking as they smoked cigarettes with friends outside the building.

The court was told that after an initial altercation between Slockee and Constable Armitage, the rest of the group joined the attack "like a pack of animals", leaving Miss Dodge fearing her boyfriend had been bashed to death."

Full article:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... public_rss
 

IvanVolle

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
275
Likes
14
Points
34
#36
I read the headline and thought this story sounded like something out of a bad Italian Post-Apocalyptic movie:

Rolling teens suspected in mall blast
April 30, 2008 12:17pm

"A GROUP of teenagers on roller blades are suspected to be behind an explosion and fire at a shopping centre in Sydney's eastern suburbs which today forced the evacuation of 2500 people.

Shortly before 10am (AEST) today, New South Wales Fire Brigades were called to a fire in the Food For Less shop at the Royal Randwick Shopping Centre at Randwick.

About 2500 people were evacuated through heavy white smoke.

The fire was brought under control within 40 minutes and extinguished minutes later.

Damage was contained to store product only and did not spread to the structure of the building, a fire brigades spokesman said.

Police said they were looking for a group of two to six boys in their early teens on roller blades, who were seen leaving the shop at the time of the explosion.

"There is some indication that there may be a group of young males that may be able to assist police with their inquiries,'' Detective Inspector Paul Pisanos said at the scene.

"At this stage we're looking at the fact that there may have been some kind of device ... that may have been placed in one of the aisles of the shopping centre, and the young fellows were seen leaving the shopping centre a short time after.''

Det Insp Pisanos said the fire could turn out to be a very expensive prank.

"If it was a stupid prank, it was very, very stupid, because I'm informed that the damage that has been occasioned to food products in the shop has exceeded a great amount of money ... it (the food) will have to be condemned.'' "

Full article:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 02,00.html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#37
This is most disturbing...

Girl gang killed neighbour with 'internet' bomb
Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent and Lucy Cockcroft
Last Updated: 7:52AM BST 10/05/2008

A gang of teenage girls may have blown up a rival's home, killing her neighbour, with a liquid bomb they researched on the internet after an argument about a boy.

The explosion collapsed three Victorian houses in north-west London, killing a resident in one property and leaving the intended target – 17-year-old Charlotte Anderson – in intensive care with severe burns.

Miss Anderson called police 10 hours before the blast on Wednesday to report that a group of girls aged 16 and 17 were causing trouble outside her house in Harrow. Another resident has claimed they were pouring a "purple and smelly" liquid through the letterbox.

Experts have told police that the volatile substance, which has not yet been identified, may have vapourised and exploded.

Emad Qureshi, 26, from Pakistan, who lived with his parents next door to Miss Anderson, died in the blast.

Scotland Yard has launched a murder inquiry and is hunting the girl gang, who are believed to have had a run-in with Miss Anderson.

She had moved to the area from Newcastle six months ago and recently began dating a local boy, causing arguments with two girls in the area, according to residents.

A police source said: "There are several possibilities, one of which is that this was a home-made explosive which was cooked up using a recipe on the internet. The methods for making these liquid bombs are all over the internet.

"We have seen with recent terrorism trials that there are plenty of things on the web, but it would obviously be an extraordinary and disturbing development if a girl gang has decided to settle a dispute in such dramatic and tragic way."

One of the possible substances being investigated by police is methyl ethyl ketone, which can come in a purple liquid form with an ether-like odour and is used on piping by plumbers. It is a highly-flammable irritant, which can be explosive if concentrated into a vapour.

At a press conference in Harrow on Friday, Det Chf Insp Colin Sutton confirmed a 17-year-old woman who lived at No.21 Stanley Road was the probable target of any attack.

She called police at 11am about the girls, but then told officers they had gone away. She did not mention the liquid being poured through the letterbox, but another resident reported it after the blast.

The explosion happened at 9.30pm. Miss Anderson was pulled from rubble by neighbours and taken to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital with severe burns. She is now in a stable condition.

At first, investigators believed the explosion had been caused by a gas leak but engineers could find no faults with the mains supply and it is understood that No.21 had no gas supply.

The explosion damaged properties in a 60-yard radius. It demolished a house at No.19 and two flats at No.21. The house at No.23 was partially demolished.

Neighbours dug through the smoking rubble with their bare hands to find the trapped residents. The body of Mr Qureshi, who had reportedly just recently finished a post-graduate degree in computing, was removed by firefighters. :(

Mr Sutton said: "We still haven't ruled out a gas explosion but experts say it is unlikely to be the cause.

"What we can say is that we are happy there is no link to any terrorist organisation or acts here.

"A strong line of inquiry for us at the moment is the dispute, this call at the address and of course the substance put through the letterbox."

Andrew Haynes, who pulled the teenager from the wreckage of her home, said: "She's in hospital very badly burnt but I've heard that she is conscious and up and about Friday saying a few words and able to have a drink.

"The rumours going round are that she and some other girls had been arguing over boys. She's just 17, isn't that what all girls her age row about?

"She has been living here about six months so she is new to the area and just getting to know people.

"I don't think she's in a particularly long-term relationship but I think she's been going out with a north-west London lad for two or three weeks.

"Her boyfriend is spending time with her in hospital now."

It is believed that Miss Anderson had been taken into care by social services and was living alone at the bottom floor flat of No.21. Her mother was travelling down from Newcastle last night to be at her bedside.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-Harrow-neighbour-with-'internet'-bomb.html

21st century technology, cave-women intellect... :evil:
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#38
Stupid rules? Police State? Or here....?

Why the police now have to ask teenage muggers: 'Do you eat chips?'
By EILEEN FAIRWEATHER Last updated at 23:39pm on 17th May 2008

Imagine a country where strangers have the right to ask intrusive questions and store the answers on a database.

Where everyone from police officers to leisure-centre staff can demand: "Tell me who you feel close to?"

They will also have been trained to ask questions about sexual behaviour, family life, religion, secret fears, weight and "sleeping arrangements" at home.

Incredibly, thousands of Government and council apparatchiks in Britain became entitled on April 1 to ask such questions of anyone under 19.

This horrifying invasion of privacy has begun, almost unnoticed, because the Government has cleverly presented it as being in the interests of "child protection".

The new questionnaire, known as the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), is part of a £20million programme called Every Child Matters (ECM), ostensibly set up to ensure youngsters are safe and leading positive lives.

Professionals - such as police officers, teachers and doctors - and volunteers are now under orders to subject children to a questionnaire if they consider them "at risk": a definition so broad that many decent parents could find themselves labelled as potential abusers.

The questions don't need a parent's consent since any child over 12 is deemed responsible enough to grant permission for an interview.

Any child not achieving the Government's five "outcomes" - being healthy, staying safe, enjoying life, "making a positive contribution", and achieving " economic well-being" - is now defined as having "additional needs".

How did this idiocy come about? Margaret Hodge announced the ECM agenda in 2003, just after Tony Blair ignored his friend's unsavoury history as leader of Islington Council during one of Britain's worst child-abuse scandals and, to widespread protest, made her Children's Minister.

Hodge claimed the ECM was justified by the case of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie who was abused and murdered by her guardians.

As the reporter who exposed paedophile rings in Islington's children's homes and, later, the blaming in neighbouring Haringey of an innocent social worker for Victoria's death, I was mystified.

I knew the problem was never lack of paperwork on children at risk, but too many stupid people reading it - and failing to act.

So, on April Fool's Day, the very effective Child Protection Register was abolished.

In its paternalistic zeal, however, New Labour replaced the register with the Integrated Children's System.

"The Integrated Children's System isn't fit for purpose and many authorities are dragging their feet about implementing it because it's worrying the hell out of them," said Terri Dowty, director of Action On Rights For Children.

"While all this fiddling around with shiny new technology goes on, too many children are getting hurt."

One police officer, who attended a CAF course, told me that many of his colleagues are so reluctant to interview teenage criminals about their emotional needs, sex life and diets that they avoid calls involving them.

"We're cops, not social workers," he said. "It's insane."


The 46-page Government guide, Using The CAF In Practice, suggests "practitioners" ask questions such as: "Do you feel you are the right weight for your height?"

My police source was told this could lead to a "valuable discussion" about why young people should not eat chips. :roll:

He and his colleagues have renamed the agenda Every Fat Kid Matters. 8)

"I work in inner-city London," he said. "Nearly every kid's poor. But I'm meant to check whether they eat their greens and if they are 'enjoying and achieving their aims'. What if their aims are mugging and stabbing? :shock:

"When a call comes involving young people, we pretend we're busy.

"Just filling in one of these forms, with a foul-mouthed yob who's laughing at you, will take half a shift. Meanwhile, the public is unprotected."

In an effort to develop a more "common" approach, anyone from a sports coach to a playgroup worker is allowed to question a child, as long as they've been on a three-hour training course.

There is a risk that the interrogators could include people who may derive a perverse thrill from asking children personal questions about bathing, dressing and "changes to their body".

Allowing so many people to probe into children's personal lives is also a threat to this country's long-treasured right to privacy.

Children aged from 12 can consent to the storage and sharing of their information. This will be kept until they are 19, or for 75 years if they have been in care.

"The association of ECM with Victoria Climbie and the use of expressions such as 'safeguarding' and 'at risk' have stifled essential debate - after all, who could possibly be against protecting children?" said Dowty.

She believes we should refuse to comply. But how strong will families need to be, if by opposing the scheme, they risk being accused of negligence - or worse - towards their children?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=567003&in_page_id=1770

All those initials! Must be all right - mustn't it...?
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
5,858
Likes
784
Points
194
#39
You will be happy to know my autism specialist refuses to see me as shes too busy seeing children.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#40
Drug offenders 'as young as 10'

Children as young as 10 are being drawn into the drugs trade, new figures from Avon and Somerset police have revealed.

The force said it had arrested nearly 800 youngsters up to the age of 17 for drugs offences in the past two years.

The youngest offenders, aged just 10 and 11, were taken to court for possession of cannabis.

Councils and other agencies said they were working with the police to educate young people away from the temptation and dangers of drugs.

'Shocking' figures

A total of 660 youngsters were arrested in 2006 and 2007 for possessing controlled drugs, including cannabis, ecstasy, heroin and crack cocaine.

Another 94 were detained for possessing drugs with intent to supply, 29 were arrested for growing cannabis and 10 were held for selling drugs.

Maria Von Hilderbrand, area manager for support service Parentline Plus, said: "It is shocking that children as young as 10 are being prosecuted for drugs offences, but I think we should keep it in perspective.

"People know about peer pressure, about taking drugs, experimenting is part and parcel of teenage life.

"But fewer than 10% of youngsters who experiment go on to experiment with hard drugs.

"The important thing is that parents need support and children need support."

The figures were released by the force following a Freedom of Information request.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7407826.stm
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#41
The way kids turn out obviously has a lot to do with their parents.
But is this woman really 'America's worst mom'?


Why you shouldn't over-protect your kids
Lenore Skenazy let her nine-year-old travel alone on the New York subway and was branded 'America's worst mom'. She argues that over-protective parents allow fear to cloud reality
Lenore Skenazy

Out of the blue, I've become a lightning rod in the parenting wars. Mention my story and millions of people not only know about it, they have a very strong opinion about it, and me, and my parenting skills - or utter, shameful lack thereof.

Here's how it happened.

In April I wrote a column for the newspaper I work for, the New York Sun, entitled “Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride The Subway Alone”. I explained that my younger son, Izzy, had been begging me to let him try to find his way home on his own from somewhere - anywhere - by subway. Here in New York City we're on public transport all the time. Moreover, despite what you see in the movies, it's safe. Not only is New York not among the 10 most dangerous cities in America, it's not even in the top 100. When it comes to crimes per capita, New York is 136th on the list - almost pathetically civil. Our murder rate is back where it was in 1963.

That's why letting Izzy find his way home alone just seemed like a fun idea. Not dangerous. Not crazy. Not even very hard. My husband agreed.

So on that sunny Sunday, I took the boy to a big, bright Manhattan department store - Bloomingdale's - and left him in ladies' handbags.

Bye-bye!

I didn't leave him defenceless, of course. I gave him a subway map, a transit card and $20 in case of emergencies. I also gave him some change to make a call. But here's the thing I have yet to hear the end of: I did not give him a mobile phone.

It's not just that I think mobile phones turn even grown-ups into babies (always checking in, always asking permission to eat a KitKat before dinner). It's also that while I very much trusted my son to get himself home, I was less sure he'd get the phone there. Who wants to lose a phone?

Anyway, it all turned out fine. One subway ride, one bus ride and an hour or so later, my son was back, fairly levitating with pride. I wrote about his little adventure only because when I told other mothers at the schoolyard about it, they all said the same thing. “You let him do WHAT?” That's when I realised that a lot of parents have different ideas about what is safe and appropriate for kids to do today. I realised it even more the day my column ran. “Hello, is this Lenore Skenazy?” asked a young woman ringing my home that night. She was a producer from The Today Show, America's most-watched morning news programme. Would I be willing to come on the day after tomorrow to talk about my son? Sure! She called back the next morning. Would I be willing to let my son come on, too? Sure! She called back yet again: would I be willing to have a camera crew follow him on to the subway to re-enact his historic trip?

Sure, but - come on! My son had not climbed Mt Fuji in flip-flops. He did not decode his own DNA. He'd simply done what most people my age had done routinely when they were his age: gone somewhere on his own, without a security detail.

Growing up in the suburbs, I'd cycled to the library and walked solo to school. Friends who grew up in the city took the subway to baseball, the bus to ballet. We all played in parks without our parents. No one thought anything of it. But somehow, in just one generation, these normal, unsupervised activities had morphed into daring deeds on a par with filling cougar cavities. Let your child out of your sight? Amid strangers? Before the age of 35?

When my son did it and lived to tell the tale, he not only broke a taboo - it seemed he'd broken a spell. America wanted to hear his story. So on to The Today Show we went. By way of introduction, the hostess turned to the camera and asked, “Is she an enlightened mom, or a really bad one?” - a question that has framed the debate ever since.

The show had paired Izzy and me with a “parenting expert” - a term I have grown to loathe, because this breed seems to exist only to tell us parents what we're doing wrong and why this will warp our kids for ever. The one on the couch next to us said that I could have given my son the exact same experience of independence in a “safer” way - by, for instance, following him, or having him go with a group of friends. :roll:

“How is that the ‘exact same experience' if it's different?” I demanded. “Besides, he WAS safe! That's why I let him go, you fear-mongering hypocrite, preaching independence while warning against it! And why do TV shows automatically put you guys on anyway, lecturing us like two-year-olds? And where are YOUR kids, by the way? Hiding under the bed, whimpering for mommy?” Well, truth be told, I didn't get most of that out. I did get out a very cogent “Gee, um...”

But it didn't even matter, because as soon as we left the set, my phone rang (I do allow myself to carry a mobile). It was another TV station, MSNBC. Could I be there in an hour? Sure! Then Fox News called. Could I be there with Izzy that afternoon? MSNBC called back: if I did the show today would I still promise to come back with Izzy to do it again over the weekend, same place, same story?

TV could not get enough of this topic. It made their phones ring. It flooded their in-boxes. They couldn't get enough of Izzy, who stuck to his story: “It was fun.” And they couldn't get enough of me: “America's Worst Mom?” Google me. That's what I became.

I also became, to my shock, the de-facto spearhead of a “movement”. That's all the next wave of media wanted to talk about: in my exalted opinion, had parents really become too overprotective? Did I see a growing backlash against “helicopter parenting?” “Heck yes!” I replied (articulate as ever) as interviewers queried from Hong Kong, Israel, Austria, Malta (Malta! An island! Who's stalking their kids there? Pirates?). TV stations across Canada threw together specials. Radio shows called from across the States. Magazines, blogs, newspapers - even the BBC had me on. Twice! Then, on one of the talk shows here in America, a caller asked why I'd chosen to give my son one memorable afternoon of fun that would probably end up with him sodomised and dead, instead of trying to help him to live a long and happy life. :shock: I got off that one, shaking.

Starting my blog, called Free Range Kids (freerangekids.com), made me feel sane again - a feeling that I hope the blog gives other parents like me. I posted my story there, along with my philosophy (as it were): let's give our children the freedom we had. Not that the 1970s and 1980s were so great - just that our parents didn't spend all their time worrying that we were about to be abducted.

The response was just as overwhelming as everything else has been. Tens of thousands of people logged on and tons of them wrote about their own scrappy childhoods. They said they're trying to raise their kids just as “free-range” - except now there's no one outside for them to play with.

Meanwhile, other parents keep butting in: an unwatched child is a tragedy waiting to happen! Those other parents are scared to death. I heard from a mother in Atlanta who won't let her daughter walk outside to the mailbox, and a father in the New York suburbs who won't let his son play in his own driveway. One woman told me she was out on the lawn with her kids, reading, when a neighbor scolded: “Put down that book! Your kids could be snatched right out from under you!” That's how wild the fear is running. And if you want to know the culprit, I'll tell you: satellite TV.

Yes, there are other factors, too: mothers off at work, baby-product companies inventing fears they can allay for a price. But until satellite TV news came along with 24 hours to fill, the story of a child missing in, say, Portugal was not a saga to be followed, day after day, by strangers continents away. Today, it's ratings gold. It's scary, it's heartbreaking. But most of all, it's a “lesson”: If you EVER leave your child alone, the very worst could happen in the blink of an eye and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT.

As with most lessons endlessly repeated (except, apparently, the ones about statistics and probability), this one got internalised. I really think that the only reason I'm not as afraid as some of my friends is that I'm too cheap to pay for cable TV. 8)

So does that make me a “hero,” as enthusiastic notes to Free Range Kids insist? Please. I love the letters that say, “Sanity at last!” And, “I thought I was the only one who felt this way!” And, “Now how do I get my wife to let our daughter walk to school?” But I find it hard to bear the ones assuming my son must be “very brave,” and “mature,” - ditto me - when the fact is, he's no more confident than the other kids he goes to school with. The ones whose mothers won't let them out alone until they're balding. And if I'm so brave, why do I keep “forgetting” to get my kids a skateboard (for the past five years)? I really don't know how to raise children any more self-reliant than anyone else's. I'll bet that “parenting expert” doesn't either.

All I know is that our fears aren't in line with reality any more, and lately a lot of people seem to be realising that. If the first step toward change is realising there's a problem, then here we are, taking the first step.

Provided no one abducts us, I guess we're on our way.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 095977.ece

And video here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7449795.stm

I'm with Lenore on this one. If you teach your kids that the world is a fearful place, there's no wonder that so many of them grow up paranoid and prone to violence.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
5,858
Likes
784
Points
194
#42
I stayed with relatives in London and made long journeys by myself on the underground, I must have been ten.

But that was the seventies, there was lots more terrosim then.
 

MrRING

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
5,058
Likes
1,269
Points
234
#43
LINK

Stolen Goods Worth $400,000 Found In Bartow; Teens Arrested
Police Found 34 Leaf Blowers In A Closet

BARTOW COUNTY, Ga. -- Police arrested two teens after finding enough stolen items to furnish several houses at a home in Bartow County.

Officers charged Randall Stanley, 19, and Christopher Manley, 18, with 35 burglaries at homes and businesses.

Acting on a Crimestoppers tip, police were stunned when they searched the suspects' home. The list of stolen items in the police report covers several pages and adds up to over $400,000 worth of items.

In one case the suspects are accused of stealing all the furniture out of a house for sale, then setting up the furniture in their own house; matching it to a flier for the house for sale.

They also favored lawn and outdoor equipment, according to police. In one closet police found 34 leaf blowers.

Investigators also found a huge supply of candy stolen from a park concession stand and stacked neatly in a pantry.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#44
Operation Goodnight in Redruth: the holiday town where teenagers must be indoors by 9pm
Simon de Bruxelles

You see them on street corners in every town: groups of furtive teenagers looking for company but often finding trouble. Fairly or not, they usually get the blame for vandalism, assaults and drunken midnight shouts that shatter the peace in otherwise deserted suburban streets.

Now police in Redruth, a Cornish town plagued by antisocial behaviour, are to impose a nighttime curfew on under16s during the school summer holidays.

The former tin and copper mining centre decided to introduce Operation Goodnight after residents complained about underage drinking and feeling intimidated by groups of young people. Officers in the town, which won an award for its revamped centre last year, hope to clear everyone under the age of 16 off the streets by 9pm. Those aged under 10 will be expected at home by 8pm.

Letters have been sent to 700 families living on large housing estates in the north of the town, asking for their cooperation in enforcing the voluntary curfew between July 25 and September 7. Parents who do not agree to the scheme, and whose children are found out after 9pm, could be subject to parenting or antisocial behaviour orders.

Last winter police in Redruth reduced dramatically the number of incidents of vandalism by imposing a dispersal order preventing young people from gathering outside after dark.

The curfew was suggested by a neighbourhood beat officer, PC Marc Griffin, after the success of the dispersal orders. “We are not saying that our town is worse than anywhere else in Britain because it isn’t, but people believe that parents should take greater responsibility for their children,” he said.

“We’re not trying to persecute young people but we think that if they are out after 9pm they should be accompanied by an adult and most of the people who have reacted to the proposal agree with this.”

He said that the curfew would also prevent children becoming the victims of crime. “Young people are at an increased risk of becoming either a victim or offender of crime and of antisocial behaviour if left unsupervised during the evenings,” he said.

“This is a voluntary scheme but there is a hard edge in that if we find families who aren’t getting involved we can make orders. The spirit of this scheme is not about restricting what our young people can and cannot do, but making certain that during the summer holiday evenings they are able to enjoy themselves – but not at the expense of the wider community.”

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said that most children would go home willingly if challenged. Others might have to be “escorted”. He said: “There are a belligerent few who will refuse to comply but officers are more than capable of persuading them to do so.”

Police hope that the scheme will not only tackle young offenders but will also put the spotlight on parents who are failing to take responsibility for their offspring. A number of different organisations including social services have been involved in drawing up plans for the curfew. The fire brigade has organised football coaching sessions in the hope of keeping teenagers active and off the streets.

Redruth, which has a population of 13,000, has one of the highest crime rates in Cornwall, although it is still well below the national average.

Community groups have welcomed Operation Goodnight. Ann Mitchell, 60, chairwoman of the Helping Hands residents’ association, said: “It is only a minority of kids who cause the problem. It tends to be underage drinking, petty vandalism and verbal abuse. Some of the language is awful.

“We’ve got one child who has managed to work out how to climb a street lamp and turn them all off. :shock: I applaud the curfew and hope that it keeps the streets a lot quieter.”

Parents in the Close Hill area, where the curfew will be enforced, were mostly positive about the idea. Nicki Summers, 37, a mother of two teenage boys, said: “Everyone around here knows who the bad lads are. It’s the same few every time and their parents are just as bad. The more police action the better.”

One father, however, was not convinced: “It’s just more words from police to make it sound like they’re doing something. What they need is more police on the beat. That’s the only way to stop trouble.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 297273.ece

However, Redruth is NOT a Holiday Town - it's a decayed industrial town, just begining to drag itself back from dereliction.

Here's a pic I took of a new street feature (erected this year):



(Mind you, I had to remove an unphotogenic booze bottle from the scene before snapping! ;) )
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#45
Youngsters know their Daleks but can’t tell a bee from a wasp

London Television-obsessed children are far more likely to recognise a Dalek than a magpie, research shows. They spend so much time cooped up playing computer games and watching TV that some have no knowledge of wildlife, experts say. A poll of 1,600 children aged between 10 and 12 found that one in three could not identify a magpie, and half could not tell the difference between a bee and a wasp, the National Trust found. Nine in ten recognised the Daleks and Yoda, the Star Wars character.

As part of a National Trust campaign to urge families to spend more time exploring the great outdoors, it is taking a specially adapted bus with a garden on the top deck, right, to cities across England. Matthew Oates, of the National Trust, said: “The more distanced we become from nature, the more difficult it will be for us to survive on this planet.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 297073.ece
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,022
Likes
167
Points
114
#46
rynner said:
...

He said that the curfew would also prevent children becoming the victims of crime. “Young people are at an increased risk of becoming either a victim or offender of crime and of antisocial behaviour if left unsupervised during the evenings,” he said.

...
That's it right there. British society sees most kids in only two ways, these days. 'a victim or offender of crime and of antisocial behaviour.'

I wonder if Community Child Catcher will become a voluntary job, like Special Constable?

Redruth, 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-JzI8Zxx5A
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#47
Curfew scheme 'breaches rights'

Proposals for a roll-out of curfews on children in Cornwall are being described as a breach of human rights.

The scheme is being trialled in part of Redruth to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Julia Goldsworthy, MP for Falmouth and Camborne, said it should be rolled out in other problem areas if it proved successful.

But David Callahan, 17, a member of the Youth Parliament in Cornwall, said it was unjustified.

The voluntary curfew in Redruth, known as Operation Goodnight, means parents will be asked to have under 10s at home by 2000 BST and 16-year-olds off the streets by 2100 BST.

It will operate in the Close Hill area of the town from 25 July until 7 September.

'Hanging around'

The aim is to reduce the risk of children becoming victims of crime or becoming offenders themselves.

Ms Goldsworthy said: "It should be trialled properly with a view to rolling it out to other troublespots in the county if it gets results.

"While we must not demonise all young people, we have to acknowledge that youngsters don't have to commit crime or anti-social behaviour to be intimidating to residents.

"Simply hanging around on street corners can be enough of a threat."

Mr Callahan said: "Young people have the right under the UN Human Rights Convention to hang around in groups unless they are causing a nuisance.
"Curfews will cast all young people in a negative image."

Neighbourhood beat manager Pc Marc Griffin said the curfew had arisen from feedback to a successful dispersal order in October last year.

"Very clearly residents were saying a significant number of parents appeared to be allowing their children out without any behavioural boundaries and a number of the children seemed to be lacking in social responsibility," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7496324.stm

"Curfews will cast all young people in a negative image."
But presumably some young people did project a negative image,or this scheme would not have been thought of. Kids need to learn that they are a part of society, and not a law unto themselves.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#49
escargot1 said:
What's your point? That because some young people did project a negative image, all the lot should be punished?
If no-one can think of a better way of controlling trouble-makers, a limited curfew seems the least harsh option.

There's never any way to please everyone, but the rights of the other citizens to have a quiet life have to be respected.

If a small group of kids are being threatening (or whatever), this can often blight the lives of hundreds of other law-abiding citizens.

There's never any one cause for social problems, but it seems that increasing numbers of parents are failing to teach their children respect for others, or even to care what their kids are up to.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
28,101
Likes
28,477
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#50
You say yourself that a small group of troublemakers who're causing the problems, yet you think it's OK to apply the solution to all the under-18s in the area. It's unjust, and being a victim of injustice is a sure-fire way to lose respect for authority, so it's also going to be counter-productive.

It's also unenforceable. Lots of young people are out in the evening for good reasons. Will they be swooped on and locked up for missing the bus home from netball practice? Or for taking a can of cat food round to Gran's when she forgot to buy some?
If they are, how are their parents going to feel when they have to go down to the police station to collect their newly-criminalised offspring? There'll be some very irate mums and dads, and very little respect as a result.

In case you didn't know, many young offenders are already under curfew. They are monitored electronically and are taken back to court if they go out at night. Perhaps some adults think all under-18s should be treated like this.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#51
escargot1 said:
You say yourself that a small group of troublemakers who're causing the problems, yet you think it's OK to apply the solution to all the under-18s in the area.
No, I didn't say it was OK, I just said it may be the least harsh option, and that it is important to consider the welfare of the community as a whole.

People spend roughly 10% of their life as a teenager under 18. Should 90% of the population have to suffer because we cannot discipline trouble-makers?

In case you didn't know, many young offenders are already under curfew. They are monitored electronically and are taken back to court if they go out at night.
That's fine, if the culprits can be identified and caught. If for some reason this is not possible, then other measures have to be tried, as seems to be the case in parts of Redruth.

Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
28,101
Likes
28,477
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#52
They certainly can be identified and caught, and tagged. I've seen it done.

Don't fool yourself that curfews are a judgment-free response to the problem. Curfews are a punishment. That's what the courts use them for. To extend that punishment to a whole class of people is unjust and will be counter-productive, not to mention unenforceable, all of which I've already mentioned.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#53
escargot1 said:
They certainly can be identified and caught, and tagged. I've seen it done.
Perhaps you should come down here and tell the locals how to do it! ;)


But to take no action is to 'punish' the rest of the population, which might also be counter-productive if it led to vigilante type action.

In any conflict situation there will be 'rights' on both sides. It would not be fair to talk up one side and ignore the other.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,588
Likes
9
Points
69
#54
They could start by having a word with the father who came out onto the street to have a moan for the cameras while his 15 year-old son stood next to him smoking. :roll:
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#55
Youth crime: Greedy, rude adults 'fuelling teen violence'
· Parents told to show tough love to tackle knife crime
· Behaviour expert defends schools as 'safe havens'
Polly Curtis, education editor
Friday July 11, 2008
The Guardian

A culture of greed and rudeness among adults is contributing to the epidemic of knife and gun violence among teenagers, according to the government's behaviour adviser.

Sir Alan Steer, a headteacher and the head of a major government review of school behaviour policies due to report on Monday, said parents must take more responsibility for tackling violence among their teenage children. He defended comprehensive schools, which he said were regularly blamed for children's poor behaviour when they are often the only place where young people from violent communities feel safe.

On Monday, Steer will set out a series of proposals designed to put new pressure on parents to tackle their children's unruly behaviour in school, while giving them more direct contact with teachers via email and online reporting systems.

In an interview with the Guardian ahead of his report, he said that the recent killings of teenagers on London's streets was "heartbreaking".

"It's connected to a violent sub-culture. But we bear some responsibility. Sometimes as adults we don't model the behaviour we would want youngsters to follow. We live in a greedy culture, we are rude to each other in the street. Children follow that. You wonder what has gone wrong in these children's lives. Of course the kids have a responsibility, but there are questions about what's going on at home. Parents have a huge responsibility. Government doesn't bring up children, parents do."

He insisted that "pointing the finger of blame" at parents was not constructive and that the government's plan for children, which set out ways to intervene earlier to support struggling parents, was the right response. "You need to set out the rights and responsibilities of families."

Steer is headteacher of Seven Kings High School in Ilford, east London, which has won praise for its exceptional and traditional style of discipline.

He said: "You can pass moral judgments on families, but the reality is that they are in that situation. Our job as schools is to educate children. We're places of learning or nothing. But sometimes we have to help bring up children as well. We need to give them tough, intelligent love."

He has headed the government's taskforce on discipline since 2005. His original report led to a change in the law that granted teachers a legal right to use "reasonable" restraint and new powers to discipline. Last year the schools secretary, Ed Balls, asked him to examine progress made since 2005. On Monday he will set out changes he believes are now necessary.

Among a range of proposals, the report will focus on the role of parents in tackling their children's poor behaviour in schools. It will set out ways to help parents get more involved in their children's schooling and behaviour management, and what to do about a small minority of parents who defend their children's poor behaviour against schools.

Balls has promised to tackle the problem of parents disagreeing with schools over detentions or other sanctions imposed on pupils for poor behaviour.

Steer said that comprehensives had an unfair image as being at the heart of the violence in some teenagers' lives. "I get incensed when I read impressions of comprehensives as in chaos. It's not true. The majority are havens for their students from a disruptive society; 90% of parents say they love their kids' schools.

"I'm not going to say that schools can't be better, but it's not true that schools are these disorderly places. They are dealing with problems that are coming off the streets.

"They have to mitigate the problems of wider society. Schools and parents need to be clear of their responsibilities. I can't bring up people's children and neither can government. But when things go wrong we can't say it's none of our business. We have to give a helping hand."

Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: "When talking about dysfunctional families, saying you've got to get a grip of your 15-year-old who is smoking, drinking and completely out of control is like saying you should fly to the moon. We need systems to identify these families, systems to support them and systems to take care of their children if they can't. Parents who are responsible feel hauled over the coals by comments like these."

.......

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools ... 76,00.html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#56
And maybe this is a tiny clue to our problems with kids...

Most British babies now born out of wedlock, but for some migrants, it's a tiny minority
By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 1:05 AM on 11th July 2008

Half the children of British-born mothers are being born outside marriage, it emerged yesterday.

In fact, official figures indicate that only a minority of children of long-standing British parents will grow up with a married mother and father.

Most will be part of cohabiting or single-parent families. In contrast, only one in 50 children of mothers who were born in India before they came here had unmarried parents.

The figures were published by the Government's Office for National Statistics in a breakdown of births in England and Wales.

Those for British-born mothers include families whose parents migrated into England in recent decades. These - especially those from Asian families - are more likely have their children within marriage.

This means that the rate of births outside marriage to mothers from long-established British families is even higher.

The ONS figures give a picture of fast-rising birthrates, pushed up by high levels of fertility among immigrant families that mean nearly one in four of all babies was born to a mother from abroad.

In 1996 - the year before Labour came to power with tax and benefit policies based on the doctrine that all kinds of families are equally acceptable - 38.7 per cent of babies of British-born mothers were born outside marriage.

By 2006, that had gone up to 49.4 per cent, some 266,000.

Analysts have yet to break down fully last year's birth registrations by marriage and country of birth, but the births outside marriage rate is certain to have gone up by around a percentage point. That means the landmark 50 per cent point for births outside marriage to non-immigrant mothers has now been passed.

Critics of the decline of the two-parent family called for Labour to rethink its disdain of marriage.

Research has shown that youngsters born outside wedlock face a higher risk of doing badly at school, suffering poor health and of going on to face problems with unemployment, drugs and crime.

Jill Kirby, of the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies, said: 'These figures show that the expectation that marriage will precede childbirth is disappearing from British life.

'It is a matter of great concern because the risks of family breakup and disruption to the lives of children who grow up in unmarried households are so much greater.

'They have to face much higher chances of ill-health and poor educational performance.

'The seriousness of these figures has been obscured by the high number of mothers who have come from outside the UK for whom marriage remains important.' She said there was urgent need to change the welfare system to make marriage more attractive.

The ONS figures also showed that the number of babies born in England and Wales last year reached the highest level since 1991. There were 691,013 births in 2007, a three per cent rise over the year before. Rising birthrates mean that each woman is now likely to have 1.91 babies in her life, the highest fertility rate since 1973. This compares with a level of 1.63 for every woman in 2001.

The 34-year high is the sixth consecutive annual increase from 1.63 in 2001 but it is still tens of thousands of children short of the baby boomer years of the 1940s and 60s with the fertility rate reaching a peak of 2.93 in 1964.

This latest increase is a result of high levels of immigration.

Last year 23.2 per cent of all babies were born to mothers who were themselves born abroad - 160,358.

This is up from 13.1 per cent in 1997, before the wave of large-scale immigration that followed Labour's election victory.

The numbers of babies born outside marriage among some immigrant groups are very low.

Just two per cent of children of Indian-born mothers were born outside marriage last year. Rates of births outside marriage were barely higher among Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers.

Highest levels of births outside marriage - more than 60 per cent - were among Caribbean-born mothers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034254/Most-British-babies-born-wedlock-migrants-tiny-minority.html
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,022
Likes
167
Points
114
#57
rynner said:
And maybe this is a tiny clue to our problems with kids...

Most British babies now born out of wedlock, but for some migrants, it's a tiny minority

...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034254/Most-British-babies-born-wedlock-migrants-tiny-minority.html
It really is appalling! Something must be done! :no-no: etc. etc. etc.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,011
Points
284
#59
Right, no more Mr. Nice Guy. Now I say that that curfew is too good for them! :evil:

Here's why. As some of you know, I live in sheltered accomodation for the over 60s. Last night, after midnight, five teenagers had to be ejected from the building. I don't know the full story, like how they got in, but the resident who discovered them has a rather ugly looking dog which may have helped scare them off.

Now I'm normally fit and healthy (although this week I've been rather poorly), but I certainly wouldn't fancy confronting five strangers at night, and many people here are pretty frail (and some are house bound).

This is (I had thought) a fairly decent area - it's not Redruth, FFS! But this incident is very unsettling for everyone here. We have rights too, a right to be free of fear.... :(
 

liveinabin

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 19, 2001
Messages
1,920
Likes
101
Points
79
#60
I'm going to be unpopular here but I blame the parents.
Well really, who else can be at fault?
Children only spend 12% of their lives at school, so I don't think we can lay it at the door of the schools.

I know I'm not a parent but I am a teacher. The attitude of some children comes from comments like this which a colleague heard a parent say to their child: 'remember the teachers have no right to tell you what to do.'
 
Top