'Bored' teen broke curfew 10 times

'Bored' teen broke curfew 10 times

'Bored' teen broke curfew 10 times

First published in News

A 15-year-old on bail for burglary landed himself back in court when he breached his curfew by attending a youth club.

The teenager from Worcester, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at Worcester Magistrates Court charged with breaching his doorstep curfew imposed in relation to two burglary charges in August.

Mark Johnson, prosecuting, said that after repeatedly breaching his police bail in September and October, he had been given a “severe telling off” in court after going to the youth club outside his 7pm to 6.30am curfew.

The teenager also admitted breaching the order a further time on November 14, when he was outside talking to a group of youths outside his home.

“He was about 20 minutes outside his curfew,” said Mr Johnson. “It would not be unfair to describe the compliance as appalling.”

Mr Johnson said police had visited the teenager’s home on a number of occasions and he was found to be absent 10 times.

“Clearly, he has absolutely no regard for the conditions put on him by police or the court,” he said.

Sunil Jagatia, defending, said: “Since November 2 he was given these conditions in court and he has complied with them. He wasn’t aware of the implications.

"He was getting bored at home and went to the youth club. Now he goes home for 7pm.”

Magistrates released him on bail and imposed an electronic tag with a 7pm to 6.30am curfew.

He is due to stand trial on January 16 after denying both burglary charges.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:33am Tue 20 Nov 12

TDH123 says...

Remand him in custody - he cannot be trusted and is sticking two fingers up at the system!
Remand him in custody - he cannot be trusted and is sticking two fingers up at the system! TDH123
  • Score: 0

7:15am Tue 20 Nov 12

Olley Owl Owd Betts Barn says...

Why not tag his parents as well, and then they can stop him from becoming bored...

If they are unable to keep him disciplined then just lock him up 24/7.
Why not tag his parents as well, and then they can stop him from becoming bored... If they are unable to keep him disciplined then just lock him up 24/7. Olley Owl Owd Betts Barn
  • Score: 0

9:08am Tue 20 Nov 12

oldwusterboy says...

slap on the wrist and send him on his way again to comit more crime. Seems to be the way the courts do things these days.
slap on the wrist and send him on his way again to comit more crime. Seems to be the way the courts do things these days. oldwusterboy
  • Score: 0

9:59am Tue 20 Nov 12

jb says...

I'm in no way legally trained but isn't this not just a breach of bail/curfew but contempt of court? He's blatantly got his own way by totally disregarding conditions imposed by the court. I suppose once his case is heard in the 'bored' excuse will come up again, needs a short sharp shock to show him it's time to grow up.
I'm in no way legally trained but isn't this not just a breach of bail/curfew but contempt of court? He's blatantly got his own way by totally disregarding conditions imposed by the court. I suppose once his case is heard in the 'bored' excuse will come up again, needs a short sharp shock to show him it's time to grow up. jb
  • Score: 0

10:16am Tue 20 Nov 12

mayall8808 says...

I always thought if you breach any court condition that's contempt of court, send him for army training it might give him a wake up call as he needs disipline by the seem of it.
I always thought if you breach any court condition that's contempt of court, send him for army training it might give him a wake up call as he needs disipline by the seem of it. mayall8808
  • Score: 0

11:04am Tue 20 Nov 12

Lord Newbold says...

mayall8808 wrote:
I always thought if you breach any court condition that's contempt of court, send him for army training it might give him a wake up call as he needs disipline by the seem of it.
You and Olley Owl Owd Betts Barn seem to be on the very same wavelength. Just send him to some form of military establishment. Preferably To Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre “M.C.T.C. For a period of twelve weeks with the promise of a return visit if he offends again.
[quote][p][bold]mayall8808[/bold] wrote: I always thought if you breach any court condition that's contempt of court, send him for army training it might give him a wake up call as he needs disipline by the seem of it.[/p][/quote]You and Olley Owl Owd Betts Barn seem to be on the very same wavelength. Just send him to some form of military establishment. Preferably To Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre “M.C.T.C. For a period of twelve weeks with the promise of a return visit if he offends again. Lord Newbold
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Jabbadad says...

Lord Newbold he probably isn't man enough to do the time in Colchester, most of the modern day thugs aren't. Just good at bashing old ladies and the disabled,or using knives because they don't have the bottle for a fist or gloved fight.
Lord Newbold he probably isn't man enough to do the time in Colchester, most of the modern day thugs aren't. Just good at bashing old ladies and the disabled,or using knives because they don't have the bottle for a fist or gloved fight. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Tue 20 Nov 12

TDH123 says...

I certainly would not want such a dishonest, disrespectful lad in my army!
It is very sad that a lad of 15 years is not getting the support and necessary discipline from his parents. It is perhaps sadder that the court is not doing all that it can to ensure that this lad realises what he is doing is wrong! A remand in custody may actually help this lad in the long term having regard to the lack of support from his parents.
I certainly would not want such a dishonest, disrespectful lad in my army! It is very sad that a lad of 15 years is not getting the support and necessary discipline from his parents. It is perhaps sadder that the court is not doing all that it can to ensure that this lad realises what he is doing is wrong! A remand in custody may actually help this lad in the long term having regard to the lack of support from his parents. TDH123
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Lord Newbold says...

TDH123 wrote:
I certainly would not want such a dishonest, disrespectful lad in my army!
It is very sad that a lad of 15 years is not getting the support and necessary discipline from his parents. It is perhaps sadder that the court is not doing all that it can to ensure that this lad realises what he is doing is wrong! A remand in custody may actually help this lad in the long term having regard to the lack of support from his parents.
TDH, I fully understand your comment. About not wanting him, you’re Army. I suppose I must have been very lucky. I was conscripted, so those who may not have wanted me in their army did not have any choice. However, I found my match; he was about 5ft 7inches tall and had three chevrons on his arm. He made me a much better person. Yes I was the typical tear a way, like most late forties early fifties teenagers. I recall my father telling me and my elder sisters, Remember! “Lads take trouble out with them, while Lasses bring it home”. At the time, it meant nothing to me.
Now after being called every name that has ever been used, by this fellow named Scholey, I soon learnt it was much easier to take everything he said in my stride, and keep quiet, |I was tough but he was tougher.
[quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not want such a dishonest, disrespectful lad in my army! It is very sad that a lad of 15 years is not getting the support and necessary discipline from his parents. It is perhaps sadder that the court is not doing all that it can to ensure that this lad realises what he is doing is wrong! A remand in custody may actually help this lad in the long term having regard to the lack of support from his parents.[/p][/quote]TDH, I fully understand your comment. About not wanting him, you’re Army. I suppose I must have been very lucky. I was conscripted, so those who may not have wanted me in their army did not have any choice. However, I found my match; he was about 5ft 7inches tall and had three chevrons on his arm. He made me a much better person. Yes I was the typical tear a way, like most late forties early fifties teenagers. I recall my father telling me and my elder sisters, Remember! “Lads take trouble out with them, while Lasses bring it home”. At the time, it meant nothing to me. Now after being called every name that has ever been used, by this fellow named Scholey, I soon learnt it was much easier to take everything he said in my stride, and keep quiet, |I was tough but he was tougher. Lord Newbold
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Tue 20 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

So, one of his curfew offences was to be at a youth club? Daft! If he's there, there's no chance of him a-burgling! He is not convicted, so cut the when-we-were-lads rubbish. What if he's found not guilty? (50-50 chance from what we know?) Talking to kids outside his home? Double daft! Then those apparently (from what we read here) feckless parents can really know where he is and what he's doing. One really despairs of the public's gung-ho attitude towards the rights of kids. Oh he's arrested, no smoke without fire, eh? If he were Lord McAlpine, aged 15 ......

Impose sensible restrictions, ENCOURAGE him to attend a good youth club (if it's still open after the cuts), don't tell him off him for just standing outside his house and talking to his mates and not going off. Remand? How much will that cost? The public? And him?

Maybe replace the current tags with something that has GPS installed in it, then we'd EXACTLY where he was and WHEN.

If he's found guilty, then you can all slaver away. Limb amputation at least, daily floggings, ritual humiliation. Or just send Sir Jimmy to run the place.
www.fairplayforchild
ren.org
So, one of his curfew offences was to be at a youth club? Daft! If he's there, there's no chance of him a-burgling! He is not convicted, so cut the when-we-were-lads rubbish. What if he's found not guilty? (50-50 chance from what we know?) Talking to kids outside his home? Double daft! Then those apparently (from what we read here) feckless parents can really know where he is and what he's doing. One really despairs of the public's gung-ho attitude towards the rights of kids. Oh he's arrested, no smoke without fire, eh? If he were Lord McAlpine, aged 15 ...... Impose sensible restrictions, ENCOURAGE him to attend a good youth club (if it's still open after the cuts), don't tell him off him for just standing outside his house and talking to his mates and not going off. Remand? How much will that cost? The public? And him? Maybe replace the current tags with something that has GPS installed in it, then we'd EXACTLY where he was and WHEN. If he's found guilty, then you can all slaver away. Limb amputation at least, daily floggings, ritual humiliation. Or just send Sir Jimmy to run the place. www.fairplayforchild ren.org FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Tue 20 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

Oh,also will this paper report the outcome in January? The young man has denied both charges, people commenting appear to have ignored that (not unusual when talking about kids). Maybe someone will let me know at Fair Play for Children? I hope for his sake he didn't do it. And for those who were victims of the offences. Being a 'tear-away' (if he be that) is not the same as being guilty.
Oh,also will this paper report the outcome in January? The young man has denied both charges, people commenting appear to have ignored that (not unusual when talking about kids). Maybe someone will let me know at Fair Play for Children? I hope for his sake he didn't do it. And for those who were victims of the offences. Being a 'tear-away' (if he be that) is not the same as being guilty. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Jabbadad says...

It's because of comments like the one above about trying to understand these tare aways that we have these pavement marauders strutting around without any respect for others, their Own Parents, and other peoples property.What they need is a lot of army discipline and then you would see men appear not thugs.
It's because of comments like the one above about trying to understand these tare aways that we have these pavement marauders strutting around without any respect for others, their Own Parents, and other peoples property.What they need is a lot of army discipline and then you would see men appear not thugs. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

1:55am Wed 21 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

Now there you go again - he's guilty, you say he must be. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This curfew is a restriction not a conviction. Is he a "pavement marauder"? Do you know him?

I'm not trying to understand him, but I'd like to understand how those who demand respect for the Rule of Law allow that to vanish in a puff of smelly hot air when it suits them. You are the problem, undermining respect for the Rule of Law with backwoods comments.

Haven't you noticed, the army stopped wanting conscription years ago, they weren't up to the demands of modern soldiering. All you'd get is a lot of body bags back from Afghanistan.

As I said earlier, wait until there's a verdict. Then, if he's guilty, you can get your rocks off.

If he's not guilty, then just consider he would have had those restrictions on his liberty without good reason.

It's people like me who remind you that the Rule of Law is there also to protect those we want to condemn. It's easy to take away others rights but hear you squeal when it's done to you unfairly.

The last World War was fought mainly to ensure that Rule of Law stayed as the bedrock of human society.
Now there you go again - he's guilty, you say he must be. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This curfew is a restriction not a conviction. Is he a "pavement marauder"? Do you know him? I'm not trying to understand him, but I'd like to understand how those who demand respect for the Rule of Law allow that to vanish in a puff of smelly hot air when it suits them. You are the problem, undermining respect for the Rule of Law with backwoods comments. Haven't you noticed, the army stopped wanting conscription years ago, they weren't up to the demands of modern soldiering. All you'd get is a lot of body bags back from Afghanistan. As I said earlier, wait until there's a verdict. Then, if he's guilty, you can get your rocks off. If he's not guilty, then just consider he would have had those restrictions on his liberty without good reason. It's people like me who remind you that the Rule of Law is there also to protect those we want to condemn. It's easy to take away others rights but hear you squeal when it's done to you unfairly. The last World War was fought mainly to ensure that Rule of Law stayed as the bedrock of human society. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

8:17am Wed 21 Nov 12

Lord Newbold says...

FairPlayforChildren wrote:
Now there you go again - he's guilty, you say he must be. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This curfew is a restriction not a conviction. Is he a "pavement marauder"? Do you know him?

I'm not trying to understand him, but I'd like to understand how those who demand respect for the Rule of Law allow that to vanish in a puff of smelly hot air when it suits them. You are the problem, undermining respect for the Rule of Law with backwoods comments.

Haven't you noticed, the army stopped wanting conscription years ago, they weren't up to the demands of modern soldiering. All you'd get is a lot of body bags back from Afghanistan.

As I said earlier, wait until there's a verdict. Then, if he's guilty, you can get your rocks off.

If he's not guilty, then just consider he would have had those restrictions on his liberty without good reason.

It's people like me who remind you that the Rule of Law is there also to protect those we want to condemn. It's easy to take away others rights but hear you squeal when it's done to you unfairly.

The last World War was fought mainly to ensure that Rule of Law stayed as the bedrock of human society.
I can accept that he could be found not guilty of the burglary. However, if he has been granted bail pending a court hearing. With conditions attached to his bail, it has been proved he disregarded what the court had imposed on him. I feel sure that the information presented to the magistrates was significant enough for them to impose a curfew. He may not be guilty of these burglaries, yet he is guilty of breaching his bail conditions…
[quote][p][bold]FairPlayforChildren[/bold] wrote: Now there you go again - he's guilty, you say he must be. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This curfew is a restriction not a conviction. Is he a "pavement marauder"? Do you know him? I'm not trying to understand him, but I'd like to understand how those who demand respect for the Rule of Law allow that to vanish in a puff of smelly hot air when it suits them. You are the problem, undermining respect for the Rule of Law with backwoods comments. Haven't you noticed, the army stopped wanting conscription years ago, they weren't up to the demands of modern soldiering. All you'd get is a lot of body bags back from Afghanistan. As I said earlier, wait until there's a verdict. Then, if he's guilty, you can get your rocks off. If he's not guilty, then just consider he would have had those restrictions on his liberty without good reason. It's people like me who remind you that the Rule of Law is there also to protect those we want to condemn. It's easy to take away others rights but hear you squeal when it's done to you unfairly. The last World War was fought mainly to ensure that Rule of Law stayed as the bedrock of human society.[/p][/quote]I can accept that he could be found not guilty of the burglary. However, if he has been granted bail pending a court hearing. With conditions attached to his bail, it has been proved he disregarded what the court had imposed on him. I feel sure that the information presented to the magistrates was significant enough for them to impose a curfew. He may not be guilty of these burglaries, yet he is guilty of breaching his bail conditions… Lord Newbold
  • Score: 0

10:07am Wed 21 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

Yes he broke them. Two occasions we know were being at the youth club and outside his own home. That leaves 8 we don't know about. Rather than the blanket conditions imposed, perhaps it would have been better to have allowed him to be within, say, 10 yards of his own home or in an approved place, such as the youth club, with a condition his parents walked/drove him there and back. And I'm going to ask, why that condition and not the normal daily sign-on at the local nick? Is there a danger of him intimidating witnesses?

As I said, a GPS tag would enable him to be tracked as to where he was and when, so he'd have a reason not to be found where there were more burglaries.

He has around 2 months of this restriction which seems to me to be a tad oppressive unless he is a real danger to the public, in which case, remand. Or even a 10pm curfew which would enable youth club diversion - that could have been stated to be the/an approved location.

I think his brief should pop back to court and argue common sense - he is, after all, 15 and his mates are a key part of his life.
Yes he broke them. Two occasions we know were being at the youth club and outside his own home. That leaves 8 we don't know about. Rather than the blanket conditions imposed, perhaps it would have been better to have allowed him to be within, say, 10 yards of his own home or in an approved place, such as the youth club, with a condition his parents walked/drove him there and back. And I'm going to ask, why that condition and not the normal daily sign-on at the local nick? Is there a danger of him intimidating witnesses? As I said, a GPS tag would enable him to be tracked as to where he was and when, so he'd have a reason not to be found where there were more burglaries. He has around 2 months of this restriction which seems to me to be a tad oppressive unless he is a real danger to the public, in which case, remand. Or even a 10pm curfew which would enable youth club diversion - that could have been stated to be the/an approved location. I think his brief should pop back to court and argue common sense - he is, after all, 15 and his mates are a key part of his life. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

10:22am Wed 21 Nov 12

Lord Newbold says...

FairPlayforChildren,

In the very near future this 15 years old will be tried for the crime he is accused and either found to be blameless, or alternatively guilty as charged. If he is found to be blameless, and being persecuted by the police, and magistrates. I will be the first to hold my hand up. Therefore, I feel we who have commented on this article. Will have to wait and see.
FairPlayforChildren, In the very near future this 15 years old will be tried for the crime he is accused and either found to be blameless, or alternatively guilty as charged. If he is found to be blameless, and being persecuted by the police, and magistrates. I will be the first to hold my hand up. Therefore, I feel we who have commented on this article. Will have to wait and see. Lord Newbold
  • Score: 0

10:45am Wed 21 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

No one says he is being persecuted, rather I am saying let's have common sense when imposing restrictions on a 15 year old. Surely better he'd be attending a youth club than being bored at home? I bet his mum will agree, she'll be the one putting up with his moans...

I won't hold my hands up if he's found guilty, because that will only exist from the moment the jury hands down its verdict. Until this, he's presumed innocent. Shimple.

Let's have for him the same as we would expect if facing a criminal charge.
No one says he is being persecuted, rather I am saying let's have common sense when imposing restrictions on a 15 year old. Surely better he'd be attending a youth club than being bored at home? I bet his mum will agree, she'll be the one putting up with his moans... I won't hold my hands up if he's found guilty, because that will only exist from the moment the jury hands down its verdict. Until this, he's presumed innocent. Shimple. Let's have for him the same as we would expect if facing a criminal charge. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Vox populi says...

Sorry Fairplayforchildren but if his mum had done a better job in the first place and known where her child was and what he was doing then she wouldn't be in this prediciment.

The issue people are getting at here is lack of respect for the legal system and anything imposed upon him whether guilty or not. There were clear instructions imposed by a court of law and were ignored. I fail to see how a more liberal approach or letting him run free will address this. I don't like speed limits, taxes etc etc but I am a member of society therefore respect and abide by them.
Sorry Fairplayforchildren but if his mum had done a better job in the first place and known where her child was and what he was doing then she wouldn't be in this prediciment. The issue people are getting at here is lack of respect for the legal system and anything imposed upon him whether guilty or not. There were clear instructions imposed by a court of law and were ignored. I fail to see how a more liberal approach or letting him run free will address this. I don't like speed limits, taxes etc etc but I am a member of society therefore respect and abide by them. Vox populi
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 21 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

Oh the instant judgement about his parents. I don't advocate 'liberal' approaches just some common sense in the first place.

Who knows if his mum knew where he was? I haven't seen anything to that effect, she might just provide that detail in court. Stop the self-satisfied smug rush to judge others.

Ah motorists and speed limits. So if one is charged on that basis, curfew him from driving until the case is heard in court? Taxes? Oh well, curfew those accused of tax evasion for sure! Now there you might get a lot of votes just now. The petty burglar - a few hundred quid maybe. The tax cheat - between them, billions. Oh please, let's curfew them while we sort out how much is owed....

Whilst people hang on to this "he showed contempt for the law", let's spread that around a bit, where it might do a lot more good to the public purse.

Freedom of Information to the tax people - if the upper limit re national insurance were removed, then the better off would pay a further £9.3 billion a year to the pension funds, nhs etc. Payment at the full rate stops just above £46k, so the millionaire pays around 1% employee NI, whilst the man in the street pays 11%. (This figure also hides the fact that employers would benefit from around £1.3 billion p.a. they would not pay in extra employer NI on account of their better-off employees ,,,,)

Let's have a sense of balance also.
Oh the instant judgement about his parents. I don't advocate 'liberal' approaches just some common sense in the first place. Who knows if his mum knew where he was? I haven't seen anything to that effect, she might just provide that detail in court. Stop the self-satisfied smug rush to judge others. Ah motorists and speed limits. So if one is charged on that basis, curfew him from driving until the case is heard in court? Taxes? Oh well, curfew those accused of tax evasion for sure! Now there you might get a lot of votes just now. The petty burglar - a few hundred quid maybe. The tax cheat - between them, billions. Oh please, let's curfew them while we sort out how much is owed.... Whilst people hang on to this "he showed contempt for the law", let's spread that around a bit, where it might do a lot more good to the public purse. Freedom of Information to the tax people - if the upper limit re national insurance were removed, then the better off would pay a further £9.3 billion a year to the pension funds, nhs etc. Payment at the full rate stops just above £46k, so the millionaire pays around 1% employee NI, whilst the man in the street pays 11%. (This figure also hides the fact that employers would benefit from around £1.3 billion p.a. they would not pay in extra employer NI on account of their better-off employees ,,,,) Let's have a sense of balance also. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Jabbadad says...

Who is being judgmental he broke his curfew no less than 10 times, HOW many chances do you get / want.
Even you do gooders only have two facial cheeks to turn.
Who is being judgmental he broke his curfew no less than 10 times, HOW many chances do you get / want. Even you do gooders only have two facial cheeks to turn. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Vox populi says...

Oh right Fairplayforchildren. If his mum knew he was out robbing houses or breaking his curfew it's ok then?

I give up....

As for the others they weren't up for debate they are merely laws I HAVE to abide by as a good citizen and member of society. Similar to the LAWS he was required to abide by with the support of his mother following the ruling.

One presumes the curfew was to prevent him getting into more trouble, oh rather like a driving ban really...
Oh right Fairplayforchildren. If his mum knew he was out robbing houses or breaking his curfew it's ok then? I give up.... As for the others they weren't up for debate they are merely laws I HAVE to abide by as a good citizen and member of society. Similar to the LAWS he was required to abide by with the support of his mother following the ruling. One presumes the curfew was to prevent him getting into more trouble, oh rather like a driving ban really... Vox populi
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Vertis says...

How can he be bored? I would give my left hand to have time free at home!

Talking of left hands... Maybe this wouldnt happen if we rolled back to the old system of trialing a person more swiftly and removing such hands from a thief or burglar.. Ok there will always be a few mistakes but at least people like this couldnt shove two fingers up at the legal system afterwards!
How can he be bored? I would give my left hand to have time free at home! Talking of left hands... Maybe this wouldnt happen if we rolled back to the old system of trialing a person more swiftly and removing such hands from a thief or burglar.. Ok there will always be a few mistakes but at least people like this couldnt shove two fingers up at the legal system afterwards! Vertis
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Sun 25 Nov 12

roguetomato says...

@ Fair Play For Children

What's the point in imposing a curfew on someone but also allowing them to go to a youth center, and so many yards outside their house?

The whole point of a curfew then is useless. He broke his curfew, imposed by law and should be punished accordingly, whether guilty of burglary or not, he still broke the law by his disregard toward the curfew set out by a court. Simple.

You talk about common sense, but if a 15 year old has been given a curfew by court, and that 15 year old has broke the rules of that curfew, even once then common sense tell us the kid is a moron that has no respect for rules or the law. It's really as clean cut as that.

Being bored is not an excuse at all either. Plenty of teenagers get bored all of the time, so they find something to do, like read a book, watch some TV...there is something inherently wrong when a child knowingly does something wrong just because they're bored.

Trouble is kids these days blame their actions on boredom all too much. It's outrageous. You see on TV all the time groups oh 15 / 16 year olds being interviewed and asked why they hang around on streets, getting into trouble and so on and they say its because there is nothing for them to do. It's not the councils responsibility or obligation to provide any kind of service, like a park, or a center for them to hang out in.

It's a really **** place to be whereby our society HAS to spend millions of pounds on youth centers and services just to stop kids getting bored and breaking the law.
@ Fair Play For Children What's the point in imposing a curfew on someone but also allowing them to go to a youth center, and so many yards outside their house? The whole point of a curfew then is useless. He broke his curfew, imposed by law and should be punished accordingly, whether guilty of burglary or not, he still broke the law by his disregard toward the curfew set out by a court. Simple. You talk about common sense, but if a 15 year old has been given a curfew by court, and that 15 year old has broke the rules of that curfew, even once then common sense tell us the kid is a moron that has no respect for rules or the law. It's really as clean cut as that. Being bored is not an excuse at all either. Plenty of teenagers get bored all of the time, so they find something to do, like read a book, watch some TV...there is something inherently wrong when a child knowingly does something wrong just because they're bored. Trouble is kids these days blame their actions on boredom all too much. It's outrageous. You see on TV all the time groups oh 15 / 16 year olds being interviewed and asked why they hang around on streets, getting into trouble and so on and they say its because there is nothing for them to do. It's not the councils responsibility or obligation to provide any kind of service, like a park, or a center for them to hang out in. It's a really **** place to be whereby our society HAS to spend millions of pounds on youth centers and services just to stop kids getting bored and breaking the law. roguetomato
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Sun 25 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

Amazing isn't it, when we were all kids we got bored, some caused trouble and there were youth groups for them that wanted them. From what I'm reading our generation were such a lot of clean cut, respectful, law-abiding young folk that our elders were aghast at our good manners and unbelieving at how little we got into bother. La-la land it was. Kids who were arrested got off with cautions, or were bailed to report once a week to a police station, so good were we all.

Now be happy, the youth clubs are all closing, there's curfews and mosquito devices and pepper spray. Too good for the likes of them! Bring back birching .... the trouble is many of you never speak with kids, bother to listen to them, it's a litany of "we never used to", "in our young days" .... There wre no mods or teddy boys or rockers, just church-attending quiet kids who never stepped out of line because PC49 was always on hand to give that clip round the ear (and we knew our place).

Look, the kid should be bailed to report to the police station, daily or weekly. Less paper work, less form-filling, and as effective. If it was good enough for us, it should be good enough for them. And as said GPS tags would tell even mummy where he was.

Millions of pounds USED to be spent on youth centres for us, now they're being closed, for good, unless you noble citizens, in the name of the BIG SOCIETY, want to take them over and run them for nowt. Think of, you could offer weekly drill sessions, PE military style exercises.

Any takers? Or is it just handy simply to mouth off about 'kids today' just as people in the past did who sat on their fat bums and did diddly squat to help.
Amazing isn't it, when we were all kids we got bored, some caused trouble and there were youth groups for them that wanted them. From what I'm reading our generation were such a lot of clean cut, respectful, law-abiding young folk that our elders were aghast at our good manners and unbelieving at how little we got into bother. La-la land it was. Kids who were arrested got off with cautions, or were bailed to report once a week to a police station, so good were we all. Now be happy, the youth clubs are all closing, there's curfews and mosquito devices and pepper spray. Too good for the likes of them! Bring back birching .... the trouble is many of you never speak with kids, bother to listen to them, it's a litany of "we never used to", "in our young days" .... There wre no mods or teddy boys or rockers, just church-attending quiet kids who never stepped out of line because PC49 was always on hand to give that clip round the ear (and we knew our place). Look, the kid should be bailed to report to the police station, daily or weekly. Less paper work, less form-filling, and as effective. If it was good enough for us, it should be good enough for them. And as said GPS tags would tell even mummy where he was. Millions of pounds USED to be spent on youth centres for us, now they're being closed, for good, unless you noble citizens, in the name of the BIG SOCIETY, want to take them over and run them for nowt. Think of, you could offer weekly drill sessions, PE military style exercises. Any takers? Or is it just handy simply to mouth off about 'kids today' just as people in the past did who sat on their fat bums and did diddly squat to help. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Sun 25 Nov 12

roguetomato says...

Why should we waste our time with kids that don't respect the law?

I'm under no illusion that this has been happening since the the beginning of time, and clearly, someone is to blame and all the **** organisations out there seem to think it's not the fault of kid in question.

The kid knowingly did something wrong, that clearly means he has no respect, so why the hell should anyone have any respect for him? Why should we expend time and effort teaching him how to respect? If he wants to be an idiot, let him be an idiot and he can face the consequences.

Kids these days know they can get away with pretty much anything because all they have to do is complain there are no youth centers, or they're bored blah blah. This has been going on for years, and the ''situation'' isn't any better.

Youth centers are being closed for a reason. They're simply not viable.

Why don't you gather 100 like minded people like yourself and each of you invest £5000. You'll then have enough money to open up a modest youth center, and you can then run it by fundraising all year round while at the same time working there full time teaching these kids how to respect their lives.

Too much effort right? Imagine how much money has been spent on these youth centers over the years, for very little gain. I mean how much good have they actually done, as a whole..

If a considerable percentage of youths in a specific area that have previous records for any criminal activity were sorted out by youth centers and activities they would not get rid of them

It's the same as you buying a brand new saucepan that you know has a hole in the bottom but you buy it anyway. It just never quite works as it should and ends up being a waste of money.
Why should we waste our time with kids that don't respect the law? I'm under no illusion that this has been happening since the the beginning of time, and clearly, someone is to blame and all the **** organisations out there seem to think it's not the fault of kid in question. The kid knowingly did something wrong, that clearly means he has no respect, so why the hell should anyone have any respect for him? Why should we expend time and effort teaching him how to respect? If he wants to be an idiot, let him be an idiot and he can face the consequences. Kids these days know they can get away with pretty much anything because all they have to do is complain there are no youth centers, or they're bored blah blah. This has been going on for years, and the ''situation'' isn't any better. Youth centers are being closed for a reason. They're simply not viable. Why don't you gather 100 like minded people like yourself and each of you invest £5000. You'll then have enough money to open up a modest youth center, and you can then run it by fundraising all year round while at the same time working there full time teaching these kids how to respect their lives. Too much effort right? Imagine how much money has been spent on these youth centers over the years, for very little gain. I mean how much good have they actually done, as a whole.. If a considerable percentage of youths in a specific area that have previous records for any criminal activity were sorted out by youth centers and activities they would not get rid of them It's the same as you buying a brand new saucepan that you know has a hole in the bottom but you buy it anyway. It just never quite works as it should and ends up being a waste of money. roguetomato
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Sun 25 Nov 12

roguetomato says...

With funding drying up everywhere these days the first thing they're going to axe are the services aimed at helping people who screw themselves up.
With funding drying up everywhere these days the first thing they're going to axe are the services aimed at helping people who screw themselves up. roguetomato
  • Score: 0

10:21am Mon 26 Nov 12

Lord Newbold says...

FairPlayforChildren,

While I trust and hope that, you will not take this as either a compliment or a personal attack.
You are a like the old style “British Bull Dog” who theoretically has jaws that lock on to whatever it bites. Your stance on behalf of many of the world’s youngsters is to be admired. Unfortunately, your antipathetic stance about this one particular disobedient teenager is now becoming very boring.
It seems very strange within your comments, you cannot accept, that for whatever reason this particular young boy is sticking two fingers up at our legal system. Whether he is guilty of the original offence or not has become secondary. Many people may become bored with several things in life; however, they do not decide to break some law or other. Why can you not admit, this boy has been accused of a crime (while I do not agree with the time from being accused to trial) is awaiting his day in court. He could have been remanded in custody. Yet, he was given a curfew, which he eventually decided was not for him. Then he claims ennui got the better of him, so he decided to disregard the restriction that had been imposed on him by the law of the land. Surely, you must be able to admit, that he ignored his restrictions. That is why he is receiving this adverse publicity, not because he is a youngster, but because in ignored our UK laws as administered by magistrates or a judge.
FairPlayforChildren, While I trust and hope that, you will not take this as either a compliment or a personal attack. You are a like the old style “British Bull Dog” who theoretically has jaws that lock on to whatever it bites. Your stance on behalf of many of the world’s youngsters is to be admired. Unfortunately, your antipathetic stance about this one particular disobedient teenager is now becoming very boring. It seems very strange within your comments, you cannot accept, that for whatever reason this particular young boy is sticking two fingers up at our legal system. Whether he is guilty of the original offence or not has become secondary. Many people may become bored with several things in life; however, they do not decide to break some law or other. Why can you not admit, this boy has been accused of a crime (while I do not agree with the time from being accused to trial) is awaiting his day in court. He could have been remanded in custody. Yet, he was given a curfew, which he eventually decided was not for him. Then he claims ennui got the better of him, so he decided to disregard the restriction that had been imposed on him by the law of the land. Surely, you must be able to admit, that he ignored his restrictions. That is why he is receiving this adverse publicity, not because he is a youngster, but because in ignored our UK laws as administered by magistrates or a judge. Lord Newbold
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Vox populi says...

Quite simple really. Laws apply to every woman, man and child over the age of criminal responsibility in the UK.
Criminal responsibility is the age defined in the UK that a person can make a decision for themselves, up until this age they are the responsibility of their parents. This boy is clearly over that age and was given a punishment.

WHY should he be treated any different to anyone else that breaks the law or lives under the laws of this country?
Quite simple really. Laws apply to every woman, man and child over the age of criminal responsibility in the UK. Criminal responsibility is the age defined in the UK that a person can make a decision for themselves, up until this age they are the responsibility of their parents. This boy is clearly over that age and was given a punishment. WHY should he be treated any different to anyone else that breaks the law or lives under the laws of this country? Vox populi
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Mon 26 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

No he WASN'T punished, he was bailed, let's get it right. No one has found him guilty of the crime of which he is accused, please just TRY to remember that simple if inconvenient fact.

You just want to condemn him, he's young, you get your rocks off on that. Sad.

He broke bail conditions, now he's been reminded so you need to ask if he's done this since.

Let's think of people warned not to approach the partner they've been abusing. They do it time and again, until finally they get jugged, but BOY do they get enough chances from the police and the magistrates.

NONE of you has yet told me that you have or intend to get out of your armchairs where talk is cheap and offer a solution as part of Mr Cameron's Big Society. The PM is waiting for YOUR call, get to it. Or is it another round of bile-infested nastiness masquerading as civil conscience.

Do good? Yeah you bet. Some of us have been at that for years, patching up what we can and taking your cheap insults. My new year resolution is not to turn that other cheek but to face those who spout such garbage as if it's holy writ.

We get the kids society makes, personally I feel they have a rotten deal, surrounded on all sides by carping non-entities who have done nothing except remove all hope from their lives.

Juts thank our lucky stars that they haven't torched a lot of it so far. Theb writing is on the wall. Burglary will be the least of it.

As for this kid, get a sense of proportion. We've read it all here - proof of moral decay, we were better, spell in forces, conscription, lock them up and throw away the key, no respect, blah-di-blah-di-blah
.

Does a 37 year old accused of the same crime get such bail conditions? Maybe the police and the courts can enlighten us, based on a lot of cases not just one or two conveniently highlighted .....
No he WASN'T punished, he was bailed, let's get it right. No one has found him guilty of the crime of which he is accused, please just TRY to remember that simple if inconvenient fact. You just want to condemn him, he's young, you get your rocks off on that. Sad. He broke bail conditions, now he's been reminded so you need to ask if he's done this since. Let's think of people warned not to approach the partner they've been abusing. They do it time and again, until finally they get jugged, but BOY do they get enough chances from the police and the magistrates. NONE of you has yet told me that you have or intend to get out of your armchairs where talk is cheap and offer a solution as part of Mr Cameron's Big Society. The PM is waiting for YOUR call, get to it. Or is it another round of bile-infested nastiness masquerading as civil conscience. Do good? Yeah you bet. Some of us have been at that for years, patching up what we can and taking your cheap insults. My new year resolution is not to turn that other cheek but to face those who spout such garbage as if it's holy writ. We get the kids society makes, personally I feel they have a rotten deal, surrounded on all sides by carping non-entities who have done nothing except remove all hope from their lives. Juts thank our lucky stars that they haven't torched a lot of it so far. Theb writing is on the wall. Burglary will be the least of it. As for this kid, get a sense of proportion. We've read it all here - proof of moral decay, we were better, spell in forces, conscription, lock them up and throw away the key, no respect, blah-di-blah-di-blah . Does a 37 year old accused of the same crime get such bail conditions? Maybe the police and the courts can enlighten us, based on a lot of cases not just one or two conveniently highlighted ..... FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Vox populi says...

Am I being punished by having to obey speed limits or getting a parking ticket?
No but I have to abide by them.

You really don't get it do you?
I abide by the law, society requires me to do so.

Tax is one of these laws and some of this goes to funding the police, judicial system and keeping a danger to me, my family or my property off the street no matter what their age. Therefore I expect everyone else to do the same, its called being part of society not picking and choosing what laws you obey.

Society cannot exist without law yet you state

"Juts thank our lucky stars that they haven't torched a lot of it so far. Theb writing is on the wall. Burglary will be the least of it"

I think you need to stop listening to the s£x pistols.....
Am I being punished by having to obey speed limits or getting a parking ticket? No but I have to abide by them. You really don't get it do you? I abide by the law, society requires me to do so. Tax is one of these laws and some of this goes to funding the police, judicial system and keeping a danger to me, my family or my property off the street no matter what their age. Therefore I expect everyone else to do the same, its called being part of society not picking and choosing what laws you obey. Society cannot exist without law yet you state "Juts thank our lucky stars that they haven't torched a lot of it so far. Theb writing is on the wall. Burglary will be the least of it" I think you need to stop listening to the s£x pistols..... Vox populi
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Lord Newbold says...

Vox populi wrote:
Am I being punished by having to obey speed limits or getting a parking ticket?
No but I have to abide by them.

You really don't get it do you?
I abide by the law, society requires me to do so.

Tax is one of these laws and some of this goes to funding the police, judicial system and keeping a danger to me, my family or my property off the street no matter what their age. Therefore I expect everyone else to do the same, its called being part of society not picking and choosing what laws you obey.

Society cannot exist without law yet you state

"Juts thank our lucky stars that they haven't torched a lot of it so far. Theb writing is on the wall. Burglary will be the least of it"

I think you need to stop listening to the s£x pistols.....
It would seem that FairPlayforChildren is one of those persons whom are only happy if he drives the wrong way up a one-way street. It appears that he/she has a fixation on being argumentative, it is blatantly obvious that they consider disregarding of our laws to be some sort of challenge, and those who fall foul should be able to ignore what the court hands out in addition to whatever bail has been set for this particular alleged offence. I get the feeling that he/she playing any sort of game, would be the first to oppose the referee’s recorded result. The fact still remains this youth has been charged with the alleged offence of burglary, due to our legal system, he was bailed for the alleged offence, and then he committed a breach of bail. This without any explanation is a violation of the conditions imposed on him. No excuse for his actions and no excuse for any additional restrictions that the courts may impose for this definite breach of the conditions placed upon him.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: Am I being punished by having to obey speed limits or getting a parking ticket? No but I have to abide by them. You really don't get it do you? I abide by the law, society requires me to do so. Tax is one of these laws and some of this goes to funding the police, judicial system and keeping a danger to me, my family or my property off the street no matter what their age. Therefore I expect everyone else to do the same, its called being part of society not picking and choosing what laws you obey. Society cannot exist without law yet you state "Juts thank our lucky stars that they haven't torched a lot of it so far. Theb writing is on the wall. Burglary will be the least of it" I think you need to stop listening to the s£x pistols.....[/p][/quote]It would seem that FairPlayforChildren is one of those persons whom are only happy if he drives the wrong way up a one-way street. It appears that he/she has a fixation on being argumentative, it is blatantly obvious that they consider disregarding of our laws to be some sort of challenge, and those who fall foul should be able to ignore what the court hands out in addition to whatever bail has been set for this particular alleged offence. I get the feeling that he/she playing any sort of game, would be the first to oppose the referee’s recorded result. The fact still remains this youth has been charged with the alleged offence of burglary, due to our legal system, he was bailed for the alleged offence, and then he committed a breach of bail. This without any explanation is a violation of the conditions imposed on him. No excuse for his actions and no excuse for any additional restrictions that the courts may impose for this definite breach of the conditions placed upon him. Lord Newbold
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Tue 27 Nov 12

FairPlayforChildren says...

None of you have any idea about proportion and fairness. I don't object to him being bailed to report to a police station but ask whether older people accused of similar crimes are subjected to the same bail conditions?

Why was it necessary to ban him from being out of home in every circumstance when being at a youth club would have been absolute common sense, especially for his mum who could have met him?

Keeping him in for over 2 months seems to me to be disproportionate. From the tone here in general everyone assumes he's guilty and thus in need of being stopped from burgling again before he goes to court.

Presumptive indeed. Is he likely to intimidate witnesses? That might be a reason for curfew, the court would have to have been convinced by the prosecution argument. They didn't do that.

I'd like to know the reason for that curfew condition, and how it was explained, as it has to be, by the court.

For example, when is it alleged the burglary occurred? If it happened in the early hours the sensible curfew might have been between the hours of 10pm and 6.30am ....

“Since November 2 he was given these conditions in court and he has complied with them. He wasn’t aware of the implications." We are not told about how he was advised/instructed before that.

Restriction on liberty of movement is no trivial matter. The requirement is that it has to be proportionate to the issue at hand not just some whim of the police or prosecution. I have seen enough evidence of authorities in this country moving all too-quickly towards restrictions of movement on the young.

And I ask, the man accused of driving offences, is he curfewed from driving until his trial? I think not. One might argue there might be more public risk in that.

Had he been told, as has been the usual format, he had to report to his local nick every Thursday afternoon, say, compliance might have been a simpler matter and less call on police time. We're supposed to be cutting back on unnecessary paperwork aren't we?

This boy's liberties are yours too, don't be son keen to give them away.
None of you have any idea about proportion and fairness. I don't object to him being bailed to report to a police station but ask whether older people accused of similar crimes are subjected to the same bail conditions? Why was it necessary to ban him from being out of home in every circumstance when being at a youth club would have been absolute common sense, especially for his mum who could have met him? Keeping him in for over 2 months seems to me to be disproportionate. From the tone here in general everyone assumes he's guilty and thus in need of being stopped from burgling again before he goes to court. Presumptive indeed. Is he likely to intimidate witnesses? That might be a reason for curfew, the court would have to have been convinced by the prosecution argument. They didn't do that. I'd like to know the reason for that curfew condition, and how it was explained, as it has to be, by the court. For example, when is it alleged the burglary occurred? If it happened in the early hours the sensible curfew might have been between the hours of 10pm and 6.30am .... “Since November 2 he was given these conditions in court and he has complied with them. He wasn’t aware of the implications." We are not told about how he was advised/instructed before that. Restriction on liberty of movement is no trivial matter. The requirement is that it has to be proportionate to the issue at hand not just some whim of the police or prosecution. I have seen enough evidence of authorities in this country moving all too-quickly towards restrictions of movement on the young. And I ask, the man accused of driving offences, is he curfewed from driving until his trial? I think not. One might argue there might be more public risk in that. Had he been told, as has been the usual format, he had to report to his local nick every Thursday afternoon, say, compliance might have been a simpler matter and less call on police time. We're supposed to be cutting back on unnecessary paperwork aren't we? This boy's liberties are yours too, don't be son keen to give them away. FairPlayforChildren
  • Score: 0

11:14pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Vox populi says...

What a daft statement.

The boys liberties aren't mine at all - I obey the law.
What a daft statement. The boys liberties aren't mine at all - I obey the law. Vox populi
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree