NationStates Jolt Archive

Curfew Move 'Treats Youngsters Like A Sack of Carrots'
By John Aston, PA

Human rights campaigners today backed a 15-year-old boy in a High Court bid to block the Government’s use of “curfew zones” to clamp down on Britain’s “yob culture”.

The court heard that “many thousands of young people” are being affected as hundreds of places across the country are designated “dispersal areas” where police can break up groups of under-16s and escort individuals home after 9pm.

Two judges were told “innocent and blameless” children were having their rights to meet and associate freely unlawfully infringed as the authorities attempted to prevent anti-social behaviour in villages, towns and city centres.

Lawyers for Home Secretary Charles Clarke argue the measures are justified, necessary and a “proportionate” response.

Javan Herberg, appearing for W, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said the legislation was interfering with family life and the right of parents to decide how much freedom their children should have.

Backed by human rights group Liberty, W is fighting a test case over Metropolitan Police decisions last year to create two dispersal areas in Richmond-upon-Thames, where he lives.

Liberty fears that the Government is in danger of “demonising” the younger generation.

But the police argue they have the right under the 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act to designate areas where they have reasonable grounds for believing members of the public have been “intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed”, or where anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem.

Areas can only be designated for up to six months, and both Richmond designations under challenge have expired, but W’s lawyers say similar orders could be made this coming summer.

Mr Herberg said under-16s who entered the designated areas could be detained, held and returned to their home and kept under curfew between 9pm and 6am “even when there is no suggestion or apprehension they will commit anti-social behaviour or anything else wrong.”

Although today’s case concerned Richmond, the case inevitably had wider implications.

Mr Herbert said: “A very large number of young people have, or have had, their freedom to move and associate freely curtailed or fettered by the designation of dispersal areas and the consequent curfews.”

He told Lord Justice Brooke, sitting with Mr Justice Mitting, the latest information revealed that more than 400 dispersal areas were established between Jan-Sept 2004 covering a diverse range of localities across England and Wales, from London’s West End to whole villages, such as Culcheth in Cheshire.

But the powers being used by the police, with the backing of local authorities, involved “a fundamental breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and common law.”

Lord Justice Brooke summed up the question before the court, saying: “There is apparently a power to remove an under 16-year-old as if he were a sack of carrots, but what are his rights as a child?”

The judges heard that W was a churchgoing “model student” interested in sport and music who had never been in trouble with the police and wanted the right to go to the cinema or football matches without the fear of losing his freedom and being detained by the police.

Mr Herberg said W, who was not in court, had been left “uncomfortable and extremely worried”.

He read from a statement in which the 15-year-old said he did not want to get into trouble with the police and it was not fair that he ran the risk of doing so “when I have done nothing wrong”.

In a statement released before today’s hearing, W said: “Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I’ve done something wrong.

“But they shouldn’t be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I’m under 16.”

He wants the judges to rule that the curfew regime violates his right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 8 (respect for private life), Article 11 (right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others), and Article 14 (right not to be discriminated against because of his child status).

Home Office counsel Timothy Otty is urging the judges to dismiss W’s application for judicial review.

Backed by counsel for the Met Police and Richmond council, he submitted that the 15-year-old had no standing to bring the claim as he had not been stopped by police and deprived of his liberty inside a dispersal area.

There had been no interference with his private rights – but if there was in the future it would be on the basis that the police action was “necessary and proportionate in a democratic society” with the legitimate aim of controlling anti-social behaviour.

The powers to create dispersal areas were not incompatible with the human rights convention, nor did they breach the common law.

The hearing, expected to last two days, continues tomorrow.

Opinions?

Is 'W' a relation of Dubya? :p

Yes I do believe it is a breach of Human Rights, but a nessacery one. As in certain areas of the city I live in people are scared to go to the shops because of the fear of big groups of young people who hang around them. And C'mon its 9pm it's not as if its still light then so why the need to hang on the street?

Yes I do believe it is a breach of Human Rights, but a nessacery one. As in certain areas of the city I live in people are scared to go to the shops because of the fear of big groups of young people who hang around them. And C'mon its 9pm it's not as if its still light then so why the need to hang on the street?

So your saying its ok to order under 18's to return to there homes after a certian time just because they are under 18? Wouldnt it be more logical to force them to return home if they had say DONE SOMETHING WRONG!

And C'mon its 9pm it's not as if its still light then so why the need to hang on the street?

cause the park closes at sunset?

standing ain't a crime, why should it be made one specifically for people who are under 18?

Just a continuation of what has always happened. The youth have always been the slave class of Western society, and it's not likely to change now.

I do not believe that children are fully human, so they have no rights to violate. They should all wear shock collars until their 18th birthday. Abortion should be legal until the 75th trimester.

So your saying its ok to order under 18's to return to there homes after a certian time just because they are under 18? Wouldnt it be more logical to force them to return home if they had say DONE SOMETHING WRONG!

Though this may sound like a generalisation, many are doing something wrong like intimidating other residents, though they may not mean too. The idea of the measure is too reduce low level crime and to make the public feel safer.

Note: I live near 2 such cufrew areas and in general people now feel safer.

cause the park closes at sunset?

standing ain't a crime, why should it be made one specifically for people who are under 18?

But is not intimidation a crime?

Mennon, people feel safer because people are idiots. They get a stereotype about kids, see them in large numbers, and assume the stereotype to be true. If that idiocy was allowed to make policy in every way, what Gartref posted would come true. And, yes, I would like you to get all of the people who feel safer and show them this post so they can know that their mental problem has been identified.

As for intimidation: Only if it's intentional is it a crime, and even then in most cases it's not even enough of a crime for them to get more than watched by the police.

Mennon, people feel safer because people are idiots. They get a stereotype about kids, see them in large numbers, and assume the stereotype to be true. If that idiocy was allowed to make policy in every way, what Gartref posted would come true. And, yes, I would like you to get all of the people who feel safer and show them this post so they can know that their mental problem has been identified.

As for intimidation: Only if it's intentional is it a crime, and even then in most cases it's not even enough of a crime for them to get more than watched by the police.

Yea I know people stereotype kids but the sad fact is that some individuals use these large groups to hide in a nd therefore less the chance of being caught for a crime.

Also I know that we sadly do not live in a perfect world, though I wish we did, and therefore laws like the one above are needed to keep some type of order in certain communities as large groups of young people with nothing to do, do sadly get drawn to crime. E.g. minor offences like vandalism which then leads to their bad image.

Mennon, people feel safer because people are idiots. They get a stereotype about kids, see them in large numbers, and assume the stereotype to be true. If that idiocy was allowed to make policy in every way, what Gartref posted would come true. And, yes, I would like you to get all of the people who feel safer and show them this post so they can know that their mental problem has been identified.

As for intimidation: Only if it's intentional is it a crime, and even then in most cases it's not even enough of a crime for them to get more than watched by the police.

I'd rather the Police (whose existence I pay taxes to support) enforce laws, rather than babysitting someone's underage darling as he or she makes a twenty-four on the town.
There are, in my opinion, no reasonably legitimate purposes for minor children to be lurking the streets at midnight-Child labour is illegal in the U.S., so they aren't coming home from working a swing-shift at the factory, businesses normally aren't allowed to keep a minor working in service jobs past a certain time (depending on the State you live in) either.

It's a shame that the Law has to be doing what the Parents are supposed to-but it's consistent that the Law is doing it, since the level of responsibility among those with little hellspawn has been declining steadily for most of my life, the parents turning over basic responsibility to the State through schools, curfew laws, etc.

You want Rights? Grow up, and Assume Responsibility, and you'll have the right to Adult Privelages.

I live in a state that solved the problems of kids in large groups. We've actually had a gang killing make the news, which means gang violence has gone down since the effort was put into practice. In case you're wondering, we loosened gun laws to allow concealed-carry. Now, every gang member must wonder whether that woman walking down the street is an easy mark or is carrying enough firepower with enough skill backing it to kill all of them before they even have a chance to try anything.

Personally, I enjoy carrying around my .50 AE Desert Eagle.

I'd rather the Police (whose existence I pay taxes to support) enforce laws, rather than babysitting someone's underage darling as he or she makes a twenty-four on the town.
There are, in my opinion, no reasonably legitimate purposes for minor children to be lurking the streets at midnight-Child labour is illegal in the U.S., so they aren't coming home from working a swing-shift at the factory, businesses normally aren't allowed to keep a minor working in service jobs past a certain time (depending on the State you live in) either.

It's a shame that the Law has to be doing what the Parents are supposed to-but it's consistent that the Law is doing it, since the level of responsibility among those with little hellspawn has been declining steadily for most of my life, the parents turning over basic responsibility to the State through schools, curfew laws, etc.

You want Rights? Grow up, and Assume Responsibility, and you'll have the right to Adult Privelages.


I couldn't put it better myself.

Screw it, I'll go ahead and double-post.

I'd rather the Police (whose existence I pay taxes to support) enforce laws, rather than babysitting someone's underage darling as he or she makes a twenty-four on the town.

And I'd rather the cop be there to stop a murder than be busy driving some idiot who was just minding his own business home just because he's underage. Hell, if I wanted to rob some place, I'd just pay a bunch of teens to wander around there and rob it while the police are busy taking them home.

There are, in my opinion, no reasonably legitimate purposes for minor children to be lurking the streets at midnight-Child labour is illegal in the U.S., so they aren't coming home from working a swing-shift at the factory, businesses normally aren't allowed to keep a minor working in service jobs past a certain time (depending on the State you live in) either.

Child labor over certain hours, depending on age, is illegal in the U.S. In my state, children working until midnight is not unheard of, depending on when their shift starts.

It's a shame that the Law has to be doing what the Parents are supposed to-but it's consistent that the Law is doing it, since the level of responsibility among those with little hellspawn has been declining steadily for most of my life, the parents turning over basic responsibility to the State through schools, curfew laws, etc.

The level of responsibility has been declining because society itself has been telling them it's supposed to decline. Most children today are in school for longer than what used to be the total lifespan of humanity. And to be honest, I've found those that are given a chance at responsibility at a young age end up far more responsible than most adults when they grow up. But, they must have a chance at it. That law is just another case of telling them they won't have a chance and do not need to be responsible.

That societal trend is part of why I was hoping for a certain position with my company in Iraq, so that I can at least make sure they don't make some of the idiotic mistakes we have.

You want Rights? Grow up, and Assume Responsibility, and you'll have the right to Adult Privelages.

The only right you have is the right to die. Everything else is just privilages granted to you. Age doesn't matter.

standing ain't a crime, why should it be made one specifically for people who are under 18?

Because they might reach critical mass?

But is not intimidation a crime?

I don't think it is, though it is looked down upon.

Though some adults seem to be 'imtimidated' very easily by children doing nothing wrong and not planning on doing wrong, similar to how a latent racist might feel 'intimidated' if they pass a black person in the street.

Just a continuation of what has always happened. The youth have always been the slave class of Western society, and it's not likely to change now.

I think it is a bit far fetched to claim that. Women, Jews and Africans have more claim to "always being the slave class in Western society"

Anarchic Conceptions, they were not always. Children, on the other hand, are pretty much looked down upon because of their age. Always have been and always will be.

The sad fact is, the only real solution to this kind of problem is to change the attitudes of society, which will probably never happen noticeably in a lifetime. What we need is a progressive dictatorship to instigate massive education reform....*cue odd looks* ^_~

Anarchic Conceptions, they were not always. Children, on the other hand, are pretty much looked down upon because of their age. Always have been and always will be.

In the trades, you don't give an Apprentice the responsibility, pay, etc. you give a Journeyman or a Master. Kids are Apprenticing to become adults. therefore, they don't get to do the things Adults do (Vote, own property, pay taxes on that property, get a mortgage, or a full-time job that lasts all year.)
this is to break them into society at a pace that won't break society.

further, children tend to be 'naturally' savages. It takes time to develop the means and methods of responding to the world without resorting immediately to violence, tantrums, etc.

You will note that some adults never learn these skills either-most of them are Criminals, though tere are a few Hollywood Celebrities and Pro Athletes as well.

Those people who feel threatened seem to have forgotten what it is to be young.
I am now in my 40's. I regularly walk my slightly pathetic dog through large groups (30 or more) or kids at our local park. I say excuse me, Hi, etc ect. and get treated with nothing but respect. Alright they take the piss out of the dog because he sings but hey like I said it's a pathetic dog!

The local paper reports that the park is "out of bounds" to local residents because of the "gangs" who hang out dealing drugs and fighting.

They seem like typical teens to me. Some are stoned, some drank too much but whatever, I did that when I was 18 and it didn't make me a violent, threatening person.

I find treating people of all ages with respect will mostly work and yes there are people who want to fight you or rob you but in my experience they tend to be in there 20's and 30's or even older. That is just people (not any age specific) being shits.
A lot of you NSer's are 18 or so. Do you react badly when old gits like me treat you like you're all thugs and muggers?
Surely you treat me as I treat you?

In the trades, you don't give an Apprentice the responsibility, pay, etc. you give a Journeyman or a Master. Kids are Apprenticing to become adults. therefore, they don't get to do the things Adults do (Vote, own property, pay taxes on that property, get a mortgage, or a full-time job that lasts all year.)

Didn't say to give them all responsibility. Just some. Enough that they have to actually make decisions and accept the results of their actions.

this is to break them into society at a pace that won't break society.

Don't make me laugh. Societies are already broken, and that's assuming we allow the fiction that humanity has achieved the capacity for true civilization in the first place.

further, children tend to be 'naturally' savages. It takes time to develop the means and methods of responding to the world without resorting immediately to violence, tantrums, etc.

That's not a savage. That's just immaturity. A savage is someone who kills without remorse and without mercy, in some cases horribly brutalizing the body. We typically throw them in jail, only to later train soldiers to be just like them. Any society that must turn its own people into savages really isn't a society.

You will note that some adults never learn these skills either-most of them are Criminals, though tere are a few Hollywood Celebrities and Pro Athletes as well.

Actually, most of them are not criminals at all. I've found more criminals with a sense of responsibility, percentage-wise, than I have regular people. The people who never develop those abilities typically stay out on the street, have kids of their own, and then basically abandon the kids to be babysat by the police and the television until those kids reach their teenaged years, at which points the parents are wondering where they went wrong. All this law is doing is telling people it is okay to do that.