Feral teenage gangs - what can be done to protect us?

Angry Troll

ScumLord wrote: »

As a species we need more abortions. It really has gotten to the stage where there should be some sort of licence involved in having a child. Not just to weed out the undesirables (which is wrong apparently) but to control population.

yeah, mankind as a whole would surely benefit from some of that...

BraziliaNZ

Angry Troll wrote: »

yeah, mankind as a whole would surely benefit from some of that...

you should really let us know if you're being sarcastic there or not because I can't figure it out for the life of me

eightcell

raptorman wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

Exactly, there is nothing a few balaclavas and a hiace van won't solve.

PapaQuebec

Neonjack wrote: »

As I see it, they have no notion of boundaries. They push all the time to see what they can get away with, and the longer that's allowed to continue, the worse they become. Fair enough, old codgers have been grouching about kids for centuries, but it's getting out of hand. There's a big difference between kids in the 50's robbing an orchard or having a smoke behind a shed and modern kids setting someone's car on fire or attacking people at the bus stop. At least when your ould lad gave you a clatter, you knew you'd gone too far. The same applied if your teacher or the local cop did it. You learned where the boundaries were. It wasn't perfect by any means and it was horribly abused at times, but it was a system that worked for centuries. Things have gotten progressively worse since it stopped. I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to me that a clip round the ear when it's needed does more good for these kids in the long run than all the social programs put together.

Was going to post in this thread but you've saved me the trouble!

It seems to me (and has done for many years) that those in favour of more and more "social programs" are simply those members of the ever-increasing army of neo "ologists" who have vested interests in such initiatives!

Angry Troll

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

you should really let us know if you're being sarcastic there or not because I can't figure it out for the life of me

not sure if i need to reply to this but anyhow, no secrets here…
i do indeed believe some sort of population control for certain parts of society would be a good thing…i just find the general trend for people to have the more kids the lower their intelligence, education and income are a little scary...we all can see all those unwanted welfare kids in the streets every day…
i reckon a well targeted welfare reform would do the trick in this country here…in the long run anyway…and we should also focus on educating people to encourage more responsible behaviour combined with the availability of contraceptives to minimise the need for abortions to begin with…no matter how you put it, an abortion is always ending an unborn child’s life…while they can make sense or even be necessary, abortions should always be seen as a last resort and not merely another form of contraception or population control measure…so any talk of aborting/killing is to be seen as sarcasm, naturally…

dsmythy

Pete M. wrote: »

hahahahahahahaha

Funny, as if trying to teach them personal responsibility would be more effective than the abortion suggestion.

They do after all have a sense of personal responsibility i.e don't get caught, take everything for yourself and make sure you're alright at the expense of others.

Sure why not go full scale into eugenics and sterilise them all then! Young people need to be taught that actions have consequences. Delinquents first learn this not to be true in Ireland when it takes 40 convictions before they lose their freedom. Easy ways out are never the answer.

And i can't believe i'm talking about "youth of today" issues. Im getting old!

hooradiation

CCCP^ wrote: »

100% Parent's Fault.

We need Abortion to be legalized. Studies have shown in the US that when Abortion became legal and available the crime rate down the years fell.

That is based on the analysis done by Steven Levitt for his book Freakonomics and it is dubious at best.

Not that i expected people who support eugenics and vigilantism to care about little things like the underpinning of their reasoning being wrong.

CCCP^ wrote: »

The truth is people have kids and don't give a **** about them. They have no empathy.

And neither do you, apparently.

the_syco

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

them poilish took der jobs.

The little bollixes have most likely never worked in their lives, and see the dole as a career option... :rolleyes:

ust got assault-robbed on my bike in ballymun.
Hey Guys, i just got my bike stolen in Ballymun center, it was parked outside travellodge at the parking space nearest coultry apps.

Niave person. One or two, maybe, but trying to get it from a crowd? Dumb. Should've gone the to the Gardai first, and got someone to help get it back.

ScumLord wrote: »

Neighbourhood watch needed. I don't know how Dubliners can think they can sit at home ignoring their neighbours while their local area turns to ****. It's your own fault, with no community people don't trust each other, won't care what happens to the person in the next building and won't put themselves on the line to protect their patch.

Fairly niave. What can you do to the children? Nothing. You touch them, they can get you prosacuted. They'll know wher eyou live, and harrass you, smash your windows, etc. They can hit you, but if they use a soft story, the courts will let them off lighly.

Balaclava wearing vigalanties are the only way to go. Bate the sh|t out of the scumbags, and not let them know where you come from. Soon the scumbags will get the message, and go annoy someone else.

ScumLord

the_syco wrote: »

Fairly niave. What can you do to the children? Nothing. You touch them, they can get you prosacuted. They'll know wher eyou live, and harrass you, smash your windows, etc. They can hit you, but if they use a soft story, the courts will let them off lighly.

Balaclava wearing vigalanties are the only way to go. Bate the sh|t out of the scumbags, and not let them know where you come from. Soon the scumbags will get the message, and go annoy someone else.

That's basically what I said in some post, those children would have no luck with the guards or the courts if there where 100 witnesses that said nothing happened. I'm not calling for children to be bet on the street, I don't think that would even be necessary the site of a united community would be enough to drive them away or make them fall into line.

the_syco

ScumLord wrote: »

That's basically what I said in some post, those children would have no luck with the guards or the courts if there where 100 witnesses that said nothing happened.

Ah, saw it the wrong way.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not calling for children to be bet on the street, I don't think that would even be necessary the site of a united community would be enough to drive them away or make them fall into line.

They won't fall in line. They may even see the opposition as "fun". But as I said, they only understand fear, and thus fear should be used to control them.

southsiderosie

CCCP^ wrote: »

100% Parent's Fault.

We need Abortion to be legalized. Studies have shown in the US that when Abortion became legal and available the crime rate down the years fell. The truth is people have kids and don't give a **** about them. They have no empathy.

I hope you are not citing from Freakonomics here...which has been found to be faulty by a number of authors.

Looking at abortion as a viable answer to yobs is problematic for a number of reasons. First, because it smacks of eugenics. Second, because out of wedlock births have increased exponentially since abortion was legalized in the US - if Levitt was correct, this number should have gone down or stabilized, even accounting for changing social norms. Third, and related to the second point, the decision to get an abortion involves making a calculation about your future costs - something that yobs who live on the dole long-term and give birth to future yobs definitely do not do. It's not dropouts that make up the majority of those who get abortions; over half of women who have had abortions in the US have at least some college education. Therefore, it would seem that envisioning or having a plan for your future plays into the decision to have an abortion - and this is the exact opposite of what I think we are talking about with directionless kids and their uninvolved parents.

g5fd6ow0hseima

If you've a group of young *****, go out, slap one of them across the head with a hurley. See what the other ones do.

ToniTuddle

Paisley Faint Significant wrote: »

If you've a group of young *****, go out, slap one of them across the head with a hurley. See what the other ones do.

They will over power you and use your own weapon on you.

Result: You either end up dead or broken bones+scarring.

the_syco

ToniTuddle wrote: »

They will over power you and use your own weapon on you.

Result: You either end up dead or broken bones+scarring.

What he said. The only way to kill them would be using a gun with a decent scope on it. They'll f**k off, but they won't ID you, and thus you get away scot free, unless you f**k up, and the cops get you.

ToniTuddle

the_syco wrote: »

What he said. The only way to kill them would be using a gun with a decent scope on it. They'll f**k off, but they won't ID you, and thus you get away scot free, unless you f**k up, and the cops get you.

What she* said.

Grand Theft Auto 3....sniper rifle...

*runs off to practise*

15Pete

[FONT=&quot]What is needed, as in the case with adults; is a complete overhaul of the sentencing guidelines and prison life in this country.
The judiciary needs to recognise that those with an extensive criminal record(say 10 offences or more, and S0crates is talking about real crimes like assault, burglary etc. not blasphemy or possession of a few fireworks etc.) need to be punished more severely because there is very little chance of reform. How about once somebody has amassed 5 convictions, if they are caught joyriding it should be a sentence of ten years in prison. Very simple.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sentences for first or second time non-violent offenders should be relaxed and the more convictions a criminal has should be THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in determining a sentence for them. This would apply for even seemingly innocuous offenses such as was mentioned earlier, a brick was thrown at them. If the teenager who threw the brick(assuming appropriate CCTV evidence was available or what have you) had more than five previous convictions, S0crates would have no problem with seeing that teenager being locked up for six or seven years. Best way to teach them that even the smallest acts of violence or intimidation will not be tolerated.

Obviously this would mean more people in prison, because the sentences and number of convictions would shoot upwards. And the costs would spiral. Those prisoners who are unco-operative should have amenities cut to save money. Perhaps house all the co-operative prisoners together and vice versa. So in prison the criminals should be given the BARE MINIMUM that is necessary for survival, in order to save money. A bed, 3 ****ty meals a day and a toilet is what they should start out with. S0crates was watching a programme on NG that showed chain-gangs in America going out and sweeping roadsides and performing various other jobs for the community. An example of this relevant to today is prisoners could clear and salt footpaths and driveways. IF the prisoner is well-behaved and working well, he should be given luxuries such as television and better food or increased activity time. If a prisoner does not want to work, that is fine. They can sit in their cell 23 hours a day eating terrible food and staring at the wall.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Overall, if we can just isolate the serious offenders and lock them up and throw away the key, it will keep the streets clean of them (probably take away whole generations of lads in some areas of Dublin and Limerick, and rightfully so) and send a clear message to kids that if they plan to make a career out of crime then before it gets very far they will do hard time.

Apologies for going slightly off-topic
/Rant over/ :pac:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

the_syco

ToniTuddle wrote: »

What she* said.

Yer calling me a woman? :eek: Muthaf*cka...

AARRRGH

Vigilantes, pls kill teenage scum. K? THX.

...

Seriously, we are too soft in this country. Scum should be taken off the street. I don't mind paying extra tax to keep these people out of society.

Pete4779

gurramok wrote: »

Should there be a law thats enforced restricting large groups of teenagers congregating at that hour of night(incident happened just after 9pm) like in the US or something else done to prevent teenagers harassing people?

No need for more laws, merely applying current laws on antisocial behaviour and resourcing the police properly with juvenile liaison officers and social services to respond to children being parented "by society" and not by parents.

Pete4779

bernardo mac wrote: »

Lock them up in the most basic and secure accommodation until someone comes to claim them.The Gardai should have the power of authority to decide if the youths are a danger to others and themselves.Fines,constructive and quite punitive work detail to follow.:mad:

The HSE has recently closed one of the only secure units for behavioural disturbed teenagers (Ballydowd in Dublin).

The entire social system in Ireland is skewed. These problem teenagers are more likely to come from families with no parental authority, low incomes if any and in fact are from familes that are net recipients from the government and pay little or nothing to manage their children (separately from the actual parenting).

At the moment, none of these parents or families are obligated to care for their children, either by paying directly to services to manage them or indirectly through shared public insurance schemes (e.g., Netherlands). Result: those that require secure facilities for behavioural problems like antisocial acts, do not get the service. Until that income group starts to pay for it, it will only get worse, and will not improve (especially as further cuts for child services are in the pipeline) as the public service is being cut back so much, there are literally no "correctional" facilties for these teenagers to be managed.

Executive Steve

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Personally I think that if they are caught doing anything untoward, that the Gardai don't feel they can prosecute them for, then they should be forced to clean the streets or something regarding community service.
That way they would meet different people, who weren't complete scumbags like them, and possibly make them think twice about what they are doing when out with their scanger mates.

First of all: "If they get caught doing something untoward that they can't be prosecuted for" - in other words if they're not breaking the law. Surely putting a whole bunch of innocent - by your own definition - teenagers together on de facto chain gangs is hardly likely to bring them into contact with "different people, who weren't complete scumbags like them" (leaving out the fact that if they haven't broken any laws they're hardly complete scumbags).

Three posts in to reading this thread and I suspect it's going to be a very long, hard slog through a lot of silly reactionary stupidity. Obviously those kids in the OP are scum, but trying to figure out WHY we're ending up with a generation of kids like this is surely going to be a hell of a lot easier, cheaper and more positive in the long run than just needlessly criminalising youth itself?

Executive Steve

bonerm wrote: »

I blame the Education system tbh. My parents raised me right and I'm a decent enough person now(imho) but when I entered secondary school (in a new area) there was an element there (who am I kidding - the majority) of scum in the place and they were given the run of the place so long as it didn't interfer with the teachers cushy-lifestyle. I was a good kid but I found myself veering towards this element in order to fit in /survive so I can see how the majority of little tykes who get involved in this type of behavior aren't genuinely bad and are only trying to get by. Doesn't excuse it of course.

I think if the teachers there had been allowed to take these trouble makers (myself included) aside and knock seven shades of **** out them that they wouldn't have been so anti-social (both in and out of the classroom) but of course that wasn't an option.

That was over 10 years ago now so I can only assume that in this nanny-state we live in that the level of behavior has deteriorated further as a result of this kid-gloves approach. Anyway, the jist of this post? Bring back corporal punishment in the classroom.

They ended corporal punishment in the classroom quite late in Ireland, 1982 in fact. - so the vast majority of all those bankers, politicians, solicitors, developers, traffic wardens, HSE consultants, priests, senior gardai, public sector workers etc etc etc were all probably clobbered senseless back in school, and sure none of them ever did anything to piss the rest of the country off did they?

Executive Steve

beng128 wrote: »

It thould really be all 16yr olds that have an IQ under 100 hould not be alowed out after 9, cos there are till a few decant teens out there.

Intelligence correlates with decency then? Never heard that one before actually - in fact, sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies tend to manifest most frequently in the brightest kids, often because they've told they're "really special" by their adoring parents and because they get bored waiting for the rest of their peers to catch up in class.

You'd do much better locking up the bright but bored kids and only allowing the stupid ones out - we did that with sheep over tens and thousands of years; bred them to be docile...