Teenage Darndale Gang

Diceicle

tylercheribini wrote: »

So you cant connect the 65 billion euro plus bankers cost this country,resulting in savage austerity measures across the board to this day?

"Ffs. "

Yeah, we're not giving them enough!!

IAMAMORON

I can't believe the bailout wafflers, like honestly, what in the holy phuck?

The problem is teenagers... they haven't a clue, it has actually been a global issue now for thousands of years.

Their parents need proper sanctioning, through their pockets, small and slowly. Just enough to get them giving a shìt about the ramifications of what their scrotes are doing when they leave the gaff.

What monkeys see monkeys do.

If that doesn't work they will have introduce mandatory frog marching over the cliffs of Moher. Obviously if they survive they truely are evil and should be shot on the spot by a Garda marksman.

Thats the answer, you can close the thread now.

Happy Christmas everyone. ( including teenagers).

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a limited and targeted welfare state, indeed it's essential.

Hardly essential, since nations managed a long time without such a system. It's simply beneficial when it's limited, and strictly controlled.

However, the state does not make a good daddy. It provides food and shelter but nothing else. No sense of dignity or your place in the world.

But that's the way the world is going. People who talk about hard graft, personal responsibilities and civil liberties are looked upon as lunatics.

Society shifted. Personally, I'd place a lot of responsibility there. We sought the removal of the Church's power, fine. Nothing was put in to replace their influence. We removed corporal punishment. Nothing was put in to replace it. We've changed society so much over the last few decades, removing all the restrictions on personal freedoms, but rarely replacing them with anything... it's hardly a surprise that there are negative side-effects. It's the problem with most social progress these days.. it's based on wishful thinking rather than hard science.

The State would have been fine as a "daddy" if it was meant to stay in a single role, but it's focus has been expanded so much over the last few decades. Now, it needs to be the daddy, sympathetic mother, the confessor, the nurse, the... whatever. It's not allowed to be heavy on discipline or legal compliance. Punishment is seen as being inappropriate, with public groups constantly seeking to reduce it, without replacing it with anything more effective.

Everything is a grand social experiment with nobody held accountable for it's failure.

thegetawaycar

I used to believe the issue was needing to hit parents in their pocket, the problem I see with that in a lot of these cases the parents are getting tax payers money and know they will just claim hardship and get more. Hit them with withdrawal of social housing and maybe they'd cop on but then you have the issue of where do you put them?

Relying on the parents is fine if they are decent parents but a lot (not all) of them are not. Numerous times I've seen parents barrel in garda stations screaming to let their children out immediately even though they well know their little scumbag has mugged someone/stolen items.

The judiciary is the answer, nobody with 100+ convictions should be walking the streets. Under 18s should be put into community programmes and forced to actually contribute as part of their sanctions. What seems to happen is they get a curfew, which is unenforceable and they are back doing the same **** 2 hours later.

Take away concurrent sentencing after 20+ convictions, no suspended sentences or partially suspended after 20 convictions. I'd much rather my taxes went into correctional facilities for the scum then never ending handouts and keep social housing for those who don't cause a menace to the society paying for them.

Strumms

It comes down to the law being a deterrent.

I’d like some kind of three strikes rule.

Whereby after three first time minor convictions equals some jail time.

You’ve robbed a pint of milk, then a kids bike, then a mobile phone... nobody died... but you are a habitual criminal, making life difficult and unpleasant for those around you in society... instead of getting off scott free, it and you are nipped in the bud, you get 4 months... or whatever...

End the possibility of people have a list of convictions, a walking rap sheet, a walking burden on society...

You fûck up once... right a mistake... twice... careless... three times, something needs to be done about you... and FOR society.

AlekSmart

dd973 wrote: »

In before me, very depressing part of the city, also when you go through it by car it's really dark as well, even by night time standards.

A simple,yet highly accurate guide to an area's danger quotient is the placement of the access hatch on Lamp Standards,basically the higher up the pole it is, reflects the Danger level of the location.

In the more active locations,this is usually reinforced by various spikes,sharp wire,and CCTV units on the very top of the pole.

One other indicator is the numbers of Juvies making use of "Programmes" such as this....http://www.iyjs.ie/en/iyjs/pages/gardadiversionprogramme

Mind you,the success of such programmes is very much open to question,however such is the level of engagement by various Professional "stakeholders" that any attempt to divert funding towards more basic policing usually ends in failure.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40052483.html

Some 40% of participants had charges for "crime atypical of youth offending" and more than half had a diagnosed mental illness.

Some 62% of cases were "negative closures" but despite this, it was recommended that funding be continued and "the reasons underpinning the high volume of negative case closures should be explored in greater detail".

These well intentioned schemes appear to be totally focused upon the youthful offender as an individual,with little or no references to their actual criminal activities OR,more importantly the impact upon their Victims.

One quite relevant indication is the reportage of the Conviction and sentencing of the accused in the Azzam Raguragui killing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/teen-sentenced-to-7-years-for-killing-azzam-raguragui-in-dundrum-1.4410639

Initial media reportage,included details of the killer's history of involvement with the Garda Youth Diversion scheme on 3 seperate occasions,with the most recent developing into an Official On-the-record element.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1116/1178462-dundrum-stabbing/

Only RTE News thought it worth reporting,in spite of it's very obvious relevance to both the incident and it's fatal outcome.

This particular collection of facts,as presented in Court has all but disappeared from all subsequent reportage,with no explanation being given as to why so ?

Perhaps more "studies" are required ?

GreeBo

suicide_circus wrote: »

Strongly disagree. The role of police in Britain and Ireland used to be to proactively prevent and deter crime. Now thry wait for crime to happen and then maybe react. They are capable of being proactive - see the covid checkpoints and city centre patrols - but there is no political will to push Garda HQ to proactively police problem areas of Dublin.

There is zero point in the Gardai being active and on the ground if all that happens when they catch someone is they bring them back to their parents or they go to some excuse for a juvenile detention centre and home a few days later.

If there are no repercussions to your actions, why would anyone change their actions?

walshb

GreeBo wrote: »

There is zero point in the Gardai being active and on the ground if all that happens when they catch someone is they bring them back to their parents or they go to some excuse for a juvenile detention centre and home a few days later.

If there are no repercussions to your actions, why would anyone change their actions?

This is why the laws need to be far tougher on this type of violent crime.

Wanderer78

Pkiernan wrote:

The true cost of unlimited dole and a punishment free society.

The true cost of actually not dealing with complex social and psychological issues, believe it or not, and allowing them to fester from generation to generation

Hqrry113

Strumms wrote: »

It comes down to the law being a deterrent.

I’d like some kind of three strikes rule.

Whereby after three first time minor convictions equals some jail time.

You’ve robbed a pint of milk, then a kids bike, then a mobile phone... nobody died... but you are a habitual criminal, making life difficult and unpleasant for those around you in society... instead of getting off scott free, it and you are nipped in the bud, you get 4 months... or whatever...

End the possibility of people have a list of convictions, a walking rap sheet, a walking burden on society...

You fûck up once... right a mistake... twice... careless... three times, something needs to be done about you... and FOR society.

Because three strikes and hard convictions is working so well in the USA isn't it..... Smh

You suggest throwing people into prison for stealing milk and a mobile phone if we actually did that they'd be a hell of a lot worse by the time they came out of prison, do actually hear yourself?

MadYaker

Are lengthy custodial sentences and a three strike system really the answer? The Americans do that and it doesn’t seem to be working very well for them. Their per capita crime rates are worse than ours across the board. I don’t think these teenagers are logical enough to be deterred by the prospect of a jail sentence. Some of them would probably be cared for a lot better if they were in prison.

h2005

I don't understand this why can't the Gardai do something?

TomTomTim

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I can't believe the bailout wafflers, like honestly, what in the holy phuck?

The problem is teenagers... they haven't a clue, it has actually been a global issue now for thousands of years.

Their parents need proper sanctioning, through their pockets, small and slowly. Just enough to get them giving a shìt about the ramifications of what their scrotes are doing when they leave the gaff.

What monkeys see monkeys do.

If that doesn't work they will have introduce mandatory frog marching over the cliffs of Moher. Obviously if they survive they truely are evil and should be shot on the spot by a Garda marksman.

Thats the answer, you can close the thread now.

Happy Christmas everyone. ( including teenagers).

Make up your mind. Is it purely a teenage issue, or a scumbag culture issue? Teenagers down the country don't seem to have the same issues.

Strumms

Hqrry113 wrote: »

Because three strikes and hard convictions is working so well in the USA isn't it..... Smh

You suggest throwing people into prison for stealing milk and a mobile phone if we actually did that they'd be a hell of a lot worse by the time they came out of prison, do actually hear yourself?

I’m suggesting that habitual criminals with three strikes, whereby they get one chance, then two... but the third time... ‘some’ time...inside. Their liberty and opportunity to harm people and society removed.

They have proven that being in receipt of two chances isn’t working.

If you leave them with no punishment... what do YOU think happens ? What I know happens is because of a lack of deterrent, they go on to commit further crimes.

Pawwed Rig

Strumms wrote: »

It comes down to the law being a deterrent.

I’d like some kind of three strikes rule.

Whereby after three first time minor convictions equals some jail time.

You hear alot about guys when they get murdered.
I think the judiciary is directly responsible for many of the murders around the country by way of negligent sentencing.

Taking this case, for example

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/latest-dublin-murder-believed-linked-to-ballymun-feud-1.3374811

122 conviction at the age of 27. If even 1 in 10 of those convictions got him some jail time he would not have been around to get shot.
At that level of recidivism surely he should be getting maximum sentences for every offence he commits.

There are also the number of times he didn't get caught and the ones that there was not sufficient evidence for.

I don't have the solution but it is clear that the current system is not working. I do think that spreading social tenants throughout society rather than large estates which turn into ghettos is a good idea although it is hard to swallow for their neighbours who have to get up early in the morning to work their arses off to pay a mortgage

ElJeffe

DellyBelly wrote: »

That's frightening if what happened in Baldoyle is true. I didn't realise Baldoyle was that rough an area?

Gone to the dogs in recent years.

Strumms

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You hear alot about guys when they get murdered.
I think the judiciary is directly responsible for many of the murders around the country by way of negligent sentencing.

Taking this case, for example

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/latest-dublin-murder-believed-linked-to-ballymun-feud-1.3374811

122 conviction at the age of 27. If even 1 in 10 of those convictions got him some jail time he would not have been around to get shot.
At that level of recidivism surely he should be getting maximum sentences for every offence he commits.

There are also the number of times he didn't get caught and the ones that there was not sufficient evidence for.

I don't have the solution but it is clear that the current system is not working. I do think that spreading social tenants throughout society rather than large estates which turn into ghettos is a good idea although it is hard to swallow for their neighbours who have to get up early in the morning to work their arses off to pay a mortgage

122 convictions at 27... and the bloke had his liberty... wtf is that about.

As an adult, since he was 18... that averages about 14 convictions a year. Yet society allowed this individual to be free to kill. Sorry not society, the judiciary.

MadYaker

Strumms wrote: »

I’m suggesting that habitual criminals with three strikes, whereby they get one chance, then two... but the third time... ‘some’ time...inside. Their liberty and opportunity to harm people and society removed.

They have proven that being in receipt of two chances isn’t working.

If you leave them with no punishment... what do YOU think happens ? What I know happens is because of a lack of deterrent, they go on to commit further crimes.

The vast majority of people who do a short stint in jail go on to reoffend. Just look at the USA. Their privatised prisons are basically finishing schools for criminals. We don’t want the same here.

We’ve been locking people up for hundreds of years now, if it was a solution to crime there’d be no criminals anymore. It’s closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need to tackle the issues that cause people to commit crimes in the first place. But unfortunately that’s too complicated, won’t fit in a tweet, and can’t be achieved in a 5 year government term so we’ll probably just keep locking people up and wondering why the problem is getting worse instead of fixing itself

handlemaster

walshb wrote: »

Gardai can’t do a thing to them?

Is this a joke?

Gardai can’t stop them, challenge them, protect the public from them?

Can’t actually do the job that society charges them with?

not really, Gardai aren't personal security. What happens when young men of this age are arrested and charged (that's after getting witnesses to speak) it goes to court and they get nothing, out again. Its the public that need to demand more fixed sentences. The parents need to be fined. Monies taken from salaries or more likely welfare.

AlekSmart

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The true cost of actually not dealing with complex social and psychological issues, believe it or not, and allowing them to fester from generation to generation

Indeed these terms are oft repeated in Courtrooms up and down the land.

The human condition is essentially complex of itself,and has ALWAYS been,a situation which is unlikely to change for the mainstream.

However,it could be argued that a significant sector of Society has decided that this complexity is for the birds,and decided instead to revert to savagery and neanderthal carry-on,as can be seen on a daily feed from U-toob these days.

This attitude,of course can be portrayed as a psychological issue,as indeed can the many illerations of Lockdown we are currently embrace out here in "Normal" Ireland.

A more pretinent question,now being increasingly posed,is just how much "Understanding,Support and Reflection" must the main body of compliant society be required to provide the outliers,before patience is exhausted and they resort to administering a good kick-up-the-hole instead ?

Stovepipe

TomTomTim wrote: »

Make up your mind. Is it purely a teenage issue, or a scumbag culture issue? Teenagers down the country don't seem to have the same issues.

I disagree; there are estates in the bigger cities and towns and even the small towns that are ruined by feral teenagers constantly engaging in petty crime, vandalism,harassment of ordinary people,etc and the Gardai won't lay a finger on them as the justice system is a revolving door. It's countrywide. You want to solve it or at least, stem the tide, then you you need constant police presence in and around troubled estates. Keep surveilling them,keep showing a presence and make it clear that the riot squad will be deployed if anyone kicks off, regardless of age. Hurt a Garda, firefighter or ambulance person and you will be nicked and jailed.

garrettod

It's probably only a matter of time before vigilanty groups start forming, to tackle this...if the Gardai can't bring an end to it.

.. Then, we'll have taken yet another step away from civilisation, albeit, out of desperation!

Strumms

MadYaker wrote: »

The vast majority of people who do a short stint in jail go on to reoffend. Just look at the USA. Their privatised prisons are basically finishing schools for criminals. We don’t want the same here.

We’ve been locking people up for hundreds of years now, if it was a solution to crime there’d be no criminals anymore. It’s closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need to tackle the issues that cause people to commit crimes in the first place. But unfortunately that’s too complicated, won’t fit in a tweet, and can’t be achieved in a 5 year government term so we’ll probably just keep locking people up and wondering why the problem is getting worse instead of fixing itself

Ultimately though, you have to allow and force people to take responsibility. The moment they get up in the morning.

I have never committed a crime, I don’t envision me wanting to. Bad times, good times... I just wanted to work, enjoy the fruits of said work, car, holidays house etc...and didn’t have the will or want to do drugs, fûck up my life or anybody else’s, steal, assault or whatever..

Issues that cause crime ? PEOPLE who commit crime are the issue... choices they make...

You choose to become a drug addict

You choose to assault somebody

You choose to steal to feed the habit you have chosen.

Society requires protecting from these people.

Jail is the only manner of doing so...

Hqrry113

Strumms wrote: »

Ultimately though, you have to allow and force people to take responsibility. The moment they get up in the morning.

I have never committed a crime, I don’t envision me wanting to. Bad times, good times... I just wanted to work, enjoy the fruits of said work, car, holidays house etc...and didn’t have the will or want to do drugs, fûck up my life or anybody else’s, steal, assault or whatever..

Issues that cause crime ? PEOPLE who commit crime are the issue... choices they make...

You choose to become a drug addict

You choose to assault somebody

You choose to steal to feed the habit you have chosen.

Society requires protecting from these people.

Jail is the only manner of doing so...

That's a very simpleton way of looking at things.

GreeBo

Hqrry113 wrote: »

That's a very simpleton way of looking at things.

Which bit do you think is more complicated?

Lollipops23

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The true cost of actually not dealing with complex social and psychological issues, believe it or not, and allowing them to fester from generation to generation

Bull. Most families (at least in Dublin) are from similar backgrounds, say 100 years ago. I know my lot are- we came from tenement slums, generations' worth. My own grandparents' first married home was one, they had their 1st three kids there.

5/6 of their kids married people in social housing- they all bought their own homes and none of their kids were dragged up.

What made my grandparents so different to my peers' grandparents? They wanted better and worked hard to get better for them and us.

thegetawaycar

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The true cost of actually not dealing with complex social and psychological issues, believe it or not, and allowing them to fester from generation to generation

Can it not be the true cost of both the above and free unlimited welfare and no personal responsibility?

If it hasn't been dealt with before there's no time to start like the present, no political party would dare say it publicly but I've talked to politicians at my door who have agreed with the sentiment of proper punishments.

There are too many NGO's and legal professionals making money from residual offenders to challenge the status quo. If one of the political parties came out and said they would properly tackle residual offending and put in place a prison building programme (creating jobs where there aren't too many at the moment) I'd vote for them once their other policies weren't massively offensive.

The facts are most get into Government and the status quo continues and we do reports in to possibly building infrastructure etc... 1 term for a party that will sort some justice for the victims and I'm all for it.

I live in a part of Dublin 12 that would be considered quite ok but recently there are teens on bikes coming in and breaking into vans and terrorising local kids, so much so the vigilantism is being suggested since the guards have come on numerous occasions just for the scum to laugh at them and be back the next day. That's where we are heading if this doesn't get stopped in the very near future.

IAMAMORON

h2005 wrote: »

I don't understand this why can't the Gardai do something?

" phuck off GARDA , IAM 15 , you can touch me ya rat chunt , durty paedo file"

That's why.

thegetawaycar

Strumms wrote: »

122 convictions at 27... and the bloke had his liberty... wtf is that about.

As an adult, since he was 18... that averages about 14 convictions a year. Yet society allowed this individual to be free to kill. Sorry not society, the judiciary.

The parents should be suing the state for not taking this menace off the streets, a few nice settlements and the state may start to take action. Because the NGO's and the left leaning tend to be most vocal they get the airtime and the government placate them by making punishments a thing of the past. It's beyond a joke in this country and in most of Europe TBH.

Maxpfizer

MadYaker wrote: »

The vast majority of people who do a short stint in jail go on to reoffend. Just look at the USA. Their privatised prisons are basically finishing schools for criminals. We don’t want the same here.

We’ve been locking people up for hundreds of years now, if it was a solution to crime there’d be no criminals anymore. It’s closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need to tackle the issues that cause people to commit crimes in the first place. But unfortunately that’s too complicated, won’t fit in a tweet, and can’t be achieved in a 5 year government term so we’ll probably just keep locking people up and wondering why the problem is getting worse instead of fixing itself

Until we have a solution to the problem of why people commit crimes we should probably think about protecting each other in the meantime though?

If given the choice between locking some criminals up, preventing them from victimising even more of us, and throwing our hands up and declaring that locking them up doesn't work, so let them have their way, I kind of feel like locking them up is the winning move?

OK. We don't know why people commit crimes.
This is not helpful to someone who has been beaten or robbed or raped or murdered or their families who are seeking justice.

"Well he had 20 odd other convictions but honestly we didn't protect you properly because we need to figure out why the is like this instead of keeping him away from others."

We're doing this thing where we kind of forget the victims and focus on this idea that if we could just make it so that nobody ever feels like committing a crime (in this case violent crime) then there would be no more criminals and, just like that, no more victims.

Society itself is in a toxic relationship with these people. They are given chance after chance with the belief that deep down they are all good people who've just been let down by the system. If we just go easy on them then they'll change. Except they don't change and someone ends up getting hurt.

Sure, the local scumbag with 20, 30, 40 convictions cornered your brother/friend/whoever on a winter night and beat him so badly he's physically scarred for life and will never be the same again psychologically but if we could just somehow figure out a way for us all to be rich then that scumbag wouldn't have even wanted to hurt anyone!

What if you are wrong?

What if some people are just too far gone and the only result of not keeping them locked away from the rest of us is more and more victims?