Attack in Kilrush

gregos

Headline in today's Irish Times:-

Two women attacked, cars burned in Kilrush

This is about an assault on two girls, who were beaten by men with an iron bar. Six cars were also burned in Kilrush last night. The following is an extract from the report in the paper:-

A study last year identified a core group of adolescent males engaged in crimes of intimidation and violence in Kilrush.

The study . . . found there were 43 young people "at risk" in Kilrush . . ."

Read that again. Who does the description "at risk" refer to? Was it the people who were attacked or intimidated? No. Apparently, those "at risk" are the people carrying out the attacks. I give up.

hawkmoon269

Yep. But it is typical of the PC-speak of that newspaper.

nlgbbbblth

I'm sure the IT feels that the people carrying out the attacks are justified due to underprivileged backgrounds, lack of opportunities etc

If the attackers were middle class/rich kids the same paper would waste no time in condemning them

whiskeyman

Read the article again... the writer puts the "at risk" in inverted commas to signal this was used in the study report.
It is not down to the reporting of the IT... they just stated the study outcome as it said it.

full:
"The study, by community partnership initiative Eirí Corca Baiscinn and the HSE, found there were 43 young people "at risk" in Kilrush, representing 12% of the town's adolescent population."

In fact, just up from this is that sentance is the below with the journalist giving you what you want to hear:
"A study last year identified a core group of adolescent males engaged in crimes of intimidation and violence in Kilrush".

gregos

whiskeyman wrote:

In fact, just up from this is that sentance is the below with the journalist giving you what you want to hear:
"A study last year identified a core group of adolescent males engaged in crimes of intimidation and violence in Kilrush".

That's what I quoted in the first post! Well done. And just for the sake of clarity, the IT was only quoting the study. The expression "at risk" is not theirs.

Wertz

Probably a lot of taxpayer's money was blown on that "study"....and what did it tell us? Who has it stopped from being intimidated or assaulted?

No doubt the study was followed up by a six-point action plan involving the local community, Gardaí and an overpaid consultancy firm.

whiskeyman

gregos wrote:

That's what I quoted in the first post! Well done. And just for the sake of clarity, the IT was only quoting the study. The expression "at risk" is not theirs.

hey.. I wasnt attacking your point.
I just clarified (before you did) that it was the IT only quoting the study, as opposed to their writing - clearly what the other posters were on about.

I fully agree with you on the study though. I think they should just walk the streets at night in some of our cities and towns.... they'll get all the evidence they need of antisocial behaviour and who really is "at risk".

Anyway, getting to the article.... they attacked the girl and her mate, and then petrol bombed the girls car while she was still in hospital?!?! wtf??
Does anyone know anything more about this?
An innocent attack is one thing... but to follow it up with a petrol bombing on her car? Was she involved in something no one is mentioning?

gregos

whiskeyman wrote:

hey.. I wasnt attacking your point.

Sorry Buddy. Didn't mean to be so sharp.

Wertz

whiskeyman wrote:

Anyway, getting to the article.... they attacked the girl and her mate, and then petrol bombed the girls car while she was still in hospital?!?! wtf??
Does anyone know anything more about this?
An innocent attack is one thing... but to follow it up with a petrol bombing on her car? Was she involved in something no one is mentioning?

Likely to warn her off of going to the cops...either that or retaliation for having already done so.

whiskeyman

Wertz wrote:

Likely to warn her off of going to the cops...either that or retaliation for having already done so.

Crazy.
The mentality of some of these people is just beyond belief.
Any word that the cops know whos involved?
These kind of stories are just all too common now, and feck all seems to be done about it.

gregos wrote:

Sorry Buddy. Didn't mean to be so sharp.

No worries
I shouldnt have repeated your quote already... probably led to the confusion.
I had the exact same reaction when reading the paper this morning though. Typical government report... they identify the issue and do nowt to resolve...

gregos

What about the "at risk" part? Whose view is that?

whiskeyman

gregos wrote:

What about the "at risk" part? Whose view is that?

It's the view of the study on the young ones who partake in antisocial behaviour. These kind of studies paint these people as the victims of societys ills, as they are "at risk" of becoming further entangled in a life of crime.
We're seeing the resulting affect with the brutual beating and pertol bombing...

Wertz

whiskeyman wrote:

Crazy.
The mentality of some of these people is just beyond belief.
Any word that the cops know whos involved?
These kind of stories are just all too common now, and feck all seems to be done about it.

It's not the individual mentality that should worry us, but the pack mentality that guys like these up and down the country conform to...
They have virtual carte blanche to do WTF they like, unchallenged....the Gardaí can't be around small towns and villages 24/7...these guys know this and know exactly what they can get away with...

IMO it all comes back to the PC-ification of society; liberal attitudes on the non-physical punishment of children, mainly. The old adage "Spare the rod and spoil the child" springs to mind.
The lack of any real discipline breeds contempt for anyone trying to impose it...it's a runaway train. Imagine what this generation's kids are gonna be like...

whiskeyman

Wertz wrote:

The lack of any real discipline breeds contempt for anyone trying to impose it...

It also breeds lack of respect.

Wertz wrote:

Imagine what this generation's kids are gonna be like...

I had a pretty stern growing up and am very thankful for my parents for it.
When younger, playing out on the street, I saw kids a few years younger going around hitting people with branches of trees and throwing stones at people / cars for no reason. They just had no respect for others. I used to wonder what sort of people they would turn into.
I've since found out these same "kids" are now in trouble with the law and are having all sorts of problems in their lives...
For me, parenting is probably key... and it doesnt matter if its a rich or poor background.
Respect can be taught without money.

nlgbbbblth

Could it be argued that the same PC/liberal brigade (like Morning Star on this board) have a pathological disgust of being middle class?

That would explain why they will bend over backwards to excuse anti-social behaviour from so-called deprived kids/teenagers - but not from their own class.

gregos

Wertz wrote:

IMO it all comes back to the PC-ification of society; liberal attitudes on the non-physical punishment of children, mainly. The old adage "Spare the rod and spoil the child" springs to mind.
The lack of any real discipline breeds contempt for anyone trying to impose it...it's a runaway train. Imagine what this generation's kids are gonna be like...

Parents not taking responsibility for their kids' behaviour has a lot to do with it. But as for physical punishment? I don't know. A lot of these skangers have seen so much personal violence at home that a beating means nothing to them.

I'm no paragon of virtue, but I try to behave decently. I didn't learn that through violence from my parents. In fact, my father never once raised his hand to me. Likewise, I've never raised my hand to my children, but they also behave as decent people. I think it's about consequences. There are no consequences any more for bad behaviour. Parents have abandoned their responsibilities. Everybody wants to remain a child, and our society facilitates this.

Wertz

gregos wrote:

Parents not taking responsibility for their kids' behaviour has a lot to do with it. But as for physical punishment? I don't know. A lot of these skangers have seen so much personal violence at home that a beating means nothing to them.

I'm no paragon of virtue, but I try to behave decently. I didn't learn that through violence from my parents. In fact, my father never once raised his hand to me. Likewise, I've never raised my hand to my children, but they also behave as decent people. I think it's about consequences. There are no consequences any more for bad behaviour. Parents have abandoned their responsibilities. Everybody wants to remain a child, and our society facilitates this.

Okay I'm not advocating serial beatings as a means to raise a balanced and disciplined child...but as you say there has to be some consequence for wrong-doing and the earlier those consequences are demonstrated the less drastic they need be. If kids don't learn this early on, they figure out for themselves that they can keep pushing the limit...and some grow up to be what we see above.

I'm not a parent but, like anyone, I see how kids these days behave and sometimes see how they're reprimanded. Stuff like time-outs and other nicely nicely approaches simply don't cut it IMO.
It's a cliché but a good smack on the arse never did anyone any harm; these days a parent using such "force" might well be reported to social services or at the very least be looked down upon in the supermarket or wherever it happens.

Children need to be shown right from wrong and tbh it seems a lot of parents these days aren't too sure what that is themselves...

Flukey

It is not a matter of being PC. No one is excusing anti-social behaviour, but there are reasons why it happens. If there are people who are "at risk" of becoming involved in it, then something should be done. Most of the people that get involved in it do come from difficult backgrounds. Saying that that is the case, is not justifying their actions or excusing them. Still, it is true and their environments do result in a lot of them ending up in anti-social behaviour and crime. The evidence is there. Ask those girls in Kilrush.

So if we can identify these people and these problems early it is worth doing something about it as it will save a lot of problems and expense later, and maybe even lives. Doing something about those problems is not in any way saying that their behaviour is excusable or justifiable, but we have to try and prevent or reduce crime. Terms like "at risk" are stating facts. Whether we like it or not, a lot of those "at risk" will become involved in crime. That is not an excuse or a justification, it's a fact.

Crime happens. So when people start talking about kids being "at risk" and that they should be helped, they are not justifying their crimes and/or making excuses for them. They are identifying the problem and trying to stop it at its source. That is far better than just giving out about these kids and saying there is no excuse for their behaviour - which is true - and doing nothing to stop it, and then accusing the people who are doing something as being liberals or the PC brigade.

There is no excuse for some thug attacking a girl, or mugging an old woman or robbing a car or whatever, but it still happens and if we can do something to prevent it happening in the first instance, then that is good. The way to do that is to identify people who are, yes, "at risk", and go in and reduce or remove that risk so that they don't go from being "at risk" of being a criminal to actually being one. That is not being liberal or PC. It is being pro-active.

gregos

That's right. Let's help the kids who are at risk. And let's deal with the ones who have gone beyond being at risk and are actually beating innocent girls with iron bars.

Flukey

That's right. Let's help the kids who are at risk. And let's deal with the ones who have gone beyond being at risk and are actually beating innocent girls with iron bars.

Yes Gregos, let's do that. Instead of having the attitude that they are a shower of wasters and thugs - which they are - and that money shouldn't be spent on them, we should spend the money on them so that something can be done. It will be a lot cheaper than what it will cost to deal with them when they do get involved in crime in the future. If we say they are not worth spending the money on, then nothing will change and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. They'll continue to be wasters and they will become involved in crime. People will then turn around and say they were right and that it is wrong to help them.

A lot of success has been achieved by "liberals" and the "PC Brigade" going in and helping kids "at risk". The crimes that they don't later commit, if you see what I mean, don't hit the headlines, naturally, so a lot of those successes go unnoticed. Then because some other thug somewhere commits some crime, those that have had success in reducing it are called "liberals" and the "PC brigade" for working in these communities, with the crime that has been committed being used as evidence that they are getting nowhere.

We can't do much about the guy that has already hit someone with an iron bar. That crime is done and can't be undone. All we can do is punish that crime. But by identifying people "at risk" we can stop some kid going on to be the next person to go out and hit people with an iron bar.

gregos

For sure. No disagreement there. But where do the parents come into that?

Flukey

Parents have their responsibilities too, though some opt out and let their kids run wild. There has to be discipline and respect. That has been lost. Society has gone soft in some ways. It is of course wrong to hit children, but the proverbial "clip round the ear" never did anyone any harm, and is a long way from child abuse. OF course a lot of kids have no fear of or respect for their parents anyhow, so the parents can't always do a lot about it and can't always be blamed.


Education is the most important thing and I don't mean the academic sort. Educating children to have respect for others, for property, for certain institutions and authority and very importantly, for themselves. Most of us don't go around hitting people with iron bars. We have respect for people. There are all sorts of reasons - which is not the same as an excuse or justification - that people end up doing those things. Those problems can be addressed, but it has to be done by society. From parents right up to the wider society, it has to be done.

Some of these thugs have no respect for anyone. They'll give out about the Gardaí and the courts and teachers etc. hassling them and sometimes they are right, but it is from things they do themselves. Gardaí don't hassle me, but then I don't rob cars or hang around on street corners keeping people awake or throw stones at passing pedestrians for fun etc. I've been brought up to respect them and by doing so I've never had any problems with them.

These kids grow up in communities that don't have that respect and they join in and end up growing up that way themselves. We need to change that and doing so isn't going soft or being liberal or PC. Work has to be done in those communities to change those problems. Prime Time did a special last year about youth offenders. One figure given was that it can cost up to €750,000 a year to deal with each young offender. If that money could have been spent in their community a few years earlier, lot of them would never have become young offenders so a fortune would be saved as well as all the actual problems caused by their crimes. Not spending money on "wasters" can cost a lot more in the long run. Not spending money on "wasters" is a wasted opportunity.

gregos

Well, I'm not saying resources shouldn't be devoted. There's huge money available to the government right now. However, there's also the problem that difficult families are being offloaded onto the community (whatever that is) by providing them with accommodation in settled areas. This takes the responsibility away from the local authorities and the health boards. I could give you some concrete examples of people I know who have sold up and moved out of settled neighbourhoods to escape intimidation.

Flukey

Yes, I've heard of cases like that. Moving the problem around doesn't help. It has to be tackled head on. It is hard to help people like that, when they have got to that stage. It takes a lot of time, resources and expense to help them. It's a big job and very demanding being on the frontline with people like that. Something can be done perhaps. There is of course a lot of opposition to them being helped by the "it's a waste of money and you're all liberals" brigade, who are often the same people complaining about their behaviour and saying something should be done. If more of them would realise that helping them is he best response instead of moaning about every attempt to do so, progress could be made. More important, as I keep saying , we can definitely do something to stop the next generation of that type of anti-social family coming along.

gregos

Not a lot of help if they move in beside you.

joejoem

I havent been able to find anything else on this, has there been anymore news on it?

Flukey

When they get to that stage Gregos, it becomes a matter of containment, not prevention. We've gone past that stage, maybe due to some crowd calling us "liberals" when we went in to try and prevent them getting to that point, and not letting us do so. At this point the family have to be worked with to contain and address their problems. They shouldn't just be moved somewhere and left at that as a problem solved by passing the buck. Support and monitoring has to be maintaned and maybe over a period of time the difficulties can be improved.

gregos

It would seem reasonable to carry out some assessment of the impact on the local community before moving a troublesome family into their midst. As I might have said earlier, I know several people who have sold up and moved as a result of aggressive families being housed near them.

Flukey

Yes, that is a problem. There is no preparation or follow up. It's often a case of just moving them from one place to another, shifting the problem to someone else or another authority, and then putting it down as a success. The system is wrong.

Wertz

Flukey, since I'm the one who posted "liberals" and "PC" in this thread which you keep referring back to, I should probably respond to your posts.
Before I go any further I'll tell you that I live and have lived in one of the many council estates around the country where these problems fester for years until they come to a head in cases like the OP linked to...

My problem with a lot of the action taken on these issues is that the money is for the most part, too little, too late, and from what I've seen, gets squandered on certain commitee or management aspects, whilst the actual problem; ie the guys on the street corners with sweet &%^* all else to do, are paid lip service and asked their opinion on very little.
Resources to tackle this growing problem need to be spent where it can make a difference...in my brutally honest opinion, it's almost too late for anyone above national school age; the rot sets in very early and is very hard to weed out.
Most of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of parents who turn a blind eye or simply switch off when their kid(s) start being a nuisance. That's where a lot of focus for action should lie IMO. Teach parents how to be good parents.
In the lack of any real direction from adults, kids tend to learn from each other, they learn how far they can push things, what they can get away with....all it takes is one bad apple in that group to turn young minds.
We also see very young kids learning from their older peers in urban environments....if a bunch of teens are joyriding or drinking round a fire, it's seen as normal by younger kids, some of whom aspire to that lifestyle and the problem perpetuates itself.

I've no doubt there are some very hard pressed community workers toiling on the front lines fighting this problem, and I have the utmost respect for them; the trouble starts in the higher echelons of local authorities, and health boards where the money is initially dispersed...if we had less of these focus groups and commitees wrapping the whole thing up in pretty reports and studies and more raw resources delivered at "grass roots", we might see some inroads....what we have now as far as I can see is a virtual industry developed around community welfare. That's who I was referring to as the "liberal" or "PC" lot...
BTW I consider myself "liberal" (whatever that is) as in "not conservative" but I have become jaded of the middle classes thinking they have the answers to all the problems of the working and lower classes, whilst simultaneously making very good livings out of the community welfare "industry".

Maybe I'm getting cynical and twisted as I get older but I've seen these problems grow along with the kids who cause them and I've seen tens of thousands of £/€ blown with no determinable outcome or seemingly positive effects. No-one wants to see jails brimming with young offenders that a couple of grand might have avoided if spent on them a decade ago...
This is a very complex problem and I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but what we have now doesn't seem to be as effective as it needs to be. Until our elected representativess decide to get their finger out and target the money that's needed at the areas it needs to be filtering down to, we're only going to see the whole "anti-social" behaviour problem spiral out of control. Some might say we're already past that point...

Flukey

I agree with a lot of what you have to say Wertz. More needs to be done. We can't stand by and say it is too late for some. Even they can be helped or their situation contained, as I put it above. There are some who would say it is not worth spending a cent on them, which does not include you. You have an insight into the problem.It is worth spending money on them, though it is not a great vote winner, as a lot of policies to help the lower levels of society are. Spending it on a new golf club or something like that is worth more as a vote winner. There are few vested interests in the bottom of society, so it doesn't get the attention that it needs. Spending €750,000 now on a community of wasters, makes more economic sense than spending €750,000 on each individual of those wasters in a few years time. Sending them to prison doesn't do much good if they are released into the same environment that turned them to crime in the first instance, even if they come out with good intentions of going straight. If they could be investing in those communities, when the guys get released they would return to the same place but into a different environment and would have some chance of doing well.

It is not easy. We won't solve the problem. If there isn't enough political will not a lot will get done either. There are too many people out there asking for the money to be spent on their golf club and not to be wasted on some shower of wasters. However it would be a far better investment, and in a few years not so many of the golf club people will have their mercs broken into and their insurance premiums sent rocketing and all the other expense, fiscal and other, incurred by not investing the money on those "wasters".