View Full Version : Many teens are scared and upset
reubeness
19-02-2007, 15:10
As the media digs up pictures and news on the murdered boy in Clapham North why is it that no one wants to report the devastation the teenagers in the area are suffering at the moment.
They are 'children' no matter how heavy the situation is - many children know the victims of these crimes and are finding it hard to come to terms with the murder and their own feelings of fear, insecurity and incomprehension.
The day after the murder, at my daughter's school (she is 14), there was a talk on gun crime which added to the pain many of the children were feeling and seemed very insensitive to me.
It may be that the powers that be feel the situation should be addressed in a brutal way - but offer some counselling or something to those children who need it, and let's all remember that drug dealing/drug-related crime is carried out by a small minority.
The Place 2 Be offer counselling and support.
http://www.theplace2be.org.uk
reubeness
19-02-2007, 16:59
Thanks Blagsta - I'll pass that on to the children I know.
Yeah, it sucks.
And it sucks that cars are still killing more kids in South London, than are the very few, badly fucked up little thugs.
Not saying road deaths make gun deaths OK, or anything like that, of course not. But it seems the killing of children by motorcars is, in general, unremarkable and unexceptional. As so very often, as with "stranger danger" sexual abuse, for example, the real hazards are glossed over, and the sensationalist hazards hyped to the skies.
It stinks. The media muppets are just not interested in giving real information about the risks kids face, and how kids can protect themselves against the risks that matter most.
PacificOcean
21-02-2007, 17:14
Yeah, it sucks.
And it sucks that cars are still killing more kids in South London, than are the very few, badly fucked up little thugs.
Not saying road deaths make gun deaths OK, or anything like that, of course not. But it seems the killing of children by motorcars is, in general, unremarkable and unexceptional. As so very often, as with "stranger danger" sexual abuse, for example, the real hazards are glossed over, and the sensationalist hazards hyped to the skies.
It stinks. The media muppets are just not interested in giving real information about the risks kids face, and how kids can protect themselves against the risks that matter most.
When was the last time a car knocked someone over because they disrespected the car?
Are you saying that the media shouldn't report the explosion of guns owned by kids in South London?
As for your last part they have been teaching road safety for many, many years.
From PA tonight:
MET REPORT SHOWS SCALE OF GANG-RELATED CRIME
By Neville Dean, PA Crime Correspondent
The scale of gang-related crime on the streets of London has been laid bare by
an internal Metropolitan Police report, it was disclosed tonight.
Scotland Yard is aware of 169 gangs in the capital, each with an average of
between 20 and 30 members, according to the police document.
More than a quarter have been involved in murder and nearly half in serious
assault. The report identifies 19 involved in causing a "high level" of harm,
with 29 involved in causing a "medium level".
The figures, compiled last year, also show increasing levels of violence, with
gangs causing more than a fifth of all youth crime.
A copy of the document has been obtained by BBC London.
It comes in the wake of a series of shootings in London, including three of
teenage boys in the south of the city, which have been blamed, in part, on
gang-related violence.
Police officers are becoming increasingly worried about teenagers and
particularly young teenagers becoming involved in gang activity.
The largest number of gangs are in the boroughs of Hackney, Waltham Forest,
Brent, Lambeth and Wandsworth, according to the police report.
African Caribbean gangs are the largest group, followed by South Asian and
white gangs. The majority are based in the area where the members live.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said of the BBC London report: "The document is a
part of the Met's continued work to tackle gangs of all level of harm to
communities, and will inform future policing strategies.
"Safer Neighbourhoods Teams play an important role in accruing intelligence
about gang activities, which can then be acted upon by borough officers or
specialist teams depending on its nature.
"The report is part of ongoing work and therefore the MPS will not be
publishing its contents."
The force said it was not prepared to discuss the exact number of gangs
identified in its report.
"The Met's research into gangs in London is ongoing and part of this is a
constantly updated intelligence picture of the number of gangs," a spokesman
added.
end
Mrs Magpie
21-02-2007, 17:49
Can I just say that gangs per se are not always a bad thing. If kids don't have a sense of belonging (bad parenting, even no parents or whatever) a 'gang' can give a sense of belonging and self-worth. It is however important that the make-up of the group includes at least one sensible person who keeps behaviour within reasonable bounds, and more importantly, commands respect within the group.
When was the last time a car knocked someone over because they disrespected the car?
Friend of mine, on a bike, driven at deliberately twice this month. And it's only the 20th.
PacificOcean
21-02-2007, 18:38
Friend of mine, on a bike, driven at deliberately twice this month. And it's only the 20th.
But that is a car being used as a weapon.
I was responding to the point that, in general, cars cause more deaths than being shot.
But that is a car being used as a weapon.
Yes. Cars being used as a weapon because my friend disrespected them (just by asserting her right to be on the road, rather than cringing). A direct answer to your question.
But the offenders were cab drivers.
It'd be interesting if it were possible to extract the number of "dissing" deaths of cyclists and pedestrians, to separate them from the negligent deaths - as it is possible to extract "dissing" murders not involving cars from the greater non-automibilic risk, which IIRC is a partner or ex with a knife.
Unfortunately, the main witness is dead, which is why prosecutions for murder by motor are vanishingly rare.
(BTW, I'm not a cycling campaigner. I don't even ride one. I'm just drafting obituaries for friends who cycle, for when the time comes :( )
detective-boy
22-02-2007, 08:37
...their own feelings of fear, insecurity and incomprehension...
For a long time now the police and the Courts have recognised that youths are by far the most likely victims of youth crime as well as it's perpetrators, certainly so far as confrontational / violent crimes are concerned. And they, like any potential victims of crime, are worried about it.
Several of the interviews on the news progarmmes over the last few days have brought that out quite tellingly and, so far as I can recall, that is the first time the media have really recognised the phenomenon rather than simply demonsing "hoodies" as the bad guys.
As with any crime which is underreported, this symptom indicates significant problems below the surface and, because unreported crime does not appear in statistics and surveys, tends to lead to the required resources not being focused on the problem because "the system" doesn't even see it.
For years now "taxing" (as it was called, probably something else this week! :rolleyes: ) of kids has been going on and has been largely unreported. It is viewed by many (victims as well as suspects) as more a continuance of bullying rather than as a crime, and that needs to be addressed I think, as it seems to have spread to become a significant part of the territorial "gang" problem.
poster342002
22-02-2007, 10:07
Can I just say that gangs per se are not always a bad thing. If kids don't have a sense of belonging (bad parenting, even no parents or whatever) a 'gang' can give a sense of belonging and self-worth. It is however important that the make-up of the group includes at least one sensible person who keeps behaviour within reasonable bounds, and more importantly, commands respect within the group.
I think it depends on what the "gang" does. If it doesn't go around harming people, it's not really a "gang" as such, imo - it's more a group of friends.
Mrs Magpie
22-02-2007, 11:16
Well, I was alarmed at the idea of gangs being made illegal....what exactly would that entail and what would define a gang?
poster342002
22-02-2007, 11:17
Well, I was alarmed at the idea of gangs being made illegal....what exactly would that entail and what would define a gang?
Knottier question, admittedly...
detective-boy
22-02-2007, 12:42
Well, I was alarmed at the idea of gangs being made illegal....
I've not heard that suggested. Are you sure that is what was said / meant?
All I have heard them wittering on about is using gang connexction as an aggravating factor when deciding sentence for standard offences (e.g. a robbery committed as part of the activity of a gang would attract a more severe sentence that one which was not). I don't know what they propose as the definition of that, but I would think it could be done on evidence of others being involved in planning / encouraging the offence, or where more than one suspect was involved or something.
Well, I was alarmed at the idea of gangs being made illegal....what exactly would that entail and what would define a gang?
I've not heard that suggested. Are you sure that is what was said / meant?
And the prime minister has told the BBC he is considering criminalising gang membership. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383911.stm)
Another well thought out policy from our dear leader.
ViolentPanda
22-02-2007, 14:18
And the prime minister has told the BBC he is considering criminalising gang membership. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383911.stm)
Another well thought out policy from our dear leader.
It occurs to me that any legislation is going to leak like an onion bag on the point of proving membership. What'll constitute proof;
Some 14 year-old saying "I is be a member of da Tooting Kneecappers, blud" to an undercover copper?
A gang tattoo with joining date and membership number?
Being seen in the vicinity of other supposed "gang members"?
This has the potential to be a new SUS law in fancy dress.
Blair needs to pull his head out of his arse and stick his brains back up it.
detective-boy
22-02-2007, 18:25
And the prime minister has told the BBC he is considering criminalising gang membership. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383911.stm)
Mmmm. First time I've seen that reported. I notice it is not a direct quote and I think I'd like to see / hear the actual words spoken and their context.
If that is what is being considered, I think it is probably going to end up more bother than it is worth - I can't see it being easily definable as an offence.
And the prime minister has told the BBC he is considering criminalising gang membership. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383911.stm)
Another well thought out policy from our dear leader.
I suspect this is going to go the way of so many other Daily-Mail-driven initiatives.
Minister announces new policy
Parliamentary drafters point out it isn't implementable without massive side-effects
Either the new law catches no-one at all
Or it accidentally outlaws the Ramblers and Ockenden Over-70s Bowling Club
Law is passed anyway because too many MPs are scared to vote against the Mail, or government whips it through
Either it catches no-one
Or it's overturned in European Court of Human Rights
Time passes
Minister announces new policy
Parliamentary drafters bang their heads against their desks - but try again, because that's their job
Repeat ad nauseam
Much the same has happened since 1973 with repeated attempts to "make squatting illegal" - by now they've got to the point where they actually have managed the originally-undesirable side-effect of making all legal tenants insecure against a lying landlord, and still not made squatting actually illegal.
I've not heard that suggested. Are you sure that is what was said / meant?
All I have heard them wittering on about is using gang connexction as an aggravating factor when deciding sentence for standard offences (e.g. a robbery committed as part of the activity of a gang would attract a more severe sentence that one which was not). I don't know what they propose as the definition of that, but I would think it could be done on evidence of others being involved in planning / encouraging the offence, or where more than one suspect was involved or something.
This is ridiculous.
Mugging someone is no worse if you call yourself the "Clap Town Cunts" or "Peckham Young Pricks", or if you don't.
By all means sentence people more harshly for having pre-meditated acts of violence, or for particularly nasty injuries inflicted on someone, but they do this anyway, don't they?
Its like the "racially aggravated" thingie. Why is it deemed worse if someone beats someone up while calling him a nigger, than if he beats someone up and calls him a fat bastard, or whatever?
IMO, what matters is what you do, not what name you give to yourselves whilst doing it, or what reason you have for doing it.
Giles..
detective-boy
23-02-2007, 17:53
Mugging someone is no worse if you call yourself the "Clap Town Cunts" or "Peckham Young Pricks", or if you don't.
I think the thought process is "Gang-related crime includes lots which would not have happened at all / not been as bad if it hadn't been for the involvement of the gang; therefore, to add to the "downside" for someone thinking of giving in to gang pressure to commit an offence, lets make there a potentially larger sentence".
It is not so much the actual physical act as it's context which is being provided with the larger deterrent sentence, just as with race crime - something is seen as being a more crime of more concern / causing more (indirect) damage to society and hence society decides that the deterrent effect / effort should be larger.
I think the thought process is "Gang-related crime includes lots which would not have happened at all / not been as bad if it hadn't been for the involvement of the gang; therefore, to add to the "downside" for someone thinking of giving in to gang pressure to commit an offence, lets make there a potentially larger sentence".
It is not so much the actual physical act as it's context which is being provided with the larger deterrent sentence, just as with race crime - something is seen as being a more crime of more concern / causing more (indirect) damage to society and hence society decides that the deterrent effect / effort should be larger.
OK, I can kind of see that. But I still don't see how, if they bring in some sentencing guideline that says "If you are a member of xxxx, you get an extra 6 months", they can "prove" that someone is a member.
Such gangs don't keep formal membership records. And if people know they are going to get worse punishment, they will hardly boast about it if caught, will they?
And even if someone has a mobile phone video clip of some scrote bragging about the Clap Town Cocks or whatever, his defence is going to say "Oh he's just a silly little boy trying to act hard, of course he isn't in a gang".
Giles..
ska invita
23-02-2007, 20:20
As the media digs up pictures and news on the murdered boy in Clapham North why is it that no one wants to report the devastation the teenagers in the area are suffering at the moment.
They are 'children' no matter how heavy the situation is - many children know the victims of these crimes and are finding it hard to come to terms with the murder and their own feelings of fear, insecurity and incomprehension..
You're roght - it would be great to have sme coverage of that - not only to add balance, but it might help some kids out there knowing that others feel the same way. Its tough being a kid in London these days - as that survey scientifically proved.
detective-boy
23-02-2007, 20:48
But I still don't see how, if they bring in some sentencing guideline that says "If you are a member of xxxx, you get an extra 6 months", they can "prove" that someone is a member.
I think that's going to be the main difficulty. I can envisage some cases where the evidence is plain, but not all that many. I think the "evidence" for it would only need to be on the basis of balance of probabilities as it is not going to be part of the actual conviction - just of sentence - so far as I have seen so far (with one exception in a BBC report - no direct quote included).
potential
23-02-2007, 20:50
im not saying that 3 murders is good but because they have come in a short period and the media have been having a field day... and this has everyone to try and find some answers and the cop's to pull there fingers out.
ive seen so many cars pulled over and have seen more police visible on the street... turning point perhaps, its brought gun crime to the front and thats a good thing...
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.