| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Toddler tearaways targeted |
| 2005-06-12 |
| There's some good insight in this British report, although the idea of the national government running this makes me shudder. A CONFIDENTIAL Home Office report recommends that children should be targeted as potential criminals from the age of three. It says they can be singled out by their bullying behaviour in nursery school or by a history of criminality in their immediate family. It proposes parenting classes and, in the worst cases, putting more children who are not "under control" into intensive foster care instead of care homes. Nursery staff would be trained to spot children at risk of growing up to be criminals. The 250-page report, entitled Crime Reduction Review, was drawn up on the instructions of Tony Blair, who wanted to identify the most effective ways of cutting crime by 2008. Its leak coincides with an expected announcement tomorrow by Ruth Kelly, the education secretary, of a £430m package to provide out-of-hours clubs at schools for children aged four to 14. The Home Office strategy unit, which spent five months compiling the report, concluded that "from the simple perspective of reducing crime . . . the arguments for focusing resources on the children most at risk are 'overwhelming'". Children who were not "under control" by the age of three were four times as likely to be convicted of a violent offence, it warned. It adds: "Getting schools to tackle bullying, exclusions and truancy effectively is key to diverting more adolescents from crime". They're right that this needs dealing with. But no mention of dealing with the parents????? The report was conducted against a bleak assessment by the Home Office that, without new measures, the crime rate would rise 8.5% by 2008. Last July the government used the review's findings on what worked and what didn't to underpin a formal commitment to reduce crime by 15% by 2008. Measures such as CCTV, increased street lighting and longer custodial sentences were judged in the report to have been expensive failures, with only a few exceptions. Instead, it maintained that if potential offenders were spotted young enough, "soft" measures — such as improving their reading, language and social skills — could be enough to change their direction. there's some real truth here. Kids who are neglected by self-centered or messed up parents need attention and need opportunities to learn. That's what develops self esteem and a stake in social order. Kelly's £430m is intended to provide breakfast clubs and after-hours sports and arts; some children could be at school from 8am to 6pm. The sessions will be run by private sector and voluntary groups, rather than by the schools' regular staff. That has promise ... let's make sure those private groups aren't teaching jihad tho, okay? Research in the report found that 85% of inmates in young offenders' institutions had been bullies at school, while 43% of male prisoners had children with a criminal record. In a verdict likely to anger leftwingers, the report suggests that bullies should be treated as aggressors rather than victims of their social background. GASP - could it be ... Common Sense??? YES!! score one for reality. It states that bullies, who can start from a very young age, do not suffer from low self-esteem but act as gang leaders who "recruit" others to commit crime. As they graduate to being juvenile offenders, aged 8 to 15, they act as magnets by drawing in followers one or two years younger than themselves. Those who by the age of 18 reach this stage, it states, are best dealt with in young offenders' institutions with "boot camp" regimes. |
| Posted by:too true |
| #9 Same in Ohio. Fortunately a teacher came through the blocked bathroom door and took both girls directly to the principal's office, where the other girl was given no time to think up lies, so she confessed to attacking trailing daughter #1. Both girls were given in-school suspension and required to write an essay detailing what she'd done wrong. I explained to the principal that td1 would write the essay, but that as the descendent of Holocaust survivors I require her to protect herself from attack, and that we'd be going out to dinner to celebrate her behaviour. The principal was shocked by my attitude, which is too damn bad. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-06-12 23:31 |
| #8 Be very quiet and know that most of the teaching staff is on your side in any sort of face of in or out of court.... make them your friends. |
| Posted by: P Drake 2005-06-12 20:18 |
| #7 Raptor, same thing in Tennessee. My daughter was walking down the hall at school and a girl said, "Hey, Lauren." She turned around and was met with a fist to the mouth. She grabbed hold of the other girl and they both went down, She was suspended for 3 weeks. I really gave the school Principal and the school board a piece of my mind and then filed charges against the other girl. I had dental costs to pay whitch I got back from the other girl's parents as a result of the charges. It doesn't matter what happens both students are suspended. Absolutely rediculus. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-06-12 19:45 |
| #6 Yep, self defense is also not permitted in Southern California. However, my school immediately suspends and expels (2-strikes) the attacker. Did it to one 1st grade miscreant this year; his parents took the hint and moved him out of state. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-06-12 12:33 |
| #5 Yeap,Alan.Lee Kornigee Jr.High,Miami,Arizona. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-06-12 12:17 |
| #4 raptor: Was that in Arizona?????? 12 or so years ago my son was having trouble with a bully. He got in trouble with the school for defending himself. When I spoke to the teacher (the bully was the teacher's pet) I explained that my son knew that I would not accept him starting a fight but that I had no problem at all with him finishing one, and that I had not raised him to be a compliant victim of violence. If she had any objections I would give her the number of my lawyer ( which I did not have). The trouble stopped and I never heard a word again. AND this was in Massholia! |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-06-12 12:08 |
| #3 While discussing self defense with my sons Jr.High Princepal,he's answer to the ??? of when does a student have the right of self-defense. His answer was a student's right of self-defense(acorrding to the Az.school board)consists of falling to your knees,covering your head with your arms,and praying.I let him know in no uncertain terms what I thought of that. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-06-12 11:54 |
| #2 The give away is the use of the plural Parent(s). LOL! Parent is singular as is Granny or Aunt Milly. Oppppsssss.... nevermind. /it's summer. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-12 10:57 |
| #1 Sorry TT but you're suffering from Optimists syndrome here. "In a verdict likely to anger leftwingers, the report suggests that bullies should be treated as aggressors rather than victims of their social background. GASP - could it be ... Common Sense??? YES!! score one for reality." But just who gets to determine who is a bully and who is a victim, hmmmmm?? That's right, all those left wingers in the social services and educational industries. I'll garauntee that any law of this kind would rapidly be used to attack any parent who dared to question a school or a teacher. And the victim can be made to look like the instigator very easily. After all, how many times do we here about a foul in a sport being called on the reaction rather than the action? This is nothing more than Orwell redux. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-06-12 10:02 |