Bangor’s blanket ban on young people

Knowing the trouble in Bangor city centre caused by kids at night, this is a great idea. Perhaps the ‘parents’ should have imposed the same curfew on their lovely, well behaved offspring. NO CHANCE!

If anything, this intervention is being made in response to 1) poor parenting, and possibly 2) low levels of policing.

I think there is no reason for most under 16s to be out and about between 9pm and 6am.  There may be a few exceptions, such as youngsters having to go out for the sake of a family member or in very few cases because they need to be up early for a school or club trip or something.  In the vast majority of cases, this law will be in place because their irresponsible parents are letting them hang around the town centre between these hours, which is unnecessary.   I guess the council is trying to step in to prevent this. 

Standardrate notes the problem of “no visible policing”.  If that is the case, it seems that this measure is a compensatory one for lack of police.  Theoretically, it cuts youth problems on the streets, which means police hours are not spent dealing with them.

However, I think Big Brother Watch is absolutely right to draw our attention to the question of liberties here.  It’s not right to criminalise any under 16 year old who happens to be on the streets between 9pm and 6am.  What about the youth who pops out to the chemist on behalf of a sick relative?  The club member (Scouts, cadets, orchestra etc.) or school trip participant who has to get a coach at 5am?  It is daft and draconian to criminalise them. 

I think these problems insert themselves into a situation where people are looking at family issues and policing provision, and balancing them with civil liberties.  Ultimately, one has to weigh what is in the interest of the common good.

My kids went to the the usual round of school organisations, parties etc. Below the age of 16,  we, or someone else’s parents, met them and escorted them home. Public transport still makes it difficult here for anyone, however adult, to travel much after 8pm.The usual fear any of us expressed was of kids whose parents clearly showed no such responsibility, and who gathered in town to vandalise flower beds and shop windows – and deal drugs.

Independence appears to mean such different things for different children, who vary as much in thier behaviour as adults do. That is, a lot are reasonably well behaved and enough are unpleasant and disorderly to be a nuisance. What ”Independence” cannot mean is licence to attack person or property.

Just for fun, as an exercise in full reporting, could this website print the exact and full detail of this measure? Then we could go through it piecemeal. Perhaps, also, Bangor local govt could be prevailed upon to summarise the lead up to taking this measure, including local opinions and stats on crime. This will be very boring, but better, I suggest, than either pro or anti “shooting from the hip”.

In my local area, I happened to be out after dark, helping a friend with a house move. We were accosted by two police officers, who referred to “complaints”, though we had made no nuisance. They demanded (yes) ID 3 times, and each time I said we had committed no offence. At the third time, I said, “OK” and started to recite my name, whereupon I was told in authoritarian tones to “CALM DOWN” – twice. I am retired now (with silver hair), and resent it being suggested by someone half my age that I was the aggressor there. But I was able to talk my way through this – some are not as fortunate.

Rather than demonise (to use the current fad word) the local authorities, I would question the training of police, who seem to presume guilt (unlike UK Law – in theory, at least). I do not see particular hostility by police towards “young people” only, but I do see an attitude problem with our uniformed officers in general.

On the other hand, the way in which openly admitted aggression and intimidation by children caused the recent suicide of a mother and her disabled daughter should surely cure us of beleiving that all children are “little angels”. In that case, I undertatnd, the police were dismissive towards the complaints. I wonder if any of those officers have shed a tear, since.

It’s all so inconsistent.There are very real problems in a society where all the things I allude to above can happen. I wish it were so simple that I could think hard, find someone whose fault it is, and have a go at them, but I can’t.

We, as parents, did the only thing we could do: instill responsible behaviour in our kids, who are now well into careers in education and caring. We are not rich, nor “toffs”, though we are both clearly better educated than many currently in government.

The young have grasped the word, “Respect”. I think we all need to ponder what it means. If someone wants total freedom to run through the darkness like paperazzi chasing Sienna Miller, they should expect to explain why, but the principle that we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide must either be made to apply equally to all (including police) or be laughed out of court. Respect; it’s so demanding. But I’m willing try

I truly think that Big Brother Watch has weightier things to attack than this measure, until the trial period results are in for scrutiny. Meanwhile, the police would do well to learn some of the “respect” they demand from the public. When I see young people, I do not see demons or angels, but humans who are not yet grown up, and do not automatically see that the “respect” they demand must also be shown towards others. Sometimes, the rest of us are entitled to show them what this means.

Yours Thoughtfully

If the situation is as reported, then I draw the conclusion that (as usual in a Nanny State) the innocent are suffering because the State is incapable of dealing with the guilty.

This happens so often. Someone cheats on their expenses, so everyone must fill out extra paperwork. Somebody drives like an idiot, so everyone must drive past speed cameras. Some nutter runs riot with a gun so all gun owners have to give up their guns.

All the innocent are obliged to put themselves out, yet in many cases the criminals dodge around the ‘new measures’ meant to fix the perceived headline.

I’m all for kicking up a fuss about blanket curfews. What next? All men to be indoors by 10 PM? It’s been suggested by feminists as a measure to prevent rape. Why not put a curfew on all women? It would work just as well (i.e. badly), hardly any civil liberties infringed at all.