Blunkett's Curfew - Opression of Britain's most dangerous gr

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

David Blunkett has introduced new proposals to issue curfews against children. It would mean children under 16 would not be able to be in the streets after 9pm.

But, even worse, it would allow the police to disperse groups of two or more people.

Activists are complaining saying it is a "breach of human rights", but I feel it is more than that.

Youth today, as they have ever been, are the least locked-in group in society. They are therefore the most dangerous to the government. This act is trying to disable children from forming groups or subcultures in which they would usually develop their look on society and, at an older age, possibly politics. In these subcultures, youth often express their discontent with society in their own ways and thus become dangerous to our leaders.

Is anyone, like me, thinking that this ia a deliberate attempt to tackle the problem of youth diversity and youth anti-government culture?

The Bill also proposes that children can be "named and shamed", as such, in newspapers upon being handed Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.

This is the most subtle form of opposition repression that the government could take out....it is also the most sleaziest and devious.



(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 12:00 am on July 20, 2003)

[Felicia]

haha, we have a town curfew..... NO ONE (regardless of age, probably meant for teenagers) is alowed to be wondering and loitering the streets after 11:00 pm.

[Reuben]

I believe that S o M could be onto something. While i would be happy to see the police force acting coercively against individuals of whatever age who cmmite violen crimes, it appears as if it is acceptable to punish teenagers collectively in a way that would not be acceptable for any ocial strata.

At the same time it is important tnot to overestimate the danger of many 'rebellious' youth subcultures to the capitalist system given that many are firmly based in andsupport capitalism and consumerism.

[Ian]

I really don't think that a curfew would prevent youth anti-government sentiment, in fact I think it would be quite the opposite, in my opinion it would make people hate the government.


Youth today, as they have ever been, are the least locked-in group in society

Male youths perhaps, but I must disagree with you in part, female youth's have not always been the least locked-in group in society, some may say that they have been the most locked-in, even today female's have heaps more barriers than male youths, at least that is how it seems from my standpoint in Australia. Maybe somebody will disagree, would a feminist expert please point me in the right direction?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

No, because a feminist expert would say that all women are oppressed and can't do anything, so it's useless asking feminists.

I see what you mean, but politically I talk about. Maybe socially there are ways in which girls have more pressures than boys even at youth, but politically they do not. But, again, you do raise a fair point.

I believe you are wrong when you say that it will make people hate the government. Youth anti-government behaviour and culture is not what it sounds. The youth subcultures, most of the time, do not have a clue they are being anti government. Indeed, for the most part, youth groups do not know anything about politics and government. If a curfew were slapped on them, they would not say "Overthrow the government". They would just get angry. They do not know who to direct their frustrations at. This is why, by slapping what is virtually a ban on youth friend groups, the government can manage to ease out "anti-social behvaiour" as they call it; which we all know is really anti-institutional and anti-governmental behaviour, even if those taking part in it do not know so themselves.

Fundamentally, this is repression of potential opposition. Very different to how what we know of repression in the past. This will not even allow "potential opposition" to turn into "opposition" im many cases.

Unfortunately, the big problem is, many parents will support this. Hopefully, though, enough pressure will be put on it in order to stop it.

[Sandanista]

As a member of the Scottish socialist youth national commitee i would encourage all posters on this board who are under 16 and are british to fuck the curfew and stay out after 9 if u regularly do so.

[Kez]

wipe the scum off the streets...

the twats that are gonna get caught just loiter on the streets anyway, people can go round mates houses anyway.

What sub-culture? the sub-culture of racing fuckin novas round and round, oooooh how rebellious.

As ian pointed out, if any are pissed off then this will just make them more angry....

Anyway, what the the govt should have done is make sure these tossers dont cause problems in the first place. However as this means shaking up the institutions they wont do this.

anyway, what the fuck do people do on the streets after 9? if ur under 16 u cant go pub/bar/club anyway. All you can do is buy 24 Carling and get wasted in the park, so fuck that..

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I don't think you quite understand, Kamo. This isn't just for groups of underage drinking kids...ANY time that ANY kids are in groups of more than two, they will be dispersed. You sound like Mr. Blunkett himself. These kids aren't rebellious for nothing. They do not form subcultures, or "gangs" as they are called, for nothing. As a Marxist, I would have thought you would know that. The forming of friend groups and subcultures is hugely significant and very complex. Then, any rebellious, deviant or sometimes criminal behaviour is even more so.

To dismiss these processes, you are being very naiive indeed.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

"What sub-culture? the sub-culture of racing fuckin novas round and round, oooooh how rebellious."

You're a twat. You sound like some snobby kid from the burbs.

[chamo]

There are people on the streets, when they have a few drinks in them, act like pricks, but it is not just kids, actually it is mostly students and adults. My house has been surrounded by one night of violence because of a bloody clah between two loyalist factions totalling a riot of about 100 people, all over the age of sixteen.

In my experience, it's not the kids who are the problem. It's the absence of police on the streets. This is a scapegoat for the lack of control the underfunding of the police service has amounted to. Capitalism and thus poverty is also the problem. Blunkett is the ultimate scapegoat-er, look at all he has done in the past.

David Blunkett's, haven't a Cluedo!

"I suspect the asylum seeker in the doctor's office with the plea for help."

"I suspect the rap artist in the nightclub with a compact disc."

I thought it was funny.

[Saint-Just]

If they had enough police on the streets to enforce this they would have enough police on the streets to be ensuring that if young people were on the streets they were not creating problems.

Thats a bit of a simplistic statement and not entirely true; but it is true to a reasonable extent.

I think it is odd that a liberal government would come up with such a law. It presumably doesn't affect me since I am over 17. It seems to make little sense to me. They need to spend more time dealing with the problems in the deprived areas that create anti-social behaviour.

Not surprising that they won't do that though.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well no, first and foremost they needtospend more money on educating them.

Maybe then they'd want to be home reading books instead of on the streets doing whatever they do.

But that's not the subject anyway.

[Kez]

SoM, your dreaming, kids arent fuckin revolutionaries, granted we can as marxist tap into their frustration and get them to be, however you cant say that automatically they will become revolutionary, just cobblers

[Moskitto]

i think the problem is because education funding is low there isn't the culture of learning so people prefer to go out and yell really loud and set things on fire, drink a 24 pack and do all sorts of things they shouldn't be. I've seen lots of them.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Kamo, so you suggest we leave them with no hope of making people who can change this country for the better?

You seem to think you are wise and better because you are not a "kid" and they are? Was it not Mao that said we should learn from the cadres at the lower levels? We can learn a lot from them. Their rebellion and their ways. You think we should wait untill they are older untill they learn the wicked ways of society? Untill they are so worried about their personal finance, that politics is the last thing on their minds?

They are in the strongest position in societry. If the children aged 12 to 16 were taught the problems, they could cause more havoc for the government than we can ever imagine. Society and, more so now, the economy is so child-centered. If there was discontent shown by the real youth, it was be a massive situation for the government.

Youth groups aren't just a culture of kids who want to drink and cause trouble. Why does nobody ask the question "why?"?

[chamo]

Simply, people shouldn't be discriminated and generalised because of their age. Another Blankett reform, another freedom eroded.

[Dirty Commie]

SoM, I am between the ages of 12 and 16 (14) and I can tell you, no one really notices some one my age at a protest, nor do teh police seem to care when I am the one stirring things up. It would take a lot (several hundred) of children to get anyone to notice that todays youth are aware of the corruption of our leaders.

Then again, I live in the usa where since I don't agree with the system, I am not allowed to be listened to.

[mentalbunny]

Well I don't like this way of reducing personal freedom but I agree with Kamo that the youth aren't revolutionary. This is not to do with politics in that sense, it's about personal freedom and also the reform betrays the fact that the police are underfunded and inefficient if this is a problem.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

They don't KNOW they are rebelling anf fighting, but they are.

I didn't say that the kids realise what they are doing. But what they are doing is protest. Their form of protest. Yes, I know sometimes it's just apathetic crime for now reason. But youth groups form and partake in rebellious and "deviant" behaviour for reasons so deep that they don't even notice.

[chamo]

The kids on the streets are not rebelling a fighting for anything. Their objective is not to topple the government. It is to waste time because they're bored and vandalism and drinking etc gives them something to do that amuses them.

The "deep" reasons they do it for is because there is nothing for them to do to take them off the streets; the government's small sideline schemes have failed and now it has resorted to this.

You seem to have argued yourself into a corner and now you're trying to get out of it.

Whatever the reasons for the proposals I am upset at the lack of freedom people will have and that young people are being targeted by Blunkett. Also, the Police have a right to disperse people who have are not doing anything mischievous, and that is a loss of rights for the public.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

What are you on about?

I'm not in a corner because I know what this is all about. I know these kids aren't planning to topple the government. But together, a group of 14 or 15 year olds are so dangerous for government. Like I've said, these are the least locked in members of society and, if they were to get hold of some knowledge about the inequalities and injustices in society, the government would have major problems.

You lot are so judgemental.

[Kez]

what the fuck...yes smashing telephone boxes is a great threat to the govt...the youth who do this shit are nothing for the govt, only thing is that if they get too much they can be bad for electoral success. Fuckin rebellious my arse. The reason they do this shit is because they cant be successful thru the school system and therefore must be successful thru othermeans ie crime and the "thug" culture

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well that's part of the rebellion isn't it. Which is what I've been saying.

I'm only on about your last sentance. The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing.

[Josh2]

I personally feel that the youth of the nation are definetly willing to learn...all you have to do is hand them a pamphlet, or a book, or show them the injustices, give them the flame to start the fire. You can see this first hand by just doing this Youth for Socialist Action is a great youth organization that educates people about Marxism, US Foreign Policy etc. etc. The youth are the Next Revolutionaries. Someone could be the next Che Guevarra or Trotsky, and if you dont make an attempt to educate them...their brain might be put to waste. You Can Lead The Horse to Water, You can't make them drink, But you can try.

[Kez]

I asked you in chat what institutions these "rebellious" youth attack, you claim the law for breaking it by drinking ale unnderage. This i explained was a coincidence and that they only drink ale as a form of numbing their misery. You then fucked off.

However, what if there wasnt a law making underage drinking illegal? would they stop their rebelliousness? no, because its not rebelliousness, its fuckin coincidence

On the point of the youth being the future, this is VERY important and very true. We must concentrate on the youth and maintain the youth with theory, not to burn them out with activism for activism sake, but activity tied in with theory, the latter is the only way to maintain the youth for a revolutionary situation. We must distance away from the ultra-left strategies of groups which burn out the youth with pointless activism and move towards the real movement

[mentalbunny]

josh, sorry to break it to you but the youth don't generally give a shit. I correct someone about what anarchism really is at school and the entire class goes "shut up, who gives a shit". In general, no one really cares, they just want enough money to do what they want, c'est tout.

[Josh2]

It's Sad that the youth you've dealt with were unwilling to learn..but, if you never make the attempt to teach someone...then you will never know if they 'do give a shit' or 'dont give a shit' to put it in straight forward terms. If you dont make an attempt, then whats the state of the revolution going to be in in say 20 years, when these youth are leading the world. I myself know firsthand because I am a youth, and I've dealt with others, and I know that there are people who don't care, or say, 'Let the people getting payed to do it, care about it.' but there are people who really want to get invovled, but dont know where to start and people who just need to get turned on to socialism etc. Theres a common quote that fits very well to this argument, 'You Can Lead a Horse To Water, But you Can't Make it Drink' This applies to this, but, there are 'horses' that all the need to be is led to the water, and they will drink.

[Kez]

josh i agree with you 100%, thats not the issue, the issue is that SoM thinks that the youth is already rebellious. Whereas as uve correctly stated, it takes persuasion and patience to get them to care

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Of course Josh is correct, but as Kamo stated, that is not the point.

Kamo, I left chat because I had food ready, and that was more important than trying to teach an ignorant.

As I've said time and time again, I am not saying that the youth plan what they do as rebellion. I'm saying that by dispersing groups of more than two when they are together is disabling the formation of youth groups. In groups, young people can be lethal when they have knowledge of what is going on around them.

Thisis why I created this thread as this new law would mean youth groups would not be allowed to be formed like they have in the past.

As for you asking which institutions they attack, I've explained that. They are not taking part in some planed military coup. Not trying to overthrow the government by attacking certain institutions. They are rebelling the only way they know how against the only things that they know are not fair, usually the school system.