dmrbike Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I have to agree. Moving the little darlings might solve YOUR problem, but not THE problem. The issue of these poor little lambs burgling, robbing and causing damage is not wholly the fault of social services, the police, or even the parents. The problem is the law it'self. They do it because they know they can get away with it. Let's assume that little Jimmy (age 15) is in care somewhere in Douglas. He announces at 11pm he is off out to "nick a car". His "carer" is powerless to stop him because locking the front door amounts to unlawfull detention, and if a physical restraint is attempted, it's assault. So off Jimmy goes. The "carer" then washes his or her hands of the situation by phoning the Police and reporting Jimmy as missing from home. A report is taken, and a log started of all the attempts made to find Jimmy. This typically ties up a Police officer for the entire shift !!. The log is nothing more than a back-covering-exercise incase Jimmy turns up dead. (Because the care home is understaffed, they do not assisit in the search) One of two things is likely to happen now........... Jimmy is spotted at 00.15 near to a car with a broken window. Jimmy is now drunk, and the police assume he has broken the window. This along with the original missing from home, is enough for the arrest. Jimmy is transported top Police HQ, where being a juvinille, and it being after midnight, can't be held. He is reported for the offence and released into the waiting arms of his "carer" who is told to "F£ck oF£" and Jimmy does a runner. A new missing from home report is started, and the process repeats. Scenario two. Jimmy is seen on the promenade and is not commiting a crime. He is "detained" (this is technically unlawful") by the police until the "carer" can turn up. She Positivly identifies Jimmy as the same Jimmy who went missing. Here is the great bit.............. Because Jimmy is no longer missing, he is asked to return home with the carer. She has no power to make him do this, and he declines with thanks before running into the night. He cannot be arrested as he has commited no crime. The only other possible course of action would be to take jimmy to a "place of safety" this being a police station or hospital. As jimmy is not suicidal, drunk or on drugs, this does not apply. A new MFH report is filed.................... To combat this problem, a radical change in the law is required, where juviniles in care can be placed under curfew, and if necessary restrained. Staff should be well paid, and well trained. The care home riddled with CCTV, so that if necessary any assault allegations can be dealt with swiftly. Jimmy knows that if he makes an assault allegation against staff, they will be suspended for at least 6 months. Hopefully you now understand why we have drunken yobs roaming the streets at all hours causing trouble. (The above scenario is similar if you have uncaring parents in the equation) If our MHK's bothered to do ONE saturday night shift with the Police, one with ambulance, one with care home, they would see this for themselves instaed of spouting inaccuracys in Tynwald. As a society, we have to care for these kids, regardless of what made them this way. But in my book "care" is not letting them do what they want. The Isle of man has the money and resourse to create a world beating model for stopping this cycle, but no one has the backbone to do it. Sorry. Off soapbox now.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Quality post - excellent insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I think everyone's missing the point. These scallys are products of the welfare state. In years gone by, when there was just peasants and gentry, the scally peasants died out because if they didn't work they either starved or got exported to Australia for even the slightest wrong-doing. I had the misfortune to leave the TV on this morning and overheard 'Tricia' or one of those other pond-life morning programmes. There was some scally on who had 20 kids to about 5 different mothers. The trouble is bad behaviour pays - people are looked after too much - even prisoners are suing the government for locking them up just because they are addicts and have to go through cold-turkey whilst they serve time for the burglary they've just done to fund their habit. Scally's are breeding exponentially - funded by Joe Public (you and I). It should be that if you do a crime or let down your kids (and they have to go into care) that society takes away your benefits, or at least curtails them severely. Bring back national service I say, and offer them the chance to do either 2 years in the forces or two years social-based work. Kids need discipline and responsibility and preparation for life - not to go into some system that turns them into even bigger failures, and worse still allows them to breed yet another generation of fully funded uneducated pond-life. Personally I think that if your own child ends up going into care, then if you are not mentally ill, you should either spend the same amount of time locked up in prison or pay for the care. It is time that scally's were held to account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Off soapbox now.................. I think that was an appalling post. Children end up in care for numerous reasons and stigmatising all of them in this manner is not only unacceptable but way off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Its difficult, and I think Dmrbike is stereotyping, but unfortunately I'm certain such things do happen. Some children in care do not behave like this, but some do. The inability of carers to control their wards is a very serious problem and even if such powers are only occassionally needed they must be available. As far as I'm aware these powers are missing and we do need a review of how to deal with the problems these kids cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 The latter part of this thread is great. I must admit i thought Brenda's comments at the time were disgusting - particularly the one about "why don't you move them to Ramsey because I hate Alan Bell". It says more about a person than a manifesto ever will and she does not get my vote purely for that. Someone who wants to shift a problem to someone else rather than deal with it herself is not the sort of politician I want to have. The Islands problem pure and simple is money. Years ago there was no money so little sh*t has to rob your house to get money. At that stage they bang him up. He does it again they bang him up again. However as a result of the Islands prosperity these people now just become professional arseholes, rather than professional criminals - and there is not much you can do about arseholes. You can't arrest someone for being an arsehole, you can't take them to court for being an arsehole, and now arseholes have rights enshrined in law and because we have more money for social workers and social welfare being a state subsidised arsehole is better than working and less risky than breaking and entering. All we are doing is employing people to help people continue to act as arseholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Totally agree with you Juan Kerr, Cannell's comments and attitude to this problem disqualify her from office, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Some children in care do not behave like this, but some do. Most children in care do not behave like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I think it is fair to say LW that most children in care have some sort of problem (normally of someone else's making) or else they wouldn't be in care, and without a strong and truly caring system it could lead to the kind of anti-social behaviour referred to above. My very dearest friend works in the system and it is truly frightening to hear how the carers are expected to do the job, not with one hand tied behind their backs but with both shackled. The system seems to be entirely designed to covering backsides rather than repairing the damage and producing responsible members of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmrbike Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Lonewolf is right. Most kids in care do not behave as I described in my sweeping generalisation. If they are well behaved and co-operative, the staff pay them attention, and you get a productive environment. Juvinille is re-integrated into society, everyone is happy. Our hypothetical "Jimmy" is the problem. Much as I would like to take Albert Tatlock's approach, as a society we can't. If you understood what some of the kids have been through, you would'nt expect them to be anything else except completly f£cked up. I am talking about experiances that I would hope no one ever has to be told about, never mind go through. If a child is abused, turns to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain, has children, and then repeats the cycle, who is to blame ?. The parent ?. The Grandparent ?. The alcohol ?. We tend to follow the role model of our parents. There is no quick fix, but letting disturbed kids run riot is certainly not the solution. I still think discipline and restiction is the solution. If their behaviour improves, then they should be rewarded. (As in life). Can I have a rant about the unemployed now ?. (Far less sympathy there !!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Not too many years ago a group of these kids just walked into our house and stole a laptop, money and other items. We soon found out who had done it from neighbours. Told the police. As soon as we mentioned care kids their eyes glazed over. Untouchables apparently. On a slightly different subject, take a trip down to White Hoe sometime (off the Old Castletown Road by the Industrial Estate). It frightens me. What sort of human beings are kept inside that place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 On a slightly different subject, take a trip down to White Hoe sometime (off the Old Castletown Road by the Industrial Estate). It frightens me. What sort of human beings are kept inside that place? I know from someone who worked there until recently that many of the kids in the secure unit part of it are there for their own safety. Many of them have had nightmare childhoods of a kind that most of us couldn't even imagine. For some, the help that's now offered to them has come too late and, for that, its not only the politicians and the social workers etc who ought to feel ashamed - it is all of us who live in our comfortable environments with the blinds drawn - not to maintain our privacy, but to ensure that we don't have to see any of the terrible things that are happening around us. Until recently, an organisation called 'Include' provided teaching facilities at the secure unit. It comprised a teaching manager, one full-time teacher, one part-time teacher and an assistant. Sometimes they had successes with these kids - and just because there were 'failures' as well, it didn't mean that they gave up. The organisation was eventually starved of funds as government departments bickered over who was to pay what - and I can't help wondering whether or not the kids are receiving the 5 hours per day of education that they are entitled to BY LAW! Rant over - Back on thread: The commission of enquiry, I believe, completely exonerated Brenda. Other than an ill-advised and flippant remark - the kind of thing that everyone makes from time to time (other than those not intelligent enough to do so). To suggest that this makes her unfit for public office is, to my mind, a throwback to the days when local minds tended to narrow almost to a point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Other than an ill-advised and flippant remark - the kind of thing that everyone makes from time to time (other than those not intelligent enough to do so). So you're saying she's stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Other than an ill-advised and flippant remark - the kind of thing that everyone makes from time to time (other than those not intelligent enough to do so). So you're saying she's stupid? No... I am! I got carried away and forgot to finish the sentence! Still, I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 So you're stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.