Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Scum

Scum
Mrs Helen Newlove, widow of Garry Newlove (who was kicked to death by scum):

"Parents should take responsibility for their children. Garry and I have brought up three girls together to respect other people and to be home, not walking the streets causing damage and intimidating other people by drinking and abusive language."

Exactly!

It's not the state's role to bring up children.

Cheshire Police Chief Constable Peter Fahy, commenting on the murder:

"I personally think we cannot have a society where law abiding people like Garry Newlove cannot go out and challenge people that are damaging their property, otherwise we'll just have the yobs ruling the streets.

People should go out and certainly confront, that's my own personal view
."

Three points re Fahy's remarks:

1 That's exactly what Mr Newlove did, and he got murdered for doing it

2 It is meant to be the role of the police to patrol the streets and to deal with criminal behaviour

3 Mr Newlove had tried to ask for police and council help before, at various meetings. However, he became so frustrated at the lack of action that he walked out of one of the meetings. Why did the council and police not help him?

Human scum, such as those who murdered Mr Newlove are formed in their early years by parents who indulge them (ie they don't say no), let them run riot and ignore them.

It is very easy to blame "society", the blame lies full square with the parents.

Question:

Why do parents allow "adolescents" out on the streets at all times of day and night?

Answer:

Because they don't care.

Conclusion

The blame lies full square with the parents.

Solution:

-Curfew the entire family, ie put them under semi house arrest

-Remove the family's TVs, mobile phones, DVD's, iPods etc

-Cut/stop their benefits (or fine them if they are not on benefits)

"Parents should take responsibility for their children. Garry and I have brought up three girls together to respect other people and to be home, not walking the streets causing damage and intimidating other people by drinking and abusive language."



21 comments:

  1. ParentE12:51 PM

    I have to say that i completely agree with you.
    I am one of five children and my parents did a darned good job of raising us.We have good morals and ethics,and know how to respect other people.
    As such,my sisters and I (who have 6 children between us) teach our own children the same.They have curfew,are disciplined when required, have good manners and so we often get comments that ours are "very well behaved children".
    I have tried to complain to my own council about the amount of teenagers and pre-teens who roam the street at night,screeching their heads off,causing nuisance and destroying other peoples property.
    I also know some of the parents.
    They just don't care.
    Their attitude is "kids will be kids".
    It disgusts me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken you are spot on!!

    Parents must be responsible for the actions of their off spring until they are about sixteen. Children need firm boundaries and known consequences should those boundaries be broken.
    I see young kids of about twelve or thirteen years of age, out in packs at turned midnight and often later. What is that all about?
    I think the curfew idea is great. Under sixteen, not at a recognised organised event, then home by 22-00hrs, no ifs no buts. Note to Nanny....fine potential for non compliance...kerching.

    The problem with confronting these yobs is that as well as potentially getting a kicking from them or worse, the Police are more than likely going to prosecute YOU for public order or asssault. We often read this, one may ask had the brave hero not been killed by these chav thugs, would the police have prosecuted him for confronting these yobs?

    All too often we put criminals rights ahead of victim's rights. As far as I am concerned, when someone chooses to break the law, they loose their rights. It was known as being an "outlaw" in the days of early America.

    Our nation, that was said to be a land fit for heros, has become a land fit for zeros.

    Makes you proud to be British doesn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With regard to that dildo Fahy, you failed to point out the other glaring flaw in his argument.

    If we confront, and survive the process, it is WE who will end up arrested and charged. The police now seem to exist to defend bums and deadbeats, whilst harassing and bullying the innocent and (partially in my case) respectable...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bring in Nigerian law.
    Over there, they can keep a gun in the house.
    If they carry it off their own property, ten years mandatory.
    If they carry it(even without using it)in the commission of a crime, mandatory death.
    But if they shoot the miserable rubbish that does things like this, nobody complains, or if they do, nobody pays any attention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9:43 PM

    One good place to start here would be to re-introduce coprorate punishment in schools, and NOW....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:45 PM

    KEN FOR PRIME MINISTER!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:29 PM

    You are forgetting to blame the teachers who abandoned education for indoctrination.
    They say the child's self esteem is paramount and so produce a total lack of discipline.
    Add to that with the practice of doing away with effective fathers and you have what you got.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:41 PM

    Too bad you can't sterilize the little skanks and the morons who bred them, too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jamie3:47 AM

    Oh man, what a sad story. I'm choked.

    I totally agree that the police should have been there to stop any anti-social behaviour that may have occured instead of Mr Newlove having to tackle it.

    I do however disagree with the idea of punishing the parents. Dare I say it, sometimes I think this forum is as right-wing and facist as Nanny would like to be herself. You are fundementaly proposing the punishment of somebody who didn't commit a crime (i.e the parents).

    I'm not a do-gooder or a hippie (I hope they throw away the key). I just do not like the thought of innocent people having their freedoms and rights taken away.

    I thought this forum was, more or less, about the protection of human rights, that's why I read it. Please think before you write Ken, I'm not questioning your sincerity with regards to this case, I'm only questioning whether you truely belive innocent people being punished is in the spirit of aboloshing the Nanny state.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jamie

    Re "punishing" "innocent" parents.

    I do think before I write.

    Why should their 11-16 year old offspring be roaming the streets in a savage out of control manner, and the parents be let off?

    Until the "child" passes his/her majority year, that child is the responsibility of the parent.

    By forcing the parents and "child" to sit together in the same house, without TV and other distractions, it will force that family to face themselves and deal with their issues themsleves, instead of pushing their problems off onto others.

    The parents are not innocent, and must face their responsibilities.

    Victims have their rights too!

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ken:
    I agree with your last post on this subject.

    Parents are very much to blame. Under the age of majority, children are the reponsibility of their parents, or in this country, more often than not,their parent.

    Nanny has taken away the ability of adults, parents, teachers,police etc to enforce discipline. Kids need boundaries that can be enforced. If a teacher or parent tells a kid to do something or not to do something and the kid sayes no, what happens then? If you tell the eight year old not to run out in the road and he does, is it not reasonable to give him a smack on the leg? Surely this reminder is less painful than being knocked down by a car or prat wearing lycra and a radio active fruitbowl on his head on a push bike.
    Kids know their rights, what many people fail to accept, including Jamie by the sounds of it, with rights come responsibilities.

    Taking the rights of parents away to punish their rogue offspring is Nannyism, she is saying she can't trust adults to know the difference between reasonable punishment and abuse. With the child's right not to be physically punished comes the child's duty to behave in an acceptable manner, however, being inmature and socially inexperienced, the child does not accept that duty. Many people know their rights and expect them but many will not accept the duty that comes with those rights.

    ReplyDelete
  12. skydog1:16 PM

    Tonk said:''Nanny has taken away the ability of adults, parents, teachers,police etc to enforce discipline''

    In the last thread, I said:''Yes Nanny! I hereby confess that I used physical violence on my child to keep the little sod in order! (and it worked funnily enough)''

    Isn't that awful? I am (or rather was) prepared to deal out instant retribution when my kid was a little bugger. I am so glad that nanny has reduced the 'rights' of parents to chastise their brats. It leaves the kids rudderless and devoid of any social mores or values because nobody has ever said NO to them and the fact that they get away with their depredations sends them the wrong message.

    ReplyDelete
  13. track rat1:26 PM

    Nanny and her social workers (both the Guardian reading beard and sandal brigade and those who wear blue uniforms with shiny buttons) will do nothing to infringe the chav scum's 'rights.'

    As to anyone who is bringing their kids up with respect and a notion of what is right and wrong - well, get stuffed, just keep paying yer taxes to keep the scum in their rent free flat and in lager and fags.

    I speak from epxerience, having had to call Nanny's blue uniformed social workers many times for scumbags out of order in the street and even on my own drive. The result? A crime number.

    Hasn't 50 years of Nanny socialism produced some wonderful citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  14. skydog1:26 PM

    jamie:''I totally agree that the police should have been there to stop any anti-social behaviour that may have occured instead of Mr Newlove having to tackle it.''

    Not a chance jamie. Our police today are 'reactive' rather than 'proactive' and spend 50% of their time form-filling or being trained in diversity so that they don't upset ethnic minorities or the sensitivities of adherents of a certain religion.

    ''Right boys, get yer boots off, don't want to offend this lot when we raid the house ... don't touch any women, whether they're screaming and aggressive or not, no strip searches and definitely don't touch any books that happen to be lying around or we're all in the sh1t! The MCB will have a bloody field-day!
    Right, check pockets for anything made of pigskin, wallets, watchbands....''

    ReplyDelete
  15. skydog1:33 PM

    ''I just do not like the thought of innocent people having their freedoms and rights taken away.''

    'Freedom' does not come for 'free'

    Commit a crime and you (Rarely these days) lose your right to 'freedom'

    If that's a RW fascist POV, no problem, call me a RW fascist. I can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. grumpy10:24 PM

    Jamie, you really do need to think about the implications of some of your statements. You say, for example, "...I do however disagree with the idea of punishing the parents..."
    Even in current British law there is an age below which kids are supposed to be beneath the age of criminal responsibility and, thus, (theoretically) remain the responsibility of their parents
    By your thinking, it would seem, anyone at the receiving end of vandalism, assault, thuggery or just the mouthing of obscenities from some kid (or kids) who are deemed too young for criminal proceedings, should simply shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, kids will be kids".
    As a responsible adult, I am expected by society to control my car, my mouth, my temper, my sexual urges and all sorts of other aspects of my existence which might have some impact (no pun) on the peace and tranquility of other people's lives.
    I am also expected by the authorities to be conscious of my younger children's potential for harming themselves and, thus, am charged with their protection.

    Where is there any element of fascism in the desire of decent, law-abiding citizens, to ensure that their chldren are properly controlled, both so that they do no harm to themselves or to other people?

    If (as you should) you accept that the above is the proper concern of proper parents, then you must agree that people who do not exercise such controls are not responsible citizens and are - by their inaction - allowing both the law-abiding citizen and their unruly offspring to be harmed.
    I would contend that because of their failure to protect either their offspring or other members of society, these people have - effectively - become guilty of conspiracy - if only a conspiracy to offend people who disapprove of their activities.
    As conspirators with youths who cannot be criminally charged, it is they (within the age of criminal responsibility) who should be charged and, if found guilty, given the appropriate sentence. Is that not a protection of human rights?

    Alternatively Jamie, we can all adopt your stance and stand by saying "Tut-tut" whenever another householder is killed trying to protect his family and his property.
    Who's human rights are then being defended?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whilst the worst of the problems may become apparent when teenagers are out of control and, since they are deemed to be somewhere between kids who know not right from wrong (which they should and probably do, but have learned that no one in their habitat cares much.) and young adults no longer under the guidance of their parents, (breathe), I think the problem most often starts years before that.

    Probably 8 or 9 years ago now I was working in the New Utopia that was then Newport, Gwent having worked late and not yet fed myself, was heading across town to the newly opened 24 hour provisions emporium known as Tesco. During the journey, at about midnight, as I turned onto a short urban concrete dual carriageway with unsuitable cut-throughs and a central wall, 3 kids on bicycles suddenly came careering through one of the gaps and wobbled at speed down the road in front of me before jumping a pavement and heading up a footpath.

    As a mature and experienced (if slightly surprised) driver there was no dnager BUT that section of road was a favourite for the younger and less experienced denizens of the Newport Roads, especially at that time of night, and had it been one of them passing along there the outcome could have been different.

    So what is my point?

    Well, the kids in question were probably aged 6 to 8 in my estimate - I really doubt they would have been any older. Who on earth would let their 6 to 8 year old kids out on the streets at midnight, especially riding bikes on main roads?

    Maybe they hated their kids? Perhaps they really didn't care at all (until something happened to them and a third party could be blamed of course).

    But don't they realise that if the kid is killed the income stops? (Nanny does stop paying for the departed doesn't she?)

    On financial grounds alone you would think the 'parents' would want to ensure continuity of income.

    Anyway if they don't care at 6, 7 or 8 what chance is there that they will care in the teenage years?

    And if they are not cared for at 6, 7 and 8 then is it any surprise that the kids often become the sort of teenagers, and perhaps post teenagers, that we could all do without?

    Would 10 years in the army after the third involvement in 'trouble' be cheaper and more useful than court appearances, fines and jail? Might that draw the boundaries that could reduce or even prevent situations like the one Mr. Newlove found himself in?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jamie1:28 AM

    Hi all it's Jamie again. Thanks for responding to my earlier post.

    I think you all made some good rebuttals. You were all very polite considering how strongly you clearly disagreed with me and I respect you for that.

    To be honest I base my whole argument on the fact that when I look at the pictures of the killers they certainly look old enough to me to know exactly what they were doing is wrong and that they look old enough to take full responsibillty for it themselves.

    So what I am saying is Yes of course parent's have to take responsibility for their children. I don't disagree with that. However you lot obviously class these killers as children and I don't.

    If you lot think they look like nieve little children still learning the rights and wrongs of the world from their parents then so be it.

    Ps

    To tonk, I don't disagree with smacking kids as a disaplinary measure as long as it's resonable, that's evolutionary and cognative.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jamie1:36 AM

    "Alternatively Jamie, we can all adopt your stance and stand by saying "Tut-tut" whenever another householder is killed trying to protect his family and his property."


    How did you get from me saying "I hope they throw away the key" to me saying "tut tut"?

    Of course I think somebody should be punished harshly for this crime. I just want to make sure it's the right people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous10:08 AM

    Jamie,
    I can speak from personal experience re parental responsibility. I worked in local government social services and saw many families that existed on 'the dole' and with social worker intervention (eg the social workers running their lives) from generation to ever younger generation; Nan at the age of 40 etc.

    The cure, as we all agreed, would have been to make the bloody parents more responsible for their reproductive urges and behaviour.

    How could this be done? Simple, as a social worker pointed out to me, tell them to get a fxxxx job, dont pay for them to have more kids and take the ones out of control away from them and into stable foster homes. She also added that they should have dole money cut and get into fxxxx AA for their drink/drug problems. This from a card carrying Guardian reading 'leftie' social worker.

    Never normally agreed with her, but thought she was spot on on this observation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ken, I'm a criminologist and you have just said exactly what I have been saying for the last ten years in a somewhat more condensed form. Unfortunately my views are considered out of touch as we are now supposed to think of the scum who commit such crimes as 'socially deprived individuals with low self esteem' and treat them as the victims of societal injustice.

    One day someone *might* listen to people like you, I, many of the posters here and the decent members of society but somehow I don't hold out much hope of that.

    ReplyDelete