I do voluntary work with the sort of kids this law has been designed to target - the ones who walk around a council estate causing trouble, because there's nowhere for them to go but home, where they can look forward to crowded houses and parents who are high.
There are two approaches to dealing with that problem. The first is laws like this, which allow the police to prosecute them simply for walking the streets in a group, and set them up for life with a criminal record. That will inevitably lead to worse crimes in the future as they find themselves unable to work because of that record.
Alternatively the government could stop cutting funding for organisations that try to provide a place where they can go and be children without causing others trouble. Youth centres are shutting down due to a lack of funding - the one I volunteer at only functions because its funded by a local church, and even then it only just scrapes by.
Honestly, I don't really know where I'm going with this, other than needing to rant about the fucked up approach this government is taking with their "Big Society", carefully focused on making sure the poor are criminalised, and the rich don't have to worry about supporting them.
"..the sort of kids this law has been designed to target - the ones who walk around a council estate causing trouble, because there's nowhere for them to go but home, where they can look forward to crowded houses and parents who are high."
I've long been of the opinion that poor parenting (and/or an abdication of responsibility on the part of the parents) is a major contributing factor to teenage delinquency.
What are your thoughts, based on your experience of working with these kids?
Most of my thoughts have been covered in the earlier replies to your comment - bad parenting is certainly a factor in some cases, but at the same time we have some parents who come along and tell us that they have no idea what's going wrong with their kids. In a lot of cases it seems that the only thing going wrong is that they live on the wrong estate, and their kids are getting mixed up with others who encourage them to do things they shouldn't.
I've certainly seen that almost all of them are perfectly nice one on one, but once they get into a group setting they can be utterly horrible (I've been called a cunt by a seven year old girl for telling them they need to let someone else have a go on the xbox). Society has a lot to answer for, in telling people that they should be the centre of attention at all times, and have everything that they want whatever it takes.
Its a really difficult problem to solve, and if I'm brutally honest, I think a large part of the generation growing up now was lost years ago. Our organisation exist to work with seven to twelve year olds who are particularly bad, and even at that age there are a few who I have little doubt will spend their late teens and early twenties in prison. That largely comes from growing up in a culture where nobody has achieved anything for generations - and so they've been told from an early age that they won't either, given that sort of background the odds of working hard to make it are pretty slim.
On the basis of your comments, I applaud you for your volunteering efforts. It seems to me that an important way of reducing "bad parenting" is helping people to not become bad parents in the first place.
May I ask which organisation it is you do this work through, and how you got involved? If you'd rather not say then don't worry.
Thanks, that's the idea. None of us are really qualified to do much more than attempt to provide a positive role model to kids who don't really have any, and every now and again it actually seems to work.
The particular organisation I'm working with is the Forest Estate Community Hub, in Egham, which is run by my church. I ended up getting involved mostly because I was one of a few people who thought something like the kids club we run was needed, and in a small church the only way things like that happen is if you step up and get on with it!
The closest we get to a web page is a Twitter account at https://twitter.com/ForestEstateHub, which gets updated both with the kids club, and various other groups that use the building.
I've long been of the opinion that poor patenting (and/or an abdication of responsibility on the part of the parents) is a major contributing factor to an awful lot of society's ills...
Sometimes, but I doubt it is the real problem, as far as modern society goes. Look at the London riots, where parents were forcing their children to turn themselves in afterwards. I would ask instead if society is right to bombard everyone with constant reminders that they are undesirable if they are not wealthy, famous or good looking. What internal world view does this create for those effectively trapped at the bottom? A sense of self-worth? Unlikey.
Anyone who thinks parenting practices -other than the most extreme- shape behavior should think twice and look at the evidence. The blank slate by Steven Pinker might be a good starting point.
There's plenty of evidence that the effects of parenting are generally smaller than we would like them to be, again with a few exceptions.
As you rightly point out extremes of Abuse and neglect have the most long lasting impacts on human development than nearly any other factor.
However even with those examples excluded, the amount of talking that a child is exposed to when in their developing years has significant impact on their long term development; see the "word gap" [1]. Not only that but nutritional environment (often based on parental choice) for the first 2-6 years has a massive impact on long term brain development [2].
So yes in fact parenting practices have a massive impact even when you exclude abuse and neglect.
Except that what many of us here would consider extreme are actually pretty common. Estimates for the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual abuse are difficult to measure accurately, but are conservatively > 10% in the population at large and much higher in the deprived communities which will be targeted by these laws.
Having spent significant time of my youth in a bad neighbourhood (with awesome, stable parents though), and having spent much of my later life with people on the edges of society, I can confirm this. It's reached a point where I'm shocked to not eventually hear some awful stories about childhood of these people.
From what I recall, Pinker makes no such assertion. Rather, he argues that we underestimate genetic effects and that while this is understandable from an ethical/political perspective, it is ultimately harmful.
In fact, I vaguely recall that on the issue of parenting he argued that genetics play a big role, but that so does parenting.
Basically, he's arguing that we factor in genetics more, not that we disregard parenting and social environment as a significant factor.
(but be sure to let me know if I'm wrong. It's been quite a while since I read The Blank Slate)
The idea that somehow it is reasonable to have any expectation that two random people who manage to have unprotected sex are able to be responsible parents is absurd. There are going to be troubled households, and it is up to the rest of us to take up responsibility.
This is basically again an instance of the ages-old problem of symptoms being easier to treat than the disease. And that's assuming the disease is even identified correctly in the first place.
The dis-ease is the current distribution of resources, which is a symptom or side-effect of capitalism evolving to its extremities - those systems can be influenced to incentivize different behaviours and patterns though to correct the dis-ease. If people believe resources are scarce, then there may be an issue. If people believe we have access - through human will, passion, and ingenuity - to the resources of the whole universe, then scarcity is only an illusion and we need not allow this fear to perpetuate, as it only leads to unnecessary suffering through fear of survival, and fear-mongers being able to control populations and create wars or at minimum perpetuate the suffering of one group for the gain of what they consider their own population.
This is a myth. Please refer to Deirdre N. McCloskey's work for a thorough debunking. The first two volumes of the proposed six volume set are available from amazon, the one you'll be interested in is 'Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World'.
Could you clarify or specify what it is you say is a myth and why it's a myth? A brief of what Deirdre N. McCloskey says would be very helpful and much appreciated - thanks.
Edit: Reading the Amazon short description, "[...] The result was an explosion in economic growth and proof that economic change depends less on foreign trade, investment, or material causes, and a whole lot more on ideas and what people believe. Or so says Deirdre N. McCloskey [...]"
That is relating to distribution of resources, albeit local resources.
There are two approaches to dealing with that problem. The first is laws like this, which allow the police to prosecute them simply for walking the streets in a group, and set them up for life with a criminal record. That will inevitably lead to worse crimes in the future as they find themselves unable to work because of that record.
Alternatively the government could stop cutting funding for organisations that try to provide a place where they can go and be children without causing others trouble. Youth centres are shutting down due to a lack of funding - the one I volunteer at only functions because its funded by a local church, and even then it only just scrapes by.
Honestly, I don't really know where I'm going with this, other than needing to rant about the fucked up approach this government is taking with their "Big Society", carefully focused on making sure the poor are criminalised, and the rich don't have to worry about supporting them.