Is anyone else bothered by the group of teenagers in Goose Green playground?

[StraferJack]

LadyD, yes "all the pieces matter" but it looks as if you are more interested in picking fights with people on this thread rather than allowing for the fact that these kids (and now parents) might be out of order

Sometimes, people just want to take their kid to the play park and not have to confront gobshites

I'm aware of the impact that alcohol has across all social groups in this country and how it's promotion encourages liver diease and blah blah blah - sometimes I just want to go for a pint

You have simply taken an oppositionist stance on this thread

[Otta]

See now spitting, that IS feral.

But as standswithfist has told us, that was a few years back, so it is not the same kids who are there now.

[standswithfist]

Otta - if they were 9/10/11 then they would fit the bill now. I saw the lad in question a few weeks ago - in a crowd of boys and bikes at Goose Green park. So they could be the same ones.

I'm not saying they are for definate but it is a possibility.

[Otta]

Fair enough, I'd missed the 9/10/11 bit in your last post and assumed we were talking about older kids. My mistake.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm really sorry to hear that standswithfist, sounds like a horrible experience.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LadyD your post is unbelievably smug and condescending.

[Sophron]

Drug addicted and alcoholic parents unsupported by law abiding tax payers and neglecting their children as an excuse for unacceptable behaviour toward small children in a small childrens play ground. Really Lady D.?

[LadyDeliah]

Not an excuse, but definitely a cause.

If you don't like the offsping of fucked up adults acting like they are feral, maybe you should be interested in stopping the kids from having to grow up with fucked up parents and becoming feral in the first place.

Ignoring why the kids end up like that and expecting the police to mop up all of society's shit clearly doesn't work.

Simple really.

[Jeremy]

Of course everyone agrees (I think) that society has an obligation to protect children from negligent or abusive parents. But without knowing anything about the background of the current lot hanging around the playground, it's impossible to say whether better social services funding would have sorted them out. And very odd to assume that posters on this thread are guilty of tax avoidance...

[LadyDeliah]

Not saying they are guilty of tax avoidance, just that I don't imagine they would be into increased tax or spending on the kinds of projects that would help reduce the number of kids who have appalling childhoods.

Moaning about feral kids and apples not dropping far from the tree, or calling them scum & thugs and demanding they be locked up, when they are just children sickens me.

If they are behaving badly, yes tell them to behave and if they are being threatening or abusive deal with them more harshly, but if you don't join the dots and care about why they became like that (I'm talking about the extreme cases which have been posted, not the idiot kids who sparked the initial post), because you try to avoid your world colliding with theirs as much as you can, then you are behaving pretty badly yourself in my opinion.

[Zebedee Tring]

It's hearing about teenagers threatening six year olds and their parents then threatening people who dare to criticise their "little darlings" that sickens me.

[Otta]

I suspect that kid's parents wouldn't use the term "little darlings". Doesn't really fit does it.

I am largely on the same side as everyone that thinks these kids should be hanging around elsewhere, and that community officers should be having words if they are behaving inappropriately.

But I also agree pretty strongly with

 

[Zebedee Tring]

My use of the term "little darlings" was of course ironic.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Take a tip from Brixton tube station and play classical music. That should do the trick.

[Monkey]

Poor you, standswithfist and your poor daughter. This really is shocking.

[ultraburner]

With the numbers of kids and parents using that playground, maybe it should have some sort of staff/manager.

You look at Peckham Rye park or library or swimming pool: they're all well run.

[Sophron]

Lady D. what makes you think we are not interested in preventing children being neglected by deficient parents?

And I don?t believe that the police on their own should be charged with clearing up all of society?s problems.

However I would like to be able to take my 5 and 7-year-old children to their local play area without them or me being abused, harassed, threatened or upset.

While I can see the sense in discussing issues that might lead to this behaviour it doesn't excuse it and I feel the defence of these ?children? is more about resentment of those of us who have spoken up against their behaviour.

I would go further and add that I find this condescending antagonism an example of the victim culture where parents from problem homes are regarded as helpless victims and the notion of entitlement where if you perceive you are not as ?privileged? (as Lady D describes it), then you are entitled to be abusive and anti social. Well your not, and should have to behave or face consequences ? just like the rest of us (children or not).

Not so simple and quite complex really, like the rest of the real world that we all have to live in.

[LadyDeliah]

I bet there are lots of children who would just like to play without 'being abused, harassed, threatened or upset', at home, school, playgrounds etc, but have no way to make it stop.

We don't live in a bubble.

What happens to your 'neighbour' (of course they don't actually live near you), ripples out to affect others.

Next time you are concerned about 'ferel' kids behaving in an intimidating way, why don't you find out if support for problem kids in the area is adequate and if not put pressure on the people with the money and power to change this, instead of just blaming the kids who had no control over how bad their childhood was?

We are all responsible for the society we live in and our action or inaction gets us the society we deserve.

[Jeremy]

Surely they're two different things... putting measures in place to support kids who've taken a wrong turn, and protecting society from violent or threatening behaviour. Quite obviously there's a need for both. They're not mutually exclusive.

[LadyDeliah]

In the UK we appear to starve your first option of funding and spend huge amounts on the second.

The general public seem to absorb this arseways, ultimately more expensive & damaging approach, so I like to remind people that if we actually gave a shit enough to invest properly in the former, there would be less of the latter to worry about.

[the-e-dealer]

Not me

[Sophron]

You make incredible assumptions Lady D. How do you know how I am vested in society? You don?t.

Where in East Dulwich do you think you can you live without being close to neighbours? I know all of mine well and find it absurd that you feel you know my circumstance.

All the while that you put all the blame on society you absolve and disempower the very people you would seek to defend. As you say we are ALL responsible for the society we live in including those who?s behaviour it is that create problems.

Apparently it is you who live in a bubble created by what you imagine to be the privileged, cosseted position of those who you resent (absurd assumption) because you do want to find somebody to blame rather than ask for responsible behaviour from others in a little kids play ground. Coz it?s all rich peoples fault innit?

[DuncanW]

Exactly!!

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely they're two different things... putting

> measures in place to support kids who've taken a

> wrong turn, and protecting society from violent or

> threatening behaviour. Quite obviously there's a

> need for both. They're not mutually exclusive.

[El Pibe]

I thought you wanted rid of gov't full stop Lady D ;-P

Of course what's going on here is almost certainly *not* that the parents are abusive alcoholics (that's quite an assumption to make just because they're bullies), just that they're arseholes.

As far as i know we have social services in place for the safety net, not to teach good manners.

But there is a point to be made about getting the kids to be more positive.

Quids can't have it both ways, on the one hand say they lack imagination and on the other say the parents don't give a sh!t. If they've never set foot in a musem and aren't giving them any guidance except the bad sort by example, then you do need resources in to outreach programmes and so forth.

I remeber an article with a youth worker up in Tottenham who took kids to see the Thames, a mere bus ride away, but they were the first in THREE GENERATIONS!!!! to have gone more than a mile from their estate and certainly the first to see the city centre or the river. A single bloke can make a difference.

But yes, bottom line these kids need to be discouraged from bullying and intimidating young kids by standing up to them and getting some patrols to ensure sensitive areas are safe, but pushing the problem elsewhere doesn't solve anything, so getting someone to be nice to them might help in the long run.

And lastly young teens are sitting in that weird bit of life where your boundaries are expanding so your powerlessness seems to increase proportionately. It's frustrating and you experiment with drink, drugs, low level criminalty.

Most do and end up perfectly functional members of society. I went through some brief periods of petty vandalism/theft etc and look at me *hic*, so really surly youths is just another facet of life (as any parent knows)

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely they're two different things... putting

> measures in place to support kids who've taken a

> wrong turn, and protecting society from violent or

> threatening behaviour. Quite obviously there's a

> need for both. They're not mutually exclusive.

Exactly this.