17-year-old girl facing jail because of G20

[Paulie Tandoori]

So you're suggesting that it would help to give her more money?

I'm not moaning about the loss of £30 (I knew I'd be unlikely to see it again when I handed it over), I'm using it to illustrate that, at least in one case, the situation can't be reduced to economic poverty.

No. I would chop the hands of any 17 y/o woman caught committing any kind of crime. That should teach them to behave themselves clearly. Do you think that is a bit extreme? Sometimes, symbolic gestures are the best thing you can do imo.

 

[Blagsta]

So you're suggesting that it would help to give her more money?

I'm not moaning about the loss of £30 (I knew I'd be unlikely to see it again when I handed it over), I'm using it to illustrate that, at least in one case, the situation can't be reduced to economic poverty.

Poverty certainly exacerbates other social problems (sounds like emotional difficulties and alcohol dependence in the case you describe).

 

[Azrael]

Or the personal issues exacerbate poverty. Or a bit of both.

Point is, what's to be done about it? The Guardian article focuses on giving more money. If more of the mothers unable to feed their children are like my neighbour, more cash is at best a band-aid.

 

[Blagsta]

Or the personal issues exacerbate poverty. Or a bit of both.

Point is, what's to be done about it? The Guardian article focuses on giving more money. If more of the mothers unable to feed their children are like my neighbour, more cash is at best a band-aid.

Better and more affordable housing, proper mental health services, better benefits system, more access to alcohol services etc.

 

[Azrael]

No. I would chop the hands of any 17 y/o woman caught committing any kind of crime. That should teach them to behave themselves clearly. Do you think that is a bit extreme? Sometimes, symbolic gestures are the best thing you can do imo.

Since I've already said I don't support a punishment-based regime for under 18s, and want the age of criminal responsibility raised to 18, I'm afraid the point behind your sarcasm is both lost on me, and directed at the wrong person.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Yet, inevitably those people with kids you wring hands about will have some progeny who stray and cause damage to the lives of others. How do you cope with that? Cos under a capitalist system, you actually need to produce and reproduce anti-social products to justify methods and means of making money from poor people, keep them productive even when they're only producing trouble and chaos. otherwise, why are there so many cops with cameras shows eh? think about it.....

 

[free spirit]

I was about to doubt that she'd get custodial... but fs, is that true? (no reason to doubt you on your rep)

well, I was going off my memory, and it appears I was a bit off on that - I'm sure my solicitor had told me someone before me had been sent down for 6 months, so not to try arguing the toss with the magistrate, but maybe that was someone else, or maybe I've remembered it wrong.


he got 30 days according to the bbc

was fucking funny though

 

[Azrael]

Yet, inevitably those people with kids you wring hands about will have some progeny who stray and cause damage to the lives of others. How do you cope with that?

I didn't "wring my hands". I did what I could while keeping a sensible distance from her drug-dealing "boyfriend" and her general instability. (At least one neighbour had her up on assault charges, and the police turned up with a search warrant on at least two occasions.) I have no easy answer: all I'm arguing is that, if such things are commonplace, these problems can't be reduced to economics, as the Guardian article seemed to be saying.

Better and more affordable housing, proper mental health services, better benefits system, more access to alcohol services etc.

The house was perfectly good when she moved in, and (according to the arguments I was an unwelcome evesdropper on) paid for by taxpayers.

Mental health services may have helped her to manage her life better, but ultimately her problems seemed to stem from having children she couldn't cope with and a junkie/dealing boyfried she wouldn't ditch. This is a far more complex picture than the one painted by Ms Marshall.

 

[Azrael]

was fucking funny though

This grass mohecan might be. This isn't, and is probably what got him gaoled:-

 

[Blagsta]

I didn't "wring my hands". I did what I could while keeping a sensible distance from her drug-dealing "boyfriend" and her general instability. (At least one neighbour had her up on assault charges, and the police turned up with a search warrant on at least two occasions.) I have no easy answer: all I'm arguing is that, if such things are commonplace, these problems can't be reduced to economics, as the Guardian article seemed to be saying.

The house was perfectly good when she moved in, and (according to the arguments I was an unwelcome evesdropper on) paid for by taxpayers.

Mental health services may have helped her to manage her life better, but ultimately her problems seemed to stem from having children she couldn't cope with and a junkie/dealing boyfried she wouldn't ditch. This is a far more complex picture than the one painted by Ms Marshall.

As I said - emotional problems. Which are exacerbated by poverty and the individualist lives we lead.

 

[Azrael]

As I said - emotional problems. Which are exacerbated by poverty and the individualist lives we lead.

Not sure how the "individualist lives we lead" exacerbated her emotional problems. Choosing to have children with the drug-dealer certainly exacerbated them (I think they were his children: she seemed to mean "you fucking fucked me, you cheating fucker" literally). Not being her doctor, I can't say how much personal responsibility she had for her squalid life, but external help of whatever kind can only do so much.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

what are you on about?

 

[Azrael]

Which part of the post are you referring to?

 

[free spirit]

This grass mohecan might be. This isn't, and is probably what got him gaoled:-

ay, I can just see an ex squaddie scrawling kurdish communist graffiti on churchills statue.

actually, you're right, it was the graf that got him banged up even though he didn't do it, as that's really what sent the tabloids into a frenzy about it.

 

[Azrael]

ay, I can just see an ex squaddie scrawling kurdish communist graffiti on churchills statue.

actually, you're right, it was the graf that got him banged up even though he didn't do it, as that's really what sent the tabloids into a frenzy about it.

If he didn't do it, why did he plead guilty?

 

[free spirit]

If he didn't do it, why did he plead guilty?

I believe he pled guilty to the mohican and the bit of red paint you can see coming out of churchills mouth.

the other graf had nowt to do with him

 

[Azrael]

Fair enough, so he was tried separately for the graffiti and found guilty?

 

[free spirit]

Fair enough, so he was tried separately for the graffiti and found guilty?

eh?

He pleaded guilty at Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court to intentionally or recklessly damaging the statue in Parliament Square

that damage being the mohican and red paint... I guess mostly the red paint.

he was the scapegoat who paid the price for the taggers because he had had to climb up the statue to put the mohican on, and was therefore pretty obvious and got photographed doing it.

 

[Azrael]

eh?

You agreed it was the graffiti that got him banged up: if he wasn't tried seperately for it and found guilty, you must mean that the magistrate used him as a scapegoat and gaoled him for a crime he wasn't convicted for.

If so, did he appeal the sentence? I agree that 30 days in lock-up for a grass mohican is a farce.

 

[Blagsta]

Not sure how the "individualist lives we lead" exacerbated her emotional problems. Choosing to have children with the drug-dealer certainly exacerbated them (I think they were his children: she seemed to mean "you fucking fucked me, you cheating fucker" literally). Not being her doctor, I can't say how much personal responsibility she had for her squalid life, but external help of whatever kind can only do so much.

No, I didn't think you would. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that lack of care in infancy leads to lack of impulse control, difficulty containing emotions and a tendency to act out in adult life. Raising kids is hard. We evolved to do it socially in groups and extended families. The individualised society we live in now means that people don't always get the support they need to look after their kids properly. Thus emotional problems get passed down the generations.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/23

 

[sunshine1]

I don't live in a rich area (moderate, at best) and live close to some very poor areas. The market I refer to isn't in a rich area either.

That's the problem: broad brushstrokes can easily be filled in with assumptions.

My neighbour must have begged over 30 quid off me, delivered in £1-2 installments. Every time, it was to feed her children, and would be paid back. I knew both parts were, in all likelihood, lies, but it didn't seem much, and I felt sympathetic. When I finally refused to lend more until the debt was paid off (it never was, of course) I was clear that she was welcome to have food for the children. The frequent visits ended. All she asked for over the next year and a half was an onion! Alcopop bottles and fast-food cartons continued to pile up.

Lack of money clearly wasn't her major problem; instead it was her inability to manage money, and the rest of her chaotic life. However much cash was thrown at her, I doubt it would have helped.

Now, if her situation is anything like common, it could lie behind Ms Marshall's claim that parents can't afford to feed their children. Or maybe it doesn't. All I know is that I'd need to see details from Ms Marshall before I accepted her claims. But to investigate, Ms Marshall would have to be wise to the messier parts of human nature. Again, perhaps she is, but I've seen many people writing in the Guardian who aren't.

You don't live in a rich area, but close to some very poor arears, whatever that signifies. But you do happen to live in the fifth riches country in the world or at least it was when I last checked it out. All you have put up is an incoherent tongue-tied whinge on about your neighbour, only glad I'm not living next to you.

Sir Fred Goodwin,nicknamed "Fred the Shred" because of his ruthless cost-cutting that involved shacking bank workers, has made it clear that he is not prepared to give up any of his £703,000-a-year pension. This doesn't register on your radar screen then, because you don't want it to, instead you disgracefully question the claim that some and indeed a growing number of parents can't afford to feed there Kidd's. So I challenge you to provide us with evidence that's less localized or based on your own prejudices, go on put up or shut the fuck up!

 

[free spirit]

You agreed it was the graffiti that got him banged up: if he wasn't tried seperately for it and found guilty, you must mean that the magistrate used him as a scapegoat and gaoled him for a crime he wasn't convicted for.

If so, did he appeal the sentence? I agree that 30 days in lock-up for a grass mohican is a farce.

I meant he was scapegoated for it.

I think he also made the mistake of not appearing to be overly sorry for what he'd done while in court, and possibly even defending his actions, which is a bad idea when facing a hanging judge (ok magistrate) in the middle of a tabloid storm about people vandalising the cenotaph, churchills statue, and planting vegetables in parliament square (the cheek of it)

Don't think he appealed, it's not really worth it for 30 days, and being an ex royal marine I guess he could hack it.

don't know the guy btw, but did take a bit of interest in his case being as he was up just before me in court, and it was his sentence that persuaded me to drop the idea of arguing the toss in court, and use the sweetness and light routine instead.

 

[Azrael]

You don't live in a rich area, but close to some very poor arears, whatever that signifies. But you do happen to live in the fifth riches country in the world or at least it was when I last checked it out. All you have put up is an incoherent tongue-tied whinge on about your neighbour, only glad I'm not living next to you.

Sir Fred Goodwin,nicknamed "Fred the Shred" because of his ruthless cost-cutting that involved shacking bank workers, has made it clear that he is not prepared to give up any of his £703,000-a-year pension. This doesn't register on your radar screen then, because you don't want it to, instead you disgracefully question the claim that some and indeed a growing number of parents can't afford to feed there Kidd's. So I challenge you to provide us with evidence that's less localized or based on your own prejudices, go on put up or shut the fuck up!

Ah, unprovoked ad hominem and swearing. Charmed. Where's this alleged "whinge"? I didn't complain about the money my neighbour kept (my choice to hand it over). How am I supposed to have made her life unpleasant?

What's Sir Fredrick got to do with anything? I'll question Ms Marshall's assertion that current benefits are inadequate because, if it's wrong, it won't help solve the problem. Mine's just one example. I'll leave it for others to comment on whether it's typical.

Oh, and I'd like an apology for being sworn at before I reply to you again.

I think he also made the mistake of not appearing to be overly sorry for what he'd done while in court, and possibly even defending his actions, which is a bad idea when facing a hanging judge (ok magistrate) in the middle of a tabloid storm about people vandalising the cenotaph, churchills statue, and planting vegetables in parliament square (the cheek of it)

Invoking free speech in a case related to vandalising the monument of men who had died for it (amongst other things) wasn't too wise, no!

Not only is 30 days for plonking a bit of turf on Churchill's head excessive(something the man himself might well have been amused by) it exhausts ire better kept for the people who did vandalise the statue's base and the Cenotaph.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Or the personal issues exacerbate poverty. Or a bit of both.

Point is, what's to be done about it? The Guardian article focuses on giving more money. If more of the mothers unable to feed their children are like my neighbour, more cash is at best a band-aid.

Yeah, possibly - but thats capitalism for you innit - you only get fed if you have the money to buy food.

Better ideas would be free school/nursery meals; free fruit and vege boxes with simple recipies delivered to all households that want them; state supported community barrios that provide nutricious meals; community gardens that grow food and herbs free for the taking etc

 

[free spirit]

pretty sure I know who wrote on the cenataph first, but I didn't have a problem with what they did, which IIRC was in chalk to write 'why glorify war' under the bit that says something about commemorating the 'Glorious Dead'.

at the time I remember thinking that was actually quite profound, problem was that it opened the floodgates to people with less profound stuff to say (probably including those 17 year old girls I was on about) to make their mark in spray paint and marker pen.

there was some really good, thoughtful stuff written on some of the statues of the great and the good that day by people who obviously knew their history, and were making a point about the one sided version of it displayed on the statues. The churchill mohican was also inspired IMO. Not even going to try and defend the taggers though, other than to say that it was pretty much all cleaned off by the end of the next afternoon, whereas the neocons and neoliberalists we were protesting against that day have carried on trashing the planet and most of the people on it ever since.

 

[free spirit]

Yeah, possibly - but thats capitalism for you innit - you only get fed if you have the money to buy food.

Better ideas would be free school/nursery meals; free fruit and vege boxes with simple recipies delivered to all households that want them; state supported community barrios that provide nutricious meals; community gardens that grow food and herbs free for the taking etc

the return of home economics to schools, the end of supermarket domination of our cities so that people without cars end up unable to access low cost fruit and veg because their local shops have shut down / now only sell booze, fags, papers and basic tinned food / ready meals, allotments for all who want them, and free training / mentoring for those that haven't grown their own veg before, etc.

 

[Azrael]

Yeah, possibly - but thats capitalism for you innit - you only get fed if you have the money to buy food.

Better ideas would be free school/nursery meals; free fruit and vege boxes with simple recipies delivered to all households that want them; state supported community barrios that provide nutricious meals; community gardens that grow food and herbs free for the taking etc

Free fruit'n'veg to low-income households is a good idea. Don't we already have free school meals? At least, we did when I was at school.

I'm sure there is material poverty that can be ameliorated, and should be. It's the more complicated problems, not caused by economics, that are harder to remedy.

pretty sure I know who wrote on the cenataph first, but I didn't have a problem with what they did, which IIRC was in chalk to write 'why glorify war' under the bit that says something about commemorating the 'Glorious Dead'.

There's a distinction between "Glorious Dead" and glorifying war, or the particular wars they fought in. The words were chosen by Rudyard Kipling, who famously lost his own son in the Great War.

Writing "why glorify war?" in chalk is obviously not as bad as spraying tags over a symbolic mass-grave, but it's not good, either; vandalism aside, it misunderstands the purpose of the Cenotaph. Many dead soldiers wouldn't have "glorified war" while they lived. Many commemorated were conscripts with little say in the matter.

If sacrificing your life for your country isn't glorious, I don't know what is.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Not sure how the "individualist lives we lead" exacerbated her emotional problems.

Alienation causes emotional and mental health problems, humans are social animals, the world we live in is increasingly "anti-social", in the broader sense of the word.

Public space has become privatised, there is less and less communal productive activity, public leisure time has become more expensive. Being "social" costs, is it any wonder that those who cant afford it become anti-social

Not being her doctor, I can't say how much personal responsibility she had for her squalid life,

My, my - thats quite a value judgement.

So let me get this right, she was short of money and sometimes borrowed a few quid here and there, not always spending it wisely or managing her money well (which cost her her home) while living in a turbulent relationship that she found difficulty turning around or exiting. Thats hardly squalid, thats someone struggling.

Squalid is making shit loads of people redundant then walking off in to the sunset with a pension that is 100x the average.

Squalid is claiming money back for porn films at my fucking expense.

Squalid is lying through your teeth to start a war which kills millions

but external help of whatever kind can only do so much.

True, external help *can* only do so much, but increasingly thats the only kind of help that people get: professionalised; controlled; rules based. But what of mutual help? That £30 was nothing to you, but I bet at the time that she borrow those squids they meant a fuck of a lot to her.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Don't we already have free school meals? At least, we did when I was at school.

Nope, only for those who are officially "low income" consequently the quality is shit with more nutritional value in the packaging than in what is served Services for the poor are poor services, t'was ever thus.

I'm sure there is material poverty that can be ameliorated, and should be. It's the more complicated problems, not caused by economics, that are harder to remedy.

But thats the whole point, these problems *ARE* caused by economics. Real poverty isnt having enough money, real poverty is not being able to meet your needs, but the economic system in which we live isnt designed to meet peoples needs, its entirely based on creating fake solutions to real issues then exploiting these manufactured solutions to skim as much extra resources as they possibly can.

Is it so, so surprising that a woman who obviously had a level of personal problems is taken in by smiling happy children on TV and wants to buy that for her own children? She takes them to McDonalds full of smiley servers that hand out food without stress (no washing up, no nagging to eat greens, no table manners to worry about, no mess on the carpet) then sees them engrosed in a shiny plastic object of wonder and wants to recreate that over and over and over again.

When she went to McDonalds she wasnt really buying them food, she was trying to buy them happiness - because thats what McDonalds sells, it sells "Happy Meals". Of course, everybody knows that you cant buy happiness, but that doesnt stop McDonalds from selling it.

 

[Azrael]

Alienation causes emotional and mental health problems, humans are social animals, the world we live in is increasingly "anti-social", in the broader sense of the word.

My local church costs nothing, and has quite a few people on benefits amongst its congregation. I don't know which communal space you have in mind, but the local park is still as free as it ever was, and has decent facilities. (Which are routinely vandalised.)

Was "alienation" (do you mean the Marxist kind?) really the root of her problems?

My, my - thats quite a value judgement.

Not really. The inside of her house could only be described as squalid (I shinned up a ladder to get in when she locked herself out), ditto the stream of petty crime, police searches, and assault claims. The eviction, which involved a bizarre bit of street theatre comprising bailiffs, the landlord's sons, the police, "the boyfriend", two minicabs, and a dozen bin-bags, was especially squalid. I don't use the word to feel superior: it was depressing to watch.

But what of mutual help? That £30 was nothing to you, but I bet at the time that she borrow those squids they meant a fuck of a lot to her.

Mutual help cuts two ways. I wouldn't say £30 was "nothing", but yes, it was more to her than me. I'm pretty sure it didn't go to the children (remember, she took up my offer of free food for them once) and the endless lies she told me ensured the bank eventually closed. She also fleeced her grandmother on a regular basis (she had a habit of getting into shouting matches wither the poor woman over her mobile in the middle of the street).

This all comes down to where you believe the balance lies between personal responsibility and social responsibility.

The picture you paint is of a victim of circumstances. But many of the circumstances were of her own making. The decision to have children with "the boyfriend". Spending taxpayers' money on booze and fast food. Ditto, the money she obtained by deception. The failure to ditch "the boyfriend". The smashed cars. She also managed to assault a neighbour who complained to her about being rear-ended into the bargain.

However good "the system", it would have had a heck of a time helping her to sort out her life.