AIBU to think parents should lose benefits /homes for persistently antisocial children?

I agree, but many won’t, and will trot out the same old excuses. 🙄

The premise falls at the first hurdle because it assumes the kids being caught by someone in authority who does something about it. There are already legal mechanisms that exist to address this kind of behaviour but police have no time or interest, courts have no time or interest and so the kids continue and become horrible adults.

And if their parents aren't on benefits or in social housing? What a ridiculous idea.

Don’t be ridiculous … firstly for assuming that all anti social kids are from council houses and on benefits, secondly for thinking this is a solution. How old are your kids?

My wonderful friend had a boy who went off the rails despite a loving secure background (in a privately owned house) … it nearly broke her. If she had also lost her home she prob wouldn’t be here today.

🤯 There would be a lot of vulnerable, homeless and starving women, young children, and babies on the streets as a result.
The men would move on and fare better.
I really wish I hadn't opened this thread.

We had a problem with antisocial behaviour in our village related to county lines. There was a public meeting about it with the police and the local mp. and then, incredibly bravely, during the questions section, the mum of one of the feral children stood up and asked why when she asked for help a few years back there was none. And asked why when she reported her child as having left the house at night with an older boy, the police said they couldnt help bring her home as she wasn't missing and was old enough. She had been trying hard to help her dsughter behave but didnt get help when she struggled.

so maybe some of these parents are trying. This mum talked through what she had tried and where outside services might have helped.

There will be those that dont care and as adults are anti social also but not all anti social children have adults who arent trying..

What about parents of anti social children who are not living in social housing, or even claiming benefits?

This thread is vile.

I don’t believe you. For one it’s not just posh people. It’s anyone that enjoys riding a horse that’s actually enjoying being a horse.
They get permission to go on land. The entire point of the hunt is to be actively part of the countryside , not abuse it.
And yes they use bad language but in response to any violence and aggression.

Anyhow I used to teach kids in a Fresh Start unit at college.
These are not children who have chosen to be obnoxious. Usually theres trouble at Primary school - SEN needs, poor parenting choices, rough areas with little freedom to develop normal social skills.

What works is what works everywhere- throw money in, early doors.

Short term engage them. Humour helps. Tell them to join in - feds won’t catch them if they keep training.

I would be fine with this if the whole family is basically unfixable just put them somewhere out of the way.

I had to double check but the Dutch once sent an anti-social family to live in a reinforced shipping container. Maybe we can just create a shipping container village in the middle of nowhere and then airdrop them food packages.

I’m only half being tongue in cheek, these people make life miserable for everyone around them, I’m not sure what kind of sanction would work. The problem with the “they just need support thing” is thats its often bullshit, as someone related to people who are anti-social and criminal (sometimes) they don’t take this shit seriously. You have to be able to punish the perpetrators without punishing everyone, some people lose control of their kids but aren’t fundamentally callous themselves. Some people are just feral tbh.

On the rich people are awful too, yes they can be and should be prosecuted when they behave that way but that doesn’t mean we should ignore anti-social behaviour inflicted on everyone from lower socio-economic groups either.

Such a discriminatory plan that specifically only targets poor people from underprivileged backgrounds. Making them homeless won’t improve the outcome for them or their children.

Say a single mum has 5 kids and the eldest is antisocial, you’d happily make her other 4 kids homeless and penniless and then expect they’d not grow up exactly the same or worse? And what about those with little shits that own their own houses? Those ones are fine are they?

It’s pain and simple - a stupid plan.

These are precisely the kind of parents who get benefits thrown at them and more child benefit …and gave generations of non working people ! … feckless who dont give a crap and spend money on fags and booze. . Actually the kids need removing and putting into care. Schools need to be able to enforce discipline and standards irrespective of parents complaining

No because it’s likely there will be other children who could be made homeless etc. I’d move them to the middle of nowhere so there’s no neighbours for them to terrorise

Do you really think this? You'd really want to see families with children literally homeless on the street with no money because they were antisocial?

I hate anti social behaviour too but taking away homes and income isn't going to solve the problem.

I work for a law firm and one of our departments does housing work for housing associations, councils etc. This includes occasionally evicting tenants for persistent ASB. It's a long and expensive process but what do you think happens? That they are just cast off to live under a bridge or in the woods? No, they get bounced back to the council who has to rehome them (many are vulnerable because there are children or mental health issues or both). If no HA will take them then it's a private rental funded by council.

So the problem isn't solved, it's just geographically shifted a bit and they annoy amd terrorise their new neighbours instead. They are human beings, they have to live somewhere. I'm not being a softie do-gooder, it's just a fact.

Community service, fines, imprisonment for the parents of scrotes. Not homelessness, - that’s too harsh on blameless siblings and just lands the problem of feckless parents at someone else’s door.

I can see the immediate, child like appeal of just lashing out with a great big sledge hammer, however I don’t think adding an extra layer of desperation and threat of poverty that they won’t be able to escape from ever produced a healthy, balanced and productive member of society.
The potential for all kinds of abuse, the possibility of destroying the lives of innocent younger kids before they’ve even had a chance, the likelihood that it would fuel crime… none of these are outcomes we should be aiming for.
I’d much rather the roots of problems were addressed but the trouble is the government after government like to tinker for short term wins where they can, rather than build for the future when they will be long out of office.

Do you think this will stop the behaviour or increase when they have no home or money? Seems unlikely it will stop if, more likely need to turn to more crime to survive.

Agree with pp that things like Sure Start are essential to solving these sorts of problems. Better the state pay for those initiatives for children ages 0-10 rather than for the entire duration of those children’s’ lives as they repeat poor life outcomes.

I think this is over simplistic.
Most children who behave in the ways you mention have a real struggle on their hands; as do the parents. I think people don’t realise how hard life can be for others and that what you’re describing is the end result of generations of poverty and lack of life chances. I don’t think removing someone’s home will help generally speaking.
When you then have a family who are already on a bad trajectory; and then they also are homeless; no food etc; what happens then? I don’t think having groups of people living on the street, sat outside the council offices or trying to sleep at schools/libraries or other places that would be a roof over their heads, is more desirable for all of us as a society. Then when the children turn 16; what would they do then?
Its already hard to break the poverty cycle and ‘become’ more than your parents; I think that is nigh on impossible if you are also starving / homeless and living an even more precarious existence with no structure.
So whilst the idea of a threat may encourage some to change; I think the consequences for those that don’t / can’t manage would be pretty dire.

I’ve voted YABU as I don’t think it will work. How will them being homeless with less money fix the behaviour?

The behaviour needs fixing way before it is a problem, aged 2-5, which is why loosing sure start centres was bad. By the time they get to teenagers the parents can’t turn it around with simple parenting techniques, the behaviour has become ingrained.

I don’t think making families homeless is a solution to anything and I’m not sure lazy stereotyping of “council house” families is helpful either. A lot of parents across all socioeconomic groups are struggling to parent their children effectively and there are wider societal issues affecting the problems you see such as long term government cuts to funding, services and infrastructure of communities.

I think part of the solution is to bring back things like Surestart to support families earlier on (this is now happening under current reforms) and reinvest in our youth services to give young people places to go and activities to keep them occupied. Community policing teams have also disappeared from many areas, again due to funding cuts. Unfortunately this erosion of services isn’t going to be repaired overnight.

This.

Exactly, I grew up near the awful belvoir hunt, breaking and entering, trespass, destroying property, verbal abuse and threats of sexual violence from them was and is still completely normal.

Don’t be daft - do you think making them homeless will improve their behaviour?

you need to address the core reasons why people struggle to parent effectively themselves, not make it harder for them. So that you can feel superior.