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

Oh look, yet another thread from an apparently concerned citizen, lashing out at people in social housing.

And are you advocating for a compulsory purchase order for any homeowners / people with mortgages whose kids behave in an anti social way?

Completely ridiculous idea anyway. Solve antisocial behaviour by... making families homeless?

You are good kid who breaks a trend of antisocial behaviour. But your siblings don't and are little dickheads.

So you become homeless because of their behaviour.

How do you think that helps?

And what about the dickheads from well off middle class families who own houses and don't claim benefits? They exist too.

What are you going to do to them and their families?

How about addressing why they are behaving like that in the first place?

Firstly, those examples are both crimes that should be reported to the police. There are already laws in place to reduce/stop/punish anti-social behaviour, so why would you want more? Surely the answer is to enforce the laws we already have. But to do that, we'd have to provide further funding to police and encourage more of the old fashioned 'bobbies on the beat'. You could also have police in local schools (not patrolling the corridors, but there for children to go to if they need to or to report something).

Secondly, why do people always jump to removing benefits as a solution to all of society's ills? Benefits aren't even enough to scrape by on, let alone live on. What will happen if they are removed? People will live on the street, starve, turn to drugs and crime will increase. Get off your Daily Mail high horse and recognise that we need funding for health and education, including places for young people to go and hang out.

Third, how do you know the parents of these teens are irresponsible/ignoring or encouraging their behaviour? What if the teens are simply doing what they want because they don't fear the type of consequences open to parents nowadays? What if the teens are also terrorising their parents? We know from the numerous threads on here that social services will do nothing to help in that circumstance. How will removing benefits from these parents help?

How did you determine he was from social housing with parents on benefits exactly?

No im just sick and tired of the false narrative that only bame kids are underprivileged when in reality every metric tells us that the most vulnerable and underprivileged are white working class boys.
Also no child or young person should be denied a scholarship or internship nor should they be required to have higher grades than anyone else just because of the colour of their skin. Which btw happens every single day whilst these poor white kids are repeatedly told how privileged they are for being white. That is anti white racism in action

If parents were fined for their children's antisocial behaviour then all would be treated equally - £100 for first offence, £200, then £300 etc. It would have the same effect and could be used to pay towards policing the bad behaviour.

So your solution to a family struggling with a child/ teenager with behavioural problems is that they should be made homeless?

I fail to see how that going to help that child become a better member of society.

sounds like the siblings will be punished and I would think lack of money will just make the problem worse

Yes-because strict boarding school has worked so well for the children of the very rich…….

Rendering an entire family homeless, or unable to afford food, is your solution to antisocial behaviour by a child? Really? Wow.

Why do you assume the families of these children are always on benefits? Most low income households have both parents working, and it’s likely this, the amount of time the parents are out at work instead of being able to spend time actively raising their children, that contributes to antisocial behaviour. It’s well documented that investment and support into ‘rough’ areas reduces antisocial behaviour, not sanctions.

And, why are you such a bunch of wilting lilies that you are allowing a few loudmouth kids to stop you running a route? Let them run along side you, ignore them or suggest they run the whole route and see how well they manage, you never know, they may discover they like running and take it up and get a new hobby, and then won’t spend their days lurking and shouting abuse at random strangers.

But yeah, let’s just take away their homes, or force them deeper into poverty. That’ll work….

This.

Like the reform schools or industrial schools of old or the residential SEMH special schools of new?

You know it's not that simple right? Housing all these kids together, with seriously challenging behaviours, expecting (relatively low paid) staff to deal with it without becoming cruel, developing certain institutional cultures or ever snapping?

Because putting people further into poverty will definitely improve the situation.

I can see why it’s an attractive idea-but I don’t think adding more disadvantage is the way forward. Don’t ask me what the way forward is, though….

Is sure start coming back? Our local labour council has cut our children's centres from a peak of around 20, to 6 over past 5 years. 5 closed this year alone.

And what are we taking away from crappy parents who have a mortgage and don't claim benefits?

I’ve always thought this. Strict boarding schools but with really good educational and trauma informed standards. Get these kids away from
dickhead waster families and show them there is a better way.

Meh. The feral yobs around here live in £1m houses.

Fine, but even being practical, would you want all of these families roaming around the streets with no money? Many will have younger children, want to put them in care for £30k minimum per child per year or do the babies have to live under bridges too?

A bloody good hiding would have nipped this behaviour in the bud once upon a time.
Teachers and the police had authority.
All gone now.
Now we have children stabbing children.
Children assaulting their parents.
Police more like social workers.
Be careful what you wish for.....

So what’s the answer?

This is what happens when society allows poverty.
What we need to do is even out. We get the wealthy privileged to contribute more rather than hoarding their treasure.
We have created this. Lack of opportunity and hope has created this.
We make good schools and education available to all if we want to fix this. We make small pockets of social housing in affluent areas where there is more opportunity, rather than having huge social housing estates.
We pay decent living wages where it pays people to work.
There is so much wrong with our system and we need to look at cause.

Well I don’t live in social housing, I just think starting nasty benefit bashing threads like this encouraging hate is completely unnecessary and small minded, and this whole ideal totally lacks any critical thinking or common sense at all. There is literally nothing about increasing homelessness and poverty that suggests it would have positive social impacts. Homeless people would have no real way to get jobs and with no money they’d be forced to turn to crime to feed their children, and obviously local crime rates would sky rocket, it only takes 5 seconds of thinking to see that as a starting point.

You can't reasonably remove people's benefits; if they're entitled to them then they need them to survive and if they're not entitled to them then you need to tighten up the system at the point of application or renewal so that people aren't taking advantage (although in practice, as far as we know, that's rare). Deal with the actual perpetrators. This may mean reducing the age at which children can be arrested, which can then be offset through age-appropriate sentencing guidelines and limits. Send the guilty to mandated therapy, education/training, and/or community service and send the parents to parenting classes. Of course, all of this costs money - including actual effective law enforcement - and people will howl about the expense, but it should have been done decades ago. None of what you're describing is normal behaviour and it should never have been normalised.