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

[Soddingcat]

This has been suggested, im not sure if it will happen , but i think this is a great idea, if the parents think they will lose their council house and benefits , they may attempt to to control their feral offspring .

My friend is in a local harriers group that starts at a local sports centre in the rough part of town, they are now having to stop their favourite route because of gangs of young teens who intimidate them , run along side them and are abusive, one delightful boy said “ lift your legs higher you c**t ,

How have we come to this ?
Do you think it will make any difference ?

I would remove child benefit from them too , maybe this will force them to parent if they risk losing money or their home

Obviously not all the parents are bad, but virtually all the awful kids round here riding motor bikes with hoods, abusing people are from the council estates near by

Im absolutely sick of it, and sick of decent people being targeted by them

What rules /sanctions would wise mumsnetters suggest ?

It won’t happen and you will have a lot of people along soon making excuses for these kids but op, I completely agree

What concerns me is that there are parents who are abused by their children and there is almost nothing that they can do about it

So every kid that’s goes bad comes from a council house and parents on benefits!!!!!

I live in a council house and am on pip and esa due to disabilities that I won’t go into. My son is polite and well behaved.

so how do it punish the other parents or it it just kids from council houses?

most of the trouble at my lads school come from over privileged kids who think they have it made. So what do we do with them, or do they get a pass.

It won't happen but I think if they did do it, parents would just cry and plead its against their human rights putting them in poverty. What they should do is start parenting courses before people actually have these children.

Whilst I can see how that feels appealing, it would just drive the families further into poverty and homelessness and then eventually more crime.

Im not sure what we can do about it. I think as a country we are too far gone to restore. We don’t have enough police resources or respect for authority, We place fair too many rights on the criminal / antisocial people to properly be able to enforce good behaviour.

I know some people with say I am making excuses but seriously if this is implemented how do with punish the parents from “normal homes” who’s kids do stuff.

So basicly you want to make these families homeless not able to feed themselves?

Around here a lot of children from "good homes" were just as bad as council home kids. But that's different? Or?

How do you think grinding poverty is going to help the situation?

And what about households not on benefits whose children behave badly? Or do you just hate people who claim benefits?

Obviously not. How would making these families homeless and with no income improve the behaviour of the young people? This would also be a policy that mainly made women and children homeless - do you think the younger siblings of these anti-social youths should have their chances in life further destroyed because a teen in the family has gone off the rails?

So the riding roughshod over land and abuse thrown at the general public by those on horseback in the fox hunt is totally different? They are violent, will use their whips and have no respect for land ownership or others but because they're upper class, it's acceptable?

This issue is absolutely not confined to the lower classes. They're just the low hanging fruit it's possible to sanction. The upper classes have the money and the power so they're untouchable.

Can I just add i completely agree with making parents responsible I am just asking whah we do with those parents who can’t be sanctioned in that way.

Making a family intentionally homeless or destitute causes even more problems and costs a fortune. It's an oversimplified non-answer to a complicated problem.

When you ask 'how have we come to this?' one big part of the answer is the 2010-15 government cut funding to all services, including police and youth services. The funding has stayed low.

Yep , it might make them take more interest in what their kids are doing .

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.

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.

This.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?