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 ?

Ok, and if they say no to these forced marches and the men bigger than them? What will these bigger men do to get them to comply?

I think you are unreasonable because sometimes children will do what they will do in spite of their parents' best efforts. This applies across all demographics too!

As is the behaviour from the arrogant, aggressive upper layer as evidenced by the vile Bullingdon Club.

I don't think that removing housing is the answer - not least because as PPs have pointed out it also punishes blameless siblings.

But we do need to somehow create a better sense of parental responsibility among some parents. I don't have the answers but the reality is that there are currently bigger penalties and inconvenience for moderate speeding than from parents allowing their children and young teens to terrorise communities. Maybe a similar approach to speeding needs to be brought in - fine or parenting course for first offences, with cost and/or inconvenience increasing over time.

There absolutely have to be consequences, as well as better structures in place for young people.

But then there's a wider issue with individualistic and antisocial behaviour - from e-bikes on pavements to open and consequence-free drug use.

But I think any approach needs to be universal. Anything that is seeming to target only one section of society will increase the sense of disaffectation - so solutions need to be something that can apply to the parents of private school drugs dealers as much as those whose kids are indulging in antisocial behaviour on a council estate.

I know plenty of feral middle class kids and it's 110% the parenting. Because I've watched them parent. Or not parent.

Also plenty of ADHD kids are well behaved. AdHD kids need even firmer boundaries than non neurodiverse kids. That's the point.

But parents don't wish to do this. Because it's hard work.

The assumption that is all poor kids from poor backgrounds does my head in. It's really not.

I was thinking on the lines of military boarding schools with plenty of ‘reward’ in terms of physical activities and skills to engage them and help with compliance. NOT minimal wage run. It would have to be resourced properly.

I expect that many of such parents go on holiday to Spain or other resorts outside the UK each year, and/or drive a car.

Deny them one of those options. No passport for a couple of summers would hurt them and covers anyone regardless of their income.

This is a perfectly measured response, and probably something I would have said a decade ago.

The problem with thinking of these families as "parents allowing their children" to run riot is that, while it may be accurate in some cases, a lot of the time it's not about "allowing" children to be antisocial - many of the parents are absolutely tearing their hair out already.

Err what do you think will happen if you make already poor people, desperate? If you make already antisocial people, more angry?
Do you really think that will make the streets safer and nicer for all?
Obviously not.

I’m not sure about this.
When I think about the children in my 8 year olds class who are badly behaved and constantly causing issues, their parents are the ones who are disrespectful to teachers and other parents, smoke near the school and use foul language.

Bad behaviour, that develops into criminal behaviour, is often learnt at home. Parenting has a huge impact on children. I’m sure there will be outliers but well brought up, nurtured children in households that can provide financially are far less likely to become problem teens. The stats on children being brought up in poverty substantiate that.

What about the ones who do not live in social housing or whose parents are not on benefits? What exactly does 'the rough part of town' mean? Deprived areas with little or no facilities for young people perhaps? What happens when the kids from the 'good parts of town' act like little shits too - or are we going to pretend that they're all angels? You are talking about a minority within a minority. I grew up in social housing, I still live social housing (I work btw, earn decent money but can't afford to buy) and my DS and his friends don't act like that, the parents (myself included) wouldn't tolerate it if they did. I did watch the kids from Alleyne's school trash the upstairs of the bus a few months ago. And where we live which is on an estate close to Dulwich Village (which is avery affluent part of South London), kis from the village come onto the estate to hang out, cause trouble, litter, vaping, drinking and on the few occasions that the police have bothered to turn up, nothing happens presumably because they are from the good part of the area.

I totally get that - but equally those are the sorts of parents who are going to be engaging with school and other services and already doing what they can to try to mitigate the behaviours; you can build a system that takes this into account.

Being a school governor has absolutely opened my eyes to the sheer volume of "can't be arsed" parents and the lack of levers available to tackle the issues that result. And there do need to be incentives and support for them to parent better as well as consequences if they don't.

Difficult to resource properly and even in special schools (including independent special schools) where staff are not minimum wage, there can be really big problems.

Just imagine getting 10, 20, 50 or 100 teenagers who are violent, scream abuse at you, spit, destroy property, laugh at people's distress or anger, fight each other and then put them in a big old institution together, fairly closed off from the public. Now staff it, and expect that none of those staff will ever snap, or that certain cultures won't develop over time.

Why is it always such punative measures that are seen as the answers? How about a fairer society, better housing, better transport, bring back youth clubs etc. Lift people up, don't race to the bottom.

Wowsers, this is pure totalitarianism.

There are important principles underpinning the way justice works in countries that observe the rule of law.

It is not acceptable for the state to remove passports or possessions except where someone has been convicted of a crime.
It is also not acceptable to remove a passport or possessions from one person because a separate person committed an act.

Is every foul mouth child from a benefit recieveing parent or housed in social housing?
Not at all
Perhaps look at why the Uk are producing some feral rough and foul mouthed kids.
i see them on Uk shows its disgusting..do thr parents even know.
When my kid swears or abuses me do i get wages deducted then..christ sakes.

I genuinely think people are this dim when they come up with daft ideas like the OPs.

It's like they are incapable of grasping the concept of how these people would be forced to behave to survive and get food and keep a roof overhead.

They have no concept of how making someone homeless for their behaviour is going to cost more in emergency accommodation, justice system costs and hospital costs.

I wonder just how far they are from saying round them all up and just get rid of them. Noting the approach here is to deal with the whole family - not just the individual concerned.

It's always aimed at certain class groups too.

It's people who want to cleanse neighbours rather than address social problems. And I do not use this phrasing lightly.

I do think there are clear problems that need addressing. But the point is you address them. You don't try and erase them.

I have known families to be forced out of their homes by local vigilantes because their children were too antisocial for the area. It does happen.

Hunts pay compensation for the damage they do. Criminals don't.

And if you're talking about verbal abuse and putting people in danger, then the sabs are far worse than the riders!

And no, I don't hunt, I live just rurally enough to encounter hunts and sabs.

Completely disagree with this - as mum of a SEN child, I can tell you that I have tried everything I can to manage my son's behaviour and it hasn't been very successful. It's so tough. Many parents are struggling enough as is without further punishment

I’m going to get blasted for this but I think people get this the wrong way around, their families don’t behave like this because they are poor, some are poor precisely because they behave like this.

If it was simply a case of money we could fix this. What do you do about someone who has little conscience, little empathy, no ability to forward plan and no idea why a decent life with a job and a clean criminal record is a good thing,

@Soddingcat and how do you propose to punish the parents of the antisocial kids that aren’t on benefits and don’t live in a council house?

Why do we want to make people homeless? UK has enough of a problem with homelessness.

YABVU if you think parents can control feral kids.

Something can be thought of-maybe double their council tax- but no reason not to do OP's suggestion just because it won't affect everybody.

Start with her suggestion-bloody good one- and then onto those who aren't on benefits.

I've suggested doubling their council tax but others will have other ideas that might be better-as long as the element of punishment in the pocket is there.

Well, I don't accept that but say, for a moment, it is true.

If so, reinstate Borstals. Build plenty of them-some of the money raised can be from financial punishment of the parents.

I favour Borstals run along the lines of the one in Scum and I don't care if they go from there to prison without having learned a thing and spend their lives there.

The greater good is more important.

At the moment, the lunatics are running the asylum and it is time to rectify that and if the measures are tough...well them so be it. Boo hoo!