Text your news & pics
Text your news or pictures (plus 'SLNEWS' or 'SLPICS') to 80360. click here for details »
Curfew for Hamptons' social housing kids
6:07am Thursday 19th June 2008
By Aaron Moon »
Children on a new housing development in Worcester Park are being subjected to a strict curfew and risk losing their home if they ignore it.
The Hamptons is an exclusive development of New England-style housing which has been built on a former sewage site and has a variety of features, including a residents-only gym, tennis courts and a wetland area.
"It’s funny because at 9pm all of the kids disappear back to their homes."
Angela Hough
As with all new developments, social housing has been built on the outskirts of the estate and it is these parts that are subjected to the curfew, which was imposed by Thames Valley Housing to prevent antisocial behaviour.
Angela Hough has two teenage children and knows that if they ignore the curfew, they risk losing their home.
She said: "The 9pm curfew only affects the children aged 14-years-old or younger. It's funny because at 9pm all of the kids disappear back to their homes. I can see why they've done it, they want to keep the area nice and it's not too much of a problem really because on school nights they come in around then anyway.
"My son Fraser is 13 years old so he has to come in at 9pm. But my daughter is 15 years old so she is allowed to stay out. However, they're not supposed to sit on the grass in groups of more than four because this could come across as intimidating."
Nevertheless, there appears to be confusion over the agreement with some residents believing it affects everyone. One mum said: "We all have to be in by 9pm, it's adults as well. They don't want people wandering around the estate at night. But it doesn't really bother me as I'm in by that time anyway."
A spokeswoman for Thames Valley Housing which manages the homes said the decision to impose a curfew had been made to keep the community safe.
She said: "As part of the community agreement at Worcester Park, residents are asked that, if they have children, they be at home and properly supervised by 9pm. This is to ensure the safety of the children and to minimise antisocial behaviour.
"The community agreement is signed by the resident, and outlines what may happen if they or their children do engage in antisocial behaviour. It is not legally binding. However, it provides a clear statement of intent by the resident which, if broken, can be used as support evidence to enforce one of a number of options to elicit a positive change in behaviour, such as an acceptable behaviour contract or an antisocial behaviour order. In extreme cases it will be used to initiate a homes possession order from the courts."
RATE THIS:
Your sayYourLocal Guardian
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Your Local Guardian account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Your Say YourLocal Guardian
C, SW london says...
11:27am Thu 19 Jun 08
Blooming brilliant idea. It puts the responsibilty back with the parents where it should be.
Avid, WP says...
11:54am Thu 19 Jun 08
Why has this not been enforced before now?
Get it as part of the signed agreement, surely the fact that they get a free house will then make them take note of the rules and reduce the chances of the area being affected by crime and gangs. if theres no one on the street theres no chance of trouble. Just the adult trouble makers to deal with now!
Get it as part of the signed agreement, surely the fact that they get a free house will then make them take note of the rules and reduce the chances of the area being affected by crime and gangs. if theres no one on the street theres no chance of trouble. Just the adult trouble makers to deal with now!
Den, Wallington says...
12:38pm Thu 19 Jun 08
Avid wrote:I agree with what you say here apart from one thing. Not all social housing is free. I work to pay my rent I get no help whatsoever from the Government and pay all my bills myself. (which is how it should be). My child is also indoors from 7.30pm.
Why has this not been enforced before now? Get it as part of the signed agreement, surely the fact that they get a free house will then make them take note of the rules and reduce the chances of the area being affected by crime and gangs. if theres no one on the street theres no chance of trouble. Just the adult trouble makers to deal with now!
So please don't presume that we are all living off the state just because we have a council or housing association property.
Adrian Short, Sutton says...
1:19pm Thu 19 Jun 08
Want to live with a bunch of paranoid anti-social automatons? Come to the Hamptons where the curfew is so bracing.
I'm finding it hard to imagine which is worse: the people that make these petty rules or the people that gladly follow them.
Remember: no-one can be trusted. Stay indoors where you'll be safe and won't have to endure any uncomfortable encounters with people you don't know.
Perhaps they could consider renaming the estate after another famous (fictional) New England place: Stepford.
I'm finding it hard to imagine which is worse: the people that make these petty rules or the people that gladly follow them.
Remember: no-one can be trusted. Stay indoors where you'll be safe and won't have to endure any uncomfortable encounters with people you don't know.
Perhaps they could consider renaming the estate after another famous (fictional) New England place: Stepford.
C, SW London says...
4:41pm Thu 19 Jun 08
Adrian Short, would you not think it reasonable for a child under the age of 14 to be in the house no later than 9pm?
Personally my hypothetical 14 year old would be indoors long before then.
This not only makes the estate a quieter, more tranquil place to live but it means the kids are less likely to get into any mischeif in the evening.
Personally my hypothetical 14 year old would be indoors long before then.
This not only makes the estate a quieter, more tranquil place to live but it means the kids are less likely to get into any mischeif in the evening.
Adrian Short, Sutton says...
5:05pm Thu 19 Jun 08
I think parents are the best people to be making those decisions, in the full knowledge of the circumstances and maturity of their children. For a housing association to impose a blanket rule on everyone is a patronising and discriminatory encroachment on the parents' natural responsibilities.
If parents want to make that rule for their children then they can, and they're in a much better position to enforce it sensibly and humanely than the housing association.
I certainly remember being allowed out to the local streets and parks at a fairly young age, provided that my parents knew where I was going and who with, and that I was home before dark. I don't recall it being anyone else's problem or anyone else's business.
I've written a longer piece on my blog about this issue which you can find by Googling for my name. This site makes it hard to link to it but you'll find it easily enough.
If parents want to make that rule for their children then they can, and they're in a much better position to enforce it sensibly and humanely than the housing association.
I certainly remember being allowed out to the local streets and parks at a fairly young age, provided that my parents knew where I was going and who with, and that I was home before dark. I don't recall it being anyone else's problem or anyone else's business.
I've written a longer piece on my blog about this issue which you can find by Googling for my name. This site makes it hard to link to it but you'll find it easily enough.
"i have to live there", carshalton says...
5:29pm Thu 19 Jun 08
Me Again wrote:Could not agree more
I think all Councils and Housing Associations should do something like this. Especially SLFHA who don\'t have a clue about anti social behaviour.
maybe we should send slfha the story , it might give them a big push and a big hint !!
mrs james, sutton says...
5:50pm Thu 19 Jun 08
I don't live on an estate but my 12 year old daughter never goes out unsupervised and her curfew as long as she lives with us and until she goes off to university will be 8pm indoors. My only question, what if the family has a dinner out, visits the grandparents and come back late, coming back from a theatre night out in London, will those not in at 9pm be puniished and monitored a'la big brother or does common sense prevail?
Roy, Worcester Park says...
8:21pm Thu 19 Jun 08
I live on The Hamptons Estate and the curfew mentioned in your article was already in place.
When my family and I moved into the housing association when the properties were first built in 2005, one of the stipulations attached to your tenancy agreement was children under 14 have to be in before 9pm.
I understand that some of the housing tennants have taken exception to this, but they should read the agreement they all signed when they moved here.
Yes it's a good idea that all should adhere to it as it will show that any issues or anti-social behaviour after 9pm will not be from the estate itself.
There seems to be many entrances onto the estate from the surrounding areas. There are kids on the park area drinking and smoking whatever, there is graffiti all over the place, this all occurs late at night.
Thames Valley are trying to do their bit by their tennants, maybe the local Police should do the same.
When my family and I moved into the housing association when the properties were first built in 2005, one of the stipulations attached to your tenancy agreement was children under 14 have to be in before 9pm.
I understand that some of the housing tennants have taken exception to this, but they should read the agreement they all signed when they moved here.
Yes it's a good idea that all should adhere to it as it will show that any issues or anti-social behaviour after 9pm will not be from the estate itself.
There seems to be many entrances onto the estate from the surrounding areas. There are kids on the park area drinking and smoking whatever, there is graffiti all over the place, this all occurs late at night.
Thames Valley are trying to do their bit by their tennants, maybe the local Police should do the same.
suttonpeopledotcom, Sutton says...
9:07am Fri 20 Jun 08
This all sounds like hot air and scare tactics. After all, in order to evict somebody for letting their children stay out past the 9pm curfew they would need to collate quite a bit of solid evidence.
However, i do actually think that 9pm for a child aged up to 14 years is an acceptable time to be home by, especially on a school night, but i dont agree with a housing association to inflict such a rule on the tennants. what will the next rule be, no leaving the house before 6am in the morning to stop burglary?
However, i do actually think that 9pm for a child aged up to 14 years is an acceptable time to be home by, especially on a school night, but i dont agree with a housing association to inflict such a rule on the tennants. what will the next rule be, no leaving the house before 6am in the morning to stop burglary?
halle, cheam says...
9:09am Fri 20 Jun 08
mrs james wrote:With all due respect Mrs James, do you really believe that your daughter will be in every night at 8pm until she leaves home? I doubt it very much - give it a couple of years and she will play merry hell to you if you won't let her out. Im not criticising you at all, I think the fact your daughter isn't loitering on streets is great - I just think you should look at the bigger picture - Most of these kids are out because they want to mingle with friends and they cant all go into one persons house. What happened to freedom of speech and human rights?
I don't live on an estate but my 12 year old daughter never goes out unsupervised and her curfew as long as she lives with us and until she goes off to university will be 8pm indoors. My only question, what if the family has a dinner out, visits the grandparents and come back late, coming back from a theatre night out in London, will those not in at 9pm be puniished and monitored a'la big brother or does common sense prevail?
Can anybody tell me the age group that the curfew applies to?
suttonpeopledotcom, Sutton says...
9:10am Fri 20 Jun 08
Yes it's a good idea that all should adhere to it as it will show that any issues or anti-social behaviour after 9pm will not be from the estate itself.
how do you work that out? will houses be automatically deadlocked at 9pm by the housing association and then a 20ft high fence rise up all around the estate to keep people in and others out?
Avid, WP says...
11:25am Fri 20 Jun 08
suttonpeopledotcom wrote:Would finding your kid out at 9pm not be solid evidance then? and that is then classed as in breach of a signed contract
This all sounds like hot air and scare tactics. After all, in order to evict somebody for letting their children stay out past the 9pm curfew they would need to collate quite a bit of solid evidence. However, i do actually think that 9pm for a child aged up to 14 years is an acceptable time to be home by, especially on a school night, but i dont agree with a housing association to inflict such a rule on the tennants. what will the next rule be, no leaving the house before 6am in the morning to stop burglary?
i agree that this is a blanket rule, but again its part of the agreement, if you don't like it don't sign and move in!
Annon, London says...
11:45am Fri 20 Jun 08
suttonpeopledotcom wrote:I wish! I live in the Hamptons, and that's exactly what we'd like!
Yes it\\\'s a good idea that all should adhere to it as it will show that any issues or anti-social behaviour after 9pm will not be from the estate itself.
how do you work that out? will houses be automatically deadlocked at 9pm by the housing association and then a 20ft high fence rise up all around the estate to keep people in and others out?
Annon, London says...
11:46am Fri 20 Jun 08
suttonpeopledotcom wrote:I wish! I live in the Hamptons, and that's exactly what we'd like!
Yes it\\\'s a good idea that all should adhere to it as it will show that any issues or anti-social behaviour after 9pm will not be from the estate itself.
how do you work that out? will houses be automatically deadlocked at 9pm by the housing association and then a 20ft high fence rise up all around the estate to keep people in and others out?
suttonpeopledotcom, Sutton says...
12:24pm Fri 20 Jun 08
Would finding your kid out at 9pm not be solid evidance then? and that is then classed as in breach of a signed contract
Well, anybody who breaks rules is usually quite wise to the fact that they have to stay under the radar of those imposing the rules, so those who choose to stay out after 9pm might not be so easy to catch and identify eh?
I wish! I live in the Hamptons, and that's exactly what we'd like!
sounds more like Colditz than a housing estate, but each to their own.
Mrs James, sutton says...
12:42pm Fri 20 Jun 08
To Halle< yes my daughter will folow my rules until she leaves home, she's not a average chav. My husband and I have raised out daughter with strict morals, none of our family drink/smoke/screw around and she has big goals in life life Cambridge medical and she's is a perfect student and daughter. She doesn't want to mix at night with the sorts of kids who hang around at night. Her friends come to our home and have sleepovers, go to the cinema, and she is only allowed friends from similar upbringings. I always followed my parents rules and I never wanted alcohol/cigs/boys making me pregnant and ruining my future. Not all kids want to raise hell, it all depends on how they are raised from day one. You need to look at the bigger picture--not all kids are wanting to be bad. She doesn't like the sort of kids who do this and she's better than to hang out at night on the streets mixing with drunk people and losers hanging out with skanky boyfriends and becoming a static of rape, stabbing, fights, and pregnancy. Not everyone follows the crowd like a cow. When I became a parent I then dedicated myself to giving her the best in life, a good upbringing, morals, self respect, knowledge, and good self discipline. These things I grew up with and are 2nd nature, I have had a wonderfully fufilling life and she will have the same, but not if she acts like a commoner. That's fine for some teens but not good enough for my daughter. If every parent took their job seriously and had a good close relationship with their kids there would be virtually no teen preganancy, alcholics, bullies, violence, and so so many without proper education. i pity the life of the common English kid who is raised with a do whateveryouplease attitude they inherit from their parent(s).
ric, kingston says...
1:56pm Fri 20 Jun 08
thats it wrap the kids up in cotton wool. then when they go out in the real world they end up getting beaten or stabbed to death because they dont know the basic princibles of 'street life'
nice idea.
and for the record mrs james. you are someone who is well out of touch with society. your passing judgement on something that you never saw. if you never hung around on streets how would you know what its like.
staying out late playing football etc with you mates is something children should do. lumping them all in with rapists, alcholics and muderers is exactly the type of scaremongering that leads to these clear breeches of human rights.
i guess you people wont be happy until we all live life like robots.
nice idea.
and for the record mrs james. you are someone who is well out of touch with society. your passing judgement on something that you never saw. if you never hung around on streets how would you know what its like.
staying out late playing football etc with you mates is something children should do. lumping them all in with rapists, alcholics and muderers is exactly the type of scaremongering that leads to these clear breeches of human rights.
i guess you people wont be happy until we all live life like robots.
C, SW London says...
2:24pm Fri 20 Jun 08
My god. To say that a child who has come in at 9pm, which I think is too late for a 14 year old anyway, is more likely to get stabbed because they dont know the princiPles of "street life" is laughable.
Responsible parents should have their kids in earlier than 9 and those who aren't SHOULD be forced to. It's more likely that the kids who are staying out past 9pm.. on the hamptons or anywhere else will get into trouble like stabbings and muggings.. or on the flip side, get involved in crime themselves!
Kids cant function without a good nights sleep, coming in later than 9 means they dont get that and therefore schoolwork suffers.
I cant understand why you people have a problem with progress... it's obvioulsy working!
Responsible parents should have their kids in earlier than 9 and those who aren't SHOULD be forced to. It's more likely that the kids who are staying out past 9pm.. on the hamptons or anywhere else will get into trouble like stabbings and muggings.. or on the flip side, get involved in crime themselves!
Kids cant function without a good nights sleep, coming in later than 9 means they dont get that and therefore schoolwork suffers.
I cant understand why you people have a problem with progress... it's obvioulsy working!
Adrian Short, Sutton says...
2:42pm Fri 20 Jun 08
Mrs James,
I'm sure you and your family are perfectly respectable people, but it's attitudes like yours that will need to change if we're ever to have safer streets and a civilised society.
In effect, you believe that "nice people don't hang out", as if hanging out in itself were a bad thing.
Of course, it isn't and never has been. Societies far more civilised than our own have not just tolerated people congregating in public space but encouraged it. It is seen as a civic virtue, not a vice.
Now imagine my idea of an anti-curfew. Say you and your family (in fact, everyone) were forced to spend 15 minutes a day sitting on a park bench or hanging out in the street. The character of those places would change entirely. The minority of people that cause trouble would be much more deterred than they are at present because it would be much harder to get away with mischief, and there would be social pressure to conform to the "norm" which would be raised.
You might also find that your attitude towards "commoners" improves, which would do you, your family and society a world of good.
As citizens, we have a responsibility to contribute to the betterment of the community, not just look after us and ours and look down on those that don't meet our own standards.
More at adrianshort.co.uk
I'm sure you and your family are perfectly respectable people, but it's attitudes like yours that will need to change if we're ever to have safer streets and a civilised society.
In effect, you believe that "nice people don't hang out", as if hanging out in itself were a bad thing.
Of course, it isn't and never has been. Societies far more civilised than our own have not just tolerated people congregating in public space but encouraged it. It is seen as a civic virtue, not a vice.
Now imagine my idea of an anti-curfew. Say you and your family (in fact, everyone) were forced to spend 15 minutes a day sitting on a park bench or hanging out in the street. The character of those places would change entirely. The minority of people that cause trouble would be much more deterred than they are at present because it would be much harder to get away with mischief, and there would be social pressure to conform to the "norm" which would be raised.
You might also find that your attitude towards "commoners" improves, which would do you, your family and society a world of good.
As citizens, we have a responsibility to contribute to the betterment of the community, not just look after us and ours and look down on those that don't meet our own standards.
More at adrianshort.co.uk
carly, london says...
2:53pm Fri 20 Jun 08
Mrs James I suggest you get off that pedastool of yours & have a look around. I am 20 & when I was younger I went out & about with my friends. I dont the whole being a pain & smoking phase but I realised for myself that I didn't want to be like that.
Fair enough, how you bring your daughter up is down to you I cant argue with that but you cant sit there & call people 'commoners' like you're better than us. To be honest I dont think that is setting a good example to your daughter discriminating like that.
Yes there are some that give lower class people a bad name, but small minded 'snobs', so to speak, are just as bad for not realising this.
And I would also like to point out that I got pregnant at 17, but I have worked hard, like you to give my son the best in life & do well for myself.
So to make my point, whilst you like to think you are better than us so called 'commoners' we aint that different. We both have children & both want the best for them. Just we handle our children in different ways.
You chose to keep her closed up away from lower class whereas I want my boy to experience everything & be openminded.
Fair enough, how you bring your daughter up is down to you I cant argue with that but you cant sit there & call people 'commoners' like you're better than us. To be honest I dont think that is setting a good example to your daughter discriminating like that.
Yes there are some that give lower class people a bad name, but small minded 'snobs', so to speak, are just as bad for not realising this.
And I would also like to point out that I got pregnant at 17, but I have worked hard, like you to give my son the best in life & do well for myself.
So to make my point, whilst you like to think you are better than us so called 'commoners' we aint that different. We both have children & both want the best for them. Just we handle our children in different ways.
You chose to keep her closed up away from lower class whereas I want my boy to experience everything & be openminded.
carly, london says...
2:57pm Fri 20 Jun 08
And I would also like to add, I had a very close relationship with my mother & it wasn't her fault I got pregnant. It was my own fault. So you have no right generalising everyone within a lower class than yourself. Some of us work dam hard for what we have. I dont want benefit handouts.
I work 6day weeks to pay my bills & rent.
And there are plenty of other people like us out there.
Just please think before you speak.
I work 6day weeks to pay my bills & rent.
And there are plenty of other people like us out there.
Just please think before you speak.
Chelle, Tadworth says...
6:24pm Fri 20 Jun 08
Mrs James - I am deeply offended by your comments, you seem to be implying that those of us who have children who do not come from 'affluent' backgrounds are common. I don't come from an 'affluent' background however that does not mean that I don't love and care for my children in the same way you do for your daughter. I have worked extremely hard to give my children a good upbringing. You cannot generalise like you are - after all you don't know their life stories do you - so how can you really make comment on them. Perhaps you should do as Carly suggests and think before you speak!
Lady Balls, The Palace says...
6:08pm Sat 21 Jun 08
I understand that the social housing folk of the Hamptons are not happy with one allocated parking space each...
So they are parking on other people's private property.
Surely one allocated parking space per household is more than enough, especially for those who supposedly can't afford to rent/buy.
I'm also on the understanding that many people there drive new cars.
While people are struggling to pay mortgages and making do with 10-year-old hatchbacks, others are getting subsidised/free housing and blowing any cash/ HP on tattoos, fags, even more extra-large clothing and flash cars.
So they are parking on other people's private property.
Surely one allocated parking space per household is more than enough, especially for those who supposedly can't afford to rent/buy.
I'm also on the understanding that many people there drive new cars.
While people are struggling to pay mortgages and making do with 10-year-old hatchbacks, others are getting subsidised/free housing and blowing any cash/ HP on tattoos, fags, even more extra-large clothing and flash cars.
Pete, Surbiton says...
1:51pm Sun 22 Jun 08
I don't know the details of how things work on the Hamptons, but describing the rule as a "curfew" is probably overstating it.
Think about it. How on earth are you going to be able to check that all residents under 14 years of age are in by 9pm? The only way to do it is to have a door-to-door roll call, a bit like what happens in prison houseblocks. Clearly that's not going to happen.
The point of the rule clearly isn't to stop parents taking their children on holiday, or visiting relatives, or out to the theatre. It doesn't even stop children going to stay with relatives on their own, while the parents stay at home.
No, it seems the point of the rule is to stop children hanging around on the streets and open spaces of the estate itself.
As long as the children aren't on the streets of the estate past 9pm, then there isn't a problem. Whether they're safely tucked up in mum and dad's house or at a friend's sleepover is neither here nor there.
If this rule is applied, then it's safe to assume that any children who are loitering on the streets past 9pm are probably not from the local estate, and are therefore probably up to no good. Such people can be dealt with accordingly.
Bearing this in mind, I think the rule is a very good idea.
Think about it. How on earth are you going to be able to check that all residents under 14 years of age are in by 9pm? The only way to do it is to have a door-to-door roll call, a bit like what happens in prison houseblocks. Clearly that's not going to happen.
The point of the rule clearly isn't to stop parents taking their children on holiday, or visiting relatives, or out to the theatre. It doesn't even stop children going to stay with relatives on their own, while the parents stay at home.
No, it seems the point of the rule is to stop children hanging around on the streets and open spaces of the estate itself.
As long as the children aren't on the streets of the estate past 9pm, then there isn't a problem. Whether they're safely tucked up in mum and dad's house or at a friend's sleepover is neither here nor there.
If this rule is applied, then it's safe to assume that any children who are loitering on the streets past 9pm are probably not from the local estate, and are therefore probably up to no good. Such people can be dealt with accordingly.
Bearing this in mind, I think the rule is a very good idea.
Pete, Surbiton says...
2:12pm Sun 22 Jun 08
I agree with Adrian Short that it's best for parents to make decisions about their children, but I disagree with his argument that this rules the community out of having any say in family behaviour standards at all.
If you follow Adrian's reasoning to its logical conclusion, then not only should parents be able to decide whether or not children are allowed out after 9pm, but parents should also be allowed to decide whether or not it's okay for their children to go shoplifting, or to take drugs. If parents want to sell their children into sex slavery in Thailand, then that's totally up to them. By Adrian's arguments, Josef Fritzl didn't actually do any thing wrong, and it would be wrong to take children into care in the event that a parent's alcoholism or drug addiction is preventing the parent from looking after the child properly.
I completely reject this view. The way that parents bring up their children does have an impact on the wider community around them, and therefore it's only right that the wider community should have a say in the matter.
If you follow Adrian's reasoning to its logical conclusion, then not only should parents be able to decide whether or not children are allowed out after 9pm, but parents should also be allowed to decide whether or not it's okay for their children to go shoplifting, or to take drugs. If parents want to sell their children into sex slavery in Thailand, then that's totally up to them. By Adrian's arguments, Josef Fritzl didn't actually do any thing wrong, and it would be wrong to take children into care in the event that a parent's alcoholism or drug addiction is preventing the parent from looking after the child properly.
I completely reject this view. The way that parents bring up their children does have an impact on the wider community around them, and therefore it's only right that the wider community should have a say in the matter.
Pete, Surbiton says...
2:30pm Sun 22 Jun 08
Adrian says:
I think that's actually a very good idea. Maybe every day might be a bit too frequent, though, but I certainly think it should be done at least once a week.
And that's part of the reason why churches rate attendance so highly for fellowship, despite the fact that there's nothing in the Bible which says that going to church on Sunday is the be all and end all of people's Christian lives. Most major religions place a similarly high importance on regular meeting or association or some other kind of ritual that brings people together on a regular basis, including many forms of Neopaganism. The only major religion which doesn't seem to rate regular community association is Atheism, although there are signs that this is beginning to change.
Mind you, I would suggest that the assemblies take place during the day, and not during the night when people try to sleep.
Having kids hanging around on the street late at night does not create community cohesion. On the contrary, it creates community division. If it didn't create division, then we would be in agreement, and we wouldn't be debating it here. Cohesion is created, in part, by having people meet up during daylight hours, when there's actually enough light for people to see each other, in my humble opinion, although I admit there's a bit more to it than that.
Now imagine my idea of an anti-curfew. Say you and your family (in fact, everyone) were forced to spend 15 minutes a day sitting on a park bench or hanging out in the street. The character of those places would change entirely. The minority of people that cause trouble would be much more deterred than they are at present because it would be much harder to get away with mischief, and there would be social pressure to conform to the "norm" which would be raised.
I think that's actually a very good idea. Maybe every day might be a bit too frequent, though, but I certainly think it should be done at least once a week.
And that's part of the reason why churches rate attendance so highly for fellowship, despite the fact that there's nothing in the Bible which says that going to church on Sunday is the be all and end all of people's Christian lives. Most major religions place a similarly high importance on regular meeting or association or some other kind of ritual that brings people together on a regular basis, including many forms of Neopaganism. The only major religion which doesn't seem to rate regular community association is Atheism, although there are signs that this is beginning to change.
Mind you, I would suggest that the assemblies take place during the day, and not during the night when people try to sleep.
Having kids hanging around on the street late at night does not create community cohesion. On the contrary, it creates community division. If it didn't create division, then we would be in agreement, and we wouldn't be debating it here. Cohesion is created, in part, by having people meet up during daylight hours, when there's actually enough light for people to see each other, in my humble opinion, although I admit there's a bit more to it than that.
Adrian Short, Sutton says...
5:44pm Sun 22 Jun 08
Pete,
I had absolutely no idea my assertion that parents are the best people to decide what time their children come home was tantamount to giving them carte blanche to sexually abuse and neglect their children. Perhaps that's because I didn't and your argument is little more than a flimsy straw man.
There are some aspects of children's behaviour that are within the scope of parents' choices and responsibility and some that are subject to various forms of social control and formal public regulation.
Conventionally, vacating (quasi-)public space at a particular time is held to belong to the former, which is why this particular curfew is newsworthy.
To suggest, as you do, that I'm arguing that parents should be free to give licence to any behaviour of their children that they deem appropriate, and also may take whatever liberties _with_ their children that they see fit, is an absurd and deeply offensive misrepresentation of my arguments and views. It would, of course, lead to the horrendous outcomes you suggest, which is why I have proposed no such thing.
Society does indeed have a stake in how children are raised and therefore regulates it to a degree. However, I have yet to hear a serious commentator on society suggest that children being out after 9pm is necessarily a harmful activity either for them or the community at large, which is why intrusive rules such as this are thankfully rare.
I have serious doubts about whether this aspect Thames Valley Housing's tenancy agreement is legal and no doubt whatsoever that they have exceeded their legitimate authority by attempting to make such a rule. The housing association rightly has an interest in the good maintenance of its properties and in preventing its tenants causing nuisance to others. A blanket 9pm curfew on all children under 15 falls within the scope of neither of those.
I had absolutely no idea my assertion that parents are the best people to decide what time their children come home was tantamount to giving them carte blanche to sexually abuse and neglect their children. Perhaps that's because I didn't and your argument is little more than a flimsy straw man.
There are some aspects of children's behaviour that are within the scope of parents' choices and responsibility and some that are subject to various forms of social control and formal public regulation.
Conventionally, vacating (quasi-)public space at a particular time is held to belong to the former, which is why this particular curfew is newsworthy.
To suggest, as you do, that I'm arguing that parents should be free to give licence to any behaviour of their children that they deem appropriate, and also may take whatever liberties _with_ their children that they see fit, is an absurd and deeply offensive misrepresentation of my arguments and views. It would, of course, lead to the horrendous outcomes you suggest, which is why I have proposed no such thing.
Society does indeed have a stake in how children are raised and therefore regulates it to a degree. However, I have yet to hear a serious commentator on society suggest that children being out after 9pm is necessarily a harmful activity either for them or the community at large, which is why intrusive rules such as this are thankfully rare.
I have serious doubts about whether this aspect Thames Valley Housing's tenancy agreement is legal and no doubt whatsoever that they have exceeded their legitimate authority by attempting to make such a rule. The housing association rightly has an interest in the good maintenance of its properties and in preventing its tenants causing nuisance to others. A blanket 9pm curfew on all children under 15 falls within the scope of neither of those.
The _Decider, The Hamptons says...
11:01am Mon 23 Jun 08
It never ceases to amaze me, the kind of people who actually reply to these things, and yet have absolutely nothing productive to say. Perhaps Lady balls has completely forgotten what this topic is about. And your biased judgements on us 'social houing folk' are disgusting. Should we all live in a leper coloney withouth our cars? As Den writes, some of us work, pay rent and council tax.
Avid writes, 'the fact they get a free house' please see above, some of us DO pay rent and council tax, this is NOT free housing. Some of us have also waited almost 8 years to be housed. So getting a 'free house' isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes some people need a little help to get housing, after all we weren't all born with a silver spoon, like Mrs James daughter.
This problem will only get worse and with the current housing/mortgage situation. I hope all you people who look down on us are financially stable, or you could just find yourselves needing some extra help, and moving into a street near ours.
/Back to the topic.
Some think this curfew is a good idea, if there had been a problem before, that couldn't be solved any other way, then maybe. But the bottom line really is that there have been no problems here to start with.My kids are in long before 9 as are nearly all the others. If the curfew was gone, there would only be a very small number of young adults out at that time anyway. And then it would be down to their parents to keep an eye on them. If they misbehaved then they need to be delt with, but until then it should be down to the parent. C in SW London thinks it's a 'blooming brilliant idea that puts the responsibility with the parents' However, it's actually the opposite that is true, as we the parent cannot decide what time our children have to be in. So there goes our responsibility, along with many of our other basic human rights, slowly being eroded away.
I applaud anyone who stands up for what they believe in.
@ Mr Short, I very much enjoyed your blog, thankyou.
Avid writes, 'the fact they get a free house' please see above, some of us DO pay rent and council tax, this is NOT free housing. Some of us have also waited almost 8 years to be housed. So getting a 'free house' isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes some people need a little help to get housing, after all we weren't all born with a silver spoon, like Mrs James daughter.
This problem will only get worse and with the current housing/mortgage situation. I hope all you people who look down on us are financially stable, or you could just find yourselves needing some extra help, and moving into a street near ours.
/Back to the topic.
Some think this curfew is a good idea, if there had been a problem before, that couldn't be solved any other way, then maybe. But the bottom line really is that there have been no problems here to start with.My kids are in long before 9 as are nearly all the others. If the curfew was gone, there would only be a very small number of young adults out at that time anyway. And then it would be down to their parents to keep an eye on them. If they misbehaved then they need to be delt with, but until then it should be down to the parent. C in SW London thinks it's a 'blooming brilliant idea that puts the responsibility with the parents' However, it's actually the opposite that is true, as we the parent cannot decide what time our children have to be in. So there goes our responsibility, along with many of our other basic human rights, slowly being eroded away.
I applaud anyone who stands up for what they believe in.
@ Mr Short, I very much enjoyed your blog, thankyou.
ric, kingston says...
3:49pm Mon 23 Jun 08
can i just point out that people do get stabbed before 9pm.
there isnt a watershed for crime.
also in winter its gets dark a 4pm. so thats crime at night out the window as well.
hth
there isnt a watershed for crime.
also in winter its gets dark a 4pm. so thats crime at night out the window as well.
hth
b, worcester park says...
4:23pm Mon 23 Jun 08
i live on the hamptons and this curfew was mentioned to me when i moved in at 2 my daughter is 2 young 2 be out anyway haha but i would just like to point out that not all housing is free i work part-time and still have to pay for my rent and i waited a very long time 2 get a nice place its a shame the troublesome youngsters have graffitied everywhere around the lake
Michelle, west yorkshire says...
8:51am Tue 24 Jun 08
Why only the HA children?
Do children from homes that their parents own not cause trouble, do drugs, drink? I think they do.
Do children from homes that their parents own not cause trouble, do drugs, drink? I think they do.
C, SW London says...
3:36pm Tue 24 Jun 08
Michelle wrote:They most certainly do.
Why only the HA children? Do children from homes that their parents own not cause trouble, do drugs, drink? I think they do.
MonsterMunch, Sutton says...
9:32pm Tue 24 Jun 08
Absolutely scandalous. My daughter is usually in bed by that time of night, but sometimes we let her stay up. It's called free will. Or being an adult. Trusting your own mind to take responsible decisions.
I agree with Adrian Short -scarier than the local authority coming up with this is the herd-like mentality of all the people on here delighted to go along with it. This is what happened in Nazi Germany - people, you are human beings, with your own minds. Try imagining how you would have felt about the world when you were 14, if you can remember that far back, if these sort of spirit-crushing ideas had have been around then. Ridiculous.
I agree with Adrian Short -scarier than the local authority coming up with this is the herd-like mentality of all the people on here delighted to go along with it. This is what happened in Nazi Germany - people, you are human beings, with your own minds. Try imagining how you would have felt about the world when you were 14, if you can remember that far back, if these sort of spirit-crushing ideas had have been around then. Ridiculous.
annon, sutton says...
9:40pm Tue 24 Jun 08
I live on the hamptons and im glad there is a 9pm curfew,but it also states under 14s are supervised when they are playing outside but this does not happen and this is where there anti social behaviour is happening.
someone, Worcester Park says...
8:07am Wed 25 Jun 08
I live on the Hamptons, in a TVHA property which I part own. This antisocial behaviour rule doesnÂ’t work, as what IÂ’ve witnessed has happened during the day.
IÂ’ve been living there for just over a year and in that time, IÂ’ve seen children unhook the windows in the communal entrance to the flats, climb in (effectively breaking in) run up the stairs, climb out of the window on the 1st floor and onto the flat roof above the entrance. They then proceeded to jump around and then throw themselves off the roof and onto the grass.
Last month, I saw 2 children kicking and throwing a ball to see how high they could get it and to see if they could hit one of the top windows on one of the flats opposite to mine.
Then the other week, a group of youths thought it would be funny to throw stink bombs through the open window to the entrance of the flats where I live.
I thought IÂ’d moved into a really nice area and in lots of ways, it is. ItÂ’s just a shame that these kids donÂ’t seem to have any respect for other peopleÂ’s property or appreciate what a nice place it is, with all that wide open green space, wetlands and so on.
IÂ’ve been living there for just over a year and in that time, IÂ’ve seen children unhook the windows in the communal entrance to the flats, climb in (effectively breaking in) run up the stairs, climb out of the window on the 1st floor and onto the flat roof above the entrance. They then proceeded to jump around and then throw themselves off the roof and onto the grass.
Last month, I saw 2 children kicking and throwing a ball to see how high they could get it and to see if they could hit one of the top windows on one of the flats opposite to mine.
Then the other week, a group of youths thought it would be funny to throw stink bombs through the open window to the entrance of the flats where I live.
I thought IÂ’d moved into a really nice area and in lots of ways, it is. ItÂ’s just a shame that these kids donÂ’t seem to have any respect for other peopleÂ’s property or appreciate what a nice place it is, with all that wide open green space, wetlands and so on.
RG, Surrey, Surrey says...
1:04pm Wed 25 Jun 08
Mrs James, I read your comments with interest. If your daughter is such a fabulous student, please let her write your comments in future as your grammar is disgusting. Get a grip and go bake a cake and write up your family moral manual or something equally as useful.
As for the curfew, its a great idea, I live in Worcester Park (Not on the Hamptons). But its flawed, how are you going to stop the trash from Browning Avenue causing mayhem over there? They arent going to take any notice of a curfew, its a public space after all. And how many of the Housing Association children are going to be getting the blame for mischief that other children are responsible for ? How are residents supposed to prove they were indoors by 9pm without the roll-call someone else suggested. At the end of the day, this is a huge housing complex, I walk my dogs round it frequently and its lovely, in parts. But again, they build social housing and forget to put anything in place for the children, give them a youth centre, somewhere to go, something constructive to do, and stop stereotyping all teenagers as trouble.
As for the curfew, its a great idea, I live in Worcester Park (Not on the Hamptons). But its flawed, how are you going to stop the trash from Browning Avenue causing mayhem over there? They arent going to take any notice of a curfew, its a public space after all. And how many of the Housing Association children are going to be getting the blame for mischief that other children are responsible for ? How are residents supposed to prove they were indoors by 9pm without the roll-call someone else suggested. At the end of the day, this is a huge housing complex, I walk my dogs round it frequently and its lovely, in parts. But again, they build social housing and forget to put anything in place for the children, give them a youth centre, somewhere to go, something constructive to do, and stop stereotyping all teenagers as trouble.
Suttonvoice, sutton says...
2:58pm Wed 25 Jun 08
Where are the elected councillors. why are they not representing the concerns of the residents to the housing association and puttin on presure.
annon, sutton says...
6:57pm Thu 26 Jun 08
just to say alot of these kids who are causing trouble do live on the hamptons,i have witnessed some of the anti social behaviour and its not all late in the evening its happening at 4 or 5 o'clock.
anon, says...
1:18pm Wed 2 Jul 08
As a victim of the senseless vandalism of these so called innocent children I think its a great idea - trouble has definately been reduced - if only we can get a ban on scooters we'll almost have a decent community in the hamptons!
Your sayYourLocal Guardian
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Your Local Guardian account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Happy at the Hamptons: Angela Hough with her son Fraser, 13, and daughter Lois, 15 Deadlinepix SU21467
In this section
- Dozens of children abused
- Organisers deny yoga conference linked to 'cult'
- Footballing tribute for dead fan
- Squatters removed from estate
- Young troublemakers need help
- Star's absolutely fabulous nursing home visit
- Revellers get loaded in the park
- Train line electrocution warning
- Hope for near-blind pensioner
- Man caught taking cigarette lighter flick knife to court
Me Again, Carshalton says...
8:22am Thu 19 Jun 08
Especially SLFHA who don't have a clue about anti social behaviour.