Drinking. Underage or not.
#1
Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:45
So - a few links: BBC News on the new laws introduced
The Discussions area at BBC News
The new adverts used in the UK to prevent drinking <-- I personally think these are abysmal - it shows unit content and then says you may be at risk. So what - people should know what risks there are for a start - this is quite pathetic.
Just one of the many cases of kids that can't be controlled.
And my Foxytunes has taken over (see below!)
----------------
Now playing: Trevor Hall - Other Ways
via FoxyTunes
#2
Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:51
Now it's a cruel summation, but I really think letting children try it from the age of 10 or so would be better. I know I did and I also know when to stop drinking.
#3
Posted 02 June 2008 - 13:35
Dauth, on 2 Jun 2008, 14:51, said:
[...]
I really think letting children try it from the age of 10 or so would be better.
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#4
Posted 02 June 2008 - 13:40
Go dtiomsaítear do chód gan earráidí, is go gcríochnaítear do chláir go réidh. -Old Irish proverb
#5
Posted 02 June 2008 - 13:55
Parents have failed
Surely in cases such as these there is a far greater degree of lack of respect and general discord in the society, and hence there are severe problems with getting a parent to do something when they have no control.
#6
Posted 02 June 2008 - 14:03
AjPOD, on 2 Jun 2008, 15:55, said:
That's exactly why you put the responsibility partially with the parents. That way, if the child breaks the law under influence, the parent can be charged as an accomplice.
Go dtiomsaítear do chód gan earráidí, is go gcríochnaítear do chláir go réidh. -Old Irish proverb
#7
Posted 02 June 2008 - 14:56
CodeCat, on 2 Jun 2008, 16:03, said:
AjPOD, on 2 Jun 2008, 15:55, said:
That's exactly why you put the responsibility partially with the parents. That way, if the child breaks the law under influence, the parent can be charged as an accomplice.
And what would you manage with that, give the parents a hard time, but the kid doesn't care really and don't expect it will help the parents to 'try harder' to influence their children.. I'm sure they are trying hard enough, it's their child going down the drain after all.
#8
Posted 02 June 2008 - 16:38
Aftershock, on 2 Jun 2008, 15:56, said:
CodeCat, on 2 Jun 2008, 16:03, said:
AjPOD, on 2 Jun 2008, 15:55, said:
That's exactly why you put the responsibility partially with the parents. That way, if the child breaks the law under influence, the parent can be charged as an accomplice.
And what would you manage with that, give the parents a hard time, but the kid doesn't care really and don't expect it will help the parents to 'try harder' to influence their children.. I'm sure they are trying hard enough, it's their child going down the drain after all.
I agree with AfterShcok on this one - a parent held as an accomplice to something stupid their kid did? I think not. Plus, most of the louts that you see on Britain's Streets nowadays probably couldn't give a damn about their parents or what happens to them - no matter what the parents do/don't do. In all honesty chance are this will lead to more parents disowning their children - what with the current state of certain areas of British society.
#9
Posted 02 June 2008 - 16:41
CodeCat, on 2 Jun 2008, 15:40, said:
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#10
Posted 02 June 2008 - 16:46
Chyros, on 2 Jun 2008, 17:41, said:
But only to a degree and a certain age - if a child commits a crime away from his parent's supervision then she/he surely gets prosecuted by themselves and the parents aren't involved. Most kids go to young offenders institutions and then on to jail whilst the parents stay at home. Maybe have the parents be culpable of allowing such things to happen - fine them or short spells in jail. However, it remains the child's fault if he goes out, gets pissed and then ends up vandalising something.
#11
Posted 02 June 2008 - 17:04
Its "the cool thing" to underage drink, its been like that for pretty much every generation...
And dont believe the media hype about it either, sure alot of people get drunk, but its not like the entire UK goes out at 6am to start drinking every friday like its some goddamn religion
Edited by Pav3d, 02 June 2008 - 17:04.
#12
Posted 09 June 2008 - 17:46
#13
Posted 10 June 2008 - 11:14
#14
Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:09
Here is a picture of how it should work
Parents lay down rules > opportunity to break rules arises > kids think "sh*t if I do that I am screwed" > rules are not broken
Kids will not drink underage if they fear the consequences of breaking our drinking laws. In fact it's the people that serve them the alcohol that suffer more than the drinkers themselves, which is crap as the kids are the ones deliberately breaking the laws in the first place.
I am swinging far more towards a complete and utter totalitarian ban on anyone under 18 being allowed on the street after 6pm. They can't drink outside then, can't vandalise and maim, and they should be doing their bloody homework anyway!!!
/hijack
Edited by Wizard, 10 June 2008 - 12:09.
#15
Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:17
#16
Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:37
#17
Posted 02 October 2008 - 18:08
#18
Posted 02 October 2008 - 18:14
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users