Quiz Time

Teenager to challenge curfew law (BBC News)

“A teenager is set to legally challenge new powers allowing police and councils to impose night-time curfews against children under-16.”

Now …… let’s try and guess something about this teenager. Is it
A – A concerned person who believes that civil rights generally are being eroded and that he should take an informed stance in order to not only clarify the law but protect the rights of his fellow young citizens.
OR
B – Some little shit who sees this as a way of making a pile of ‘compensation cash’ after being rightly subject to the curfew due to his nasty anti-social behaviour, and who actually should not have been taken home by the police but should have been taken somewhere quiet and given what used to be called a ‘clip round the ear’.

I think it’s B.

4 thoughts on “Quiz Time

  1. I’d also go with B.
    Having just been followed off the train by a gang of obnoxious 14 year olds shouting and me and other passengers, I suggest the curfews be expanded to cover saturday daytime also. Maybe then people can get on public transport without being tripped up, spat on, shoved, or ass-grabbed.

  2. The rights of all are being restricted because of the activities of a few, and that is how our society operates anyway.

    Challenging rules and laws is something I am for, but not when the motivation is – as I think it is in this case – just one of getting one over on the authorities.

    If this little shit – for that is what he is – was truly doing this for altruistic reasons, then why not pass with his right to anonymity ?

    Like Jo says above, it’s a symptom of a wider problem.

    Also, if I lived in one of these ‘designated areas’ would I want my daughters to go out without me ? I think not. It’s the parents who couldn’t give one, yet it’s the same parents whose kids are never in trouble. honest m’lud.

  3. Call me naive, but I think this guy actually could be A rather than B. The reason he might want to remain anonymous is because whether he is A or B, there is going to be a big negative reaction, and if he really is a decent lad sticking up for civil liberties, why should he put up with that?

Comments are closed.