Thread: Low IQ + Alcohol =

I struggle with people blaming the parents, last I checked you had to be 18 to purchase and consume alcohol, also the age that you are legally allowed to vote, so I guess classed as an adult, to blame the parents that 18 or 19 yr olds are causing trouble is unfair assumption in my eyes.


It seems to be a mindset that going out and fighting is classed as a fun night, couple that with the drugs that are readily available and its a bad concoction.


The basic non sentencing of these clowns is also high on the list, when everyday people need to lobby to get the 1 punch laws changed it tells you the legal system needs an overhaul.


Why do night clubs need to remain open till 3 or 4 in the morning. Should be a midnight closing time. In my parents days the pubs closed around 10 pm and that was it, home time, now its clubs, casinos , you name it.


We live in an age of alcohol advertising, where you are encouraged to consume alcohol in everything you do.


I don't believe that IQ plays such a major part, as clubs seem to be full of all sorts of people that are hell bent on consuming as much as possible.


From my expierence in the clubs I have been in the RSA doesn't exist until you fall over or cant talk.


Cheers Ean

back to 10pm closing for all outlets, make the penalties reflect the action, If underage the parents pay fines and damages. Simple, worked years ago. If we wanted to drink after the pub shut we bought enough to do.
Cheers Scott

Originally Posted by Cobber

I've often wondered what the other factor is too. It's easy to point the finger at booze but while it doesn't help it's not the sole reason why people end up behaving like this as the are only a tiny percentage of the people out there on the night having a drink. I suspect the biggest failing in these clowns is self control.

It seems that the vast majority of the problem is in the cities, where people are heading to the big, impersonal bars and clubs where they don't know you and don't really care about anything except getting as much money out of you as possible. How often do you hear about all-in brawls at the tiny local pub? Not often I would guess.

When I was 18-21 or thereabouts, me and my mates would head up into the hills fell walking most weekends and head to the pub (a tiny quaint, typical British country pub) in the evening. There was never even the faintest sign of aggression in there, in fact it was all you could do to stay awake, sitting in a rocking chair next to a blazing log fire with a scotch or similar in hand.

The landlord looked after the young'uns, acting almost like a surrogate dad. The slightest amount of mischief and it would be a gentle "I reckon you'd better get young XXX home."

Don't think you'd find anywhere like that in King's Cross.

[QUOTE=Ean Austral;2069077]I struggle with people blaming the parents, last I checked you had to be 18 to purchase and consume alcohol, also the age that you are legally allowed to vote, so I guess classed as an adult, to blame the parents that 18 or 19 yr olds are causing trouble is unfair assumption in my eyes.

G'Day Earn.

You are absolutely correct that 18 year olds can vote etc. But if I was the parent of a 16 year old girl, who is still a minor, I would insist on knowing what she was doing at 3am in the morning in town. I would be particularly annoyed with her when the police informs me she has been charged with assault.

Yes, accountabilty for ones own actions appears to be a fiction nowadays and if you are 18 you have to realise your rights (to buy alcohol, vote, have a driving licence etc) must be balanced by social responsibility.

Unfortunately, not too many people (young and old) realise that nowadays. I also realise that teenagers from decent family's can go off the rails, particularly if they fall in with the wrong crowd. I know this only too well........I have been through it.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

I struggle with people blaming the parents,

Cheers Ean

It was possibly more valid in the past to blame parents. There was a time when parents were the major influence and sometimes almost the only influence on a child.

For a whole lot of reasons, that is no longer the case. There are many other things now, such as TV, the internet and social media, that can have an enormous impact on a child's values and attitudes.

I have seen some wonderful, well meaning parents whose children have been a great disappointment to them and a menace to society. I have also seen, though less often, some exemplary children whose home life you would not wish on anyone.

Parents are very important as role models, but I suspect their impact has been reduced compared with a generation ago.

Originally Posted by Ausfree

[QUOTE=Ean Austral;2069077]I struggle with people blaming the parents, last I checked you had to be 18 to purchase and consume alcohol, also the age that you are legally allowed to vote, so I guess classed as an adult, to blame the parents that 18 or 19 yr olds are causing trouble is unfair assumption in my eyes.

G'Day Earn.

You are absolutely correct that 18 year olds can vote etc. But if I was the parent of a 16 year old girl, who is still a minor, I would insist on knowing what she was doing at 3am in the morning in town. I would be particularly annoyed with her when the police informs me she has been charged with assault.

Yes, accountabilty for ones own actions appears to be a fiction nowadays and if you are 18 you have to realise your rights (to buy alcohol, vote, have a driving licence etc) must be balanced by social responsibility.

Unfortunately, not too many people (young and old) realise that nowadays. I also realise that teenagers from decent family's can go off the rails, particularly if they fall in with the wrong crowd. I know this only too well........I have been through it.

Cheers.

Sorry , I didn't see the comment about 16 yr old girl and totally agree, but then I had left home by the age of 16 so my parents had no idea where I was.


We have been extremely lucky with both our girls, but mum was pretty vigilant whilst I was at sea, and did a fantastic job raising them.


I come from a very broken family so fully understand how it happens and seen it happen to 2 of my sisters.


cheers Ean

Some times we blame the magistrates and judges but are they not tied to the law and its limitations?
If the magistrates and judges impose a to severe penalty without precedents can not the defense appeal it?
It is not the case that the law makers (governments) have to change the laws so the courts can be more severe without excuses for appeals?

Regarding parents it is not the case that from some time children are so protected that parents are limited to how strict they can be?

I asking the questions because I do not know and like to find if our opinions are well based or just what we would like to see without understanding the problem that judges and parents face.

I am a grandparent so I do not know the issues that young parents face now in regards to the laws.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Some times we blame the magistrates and judges but are they not tied to the law and its limitations?
If the magistrates and judges impose a to severe penalty without precedents can not the defense appeal it?
It is not the case that the law makers (governments) have to change the laws so the courts can be more severe without excuses for appeals?

Can't have it both ways. When governments try to bring in new laws / harsher penalties, people complain that the governments are taking away the powers of the courts. Remember the outcry about the "three strikes" laws in the past - not to mention recent new laws in Queensland.

In general, there is plenty of scope for the courts to impose harsher penalties - they just don't - mainly because the judiciary is over-run with do-gooders who are out of touch with reality.

Yes - if a harsher (or any) penalty is imposed, the guilty party has the right to appeal the sentence. But this sentence is just heard by more judges, who then make a decision. If ALL of the judiciary woke up to themselves and started handing out sentences that reflected the crimes committed, and particularly reflected community attitudes to those crimes - then there would be little point in appealing the severity of a sentence, as the appeal court would in general support the sentence initially passed.

As far as I'm concerned - the power to hand down sentences should be removed from judges and magistrates. They have clearly demonstrated over many years now that they cannot be trusted to impose even minimum sentences in many cases, and certainly sentences which meet community expectations. Magistrates / judges should only preside over that part of the court process which decides guilt or innocence - that is all that they are qualified to do and they have demonstrated that this is all that they are competent to do.

Sentencing should be conducted by another person / body, elected by the people. If they do not pass sentences that reflect community standards and expectations, they are voted out of the role at the next election. Either that, or make Judges positions an elected role with a defined term of office. If they don't pass sentences that meet expectations, they become unemployed at the end of their defined term of office. Works in other countries.

The current system where judges etc are accountable to nobody (except a panel of their peers) is clearly not working.