I don't, I'm afraid. As a comparison, do you support a blanket say 40mph speed limit across the whole country, motorways included (except where lower), motorways included, because it undoubtedly would save the lives of countless children? It would certainly save more children than increasingly bureaucratic Safeguarding measures.
"Think of the children" is a slightly hackneyed argument. The adult world has to operate as an adult world, which means it contains some dangers so it can work in a practical way. It's on parents (and to a lesser extent the state) to teach children how to behave in it to remain as safe as feasible.
No, because a reduction to 40mph on motorways wouldn't change the death rates as the cause of deaths on motorways is not the speed it's the difference in speed between cars. Would I support a blanket ban on 40mph speed limits on single lane country lanes because this would lead to saving the lives of many people (not just children, it's adults who die mostly in car accidents) then yes I would.
Were you alive in the 80s?
Yes, of course.
They're the same thing, one of the terms is just to make it sound better rather than simply one political option. FWIW my views are mixed left and right, I can be very left on some things - but I'm very right in terms of personal responsibility, responsibilities before rights and consequences for wilful misbehaviour, I'd say (apart from that I don't support violent punishment - but I do want to deliver a modern equivalent of the clip round the ear as it works - a long walk home or the faff/cost of arranging something else). I would argue that progressive towards a quality, high trust society where people know how to behave and actually do!
They're not, progressive is usually classed more as centre left, I have a mixture of left and right wing opinions. I don't disagree with punishment at all in fact I think tougher penalties are needed., I think people in prison get way too much freedoms, I agree problem kids should be dealt with. I actually believe that being able to have children is actually a privilege and I wouldn't oppose to mandatory parenting classes prior to having a child.
The issue with having a "clip round the ear" type punishment is that this puts drivers at risk in a situation where there is no backup. It is much better for a driver to continue along their route than risk the intervention.
No, but I'd certainly like to see harsher short term punishment for minor stuff to make it clear it's not OK. A night in the cells is a good option here.
If we had the capability (read funding) then I don't disagree. But that's not the world we live in.
Disagree heartily. It's the perfect punishment and also associates a relevant consequence with the action. Misbehave on the bus and you don't get to go on the bus that day, best get walking. What's simpler?
There's many reasons why it's not the "perfect" punishment. For example, in chaotic environments, the full context of the altercation might not be clear. Children who are actually victims of bullying may act out in self-defence and find themselves kicked off the bus as the driver won't know what has happened. It puts drivers at risk, what guilt would they feel if something happened to the kid? It puts the company at risk from negative publicity.
Far more costly and delay for others than simply throwing them off.
And you expect that when the driver tells them to get off they're not just going to refuse? Any time I've seen a driver try and kick someone off it's led to delays and in the end they always refuse and there isn't anything the driver can do other than sit there. Calling ahead to get the police to meet them at a future stop is a much better idea.
No music should be played out loud, and the punishment for anyone who does should be being made to leave the bus and banned from future journeys that day.
However, aggressive gangland "music" is absolutely worse in terms of creating an unsafe feeling environment. How can a law abiding woman feel safe if music with themes of sexual assault etc is played out loud with a group of lads there?
Agree no one needs to hear others music, but the fact you single out that genre rather than 'sleaze rock' of the 80s which glorified many themes that are prevalent in what you're referring to also.
Knowing how to behave in public (particularly where signage makes this clear) and complex political decisions are not comparable. A ten year old knows you don't play your rubbish out loud in public.
It's not about knowing how to behave is the issue, it's being aware of the consequences of your actions. Kids absolutely don't have the same grasp of this as adults do which is why they are treated differently in law.
The person who said this is neither a rail/bus enthusiast nor an elderly person with money. She is a married middle aged woman with children (who are brought up to behave properly) and like many women feels unsafe on public transport when teenage lads behave like little thugs.
Anecdotal opinion versus numerous passenger surveys which mention that costs are too high. I did Google but I couldn't find anything that defacto proves that people would pay more for security staff. Again, the difference between bus and Uber for my local journey is £3 versus £5. I imagine if the bus was to suddenly cost £4 and include a security guard on each bus you'd probably find that in fact more people would move to using the taxi as for just a £ more you can get avoid the unwashed public completely.
