A drive-by blogging tonight. Muggins here has agreed to the morning shift tomorrow as well as the evening shift. One day only, after that it’s evenings all week. This also means severely limited whisky (again! Time to put some real effort into finding an alternative part-time job!).
One day I’ll detail the farce that passes for management, but not while I can still be fired. It’s one of many reasons I don’t want the supervisor job.
Anyway, later in the week my new cooker arrives and then I have to arrange Local Dodgy Kitchen Fellow to fit it. So Monday is the only day I can possibly do both shifts. Apparently there is a new rule concerning fuseboxes so something might have to be taped onto the side of that too. There’s always a ‘new rule’ and it always costs money.
Right. Tonight it is reported that children are to set up courts to try other children. Chavria Law. Similar experiments have been tried before, often with horrifying consequences. We could run a sweepstake on how long it will be before an 18-year-old judge gets his black cap on…
It’s a good idea and a bad idea. Not a quantum idea because no matter how long you look at it, it does not collapse into one state or the other. It is eternally good and bad, both at once.
Good, in that first time offenders, kids who have blundered just the once, can be given a ticking off without gaining a criminal record. The approval of their peers matters to most kids (never did to me, for some reason) so being pointed at and being told they are ‘a dick, and this will be recorded and reported’ is far more terrifying than an ASBO.
In that respect, it could work. The punishments are described as ‘lenient’ but sound pretty much the same as what hardened criminals often get in a real court. The one-time blunder does not get that kid a criminal record and in many cases, this experience of being scoffed at by their peers would put them off extending their first blunder into a criminal career. These days, once a kid has a criminal record, that’s pretty much it. CRB checks mean they will have a really hard time finding any kind of decent job so the crim life is all they have left.
Bad, in that it might give the thickos the belief that they can be dicks and all they’ll have to do is say ‘sorry’ and they are free to be dicks again. Then again, isn’t that the impression courts give anyway? Worse, in that power corrupts. Time and again, experiments with real people have demonstrated this. Give someone power over someone else and they will always, always abuse it. Especially if they think Authority is on their side. The courts will get harsher, the sentences brutal, and once set in motion it will be hard to stop.
Sure, these first courts are supervised but it won’t be long before kids, having learned the process, set up courts in old warehouses and derelict sheds and their alleged miscreants are found nailed to something or dangling from something else. It is a very, very dangerous road the government has started on here and since it’s the government, we can be pretty sure they aren’t looking where they are going.
The Mail makes much of the teeny-judge’s behaviour. He is of drinking age and tweets about drinking. This is not illegal. He posted a photo of himself naked but with a hat over his danglies. Much scoffing here – he has to hold the hat in place. Can’t be very much under it then, eh?
Do that photo again with a sombrero and your hands behind your head, and we’ll be impressed.
So the mini-judge has a minor indiscretion to his name. How many High Court judges would look at that and think ‘Is that all?’ Didn’t the Mail recently report that some high court judges are being investigated for crimes that would involve delving under a much younger child’s hat?
I once knew someone called Matt White. No kidding. His brother wasn’t called Gloss though. I asked. He had a sister called Vinyl Silk, or so he claimed.
He was white too. And non-shiny. The name fit. Even now, the Politically Correct would not even raise an eyebrow at that. Calling a non-shiny honky ‘Matt White’ isn’t racist or offensive at all, but calling a non-shiny black woman ‘Matte Black’ is the spoutings of a Satanic mind.
Actually it is the ramblings of a teenager, a stage of human development akin to the chrysalis in insects. Everything about their bodies are changing, their minds are busy trying to work out what is going on and which bit should go where so when the babble-gland wants to say something, the mind lets it out unfiltered. Teenagers say things and do things and then think about them later, if at all.
And that is why the Chavria courts could be a good idea again. Kids make mistakes. It is how kids learn. Somethings they learn very quickly, such as if you have a jar of purloined sodium metal, it is unwise to dispose of it in the river by dropping it off a bridge. Next time, throw it well away from you.
Other things take time to learn. Peer pressure comes from the demonic children as well as the angelic ones and the demons are better at it. The demonic ones will push a gullible young scroat into ‘proving themselves’ by shoplifting. If that is nipped in the bud by the point-and-laugh court of other children, most will not listen to the demons again. If that can be done without handing the one-time offender a criminal record, that is good.
It has to be one time. There must only be one chance at this court. There can be no repeat offenders ever brought before them again. One chance. Next time it’s the big house. That should be made very, very clear at avery Chavria trial. There is only one appearance here, the next one will have wigs and gavels and handcuffs and a jury of adults who all want to bring back retrospective abortion. No second chance.
Yes there are good parts to this idea but I cannot overcome the concern about the bad parts. Give them power and there will be secret Chavria courts. They will not be concerned with guilt or innocence as much as whether the accused is someone they like or not. Their punishments will not involve apology.
This has been known for a long time…