Would you be for a Curfew for children at night at the ages of 10 to 16?

I do object, but only because it shouldn't be necessary for our nanny state to make rules on how to parent.

Saying that, my daughter is only 2, so my opinion may change in 8 years time :-)

There's two (probably more!) sides to this argument. On the one hand parents should be taking more responsibility for their children and the children should be adhering to what they say. Depending on the age and the maturity of the child, different times would apply and the parents should impose sanctions when their children break the rules. Of course, this in in a world where children actually listen to their parents and are responsible human beings. Many families are like this and are being tarred by the brush of the idiot few.

I can't say that I would agree with a state-imposed 'curfew'. There is already too much intervention in our lives and it seems unfair to penalise people who have done nothing wrong.

Would the curfew mean that I couldn't bring my kids home from holiday in the back of the car? It's a lot more convenient travelling at night, or early morning.

But if the curfew were to say "kids must be accompanied by an adult" then the rules won't work - every gang will simply acquire a friendly 18yo. Possibly the same one they send into off-licenses to buy alcohol for them.

I wouldn't object to a curfew per se - as long as it's reasonable, and an exemption is made for children in the company of their own parent or guardian. Certainly younger kids shouldn't be out that late anyway.

But in my experience, it's the late-teens/early twenties who cause a lot of the trouble anyway. Those who have only recently become legal drinkers and want to stretch their new-found powers.

I think wumpus is correct, it does need defining. Obviously, if the children were family members and being accompanied by such, then it would not apply, I assume. I think it needs to be clear that if the child has a legitimate excuse for being out, then that's okay, otherwise I'm in favour of it. That's not exactly true, I'm not in favour of it but I can see it as an interim measure until such time as a plan is discovered to reverse the current trend to ASB and violence.
As for you, as a lone worker, your employer should have a risk assessment in place for you and provide the necessary safeguards to ensure your safety in the workplace; whether that means you pairing-up or not, I don't know.

I sort of agree with siasl on this, but in another respect i can see a need for a curfew.

If the parents can't be bothered with their kids then they need laws to make them it is just sad that some people need that.

Kids between the ages of 10 - 16 should be in bed by 10pm anyway ;)

More importantly a curfew for some parents might be better - I know some HAVE to work evenings and weekends but for those who are not trying to earn a living and spending too much time away from their children when the children need attention and guidance I think it would be a good thing for children to have at least one parent there for them.

IMHO children stray in to trouble for many reasons two of them are socio economic by nature one is poor education and the other limited cognitive decision making skills, a factor in the downfall of many a criminal, the inability to see anything further than the opportunity in front of them, to either take or deprive someone of their goods or money... ask any criminal if they actually thought through what they were about to do and the answers are often...NO! I once did 5 annual reports for our counties probation service and they spent a lot of time rehabilitating offenders and trying to teach them new legal skills designed to help them change their lives for the better it was working for some of them, the re-offending rates were good but I understand were seen as being soft and the government of the day pulled funding...

I would suggest in the cases of first time offenders tagging and curfews may well be just one way of reducing the problems however a blanket curfew would indeed be a breech of any person's Human Rights that it applied to, since it would be seen as a punishment without proof that a crime had been committed.