Brat Camp

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Feb 2006, 22:19

"Brat Camp" is Channel 4's realo-docu-tainment series featuring a bunch of, um, badly behaved teens shipped off to a re-adjustment camp in Utah.

Leaving aside questions of fault, blame, nature, nurture etc and also the fact that I'm offering no solution of my own, I wonder how on earth this can be legal?

Nevermind also the question of whether this is "entertainment" as we've seen worse on C4 and yeah, I know, I can turn it off if I want. Etc etc.

What I'm wondering about is consent. We're told that the parents of these kids (who are obviously at the end of their tether) have given consent / signed away full parental controls - but can they? Not only is the incarceration taking place in a foreign country, but is happening to minors (well, 15 year-olds) which sounds a bit dodgy legally to me.

Where are the rights of these kids at the point of their restraint by adult staff of this camp?

Yeah yeah - they don't have any / their parents are in charge / they need smacked up sharp etc etc. I'm more concerned about legality as this, in another setting, could be described as abuse. It's subjective as to what "good" is done, and also what "damage" is done psychologically in the long term.

I would argue that you can't give consent, or sign a contract, to do something illegal. Whether consent is given by a parent or by a minor who is judged to be Gillick competent is, to my mind, immaterial at the point where the child concerned simply says "I want to go home" and is not allowed to - at this point, they have withdrawn their consent and the "staff" restraining them are breaking the law.

I know what the most common response will be, and I offer no counter-argument to the bleeding obvious - ie these kids are out of control and somebody has to do something - but I'd be interested to know what the lawyers and litigationally inclined have to say.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 15 Feb 2006, 22:23

I'm more concerned about the impression that this show gives out to unruly kids - continue to act the way you do and you'll end up on an activity break with TV fame thrown in. Whoopee! Lets all smash up some cars and be on the telly!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Feb 2006, 22:47

Jamesie wrote:I'm more concerned about the impression that this show gives out to unruly kids - continue to act the way you do and you'll end up on an activity break with TV fame thrown in. Whoopee! Lets all smash up some cars and be on the telly!

How are you feeling anyways? Did you get some antibiotics?

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 15 Feb 2006, 23:01

Dadaist wrote: How are you feeling anyways? Did you get some antibiotics?

Yup, thanks again for the kind regards - was prescribed some pretty strong drugs by my GP which seemed to have me right as rain by the end of the weekend!

Only downside was having to stay sober for my weekend in Cardiff - quite disturbing being dry on a Scotland trip, wouldn't want to do it again

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 16 Feb 2006, 01:20

Just out of interest Dadaist, just how many unruly kids have you had to look after and what was the outcome? Looking after 'normal' kids can be a task in itself. I have been watching the series and these kids certainly appear to push the boundaries. I would also suggest that they do seem to need special treatment. I can't say that I have seen any use of physical force that I would deem unnecessary. If I have missed something please feel free to point it out to me. It may seem harsh to some people but perhaps it is better than the alternative which could mean that these young people may do themselves some harm.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 01:32

Scorpion wrote:Just out of interest Dadaist, just how many unruly kids have you had to look after and what was the outcome? Looking after 'normal' kids can be a task in itself. I have been watching the series and these kids certainly appear to push the boundaries. I would also suggest that they do seem to need special treatment. I can't say that I have seen any use of physical force that I would deem unnecessary. If I have missed something please feel free to point it out to me. It may seem harsh to some people but perhaps it is better than the alternative which could mean that these young people may do themselves some harm.

Firstly, I question a private company in a foreign country doing this treatment on camera for entertainment.

When I initially posed my questions, I added caveat after caveat and still you feel the need to ask how many unruly kids I've looked after. It's an understandable knee-jerk to get personal, but you've missed the point.

Please read my question again!!!

Physical force may or may not be necessary or unnecessary, but my question is quite simple - can they give consent, and if so, can they withdraw it at any time?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 01:33

Jamesie wrote:
Dadaist wrote: How are you feeling anyways? Did you get some antibiotics?

Yup, thanks again for the kind regards - was prescribed some pretty strong drugs by my GP which seemed to have me right as rain by the end of the weekend!

Only downside was having to stay sober for my weekend in Cardiff - quite disturbing being dry on a Scotland trip, wouldn't want to do it again

Nice one, glad it's sorted. I think you've earned the right to compensate for the missed beers!

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 16 Feb 2006, 01:53

I presume that the parents of these children have signed a consent form which has probably been drawn up using some lawyers. Therefore, the only way in which your question can properly be answered is in a court of law. Now which court of law is dependant on legal advice. However, as I have said, I have seen no evidence of any unnecessary force which may have harmed these kids. Therefore, once again I invite you to tell us what it is that you object to. I did not see any rubber hoses or physical torture. Did I miss something? Oh, and by the way the parents can ask for the kids to be sent home at any time. You also mentioned that the kids had asked to go home and because they had been refused you suggested that this was in breach of their rights. Can I ask when you think that a kid can do whatever they like? When do parents stop being able to have the right to discipline and control their kids? As a parent and if I was in the same situation as the parents of these kids, I think I would do anything, if I thought it was in their best interests, to resolve the problems that these kids have.

By the way, I and my wife have looked after unruly kids so I do have a good idea of what I am talking about.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 09:01

Scorpion wrote:I presume that the parents of these children have signed a consent form which has probably been drawn up using some lawyers. Therefore, the only way in which your question can properly be answered is in a court of law. Now which court of law is dependant on legal advice. However, as I have said, I have seen no evidence of any unnecessary force which may have harmed these kids. Therefore, once again I invite you to tell us what it is that you object to. I did not see any rubber hoses or physical torture. Did I miss something?

You didn't see rubber hoses and physical torture because the people doing the restraining aren't the police or jailers and probably mean well. But my question regards consent, whether it can be withdrawn, and whether these kids have the right to resist physical restraint in this context.

Oh, and by the way the parents can ask for the kids to be sent home at any time. You also mentioned that the kids had asked to go home and because they had been refused you suggested that this was in breach of their rights. Can I ask when you think that a kid can do whatever they like?

You're missing the point. Here it is again. When someone restrains a kid in this country, it's called kidnap or abuse unless they have a legal power. Despite the fact that these kids' parents have supposedly signed their rights by proxy, if you do think these kids have the power to withdraw consent even if this all was legal, the point at which they ask to go home and aren't allowed to means that they've been incarcerated against their will - and how can that be legal, let alone suitable as an entertainment product?

When do parents stop being able to have the right to discipline and control their kids?

I am no expert, but I would have thought that the answer was "at the point at which said discipline and control broke the law by becoming physical or psychological abuse".

As a parent and if I was in the same situation as the parents of these kids, I think I would do anything, if I thought it was in their best interests, to resolve the problems that these kids have.

By the way, I and my wife have looked after unruly kids so I do have a good idea of what I am talking about.

I salute your hard work and respect your opinion. I ask you to respect the abstract nature of my question.

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 16 Feb 2006, 11:01

Are you suggesting that parents should not consent to their kids going to Scout/Brownie camps or on school trips to other countries? Teachers and scout/brownie leaders are not police or jailers. By the way are you suggesting that police jailers are allowed to use rubber hoses

If a kid misbehaves or is a danger to themselves should those in charge just let them get on with it. If the kids are told not to go down a dangerous cliff and the person in charge sees that a kid is heading that way, should he/she just ignore it or should they use the minimum force necessary, whether it be shouting at them or minimum restraint.

Novastar · Post by **Novastar** » 16 Feb 2006, 11:53

The budist guy was on some program the other week (Richard and Judy maybe?) and was saying they have to be very careful with the American blame culture. They all know what they can and can't do and unless the child put's them in danger they have strict limits to what they can do.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 14:40

Novastar wrote:The budist guy was on some program the other week (Richard and Judy maybe?) and was saying they have to be very careful with the American blame culture. They all know what they can and can't do and unless the child put's them in danger they have strict limits to what they can do.

He's a nice guy and is exceptionally patient!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Feb 2006, 14:42

Dadaist wrote:"Brat Camp" is Channel 4's realo-docu-tainment series featuring a bunch of, um, badly behaved teens shipped off to a re-adjustment camp in Utah.

Didn't we used to call that National Service.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 14:45

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:"Brat Camp" is Channel 4's realo-docu-tainment series featuring a bunch of, um, badly behaved teens shipped off to a re-adjustment camp in Utah.
Didn't we used to call that National Service.

I grew up hearing hair-raising and toe-curlingly eye-popping stories about National Service. Different times, for sure.

I know the German for "you lost the war" and "do you have a husband" as a result of said stories, but that's another story.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 14:50

Scorpion wrote:Are you suggesting that parents should not consent to their kids going to Scout/Brownie camps or on school trips to other countries? Teachers and scout/brownie leaders are not police or jailers. By the way are you suggesting that police jailers are allowed to use rubber hoses If a kid misbehaves or is a danger to themselves should those in charge just let them get on with it. If the kids are told not to go down a dangerous cliff and the person in charge sees that a kid is heading that way, should he/she just ignore it or should they use the minimum force necessary, whether it be shouting at them or minimum restraint.

I am suggesting you're bypassing my questions regarding consent and legality, a bit like these troubled teens who have a talent for manipulation. But I'm a very patient non-buddhist.

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 16 Feb 2006, 19:21

Dadaist said:

What I'm wondering about is consent. We're told that the parents of these kids (who are obviously at the end of their tether) have given consent / signed away full parental controls - but can they? Not only is the incarceration taking place in a foreign country, but is happening to minors (well, 15 year-olds) which sounds a bit dodgy legally to me.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. If a parent cannot give consent to their kid going to school trips or scout/brownie camps then how can the kids go? In other words what is the difference between these trips and brat camp?

Does the consent the parents give not entitle the leaders of these trips to use their judgement to implement a certain amount of discipline where necessary? Surely the consent must be legal as well.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 19:38

Scorpion wrote:Dadaist said:

What I'm wondering about is consent. We're told that the parents of these kids (who are obviously at the end of their tether) have given consent / signed away full parental controls - but can they? Not only is the incarceration taking place in a foreign country, but is happening to minors (well, 15 year-olds) which sounds a bit dodgy legally to me.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. If a parent cannot give consent to their kid going to school trips or scout/brownie camps then how can the kids go? In other words what is the difference between these trips and brat camp?

Does the consent the parents give not entitle the leaders of these trips to use their judgement to implement a certain amount of discipline where necessary? Surely the consent must be legal as well.

Whoah cowboy. You've watched Brat Camp and you're wondering what the difference is between it and brownie camp?

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 16 Feb 2006, 19:48

Technically, yes. Besides as you keep pointing out the issue is about consent which you are sidestepping now. I also know how to be patient grasshopper

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 20:44

Scorpion wrote:Technically, yes. Besides as you keep pointing out the issue is about consent which you are sidestepping now. I also know how to be patient grasshopper

I wasn't sidestepping anything - I was genuinely wondering on what basis you were comparing the two, and starting to doubt if you had seen the program.

The issue I raised was about consent *and legality* and whether consent can be withdrawn - especially if an illegal act takes place.

Brownies are not cavity searched, incarcerated or manhandled.

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 16 Feb 2006, 21:05

Ah, I see now. I know that they were searched but I did not pick up on cavity searches. As far as legality is concerned, I do not know the answer. As for 'incarcerated' I got the impression that they could 'escape' anytime they wanted, if they tried. I have covered manhandling when I talked about reasonable force.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 21:30

Scorpion wrote:Ah, I see now. I know that they were searched but I did not pick up on cavity searches. As far as legality is concerned, I do not know the answer. As for 'incarcerated' I got the impression that they could 'escape' anytime they wanted, if they tried. I have covered manhandling when I talked about reasonable force.

1. They are in the middle of nowhere. It's a prison without bars. And even if they try and run they are dragged back.

2. They were forcibly strip searched and have been shown on repeated occasions being restrained.

3. One of the girls from this series has been expelled from the "camp" for punching one of the staff.

Are you seriously trying to compare any of this, or the issue I raised over legality and consent, to brownie camp?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Feb 2006, 23:05

Dadaist wrote:... 3. One of the girls from this series has been expelled from the "camp" for punching one of the staff....

So you can escape!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Feb 2006, 23:16

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:... 3. One of the girls from this series has been expelled from the "camp" for punching one of the staff....
So you can escape!

Heh - the staff don't mind making other people endure this or that, but when the tables are turned then yer oot!

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 17 Feb 2006, 01:18

Heh - the staff don't mind making other people endure this or that, but when the tables are turned then yer oot!

If I didn't know better I would have thought that you were saying that it was okay for the staff to punch their charges but they were not allowed to punch back. But of course I'm sure you didn't mean that

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 17 Feb 2006, 01:39

1. They are in the middle of nowhere. It's a prison without bars. And even if they try and run they are dragged back.

So those in charge should just ignore their responsibilities and let them run, even if they are putting themselves at risk? The whole point of the exercise was that these children needed extreme measures to try to bring them under control. What difference does it make where they are? If they are putting themselves in danger they have to be brought back under control, surely.

2. They were forcibly strip searched and have been shown on repeated occasions being restrained.

Consent by the parents was given, deal with it!

3. One of the girls from this series has been expelled from the "camp" for punching one of the staff.

Quite right.

Are you seriously trying to compare any of this, or the issue I raised over legality and consent, to brownie camp?

Are you trying to tell me that there have been no problems with drink and drugs on 'normal' school trips and that everything has gone perfectly every time? This is the real world, welcome.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Feb 2006, 08:18

Scorpion wrote:
1. They are in the middle of nowhere. It's a prison without bars. And even if they try and run they are dragged back.
So those in charge should just ignore their responsibilities

Responsibilities to what? Their private employer? A television production company? They are the ones who have put them in danger in the first place, so can hardly be charged with the responsibility for rescuing them!

these children needed extreme measures to try to bring them under control.

....I don't dispute that the kids were out of control. My question simply regards legality and consent in the context of the treatment they've been given.

What difference does it make where they are? If they are putting themselves in danger they have to be brought back under control, surely.

It's very simple to practise tyranny. All you have to do is claim that the wrong thing you were doing was to help someone. By dehumanising your victim at the same time, you have a fait accompli and have turned reality on its head. Rather than see a gang of adults break the law by assaulting a kid, you see readjustment staff applying minimum restraint to prevent self-harm. I guess it depends on whose eyes you are looking out of at the time.

2. They were forcibly strip searched and have been shown on repeated occasions being restrained.
Consent by the parents was given, deal with it!

The entire, central, and repeated question I have posed is whether consent can be withdrawn, and whether it can be given to something illegal. Is this your only answer?

3. One of the girls from this series has been expelled from the "camp" for punching one of the staff.
Quite right.

Nobody should assault anybody. Does this mean you think also that the staff should be expelled for assaulting one of the kids?

Are you seriously trying to compare any of this, or the issue I raised over legality and consent, to brownie camp?
Are you trying to tell me that there have been no problems with drink and drugs on 'normal' school trips and that everything has gone perfectly every time? This is the real world, welcome.

/quote]

Now you've moved it to being school trips. I am well aware that this is the real world - in which there exist concepts of consent and legality. My question regards whether consent can be withdrawn, and whether it can be given in the first place if it concerns something illegal.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Feb 2006, 08:25

Scorpion wrote:
Heh - the staff don't mind making other people endure this or that, but when the tables are turned then yer oot!
If I didn't know better I would have thought that you were saying that it was okay for the staff to punch their charges but they were not allowed to punch back. But of course I'm sure you didn't mean that

I don't think it's ok for anyone to punch anyone. But you have correctly defined the reality of this entertainment product - it's ok for the adults to hurt the kids, but if the kids fight back - watch out, here comes the indignation!

Novastar · Post by **Novastar** » 21 Feb 2006, 15:28

Scorpion wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that there have been no problems with drink and drugs on 'normal' school trips and that everything has gone perfectly every time? This is the real world, welcome.

Can't say about school trips, but I can honestly say I haven't been involved in a single problem in Scouts with regards to drugs or drugs in about 15 years.

Have heard of one incident in all that time and that was with a lad from Craigmillar/Dumbiedykes area.

People seem to have a label nowadays that all kids are bad and hang around in gangs all night. In my experience that is a very small minority.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 21 Feb 2006, 18:19

Novastar wrote: I can honestly say I haven't been involved in a single problem in Scouts with regards to drugs or drugs

Drugs or drugs? Been involved in any outwith scouts, Nova?!

Novastar · Post by **Novastar** » 21 Feb 2006, 18:25

sorry meant to say "drink or drugs"

Not feeling myself today - awful headache and all that

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Feb 2006, 18:28

Novastar wrote:sorry meant to say "drink or drugs"

Not feeling myself today - awful headache and all that

Take some drugs

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Feb 2006, 20:05

For my CSYS Chemistry, I made aspirin.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Brat Camp

Brat Camp

Re: Brat Camp

Re: Brat Camp