Fun Stuff > CHATTER

ASBO = AAAAAAGH

<< < (5/11) > >>

a pack of wolves:

--- Quote from: tommydski on 26 Jul 2008, 14:21 ---It's a lot of work to get one issued and you have to go to great length to show cause. I doubt many people have the time, patience and money to issue them frivolously.

--- End quote ---

Actually, you don't have to go to great length to show cause. As ASBOs are civil and not criminal hearsay evidence is admissable and they are decided upon by a magistrate, no jury option is available despite the fact that breach means a penalty of up to five years jail time. Also, minors have no right to privacy under ASBOs until they are facing proceedings about a breach since they're civil and children are only guaranteed anonymity for criminal proceedings. With ASBOs the 'name and shame' policy comes into effect, but that makes it very hard to give them anonymity if criminal proceedings are brought due to the ASBO having been breached.

The ridiculous ASBOs are strange and unpleasant but for me one of the most worrying aspects is detailed on the statewatch site, in the section on their use against protesters. Remember, ASBOs are there essentially to criminalise non-criminal acts. They define anti-social behaviour as "behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator". Since this is interpreted by a magistrate that means that magistrates now have the ability to criminalise basically any behaviour. The police have for a long time been using various pieces of legislation for means other than what they were originally intended (or at least, what it is claimed they were intended). For example, anti-terrorism legislation expanded their stop and search powers and these are now routinely used to harass and gather intelligence on protesters. The terrifying thing about ASBOs is in how vague they are, and that gives enormous power to control and prevent any kind of behaviour a magistrate decides they want to stop.


--- Quote ---An NAO study from last year found that 93% of people who were issued an ASBO ceased to violate the terms after three interventions.
--- End quote ---

What constitutes an intervention? Breach of an ASBO can lead to five years jail time, and it's hard to go into the centre of town when you're doing time so you won't be breaching that ASBO again. In comparison to that statistic it's also worth noting that 47% of ASBOs are breached at least once. You also have to bear in mind that ASBOs often bar people going to certain areas, so although they don't breach the ASBO their behaviour continues the same just in a different location. There's a man local to me whose ASBO prevents him from going into the city centre, and it was given to him because he was a begging. He still begs, positioning himself next to the bridge which is the beginning of the area he's prevented from entering.

Khar gave a couple of examples above of approriate uses of an ASBO, but I'd like to counter them. A gang of youths outside a shopping centre abusing people could be prosecuted under existing legislation that prevents threatening behaviour. As for someone who plays music until very late at night, there are already noise pollution laws and it's standard for someone to be warned about their breach of them before being prosecuted. The problem the police and local authorities encounter in enforcing existing legislation is that they need proof. With an ASBO hearsay is acceptable. I have friends that have been accused of noise pollution before falsely, and had to stop having band practice in their house due to fears of prosecution. If they had been given an ASBO based on the false reports they could have faced five years for playing a guitar. The local authority where I live wanted to ASBO some kids that hung around outside a shopping centre not because they were abusive but because they lowered the tone on account of being scruffy and a bit goth looking and didn't buy anything. Thankfully that one didn't go through (mainly because people found out about the plan and kicked up a fuss), but they were wanting to bar them from entering the city centre at all with no real cause. In both cases the reason the existing legislation would have been ineffective is that it would have been impossible to get enough proof to back up the lies, but it's easy to ASBO someone on some nasty rumours.

Vendetagainst:

--- Quote from: jhocking on 26 Jul 2008, 06:18 ---
--- Quote from: Oli on 26 Jul 2008, 04:56 ---spitting in public is not a positively ghastly thing to do.

--- End quote ---

I routinely see people spit in public and I always think it should be a fined offense, like littering. People who spit in public are probably the same people who throw trash out their car window. Sending someone to jail for it is over the top though.

--- End quote ---

Ok, so spitting in public is pretty gross, but it is not the same as littering at all because it poses no environmental hazard of any sort. Before you make any argument on the basis of hygiene let me say that as a viscous fluid phlegm is far less likely to transfer germs to outside hosts then a sneeze or a cough

--- Quote from: waterloosunset on 26 Jul 2008, 07:13 ---ASBOs are basically a good thing. The media always try and make the recipients out to be angels, but there is almost always a back story, often involving gangs of chavs, and the ASBO is simply there to prevent them from terrorising the general public. Essentially it is a contract, as long as the ASBOer behaves themselves and stops behaving like a toerag, they won't be carted off to jail

--- End quote ---

As far as I can tell Chavs are the English equivalent of the gangster wannabes that have no official title in the US. That makes them obnoxious as hell, of course, but targeting them as a subculture is still absolutely wrong. It makes me think of the Zoot Suit Riots.

"The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that "there will be no prison for an 88 year old man".
THAT is really fucking fucked up. A person should be able to say whatever the fuck they want as long as it not slanderous or the like.


America's got a myriad of major issues and fucked up social expectations, but we are still upholding the right of self-expression.


--- Quote from: Peet on 26 Jul 2008, 04:44 ---I think it's quite easy to read the Daily Mail and come to the conclusion that the evil labour government wants to turn Britain into a police state, but I have actually seen no evidence of that whatsoever in my life. I could not care less if there are a lot of security cameras in my town. It is a public place and thus people can see what I am up to, whether in person or via a camera. If I got mugged, the cameras might help find the chap who did it, which is a Good Thing as far as I can see.

--- End quote ---

It's the principle though. Citizens simply should not be presumptiously scrutinized by their government, it is supposed to be the other way around.


I also hate to be "that guy" (as retarded as that expression is), but cops simply should not have such ambiguously spelled out authority.
I am going to say this very slowly, because everybody's asshole-teenager-alert is going to be blaring when I say it, but it's still true. There are cops who target teenagers just the same as there are cops who target blacks and other minorities. I have never been arrested by a cop, I have respect for them, and I have never had any problems with them, but it is fact that some kids are going to be punished on unfair grounds for this reason.

*Edit*
I typed up this edit like three hours ago but forgot to save it. I guess it's not so relevant now but I'll post it anyway.

a pack of wolves:
In order for the ASBO to have been put in place there has to have been something that caused "harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator", or at least a claim that this was caused. Even without knowing the back stories to the strange specific conditions of these ASBOs it's almost always possible to come up with a plausible explanation. But the explanations aren't the point. The strangeness and often innocuous nature of the things people are banned from doing highlights the fact that ASBOs have the power to turn anything into a crime, so long as it's requested by an approved body and agreed by a magistrate. I don't care why a magistrate thought it was acceptable to make spitting, wearing a golf glove or saying the word grass a crime, they should not have that kind of power and people should not be jailed for behaviour that can be perfectly innocent.

Vendetagainst:

--- Quote from: tommydski on 26 Jul 2008, 18:19 ---

--- Quote from: Vendetagainst ---America's got a myriad of major issues and fucked up social expectations, but we are still upholding the right of self-expression.
--- End quote ---

Then throw yourself a fucking parade, Captain America. I'm sure that's massive consolation to the people of New Orleans, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Make your point but don't bring all that tedious nationality bullshit into this. I guarantee there's some shit on everyone's shoes if you look hard enough.

--- End quote ---

Sorry about the wording on that, it was more like a "we're still fucked up but at least we've got that going for us", I'm not trying to glorify my screwed up country

Oli:

--- Quote from: Vendetagainst on 26 Jul 2008, 17:41 ---"The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that "there will be no prison for an 88 year old man".
THAT is really fucking fucked up. A person should be able to say whatever the fuck they want as long as it not slanderous or the like.

--- End quote ---

Tommy's point aside let's assume that this is all the details of the case and presented exactly as it went down. That is one case in so many hundred and it is not really enough to discredit the entire idea of ASBOs. Obviously it's not an acceptable use of an ASBO but that is reason for a refinement in the law or the introduction of measures to combat these kind of ludicrous uses of the orders. You don't throw out your harvest because you find a weevil.

As I said earlier I do not think ASBOs are a particularly excellent way to go about reducing anti-social behaviour as it really seems like it is just going to breed resentment. My problem with a lot of the posts in this thread decrying the ASBO is the sheer ridiculousness that is behind their logic.


--- Quote from: öde on 26 Jul 2008, 11:04 ---
--- Quote from: Oli on 26 Jul 2008, 04:56 ---I do not really care what happens to people who spit in the street.
--- End quote ---

So you wouldn't mind if they got the death penalty?

--- End quote ---

I thought it was fairly clearly hyperbole. Maybe not, it is the internet after all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page