Fun Stuff > CHATTER
ASBO = AAAAAAGH
JediBendu:
--- Quote from: tommydski on 27 Jul 2008, 07:58 ---
As a breach of human rights these relatively minor and isolated incidents are not quite on the same scale as say, The Patriot Act or Guantanamo Bay. Could I write a compelling story on these topics if I had the inclination to do so? What about the fact that one percent of the adult population of America is in jail? I think you could make a pretty good story out of that too.
--- End quote ---
Once again, this is an entirely different issue altogether. When discussing ASBOs it is completely ridiculous to bring up problems in America like The Patriot Act or Guantanamo Bay. I don't think I even have to get into all the reasons why these are completely different discussions, and I think it would be a good idea for you to drop this fruitless line of reasoning. This isn't about "Who's worse? No you!" this is about ASBOs. Go ahead and make a topic about the Patriot Act or the American prison system (which has more to do with our class and social system in my mind than with a particularly broken form or prosecution save a few) or Guantanamo Bay. I'm sure we can all talk about that.
No offense Tommy but I'm kind of blown away by how silly that last response was. Surely you're intelligent enough to realize that you're only needlessly escalating a discussion's tension, when I was simply trying to lower it back down?
Forgive me if I've overestimated you.
Oli:
--- Quote from: jhocking on 27 Jul 2008, 07:16 ---
--- Quote from: Vendetagainst on 26 Jul 2008, 17:41 ---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.
--- End quote ---
No I suppose it isn't the same as littering. Hm, I guess I better cancel the petition I was gonna send around.
--- End quote ---
You'll get an ASBO for that response, Mr. Hocking.
--- Quote from: JediBendu on 27 Jul 2008, 08:20 ---Once again, this is an entirely different issue altogether. When discussing ASBOs it is completely ridiculous to bring up problems in America like The Patriot Act or Guantanamo Bay.
--- End quote ---
I don't think Tommy was saying that because ASBOs are not as bad as Guantanamo Bay Britain is better than America. It is very reasonable to assume that no-one posting here is a moron.
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 27 Jul 2008, 06:06 ---As for spitting, coughing and sneezing are much more infectious. Do we ASBO people with a cold? You're quite right about there being back stories to these ASBOs, and that one probably involves spitting at people. Nevertheless, if that person has a chest cold, coughs up some phlegm and spits it then they would be committing a criminal offence. .
--- End quote ---
This is the thing. Spitting in the street is not a criminal offence because someone got an ASBO for spitting in public. The idea with ASBOs is that they are not universal laws. This means that, if used properly, they can be applied fairly. If the police come to a party in my flat because of the noise levels they are not going to give me an ASBO for it, nor are they going to drag me to court over it. They will come in and ask who the residents of the flat are and then ask us to turn the noise down. If this were to happen every single week then I'd be in danger of getting an ASBO.
So basically if you cough up a lung in the street people might look at you a little disgusted but the chances of you being given an anti-social behaviour order are about the same as the chances of you winning my heart by serenading my window on a moonlit night with James Blunt's "You're Beautiful".
I think everyone has to remember that the British police are, by and large, reasonable people. It is pretty easy to claim that people in authority are all mindless, soulless drones but it is also something that a 15 year old would do. While I don't neccessarily agree with this idea of authority I do think it is unfair to see police officers as anything but another person wearing a uniform. The police are really not out to get you. (Sting might be)
JediBendu:
I understand that, but I myself was simply trying to provide the British in this thread (and perhaps the American who don't realize how they sound) why exactly an American responds the way they do to the concept of an ASBO. The only reason I bring nationality into it is to highlight to everyone how we all, culturally, will see this in different lights.
Guantanamo Bay is a breach of basic human rights and not a breach of an American's constitutional rights (which, is what an American would see these ASBOs as), so the Patriot Act is a more parallel parallel to ASBOs. But the manner that the Patriot Act was passed in this country and presented to the American public is so different it's still not very parallel to an American looking at an ASBO from outside either.
snalin:
--- Quote from: waterloosunset on 27 Jul 2008, 04:45 ---anyone who goes through a magistrates court can request a jury trial, but it costs time and money so most people don't bother, especially for trivial offences.
--- End quote ---
errr, this:
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 27 Jul 2008, 06:06 ---Since the imposition of an ASBO is a civil proceeding despite the breach of the ASBO being a criminal offence there appears to be no right to have a jury determine whether or not the imposition of an ASBO is appropriate.
--- End quote ---
First of all, a jury that sees that jailing someone for repeatedly wearing a golf glove is stupid, must still send someone to jail for this. They will not be asked "is this a crime?", but "has this person participated in a crime a magistrate has invented?"
Clearly the "but it costs time and money" causes this to law to target poor people. If you cannot afford a jury, you don't get one? what kind of system is that?
Another point: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm
Look at case #6 (scroll down a bit) sentence 2. "The Order had been made in the youth's absence without his being able to give his side of the story (one of the main concerns about ASBOs and one that can lead to misuse)."
Someone can walk into a magistrate court, say "this person is bothering me", and get an ABSO thrown at that person. That isn't much different from a quarrel between neighbours in the old Soviet ending in one part going to the authorities and telling all about the capitalistic ways of the neighbour. Well, exept from the prisson camps and torture, but still. And I see a lot of cases preventing young people from hanging out with three people at the same time. How will this not ruin that youths social life? For ever?
These ABSOs are obviously already being abused some places, and with a bit of imagination,. you can see how badly they can be abused. The way to deal with gangs is NOT to put them in jail, and you will not prevent begging by putting beggars in jail. But this is exactly what ABSOs is doing.
supersheep:
Thing is, there are more efficient methods of reducing crime. ASBOs tackle the symptoms, but what you need to do is tackle the causes. One way of doing this comes out of the "Broken Window" theory - that broken windows lead people to think that anything goes. By clamping down on minor crimes, major crimes drop hugely. All this without having to criminalise behaviour that is not criminal, but annoying.
Alternatively, how about tackling the root issues that cause crime: social deprivation, poor access to education, low employment, and so on? Obviously, I'm not going to propose a solution to how the British government can do this - I'm not a sociologist or a social worker who can plan all this out. I do know it's possible, though.
Also, any ASBO that prohibits someone from hanging around with other teens is an abuse of human rights. Period. Even if they were shown to be 100% effective, I'd be against them for this reason. As for collateral damage, I can't agree with that either. Better that 100 guilty men walk free than an innocent man hang, as the saying goes. People are people, even when they're making people suffer. You can't throw away the rights of a few who aren't doing anything illegal to safeguard the pleasure of the many.
As for legitimate motives for these laws, might I suggest the desire to appear tough on crime? In the past few elections, the major parties in the UK (and in Ireland too) have been going on about how they are tough on crime, how their actions will make crime less bad and the other parties' will make it worse. Criminalising this kind of thing is a great way of seeming tough on crime without having to invest much time, money, or thought.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version