Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vendetagainst]

I have never heard of these things before until today but they are truly the most retarded excuses for law enforcement ever.

"Anti-Social Behavior Orders", legal punishments for being anti-social!! HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm

"In May 2004, a 16-year-old boy was banned from behaving in an anti-social manner at school. The five year order covers the whole of England and Wales and came as a response to his disruption of a science class (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

" In February 2003, a 16-year-old boy was banned from showing his tattoos, wearing a single golf glove, or wearing a balaclava in public anywhere in the country. He was also forbidden from congregating in public places in groups of more than three people. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

"In October 2004, a profoundly deaf girl was served an order for spitting in public. Having broken it she is currently in prison on remand. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

[pwhodges]

The UK is close to being a police state in some ways.  We have more cameras per head of population than any other country, and there are places where they have put loudspeakers next to cameras so that they can shout at the yoof to tell them to behave better.  They have also tried (and failed) to prevent teenagers from congregating in "nice" places (shopping malls) by playing loud very high frequency sounds which hurt their ears, but "nice" older people can't hear; and in some places by simply playing classical music!

ASBOs do have some point, though - they are similar to being "bound over to keep the peace".  You can find examples of absurd use of just about any law.

[Tom]

If I were English, I'd be wanting to/doing the former.

[Peet]

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.

The ASBO is a decent idea but, I think, overused and perhaps a bit overhyped. If we look at Vendetagainst's examples, though, they are fairly sensible. A boy is disrupting the education of others, so he gets told not to. Another is, presumably, doing antisocial things as part of a gang of more than three and is diguising his face with a balaclava. We stop him doing these things, which benefits the community. As for the last girl, she has gone to jail for breaching the terms of her ASBO, which is how these things work. She must have been made aware that that would be the action taken in such a circumstance.

The thing of playing high pitch noise to drive away young folks is a bit silly, but I don't think it's a widespread practice. The classical music idea I quite like.

[Oli]

"In October 2004, a profoundly deaf girl was served an order for spitting in public. Having broken it she is currently in prison on remand. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

The fact she is deaf does not mean that spitting in public is not a positively ghastly thing to do.

While I don't really see the ASBO as a decent way to stop anti social behaviour, which I think would require a huge social overhaul and changes to the way criminal behaviour is dealt with, I do not really care what happens to people who spit in the street.

There was talk of an initiative in the UK a wee while ago where people commiting minor crimes would be given X amount of money (I think it was something like 20 grand or so, what I do remember is that it was at least a thousand pounds less than it cost to incarcerate them) to spend on helping them achieve something productive. I think this is the best plan.

[KharBevNor]

The UK is close to being a police state in some ways.

And yet there's never a copper around when you need one, eh?

I smell an agenda somewhere behind this ASBOwatch/statewatch thing. As Pete has pointed out, there is obviously a bigger story behind these things: The second story is obviously gang related, and in the third example, there is a nice little bit of rhetorical bullshit, in that the fact the girl is deaf has no relevance whatsoever on the fact that she breached her ASBO. Like many of the newer laws they're a good idea that has been over-used and occasionally abused. What ASBOs are for is for tackling serious anti-social behaviour where negotiation is not an option and prison would be heavy handed. A gang of youths who habitually stand around a shopping centre verbally abusing passers by can simply be banned from coming in, rather than wasting huge amounts of taxpayers money on full CJD proceedings. Someone who habitually plays loud dance music till 4AM in a block of flats can have an ASBO put in place against that, without hauling him to court for breaching noise pollution laws (which would be rather police state). In practice, coinciding as they have with certain other trends in policing ASBOs have become an overused tool in the police officers arsenal. I can't really blame them: British police officers generally command little respect from anyone under 30 and they are severely handicapped by beauracracy and pointless regulations, especially in their dealings with the young. Unfortunately we have become locked into a vicious cycle: the more endemic crime and anti-social behaviour become among the young (and having just left my teenage years in one of Britains more deprived areas, I can tell you that they are fucking endemic), so the police resort to increasingly more heavy handed tactics to stem the tide, so the respect of young people for the law and for society in general diminishes, repeat ad nauseum, or until machete wielding mobs of South London rudeboys ransack Buckingham palace and make Dizzee Rascal king, whichever is sooner.

As a committed anarchist I am of course opposed to all codified laws in principal. It'll be fun to watch how the whole thing plays out. Ideally I hope to do this from the relative comfort of Canada or Iceland. It is kind of a pity because this is a nice country and the people are, fundamentally, decent. Ah well.

[jhocking]

spitting in public is not a positively ghastly thing to do.

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.

[Oli]

To be fair she was imprisoned for breaching her ASBO, not the initial offence. Not knowing the details behind the imprisonment means it's hard to comment, but it is perhaps a little over the top.

[Jimmy the Squid]

Spitting is pretty gross but I think throwing someone in prison is a bit of overkill for that particular offence.

[waterloosunset]

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

[ampersandwitch]

If I were English, I'd be wanting to/doing the former Jens.

commas are your friends

[Johnny C]

RE: SPITTING: Spitting in public is a bit gross but to even suggest it should be an offense with so much as a fine attached is patently absurd. If the spit doesn't land on you what difference does it make? Is it a health and hygiene thing? You spread more germs personally by opening and closing doors. Just worry about yourself, don't worry about someone spitting on the sidewalk that birds shit on, or in the grass that small animals regularly shit in, or in garbage cans where there is festering trash and possibly hobo shit. If someone spits directly on you that's a different story, but even then that's a personal story, not something where the cops should be involved.

[Lines]

Sometimes people have to spit. I've spit in public, though discreetly, but seriously, I don't get the big deal. Yes it's gross, but everybody does it, be it in public or not. Now, if it hits you, then that's different.

19.  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".

24.  In October 2004, a 15-year-old was served an order for playing football in the street.

26.  In December, Brian Hagan from Norfolk became the first farmer to be the subject of an ASBO when he was ordered to keep his swine and geese under control after people living near to his farm complained of damage. The order was made on Monday of the week beginning 13 December, but on Tuesday he was charged with allegedly breaching the order after reports that his pigs had escaped again. A breach of the order could lead to up to five years in jail.

I can't believe this is real. It's absurd.

[imapiratearg]

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.

Or, you know, people who don't like swallowing phlegm, because it's nasty.  Also, court order for being sarcastic?  Excuse a dude for being a little uppity when confronted with stupid people.

[öde]

I do not really care what happens to people who spit in the street.

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

[Dissy]

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.

I will sometimes spit in public, but I would never litter.  There are reasons sometimes for spitting in public, for example, I have pretty bad asthma which requires me to cough and clear out the flem from my lungs, and I do not want that shit going back into my body, so I will spit it out.  I think spitting on other people should be a fined offense.

[JediBendu]

The way some people spit here in the American South you would think it's encouraged. But hey, sometimes you just need to spit, man. But man, if a 87 year old man is banned from being sarcastic, then I'd be screwed over there in wacky old Britain.

[snalin]

So, this is just an... excuse to skip the court and jail somebody? This is too easy to abuse. "This guy is writing political stuff in a paper that offends a lot of people. Therefore, it's Anti-Social Behavior, and must be stopped".

If you put a girl in jail for spitting, you either have an utopia that dosen't know what to do with it's jails, or a stupid government.

[Johnny C]

An NAO study from last year found that 93% of people who were issued an ASBO ceased to violate the terms after three interventions. If that was an accurate report, I think they can be considered an active deterrent.

This is the statistic I was waiting to see, and I'm glad you provided it, Tommy. Obviously serving a teenager an ASBO does nothing to directly counter the culture of violence and lawlessness that is apparently surging amongst the youth of the UK, but hopefully it causes them to think about their actions and consider them more fully in the future.

[pwhodges]

I totally dug the "use your ears!" posters on the London Tube as well when I was there this summer. Don't be afraid to rat out your neighbour! He might be a terrorist!

<sigh> I haven't been to London for quite a while, and haven't seen them.  But it really is hard to find the line between encouraging reporting something that might save loads of innocent lives, and promoting the kind of mistrust between neighbours that was most characteristically shown by life in the DDR.  The trouble is that increasing regulation encourages a reduction of thought, and when people reach the point of spending their lives reacting without thinking at all, then the society I would like to live in has gone out of the window.

And I would like to make it clear I DO NOT READ THE DAILY MAIL!  I read The Guardian mainly, and have been becoming more definitely left-wing all through my life.

[a pack of wolves]

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.

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.

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

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]

spitting in public is not a positively ghastly thing to do.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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]

"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.

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.

I do not really care what happens to people who spit in the street.

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

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

[Vendetagainst]

no, I get it, that sorta shit's happened to me a couple of times too. Plus we're talking about politics, which pisses everybody off.

[a pack of wolves]

Without knowing the specifics of each case, we're making assumptions that their specific misdemeanours were mild. I honestly don't believe there are magistrates out there with hard-ons for ASBOs. I'm betting if we had a single conversation with any of the people involved in these ASBOs, we'd learn an awful lot about why they were issued. It's only an abuse of power if, y'know, there's been an abuse of power. I'm not comfortable with casting such aspersions from one inevitably biased source.

I'm not suggesting the behaviour that led to any of these ASBOs was mild (although in many cases it is, non-aggressive begging for example). What I'm arguing is that the very fact that magistrates have the power to essentially invent new criminal offences as they see fit and apply them to members of the public without having to keep to the standards for evidence and privacy that exist for criminal offences is an abuse of power, no matter the justification. As for magistrates being keen to use ASBOs, they're encouraged to be by government policy and strong recommendation (as well as police forces and local councils being encouraged to apply for them). It's been very heavily promoted as a tactic, and very few ASBOs are indeed turned down.

In the post I managed to delete I wrote a lot about whether or not these seemingly soft examples of ASBOs were an acceptable form of collateral damage if it allows the people who actually work day in, day out to keep the peace in a more effective and efficient manner. For all these apparently petty cases there will have been hundreds, probably thousands of ASBOs which prevented some thoroughly despicable people from sustained harassment of people who just want to live their lives and mind their own business. Personally my sympathy lies with the victims of these offenders rather than with people who repeatedly break the law in the face of several warnings. Frankly they can find a sponge and cry on it for all I care.

I should admit, I've never been a fan of accepting collateral damage, I have no moral problem with someone breaking the law when the law is unjust nor do I think increased punishment will ever reduce crime without an unacceptable level of population control. Regrettably we have already reached and long since passed an unacceptable level of population control without even the benefit of less violence, it clearly seems an ineffective tactic regardless of the moral implications. I'm not willing to allow the state the power to make things like free association of individuals in public or the freedom to walk through public spaces a crime just because of the hope it will make this country a nicer place to live. It won't, and that is too much of a loss of liberty even if it did.

[JediBendu]

I may just be reiterating what someone else has said differently, but I think everybody needs to realize how different the cultures of America and Britain truly are. We have very different expectations both socially in general and when it comes to public decency. Forgive us Americans when we see an example of one of these orders that would never fly in most places in America (or really just the whole system might not fly too well in America), since it's an infringement on our constitutional rights. That's pretty much basic fact in a lot of these more ludicrous cases (or actually, if all of them are served for non-criminal or otherwise mild acts, then I would say the entire system is unconstitutional by our standards). Most Americans are taught to value their constitutional rights highly, which doesn't make us better than you at all, we just truly have a hard time imagining other systems sometimes, especially when faced with a culture like the British who are by and large considerably more polite than us rude and crude Americans.

That being said, there are methods that the American legal system uses to accomplish some of the same things as in these orders, but they require a truly criminal act to trigger them. If the young man who was prohibited from displaying his gang's name was in America, he probably would never be prohibited from displaying the name, instead, he would simply be profiled and watched by the cops. This is another issue altogether.

Some of the cases seem similar to just basic probation, but probation usually requires a truly criminal act and conviction.

Disrupting class is a matter that's entirely up to the school in question, and not any higher government. I don't believe disrupting class is a criminal act.

Spitting you can maybe make a case for, as it could potentially violate some form of public cleanliness thing, kind of like public urination or ejaculation is sort of frowned upon. But, it's made out in this instance to be more of a "it's unbecoming and not polite." Which it may or may not be.

[Dimmukane]

This is an example of asinine policing in the States.  I'm not going to argue over the rights of citizens on either side of the Atlantic, because every now and then their rights are infringed upon without reasonable cause anyway.  This is not the fault of the laws passed, but rather the people who misinterpret them and/or try to use them to their advantage.  I like to think that these kinds of arrests are a result of those people who either work for the law and don't understand it, or see the law as a loophole to manipulate.

I'm fairly sure that no one really foresaw this stuff happening when they wrote these laws, I can only hope it works itself out.

[JediBendu]

I definitely agree that there's ridiculous rulings here in America as well, but they usually are rooted in some form of bastardization of an actual punishable law (like, in the case of that child, assault) while these ASBOs are by definition simply punishment for "anti-social behavior". Essentially what I'm saying is that the concept of ASBOs is just a concept that is slightly inconceivable to most Americans.

[Vendetagainst]

That's a pretty good description of the American legal system: a bastardization of a pretty nice thing, which is in part due to our outrageous affection for suing people.

[snalin]

For all these apparently petty cases there will have been hundreds, probably thousands of ASBOs which prevented some thoroughly despicable people from sustained harassment of people who just want to live their lives and mind their own business.

So what? This isn't really about how this law is used, but how it can be used. If you can abuse ASBOs, then they are a bad idea, period. I believe getting a fair trial is a part of, I dunno, human rights? There is always someone that wants to abuse power, that believes that he/she has the right, as police/politican/whatever to put the ones that deserve it in jail. If you give them a tool to do that, you are effectively taking away the rights of your citizens.

[waterloosunset]

 

So what? This isn't really about how this law is used, but how it can be used. If you can abuse ASBOs, then they are a bad idea, period. I believe getting a fair trial is a part of, I dunno, human rights? There is always someone that wants to abuse power, that believes that he/she has the right, as police/politican/whatever to put the ones that deserve it in jail. If you give them a tool to do that, you are effectively taking away the rights of your citizens.

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. ASBOs are very rarely abused, the three cases shown will all have a back story. the farmer's animals were causing damage and he failed to control them. the old man was likely verbally harrassing his neighbours, and i remember reading how the boy playing football often broke windows and actively kicked the ball at passers by.

and spitting can spread some diseases such as TB, and during the SARs scare was banned in parts  of East Asia as a form of transmission

[a pack of wolves]

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. You do have a right to have a jury present when it is determined if you breached the ASBO but by then the new crimes have already been created. You can appeal against an ASBO though, as ten protesters given an ASBO in 2006 for disrupting the DSEi arms fair successfully did. However, since ASBOs are targeted at the poorest sections of society and this is a costly endeavour that is not a viable option for most people who have one served against them.

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. And speaking of back stories to ASBOs, according to research by BIBIC (British Institute for Brain Injured Children) they published as part of their Ain't Misbehavin' campaign (http://www.bibic.org.uk/newsite/general/campaigns.htm) over 30% of children who have ASBOs have some form of diagnosed mental disorder or an accepted learning difficulty (and of course that doesn't cover people who have undiagnosed mental disorders). These include autism and children with mental ages lower than ten (ten being the youngest age an ASBO can be served), which calls into question whether everyone served with an ASBO can understand what has happened and the new things that are now criminal offences for them.

[jhocking]

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.

No I suppose it isn't the same as littering. Hm, I guess I better cancel the petition I was gonna send around.

[JediBendu]

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.

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]

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.

No I suppose it isn't the same as littering. Hm, I guess I better cancel the petition I was gonna send around.

You'll get an ASBO for that response, Mr. Hocking.

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 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.

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. .

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]

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.

errr, this:

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.

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.

[Vendetagainst]

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.

Once again I am coming a little too late in the thread to keep up, but I'd like to say that nobody in America (save of course the far right wing, but these, of course, are not people) is about to go running and cheering for those things. The USAPATRIOT act (for it is indeed an acronym, and is less of an oxymoron when it is retained as one) is probably one of the most unpopular decisions in recent American history and everybody is appauled by Guantanamo (except for Cheney, who has been known to splooge on the prisoners in his ecstasy). Quite frankly comparing these things two ASBOs is like a Reductio Ad Hitlerum, it may have some relevance but nobody's about to say "but wait, I love raping tied up 'terrorist' supsects!"

I definitely feel like some people here aren't giving due thought to the difficulty of policing a country of sixty million people in eighty one thousand square miles.

It's easy to criticise but what is much harder is finding solutions. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the professionals responsible for enforcing and creating legislation have given these concerns a certain amount of thought. I think the people who have first-hand experience of actually doing the job have some legitimate motives for taking this course of action. To assume that you know better than these people based on a handful of hits from a search engine is mind blowing.

Of course it's difficult, but it's also something that all large countries have to do. The UK accounts for less than 1% of the world population, and while of course it's easier to run a small country you can still look at a country like Germany which, despite being a third larger, still is supposed to be very well-run.

@supersheep
your suggestions are interesting but I'd just like to throw out that minor crime is some of the hardest to prevent because it leaves the least evidence and is inducive to the least response.
I've started to wonder if the best answer isn't to wage one of our sillly "wars" on crime, but to make the victims of crime more readily and effectively aided. For example, in Chicago (probably elsewhere too) there's a tax-funded service called graffiti busters (I think that's the name of it, anyway) that removes graffiti from anywhere in the city for free.

[Vendetagainst]

I did, sorry, I just have this habit where I just post one idea and then keep editing it as I read through things and research them more. I know it's kinda retarded, just a habit.

[ViolentDove]

Various state governments of Australia are considering the introduction of these ASBOs.

SMH article

dateline transcript

I honestly don't think I know enough about these ASBOs to make an informed comment, but my gut feeling is that they're a bad thing. Previous personal experience with "anti-terror" and "anti-knife" related laws suggest that once the laws are passed, the laws will basically be used by police to curtail free speech by protesters and the media (to a lesser extent), and rarely for the original purpose outlined in the laws.

Anything with such vague wording that deals with criminal matters away from a jury seems  to me like an erosion of various legal safeguards that're in place for a reason.

[calenlass]

"In October 2004, a profoundly deaf girl was served an order for spitting in public. Having broken it she is currently in prison on remand. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

The fact she is deaf does not mean that spitting in public is not a positively ghastly thing to do.

Oops. Sorry, man. In my defense, I was ill.

[a pack of wolves]

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)

Actually, yes they are out to get me. Some go into it with decent motivations and they're not just abstract figures in uniform as you say, but as an organisation the British police are terrifying. I've been on the wrong side of them abusing legislation before, and so have a lot of people I know. It's not a pleasant experience to say the least, and the thought of them getting even more power is horrifying. They will abuse it since they're willing to abuse pretty much everything else in their arsenal and I've seen them do it.

It's easy to criticise but what is much harder is finding solutions. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the professionals responsible for enforcing and creating legislation have given these concerns a certain amount of thought. I think the people who have first-hand experience of actually doing the job have some legitimate motives for taking this course of action. To assume that you know better than these people based on a handful of hits from a search engine is mind blowing.

Sorry Tommy, but you're making massive assumptions here about people and you're usually better than that. You have no idea about the experience most of us have regarding this kind of legislation (or at least you have no idea about mine and I'm guessing that of others as well), so to assume we're all in bubbles getting all of our opinions from google is pretty ridiculous. I don't assume I know better than the police because I've looked something up on the internet, I think I know better than them because they're wrong. supersheep is quite right when they say that the way to tackle anti-social behaviour is to address the causes, something ASBOs and the police don't do. All they're capable of is hurting people. However the broken window policy isn't a great one, what's needed is to actually address the massive inequality in society. When kids are stood around shopping centres being abusive I don't want to know why the police aren't harassing them, I want to know why kids feel that fucked off with the world. When I look around, I can see little reason why they shouldn't be angry all the time. I know I am.

Since you're keen on the specialist perspective, if you look at it from the side of people who're trying to stop people ending up in a situation where they could get an ASBO every single homeless support worker I've talked to about ASBOs thinks they're abusive and utterly unhelpful. To spin round what you said, what makes you assume you know better than them?

[Vendetagainst]

That raises an interesting question, how do ASBOs treat homeless people? They seem like people who could definitely be targeted by this system. Of course they have to urinate in public, they LIVE in public. And they often have to resort to other "frowned upon" means to get by as well.

[a pack of wolves]

Mainly, they seem to be used as a means of displacement. They throw them out of city centres or in some instances can prevent them from asking for money at all in an attempt to prevent them begging as well as other more particular restrictions. That's rarer though, most people I've spoken to with an ASBO related to homelessness seem to have a geographical restriction and little else. It might mean shoppers don't have to endure the terrible hardship of saying 'sorry mate' when someone asks them for change, but it also makes it harder to locate people when doing street outreach, find a bed for the night (you're screwed if the shelter is in the area you're prevented from entering and in many cities large shelters are in or near the city centre, the most likely area for a homeless person to be banned from) and for organisations to get an accurate headcount of rough sleepers since they're more dispersed. And because of this, it allows for the distortion of statistics since some local authorities will only count rough sleepers in the city centre and not go looking for them in outlying areas.

[RedLion]

I'd just like to say that the Labor party is fucked anyway, especially after the results of the elections in Scotland. Brown probably can't hold on that much longer, and when the next general elections roll around, the Conservatives will probably have a landslide on their hands.

[pwhodges]

When kids are stood around shopping centres being abusive I don't want to know why the police aren't harassing them, I want to know why kids feel that fucked off with the world. When I look around, I can see little reason why they shouldn't be angry all the time.

QFT

The key to parenting and early schooling is setting limits.  Children naturally push against those limits, which need to be imposed so that they learn where they are.  This is not cruelty, but is a necessary part of growing up - it wires the brain ready for life in society.  Many parents have abandoned this aspect of parenting, through ignorance, laziness, or fear, and all too often because of inappropriate legal strictures against punishment (cruelty's another matter) exactly when it is most needed.  Schools have stopped teaching for life, because they are judged on their preparation for tests.

ASBOs can be seen as an attempt to remedy this lack of teaching of the self-control that socialises us; but fundamentally they won't work, simply because it's too late - the time for the brain to learn those lessons has passed.  However, they may mitigate the effects of the lack of socialisation on other people - which is, I admit, no more than a "least worst" justification for them.

Society, not for the first time, has created a partially lost generation.  We have to learn from the mistakes for the sake of the next (there's no sign of that process starting, though), but meanwhile we also have to find a way to live with what we've created.

Paul

[RedLion]

However the broken window policy isn't a great one, what's needed is to actually address the massive inequality in society. When kids are stood around shopping centres being abusive I don't want to know why the police aren't harassing them, I want to know why kids feel that fucked off with the world. When I look around, I can see little reason why they shouldn't be angry all the time. I know I am.

I partially agree with the sentiment, but when you put that into context, it's a ridiculous claim. Kids in Britain--in America, too, in most of the rest of Europe, the "west" in general--have it remarkably well off. The world can be a shitty place, and life can be shitty, and I wouldn't ever attempt to diminish an individual's trials and sufferings, but sometimes I'd like to take some of these kids who are so angry at the world that they feel it necessary to break things and assault people and put them in sub-saharan Africa, or in Laos. Existential angst is a luxury that most of the world's population can't afford. Rather than making any attempt to better themselves and make at least some bit of positive change in the world, so many people just lash out. I believe in rehabilitation of people rather than focusing solely on punishment, but you can't just look at things solely from the kids' perspective. If these kids really angry, then this anger is real and shouldn't just be ignored. But don't treat it like it's some kind of justification for making their world, their country and their community an even worse place. Then they're just part of the problem. Then there are those who don't care about any of that, and just do things like smashing windows, stealing things because they think it's fun and/or they're bored. I'm certainly not going to cry over those people getting a bit of retribution.

On the other hand, I severely distrust the police. Granted, I've never had to rely on them for much of anything before, and I figure if I was being chased by a murderer or a gang, or my house was being broken into, I'd call the police immediately and be grateful for their presence. But in civil disputes and minor offenses, the police usually act with no regard for the actual situation that they're in. In a way, this is good, as it theoretically should promote unbiased action, but in some cases it's just ludicrous and can sometimes lead to the person who's really at fault getting off with less of a penalty than a person who's been victimized and began to fight back. Arbitrary authority in general frightens me as not much else does. The police are nominally bound by regulation and the law themselves, yet they're given wide latitude to deal with just about any situation they find themselves in as they see fit. Only rarely will an officer be held accountable for breaking the aforementioned regulations or laws, and usually such behavior won't even go public because of a desire among other members of the police force to suppress it out of some sense of solidarity, and the stigma that ratting out a fellow officer brings with it. The machinery of the "law" and the police force many times quashes those that it is supposed to protect.