Britain descends further into totalitarianism, millions remain unshocked

[Nodrog]

Police powers extended in yob crackdown

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Tuesday January 20, 2004

The police were today given new powers to break up groups of two or more teenagers, as part of the government's crackdown on anti-social behaviour.

But the children will not need to have committed any offence to be moved on by officers, if the area has been designated an anti-social "hotspot" by the local council.

The home secretary, David Blunkett, is today due to launch the powers at a press conference in West London, as the first powers under last year's Anti-Social Behaviour Act.

laughing on-line

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...127136,00.html

[Dead_Meat]

I know three's a crowd, but since when is two a group?

[Androme]

ur avatar quite clearly states

[Scoot951]

So hanging out with 2 or more friends is anti-social?

Yey, I guess I do have a social life then.

its about time, stupid scally tits turning our streets into battlegrounds!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ivana

its about time, stupid scally tits turning our streets into battlegrounds!

1/1 for terrible posts on this account.

100%

\o/

[Evergreen]

Unless they are going somewhere or are partaking in something approved then yah they should fking well be moved on.

Loitering is an offence :P

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

laughing on-line

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...127136,00.html

by definition, wouldn't forming groups be "social behaviour" and not being in groups be "anti-social behaviour"?

Kudos to the US for having 'freedom to gather' or whatnot written in our constitution.

[LHC]

Not being in groups would be "not social behaviour" which isn't as bad as "anti-social behaviour".

Of course being in groups alone isn't anti-social at all. This is basically assuming you are going to commit a crime, because only groups commit crimes!

[acropolis]

hey i just realized that if no one was ever allowed within one mile of another human being, no crimes would ever be committed!

next time i'll cure hunger.

Could be worse, we could be arresting more blacks or something.

[Dante Hicks]

This type of legislation will be used almost exclusively on poor/working class kids, so I wouldn't worry folks .

I know exactly why the anti-social behaviour legislation has come about though. As I've mentioned, I've dealt with tenant enquiries on a range of issues. One of the most frequent issues for people living on or near largish estate was "nuisance". This generally involved groups of people (mainly kids) being stupid - throwing rocks, shouting, riding motorbikes around, petty vandalism, graffiti, playing loud music, etc. Normally once the police turn up they've gone, and we as a social landlord have no legal powers to do anything (aside from revoking their tenancies if they are one of our tenants which is costly and difficult).

Anti-social behaviour orders are something we do ocassionally (with the co-operation of the police and other agencies) but the legal fees are generally pretty high. While the government isn't going to bother funding activities for local kids I'll be terribly unsurprised when people continue to support the "Beating up Teenage Oiks Act 2005" or it's equivalent.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This type of legislation will be used almost exclusively on poor/working class kids, so I wouldn't worry folks .

Anti-social behaviour orders are something we do ocassionally (with the co-operation of the police and other agencies) but the legal fees are generally pretty high. While the government isn't going to bother funding activities for local kids I'll be terribly unsurprised when people continue to support the "Beating up Teenage Oiks Act 2005" or it's equivalent.

are you implying that the fact that people support it makes it a good thing?

(i hate poor kids as much as the next guy. but i hate the majority opinion just slightly more)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

are you implying that the fact that people support it makes it a good thing?

No.

The law is evil, and will be used to oppress freedoms general. That makes it bad from a libertarian perspective.

The law will also be used primarily against the working class, which makes it bad from a Marxist perspective.

Since I'm a Libertarian Marxist I guess you can see this wouldn't be good from my perspective.

I was merely saying laws like this will keep coming until there's some kind of solution. Kind of agreeing with Nods "million unshocked" remark.

How is racial profiling not a bigger problem than this?

Lots of middle class kids hang around on corners throwing bricks.

EDUCATION EDUACTION EDATUCION

[Evergreen]

I still say when have you had a reason to be loitering around on a street ffs?

In all my life I was either going somewhere or partaking in something if I was out the house.

I've never nor has anyone I know of a reputable nature found any reason to hang around anywhere but on a friends or our own property or to be out on a playing field/inside a social venue operated by adults.

I say take em off the ****ing streets if they have no freaking reason to be out there other than to create a disturbance even if it's just sociall chatting outside someone else's property or in someone else's street.

Also the police should contact the parents when they do pick so and so up and ask the parents if they know what their child was upto, if they don't ****ing charge em with negligence.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ivana

How is racial profiling not a bigger problem than this?

What?

[Deciduous]

But the children will not need to have committed any offence to be moved on by officers, if the area has been designated an anti-social "hotspot" by the local council.

And if they reply with anything other than "Yes Sir!" they should be allowed to tazer the little shits

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

And if they reply with anything other than "Yes Sir!" they should be allowed to tazer the little shits

I say cut off a hand, then the other and the third strike should be cut out their tongue.

That way they can't throw shit and they can't say shit.

Great three strike policy.

[Proteus]

From the Human Rights Act 1998:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

I suppose it'd be up to the courts to decide whether this law is "necessary ... for the prevention of disorder or crime" but it doesn't seem like it is to me.

Also from the HRA 1998:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

It also seems to go against this article. You're allowed peaceful assembly unless you're a teenager? Sounds like discrimination to me.

Racial profiling in policing is harder on the poor (ie minorities) and is around for the same reasons, these people are more likly to commit a crime.

[Deciduous]

I think the key point there is 'peaceful assembly'

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

I think the key point there is 'peaceful assembly'

In what possible way could two teenagers standing still not committing any crimes not be "peaceful assembly"?

[Evergreen]

As I said Proteus, unless they have a freaking good reason to be together like that then kick em out.

By most peaceful assemblies I'd believe it would refer to peaceful protests, pureposeful group meetings like a hobby group most of which has been approved by council or school or parents etc regarding what is the most authorative figure relevant to you.

I think you are taking it well out of context, I severly doubt any teenager who isn't in the middle of a chore/heading somewhere or engaged in something fruitful will be abused under this law. Those who have nothing to do should be having nothing to do on their own ****ing property.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ivana

Racial profiling in policing is harder on the poor (ie minorities)

Minorities are not the only poor people. The majority of poor people in this country (for now) are still white.

But yes, I agree racial profiling is a bad thing, but why is this relevent in this thread? Is it a competition to find the worst law?

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Proteus

In what possible way could two teenagers standing still not committing any crimes not be "peaceful assembly"?

When they aren't engaged in anything and deliver no indications of engaging in anything purposeful other than loitering outside other people's property's I would no longer classify them as a peaceful assembly as it's unsettling someone somewhere unless they have a V good reason to be there.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Proteus

In what possible way could two teenagers standing still not committing any crimes not be "peaceful assembly"?

Well I suppose we're working on the assumption that these two lads aren't carrying coshes and have pockets full of pills.

[Dante Hicks]

I've not read the act yet, but I doubt it explicitly mentions "teenagers". I'd imagine the powers extend to anyone (this doesn't make it any better obviously, but to counter the discrimination point).

My point was we have already have laws that are different for different classes (drug policy, racial profiling, uni entrance.)

Why would we be shocked by this?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

As I said Proteus, unless they have a freaking good reason to be together like that then kick em out.

You think that preventing people from being in a public place simply because they have no "good reason" to be there is acceptable in a free and democratic society?

Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to travel anywhere unless they get a travel permit from the government by proving they have a "freaking good reason" to travel?

In fact, while we're at it, let's just confine everyone to their houses after 6 o'clock and have the army patrol the streets arresting anyone breaking curfew and sending them to labour camps.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

By most peaceful assemblies I'd believe it would refer to peaceful protests, pureposeful group meetings like a hobby group most of which has been approved by council or school or parents etc regarding what is the most authorative figure relevant to you.

Ah, you're agreeing with me, I see. No one should be allowed to go anywhere unless they are authorised by an "authoritative figure".

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I think you are taking it well out of context, I severly doubt any teenager who isn't in the middle of a chore/heading somewhere or engaged in something fruitful will be abused under this law. Those who have nothing to do should be having nothing to do on their own ****ing property.

I wasn't aware that "oh, come on, this law won't be abused" was a reason to pass a ridiculous law that restricts civil rights. Oh well, it obviously is now.

I also note that you're agreeing with my curfew idea.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ivana

Why would we be shocked by this?

We wouldn't, and indeed aren't? Who is shocked?

[Dante Hicks]

I'm frightened that Proteus (a Conservative Party supporter, from what he's said) is the main proponent of civil liberties in this thread...

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Proteus

You think that preventing people from being in a public place simply because they have no "good reason" to be there is acceptable in a free and democratic society?

I'm not allowed to park my car outside your house if you have a good reason for it not to be there.

Likewise would you exactly feel comfortable if I, maybe more people stood outside your house on the pavement for an extended period of time? (If you live in a flat this is prolly highly irrelevant)

Would you be comfortable if I decided to engage in my personal relationships in front of your house which you have no possible way of telling will result in something destructive happening?

We already have rules regulating where we can partake in sport. Why not for other social activites?

I think if people are going to socialise somewhere they should do so on someone's property which they have permission to. Otherwise walk on by and go somewhere. There are reasons why you have to get licence's to do events here and there etc etc.

It's plain and simple and Teenagers are the worst culprits simply because they enjoy the most free time to partake in these activities in an independant nature.

This never was an issue before because in generations past either the parents had taken a more involved role with their children or the enviroment at the time demanded them to be doing something fruitful with their time with regards to making them work.

New rules for New situations.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by idimmu

this is prejudiced against siamese twins

Or people who require two seats on a plane.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I'm not allowed to park my car outside your house if you have a good reason for it not to be there.

This isn't really true as a general rule. It might apply in some places (it depends on council rules on parking, or if it's a private road, etc, etc).

As for the sports analogy, that's different. If I am playing Cricket and I don't like the LBW rule, I can stop playing. I can clearly not (certainly as a child) stop walking the streets, or even leave the country.

There are laws against loitering, etc - and there are laws for where ideas of contract breakdown. The issue is these measures are somewhat draconian measures, and it remains to be seen what councils will need to do delcare somewhere a "hot spot". Will this be reviewed? Can it be challenged by anyone?

It seems likely that a council could simply make a entire estate a "hot spot", effectively forcing kids to either go miles from their homes, or stay at home in the evening.

[Evergreen]

That's good, Dante.

If they want out they can put on proper jogging equip and go jogging, or have a shopping list on them and go shopping and have absolutely no problems about the police asking their parents where they are suppose to be.

If this was 20-30 years aog they'd all be ****ing working the minute they got out of school and too tired to engage in the pathetic urban terrorism they engage in these days.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I'm not allowed to park my car outside your house if you have a good reason for it not to be there.

1) There's a difference between me having a good reason for it not being there and you having no good reason for it being there.

2) Outside my house is a private road, which you couldn't park on because it's private property. (Incidentally, I wouldn't mind if you did anyway. What have I got to lose from someone parking in front of my house?)

3) If I didn't live on a private road, you could park in front of my house whenever you wanted to (unless you were blocking my driveway, of course). I don't see how you wouldn't be able to, or how I could seriously expect to be able to stop you parking on a public highway.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Likewise would you exactly feel comfortable if I, maybe more people stood outside your house on the pavement for an extended period of time? (If you live in a flat this is prolly highly irrelevant)

Yes, I'd be perfectly comfortable.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Would you be comfortable if I decided to engage in my personal relationships in front of your house which you have no possible way of telling will result in something destructive happening?

Again, yes, that would be fine by me.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

We already have rules regulating where we can partake in sport. Why not for other social activites?

If you play football in the street, the ball could fly off and hurt someone. I don't see how standing around poses any threat to anyone.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I think if people are going to socialise somewhere they should do so on someone's property which they have permission to. Otherwise walk on by and go somewhere. There are reasons why you have to get licence's to do events here and there etc etc.

I still don't see you giving any reasons for limiting the basic right to peaceful assembly. People don't need reasons to do things that aren't against the law or harming anyone, including talking to their friends in public places. And frankly the idea that you should need a licence to stand in the street is absurd.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

It's plain and simple and Teenagers are the worst culprits simply because they enjoy the most free time to partake in these activities in an independant nature.

Oh no! Teenagers have time to "partake in these activities"! (I presume you mean "standing around doing nothing".) Not only are they standing around doing nothing, but they're standing around doing nothing "in an independent nature"! Time to call the police!

Originally Posted by Evergreen

This never was an issue before because in generations past either the parents had taken a more involved role with their children or the enviroment at the time demanded them to be doing something fruitful with their time with regards to making them work.

I'm not seeing the connection between "children have more free time" and "children are all criminals and we should deny their civil rights".

Originally Posted by Evergreen

New rules for New situations.

Oh yes, because children socialising with their friends in public is a completely modern concept.

Victorian children only socialised on private property with the owner's permission, don't you know.

[Deffeh]

i fully endorse this bill

[Evergreen]

What I am stating was society as a majority never considered this behaviour acceptable before and don't now.

We don't live in this Liberal society you are fantascizing about and if you wish to give people permission to loiter outside your property then do so. That's your right, however it's not your right to dictate everyone else has to have the same tolerations as you thank god.

This rule will pass, many people will be happy, newspapers will in general agree and the only people complaining will be shit parents and the odd blip in the system but let's face it if we are to take down every law because it's done someone wrongly once or twice or in general a very tiny minority then we'd live in a lawless society.

[djbass]

We have simular laws here and to be honest it's never really been a big issue. Infact there has been a noticable decline in criminal and anti-social behaviour.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

If they want out they can put on proper jogging equip and go jogging, or have a shopping list on them and go shopping and have absolutely no problems about the police asking their parents where they are suppose to be.

I think the issue is that people shouldn't have to do this. Obviously you disagree, so it's pointless expanding on that point however.

For clarification, what ages do you think this should apply to? All? From 0-19? You know that quite a lot of problems are caused by older teenagers, yeah?

[Evergreen]

Hicks I think it should apply to anyone except those of a physical condition that prevents them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.

If I ever get stopped by the police I could easily tell them, hey I'm going to the shops I have this much money I intend to buy this, or I can say I'm headed here etc etc and tell them they are free to escort me to my destination. If they want contact numbers for where I am going too with regards to visiting people I'd comfortably give them that etc.

I don't consider it an invasion of my privacy(Or dissolution of my freedom) considering how globalised and annoymous society has become to give an authorative figure an itinery of my plans. I have absolutely nothing to hide and quite frequently I'd love to be able to get a lift in a police car to a destanation.

[Dante Hicks]

That's all fair enough, in which case it becomes merely a subjective valuation of freedom. Obviously you don't value the idea of freedom from interference (for want of a better term) that highly, which is cool.

I presume you'd simply advocate arresting people who failed to give a just reason to why they are outside, yeah? Obviously this would need to apply in day and night, since quite of a lot of anti-social behaviour (from experience) happens during the day.

Needless to say, a few other people value freedom somewhat higher than this. Possibly a minority of people (I've no figures to hand on that) though.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

What I am stating was society as a majority never considered this behaviour acceptable before and don't now.

Society doesn't consider peaceful assembly acceptable? I don't know what society you live in, but it doesn't appear to be the UK.

Society doesn't like anti-social behaviour, but that's not what this law will ban. It will ban people from being in certain places simply because of "what they look like" or some such ridiculous and illegal prejudice. I'm all for arresting abusive teenagers, as well as abusive people of any age, but until such point as they break the law, they should be free to get on with their lives without the police breaching their civil rights.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

We don't live in this Liberal society you are fantascizing about and if you wish to give people permission to loiter outside your property then do so. That's your right, however it's not your right to dictate everyone else has to have the same tolerations as you thank god.

I'm not dictating anything. I'm saying people should be free to do whatever they want if it doesn't break the law. You're the one dictating when, where and with whom people can carry out perfectly law-abiding activities.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

This rule will pass, many people will be happy, newspapers will in general agree and the only people complaining will be shit parents and the odd blip in the system but let's face it if we are to take down every law because it's done someone wrongly once or twice or in general a very tiny minority then we'd live in a lawless society.

You can't pass laws that remove people's civil rights simply because many people want you to and it'll look good in the media. If people don't like teenagers standing around talking, that's their problem, not the teenagers', and we shouldn't be giving in to the ridiculous "oh no, he's shaved his head, he must be a drug dealer, please go and arrest him" prejudices that some people seem to have.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Proteus

You can't pass laws that remove people's civil rights simply because many people want you to and it'll look good in the media. If people don't like teenagers standing around talking, that's their problem, not the teenagers', and we shouldn't be giving in to the ridiculous "oh no, he's shaved his head, he must be a drug dealer, please go and arrest him" prejudices that some people seem to have.

Explain the ban on outdoor sex with regards to this.

I really think you cannot weight your argument with what you are saying there with regards to the fact you do not fight vehemently for the laws that have been passed that fall into your argument.

It is of my opinion you are of a minority with good reason here. Much like how Cultists can't do such and such etc. You all feel you are totally validated in your excuses but if your argument was fair and weighty then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That's all fair enough, in which case it becomes merely a subjective valuation of freedom. Obviously you don't value the idea of freedom from interference (for want of a better term) that highly, which is cool.

I presume you'd simply advocate arresting people who failed to give a just reason to why they are outside, yeah? Obviously this would need to apply in day and night, since quite of a lot of anti-social behaviour (from experience) happens during the day.

Needless to say, a few other people value freedom somewhat higher than this. Possibly a minority of people (I've no figures to hand on that) though.

Depends what you infer by the level of arrest, but generally yes.

If this law was in place for instance perhaps that girl returning from a club, walking down a main road I use a lot, wouldn't of got raped during the middle of the night by a man between the ages of 16-30 and around 6 foot last night.

It's hard to say this law will stop anything when you can't really prove pre-meditation or passion crimes.

[Dante Hicks]

Actually, the UK legal system is fairly liberal. Most judges tend to side with individual liberties, etc.

And the government backed down on the recent outdoor sex rules, although there is other legislation in place. The idea behind it (and I reject the logic, but to explain) is that society would find it unreasonable to be naked in public. Similarly, society finds it unreasonable to have music playing at 100 decibles.

However, society clearly does not find it unreasonable to walk the streets. Or even stand about. Therefore, the issue is where we are making the distinction (e.g. "There's some black kids standing on the street corner, probably causing trouble").

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

If this law was in place for instance perhaps that girl returning from a club, walking down a main road I use a lot, wouldn't of got raped during the middle of the night by a man between the ages of 16-30 and around 6 foot last night.

Well, the issue there is police coverage. Rape is already illegal, and that didn't help (I presume) this particular girl - so I'm not sure how more laws would have helped, unless police have constant controls (or we have CCTV cameras covering 100% of public places all monitored 24/7).

[Evergreen]

I think Society finds it unreasonable to find people of not a responsible adult age congregating in unsupervised groups and that is why we have this law.