Ever had to sneeze and had no tissue at hand? [Archive]

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 16:34

It's a restriction on free will. Maybe I don't like you, and I don't feel like behaving socially toward you. Why should I be required to do so?

All laws are a restriction on free will, so that's hardly an argument.

Such as not pretending to sneeze and then wipe their hands on someone?
I can see a good deal wrong with punishing that.
And wasn't there the case of the environmental protestors who were holding regular peaceful demonstrations near a factory (or powerplant, I'll have to go looking for a link), that were presented with an asbo, as the corporation owning the plant had complained about them?

The kid wasn't punished, he was warned. It certainly wasn't anything as formal as an ASBO.

The Act requires the person to have done things likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person - quite frankly, if you're going around doing this, then I don't think it's unreasonable in the slightest that you're asked to stop.

If you can't bring yourself to do that, then you shouldn't complain that a more heavy handed approach is taken.

The blessed Chris

22-04-2008, 16:34

The problem with an ASBO is the terminolgy used. Were the old matrix of "delinquency" to have been used, I suspect the issue would be rather clearer.

That said, anything that imposes upon the civil rights and freedom of chavs and their ilk is a wonderful scheme.

Cabra West

22-04-2008, 16:38

All laws are a restriction on free will, so that's hardly an argument.

The kid wasn't punished, he was warned. It certainly wasn't anything as formal as an ASBO.

The Act requires the person to have done things likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person - quite frankly, if you're going around doing this, then I don't think it's unreasonable in the slightest that you're asked to stop.

If you can't bring yourself to do that, then you shouldn't complain that a more heavy handed approach is taken.

But ASBOS aren't laws, which is the whole point of this.
Yes, someone needs to complain for you to receive one, however it is completely up to the authority in question to decide whether your case qualifies or not. And I personally don't like the thought of anyone being able to decide things like that on a whim.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 16:38

All laws are a restriction on free will, so that's hardly an argument.

Granted, but the other laws (well, most of the other laws) serve a public interest of some sort involving safety.

The kid wasn't punished, he was warned. It certainly wasn't anything as formal as an ASBO.

But he could have been, for something that causes no harm to anybody.

The Act requires the person to have done things likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person - quite frankly, if you're going around doing this, then I don't think it's unreasonable in the slightest that you're asked to stop.

Is "likely to cause" the actual terminology used in the law? You mean you don't have to cause any harassment, alarm, or distress, but it only be "likely" to?

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 16:46

But ASBOS aren't laws, which is the whole point of this.
Well what the bleeding hell are they, then?

Yes, someone needs to complain for you to receive one, however it is completely up to the authority in question to decide whether your case qualifies or not. And I personally don't like the thought of anyone being able to decide things like that on a whim.
You're the second person on NSG I've spoken to who has said that ASBO's are granted by the 'local authority'. I don't know who is telling you this, but they are granted by the Magistrates Courts, and no one else. I don't know how much more of a judicial process you want.

Granted, but the other laws (well, most of the other laws) serve a public interest of some sort involving safety.
That's hardly true. How is the requirement to pay tax anything to do with safety, for example?

As for public interest, if I had a group of yobs outside my house drinking and causing trouble every night, I'd have a real interest in them being stopped.

But he could have been, for something that causes no harm to anybody.
Actually, he couldn't. There is a requirement for the ASBO to be necessary to prevent further acts. I very much doubt that is the case here.

Is "likely to cause" the actual terminology used in the law? You mean you don't have to cause any harassment, alarm, or distress, but it only be "likely" to?
"caused or likely to cause" is the exact wording.

Cabra West

22-04-2008, 16:50

Well what the bleeding hell are they, then?

Good question, actually... a law needs to be specific, see? It needs to state the requirement for it to apply, as well as the punishment to impose. Laws can only be enforced by a judge, you have the right to a defense lawyer, and there is an appeals process in place.
ASBOS have none of that. No judge needed, no right to a lawyer, no appeals.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 16:51

That's hardly true. How is the requirement to pay tax anything to do with safety, for example?

Taxes pay for your police and fire protection, each involving safety. They also pay for national defense, good roads, etc - all which improve safety.

As for public interest, if I had a group of yobs outside my house drinking and causing trouble every night, I'd have a real interest in them being stopped.

That would be irritating, certainly, but aren't there already laws of loitering, public intoxication, etc? (what's a yob?)

Actually, he couldn't. There is a requirement for the ASBO to be necessary to prevent further acts. I very much doubt that is the case here.

So you're saying that if they don't punish him, it is guaranteed that he won't go wipe snot on other politicians? I think that, due to the vague wording of this law, they could punish him.

"caused or likely to cause" is the exact wording.

How vague. You could arrest anybody for anything.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 16:52

Good question, actually... a law needs to be specific, see? It needs to state the requirement for it to apply, as well as the punishment to impose. Laws can only be enforced by a judge, you have the right to a defense lawyer, and there is an appeals process in place.
ASBOS have none of that. No judge needed, no right to a lawyer, no appeals.

Seriously, I have no idea where you're getting your information. I'll just say you're completely wrong and suggest you look it up, and leave it at that.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 16:59

Taxes pay for your police and fire protection, each involving safety. They also pay for national defense, good roads, etc - all which improve safety.

Take anything a step further and you can relate it to 'safety'. It's stopping them drinking too much. That's good for safety. It's stopping them sitting on a high wall. That's good for safety. It's stopping me going out and killing them. That's good for safety.

That would be irritating, certainly, but aren't there already laws of loitering, public intoxication, etc? (what's a yob?)
Yes, but there is only so much you can do with ordinary laws - it's very hard to stop repeat offending, for example. With an ASBO, the aim is to stop offences before they occur.

I suppose 'thug' would be another word for yob.

So you're saying that if they don't punish him, it is guaranteed that he won't go wipe snot on other politicians? I think that, due to the vague wording of this law, they could punish him.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The ASBO can only be imposed if it is necessary in order to prevent further offending. In other words, if you're never going to do the thing again, or the ASBO isn't going to do anything to stop you doing it, then it couldn't be imposed.

How vague. You could arrest anybody for anything.
No, you could impose an ASBO for someone who has caused or is likely to cause alarm, distress or harassment to another person, and for whom an ASBO is necessary to prevent them from doing it. That's hardly 'anybody'.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 17:08

Take anything a step further and you can relate it to 'safety'. It's stopping them drinking too much. That's good for safety. It's stopping them sitting on a high wall. That's good for safety. It's stopping me going out and killing them. That's good for safety.

I like that one, but there's already a law against murder :D

Yes, but there is only so much you can do with ordinary laws - it's very hard to stop repeat offending, for example. With an ASBO, the aim is to stop offences before they occur.

I suppose 'thug' would be another word for yob.

So, what kind of... incentives would be given in the case of an ASBO to avoid repeat offending that the other laws don't do? Going to jail is a good deterrent to keep me from murdering someone, for example. What can an ASBO do differently?

Ah, a thug. K. I'm with you.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The ASBO can only be imposed if it is necessary in order to prevent further offending. In other words, if you're never going to do the thing again, or the ASBO isn't going to do anything to stop you doing it, then it couldn't be imposed.

Who determines if it's neccessary? And, if I say "No officer, I will never ever wander in front of the neighbor's house with my pit bull again.", does that qualify as never doing it again? What if I do it again, and say the same thing again? What about the third time?

No, you could impose an ASBO for someone who has caused or is likely to cause alarm, distress or harassment to another person, and for whom an ASBO is necessary to prevent them from doing it. That's hardly 'anybody'.

Yes it could be. I might be alarmed or distressed when I see a person gorge himself in a restaurant. That poor guy is going to give himself a heart attack. I'm very alarmed for him and distressed over the consequences of what he might do.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 17:15

So, what kind of... incentives would be given in the case of an ASBO to avoid repeat offending that the other laws don't do? Going to jail is a good deterrent to keep me from murdering someone, for example. What can an ASBO do differently?

Well, you wouldn't get an ASBO to not murder someone. But as for ordinary 'anti-social' behaviour, it works in that it prevents repeat offenders from doing things that, although not offences in themselves, are, for those individuals, preparatory acts for an offence.

Take a man who has 20 convictions for stealing things in the Blankshire area by hiding them in his combat trousers. Being in Blankshire is not an offence. Wearing combat trousers is not an offence. But for this individual they are patterns of behaviour that, when taken together, have a high probability of resulting in an offence.

An ASBO that stops him from wearing combat trousers in the Blankshire area will mean you don't have to wait for him to actually pocket the goods before you stop him. You can prevent the circumstances that lead to the offence from arising in the first place.

Who determines if it's neccessary? And, if I say "No officer, I will never ever wander in front of the neighbor's house with my pit bull again.", does that qualify as never doing it again? What if I do it again, and say the same thing again? What about the third time?
The courts decide. And, believe it or not, they're actually quite good at doing their job.

Yes it could be. I might be alarmed or distressed when I see a person gorge himself in a restaurant. That poor guy is going to give himself a heart attack. I'm very alarmed for him and distressed over the consequences of what he might do.
You convince a judge to give that guy an ASBO, and I'll be impressed.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 17:20

Take a man who has 20 convictions for stealing things in the Blankshire area by hiding them in his combat trousers. Being in Blankshire is not an offence. Wearing combat trousers is not an offence. But for this individual they are patterns of behaviour that, when taken together, have a high probability of resulting in an offence.

An ASBO that stops him from wearing combat trousers in the Blankshire area will mean you don't have to wait for him to actually pocket the goods before you stop him. You can prevent the circumstances that lead to the offence from arising in the first place.

Let me stop you right there. I don't know if this is an example or an actual event, but in either case, it doesn't really matter. You're restricting this man from wearing a particular type of clothing that he may really like. In any case, he could now wear a large overcoat instead. It's just as easy to use.

You convince a judge to give that guy an ASBO, and I'll be impressed.

Some of the more interesting ASBOs:

* Two teenage boys from east Manchester forbidden to wear one golf glove.[16]
* A 17-year-old forbidden to use the word "grass" as a term of abusive in order to threaten people.[16]
* A 15-year-old forbidden to play football in his street.[16]
* The oldest recipient of an ASBO, an 87-year-old man who was abusive to his neighbours.[16]
* An 18-year-old male was banned from congregating with more than three youths, and subsequently arrested when he entered a very popular youth club.[16]
* The first farmer to be given an ASBO was instructed to keep his geese and pigs from damaging his neighbour's property.[16]

The farmer one actually makes sense, I suppose. He really should keep track of his animals.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 17:26

Let me stop you right there. I don't know if this is an example or an actual event, but in either case, it doesn't really matter. You're restricting this man from wearing a particular type of clothing that he may really like.
I'm stopping a man who keeps committing an offence from doing something that leads to offences. I don't give a damn how much he 'likes' wearing the coat; he probably wouldn't 'like' being thrown in prison or given a fine either, but that doesn't stop the law from acting in other cases.

In any case, he could now wear a large overcoat instead. It's just as easy to use.
Yes, he could, but it's about an attempt to stop repeat behaviour, not eliminating the possibility of crime altogether. Another common example is not to go in a particular area or associate with other people; these things aren't going to prevent a person from committing a crime, but they will hopefully remove the usual route into crime for that individual.

Some of the more interesting ASBOs:
I don't know anything about those particular cases except the last one, but even without information you can think of logical reasons why they would apply. Like all laws, it's very easy to make catchy headlines that make them seem absurd; more often than not, however, those cases make sense when you look at them in detail.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 17:35

I'm stopping a man who keeps committing an offence from doing something that leads to offences. I don't give a damn how much he 'likes' wearing the coat; he probably wouldn't 'like' being thrown in prison or given a fine either, but that doesn't stop the law from acting in other cases.

So, he commits the offense because he's wearing combat pants? That's such an interesting approach. I wonder if combat pants affect other people that way.

Yes, he could, but it's about an attempt to stop repeat behaviour, not eliminating the possibility of crime altogether. Another common example is not to go in a particular area or associate with other people; these things aren't going to prevent a person from committing a crime, but they will hopefully remove the usual route into crime for that individual.

Judicial orders already exist that can prevent certain persons from congregating (members of a gang for instance). This provision already exists in the U.S., and probably the U.K.

I don't know anything about those particular cases except the last one, but even without information you can think of logical reasons why they would apply. Like all laws, it's very easy to make catchy headlines that make them seem absurd; more often than not, however, those cases make sense when you look at them in detail.

One golf glove? I can't even begin to guess what led up to this. The only thing I can think of is that it would be a gang symbol, but golf doesn't really strike me as something that a gang would think of as a symbol.

Forbidden to be within range of 3 youths at the same time? Any three youths? I couldn't even go to a family reunion.

I'm not sure how (or why) I would use the word "grass" abusively, when there are so many other abusive words to choose from. It's blocked him from using one word, and not even a swear word at that.

They're ridiculous prohibitions, no matter what the circumstance.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 17:40

Judicial orders already exist that can prevent certain persons from congregating (members of a gang for instance). This provision already exists in the U.S., and probably the U.K.
Yes, they're called ASBOs. :)

One golf glove? I can't even begin to guess what led up to this.
No idea, but there was either a valid reason or the court was just in the mood to take the piss that day.

Forbidden to be within range of 3 youths at the same time? Any three youths? I couldn't even go to a family reunion.
No, I don't think that's what it means. It's certainly not how I read it. I presume it refers to three specific people.

I'm not sure how (or why) I would use the word "grass" abusively, when there are so many other abusive words to choose from. It's blocked him from using one word, and not even a swear word at that.
Well that's an easy one; seemingly innocent words can often carry loaded meanings.

Again, however, you're quizzing me on individual cases that neither of us know anything about; hardly a constructive way of critiquing a system.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 17:47

No idea, but there was either a valid reason or the court was just in the mood to take the piss that day.

Therein lies the problem. There's no accountability, and even hearsay evidence is valid.

No, I don't think that's what it means. It's certainly not how I read it. I presume it refers to three specific people.

Then he wouldn't have been arrested for entering a youth club unless the three people stated happened to be there at the time.

Well that's an easy one; seemingly innocent words can often carry loaded meanings.

And the court has banned a word. If I ever got banned from saying a word, I would carry around a sign with that word on it and just hold it up every time I intended to say it.

Again, however, you're quizzing me on individual cases that neither of us know anything about; hardly a constructive way of critiquing a system.

On the contrary, the effectiveness of a system should be based upon the results produced. Now, granted, I've picked the cream of the crazy crop to throw out there, but it's still a result of the system all the same. Accountability should be upheld.

You can't claim that this is a good system and then just dismiss the bad results as irrelevant. You aren't allowed to do that unless you a politician.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 17:52

Therein lies the problem. There's no accountability, and even hearsay evidence is valid.
How is this unaccountable? I really don't understand why people keep throwing this about. It's just as accountable as any other law.

Then he wouldn't have been arrested for entering a youth club unless the three people stated happened to be there at the time.
Yes...

And the court has banned a word. If I ever got banned from saying a word, I would carry around a sign with that word on it and just hold it up every time I intended to say it.
Good...

On the contrary, the effectiveness of a system should be based upon the results produced. Now, granted, I've picked the cream of the crazy crop to throw out there, but it's still a result of the system all the same. Accountability should be upheld.

You can't claim that this is a good system and then just dismiss the bad results as irrelevant. You aren't allowed to do that unless you a politician.
You've not 'picked' anything, you've chucked out a handful of headlines that you know nothing about and are simply filling in the blanks with your own guesses.

I haven't dismissed bad results as 'irrelevant'. I treat the bad results in the system in the same way as any other legal situation; open to appeal, criticism and far less common than you'd like people to believe.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 18:10

http://www.harrogateadvertiser.net/harrogatenews/Teenage-yob-gets-ASBO.1199435.jp

There's the one for the kid, and it's any three youths from 11-18. At least the court has the presence of mind to except family and school. However, it means that he could probably not go to the grocery store, church, bowling alley, or pretty much anywhere at all where young people go at any point in time.

Another interesting one I found, and this article was mostly complementary of ABSOs, even though I find some of its cited cases, well, horrendous:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article741961.ece

Thomas Brown, a flasher from the Isles of Scilly, has been banned from speaking to any female, except for members of his family, in any public place in the UK.

That's a little harsh.

and...

Kirsty Smith, 22, had to go to court when seven months pregnant to contest an Asbo preventing her from living with the father of her child, after police were called 40 times to their home in southwest London.

40 times is a lot, but he's still the baby's father.

one more that i like...

Dundee city council is contemplating the use of Asbos in schools, to stop pupils disrupting classes or being bullies.

Disrupt class: go to jail!

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 19:39

-snip-

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm)'s a story about some people who were freed from jail after 16 years in prison for terrorism offences they didn't commit.

Here's one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/10/newsid_3762000/3762944.stm) about a mother convicted of murdering her children, freed from jail on appeal.

This one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2565000/2565269.stm) is good; some people freed from jail 18 years after their conviction for murdering someone.

See what I did there? I found some individual examples to show how a good system can sometimes get it wrong. But do we go around shouting 'abolish the law against murder!'? I certainly don't.

The cases that you've just given aren't even beginning to touch on issues such as miscarriages of justice; in all of them, the restrictions are sensible and with good reasons.

Perhaps you consider the 'freedom' of the yob to be above respect for law abiding citizens, but, when all is said and done, I simply cannot accept that telling someone that they need to behave in public is such an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties that it should be opposed at all costs.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 19:49

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm)'s a story about some people who were freed from jail after 16 years in prison for terrorism offences they didn't commit.

Here's one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/10/newsid_3762000/3762944.stm) about a mother convicted of murdering her children, freed from jail on appeal.

This one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2565000/2565269.stm) is good; some people freed from jail 18 years after their conviction for murdering someone.

See what I did there? I found some individual examples to show how a good system can sometimes get it wrong. But do we go around shouting 'abolish the law against murder!'? I certainly don't.

Cute. I wondered what you were looking up. Again, though, this law serves a substantial public interest. Lowering your stress level does not justify sending a person to jail. If it does, I know lots of people who need to go to jail.

The cases that you've just given aren't even beginning to touch on issues such as miscarriages of justice; in all of them, the restrictions are sensible and with good reasons.

Then your definition of "sensible" and mine are somewhat different. Basically confining a man to his home who has not committed any crime (yet), or has served the time for his crime(s), does not seem like a "just" action.

Perhaps you consider the 'freedom' of the yob to be above respect for law abiding citizens, but, when all is said and done, I simply cannot accept that telling someone that they need to behave in public is such an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties that it should be opposed at all costs.

If they've committed a crime, lock them up (or shoot them, if you're so inclined). I don't really care that much, but don't invent things that are crimes for one person to do. Basically, you can take and make a law for one person that no one else is restricted from doing just because you feel like it.

3% of ASBOs are denied. 3%. Statistically, if I file one against you twice, I'm bound to get it once. Even better, I can file them anonymously against you so that you don't even know who's persecuting you this way. You aren't guaranteed a right to defend yourself from it, and I can use hearsay evidence to get one passed, without you ever knowing who it was that lied about you. You won't even know that it's been ruled against you until they give you a notice to comply.

At this point, you have to comply or you go to jail for five years. If you want to appeal, you have to comply while the appeal process goes through. You don't find that to be a miscarriage of the entire judicial system? I do.

That was all in that timesonline article. How they spun it to be complimentary was masterful, but all those details were in there.

Philosopy

22-04-2008, 22:50

Cute. I wondered what you were looking up.
Those took about two minutes to find.

Again, though, this law serves a substantial public interest. Lowering your stress level does not justify sending a person to jail. If it does, I know lots of people who need to go to jail.
It's not about 'lowering stress levels', it's about preventing harassment and crime. Tell me, are you actually listening to anything I've said?

Then your definition of "sensible" and mine are somewhat different. Basically confining a man to his home who has not committed any crime (yet), or has served the time for his crime(s), does not seem like a "just" action.
So, in your expert opinion, the moment someone has 'served the time' they are completely rehabilitated, and no further action is necessary?

I'd like to live where you are. Unfortunately, where I am, the overwhelming majority of offenders will go on to re-offend. You seem to enjoy painting these people as noble defenders of freedom and liberty, but the reality is that they are nothing more than petty criminals, disrupting the lives of others.

If they've committed a crime, lock them up (or shoot them, if you're so inclined). I don't really care that much, but don't invent things that are crimes for one person to do. Basically, you can take and make a law for one person that no one else is restricted from doing just because you feel like it.
If one person is misbehaving in a certain way, then you restrict that one person from acting in that certain way. It's called flexibility, and common sense; it allows the courts to give individual judgments that suit individual circumstances.

Incidentally, the restrictions are considerably more akin to an injunction than an 'individual crime'. Unless you want to argue that the whole concept of injunctions is 'unjust', then you're going to have to accept that you can always stop one person from doing something that another person can.

3% of ASBOs are denied. 3%. Statistically, if I file one against you twice, I'm bound to get it once. Even better, I can file them anonymously against you so that you don't even know who's persecuting you this way. You aren't guaranteed a right to defend yourself from it, and I can use hearsay evidence to get one passed, without you ever knowing who it was that lied about you. You won't even know that it's been ruled against you until they give you a notice to comply.
Hearsay has been allowed in civil proceedings for more than a decade. It doesn't mean, however, that it is automatically believed; it is for the court to decide how much weight it attaches to the evidence. Moreover, despite these being civil in nature, the burden of proof is the criminal standard. It's a non-issue.

At this point, you have to comply or you go to jail for five years. If you want to appeal, you have to comply while the appeal process goes through. You don't find that to be a miscarriage of the entire judicial system? I do.
Nope. I find that an ordinary part of any judicial system.

Galloism

22-04-2008, 23:02

It's not about 'lowering stress levels', it's about preventing harassment and crime. Tell me, are you actually listening to anything I've said?

Did you even read the first paragraph of that timesonline article? That's exactly what it's talking about. A guy who was a jerk, but had committed no crime, being taken to jail because of violating an ASBO by staring at someone threateningly.

So, in your expert opinion, the moment someone has 'served the time' they are completely rehabilitated, and no further action is necessary?

Don't be absurd, but once a person has "served their time", the state has exacted the punishment for the crime. They no longer have the right to take further action.

I'd like to live where you are. Unfortunately, where I am, the overwhelming majority of offenders will go on to re-offend. You seem to enjoy painting these people as noble defenders of freedom and liberty, but the reality is that they are nothing more than petty criminals, disrupting the lives of others.

Again, don't be absurd.

If one person is misbehaving in a certain way, then you restrict that one person from acting in that certain way. It's called flexibility, and common sense; it allows the courts to give individual judgments that suit individual circumstances.

Except that these can, have been, and will be abused.

Incidentally, the restrictions are considerably more akin to an injunction than an 'individual crime'. Unless you want to argue that the whole concept of injunctions is 'unjust', then you're going to have to accept that you can always stop one person from doing something that another person can.

But the result for breaking them isn't a fine - it's 5 years in prison. In addition, the person is not automatically called or summoned to defend themselves. The hearing takes place in the defendant's absence and without his/her knowledge.

Hearsay has been allowed in civil proceedings for more than a decade. It doesn't mean, however, that it is automatically believed; it is for the court to decide how much weight it attaches to the evidence. Moreover, despite these being civil in nature, the burden of proof is the criminal standard. It's a non-issue.

I'm leaving that one alone. I can't make a coherent argument. I accept that one as it is.

Nope. I find that an ordinary part of any judicial system.

It's not ordinary when you didn't get a chance to defend yourself to begin with.

Nanatsu no Tsuki

22-04-2008, 23:39

Yes, unfortunately. The most embarrassing thing is having to then, after sneezing and having no tissue, run to the bathroom with a dripping nose and snot all over your hand. Faming cheeks and all.:(

Philosopy

23-04-2008, 10:35

Did you even read the first paragraph of that timesonline article? That's exactly what it's talking about. A guy who was a jerk, but had committed no crime, being taken to jail because of violating an ASBO by staring at someone threateningly.
Yes, after years of abusing a neighbourhood. That's exactly the point of the ASBO, and simply supports everything I've said. A tailor made solution for an individual problem.

Don't be absurd, but once a person has "served their time", the state has exacted the punishment for the crime. They no longer have the right to take further action.
I don't think it's 'absurd' at all to say that our interest in offenders doesn't stop the instant they've completed their sentence. The graffiti vandal, for example; can he do what he likes, pay the £50 slap on the wrist the law allows, and then go back to what he was doing, safe in the knowledge that in the unlikely event he's caught again, the worst that can happen is another slap on the wrist?

Previous offences don't ever simply cease to exist because the time is served. You may have to declare them on job applications, for example, and they can be taken into consideration when determining sentencing for repeat offending. To pretend that there is no 'right' to take further action because a sentence is complete is the absurdity.

Again, don't be absurd.
There is nothing absurd about it. Your entire argument is based on civil liberties, but you have nothing to support your position other than 'it's not fair on them'. Well, maybe it's not, but then this 'injustice' will disappear as soon as they learn to be decent members of society.

Except that these can, have been, and will be abused.
I still don't believe that there has been any serious evidence of them being 'abused'. The worst evidence you have been able to provide are cases that you don't understand. That's not exactly the same thing.

But the result for breaking them isn't a fine - it's 5 years in prison.
That's not automatic; it's a maximum.

In addition, the person is not automatically called or summoned to defend themselves. The hearing takes place in the defendant's absence and without his/her knowledge.

It's not ordinary when you didn't get a chance to defend yourself to begin with.
You keep saying this, but I have no idea what you're basing it on.

Cabra West

23-04-2008, 11:11

Yes, unfortunately. The most embarrassing thing is having to then, after sneezing and having no tissue, run to the bathroom with a dripping nose and snot all over your hand. Faming cheeks and all.:(

Definitely. Wouldn't it be nice to always have at least a politician to hand, for emergencies like that? ;)

Just to bring this thread-jack to an end now...

Levee en masse

23-04-2008, 11:57

for my tupenny bit.

I'm a bit wary of ASBOs for a few reasons. One, I'm not entirely comfortable with stopping people doing things that aren't illegal and that they are completely withing their rights to do.

Though it is a depressing thought that such draconian measures maybe required to make some people act appropriatly in polite society.

Secondly, though related. I'm not convinced that these strongarm methods are appriate or effect in making people act politely. I'll have to do a bit of searching but I'm sure I recall seeing a lot of articles about how ASBOs don't reduce anti-social behaviour, just move it futher away (out of sight, out of mind).

Thirdly, though this may be a problem with the people rather then the ASBOs themselves, they appear to be seen as a panacea for anti-social problems. The reason I say that is because the large amount of "stupid" ones that fly around. But also because I'm not satisfied that more is being done to look at causes rather then treat symptoms.

Fourthly, "badge of honour."

Fifthly, I'm not sure there is anough oversight, From what I understand. There is little in way of consistency, guidlines, limits etc to advise magistrates of what to stipulate on an ASBO

Sorry if this is a bit scattered, but the phone seems to be constantly ringing :(

OT though. Cameron got of better then Galloway (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7362542.stm):D

Cameroi

23-04-2008, 12:10

what the hell is "tissue", but a waste of perfectly good and innocent trees? i always carry a snot rag arround in my pocket, usually more then one!

i also grew up when people where taught to cover their mouth and nose when they coffed or sneezed, AND ACTUALLY DID SO!

=^^=
.../\...

Peepelonia

23-04-2008, 12:17

It's a restriction on free will. Maybe I don't like you, and I don't feel like behaving socially toward you. Why should I be required to do so?

Umm the thing with that of course is how would you feel if it was done to you?

What if you where spat on?

While I find the vid extreamly funny, I wonder how I would feel if it happend to a politcian on 'my side', spiting, wipeing snot on people these can rightly be called anti social behaviour.

Would you just let it pass if somebody done it to you, or would things get violent? Anti social laws are fine, there are many reasons behind them, and I for one agree.

Galloism

23-04-2008, 20:41

Umm the thing with that of course is how would you feel if it was done to you?

Well, if I was in uniform, I could arrest him for disrespecting an officer. If I was not, then I would simply move on.

What if you where spat on?

See above statement.

While I find the vid extreamly funny, I wonder how I would feel if it happend to a politcian on 'my side', spiting, wipeing snot on people these can rightly be called anti social behaviour.

I thought the politician handled it rather well, actually. He just smiled for the camera like that didn't really bother him. That's a model response.

Would you just let it pass if somebody done it to you, or would things get violent? Anti social laws are fine, there are many reasons behind them, and I for one agree.

You cannot legislate against being a jerk. Sometimes, you just have to suck it up that someone's being a jerk and go on your merry way with a smile on your face, content in the knowledge that you get way more girls (or guys) than he (she) ever will.

You don't have to get violent.

Galloism

23-04-2008, 21:03

I don't think it's 'absurd' at all to say that our interest in offenders doesn't stop the instant they've completed their sentence. The graffiti vandal, for example; can he do what he likes, pay the £50 slap on the wrist the law allows, and then go back to what he was doing, safe in the knowledge that in the unlikely event he's caught again, the worst that can happen is another slap on the wrist?

Then I suggest harsher penalties, not a heavy-handed and utterly ridiculous new series of laws.

Previous offences don't ever simply cease to exist because the time is served. You may have to declare them on job applications, for example, and they can be taken into consideration when determining sentencing for repeat offending. To pretend that there is no 'right' to take further action because a sentence is complete is the absurdity.

Well then that should be added to the original crime's sentencing, again, not making a new series of laws that are ridiculous.

There is nothing absurd about it. Your entire argument is based on civil liberties, but you have nothing to support your position other than 'it's not fair on them'. Well, maybe it's not, but then this 'injustice' will disappear as soon as they learn to be decent members of society.

Will it? There's no reason to believe that it will. They can continue to file ASBOs until the day that person dies or leaves the country.

I still don't believe that there has been any serious evidence of them being 'abused'. The worst evidence you have been able to provide are cases that you don't understand. That's not exactly the same thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/5234374.stm

ASBO against feeding birds in his own yard, indefinitely

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/040507/news040507_09.html

Children playing football on land that their parents own.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/apr/09/vikramdodd

A man who publishes a spoof website.

http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/display.var.1012401.0.furniture_factory_gets_asbo_threat.php

A furniture factory that is within statutory limits for noise and pollution, but the council seeks to go around that law by issuing an ASBO instead.

Four examples, out of dozens.

That's not automatic; it's a maximum.

And death is the maximum penalty for murder in Texas. Try again.

You keep saying this, but I have no idea what you're basing it on.

My bad, I looked it up and you are supposed to be issued a summons at least 24 hours before the hearing. So, I take back my previous statement. However, the person who seeks the ASBO against you still never has to reveal who they are, so you never get to face your accuser.

From the timesonline article:

First, they are civil cases, even though magistrates hear them, which means that all you need to show is that on the balance of probabilities, the businessman acts as you and your neighbours describe. You can even give evidence without the accused ever knowing your name. But the order, once granted, has a hidden bite. Asbos are designed to inhibit people from repeating behaviour that others find unacceptable, and to breach them is a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in prison. Five years for interfering with your letter box: that’s a weapon.

Dyakovo

23-04-2008, 22:06

<SNIP stuff I'm not replying to...>

Gallo, you need to trim the size of your sig...

I suggest this format for quotes:
[ size=1 ][ b ]Poster name:[ /b ]Quote[ /size ]

Galloism

23-04-2008, 22:08

Gallo, you need to trim the size of your sig...

I suggest this format for quotes:
[ size=1 ][ b ]Poster name:[ /b ]Quote[ /size ]

I will experiment with that. Thanks.

Philosopy

23-04-2008, 22:18

Then I suggest harsher penalties, not a heavy-handed and utterly ridiculous new series of laws.

Well then that should be added to the original crime's sentencing, again, not making a new series of laws that are ridiculous.

You want harsher penalties, whilst at the same time criticising something that essentially says 'behave or get in trouble'?

This is where your argument continues to fall down. These are not summary punishments, or unjust penalties; they are society telling people to play nice. This isn't 'utterly ridiculous' - it's plain common sense.

Will it? There's no reason to believe that it will. They can continue to file ASBOs until the day that person dies or leaves the country.
Paranoid nonsense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/5234374.stm

ASBO against feeding birds in his own yard, indefinitely
Mr Branfield had fed hundreds of birds with leftover food and industrial size bags of feed.

I can tell you that I wouldn't fancy being his neighbour.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/040507/news040507_09.html

Children playing football on land that their parents own.
No, they're Council tenants. They have to do what the landlord tells them. And this is unusual?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/apr/09/vikramdodd

A man who publishes a spoof website.
Is threatened with an ASBO after numerous complaints. Three years ago.

http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/display.var.1012401.0.furniture_factory_gets_asbo_threat.php

A furniture factory that is within statutory limits for noise and pollution, but the council seeks to go around that law by issuing an ASBO instead.
No issuing. A threat. Six months ago.

Four examples, out of dozens.
The four examples aren't any good; the dozens only exist in your head. You've yet to provide a genuine example of abuse or an unjust ASBO.

And death is the maximum penalty for murder in Texas. Try again.
Pure nonsense. If you don't know the difference between maximum penalties and judicial discretion, it's no wonder you're struggling with the whole concept of an ASBO.

However, the person who seeks the ASBO against you still never has to reveal who they are, so you never get to face your accuser.
Public immunity protection for informants is an essential part of all criminal justice systems, and far from unique to ASBOs.

Galloism

23-04-2008, 22:41

You want harsher penalties, whilst at the same time criticising something that essentially says 'behave or get in trouble'?

This is where your argument continues to fall down. These are not summary punishments, or unjust penalties; they are society telling people to play nice. This isn't 'utterly ridiculous' - it's plain common sense.

Not at all, one is a punishment for an already existing offense, while the other is a preemptive regulation for someone who may or may not have any criminal record, intent, or have ever broken any laws - caught or not.

Paranoid nonsense.

Look down two lines. I just listed a permanent ABSO. This one has no end date.

I can tell you that I wouldn't fancy being his neighbour.

Nor would I, but I would respect that that is his property and he may do what he wills while he is on his property, as long as it does not harm anyone else's safety. I live two doors down to a guy that has a really annoying habit of playing his guitar, badly. But, he remains on his property and I remain on mine, and I bought a pair of headphones just for him.

No, they're Council tenants. They have to do what the landlord tells them. And this is unusual?

Where did you see the "tenants"? I apparently missed that, even though I just reread the article. It keeps referring to "their" estate, so I figured that they owned it.

I did see a single person say that she's worried about losing her tenancy, but (in the U.S. at least) we have certain things called "renter's rights" that cover these kinds of things. I'm not sure if the UK has something like that.

Is threatened with an ASBO after numerous complaints. Three years ago.

You can see that it's already being used like a club. It's like in the U.S. (and this irritates me greatly) a person threatening to sue a company for 1,000,000,000 dollars so the company will give them 20,000 to go away. It's the same type of deal, but on threat of criminal punishment instead of civil irritation.

The four examples aren't any good; the dozens only exist in your head. You've yet to provide a genuine example of abuse or an unjust ASBO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6272062.stm

At least the woman was compensated, so I didn't cite this one at first, because it shows things turned out after a while, but still she had to live for three months with this ASBO hanging over her head while she appealed.

I have the feeling that no example will be sufficient for you until someone gets an ABSO for having a dirty car or an overgrown lawn.

Pure nonsense. If you don't know the difference between maximum penalties and judicial discretion, it's no wonder you're struggling with the whole concept of an ASBO.

Of course I'm aware of the difference. However, judicial discretion has taken on a whole new meaning with this concept. Now, a judge (magistrate), at his discretion, can impose arbitrary rules against people who have not broken any laws, and then can punish them criminally. In addition, the ABSO only requires a civil burden of proof (not criminal, as you claimed) before being passed. Read the timesonline article again. It doesn't become a criminal burden of proof except to prove that the person violated his/her ABSO.

Public immunity protection for informants is an essential part of all criminal justice systems, and far from unique to ASBOs.

Only if there is a major safety issue to the person's life/continued health is a person's identity shielded. In criminal matters, even with an identity shield (face/voice obfuscation), if the person's testimony is used in court, cross-examination is allowed and even demanded.

Nanatsu no Tsuki

24-04-2008, 01:10

Definitely. Wouldn't it be nice to always have at least a politician to hand, for emergencies like that? ;)

Just to bring this thread-jack to an end now...

LOL!:D

Boonytopia

24-04-2008, 11:26

That's awesome! :D

Peepelonia

24-04-2008, 13:04

Well, if I was in uniform, I could arrest him for disrespecting an officer. If I was not, then I would simply move on.

Well good on you, I would be talking with my fists personaly. How though do you square the differance in response between spitting on a police officer and a civilian?

You cannot legislate against being a jerk. Sometimes, you just have to suck it up that someone's being a jerk and go on your merry way with a smile on your face, content in the knowledge that you get way more girls (or guys) than he (she) ever will.

You don't have to get violent.

Yet we do have such legislation, so I guess in fact, you can.

No you don't have to get violent, but spitting on sombody is the quickest way that I know to turn a situation violent, and it seems pretty universal to me too.

Galloism

24-04-2008, 13:12

Well good on you, I would be talking with my fists personaly. How though do you square the differance in response between spitting on a police officer and a civilian?

One has a law regarding it and the other doesn't. It's really that simple. More to the point of what you were actually looking for, an officer a symbol of law and authority. When you spit on one, you are not disrespecting the man but disrespecting the government.

Yet we do have such legislation, so I guess in fact, you can.

No you don't have to get violent, but spitting on sombody is the quickest way that I know to turn a situation violent, and it seems pretty universal to me too.

Maybe I just have more self control than the average person. Maybe it's because I know that I could beat somebody to death with my fists if I lost my temper, and that stays my hand. I'm not sure.

Peepelonia

24-04-2008, 13:33

One has a law regarding it and the other doesn't. It's really that simple. More to the point of what you were actually looking for, an officer a symbol of law and authority. When you spit on one, you are not disrespecting the man but disrespecting the government.

Wow the way you put that is quite a revelation to me. So there are laws to stop you disrespecting the goverment, but you an employee of the goverment do not think we should have laws to stop disresecting each other?

Maybe I just have more self control than the average person. Maybe it's because I know that I could beat somebody to death with my fists if I lost my temper, and that stays my hand. I'm not sure.

Heh now we are all capable of beating somebody to death with our fists, that doesn't seem to stop some people though. I applaud your self control though, I couldn't hold back if somebody spat on me, the red mist would descend and then I'd wake up in 'nick'

NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever had to sneeze and had no tissue at hand?