UK cracking down on anti-social behavior

[Apotheosis]

article is too long to post here

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1664712,00.html

first paragraph

In advance of the publication of new proposals on anti-social behaviour and organised crime, we will once again, as a government, be under attack for eroding essential civil liberties. It is right to set this argument within a more coherent intellectual and political framework. It is not just about tough versus soft but about whose civil liberties come first.




So, umm, what are they doing?

[Miss X]

I'm not sure what you are asking? I think the article explains the basic principals of the crack down on anti social behaviour. In my opinion, the ASBO's are a good thing. It's not fair for example, if someone is repeatedly stealing from shops in one street, that they should still be allowed to go into those shops or that street.

The ASBO basically prevents them from going into the area in which they like to cause trouble. Whether that be a group of shops, housing estate etc.

It's fine for people to talk about taking away civil liberties, but if we aren't tougher on crime, particularly among the youth of the UK, then we open ourselves up to a world of trouble in the future.

I think there definitely needs to be more done in terms of educating young people and parents who live in high crime areas though. More rehab for young offenders, tougher sentencing for petty criminals..

I mean, from a personal point of view... Four of my friends live in a house in the village next to our uni campus. There isn't much car parking there, so I park in a nearby street (a perfectly legal place to park) whenever I go round there. A couple of weeks ago, three young boys decided it would be really funny to pull the wing mirror and window wiper off my car. Now, I decided that it was a police matter. If I just let it go, they would think it was acceptable behaviour and they would continue to do it.


Now, I expect the police had a stern word with them and left them to it. I'd have like to have seen them face something a little harsher though, so that it really drums into these kids that vandalism is simply not acceptable and should not be tolerated.

Wow... I sound so right wing! I really feel strongly about prevention of crime in my country though and fully support the government in all of their work to prevent it.

[Bobmuhthol]

The idea of harsher punishment is not one that does much good. The fear of getting anally raped is, though. Nobody wants to go jail and get anally raped.

[Asha]

We should simply introduce mandatory anal rape for breaking curfews.
I agree.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. When feminists complain about rape I point out that men have a much larger institution devoted to it.

[Nieninque]

The problem with ASBO's is that it isnt aimed at addressing criminal behaviour, but behaviour that people get sick of that isnt addressed within criminal legislation.

Stuff like harassment and yobishness.

In theory, it's a great idea...except in practice, because it is effectively a civil remedy, the burden of proof is different, so you dont have to show "beyond all reasonable doubt" in order to obtain an order, only "on the balance of probabilities" which is a far softer burden of proof.

So, a bunch of neighbours, for instances, can put together a list of things that they dont like about a person and use that as evidence of ASB and get the order.

Now, while ASBO's are civil remedies, breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence, so its a pretty fucked up way of getting people into the criminal justice system if mismanaged...and sometimes they are.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Miss X
I'm not sure what you are asking? I think the article explains the basic principals of the crack down on anti social behaviour. In my opinion, the ASBO's are a good thing. It's not fair for example, if someone is repeatedly stealing from shops in one street, that they should still be allowed to go into those shops or that street.


I was just curious as to what ASBO's were, and what that article was about, mostly because I do not understand UK law or the current social issues you folks are dealing with.

[Goldenranger]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah. When feminists complain about rape I point out that men have a much larger institution devoted to it.

Somewhat of a tangent but...

Sexual Assault in the United States
In 2003, according to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), there were an
estimated 198,850 rape victimizations, attempted
rapes, or sexual assaults in America.
Who are Victims of Sexual Assault?
According to the 2003 NCVS:
• 90 percent of rape/sexual assault
victimizations are against women.

178,650 Women v. 19,850 Men

Sexual Assault in Correctional Facilities
8,210 allegations of sexual violence reported Nationwide in 2004
Males comprised 90% of victims
and perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate
nonconsensual sexual acts in prison
and jail.

821 Women v. 7389 Men

Totals: 179,471 Women v. 27,239 Men

This is not to minimalize the horror of rape when it occurs to men, especially while in prison, but to say that there is a much larger institution that leads to the rape of men in this country is a fallacy. Our society in general is an institution that leads to a much greater threat to women with an 85% to 15% split once rapes from prison are factored in.

All statistics are form the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is the basis of the Department of Justice's annual reports (not a predominantly feminist organization). The years are different 2003 for the first and 2004 for the prison rape since the law requiring the DoJ to publish rapes in prisons was only passed in 2003. Since rape rates fell during this year time maybe the split could be seen as 84.5% Women v. 15.5% men.

Sorry for the tangent, statement just irked me

[xtc]

Originally posted by Goldenranger

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah. When feminists complain about rape I point out that men have a much larger institution devoted to it.

Somewhat of a tangent but...

Sexual Assault in the United States
In 2003, according to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), there were an
estimated 198,850 rape victimizations, attempted
rapes, or sexual assaults in America.
Who are Victims of Sexual Assault?
According to the 2003 NCVS:
• 90 percent of rape/sexual assault
victimizations are against women.

178,650 Women v. 19,850 Men

Sexual Assault in Correctional Facilities
8,210 allegations of sexual violence reported Nationwide in 2004
Males comprised 90% of victims
and perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate
nonconsensual sexual acts in prison
and jail.

821 Women v. 7389 Men

Totals: 179,471 Women v. 27,239 Men

This is not to minimalize the horror of rape when it occurs to men, especially while in prison, but to say that there is a much larger institution that leads to the rape of men in this country is a fallacy. Our society in general is an institution that leads to a much greater threat to women with an 85% to 15% split once rapes from prison are factored in.

All statistics are form the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is the basis of the Department of Justice's annual reports (not a predominantly feminist organization). The years are different 2003 for the first and 2004 for the prison rape since the law requiring the DoJ to publish rapes in prisons was only passed in 2003. Since rape rates fell during this year time maybe the split could be seen as 84.5% Women v. 15.5% men.

Sorry for the tangent, statement just irked me

I don't think rapes in our vast jail system get reported and thus wouldn't be included in DOJ reports.

I think Warriorbird was just being flippant which if you look at his posts he has a tendacy to do.

[Warriorbird]

Pretty much. According to my brother in law (a sociologist) they're pretty sure that nearly all prison rapes are unreported, due to the severe consequences. Common sense though, pretty much. Likely not a good idea to be seen as a "snitch" or "rat" in prison.

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

What is interesting is that Phoney Tony was allowed to print his propaganda in a newspaper. The Guardian must be very pro-Blair to print it. The article doesn't say what measures he wants to take? However England isn't exactly a bastion of civil liberties. I am curious what measures he is proposing.

Personally I think the man is an idiot. He is like most educated, socialist, white men born into a rich family. He hasn't got a clue. He feels guilt because he is rich while there are poor in the world. He hasn't worked a real job in his whole life; he has sat around private country clubs decrying the rich and social injustice without knowing shit about it. Then he finds people dumb enough to vote for him and he implements numerous socialist policies that will add to the burden of the average tax payer and dampen the economy. Beware of rich white men born into rich families. I have a rule I almost never vote for them.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by xtc
Beware of rich white men born into rich families. I have a rule I almost never vote for them.

Jealousy does not look good on you.

[Miss X]

Calling Blair a socialist is a huge fucking insult to the SWP. He is no more a socialist than Margaret Thatcher was.

Brown however... Now he is a different story. We can look forward to more left wing policies and more battles against social injustice when he takes over. There is a politician I respect, and I do not respect many.

[TheEschaton]

Originally posted by xtc
. Beware of rich white men born into rich families. I have a rule I almost never vote for them.


Do you ever vote? Because, that's like 99.9999% of candidates.

-TheE-

[Asha]

:lol: TheE.

[TheEschaton]

Until I enter the political arena.


Then I'll be a rich Indian guy born to an immigrant-turned-American-dream family. And the world will embrace to my liberal, socialist policies.

Side note: I'm also an eternal optimist. ;-)
-TheE-

[xtc]

Originally posted by Miss X
Calling Blair a socialist is a huge fucking insult to the SWP. He is no more a socialist than Margaret Thatcher was.

I guess it depends where you stand when you are viewing him. Thatcher was certainly more right wing than Blair. Perhaps for a Labour man Blair is closer to the centre than others, but from an American perspective he is quite the socialist.


Brown however... Now he is a different story. We can look forward to more left wing policies and more battles against social injustice when he takes over. There is a politician I respect, and I do not respect many.

Can't say I am a big fan of the Labour party period.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Originally posted by xtc
. Beware of rich white men born into rich families. I have a rule I almost never vote for them.


Do you ever vote? Because, that's like 99.9999% of candidates.

-TheE-

It does limit my choices, perhaps I should clarify. If a politician is white, male, and born into a rich family, has only worked for Daddy or Daddies friend's or been financed by Daddies friends than I usually won't vote for him. If he is rich but has earned it himself, he is in the running. If he was born rich but has established himself separately from his family without the help of family, family money or family friends and/or their money he is in the running.

[StrayRogue]

The Guardian is not pro-Blair.

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Originally posted by xtc
. Beware of rich white men born into rich families. I have a rule I almost never vote for them.


Do you ever vote? Because, that's like 99.9999% of candidates.

-TheE-

It does limit my choices, perhaps I should clarify. If a politician is white, male, and born into a rich family, has only worked for Daddy or Daddies friend's or been financed by Daddies friends than I usually won't vote for him. If he is rich but has earned it himself, he is in the running. If he was born rich but has established himself separately from his family without the help of family, family money or family friends and/or their money he is in the running.

How does that equate into them being socialist? Bush Jr would then be a socialist and we all know he isn’t.

I think you are throwing around the word socialist irresponsibly.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Originally posted by xtc
. Beware of rich white men born into rich families. I have a rule I almost never vote for them.


Do you ever vote? Because, that's like 99.9999% of candidates.

-TheE-

It does limit my choices, perhaps I should clarify. If a politician is white, male, and born into a rich family, has only worked for Daddy or Daddies friend's or been financed by Daddies friends than I usually won't vote for him. If he is rich but has earned it himself, he is in the running. If he was born rich but has established himself separately from his family without the help of family, family money or family friends and/or their money he is in the running.

How does that equate into them being socialist? Bush Jr would then be a socialist and we all know he isn’t.

I think you are throwing around the word socialist irresponsibly.

The rule isn't limited to socialists. Bush is a classic example of how my formula works.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Until I enter the political arena.


Then I'll be a rich Indian guy born to an immigrant-turned-American-dream family. And the world will embrace to my liberal, socialist policies.

Side note: I'm also an eternal optimist. ;-)
-TheE-

Hmmm socialist Indian, you must be from the south of India.

and Rove will bury you......lol

[Atlanteax]

Doesn't the EU has in development plans to send problematic (foreigners who refuse to fit in and criminals) individuals to "colonies" outside of the European continent?

Where they'd deport these individuals to a destinated place, likely in Libya or eleswhere in Africa, and pay the host country to detain them (and to prevent them from returning to the EU).

.

Once the EU implements such a program, I hope that the U.S. will follow suit.

[TheEschaton]

Very much the south and Indian, half Goan, half Malyalum. ;-)


And Rove's got nothing on me. Well, nothing since I turned 18, at least, and we all know it only counts when you come of age....

...right?

RIGHT????

-TheE-

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Very much the south and Indian, half Goan, half Malyalum. ;-)


And Rove's got nothing on me. Well, nothing since I turned 18, at least, and we all know it only counts when you come of age....

...right?

RIGHT????

-TheE-

Ah you're only 18 that explains it. Winston Churchill said any 20 year old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart and any 40 year old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.

[Trinitis]

Not to break topic or anything, but reading Vic's responce, my mind was suddenly filled with visuals from Clockwork Orange. I always thought that movie was over-dramatical. With the laws in the UK the way they currently are, is that a forseeable future?

[TheEschaton]

I'm not 18, I'm simply saying I haven't done anything scandalous since before I was 18. ;-)


-TheE-

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'm not 18, I'm simply saying I haven't done anything scandalous since before I was 18. ;-)


-TheE-

So there is scandal in your background before you were 18. Rove will find it and then you will be sunk.....lol

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by xtc]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Trinitis
Not to break topic or anything, but reading Vic's responce, my mind was suddenly filled with visuals from Clockwork Orange. I always thought that movie was over-dramatical. With the laws in the UK the way they currently are, is that a forseeable future?

That's generally the typical alarmist's overreaction.

That won't happen.

Sure that the American populace accepted some changes via the Patrotic Act after 9/11 ... but it's now being gradually relaxed (you can now bring small harmless scissors onto planes) as countermeasures to the broad threat are implemented (such as the US banking system taking greater responsibilities for ensuring that transactions are legit).

A similiar situation is unfolding in the UK after the London incidents.

.

I have no doubt, being the moderate conservative I am, that should the government cross the line (the US Patrotic Act is still far from crossing the line), that the citizens would rise up in protest.

In the meantime, local law agencies (police) and the military are likely to side with the populace against the government, because they (particularly in content of their family) would be effected in a similiar way.

There won't be a police state unless it's mandated by necessity, such as post nuclear apocalypse.

The populace, and the police/military are not simply mindless drones ... they deserve more credit than that.

While there has been some protests about the Patriotic Act, it (the laws) has not yet been "oppressive" enough to provoke a counter-reaction.

In the meantime, the degree that the Patriotic Act does intrude into the public domain will be diminished over time, due to both the marginalization of the militant threat, and the civilian sector absorbing some of the responsibilities.

[Latrinsorm]

If you're talking about prison overcrowding, yes, any new law that people will break will result in more people going to prison.

If you're talking about the government stealing the free will of the populace, why didn't you just say "Blair = Hitler"? Would have saved some time.