Take the "grass" incident, as the article explains it, it is the same as saying "nark".
So what would you do if every day as you came home, there were 2 or 3 teenagers hanging out on the corner. You see activity that looks like drug dealing, so you call the police. They investigate, but the kids are clean that day(or dumped the drugs as the cops approach).
Now when you walk home tomorro, as you pass them, they start talking about how someone narked on them, giving you dirty looks, and making threatening gestures.
You find someone vandalized your front door while you were away. Every day for a week, they make the comment about narking, and you find some petty vandalism at your house.
You can't prove a thing. But using the ASBO law, you can get them restricted from making comments. And it will get the police to take a closer look at them, maybe swing by the area a bit more frequently.
But oohh, your so evil for having them prohibited from making threatening comments to you which could be completely innocent?
No, I'm gonna say this law doesn't seem so bad. It depends on how it is implemented. I'd probably be scared if it was implemented here, since the courts have a history of not using common sense but strictly obeying the letter of the law. But this is a different country, with different cultures, and I don't know if they have a habit of being too literal or using common sense.
So throw them in jail for that. If you can't prove that they're vandalizing your house, how can you prove that they're a threat for saying "grass" to you?
Yes, what the kids were doing was unpleasant and threatening. But you have to draw the line on what's really WRONG somewhere, and the British government has drawn the line in ENTIRELY the wrong place. Think of how easy it is to abuse that law. Police officers and judges should NOT have that much discretionary power over citizens. That 87 year-old guy wasn't even accused of threatening anyone, or potentially doing any physical harm to any person. But he's still got a court order prohibiting him from "being sarcastic".
Under the law as written, candidates could get restraining orders against their opposition for "being mean". This is a TERRIBLE law, and ripe for hideous abuses.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Always 2 sides to a story
Date: 2004-09-05 09:13 am (UTC)Take the "grass" incident, as the article explains it, it is the same as saying "nark".
So what would you do if every day as you came home, there were 2 or 3 teenagers hanging out on the corner. You see activity that looks like drug dealing, so you call the police. They investigate, but the kids are clean that day(or dumped the drugs as the cops approach).
Now when you walk home tomorro, as you pass them, they start talking about how someone narked on them, giving you dirty looks, and making threatening gestures.
You find someone vandalized your front door while you were away. Every day for a week, they make the comment about narking, and you find some petty vandalism at your house.
You can't prove a thing. But using the ASBO law, you can get them restricted from making comments. And it will get the police to take a closer look at them, maybe swing by the area a bit more frequently.
But oohh, your so evil for having them prohibited from making threatening comments to you which could be completely innocent?
No, I'm gonna say this law doesn't seem so bad. It depends on how it is implemented. I'd probably be scared if it was implemented here, since the courts have a history of not using common sense but strictly obeying the letter of the law. But this is a different country, with different cultures, and I don't know if they have a habit of being too literal or using common sense.
Vandalism is a crime
Date: 2004-09-05 09:52 am (UTC)Yes, what the kids were doing was unpleasant and threatening. But you have to draw the line on what's really WRONG somewhere, and the British government has drawn the line in ENTIRELY the wrong place. Think of how easy it is to abuse that law. Police officers and judges should NOT have that much discretionary power over citizens. That 87 year-old guy wasn't even accused of threatening anyone, or potentially doing any physical harm to any person. But he's still got a court order prohibiting him from "being sarcastic".
Under the law as written, candidates could get restraining orders against their opposition for "being mean". This is a TERRIBLE law, and ripe for hideous abuses.