Anti-social!
media

The Labour Government is pursuing the use of anti-social behaviour powers with a frightening zeal. And in turn, local authorities are using these new powers to purge the streets and communities of people considered by those in authority as 'undesirable.'

In turn, a variety of important rights are being eroded, including housing rights, those of freedom of movement and the right to fair trial. Yet these developments are proceeding unchecked and with little comment or criticism. This section of the website will monitor the development of these powers, highlight the abuses to which they are being put, and explore some of the consequences.

The Antisocial! Media Section will collate examples of use of ASBOs from the media and, where possible, critically consider them.

If you are aware of examples of the misuse of these powers that should be highlighted, please contact KFx and we will include the details in this section.

Lawzone: 12.10.04
Housing Today: 12.10.04

PA News

8.10.04

Manchester on line

6.10.04

Canadian article which casts a critical eye over the UK love of ASBOs and concludes that it is bad law making

American's are looking at our ASBOs and condemning them and and celebrating the fact that the American Constitution would make them unworkable. Surely this would give Blunkett food for thought.

Antisocial behaviour orders are just what young people aspire too; they need positive role models - argues a former yob

Children bear brunt of antisocial behaviour measures

Piece in the Guardian about how proud Manchester is of it's ASBO plan and how little time they have for woolly liberals who may object

Asbos work - lets have more of the same

The case of John Cash who is banned from knocking on any door in britain or phoning.

Probably one of the most serious infringments of civil liberty yet incorporated into an ASBO.

Drunken Neighbours slapped with ASBO

CNN 3.8.04

Nick Cohen turns his attention to ASBOs and highlights the case of an 87 year old who is no longer allowed to swear or be sarcastic.

He goes on to explore why, although crime is falling - fear of antisocial behaviour is so essential to New Labour

Q+A - Antisocial Behaviour Trailblazer

Presumably the Antisocial Behaviour Unit and the Local Authority view this as a 'successful outcome.'

'The law is a blunt instrument'

Round up of editorial comment from the UK media on the roll-out of ASBOs in the UK. Includes some words of wisdom from the Sun calling for more jails and work camps.

Estate where orders don't always work

Report from the use of ASBOs in Wythenshawe, and the limited impact that it is having on local people.

Blair pledges to extend antisocial behaviour measures

Parents cry foul as 'anti-social' teenagers are named and shamed

Families angry as council takes on young 'dealers'

Nuisance neighbours, beggars, and graffiti taggers targeted in action plan

Curfew plan faces court challenge

Begging protester dies

18.11.03
The Guardian

Beggars belief

Locking beggars up is not the answer. People need help and support to move away from this soul destroying activity, says Fay Selvan

The Big Issue in the North does not look at the prosecution of beggars from a law enforcement angle. Penalising people is not the answer, for them or society at large.

Rough justice

The government intends to punish persistent beggars, if necessary with prison terms. But is that the best way of getting them off the streets?

Beg to differ

Government moves to forcibly stop begging have created an outcry but many charities support such action, says Jeremy Swain

Article in which Swain makes the case for the use of coercion and punishment to get people to change.

Poster paints grim picture of beggars

Antisocial Behaviour Order man found Dead

Antisocial great-grandad escapes jail

Thursday October 21, 2004

An 88-year-old great-grandfather has escaped being jailed for breaching his antisocial behaviour order (Asbo) because of his age.

Alexander Muat, believed to be the oldest man in Britain to receive an Asbo, was today found guilty at Liverpool crown court of three breaches of his order. The jury cleared him of a further three breaches and one charge of putting a person in fear.

But judge David Lynch said: "There will be no prison for an 88-year-old man."

Mr Muat, a retired RAF engineer, from Huyton, Merseyside, was accused of repeatedly harassing his neighbours, Alison and Derek Fowler.

He denied all the allegations and claimed he was the real victim of harassment.

In July last year Mr Muat, who is profoundly deaf, became the oldest man in the country to receive an Asbo.

The order banned him from making excessive noise by banging doors and bin lids, filming his neighbours, swearing and shouting at them and driving his car into other people's driveways.

The case was adjourned today for sentencing on November 13

Last orders

Mary O'Hara reports on how the case of a woman with a serious drink problem is raising questions about the government's key weapon in the war against antisocial behaviour

Wednesday October 20, 2004
The Guardian

It's a sunny October afternoon, and a group of regulars in the Millers Arms pub in Lincoln are engaged in an animated discussion about whether Gina Mallard should be jailed for breaching an antisocial behaviour order (Asbo). Mallard, a colourful, loud-mouthed 41-year-old mother of two, is notorious in the high street area for her outrageous drunken behaviour. And, until recently, no one seemed to know what to do about her.

Everyone, it seems, has at least one outlandish yarn to relay. Mallard's exploits have become the stuff of folklore. Tales are told of how she is regularly spotted staggering drunk down the street, beer can in hand, swearing at passersby. Shopkeepers roll their eyes as they recall her prancing about in her underwear in public, or with her knickers on over her jeans.

Others mention the time Mallard lobbed a brick through an off licence window after staff refused to serve her. The owner of the local newsagent lets loose a resigned chuckle. Grown men, she says, have been known to run into her shop to hide in fear of Mallard making a pass at them. "She's a big, strong woman, and forceful when she's drunk," another shopowner says. "She might not actually hit you, but there's always a worry that one day she will thump someone. I've seen her smashing up a phone box for no reason."

The landlady of the Millers Arms talks of the last time she had to call the police to "sort Gina out". She had been "off her face", bothering punters and finishing their drinks when they weren't looking. The police eventually arrested her. "Jail wouldn't be enough for her," declares one man in the pub as he peers over a pint of bitter. "She's frightening and she scares the kids at the school across the road," says another drinker.

"I feel sorry for her," a young woman standing by the bar says with a stern shake of her head. "She has problems. Yes, she gets drunk and shouts and is a nuisance. But shouldn't she be getting help for her drinking problems instead of being thrown into prison? What good will that do? She'll only be let out and start doing it all over again."

The "Mallard question", it is fair to say, has divided the community. Some local people regard her merely as an irritant or public nuisance. Others believe she is an aggressive, violent terror whose antics make their lives a misery. Mallard's stepfather, Malcolm Pell, with whom she shares a house just off the high street, attempted to explain her behaviour in the local paper: "When she drinks, her anger and depression seem to come out."

Mallard was issued with an Asbo in July last year following dozens of court appearances for petty crime, including criminal damage and being drunk and disorderly. The conditions of the Asbo stipulate that she cannot drink or be drunk in a public place for two years.

But Mallard has breached the Asbo seven times. As a result, when she appears at Lincoln crown court for sentencing next Monday she could face five years in jail - the maximum penalty for a breach. She has been on remand for 14 weeks.

Earlier this month, the Lincolnshire Echo ran a front page article questioning the logic of jailing Mallard for breaching the Asbo (to date, most local press coverage around the country has been in favour of Asbos). The article provoked a deluge of letters to the editor, some protesting at the harshness of Mallard's treatment, others - including a nurse who treated her at Lincoln county hospital - saying she deserves all she gets. "On several occasions she completely destroyed her room, throwing a television across the room and requiring hospital security to calm the situation," wrote the nurse. Lincolnshire police says it applied for the Asbo to help its officers protect the local community from what it describes as Mallard's "horrendous" behaviour. "She is not a loveable rogue, people are quite frightened and intimidated by her," says a police spokesman.

With her persistent disruptive behaviour, and its obvious detrimental effect on the local community, Mallard is, in theory, exactly the sort of person the government had in mind when it introduced Asbos five years ago. The government defines grounds for Asbos as: "a manner that caused, or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household".

Asbos were introduced to act as a deterrent and to help rid local communities of troublemakers. They can be served on anyone 10-years-old or over. According to the most recent Home Office figures, 2,455 Asbos have been issued since 1999. They have been lauded by the home secretary, David Blunkett, and held up time and again by ministers as evidence of New Labour's "tough on crime" credentials.

So far, the public and the media have tended to focus on Asbos dished out to young people. But Mallard's case - and a spate of orders against vulnerable groups such as beggars - has begun to fuel concern that Asbos are beginning to be applied inappropriately. The conditions imposed by some recent Asbos have attracted ridicule. There is the case where someone has been banned from being sarcastic (he challenged it saying he was being ironic). In another case, a boy has been banned from using the word "grass" in England until 2010. In each case, in theory, a breach could lead to a five-year jail term. On the face of it, Mallard's Asbo does not appear flagrantly ridiculous, but nor does it seem entirely rational.

Critics allege that by imposing conditions like these, Asbos are setting people up to fail - especially vulnerable individuals - who, they say, need rehabilitation, not time inside. A spokeswoman for drugs and alcohol charity Addaction says she is bewildered by the government's belief that instructing someone with a alcohol problem not to drink will be effective, and calls it "pointless". She adds: "The problem is bigger than the person. I can see how Asbos might be effective in some circumstances, but there needs to be more appropriate help for people with drink-related problems."

A spokeswoman for Alcohol Concern adds that there are worries about whether Asbos can ever be a long-term answer to "street drunks". There is no quick fix, she says, and more thought needs to go into how health services, local councils, police and the courts work together.

The charities concede that for some individuals - perhaps those who continually refuse treatment - jail is inevitable. But they insist that, once in prison, people with alcohol problems are let down by the system. They point to a Prison Reform Trust report in January that concluded that only one prison of 138 in England and Wales has a recognised alcohol abuse programme.

Civil liberties group Liberty says there are broader implications. Asbos are in danger of being used as a "back door" method of locking people up for minor offences because of the kinds of conditions applied, a spokesman says. Asbos come under civil law and are issued for offences that probably would not lead to a custodial sentence. However, as Liberty points out, breaches are a criminal offence. And, since some are for minor things (such as drinking in a pub), which would not themselves qualify for jail sentence in the criminal courts, the person being jailed need not have committed any serious crime.

"There simply is not enough monitoring of Asbos and their effectiveness," the Liberty spokesman says. "There have now been thousands of Asbos issued. It allows politicians to sound tough, but do we really know how effective they are? We are not against Asbos, but there is an argument for a full-scale review of the policy."

Rob Allen, director of campaign group Rethinking Crime and Punishment, says handing out custodial sentences for Asbo breaches appears to run "counter to the overall thrust of government policy, which is to cut prison numbers".

In a statement, a Home Office spokesman points to the fact that two-thirds of Asbos are not breached as "a clear indication of their effectiveness", and this is backed up, he says, by research that shows communities "felt safer". Labour's alcohol crime reduction strategy, announced earlier this year, is also being promoted as evidence of a fresh focus on vulnerable people with alcohol-related problems.

The government is keen to get across that it has a "tiered approach" to antisocial behaviour. It says "appropriate interventions" by agencies and social services are made where necessary. Whether ministers will listen in the coming months to the growing number of voices challenging this remains to be seen.

There are no plans to set guidelines for the conditions laid down by Asbos, the Home Office insists. They will continue to be left to the courts' discretion. Some 35% of Asbos are breached one or more times, and 18% of all Asbos handed out result in a custodial sentence. There are no figures available from government on the length of sentences. If Mallard is given the maximum sentence next week, more people may start to question the government's line.

Back at the pub, people mull over the arguments. Life is quieter with Mallard on remand, they say. But one customer sums up a reservation shared by the group. "What good is jail going to do in the end? Don't people just come out having learned other stuff about committing crime?"

The A-Z of Asbos

·Total number of Asbos issued in England and Wales between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2004: 2,455.

·Number of applications for Asbos turned down by the courts: 42 (1.7%).

·Total issued against 10- to17-year-olds: 1,169.

·Total issued to adults 18 and over: 1,286.

·Highest number of Asbos issued by a single region: 422 by Greater Manchester.

·15.2% of Asbos are issued to women.

·If the number of Asbos given out in the first quarter of 2004 is matched in subsequent quarters, the total will be almost double that of 2003.

The following are from the most up-to- date breakdown of figures available from government (June 1, 2000, to December 31, 2002):

· 50% of breaches result in a custodial sentence (18% of all Asbos end in a jail term).*

· 35.5% of all Asbos are breached one or more times.**

· Source: Home Office figures for England and Wales collected from courts. * The government could not supply figures for average length of sentences, number of jail terms served, or the maximum jail term served to date. ** The government counts multiple breaches as a single breach. There are therefore no figures for the total number of breaches.

Teenager who terrorised elderly breaches ASBO

Oct 20 2004
IC Surrey on-line

By Kelly Ranson


A TEENAGER was back in court after breaching his Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) less than a month after it was issued.

Ricky Bailey appeared before Crawley magistrates on Friday after visiting his great-grandfather's home in Buckingham Court.

The 18-year-old is banned from the sheltered housing area for terrorising other elderly residents.

He had originally been slapped with the order on September 16 when Crawley Council supplied evidence of numerous incidents of nuisance, noise and intimidation of the residents.

Appearing in court, Bailey admitted breaching the order on October 9.

Richard Lynn, prosecuting, told the court that on October 9 police officers were contacted by Crawley Council stating that Bailey was at his great-grandfather's home.

When the police arrived he was arrested.

Mr Lynn said: "He said he had gone to Buckingham Court so that he had somewhere to sleep."

Christian Wasunna, defending, said Bailey had gone to his great-grandfather's home after he and his girlfriend were told to leave her home after an argument with her father.

Mr Wasunna said: "He was more than happy to leave and sleep rough.

"But he was with his girlfriend so they went to his grandfather's house.

"He said he fell asleep and he was found by police officers asleep about 8am."

Mr Wasunna added Bailey was now staying with a family friend and was hoping to move to Worthing.

The case was adjourned to Crawley Magistrates' Court until November 5 while pre-sentence reports were compiled.

Speaking afterwards Bailey said: "I must say we do hang about a lot.

"But terrorising elderly residents - I have never done that. I try to help."

Great-grandfather William Bailey, 86, who has lived in Buckingham Court for seven years, believes his great-grandson is harmless and describes the teen as "a good lad".

'Behaviour still a problem as red tape ruins Asbos'

Oct 20 2004

By The Huddersfield Daily Examiner

ANTI-SOCIAL behaviour orders are not working and should be looked at again.That was the claim being made today by three Kirklees councillors. Conservative councillors Robert Light, Tony Brice and Khizar Iqbal say anti-social behaviour "remains rife" in Kirklees despite the introduction of Asbos several years ago. They claim red tape hinders the effectiveness.

Asbos are made by magistrates on request of the police or council and place conditions on people who have committed nuisance behaviour. If the person does not obey the conditions, they can be punished by the courts for breaching the Asbo. Clrs Light, Brice and Iqbal say bureaucracy is stopping Asbos from being effective.They claim there is too much paperwork and evidence collection needed to put an Asbo in place. They want the Government to change this.

Clr Light said: "Although Asbo legislation has been in place a number of years, we still have a growing problem with anti-social behaviour. "It's still a very bureaucratic process. As a result, Kirklees has taken out one of the fewest numbers of Asbos in the country. "The Government has appointed ambassadors to tell councils how to do it. But it is missing the point. They need to make things simpler. The Government needs to rethink its policies." The councillors will submit a motion at a full council meeting today, asking the council to back their stance.

Clr Light added that the Conservative group also want Kirklees Anti-Social Behaviour Unit to seek more Asbos and give stiffer punishments to those who breach the orders. He said: "I would like to think that once the bureaucracy is sorted out, Asbos can be effective. "But in Kirklees we still need to be more willing to use them. "In some cases Asbos are not being policed effectively. There is no point having these orders if breaches are not going to be jumped on."

However, Clr Ann Raistrick - Kirklees Council Cabinet member for community safety - disagreed that the process was too slow. She said: "It is unclear what they mean when they say the Asbo process takes too long. "In some cases you get one immediately, in others you might need other measures first. "Where do you start counting - from when you decide to go for an Asbo or from the date you get your first complaint about an individual? There are different stages according to what is required." Clr Raistrick said imposing more Asbos should be a last resort in solving nuisance behaviour. She said: "The order itself is usually a final step. "If we have to go for an Asbo, then haven't we failed miserably by letting things get to such a level that we are having to invoke the law? "It is not about counting how many Asbos we have. It is about effective interventions that remove the problems for the local community and for the individual who is committing the nuisance. It is not as easy as saying we need an Asbo within three weeks to get them off the streets."

Clr Raistrick added that Asbos were being properly enforced. "The justice system is responding very effectively. There is a will to use the legislation appropriately."

Grandfather denies breaking Asbo

BBC: 19.10.04

A great-grandfather has denied breaking an anti-social behaviour order (Asbo).
Alexander Muat, 88, of Huyton, Merseyside, is believed to be the oldest man in the UK to be made the subject of an Asbo.

He told Liverpool Crown Court he denied harassing neighbours Alison and Derek Fowler, who say he threatened them and flashed lights into their home. He said he was the victim of harassment and was too intelligent to break the Asbo and risk jail.

The Fowlers have told the court that the retired RAF engineer threatened them by making cutting gestures across his cheeks. They also say he covered his bin in grease so they could not move it when it blocked the entrance to their driveway.

Mr Muat, who is profoundly deaf, told the court: "I am sure I am the victim of harassment. "I was not happy about the anti-social behaviour order, but I am intelligent enough not to break it and go to jail." He added that a video which appeared to show him flashing a light on and off and making the sign of the cross was actually him mimicking the actions of his neighbours. He said: "During the whole episode I was copying them, I was aping them.

"They had been flashing their lights on and off and making the sign of the cross at me so I was doing the same back." Mr Muat was made subject to the order in July 2003 and is banned from making excessive noise by banging doors and bin lids, filming his neighbours, swearing and shouting at them and driving his car into other people's driveways.

The hearing continues on Wednesday.

The High Court gave the all-clear for teenage gang members made subject to anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) to be named and shamed.

LAwzone: 12th October 2004

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Treacy ruled that the publicity given was “justified, reasonable and proportionate”, even though the authorities did not seem to have recognised that such publicity might have infringed human rights (in R (on the application of Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner).

The case concerned complaints of anti-social behaviour made by residents living in an estate within the London Borough of Brent. The proceedings were widely reported, in both the local and national press. A few days after the orders were made the local authority posted details of the proceedings on its community website. Leaflets were distributed throughout the greater part of the exclusion area. In the same month the authority published a report of the proceedings in its newsletter to tenants. The publicity material carried the claimant’s images, names and ages and details of the orders issued against them. The claimants applied for judicial review seeking a declaration that their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

The judges dismissed the challenge, which was supported by the civil rights pressure group Liberty. Lord Justice Kennedy said that it was clear that whether publicity was “intended to inform, to reassure, to assist in enforcing the existing orders by policing, to inhibit the behaviour of those against whom the orders have been made, or to deter others”, it was “unlikely to be effective unless it includes photographs, names and at least partial addresses”.

“Not only do the readers need to know against whom orders have been made, but those responsible for publicity must leave no room for misidentification,” he said. “As to the remainder of the content of any publicity, that must depend upon the facts of the case. If, as here, residents have been exposed to significant criminal behaviour for years, and orders have been obtained by reference to that behaviour and to bring it to an end, I see no reason why publicity material should not say so.” The language used in some of the publicity was “colourful”, the judge said, but it was “entirely appropriate, and the colour was needed in order to attract the attention of the readership”.

Article written by: Jon Robins Date: 12-Oct-2004
Practice Area: Human Rights, Crime, Public Keywords: No related links

Reference Citator

[2004] EWCA Civ 683; C-418/01; 1989 AC 177; SI 2004/1235 (more...)

Naming and shaming is not against European Convention on Human Rights, say judges

Housing Today

The High Court has backed the right of social landlords to name and shame the subjects of antisocial behaviour orders.

Brent council and the Metropolitan Police had been challenged by the civil rights group Liberty, which claims the council’s publicity led to bullying and physical threats against the families of ASBO recipients.

But Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Treacy last week ruled that neither the council nor the police had breached article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article upholds citizens’ rights to have their private and family life treated with respect.

Tim Winter, national organiser of the social landlords’ crime and nuisance group, said: “People using ASBOs are delighted the decision has been made at the High Court. It is essential that the community should know it is being protected, and there has been uncertainty about this until now.

“Most people who use ASBOs now will be considering publicity on a case-by-case basis.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “We are pleased the judge recognised the rights of the community in this test case.”

From April 1999 to March this year, 2500 ASBOs were granted in England and Wales.

In the case of Brent council, leaflets were handed out to residents containing the photos, names and addresses of three youths caught behaving antisocially in the London borough. The council also published their details in a newsletter and on a website.

Liberty is not planning to appeal. However, a spokesman said: “In one case, the five- or six-year-old sister of a named person was bullied at school.

“In another, the parents were told to get off the estate and physically threatened.”

Delivering the judgment last Thursday, Lord Justice Kennedy said: “Whether publicity is intended to inform, to reassure, to assist in enforcing the existing orders made by

policing, to inhibit the behaviour of those against whom the orders have been made, or to deter others, it is unlikely to be effective unless it includes photographs, names and at least partial addresses.”

Some time within the current parliamentary term the Home Office also plans to change the law so councils can inform the public about under 18s who breach an ASBO.

At present publicity is allowed about minors who are served with ASBOs.

But if they breach them, it becomes a criminal offence and automatic court reporting restrictions apply.

The legislation will still give courts the discretion to restrict publicity where they see a need in individual cases.

28 arrests in problem pub drugs swoop

Oct 13 2004

Greenwich Mercury

NEW powers were used to close a pub for two months following a major anti-drugs operation. Twenty eight arrests were made as police officers swooped on The Pullman in Woolwich New Road, at around 9pm on Friday. They were executing a drugs warrant following allegations of cocaine dealing at the venue.

The pub, pictured, is only the second venue in Greater London to be closed using the 2003 Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) legislation. The arrests were made for alleged offences including possession and supply of class-A drugs, possession of offensive weapons and theft.

Those arrested were taken to police stations at locations across London. Five people were due to appear at Greenwich Magistrates' Court on Monday. Inspector Jim Moore, of Woolwich police, said the legislation was used to serve a temporary notice to close the pub for 48 hours before the full order was granted at Greenwich Magistrates' Court on Monday.

He said the owners of the pub, Mill House Inns, now had a "window of opportunity" to come up with a credible plan for its future, adding: "If there is no plan by December 12 we will seek its closure for a further 12 months."He added that there had been evidence of antisocial behaviour at the pub over the past two-and- a-half years.

Borough commander Chief Superintendent David Commins said: "The arrests show that we are determined to crack down on disorder and in particular the supply of drugs." A Mill House Inns spokesman said while the pub was closed for two months the firm would make improvements to the building and work closely with the police to ensure the reopened pub would offer "a safe and enjoyable evening for all". He added: "Over the years we have enjoyed a good working relationship with the police."

Teenager Faces Jail If He Dodges Bus Fares

By Hugo Duncan, PA News 8.10.04

A teenager could be jailed for five years if he uses public transport without a valid ticket.

Michael Nugent, of Westcroft Road in Withington, Manchester, risks prison and a £5,000 fine if he boards a bus, tram or train without paying.

It is part of a four-year anti-social behaviour order (Asbo) imposed on the 19-year-old by the city’s magistrates to curb his criminal behaviour.

The public transport condition is the first of its kind in Manchester, says the city’s council, and one of the first in the UK, and follows complaints about Nugent’s behaviour on a bus in the city in November last year.

Nugent also has a string of convictions for burglary and theft dating back to 2000.

Manchester City Council’s housing chief Eddy Newman said: “The people of south Manchester deserve respite from Nugent’s activities.

“He will now know that an Asbo is something with teeth. One breach could mean imprisonment.”

ASBO boy, 14, must halt race hate campaign

Manchester On-Line:

Wednesday, 6th October 2004

A TEENAGE boy has been given an indefinite anti-social behaviour order after waging a race hate campaign against a Muslim family, it emerged today.

Aaron Blinko, 14, threw bottles and stones at the family's 12-year-old son during a series of attacks that spanned several months.

The teenager, of Culcheth Lane, Newton Heath, Manchester, hurled racist abuse at the family, shot at them with a ball-bearing gun and smashed the windscreen of their car.

He also threw fireworks at the youngster and threatened to attack him when he refused to buy a bag of marijuana.

Magistrates in Manchester imposed the order at a hearing on September 28.

The blanket ban forbids Blinko from using racist, insulting or offensive language or behaviour in public, including the use of the word "Paki", anywhere in the UK.

Cannabis

He is also banned from carrying or using any weapon, including a ball-bearing gun, or any article capable of being used as a weapon. He cannot throw stones, fireworks or other missiles.

Breach of the ASBO could result in a fine of up to £5,000 or detention or jail up to five years.

He has previously been found guilty of possession of cannabis and criminal damage.

Manchester City Council housing chief Eddy Newman, said: "This boy has been acting in an appalling manner. Violent and racist behaviour will not be tolerated in this city.

"We owe it to all our residents of whatever background to protect them in every way we can. If Blinko breaks this order the consequences will be severe."

De-Toxing the Tube

Oct 5 2004

South London Press


ONE of the Tube's most prolific graffiti vandals has been sentenced to a 200-hour community punishment order.

Daniel Halpin, whose graffiti tag "Tox" can be seen on trains and buses across the capital, was made the subject of the order after breaching the conditions of an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) made against him.

The 19-year-old from Stockwell had spent four-and-a-half months on remand at Feltham Young Offender institution ahead of the sentencing hearing at Inner London Crown Court on Friday.

The court heard Halpin was caught in Camberwell bus garage in the early hours of May 17 in breach of the ASBO banning him carrying aerosols and graffiti equipment.

He admitted breaching the ASBO and asked for 20 other offences to be taken into consideration.

The court was told how Halpin had stopped attending school at the age of 14 and that both his parents were drug addicts.

Halpin's barrister, Trevor Siddle, said: "He describes his graffiti as an addiction. He accepts he needs help to stop and that the antisocial behaviour on the estate where he lives does not provide any.

"His tag 'Tox' is short for the word toxin."

Recorder Philip Sapsford sentenced Halpin, of Burrow House, Stockwell Park Estate, Stockwell, to a 200-hour community punishment order after hearing he had already spent four-and-a-half months on remand.

Speaking after Halpin was sentenced, a London Underground spokesman said: "Mr Halpin is now learning that his actions have serious consequences - graffiti is criminal damage."

Alas, you really can't legislate civility

Toronto Star 7.9.04

Everybody has a bad neighbour story — the time, for example, when you were having a small fire to roast some wieners, and the neighbours called the forestry department or the fire department to come put it out.

Or the familiar case of the neighbour who chains his dog outside, and lets it howl the night away, singing canine love songs to the moon.

There are far more serious cases, though, where neighbours do the most un-neighbourly things, and come to hate one another deeply, and sometimes even come to blows.

And then there's the law. Police forces and fire departments will tell you that they hate bad neighbour calls because everyone has a side, because they're often emotionally charged, and because there often isn't a clear way to settle anything.

For writer E.B. White, one man's meat might well be another man's poison.

For a pair of neighbours, one man's music might be another man's insufferable noise.

And no matter what a police officer does, there will be at least one unhappy party when the officer gets into the cruiser and drives away.

In Britain, the government has gotten so fed up with bad neighbours that it has introduced a law to force neighbourly behaviour — they call it the ASBO, or anti-social behavioural order. The orders are issued by local councils, some of which are more militant than others.

In all, since 1999, some 2,455 orders were requested. All but 42 were granted.

The orders can force you, on pain of prison, to turn down the music or the television — even to stop slamming your garage door at 5:30 in the morning.

Breaching an order can mean up to five years in prison.

ASBOs have also been used to deal with far more serious problems; prostitution, vandalism and teenagers menacing passersby have also been the subject of the orders.

It is, though, a backhand way to make law. Unfortunately, you can't really legislate civility. Bad neighbours — everyone understands about that. They are as obvious as peeling paint or a garbage-strewn front lawn.

But bad laws are obvious, too.

And often the only way to really deal with a bad neighbour is to hope against hope that they will just plain move away.

Britain's devilish "order" system

Denver Post: 7.9.04

We're as opposed to hooliganism and terrorizing neighbors as the next person, but we're not quite ready to tear up the Constitution in favor of Great Britain's innovative device for punishing thugs and other malefactors: The Anti-Social Behaviour Order.
The orders, known as ASBOs, were authorized in 1998 by Parliament under the Crime and Disorder Act to reduce petty crimes of the sort that make life miserable for Her Majesty's subjects unlucky enough to live near uncommon scolds and unholy terrors.

The orders have been used effectively to clear neighborhoods of prostitutes, drug dealers and gang members who preyed on the elderly, burglarized homes, and vandalized or destroyed dwellings.

But the concept also is devilishly dangerous because orders are easily obtainable and enjoin a broad spectrum of conduct. Between April 1999 and March 2004, the courts issued 2,455 but denied only 42.

ASBO hearings are civil proceedings that don't require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," and hearsay is admissable. Evidence may be submitted "in confidence," according to a government website.

Although an order is a civil action, violating one is a criminal offense with punishments theoretically as severe as a five-year prison sentence. So far, though, the longest jail term for disobeying an ASBO has been five months.

Critics say it's unfair to put a person's liberty at risk with a lower standard of proof than that traditionally applied in criminal cases.

Most of the ne'er-do-wells ASBO'd so far are truly nasty people with criminal histories, but in Dickensian fashion, orders have also been applied to juveniles as young as 11 whose names and photographs are published in local papers. These kids aren't angels, but revealing their identity has made life a living hell for some, according to British press accounts.

Youngsters have been forbidden to use specific words such as "grass," a street term for informer, on pain of imprisonment. Others have been cited for being noisy or running through gardens.

One cantankerous old man was cited for swearing and making sarcastic comments against his neighbors. Orders obtained by city and town councils often ban a person from certain areas for years.

Thank the founders and their followers for our Constitution's free-speech provisions and due-process guarantees.

Asbos would not have kept me out of jail

Craig Morrison
Sunday September 5, 2004
The Observer

It was good to see the Prime Minister hit the ground running on his first week back from holiday as he set about tackling the problem of unruly behaviour among sections of the nation's youth.
Throughout the country people see anti-social behaviour as a blight on their communities and Tony Blair is right to address people's worries.

But I know that Anti Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos) are not the answer. The most high-profile element of the Asbos: allowing youngsters to have their name and photo emblazoned across the posters and local papers for minor offences, could well do more harm than good. They call it 'name and shame' but, believe me, the Asbo is more likely to be seen as 'name and fame' to the aspiring lout.

Why am I so sure? I am speak from experience as an accomplished student of the school of juvenile delinquency. From there I graduated easily to the college of criminality and a number of custodial sentences. So I know what I'm talking about. I look at each new crime initiative with interest wondering if it would have worked for me. This one would not have deterred me at all.

Had the Asbo concept been around at the time I was offending, I would have undoubtedly wanted to earn one to show off to my friends, just as most children enjoy displaying their better-than-expected GCSE results.

My equally anti-social associates - green with envy- would have given me a pat on the back for my accomplishment before setting off for a bit of skulduggery themselves, in a bid to match or better my achievement.

I have no doubt that for many young people aspiring to a life of crime, the Asbo has become another rite of passage towards adult imprisonment along with police cautions, and time at a secure unit or a young offenders' institutions.

Sadly, it may give chil dren who have trouble fitting in a way of winning the admiration of their peers. The poor or scruffy or daft child has always been a target for bullies, but not if he or she can be naughtier, not if they can be 'named and famed'.

I know the Asbo is a civil measure - that the criminal offence only happens after an Asbo is breached. We won't be branding these young people as criminals, just anti-social. But I know from personal experience that once you are labelled you become resentful. And resentment can be quickly followed by defiance and misplaced pride.

As in other areas of life, you are only as good as your last accomplishment, so in order to get the accolades of your peers, you must continue to produce the goods. Once on that road, it's easy to get lost, as I found to my bitter cost

In my experience the only boys in my crowd who would have been deterred by an Asbo are those who would go home to a savage beating at the hands of a bullying parent.

I don't have the answer, but I know the Asbo quick fix will not work. My own turning point came when someone pointed out that other kids from a background similar to mine - the sort currently on the Asbo hit list - might be looking to me as some sort of role model. Until then, I'd had a lifetime of being named and shamed and told publicly and privately just how bad I was.

By that time I was in my mid-twenties and serving a seven-year sentence at Wormwood Scrubs. Someone had the inspired idea to get me working at a special unit there with disruptive children - exactly the sort of young people who now receive Asbos.

I was in a better position than any authority figure to tell them what really lay ahead for them, without labelling them 'anti-social' or anything else. And it made me feel I was doing something positive for the first time in my life. That unit has now, tragically, closed down because it was judged too expensive.

My chance came because I happened to be in one of the few places within the penal system where instead of dehumanising you, they treated and spoke to inmates as fellow men.

Finally, someone had made an effort to treat me like a fellow human being. I started acting like one.

Children bear the brunt of "anti-social behaviour" measures
- Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO's) target children and protestors

Statewatch 5.9.04

On 19 July the Home Office launched a five-year strategic plan entitled Confident Communities in a Secure Britain which Tony Blair claims marks the end of "the 1960s social-liberal consensus on law and order" that has enabled some to take "freedom without responsibility". It is the latest step in the government's drive to cut crime by 15% over the next four years and reduce "anti-social behaviour". The main points are:

* Fixed Penalty Notices extended to cover more crimes such as under-age drinking, petty theft, shoplifting and the misuse of fireworks

* Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) to have their process of application sped up to a matter of hours and media reporting of those who break them to be made easier

* Numbers of Community Support Officers (CSOs) to rise to 24,000 by 2008.

* 12,000 police officers to be freed for frontline duty by reducing paperwork

* New £36 million unit to offer support to witnesses and crime victims

* Doubling of electronic tagging to 18,000 people and the introduction of satellite tracking of offenders

* Number of pilots for "Together" schemes to be increased from 10 to 50. The 50 worst offenders in each area will be "named and shamed"

* Under plans to be published in the autumn, local communities will be able to trigger snap inspections of their local police force, call for increased use of curfews and ASBOs, and set priorities for local policing. The levelling of petitions is the example Blunkett gave of how they would do this

* Specialist anti-social behaviour courts and prosecutors to be created, and legal aid to be "streamlined" so that by 2005 a system of fixed fees will be in place

* Everyone entering or leaving the country, after 2008, to have their photo taken and "facial mapping" technology to be used

The package was greeted with uniform hostility from opposition parties who claimed it to be little more than an attempt to grab headlines. Indeed, there are very few new measures, rather just modifications to existing mechanisms for combating anti-social behaviour. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, claimed that "this government promised to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. We have seen a lot of get tough rhetoric but little progress on tackling the causes". Criminalising low-level nuisance behaviour is not likely to reduce the public's fear of crime. It is children, in particular, that seem to be the target of this anti-social behavioural clampdown having already faced increasing restrictions of their civil liberties over the last five years.

For example, a new power, introduced under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, which allows for the dispersal of groups (defined as two or more people) gathered in an area deemed to be an anti-social "hot-spot", has been frequently applied. This is regardless of age and time of day and refusal to obey can lead to arrest. The Act also provides for the taking home of anyone under the age of 16 found on the streets after 9pm who "is not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over". In Wigton, a Cumbrian market town, children were banned from the town centre after dark for the two-week duration of their Easter holiday. Summer "curfew" zones have also been established across London, (in Trafalgar Square, Regent Street, Camden and 14 other areas), in which children are not allowed to gather. If they ignore an order to disperse they could be held in a police cell and later handed custodial sentences or a fine of up to £5,000. Many other areas have pursued similar policies.

Police-style security and drug checks are also being enforced in schools. Sniffer dogs are regularly used in over 100 schools throughout England and Wales according to Drugscope, a UK drugs charity. Twelve police forces have taken up the scheme with a further 15 said to be interested in setting up similar projects. The Guardian newspaper says that:

"A common approach is for a police officer to demonstrate their sniffer dog to an assembly while another dog is sniffing bags left behind in classrooms. The children are also individually sniffed as they leave" (18.5.04)

A Kent police survey found that some children felt they had been lied to about the bag searches, and were uncomfortable around the dogs. Headteachers are apparently also turning to Drugwipe products which can conduct two minute drug tests detecting any traces of cocaine or ecstasy left on desks and keyboards. Drugwipe claimed, in June 2004, that 30 schools were using these tests. Martin Barnes, chief executive of Drugscope, argues that "these measures risk driving drug use further underground, an increase in truancies and exclusions and a breakdown in trust between pupils and schools." Concern was also voiced by Chris Keates, the acting general secretary of the teachers' union, NASUWT: "We are extremely concerned about the apparent trend for some schools to use private companies, whether or nor they are using dogs."

Children are also bearing the brunt of ASBOs, whose numbers have doubled over the last 12 months and the application of which has sparked much controversy. A key part of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 they came into force on 1 April 1999 and were later modified by the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. Breaching an ASBO is a criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Moreover, as a civil law matter the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases, and hearsay evidence is admissible. Home Office guidelines for the Crime and Disorder Act had stated that "ASBOs will be used mainly against adults" and only against children in exceptional circumstances. This has been far from the case.

Alarmingly in June a ten year-old in Birmingham was punished with an ASBO by the City Council for anti-social behaviour. Manchester City Council has received particular attention for the large number of ASBOs it has issued for a range of far-reaching sanctions. These include meeting more than three non-family members in public, the wearing of a single golf glove, the use of the word "grass", and misbehaving in school. Five years in prison await these four children should they ignore the orders.

The misuse of ASBOs also extends to other areas such as environmental protestors (for example at the Newchurch Guinea Pig Farm). Similarly, in June, protestors gathered at Caterpillar construction company's offices in Solihull to demonstrate, as they had on previous occasions, at their continued sale of bulldozers to Israel. This time eight out of the 11 protestors were arrested under ASBOs. In Rugby, a man who has campaigned against the council over issues such as health and safety and corruption was served with an ASBO. Having broken it he is now on remand at Blakenhurst prison staging a hunger strike. Bizarrely in Rushmoor, Transco, a national gas company, was served with an ASBO after one of its buildings was spray-painted with graffiti and they had failed to clean it up quickly enough. Clearly ASBOs are being used well outside their original remit of dealing with "nuisance neighbours" with this trend only likely to accelerate as more police forces and councils begin to recognise its potential for quashing challenges to authority.

Those exercising a legitimate right to demonstrate are being criminalised under these measures. As are children when, without having committed or even been charged with a crime, they are liable to five years in prison if found standing on a forbidden street. This on the basis of an order attained through anonymous hearsay evidence and judged upon the "balance of probability." National Youth Agency development officer Bill Badham claims the use of ASBOs to prohibit children using certain words, wearing certain clothes, and banning them from congregating in certain areas serves to "criminalise young people for non-criminal activity." This represents a shocking reversal of the principal of innocent until proven guilty. The government appears happier to fine and alienate a 10 year-old child than to address the symptoms of "anti-social" behaviour.

A 2001 study by the British Medical Journal emphasised that the best way to tackle the latter is to provide their parents with a structured training programme at the earliest possible stage. ASBOs often seem to do little more than further alienate children already feeling disassociated from the society in which they live. Moreover, many apparently see the orders as little more than a badge of honour. Of course in all cases, ASBOs will only be effectively enforced if there is a high level of public awareness of which individuals are under them, hence the drive to "name and shame" people through leaflets and local papers. The 20,000 new CSOs will perform a similar function, but with the public now having a large role in both the issuing and enforcing of ASBOs there would seem to be a lot of potential for abuse. Regardless, it represents the latest step in the privatisation of police roles and powers (see Statewatch, vol 14 no 1).

Plans to create a national database containing the confidential details of every child in Britain will also be added to the Children's Bill in the autumn. There will now be cradle to grave surveillance, and according to Barry Hugill of Liberty, "a national database through the back door. You start with information about all the children but in 20 years' time you've got almost half the population." (see Statewatch News Online, March 2004)

The Prime Minister's recent soundbite blaming the 1960s for making these measures a necessity, argued that its eroding of individual responsibility has led to an onslaught of anti-social behaviour. No attention is paid to the promotion of individualism in the Thatcherite era, which many would argue played a significant role in the dismantling of civic society. This was followed by the Labour government's agenda on the privatisation of police roles and powers. Moreover, the claim that crime has dropped by 39% over the past nine years while Britain's prison population has risen by 25,000 over the last decade needs an explanation.

Home Office Strategic Plan: "Confident Communities in a Secure Britain", CM 6287; Guardian 2.4.04, 18.5.04, 20, 25, 24, 27.7.04; BBC 18.5.04; Independent 20.6.04, 20, 22.7.04; Times 20, 25.7.04, 25.7.04; Evening Standard 18.6.04; Belfast Telegraph 11.6.04; Just News May 2004. (This feature first appeared in Statewatch bulletin, vol 14 no 3/4) Filed 5.9.04

City ready to take its law and order crusade to others

Manchester's pride at restoring order to housing estates

David Ward
Wednesday September 1, 2004
The Guardian

Manchester is Britain's unashamed capital of anti-social behaviour orders.

Councillors are proud that Asbos have helped to bring order back to some of the city's estates, and have little truck with those who worry about the rights of those targeted.

Since 2000, Manchester has taken out 474 Asbos against 280 individuals whose activities have featured in the Manchester Evening News beneath headlines such as "Yob is banned from airport", "Terror reign thug barred from street" and "Banned yobs may go to Europe".

Not all alleged yobs have been teenagers: more than 60% of the orders have been issued against adults, many of them young men in their 20s.

The city is also proud that Bill Pitt, head of its nuisance strategy team, has been seconded to the Home Office to become an anti-social behaviour "ambassador" to encourage other towns to follow Manchester's lead.

"Bill Pitt's secondment to the Home Office is a powerful confirmation of the council's work in tackling anti-social behaviour," said Eddy Newman, the executive member for housing.

"Manchester's team are the most active in the UK in gaining around 4,000 successful legal actions against nuisance tenants to date. Only 17% of perpetrators breach their orders sufficiently to require criminal action in the courts."

Asbos issued in Manchester have banned three boys from going anywhere near the city's airport without valid tickets. One youth was banned from wearing a glove - a gang emblem - and another was banned from using a laser pen after allegedly shining it in the eyes of bus drivers.

The city also claims it issued the first Asbo to cover behaviour in a classroom and the first linked to domestic violence. Another Asbo banned an alleged car thief from every car park in the UK.

A 13-year-old was banned from parts of the city for two years after neighbours claimed he trespassed in gardens, tormented residents, vandalised property and shouted abuse.

In January, Greater Manchester police won Asbos against four alleged gang members. The men were banned from wearing body armour or riding bicycles anywhere in the city.

Last year the former executive member for housing, Basil Curley, rejected claims that the orders infringed human rights. "Somebody from Liberty rang up to complain and I offered to let him park his BMW in any of the streets where we are having problems," he said. "He did not take up the offer."

ASBOs work: let's have more of the same
Daily Telegraph (Filed: 01/09/2004)

It is refreshing that Tony Blair used his first day back at work to address one of the biggest irritations in British life: anti-social behaviour. While it remains highly unlikely that any of us is ever likely to be murdered or raped or beaten up, anybody who has to visit a town centre from time to time will have grown miserably used to the grinding familiarity of graffiti, litter and verbal abuse on every street corner.

The odd thing about the anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) that the Prime Minister praised yesterday is that it actually works. In the blizzard of Home Office legislation introduced since 1997, the ASBO is exceptional in that both the police and the public like it, and criminals don't.

Admittedly, ASBOs took a long time to get going. They were introduced in 1999 and were barely used for a couple of years. Now they're being introduced across Britain at a rapidly escalating rate - 1,323 orders were made in the year to March, 117 per cent up on last year, as the Prime Minister trumpeted yesterday.

That may be an odd boast for a government to make; the Prime Minister is effectively saying there are a lot more yobs about. Well, he's right, as anybody tramping the city streets at night, with their eyes fixed on the pavement to avoid confrontation, knows.

And the ASBO is an excellent way of combating that booming number of aggressive thugs. Essentially, the ASBO is a type of curfew that bars people from entering certain areas and from threatening witnesses in court cases. In and of itself, it is a civil measure imposed by a court. But once the curfew is broken, the punishment that is imposed is drawn from criminal law: typically, a prison sentence of several days or weeks.

The ASBO has several advantages over other measu