Talk:Anti-social behaviour order

Keep it neutral

Many are complaining about what this article implies in certain areas. Moaning about how it's arguing for a side. I have neutralised some wording on here, but we must leave the stories that some may consider "whacky", as long as we do not turn it into any form of propaganda.

If someone feels distressed at the concentration on "whacky" ASBO cases, then feel free to create a section that comments how some have praised the ASBO, but keep it neutral.

Legal remedies?

I came to this article hoping to find information like whether it's possible to appeal against an ASBO. If anyone knows this, perhaps they could add it to the article!--New Thought 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Concerns About This Article

Why don't you concentrate on the good aspects of ASBO Legislation instead of being the usual, run of the mill, boring teller of "whacky" ASBO Stories

ASBO has a place in modern society because modern society has failed miserable. We are a Nation of whingers who want things to happen to improve our lives but when that change occurs our bleeding heart suddenly turn in panic and we start bleating about a Nanny State!

Its just typical of the malaise affecting this Country since the Lefties of the 60's started to ruin every aspect of our lives.

Ah yes those damn lefties with their "democracy" and their "rule of law" and their "human rights" and their "justice" why won't they just go away so we can institute summary executions for sneezing?

i think that this Anti Social Behaviour Order may finally bring an end to the uncontrollable youths who are terrorising our communities which can usually be traced back to bad parenting -145.229.156.40

I recall an article in The Economist some time ago discussing these, and giving as an example an elderly man who was prohibited from making sarcastic comments to his neighbour; the Economist suggested that it was somewhat ridiculous that a government could legally prohibit someone from making sarcastic comments. Anyone recall the specific case or have more information? --Delirium 23:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

There are loads of these. [1] has some, [2] has some more.

Both this and Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 need a lot, and need to be scrupulously NPOV (I'm strongly anti). I think this article should contain:

moral panics - folk devils?
criminal law vs civil law (beyond reasonable doubt doesn't apply -can use hearsay evidence)
breaching is an imprisonable offense, even if behaviour that caused order not criminal
no clear definition of anti-social behaviour and no punishment restrictions?
statistics - especially if broken down
apparently 97% of applications are successful. (where is this stat from?)

and more. Secretlondon 03:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could make a whole article listing these but:

Scottish woman banning her from answering her front door in her underwear. She faces jail if she is seen in her garden or windows in knickers and bra.
Norfolk pig farmer re: pigs in gardens.
Person not allowed to show stump whilst begging
various animal rights protestors
60 year old banned from sunbathing in a thong
parking in a disabled spot without badge
rowing with your wife
making complaints to public bodies
sarcasm

etc etc - children, protestors, post release, alcohol etc, farcical

A few examples are ok but we don't want to be a database for every 'weird' ASBO given out. Skinnyweed 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, can't believe legislation like this would pass in to law in a free society. Big brother's watching I suppose .. I wonder if I should stop taking showers in the nude? Oh crap, sarcasm ... I'm screwed.

Criminal standard?

An IP has changed the article to say that the evidence must be to the standard of criminal law not civil law. This contradicts things I've read on this subject. Anyone know for sure? Secret london 15:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence is based upon civil law ie. hearsay, reports and evidence from witnesses who who are absent from the court. This is part of the reason why they are so effective, oftern when a criminal case has been thrown out of the criminal court the police will still use the case for an ASBO in the civil court. Although breach of the asbo is a criminal matter.

Actually it's a combination of the two - criminal standard of proof but anonymous testimony and hearsay are admissible. Confirmation can be found in Home Office guidelines here....http://www.together.gov.uk/cagetfile.asp?rid=536

International law

Did anybody challenge ASBO in front of EU or UN courts? What were the results? 195.70.48.242 11:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't really any EU or UN courts.. There is the European Court of Human Rights (which isn't connected to the EU, it's connected to the Council of Europe) and the European Court of Justice. It would be the European Court of Human Rights, that would get involved in this I think. I don't know what happened but I'll see if I can find out. Secretlondon 12:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I removed "Rather than providing her with treatment or counselling," from the ASBO for attempting suicide paragraph. First, it's not clear to me that this is an option for magistrates, particularly when the woman in question does not suffer from a mental disorder (as reported in the press). Second, the phrasing doesn't suggest a NPOV. I think readers can draw their own conclusions from a bald statement of the facts. Mark Nesbitt 13:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "sarcastic remarks" to "sarcastic remarks to neighbours or their visitors"; as it stood before it was misleading. I agree with the NPOV flag here, the infrequent eccentric uses are strongly highlighted and changed slightly to make ASBOs appear more personally offensive. mr_happyhour

I'm not from UK and because I've heard about ASBO, I came to read this article to learn more about that piece of legislation. As it stands, the article mentions rather absurd examples of ASBOs. However, the article states that there is public support for this legislation so the article really needs to describe some cases where, according to the supporters of the legislation, applying this legislation makes sense and is effective in reducing whatever it is supposed to reduce. 80.221.36.191

More POV

The article currently makes ASBOs out to be draconian. Whether they are or not isn't the point: the article has to maintain a level of POV. Example: The claim that "a seventeen-year-old forbidden to use his front door" makes ASBOs seem ridiculous and tyrannical, but checking out the source shows that "So bad was his behaviour, which included attacking homes and cars and shouting obscenities, that police had to use CS gas to subdue him" -- hence, the guy wasn't some innocent victim. Other stuff, like having Thought police listed in the "See Also" makes it quite obvious that this article needs a serious POV clean up. I'm not saying that ASBOs aren't crap or often overly harsh; all I'm saying is that this article needs to be a bit more diplomatic, and more importantly, honest, about things. 66.229.160.94 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you can keep the tone neutral - there is only so much you can do to avoid the facts. An ASBO means that in Britain today you can be banned from doing something that is not illegal itself - under a set of entirely subjective conditions. If you fall afowl of the police or neighbours for your political views - you can have your freedoms severely curtailed under the premise of an ASBO.

And the clear facts are that the ASBOs are not just used for unruly teenagers. Even when they are, it's probably not the most useful thing in the world - and will create more people with criminal records (when they break the ASBO) or resentment of the authorities.

There is no way that an objective detailing of what ASBOs entail will show them in a positive light. zoney ♣ talk 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about

How about forking this into an article listing notable (i.e. weird and interesting) ASBOs, and then mentioning them here putting a Main article: List of notable ASBOs or something to that effect under the subheading? Joffeloff 12:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaches

While this[3] is an old article, and a comment piece at that, it says that 42% of ASBOs are breached, leading to a jail term and contributing to the overcrowding in British prisons. Is there a more up-to-date statistic on this? Confusing Manifestation 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference needed

Please can someone provide a reference for the Derby water drinker tale?

Criticism section

I believe that WP:NPOV and WP:WTA both indicate that we should not be using sections specifically for outlining criticism. Instead, these criticisms should be throughout the article. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have a section titled 'Civil Liberties Groups Responses' or similar (but with better grammar).-Localzuk^(talk) 09:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of refs but no time to enter them properly- referring to the two NACRO criticisms of ASBOS - they are in Wikinews format - help please. See them by opening 'edit'.

{{Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.

{{Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.

Fenton Robb 19:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity

The UK is dissolving into martial law. Anything that documents this is worthy of praise and I praise the authors of this article. Whilst the ASBO could be seen as the final solution for the 'Neighbors from hell' problem of urbia, its just giving yet more power to people who don't deserve it.

Police State?

Is it really appropriate to have a link to Police State in the See Also section? This is a POV, and the ASBO's aren't exactly the beginnings of a police state. If no-one complains, I'm going to remove it. Big Moira 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be there as some people have noted that the introduction of ASBO's was a slippery slope into a police state. It is a POV, but it is one that is held by a significant minority. I think a single link is not undue weight so it should stay.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, moron!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.54.18.150 (talk • contribs)

Huh? You replying to me or to Big Moira? -Localzuk^(talk) 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the NPOV of the article

The article, as it stands, is quite well balanced. However we need a little more information on the 'non-typical' asbos as they seem to be written for shock value at the moment.

We also need to add information about support for ASBOs as there seems to be an overall 'anti' asbo feel to the page (although this isn't too strong). -Localzuk^(talk) 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A case at Manchester Magistrates Court, November-December 2002.

the article refers to a case where 2 youths were prevented from wearing a golf glove in manchester. but the refrence is simply "A case at Manchester Magistrates Court, November-December 2002." which is probably the vagest refrence i've seen in a while. could somebody find an actual refrence? otherwise i would feel that it should not suggest that it is a refrenced fact.