Re today's Rightsnet news story.

I still can't get over the fact that Tony still thinks that everybody who is guilty of anti social behaviour are on benefits, or their parent's are on benefits.
What sanctions do they propose for people who are not on benefits and are guilty of anti social behaviour?

Force them to claim Tax Credit? That would be enough punishment for anyone, I would think!

Impeach them?

Put them in an orange jump suit, blindfold them, put them in a stress position and force them to listen to a non stop recording of Tony Blair's (peace be upon him) speeches on terrorism.

dunno steve... make 'em compete for casino licences, pay into a ripped off pension fund levy, double the entrance fee for the House of Lords?

as for the 'benefit bums', i expect ultimately, given blair's ability to burn all social policies to ash, he will revert to the perennial tory standby and kill two birds with one stone by making 'em join the army - i hear there's a bit of a recruitment problem, and the 'there's fit, and there's army fit!' angle is only going to fool some people for a while...

and did you see Jim Murphy's rhetoric?

I suppose the only way to stop all this is to put lots of silicone in all the petrol, the cars won't work so the kids won't want to rob them.

"....and did you see Jim Murphy's rhetoric?...."

........I didn't know Mr Murphy had a rhetoric - is that treatable on the National health?

Anyway, we must keep telling ourselves that we really are all non judgemental, non political and it's all a really bad dream from which we will all awaken to find ourselves in the promised land: or it's a parallel universe and we're all going to become really truly deeply depressed.........

heh! funny you should mention the national elf...oh no, i'm not even going to go there...

Mr. Murphy's rhetoric - here's a link for any who missed it.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/aboutus/2007/21-02-07.asp

he will keep winding me up about 'something for something' as if the idea was born in 1997 not 1948...the central plank was national insurance...i won't go on...

perhaps it means whatever one makes it mean.

however, the recent kite-flying by ruth kelly, including the notion of means-testing HOUSING, for pity's sake, doesn't inspire confidence.

as for T.B. i hadn't read his speech when i posted above. he has an 'interesting' approach to the rule of law, which i feel he hasn't fully shared with the great unwashed at this stage. i think he has some issues with the principle if universality, and possibly with principles themselves, but i can't say i've got a handle on what he's about at all...
the thing about asbos is that they are premissed on a _belief_ in the inability of the law to control a.s.b. - which may or may not be a valid belief - (it's complex, and a.s.b. isn't necessarily criminal behaviour, but it is unproven...)_and_ a lack of faith in society/community to deal with a.s.b., so the law is used instead, which is a little bit confusing...
now the practicalities of sanctioning the 'very bottoms' on benefits, and who and how a.s.b is to be judged haven't been aired, but the means, one assumes, is a SI, enabling sanctions...

but the general approach of using the social security system raises many concerns. maybe we'll discuss them on rightsnet...

but contrast it with this approach (extract from PM's wotsit, on rightsnet news)

ah well...TGIF

have a good weekend mike, and all.

rgds

jan
***********************************************

Question:

Prime Minister, a number of Labour's Deputy leadership candidates, along with the TUC and the GMB have expressed concern about casino capitalists and asset strippers in private equity firms. Do you share those concerns and should the government do anything to stop the activities of these companies?

Prime Minister:

Look Britain is the number one place in the world for private equity and I think the private equity market is a market that brings a lot of benefit to our economy. Now it is important that everyone behaves responsibly, but you know you have just got to be very careful of these issues, otherwise you end up in circumstances where concerns about maybe a minority of specific issues in specific circumstances end up tarring a whole sector, and I don't think that would be fair at all. And some of those who are private equity people or venture capitalists, they have performed an important function in our economy, so I think we need to be careful of that
******************************************************************

Jan - Surely It's Rory Bremner you're quoting at the end there, not PM? Or have you noticed how Blair seems to have become a parody of himself and nowadays sounds more like Bremner than Blair?

What on earth is anti-social behaviour anyway? Doing something that the neighbours don’t like such as painting your house in pink and white stripes? Well too bad, eccentric behaviour is not anti-social behaviour. The right to behave differently, the right to cause offence and freedom of expression are cornerstones of any democratic society.

Criminal behaviour is not the same as anti-social behaviour and Tony Blair (peace be upon him) should not be allowed to conflate the two. There are plenty of sanctions available under the criminal law without this whole new raft of ludicrous legislation. Take raucous behaviour by groups of teenagers, for instance. The charge of breach of the peace exists for that. Existing criminal law is also available for threatening behaviour, criminal damage, etc. Existing housing legislation exists for a landlord to regain possession on grounds of nuisance.

Asbos can be used to make sentences available (where an asbo is breached) that are not currently available under the existing criminal law and to bring them in this way by the back door is dishonest and cowardly.

The PM keeps banging on about blighted communities having to live with the continued bad behaviour of a minority. As if he cares. Creative solutions are needed, such as local initiatives in youth work, drug prevention, education and better housing, all of which need proper funding without being tied to ridiculous targets.

Hitting the poorest in the pockets will hit children hardest, alienate them more and exacerbate the problem not improve it. All this rhetoric is not for the benefit of those communities it is just playing to the gallery of the middle classes of his own party who know that this kind of nonsense goes down well with middle class voters.

It would be interesting to know the make up of the voters currently swinging towards the Tories. To the Labour Party, retain the middle class vote at your peril; just remember 1979 when the Tories got in, precisely because a substantial section of the working class switched allegiance to Margaret Thatcher.

: ) agreement from me.

i tend to think there's more truth to be found in art than non-fiction. we probably all know that this government has gone to places that even the tories under thatcher would not have dared to tread...
serious commentators and heavyweight journalists seem purplexed and impotent when their carefully crafted and logically rigorous probings make not a dent and are dismissed by inane statements, parroted ad nauseam by government spokespersons, sounding like cult members...

the emergent representations of TB from comedy and dramatisations gracing the small screen, satirical all of them, is of a person who has lost plot and marbles, and of a consumate actor...
actually, any government should be worried when it becomes a laughing stock...it's expected to be serious, and only TB thinks he has any gravitas (should that be gravy???)

back to reality... i missed last weeks michael cockerill, but in the first episode there was a beaut of a shot of clare short, smiling warmly after one of TB's speeches, (which in retrospect seemed studied and mannered in every nuance, and wouldn't win him an oscar now), with an admiring 'that's my boy!' expression all over her face...

gotta go or i'll miss it.... : )

Can I join in this hard-talking debate?

"Hitting the poorest in the pockets will hit children hardest, alienate them more and exacerbate the problem not improve it. All this rhetoric is not for the benefit of those communities it is just playing to the gallery of the middle classes of his own party who know that this kind of nonsense goes down well with middle class voters."


...who are unduly influenced by the government by their subversive use of the media (leaks and spin, etc), control of information (the not-quite-so-freedom of information act, etc), and 'big brother' style of nanny government (more CCTV's than virtually any other place on the planent (obviously not stopping ASB...), ID cards, roadside fingerprinting, etc).

It's like the control of socialism combined with the practicalities of capitalism and, if you add on the way that people from other countries are portrayed and dealt with, some might say, with a hint of facism.

This doesn't sound like the definition of democratic government to me.

These are no particular individuals/organisations opinions, just a point of view.

That's what I like to see - a balanced non judgemental point of view - Tony is quite right of course, if it's bad for us, it's banned - ID cards are not to be feared if we've done nothing wrong - they said that in Europe in the 1930's.

I used to think that leaks from whitehall were the outward signs of disgruntled civil servants - they now seem to be the the favoured method of charecter assignation - witness the hatchet job that's beginning to be carried out on that nice Lord Levy....

I'm ashamed to say I've never read such a lot of guff in all my life.

The mocking of anti-social behaviour can only be made by someone who has never experienced it.

ASBO's exist for minor crimes that are unworthy of the scant police resources available to investigate what are usually minor crimes or offences.

Ripping wing mirrors off cars is hardly an expression of democratic freedom. Likewise urinating in your neighbours fish pond.

Personally I thought this resource was one of useful information exchange rather than macho beating of ones chest trying to be more left than the previous contributor by giving extreme examples of possible injustices.

Nothings perfect, thats life.

You are right John, and I consider myself suitably chastised - except that I dispute your assumption that contributors to this thread have no experience of anti-social behaviour. I've had far more of my fair share of anti-social behaviour and my former partner was convicted of a crime she didn't commit because of a false allegation by those known to our local authorities as being regular perpertrators of anti-social behaviour (they also destroyed my car!).

Sometimes we do let our feelings of injustice for our clients get on top of this, but for me, this is one of the benefits of rightsnet - a chance to vent those feelings with like minded people that understand the issues.

Anyway, the original post was about a serious issue - benefit sanctions for ASB. What's your view on that?

Tony

Anyone who does not have serious concerns about asbos should click on the following link. Moves to reduce cutting benefits to people who are subject to asbos are simply unacceptable.

http://www.statewatch.org/asbo/asbowatch-concerns.html

And highlighting one point that I made is the following quote from the article. In December the probation union, Napo, called for a re-evaluation of ASBOs on the grounds that "far too many people are being jailed where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable".

Jailed for painting their house pink?

Isn't that the point of an ASBO?

The threat of imprisonment for what otherwise would be a series of non-imprisonable offences?

Of course it is but with worrying consequences. To quote again from the report "(n)ot only can breaching an ASBO result in a five-year prison sentence, but as civil orders their application process is subject to a lower burden of proof and hearsay evidence is admissible".

In context this is not untypical of this government in trying to circumvent existing and important legal protections, judicial safeguards and long standing rules of law, the attempt to get rid of jury trials in certain cases for instance.

Making convictions easier at the cost of important legal protections is not a measure I condone. This is not dealing with the causes of crime but merely its symptoms and that rhetoric sounds hollow now.

What are the causes of crime exactly? Has this been defined?

Sounds like mere jargon to me.

Blair's phrase, not mine!

I don't get you?

"I dispute your assumption that contributors to this thread have no experience of anti-social behaviour.I've had far more of my fair share of anti-social behaviour and my former partner was convicted of a crime she didn't commit because of a false allegation by those known to our local authorities as being regular perpertrators of anti-social behaviour (they also destroyed my car!)."

I wrote " The mocking of anti-social behaviour can only be made by someone who has never experienced it."

If you've taken offence at that sentence then you'll have to explain why to me because I don't get it myself. Maybe its my poor education or something?

As for my opinion of the original point of the thread.

I can see why its a useful toolfor the government.

as for ASBOwatch "...an 87 year-old great-grandfather in Liverpool, taken to court for breaching the ASBO banning him from shouting, swearing or making sarcastic comments to his neighbours."

What is your point? That ok in society now?

On Saturday my four year old was subjected to f this and f that on a train in to Manchester from some bloke old enough to know better.

Freedom of expression? Its just not on.

I like swearing more than most, but there are times and places.

I did not say I endorsed that report in full. Some behaviour is obviously not acceptable. The report raises a number of serious and complex issues which cannot be dismissed by citing a couple of specific examples either both for or against. We all have serious and valid opinions ut we as a society need to look behind the banner waving headlines, the political motives of politicians and the quick fix solutions that often cause more problems than they purport to solve.

In my humble comprehensive school education opinion.!

Hi John,

The impression I got from your post was that you were slating contributors for their postings earlier on in this thread and making an assumption that the contributors had not experienced ASB. If I was wrong it that then I misunderstood.


The original question though was not about the rights and wrongs of ASBO's per se (about which I don't know that much about), but of benefit sanctions for people convicted of anti-social behaviour.

Is depriving families of the ability to sustain accommodation really going to make them better citizens?

I think it's just one of those days... Just looked that the original question again and it was in fact...

What sanctions do they propose for people who are not on benefits and are guilty of anti social behaviour?

I think I'll go home now.

Here's a thought - a recent excerpt from Community Care magazine..

It seems the Mayor of Villaconejos in Spain could teach the government's Respect unit a thing or two about tackling antisocial behaviour. Lope Benavente de Blas refused to condemn a 400-strong mob who burned down the house of a local bully, after putting up with seven years of his violent behaviour. "It was all of us. It was the people," de Blas said, according to the El Pais newspaper. Backchat thought of asking Respect Tsar Louise Casey (pictured right) for a comment, but was too scared of being on the receiving end of an angry mob.