Anti-social behaviour

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nice to see some recognition of the worst forms of anti-social behaviour:
<URL:http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour43.htm>

Am amazed cycling on pavements without lights isn't at #1 ...

The council have just introduced a 20mph zone a few yards from me. They've
put up these 'this is your speed - 🙂 or 🙁 ' type signs. I don't think I've
seen one car go through at 20mph or less yet. Normally about 28mph -> 30mph
.... Shame they haven't decided to enforce it for a while with a speed cam.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 17:45:15 GMT, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nice to see some recognition of the worst forms of anti-social behaviour:
<URL:http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour43.htm>

Am amazed cycling on pavements without lights isn't at #1 ...

The council have just introduced a 20mph zone a few yards from me. They've
put up these 'this is your speed - 🙂 or 🙁 ' type signs. I don't think I've
seen one car go through at 20mph or less yet. Normally about 28mph -> 30mph
... Shame they haven't decided to enforce it for a while with a speed cam.

With a bit of luck, GPS tracking will soon put a stop to this menace
to society.

elyob said:

The council have just introduced a 20mph zone a few yards from me. They've
put up these 'this is your speed - 🙂 or 🙁 ' type signs. I don't think I've
seen one car go through at 20mph or less yet. Normally about 28mph -> 30mph
... Shame they haven't decided to enforce it for a while with a speed cam.

Didn't you know? 20 limits are to get people to drive below 30. No-one
seriously expects them to be observed, except by low/old cars right at
the speed bumps.

Colin McKenzie

Danny Colyer said:

Nice to see some recognition of the worst forms of anti-social behaviour:
<URL:http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour43.htm>

Cycling on the pavement seems to have been missed out...

Roedd <<Danny Colyer>> wedi ysgrifennu:

Quoted message said:

Nice to see some recognition of the worst forms of anti-social
behaviour:
URL:http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour43.htm

Using Countryside Alliance methodology (i.e. adding together all figures
that are convenient) it can be calculated that 89% of the poulation find
cars to be antisocial.

On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers are on a
looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

--
Rob

http://www.asta51.dsl.pipex.com/webcam/

Robert Bruce said:

On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers are on a
looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

There's a story in the news about a 15yo taking Richmond Council to
court for imposing a curfew on under-16s, which he claims breaches his
human rights:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4580305.stm>

Good luck to him.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer said:

There's a story in the news about a 15yo taking Richmond Council to
court for imposing a curfew on under-16s, which he claims breaches his
human rights:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4580305.stm>

It does seem a bit harsh to punish someone when no offence has been
committed.

"Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Danny Colyer said:

There's a story in the news about a 15yo taking Richmond Council to
court for imposing a curfew on under-16s, which he claims breaches his
human rights:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4580305.stm>

It does seem a bit harsh to punish someone when no offence has been
committed.

And that he lives in an area that is under a SWMBO, or whatever the acronym
is. Definitely good luck to him. The police state has a lot to answer for.

Especially as they are so [censored] at upholding any other law.

Danny Colyer said:

Robert Bruce said:

On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers are on a
looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

There's a story in the news about a 15yo taking Richmond Council to
court for imposing a curfew on under-16s, which he claims breaches his
human rights:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4580305.stm>

Good luck to him.

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number of
caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery of any
notion of basic rights and freedoms.

Danny Colyer said:

Nice to see some recognition of the worst forms of anti-social
behaviour:
<URL:http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour43.htm>

It doesn't mention lobbing bread bags full of rubbish out of the white van
window when overtaking cyclists.
--

Martin Bulmer

On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:48:50 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I suppose they could slob out playing their play stations.

I'm sure that is what most parts of government would prefer them to
do.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Not Responding said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number of
caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery of any
notion of basic rights and freedoms.

I don't agree. Near me in Rotherhithe there is a specific street
which has been plagued for 18 months by groups of youths.
The locals have been driven to distraction.
At the Community Council meeting recently they were very thankful that
the police have gained an order to be able to clear groups from the area,
and to require under-16s after 9pm to go home.
This is a very well-defined area. As the community relations copper
commented, this stops games of cat-and-mouse.

Not Responding said:

Danny Colyer said:

Robert Bruce said:

On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers are on a
looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

There's a story in the news about a 15yo taking Richmond Council to
court for imposing a curfew on under-16s, which he claims breaches his
human rights:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4580305.stm>

Good luck to him.

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number of
caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery of any
notion of basic rights and freedoms.

I 'tend' to agree too.
But where I live there is a cross-roads in the centre which anyone has
to pass through to go anywhere. Every night gangs of youths congregate,
calling out names, getting drunk, throwing things at people and being
intimidating and frightening.
It has made the centre a no-go area for many.
As someone who has been physically attacked - broken nose, bruising,
cracked ribs - simply for 'kicks', I have a lot of sympathy with those
who want to see these gangs removed.
[censored]-footing around has led to this situation.
It *is* time to get hard on them.

John B

John Hearns said:

Not Responding said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number of
caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery of any
notion of basic rights and freedoms.

I don't agree. Near me in Rotherhithe there is a specific street
which has been plagued for 18 months by groups of youths.
The locals have been driven to distraction.
At the Community Council meeting recently they were very thankful that
the police have gained an order to be able to clear groups from the area,
and to require under-16s after 9pm to go home.
This is a very well-defined area. As the community relations copper
commented, this stops games of cat-and-mouse.

Good.
In Hampshire I was told a couple of years ago by a senior police officer
that although the police and residents wanted such powers, the police
hands were tied by the Councillors who believed taking action would
advertise Hampshire's anti-social problems and would "look bad on their
cvs at election time"
By refusing to address the problems then, they escalated in certain areas.

Now they are taking some action, but far too late.

John B

JohnB said:

I 'tend' to agree too.
But where I live there is a cross-roads in the centre which anyone has
to pass through to go anywhere. Every night gangs of youths congregate,
calling out names, getting drunk, throwing things at people and being
intimidating and frightening.
It has made the centre a no-go area for many.
As someone who has been physically attacked - broken nose, bruising,
cracked ribs - simply for 'kicks', I have a lot of sympathy with those
who want to see these gangs removed.
[censored]-footing around has led to this situation.
It *is* time to get hard on them.

I liked the solution one store came up with of playing cheesy muzak
outside the store. The local neds quickly decided it was not the place
to be seen hanging out.

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

JohnB said:

Not Responding said:

Quoted message said:

Robert Bruce wrote:
>On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers are on a
>looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number of
caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery of any
notion of basic rights and freedoms.

I 'tend' to agree too.
But where I live there is a cross-roads in the centre which anyone has
to pass through to go anywhere. Every night gangs of youths congregate,
calling out names, getting drunk, throwing things at people and being
intimidating and frightening.
It has made the centre a no-go area for many.
As someone who has been physically attacked - broken nose, bruising,
cracked ribs - simply for 'kicks', I have a lot of sympathy with those
who want to see these gangs removed.
[censored]-footing around has led to this situation.
It *is* time to get hard on them.

So the police need to do their job, find out who the trouble-makers
are, and put ASBOs on them. The blanket exclusion based on age is as
bad as banning cycling in an area simply because a few cyclists ride
irresponsibly. The fact that such cycling bans are made all the time
has nothing to do with it.

Colin McKenzie

On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:28:38 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I liked the solution one store came up with of playing cheesy muzak
outside the store. The local neds quickly decided it was not the place
to be seen hanging out.

I remember that: an excellent solution.

It's a bit harsh if you live in the flat above the shop and are
subjected to Showaddywaddy day and night.

Colin McKenzie said:

JohnB said:

Not Responding said:

>Robert Bruce wrote:
>>On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers are on a
>>looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number of
caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery of any
notion of basic rights and freedoms.

I 'tend' to agree too.
But where I live there is a cross-roads in the centre which anyone has
to pass through to go anywhere. Every night gangs of youths congregate,
calling out names, getting drunk, throwing things at people and being
intimidating and frightening.
It has made the centre a no-go area for many.
As someone who has been physically attacked - broken nose, bruising,
cracked ribs - simply for 'kicks', I have a lot of sympathy with those
who want to see these gangs removed.
[censored]-footing around has led to this situation.
It *is* time to get hard on them.

So the police need to do their job, find out who the trouble-makers
are, and put ASBOs on them.

I agree, that would be best, but there is one WPC who covers half a
dozen villages spread over nearly 50-sh square miles allocated to the job.

The police are very supportive but also need evidence from the victims
who are frightened to give it - small communities and all that entails.
The police need all incidents however minor to be reported so they can
build up cases against the troublemakers. They usually already know who
they are.
Several where I live have had lower level behaviour agreements drawn up
which they sign with their parents - this helps, but the worst offenders
just count this as another trophy, as they do with ASBOs.

Quoted message said:

The blanket exclusion based on age is as
bad as banning cycling in an area simply because a few cyclists ride
irresponsibly. The fact that such cycling bans are made all the time
has nothing to do with it.

Regretfully when aspects of certain types of behaviour become too
extreme there may be some who may be mildly inconvenienced - sometimes
there is a small price to pay to solve a much more worse problem.
I iwsh to be able to cycle safely anywhere at any time, but there are
areas even in rural Hampshire, where to do so places one at severe risk.

John B

in message <[email hidden]>, JohnB ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

Danny Colyer said:

Robert Bruce wrote:

> On a serious note, 'Teenagers hanging around'; the poor buggers
> are on a looser before they've even done anything, aren't they?

There's a story in the news about a 15yo taking Richmond Council to
court for imposing a curfew on under-16s, which he claims breaches
his human rights:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4580305.stm>

Good luck to him.

Agreed. Broadly, I support individual ASBOs (although with a number
of caveats and reservations) but the area wide rules make a mockery
of any notion of basic rights and freedoms.

I 'tend' to agree too.
But where I live there is a cross-roads in the centre which anyone has
to pass through to go anywhere. Every night gangs of youths
congregate, calling out names, getting drunk, throwing things at
people and being intimidating and frightening.
It has made the centre a no-go area for many.
As someone who has been physically attacked - broken nose, bruising,
cracked ribs - simply for 'kicks', I have a lot of sympathy with those
who want to see these gangs removed.
[censored]-footing around has led to this situation.
It *is* time to get hard on them.

But to ban all young people for the sins of some is perilously close to
guilt by association. I know, I know - we already put children into
schools to punish them for being young, so banning them from anything
enjoyable is only an extension of the principle. But it really should
not be acceptable.

If you want to get tough with offenders, that's fine; but keep it to the
offenders, not just anyone who happens to be the same age as the
stereotypical offender.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.