|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A law to stop anyone from doing anything?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This sounds ridiculous to me, and then on reading, I realized that there are laws in Canada that amount to the same thing. But this is so blatant, I am flabbergasted.
quote:
The existing rules are bad enough. Introduced by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, antisocial behaviour orders (asbos) have criminalised an apparently endless range of activities,...
All this is about to get much worse...
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". It would replace asbos with ipnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations... they can impose a kind of community service order on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.
Does no one in the UK object to the existing law, let alone the proposed new one? I would definitely be prosecuted under one or the other I think.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
I imagine politicians are exempt.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Anti-Social behaviour is unpleasant. A gang of youth's harrasing elderly people by running through their gardens for example.
There are many forms of anti-social behaviour, such as persistent drunkeness in the street and aggressive behaviour. We don't need it and ASBO's were introduced to prevent this kind of thing.
I followed your link accidentally because as soon as I saw it was to The Guardian I was on guard for nonesense. Then I saw the author of the piece and hit the back button. Monbiot is an arsehole of the highest order and can distort things to a socialist perspective at the drop of a hat.
Our courts, our judges have to hand out ASBO's. They are not handed out willy-nilly as Monbiot will probably claim.
But they have become less useful over the years and anti-social behaviour is still a problem. Hence the changes.
They are used, quite rightly in my view, to stop people being a nuisance or danger to others, not to restrict democratic rights.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
I imagine politicians are exempt.
And people with clipboards recruiting clients for mobile phone networks or shopping centres playing endless musak. Just as, if not more, antisocial but I don't suppose they will be arrested.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Monbiot
We share an agent. Just sayin' ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Do all science fiction writers have the same agent...?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
I imagine politicians are exempt.
And people with clipboards recruiting clients for mobile phone networks or shopping centres playing endless musak. Just as, if not more, antisocial but I don't suppose they will be arrested.
Let's continue:
- Utilities (gas & electric mostly) acting as cartels.
- Anyone and anything "Apologising for any inconvenience (their inefficiency, lack of due care or sheer greed) may have caused".
- "Buy One Get One Free" offers.
- "Targets" unless they be in the contexts of archery or shooting.
- Wonga, and the rest of the pay-day lender loan sharks.
There, everyone of them far more of a nuisance or annoyance than a couple of ten year-olds kicking a ball around by the old folks home, and a damn sight more anti-social too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This sounds ridiculous to me, and then on reading, I realized that there are laws in Canada that amount to the same thing. But this is so blatant, I am flabbergasted.
quote:
The existing rules are bad enough. Introduced by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, antisocial behaviour orders (asbos) have criminalised an apparently endless range of activities,...
All this is about to get much worse...
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". It would replace asbos with ipnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations... they can impose a kind of community service order on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.
Does no one in the UK object to the existing law, let alone the proposed new one? I would definitely be prosecuted under one or the other I think.
It's called Mischief under the Criminal Code of Canada, I believe.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Deano wrote:
quote:
There are many forms of anti-social behaviour, such as persistent drunkeness in the street and aggressive behaviour. We don't need it and ASBO's were introduced to prevent this kind of thing.
Yeah. And some judges have added "insulting popular historical figures" onto the blacklist. Five-year ASBO for that in Liverpool.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yeah. And some judges have added "insulting popular historical figures" onto the blacklist. Five-year ASBO for that in Liverpool.
A situation like that should never get to a court or lawyers unless he's been assessed. After that, the usual response here would be a restraining order that says he's not allowed to be there. The restraining order would be specific to the location where he's doing the behaviour in question. I have the sense that these UK orders are much more general. Am I wrong?
And another question: can they actually find for costs in a criminal type of trial in the UK?
[ 07. January 2014, 23:30: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This sounds ridiculous to me, and then on reading, I realized that there are laws in Canada that amount to the same thing. But this is so blatant, I am flabbergasted.
quote:
The existing rules are bad enough. Introduced by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, antisocial behaviour orders (asbos) have criminalised an apparently endless range of activities,...
All this is about to get much worse...
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". It would replace asbos with ipnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations... they can impose a kind of community service order on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.
Does no one in the UK object to the existing law, let alone the proposed new one? I would definitely be prosecuted under one or the other I think.
I can't speak for Canadian or British law, but in the United States such a law would be void-for-vagueness, violating due process rights guaranteed
by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anti-Social behaviour is unpleasant. A gang of youth's harrasing elderly people by running through their gardens for example.
There are many forms of anti-social behaviour, such as persistent drunkeness in the street and aggressive behaviour. We don't need it and ASBO's were introduced to prevent this kind of thing.
I followed your link accidentally because as soon as I saw it was to The Guardian I was on guard for nonesense. Then I saw the author of the piece and hit the back button. Monbiot is an arsehole of the highest order and can distort things to a socialist perspective at the drop of a hat.
Our courts, our judges have to hand out ASBO's. They are not handed out willy-nilly as Monbiot will probably claim.
But they have become less useful over the years and anti-social behaviour is still a problem. Hence the changes.
They are used, quite rightly in my view, to stop people being a nuisance or danger to others, not to restrict democratic rights.
I find it strange that a right-winger such as yourself is OK with such a level of state control. I'm solidly left-wing yet I'm not OK with it - why are you? Why is it OK for the government to be able to prosecute people for publicly disagreeing with them, a fairly fundamental part of living in a democracy?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
A situation like that should never get to a court or lawyers unless he's been assessed. After that, the usual response here would be a restraining order that says he's not allowed to be there. The restraining order would be specific to the location where he's doing the behaviour in question. I have the sense that these UK orders are much more general.
The UK orders are about the behaviour, not the location. Would you expect a restraining order against a stalker to only apply to the victim's house, leaving the stalker free to follow the victim anywhere else?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yeah. And some judges have added "insulting popular historical figures" onto the blacklist. Five-year ASBO for that in Liverpool.
A situation like that should never get to a court or lawyers unless he's been assessed. After that, the usual response here would be a restraining order that says he's not allowed to be there. The restraining order would be specific to the location where he's doing the behaviour in question. I have the sense that these UK orders are much more general. Am I wrong?
And another question: can they actually find for costs in a criminal type of trial in the UK?
If the BBC's summary is correct, I agree with the judge. This character had previous convictions. He shewed no intention of amending his ways. What he did was deliberately and intentionally nasty, offensive and by any standards and any definition of the words, objectively 'anti-social behaviour'. What is there to disagree with?
As a matter of general information, it is normal to order costs against those found guilty of criminal offences. I'd imagine that's the same in all countries.
The costs are usually a 'random' sum rather than the assessed costs that the loser has to pay the winner in a civil trial. The 'random' sum is usually - as would almost certainly be the case of £250 here, significantly less than assessed costs would come to.
To revert to the OP, the trouble is that George Monbiot is one of those people who selected a complete package of opinions some years ago, and sees everything thereafter through the lens that gives him. So unless you buy the same package, you tend to ignore what they say. Geoffrey Robertson QC is another. For the rest of your life, it lets you off thinking. Until he said just before Christmas that the UK should take some Syrian refugees, I'd thought Nigel Farage was one too.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Let’s stop with the newspaper headline reporting of court cases eh?
ASBO’s are NOT handed out like tearing strips of toilet paper off a roll!
As Enoch, and others, have pointed out most recipients (if not all) of ASBO’s are repeat offenders who have passed through parts of the judicial system on a few occasions, completely ignoring the advice and/or other punishments they’ve been given.
A couple of 10 year olds playing football outside an old people’s home have NEVER been given ASBO’s on the first occurrence. Perhaps if they do it persistently, and completely disregard the police officers warnings (on about the third or fourth occasion), they may be told to pack it in by a magistrate, and if they appear in the courts again then maybe ASBO’s might be given, more probably to their PARENTS though, rather than the children.
Of course I’m happy with this level of state control. The opposite is no control - anarchy!
I’m not only a Conservative, I’m a Tory! Reactionary to the core. National Service would have done wonders for these buggers! Kids today… Kids today… I’ll tell you about kids today! Absolutely no respect… etc.
But all credit and Kudos to this post by Anglican’t, which made me chuckle no end…
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We share an agent. Just sayin'
Do all science fiction writers have the same agent...?
[but bad code makes the baby Jesus cry: now fixed]
[ 08. January 2014, 09:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
The core problem with this is the words "nuisance" and "annoyance". They are vague and do not normally represent a serious issue. The latter represents a very low level of harm. I guess that most of us find the behaviour of people annoying from time to time. And, no doubt, my behaviour is annoying to others from time to time. Who gets to decide the level appropriate for an order to be issued?
Nuisance and annoyance experienced in daily life are an inevitable consequence of living in a society where people differ.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Indeed. I could issue them for noisy eating for example.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Do people care?
Certainly, they do, yes
That is an alliance between the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society. If those two are aligning, you can be sure people do care....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
And it's not a new problem... (links to the condensed edition of The Miseries of Human Life - originally two volumes). Though I don't think anyone in Regency England suggested legislating against annoying behaviour.
Gilbert and Sullivan, on the other hand, favoured a more permanent solution.
[ 08. January 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. I could issue them for noisy eating for example.
And I'm sure George Monbiot will be able to make up an example where they have been. But as a good lefty you shouldn't be allowed to harbour such controlling thoughts. They are the privilege of us fascist, nazi, imperialist running-dog pigs.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Perhaps they should had these things out at about age 10 or 12 when kids are moving toward the annoying teenage years, and thus we can all have them rounded up like the dog catchers used to do for those not on leash. In the north of Canada, we have dog shooters as well who eliminate the packs of roving predatory strays.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Perhaps they should had these things out at about age 10 or 12 when kids are moving toward the annoying teenage years, and thus we can all have them rounded up like the dog catchers used to do for those not on leash. In the north of Canada, we have dog shooters as well who eliminate the packs of roving predatory strays.
To be honest, I think boarding schools are the best option. Send the buggers to live there until they are decently almost-adults and then let them come back!!!
I bet that's how they first started, when a group of parents of teenagers said "Enough is enoough. Hey, you teacher, we'll pay you a substatial sum of money to take them off our hands and return them when they've stopped being angry, moody annoying gits"
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yeah. And some judges have added "insulting popular historical figures" onto the blacklist. Five-year ASBO for that in Liverpool.
A situation like that should never get to a court or lawyers unless he's been assessed. After that, the usual response here would be a restraining order that says he's not allowed to be there. The restraining order would be specific to the location where he's doing the behaviour in question. I have the sense that these UK orders are much more general. Am I wrong?
And another question: can they actually find for costs in a criminal type of trial in the UK?
If the BBC's summary is correct, I agree with the judge. This character had previous convictions. He shewed no intention of amending his ways. What he did was deliberately and intentionally nasty, offensive and by any standards and any definition of the words, objectively 'anti-social behaviour'. What is there to disagree with?
There's bit of question-begging here. He hasn't mended his ways? Well, why exactly should he? Are people in the UK legally obligated to say only nice things about popular historical figures?
And, sure, it was "anti-social", in the sense of "deliberately trying to get a rise out of people". But so is shouting "Ding Dong, the witch is dead!!" in a pub when it's announced that Thatcher has died. Or stomping on the Union Jack at an anti-war protest. Should those things also be the subject of ASBOs?
Finally, I don't buy the idea that the ASBO is okay because it's being applied to someone with a long history of offenses. A bad law is bad in and of itself, regardless of the personal history of the accused.
If it were suggested that we apply ASBOs to people who were mismatched socks, I'd be hardly be mollified to hear that it'll only be used against people with previous criminal records.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Kinda botched that last paragraph there...
quote:
If it were suggested that we apply ASBOs to people who wear mismatched socks, I'd hardly be mollified to hear that it'll only be used against people with previous criminal records.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Difficult isn't it. I'm not sure what to think of someone who deliberately leaves provocative leaflets in a prayer room - which appear to have only been there to provoke an angry response. That seems to me to be a pretty antisocial activity.
Well, sure. But again, the guy yelling "Ding Dong, the witch is dead!!" from his car window outside Tory headquarters is just trying to provoke an angry response, he's not making any serious contribution to politicial debate. Five-year ASBO for him?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, sure. But again, the guy yelling "Ding Dong, the witch is dead!!" from his car window outside Tory headquarters is just trying to provoke an angry response, he's not making any serious contribution to politicial debate. Five-year ASBO for him?
Well I think there is a difference between shouting inanities in the street and in an enclosed space where people expect silence (or near silence). I think that's a pretty major difference.
Well, the guy in Liverpool was leaving pamphlets, ot shouting his head off.
So. I walk into Tory headquarters and leave a bunch of pamphlets in the lobby with nasty pictures of Thatcher on them. I can see a trespassing charge if I've previously been asked to stay out of the place, but a five-year ASBO, including an order never to have anti-Thatcher pamphelts on my person?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, sure. But again, the guy yelling "Ding Dong, the witch is dead!!" from his car window outside Tory headquarters is just trying to provoke an angry response, he's not making any serious contribution to politicial debate. Five-year ASBO for him?
Well I think there is a difference between shouting inanities in the street and in an enclosed space where people expect silence (or near silence). I think that's a pretty major difference.
Would you consider driving too fast to be worst than shouting rude names?
If every motorist who had been caught for speeding got a fine and an "ASBO" then the number of cars on the road would halve in a year, and what a good idea that would be.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
Well, the Lords have rejected the bill, so we're still safe to do some of the things that could potentially have been classed as 'annoying' and thus banned, such as:
Carol singing
Ringing church bells
Wearing a cross in public
Collecting for charity
Selling Big Issue
Phew!
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Well, the Lords have rejected the bill, so we're still safe to do some of the things that could potentially have been classed as 'annoying' and thus banned, such as:
Carol singing
Ringing church bells
Wearing a cross in public
Collecting for charity
Selling Big Issue
Phew!
And the first time they were appealled against up to the Supreme Court (The UK's Supreme Court) or put up for judicial review, what would the result have been?
That they would be allowed of course!
Your scaremongering list of what "might" be banned has the halmarks of someone saying speeding laws should not be introduced as ambulances wouldn't be allowed to speed to accidents or heart-attack victims. Blatant nonsense.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Well, the Lords have rejected the bill, so we're still safe to do some of the things that could potentially have been classed as 'annoying' and thus banned, such as:
Carol singing
Ringing church bells
Wearing a cross in public
Collecting for charity
Selling Big Issue
Phew!
And the first time they were appealled against up to the Supreme Court (The UK's Supreme Court) or put up for judicial review, what would the result have been?
That they would be allowed of course!
Your scaremongering list of what "might" be banned has the halmarks of someone saying speeding laws should not be introduced as ambulances wouldn't be allowed to speed to accidents or heart-attack victims. Blatant nonsense.
How can one reply to that in Purgatory?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Well, the Lords have rejected the bill, so we're still safe to do some of the things that could potentially have been classed as 'annoying' and thus banned, such as:
Carol singing
Ringing church bells
Wearing a cross in public
Collecting for charity
Selling Big Issue
Phew!
And the first time they were appealled against up to the Supreme Court (The UK's Supreme Court) or put up for judicial review, what would the result have been?
That they would be allowed of course!
Your scaremongering list of what "might" be banned has the halmarks of someone saying speeding laws should not be introduced as ambulances wouldn't be allowed to speed to accidents or heart-attack victims. Blatant nonsense.
How can one reply to that in Purgatory?
You know where my natural home is. I'm getting a nosebleed from being up here.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Perhaps they should had these things out at about age 10 or 12 when kids are moving toward the annoying teenage years, and thus we can all have them rounded up like the dog catchers used to do for those not on leash. In the north of Canada, we have dog shooters as well who eliminate the packs of roving predatory strays.
To be honest, I think boarding schools are the best option. Send the buggers to live there until they are decently almost-adults and then let them come back!!!
Then send them to Oxford and they can join the Bullingdon Club and learn to be anti-social in a toff manor like Cameron and Boris.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I wouldn't have thought Messrs Cameron and Johnson could be described as 'anti-social'.
You could put David Dimbleby in that category too. Strangely, he doesn't get mentioned that often when people talk about the Bullingdon.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Perhaps they should had these things out at about age 10 or 12 when kids are moving toward the annoying teenage years, and thus we can all have them rounded up like the dog catchers used to do for those not on leash. In the north of Canada, we have dog shooters as well who eliminate the packs of roving predatory strays.
To be honest, I think boarding schools are the best option. Send the buggers to live there until they are decently almost-adults and then let them come back!!! [/QUOTE]
I went to a boarding school. The very idea of sending anyone there puts me in the mind to deal equally severely with the sadistic teachers: my school was in the Torquemada manner where teachers carved handles into 30" pieces of 1x3 lumber and hit us vigorously for missing punctuation in poetry memorization in rather pornographic displays of sadism in front of class. Puts me in mind of the title of W.O. Mitchell's book "Why Shoot the Teacher?", to which the answer is rather obvious. Either that or include such deviants in the group targetted by such laws.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Well, the Lords have rejected the bill, so we're still safe to do some of the things that could potentially have been classed as 'annoying' and thus banned, such as:
Carol singing
Ringing church bells
Wearing a cross in public
Collecting for charity
Selling Big Issue
Phew!
And the first time they were appealled against up to the Supreme Court (The UK's Supreme Court) or put up for judicial review, what would the result have been?
That they would be allowed of course!
Your scaremongering list of what "might" be banned has the halmarks of someone saying speeding laws should not be introduced as ambulances wouldn't be allowed to speed to accidents or heart-attack victims. Blatant nonsense.
How can one reply to that in Purgatory?
A scaremongering list? I'm afraid not. There have already been cases of church bells (and even church hymn-singing!) been silenced by complaints under noise-abatement legislation; employees in various companies have been forbidden to wear visible crosses, and the employers' right to enforce this so has been upheld in court. I wish I could believe that life could roll on as usual if this legislation were passed, but given the 'you can't do that here, it's more than my job's worth to let you' attitude of so many petty officials, I doubt it.
The simple fact is that all kinds of things 'cause annoyance' to someone, but in a sensible society we all have to rub along together.
The Common Law system effectively allows one to do anything that isn't specifically forbidden; the new proposed legislation runs counter to that ancient tradition by potentially banning almost everything unless or until the Supreme Court say it's OK.
(And, incidentally, ambulances are routinely given tickets for 'speeding to heart-attack victims'; getting these cancelled wastes resources that would be better applied elsewhere.)
[ 09. January 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: andras ]
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Perhaps they should had these things out at about age 10 or 12 when kids are moving toward the annoying teenage years, and thus we can all have them rounded up like the dog catchers used to do for those not on leash. In the north of Canada, we have dog shooters as well who eliminate the packs of roving predatory strays.
To be honest, I think boarding schools are the best option. Send the buggers to live there until they are decently almost-adults and then let them come back!!!
Then send them to Oxford and they can join the Bullingdon Club and learn to be anti-social in a toff manor like Cameron and Boris.
Yeah, right-on, class-war, man the barricades and storm the Palace of the Imperialist dogs.
It just makes you seem jealous. I'm sorry, but it really does. Nobody cares. Nobody cares that "Communism has never been tried!", nobody cares that David Cameron and Boris Johnson were in some dining club at Oxford, nobody gives a rat's arse, except a few old socialist hippies, who's time of influence ended thirty-odd years ago.
It's all very bittersweet, watching the last of the hard-left about to enter nursing homes in the last part of their lives.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There, everyone of them far more of a nuisance or annoyance than a couple of ten year-olds kicking a ball around by the old folks home, and a damn sight more anti-social too.
A couple of ten-year-olds having a kickabout: not a problem.
Those same ten-year-olds repeatedly kicking a ball against the wall of your house for a couple of hours every day? Problem.
I'm not convinced that ASBOs and the like are the right approach, mind, but I think you're rather cavalier at dismissing things which are real nuisances that people have no way of choosing to avoid.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Well, the Lords have rejected the bill, so we're still safe to do some of the things that could potentially have been classed as 'annoying' and thus banned, such as:
Carol singing
Ringing church bells
Wearing a cross in public
Collecting for charity
Selling Big Issue
Phew!
And the first time they were appealled against up to the Supreme Court (The UK's Supreme Court) or put up for judicial review, what would the result have been?
That they would be allowed of course!
Your scaremongering list of what "might" be banned has the halmarks of someone saying speeding laws should not be introduced as ambulances wouldn't be allowed to speed to accidents or heart-attack victims. Blatant nonsense.
How can one reply to that in Purgatory?
A scaremongering list? I'm afraid not. There have already been cases of church bells (and even church hymn-singing!) been silenced by complaints under noise-abatement legislation; employees in various companies have been forbidden to wear visible crosses, and the employers' right to enforce this so has been upheld in court. I wish I could believe that life could roll on as usual if this legislation were passed, but given the 'you can't do that here, it's more than my job's worth to let you' attitude of so many petty officials, I doubt it.
The simple fact is that all kinds of things 'cause annoyance' to someone, but in a sensible society we all have to rub along together.
The Common Law system effectively allows one to do anything that isn't specifically forbidden; the new proposed legislation runs counter to that ancient tradition by potentially banning almost everything unless or until the Supreme Court say it's OK.
(And, incidentally, ambulances are routinely given tickets for 'speeding to heart-attack victims'; getting these cancelled wastes resources that would be better applied elsewhere.)
I'm not going to refute everyone of youe examples, there's just too many, but this should suffice. You specifically mention Hymn Singing being banned. Here is an example of such a case...
Church has its hymns silenced by council ban
But three months later the case was dropped by the council...
Council drops complaint over noisy church hymns
It didn't even reach the courts No ASBO's, no nothing, just the council dropping the case at the local level.
As for the ambulances getting speeding tickets. THEY GET CANCELLED!!!! So my analogy stands, you would get rid of speeding legislation to stop ambulances racing to accidents.
On that last point, I agree that there is a waste of resources (actually, people in jobs, being paid money). What we should do is tie up the ambulance dispatching software with the CCTV software, so the ambulance registration is automatically checked to see if had been dispatched on an emergency call. If yes then cancel the ticket. Then we could sack the people being paid to do that job and save money.
[ 09. January 2014, 14:19: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Far be it from me to stop the fun.
When I read the OP, I was nervous that this might turn out to be a rant thread, and as you know, they belong in Hell where you don't need to ask questions like "How do I respond to this in Purgatory"
But there is some serious meat in here as well. Just remember the distinction between sharp disagreement over issues and Hellish assertions, particularly about one another, and the thread can stay here.
Watch it, Shipmates. You know the difference.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 09. January 2014, 14:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's all very bittersweet, watching the last of the hard-left about to enter nursing homes in the last part of their lives.
If you say this often enough will it be a magic spell to make all the young liberals (including all the young British liberals) poof and vanish into thin air?
No but they are very quiet. Nobody can hear them. People are deaf to them. Nobody cares about them or their message because everybody knows these days that communism failed.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does no one in the UK object to the existing law, let alone the proposed new one?
Pretty much everyone I have ever heard express an opinion objects.
Including my employers, my trade union, the Church of England, a number of charities I vaguely support, and everyone I have ever heard talk about this stuff.
And since when was George Monbiot a socialist? Or even very left-wing. He has usually self-identified as Green, but otherwise seems a sort of liberal-statist Fabian - would fit nicely in either the right wing of the Labour Party or the the Liberals before they were taken over by the Tories.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's all very bittersweet, watching the last of the hard-left about to enter nursing homes in the last part of their lives.
Your party will have abolished nursing homes when you get elderly and you'll be in some sort of work house Victorian values etc.
Or maybe people won't live that long - euthanasia because they no longer make money and so are useless as far as capitalism is concerned.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's all very bittersweet, watching the last of the hard-left about to enter nursing homes in the last part of their lives.
Your party will have abolished nursing homes when you get elderly and you'll be in some sort of work house Victorian values etc.
Or maybe people won't live that long - euthanasia because they no longer make money and so are useless as far as capitalism is concerned.
Meant to add that when I was in my early twenties, many of us were convinced that Tories were dying out - probably based on the spurious notion of 'progress' beloved by many on the left.
Just as a new load of Tories came out of the woodwork during the thatcher years, history suggests that there will be a resurgence of the left. We'll tax you mercilessly.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You specifically mention Hymn Singing being banned. Here is an example of such a case...
Church has its hymns silenced by council ban
But three months later the case was dropped by the council...
Council drops complaint over noisy church hymns
It didn't even reach the courts No ASBO's, no nothing, just the council dropping the case at the local level.
There is specific legislation for noise nuisance. There are specific limits between 11pm and 7am. Outside that time one can complain about a noise nuisance, and it is the local council which has the power to investigate.
My own church was subject to this within the last year. Now, our band, particularly on the Sunday evening, can be loud. But apparently the complaint was about activities all during the week as well, for instance the mums-and-toddlers type groups on weekday mornings.
I suspect that someone paid a lot of money (probably over £3 million) for a house, and then were surprised to find that the Church at the bottom of the garden was in use at times other than Sunday morning.
The council found no problem when they investigated.
quote:
As for the ambulances getting speeding tickets. THEY GET CANCELLED!!!! So my analogy stands, you would get rid of speeding legislation to stop ambulances racing to accidents.
Some years ago a taxi driver who was also a volunteer fire-fighter told me that emergency vehicles are subject to traffic laws like speeding. It is just that prosecutions are not followed as long as there are no crashes etc. If there are, then the drivers can be prosecuted.
(Living near the M1, his work as a fire-fighter mainly involved cutting people out of crashed vehicles.)
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Meant to add that when I was in my early twenties, many of us were convinced that Tories were dying out - probably based on the spurious notion of 'progress' beloved by many on the left.
Just as a new load of Tories came out of the woodwork during the thatcher years, history suggests that there will be a resurgence of the left. We'll tax you mercilessly.
One of the puzzling things about this, is that, since 1996, I've hardly met any either self-identifying Tories or people who even admit to voting for them. Yet they are the larger of the two parties in government and got a higher proportion of the votes in the last general election than the Blair/Brown administration got an overall majority out of in the previous one.
Is this something odd about the community I live in, or have they got lots of secret supporters, the voting intention that dare not speak its name? Do they have some Torydar that enables them to recognise one another across a crowded room?
Or do they have to get their votes largely from those that dislike them just a smidgeon less than they dislike the other two parties?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's all very bittersweet, watching the last of the hard-left about to enter nursing homes in the last part of their lives.
Your party will have abolished nursing homes when you get elderly and you'll be in some sort of work house Victorian values etc.
Or maybe people won't live that long - euthanasia because they no longer make money and so are useless as far as capitalism is concerned.
Meant to add that when I was in my early twenties, many of us were convinced that Tories were dying out - probably based on the spurious notion of 'progress' beloved by many on the left.
Just as a new load of Tories came out of the woodwork during the thatcher years, history suggests that there will be a resurgence of the left. We'll tax you mercilessly.
Also meant to add that i regularly preach and lead discussions at an anglo-catholic nursing home.
I doubt that there are any lefties there since it is hugely expensive.
But they tend to be very bright and very politically active.
The ones who have 'come out' to me as tories are disgusted at the philistinism of the current tory party.
Don't underestimate the power of old people - after all, why else are politicians scared to touch pensioners, despite being the largest recipients of the welfare state's 'benefits'?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
