h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One has to say that he might have been planning a burglary too - we don't now what was going on in his mind.

However in the main I agree with both Blues and SoRB ASBO's are a ridiculous perversion of the law, and they don't work anyway, but what sort of strange 'punishment' is it ?

Instead of adressing why kids are hanging about on street corners smoking, make it a criminal offense. Blair's pandering to the Daily Mail readers to hang onto his job becomes more pathetic with every new 'initiative.'

As for inserting the word ASBO into a charge, I can only say its a good job none of them shouted "nonsense"

(Incidently SoRB, previously you suggested "life" should mean life.)

He 'might' have been walking down the road minding his own business.

It has *never* been a tennet of British Law that one can be prosecuted for your thoughts. God help us all if it ever comes to pass.

This young man has had his life criminalised because somebody thinks it would be a good idea for him not to walk down certain roads. They cannot enforce that under any form of law, but they can make him a criminal for doing it by making it a condition of his ASBO.

It's immoral, and it's stupid. A whole range of kids are going to end up criminalised because of these orders, and it can only lead to further trouble.

Well, I had also suggested that a 'life sentence' should mean just that. Especially in terms of child sex offenders. Keep them off the streets, make it totally impossible for them to ever repeat their crimes.

I've been told that this is unfair for those few who are able to be rehabilitated.

Well, it wouldn't be unfair if these people agreed to chemical castration and then being 'chipped' so that their whereabouts could be known at any given time.

And then others will say this is a breach of their human rights. But as far as I'm concerned they totally forfeited their rights when they chose to abuse and/or rape a small child.


az

Flaming Hell, Blues - I was agreeing with you !

Sorry Az - I was just reminding SoRB what he said.

The "animals that know no better" comment merely sought to make it clear that I do not blame the ASBO'd here - I blame those failing to enforce them. I am only expecting civilised behaviour and competence from people from whom it might reasonably be expected.

"He 'might' have been walking down the road minding his own business."

Irrelevant. He has been clearly instructed NOT to walk down certain roads. If he'd been banned from driving, and had been caught in charge of a motor vehicle, it wouldn't matter if he was a paragon of careful considerate driving - the fact is that the judiciary has instructed him not to drive, so he can't. He may not like that fact, but people are not banned from driving because of who they are, but because of what they do. Once they're banned, they can be further sanctioned for driving while banned. Is that "victimising" them for who they are? Or simply enforcing a punishment that is meaningless if you don't enforce it?

"It has *never* been a tennet of British Law that one can be prosecuted for your thoughts. God help us all if it ever comes to pass."

Acts preparatory to terrorism? Conspiracy to commit [fill in the blank]? Even, one might suggest, murder, as opposed to manslaughter - doesn't the difference hinge almost entirely on *intent*?

"This young man has had his life criminalised because somebody thinks it would be a good idea for him not to walk down certain roads."

Bullshit. He has not "had his life criminalised" any more than a person who has been banned from driving has. He's been barred from doing something specific, something that it's easy to avoid doing. And he's done it anyway. Pardon me if I have no sympathy.

"They cannot enforce that under any form of law"

Isn't that what they're doing?

"but they can make him a criminal for doing it by making it a condition of his ASBO. It's immoral, and it's stupid."

Immoral?! Again I go to the driving ban analogy. Is that immoral? I just don't see how barring a person with antisocial tendencies from a place where they have expressed those tendencies is in any way immoral. Isn't it a lot more moral thank locking people up?

"A whole range of kids are going to end up criminalised because of these orders, and it can only lead to further trouble."

Criminalising people who break the law will only lead to more trouble? By that logic, the best way to reduce the crime figures would be to repeal all the laws, that way there won't be ANY criminals. Then we can all relax.

Tell me you don't really mean that?

SoRB

Obviously you have no idea how the law operates in this country, and I'm torn between giving you the Janet and John Version because I think you are so misinformed it is painful to me, and giving you the bird and ignoring everything else you say on the subject because i want to go home.

I'll give option A a try because I don't think you are utterly beyond reach. If you still don't get it then I shall simply stop dealing with you on this subject.

A) Under UK law one *cannot* be prosecuted for your thoughts. That is a fact. It is written in statute that under British law that 'Conspiracies...' must go beyond mere 'thought or word' and actually encompass 'acts preparatory to the committing of an offence.' And what constitutes a 'preparatory act' is a matter of law, to be decided by a Judge, not a matter of fact to be decided by a jury. There is NO offence of 'Acts Preparatory to...' under UK law.

B) No criminal act needs to be committed for an ASBO to be issued. Most of them are issued to bored kids who hang around on street corners being a bit gobby to Old Bill in clothes that The Beak doesn't understand. None of which is illegal, and much of which ought to be encouraged. The Beak then says, 'well, we don't like your attitude, so we'll give you an ASBO. And if you breach that order, that's a criminal offence, and we can send you to prison.'

See how that works.? These kids may never have committed a criminal act, and indeed need never commit one to gain a criminal record.

Or do I need to spell it out even more simply?

<> (SoRB)

Sorry, you actually referred to those people who did not adhere to their ASBO restrictions as 'animals that know no better'.


az

"Obviously you have no idea how the law operates in this country"

Well, I have *some* idea, I think. But since you're apparently the expert...

"I don't think you are utterly beyond reach."

I'm flattered, I guess.

"A) Under UK law one *cannot* be prosecuted for your thoughts. That is a fact."

Well, duh, when you put it baldly like that. What you've not addressed was my suggestion that the distinction between murder and manslaughter hinges (or does it? Like you said, I'm not the expert) on *intent*. Or put another way, thoughts. Of course, what's being prosecuted is an ACT, but the OFFENCE committed depends on what the offenders thoughts were - doesn't it?

"It is written in statute that under British law that 'Conspiracies...' must go beyond mere 'thought or word' and actually encompass 'acts preparatory to the committing of an offence.'"

OK, fair enough. You're right, I didn't know that.

"There is NO offence of 'Acts Preparatory to...' under UK law."

Perhaps the Home Office are as benightedly uninformed as I am then: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act-2006/

Do be sure and put them straight too, won't you?

"B) No criminal act needs to be committed for an ASBO to be issued."

That does interest me, and is the big point where my analogy to a driving ban falls down. As far as I know, to get banned from driving you have to do something CRIMINAL first. But then, like you said, I know nothing - is this accurate? Or can you get a driving ban for something non-criminal?

"Most of them are issued to bored kids who hang around on street corners being a bit gobby to Old Bill in clothes that The Beak doesn't understand. None of which is illegal, and much of which ought to be encouraged."

Isn't there an offence of "threatening behaviour"? I'm pretty sure I've heard of that one. And "breach of the peace" is another phrase I'm sure I've heard. I don't really know what "affray" is, either. You're right, I don't know much about this, I really was under the impression that hanging around on the street at night shouting and being abusive to the police WAS illegal and was NOT to be encouraged. Certainly nobody, not my parents, not my teachers, and not (thank Bod) my peer group, thought it was to be encouraged when I was a lad.

"The Beak then says, 'well, we don't like your attitude, so we'll give you an ASBO. And if you breach that order, that's a criminal offence, and we can send you to prison.'

See how that works.?"

Well, yes. It's pretty simple. Which makes me wonder why people who GET asbo's don't seem to understand them, or don't seem to care about breaching them. It seems to me that the whole point of them is to nip in the bud behaviour which, left unchecked, might lead to worse, and to do so with the minimum of fuss and bother. Just a slap on the wrist and an order to just stop going to place where you're not welcome. Seems perfectly civilised to me. If I got one I'd be bloody sure not to go anywhere near the places I wasn't supposed to. But then I'm not exactly target market for asbo's, am I?

"Or do I need to spell it out even more simply?"

No, that has described it very well, and thank you. Reading, as I do, the bleeding heart liberal press for preference, I had been given to understand that there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept of asbos, whereas thanks to your explanation I can now see that in actual fact they're quite straightforward and sensible, and the only problem seems to be that the people who get them are not being punished enough for breaching them, rendering the whole exercise somewhat pointless. No wonder kids are playing top trumps with them if they know there are no consequences.

SoRB

high treason

Awaits enlightment on the legality of Section 44 with great interest.

lifers harm other prisoners

Well I am glad that I live in these here United States of America (the greatest country on earth), where I am free to "hang around on street corners being a bit gobby to Old Bill in clothes that The Beak doesn't understand. "


Wait. Who is Old Bill, and/or The Beak?

az

Ah but he knows it's meant lovingly, much like this other sort of smack


az

>Perhaps the Home Office are as benightedly uninformed as I am then: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/securi...ism-and-the-law/terrorism-act-2006/

Do be sure and put them straight too, won't you?<

No, because they don't need it. They understand how to read dates and facts. The Bill recieved Royal Assent on 30/03/06. That means it isn't yet on the Staute Books and therefore is not yet part of UK Law. Therefore my original assertion was correct but I suppose you could add the coda 'until such time as the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2006 passes onto the Statute Book'.

>What you've not addressed was my suggestion that the distinction between murder and manslaughter hinges (or does it? Like you said, I'm not the expert) on *intent*. Or put another way, thoughts. Of course, what's being prosecuted is an ACT, but the OFFENCE committed depends on what the offenders thoughts were - doesn't it?<

On his thoughts at the time of committing the offence, not prior to it.

>As far as I know, to get banned from driving you have to do something CRIMINAL first. But then, like you said, I know nothing - is this accurate? Or can you get a driving ban for something non-criminal?<

Give the boy a gold star.

>Isn't there an offence of "threatening behaviour"? I'm pretty sure I've heard of that one. And "breach of the peace" is another phrase I'm sure I've heard. I don't really know what "affray" is, either.<

All of them exist and I could give you a huge and boring explanation of the differences between them. But the *existence* of those charges doesn't mean that they have to be charged with them to get an ASBO. ASBO's were specifically created to play to the Daily Mail audience because rather than enforce the existing laws of the land (you know, it's illegal for the corner shop to sell beer to minors but rather than prosecute the corner shop lets criminalise the kids instead)this government wanted to be seen to be 'tough on the causes of crime'. Whicvh ASBo's certainly aren't because they can't be policed efficiently or sensibly.

>Awaits enlightment on the legality of Section 44 with great interest.<

Section 44 of what? The Road Traffic Act? The Theft Act? The Offences Against the Person Act? There are lots of 'Section 44's in the UK Law, so try and narrow it down and I expect that a) it is legal but b) that doesn't make it moral.

>Yes but if a life sentance actually was a life sentance then they ren't going to do any harm.

Yes they are; they cost an enormous amount to put in a jail.
Also the jails are already overcrowded,so they create a problem there.

That women who had to fight to get her cancer treatment highlighted a problem; keeping innocent people alive costs a lot of money, and the authorities don't want to pay it.

What if we compare letting an innocent person die through lack of funds, to paying to imprison someone, who would cost us nothing if executed?
Now consider this.
Maybe lifers should be given the option to redeem themselves, by voluntarily taking execution so that the money saved can be used to help the sick.

old bill is the filth

<Maybe lifers should be given the option to redeem themselves, by voluntarily taking execution so that the money saved can be used to help the sick..

Or for organ donation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4921116.stm