Jump to content

Talk:Anti-social behaviour order

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep it neutral

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

Miscellaneous Concerns About This Article

[edit]

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

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

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

Ah yes those damn lefties with their "democracy" and their "rule of law" and their "human rights" and their "justice" why won't they just go away so we can institute summary executions for sneezing?
That's like asking for an article to focus on the good aspects of getting shot in the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.13 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

  • moral panics - folk devils?
  • criminal law vs civil law (beyond reasonable doubt doesn't apply -can use hearsay evidence) - [added] this is not correct. First, the standard in criminal law is not "beyond reasonable doubt". A court/jury should convict if they are "sure" of guilt. This is what a judge tells a jury - that they should be "sure" of the defendant's guilt in order to convict. Second, the burden of proof to this criminal standard does apply in free-standing asbo applications. The court must be "sure" to the criminal standard that the respondent to the application has acted in an anti-social manner before it may consider imposing an asbo.
  • breaching is an imprisonable offense, even if behaviour that caused order not criminal
  • no clear definition of anti-social behaviour and no punishment restrictions? - [added] the definition of anti-social behaviour is contained in the act. It is conduct that causes harassment, alarm and distress. If this has been demonstrated to the criminal standard, the court may only order an asbo if it is necessary. Therefore, a person can be caused harassment, alarm and distress but the court can still consider that an asbo is not necessary.
  • statistics - especially if broken down
  • apparently 97% of applications are successful. (where is this stat from?)

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

We could make a whole article listing these but:

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

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

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

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

Criminal standard?

[edit]

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

No evidence is based upon civil law ie. hearsay, reports and evidence from witnesses who who are absent from the court. This is part of the reason why they are so effective, oftern when a criminal case has been thrown out of the criminal court the police will still use the case for an ASBO in the civil court. Although breach of the asbo is a criminal matter. [added] This is not accurate. Evidence may be used in a criminal case for a specific charge, for example, affray or assault. The criminal case may fail. However, the evidence can still be used. The test for an asbo is whether the behaviour has caused a person to feel harassment, alarm or distress. The evidence used in the criminal case may not demonstrate that there had been an actual assault or an affray. But it may show that a person was caused harassment, alarm or distress. Therefore, it is not the 'criminal case' which is used in the 'civil case'. It is the evidence that is used.

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

[added] It's not a combination of the two. The House of Lords held that as ASBO proceedings were civil in their nature it followed, at least in principle, that the ordinary civil standard of proof applied. However, it continued that given the seriousness of the matters involved, at least some reference to the heightened civil standard was necessary. The Lords stated that this standard was all but indistinguishable from the criminal standard and that as a matter of pragmatism, in all asbo cases, the criminal standard of proof was to be applied: R V MANCHESTER CROWN COURT, EX PARTE MCCANN & ORS (2003) 1 AC 787; (2002) 3 WLR 1313; (2002) 4 All ER 593; The Times, October 21, 2002.

When hearsay evidence is called, the court must still be satisfied to the criminal standard that the respondent has acted in an anti-social manner. The burden of proof is not lowered by the use of hearsay evidence. The hearsay evidence must meet the higher standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.52.8 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International law

[edit]

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

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

NPOV

[edit]

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

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

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

More POV

[edit]

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

While you can keep the tone neutral - there is only so much you can do to avoid the facts. An ASBO means that in Britain today you can be banned from doing something that is not illegal itself - under a set of entirely subjective conditions. If you fall afowl of the police or neighbours for your political views - you can have your freedoms severely curtailed under the premise of an ASBO.
And the clear facts are that the ASBOs are not just used for unruly teenagers. Even when they are, it's probably not the most useful thing in the world - and will create more people with criminal records (when they break the ASBO) or resentment of the authorities.
There is no way that an objective detailing of what ASBOs entail will show them in a positive light. zoney ♣ talk 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about

[edit]

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

Breaches

[edit]

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

In todays newpaper they say thet 55% of the ASBOs issued between 2000 and 2008 was broken. Since 1999 broken ASBOs have led to more then 5500 people getting jailed. It also mentions that Amnesty International have criticised the overcrowding. It also mentions some wacky ASBOs like 33year old Michael Logan that isn't allowed to sing Bob Marley songs and a persson putting anti-war flyers in 50 mailboxes.[4] I also notice that the article seem to leave out what happens if you break an ASBO. // Liftarn (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reference needed

[edit]

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

Criticism section

[edit]

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


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

  • "Failure of policy in tackling anti-social behaviour according to Nacro review". November, 2002. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

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


Insanity

[edit]

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

Police State?

[edit]

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

I think it should be there as some people have noted that the introduction of ASBO's was a slippery slope into a police state. It is a POV, but it is one that is held by a significant minority. I think a single link is not undue weight so it should stay.-Localzuk(talk) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, moron!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.54.18.150 (talk • contribs).
Huh? You replying to me or to Big Moira? -Localzuk(talk) 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you observe carefully you'll see that Britain is steadily turning into a police state and ASBOs are one sign of that. 80.47.208.148 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be something to this, but unless the issue of police states is discussed explicitly in the article, with appropriate citations, then we can't justify linking to it. garik 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how See also works though. If it were discussed in the article then it would be linked within the text. As it isn't and there is a link, it should be linked in See Also.-Localzuk(talk) 14:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take your point there, but including it in "See Also" remains POV, and we need something in the article to support linking to it. On the same basis, you could include a link to Fascism here, or to Mass Murder in the George Bush article. Both reflect the opinion of some people, but that's no justification for including such a link. garik 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the NPOV of the article

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

the article refers to a case where 2 youths were prevented from wearing a golf glove in manchester. but the refrence is simply "A case at Manchester Magistrates Court, November-December 2002." which is probably the vagest refrence i've seen in a while. could somebody find an actual refrence? otherwise i would feel that it should not suggest that it is a refrenced fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keirstitt (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV

[edit]

I believe I have dealt with a fair amount of the problems that this article had regarding POV. It now needs work to tidy up its actually wording though. Any takers?-Localzuk(talk) 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Are you sure the ASBO in the Republic of Ireland is introduced in March of this year? A case in my town was brought against someone in about January of this year. 86.43.68.170 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASBO concern

[edit]

This was in the article. Removing and sticking here. Secretlondon 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASBO Concern highlights the following issues:

1. Asbos can be used to criminalise behaviour that would otherwise not be illegal. Under asbo law, people have been banned from playing football, feeding pigeons, swearing, being sarcastic and riding a bicycle. Asbo laws have also been used to curb people's rights to free speech and association. It is not uncommon for someone to be banned from being with more than one other person in a public place.

2. If you breach your asbo you can be sent to jail for 5 years, with children aged under 17 years facing a 2 year Detention and Training Order. Overall, one in four of those who have been given an asbo have ended up in prison.

3. The Government said that asbos would only be imposed on children "in exceptional circumstances" but this promise has proved to be worthless. In reality, more than four in ten asbos have been imposed on young people aged less than 17 years old.

4. Many of these asbos have been imposed on children with special needs. A study by the British institute for Brain Injured Children (BIBIC) found that up to 35 percent of young people with asbos had a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty.

5. Asbos have also been imposed on vulnerable adults including people with mental health problems and homeless beggars: - One homeless man was given an asbo banning him from begging in an 'earnest and humble manner'. He carried on begging, was jailed and died in prison. - In another shocking case, a suicidal woman was banned from going near the railways, multistorey car parks, rivers or bridges. Instead of offering support to deal with her depression, the judge threatened her with imprisonment for being a nuisance!

6. Anyone who gets and asbo can be publicly 'named and shamed' - this means that your photo and personal details are posted on the internet, through door to door leaflet drops and poster campaigns. Children as young as 10 have been named and shamed in this way, with some facing threats of violence from vigilantes as a result. Other children regard naming and shaming as a perverse "badge of honour", making it very unlikely to change their behaviour for the better.

7. Asbos are being misused because they are so easy to impose. Less than one in a hundred of the applications made so far have been refused This is because local council officials or the police merely have to persuade a judge that your behaviour "may cause harassment or alarm or distress" to someone else to get one imposed. They are also allowed to use second or third hand hearsay as evidence in court, so it is very hard to defend yourself against vindictive or mistaken allegations.

8. There is no evidence that asbos stop people from behaving antisocially. More than four in ten are breached and frequently those that are not merely move the problem on to another area. This is because at best they are a quick fix which fails to address the root cause of problem behavour.

9. There is strong public support more positive methods of tackling antisocial behaviour. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Trust found that two thirds of those surveyed preferred preventative approaches to punitive approaches such as asbos.

10. Asboconcern has presented the government with a dossier of evidence of the widespread misuse of asbos. But Ministers have so far refused to accept our call for full independent review of their use. We believe that the public has the right to know why so many asbos are being imposed, how many asbo recipients have disabilities or medical conditions, what people are being banned from doing and why so many asbos fail to work.Small Text

    • What is the point of putting it in the article and then commenting it out? It looks like the text of a leaflet or something - its not suitable for the article but would be suitable as a reference if we can find the original prose. Secretlondon 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASBOS

[edit]

SO WHAT CAN I DO WHEN THE FATHER OF THE FAMILY I WANT TO GET THE ASBO OUT ON IS A POLICE MAN! AND I HAVE REPOTED HIM TWICE, ONCE TO HIS SARGENT AND THEN TO ANOTHER SAGENT AT ANOTHER POLICE STATION, I DUN IT OFF RECORD AS I DIDNT WANT TO LOSE HIM HIS JOB, THOUGHT DOIN IT THIS WAY WOULD WORK, BUT ITS GETIN BAD AGAIN, SO NOW I HAVE TO GET THE ASBO!

I'm sorry to hear of your problems but please remember that this isn't a forum for expressing them. If you feel there is a problem with ASBO law or difficulty with someone, please contact a solicitor.-Localzuk(talk) 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have done an external link cull per style guides as we seem to be just adding links of relation to asbo's. If the content of the article is important enough to link to, it should be important enough to discuss within the article. Please don't just add every ASBO related link you come across. -Localzuk(talk) 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersal orders

[edit]

I've removed the claim

  • An ASBO granted to a whole area, to part of Skegness allowing the police to arrest anyone who caused trouble in the area.

"Skegness is given an ASBO", Skegness Today, 26 July 2006. URL accessed on 2 August 2006.

This is clearly talking about a dispersal order, and has nothing to do with ASBOs, despite the claim in the referenced news article (which I assume has intended to be humerous). Roy Badami 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated it as a dispersal order under the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 is a form of ASBO. These orders are made in the same way as an ASBO but apply to an area instead of a person or group of people.-Localzuk(talk) 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question the fact that it is made under the Antisocial Behaviour Act makes it an ASBO. This is clearly not what the term ASBO normally means Roy Badami 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would add that dispersal orders are hardly unusual, and there is nothing special about Skipton. If we want to talk about dispersal orders, lets have a section on 'other provisions of antisocial behaviour legislation'. Let's not pretend that this was some novel and inventive use of an ASBO, because it isn't one. Roy Badami 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, actually, looking at it the 2 do seem to have a difference. My confusion is based on discussions with, what appears to be now, an ill informed police officer. The problem is, we should cover Dispersal orders in a bit more detail somewhere on WP. I shall look into doing this at some point soon.-Localzuk(talk) 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Behaviour Bond

[edit]

In Australia, courts can issue people with a "Good Behaviour Bond". Maybe this should be merged into a common Wiki article. 203.166.255.9 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

[edit]

Firstly, the "anti-social behaviour" link in the into re-directs to "Antisocial personality disorder", which is not (always) the same thing.

Secondly, the next section begins simply:

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, this is defined as "conduct which caused or was likely to cause alarm, harassment, or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as him or herself and where an ASBO is seen as necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the Defendant".[3] In England and Wales they are issued by Magistrates' Courts, and in Scotland by the Sheriff Courts.

What "this" is this referring to? anti-social beahaviour, or ASBOs themselves? It seems to start off referring to the former, then switch mid-sentance to the later. Indeed, this paragraph is a partial duplication of the first section of Prevention of crime and disorder act. The full text of this section reads:

1 Anti-social behaviour orders
(1) An application for an order under this section may be made by a relevant authority if it appears to the authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any person aged 10 or over, namely—
(a) that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself; and
(b) that such an order is necessary to protect persons in the local government area in which the harassment, alarm or distress was caused or was likely to be caused from further anti-social acts by him;
and in this section “relevant authority” means the council for the local government area or any chief officer of police any part of whose police area lies within that area.

When I have the time, I'll see if I can write a better description of whichever thing (ASBOs or antisocial behaviour) is most relevant here. 212.159.79.130 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say anti-social behaviour and anti social personality disorder were very different things. Secretlondon (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long does an ASBO last?

[edit]

Once a person is given an ASBO, do they ever expire? This is not addressed in the main article Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each ASBO can last for as long as the Judge allows from a minimum of two years.86.0.201.68 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

[edit]

The current references to Scotland are wrong. ASBOs were introduced in Scotland (with some differences) in 1998 i.e. before Devolution. At the moment it says they were introduced in 2004 for the first time. They were modified in criminal justice legislation in 2001 and again in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004.86.0.201.68 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They were introduced in 1998 under the same law as the rest of the UK, but with their own wording to reflect the different legal system. I shall ammend it.-Localzuk(talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other ASBOs

[edit]

I think this article needs an overhaul too many inaccuracies and POV and there is no mention of interim-ASBOs or ASB interdicts which are similar and more commonly used but with much less media coverage.86.0.201.68 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make those edits... The reason they are not covered is probably just that no-one has spent the time to research them.-Localzuk(talk) 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less common ASBOs

[edit]

This section needs work. If the criteria of inclusion in this section is just the opinion of a few editors as to what constitutes an unusal ASBO, then it needs to be heavily edited or removed. For instance, a young boy forbidden to play football in the street, I could understand that if it was because he was kicking it into his neighbours windows, the 87 year old who swears at his neighbours, age does not place you above the law. Therefore, if there is nothing more than the opinion of editors as to what constitutes "less common" it needs to be taken down. The best thing would be if there was a report listing "unusual ASBOs" because then we could actually have a reason for listing what we did, because that reliable third party source did so. It can't stay as it is. SGGH speak! 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there is such a list somewhere. It was used as a reference for something on this page I believe.-Localzuk(talk) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the home office report? NCCO or something from memory? If so, the ones listed in this section need to be only the ones mentioned in that report as "less common" and ones not from it ought to be removed. My point is simply that it cannot be down to the wikipedia user to decide what qualifies as "less common" it must be a third party source. I will go over them now and remove ones that are inappropriate. SGGH speak! 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all instances of examples not referenced in that report (in fact a couple of examples referenced to news sites were also in the report so re-referenced them) and I have added a couple more from the report to flesh it out. I have also left a note outlining how further entries should be added. In this way, there is no longer an arbitrary selection process for inclusion in that section. I think that should solve it. Let me know on my talk page if the issue crops up again. SGGH speak! 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

[edit]

As someone who is not from Britian, I couldn't help but notice the strange name of the offence, given that the actions for which it is given tend to be anything but anti-social. A kid who sits in his room by himself all day playing video games should get an anti-social behaviour order. - 121.208.89.99 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using a definition of "antisocial" that is more in line with "asocial". There is no evidence of a correlation between asocial behavior and lower likelihood of committing a crime that would warrant an ASBO. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applies to tourists?

[edit]

This may be a silly question, but can an ASBO be given to a tourist, and if that tourist stays in town long enough to violate it can they be jailed (and stopped from returning to their home country)?

I'm assuming that just like any normal law that it applies equally to tourists as it does to citizens. VegKilla (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chances of you getting one are very slim indeed. That said, most countries have bizarre laws. You should expect that when you are a tourist. For example, in many arabic countries there are penalties for homosexuality, and in the US, you can get in trouble for making jokes about bombs on airplanes. Arpitt (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Suggestion - DO ASBOs WORK?

[edit]

Please view this film from an online youth magazine as I would like to submit it as an external link. Thanks Willsmore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect example

[edit]

Concerning this line: "The youngest recipient of an ASBO, a two year old autistic boy accused of kicking a football at windows over a fence 7 feet (2.1 m) high and verbally abusing residents when asked to stop.[29]"

If people read the article correctly it will state in the final paragraphs that the police may have made a clerical error. Also Lennon hasn't received an ASBO yet, but that he merely received a generic letter saying that he is liable to get one. 94.215.169.38 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to: "The youngest person to be threatened with an ASBO, a two-year-old boy accused of kicking a football at windows over a fence 7 feet (2.1 m) high and verbally abusing residents when asked to stop." VegKilla (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996

[edit]

"As the ASBO is a civil order, the defendant has no right to evidence that might disprove the assertions of the plaintiff, though violating an ASBO can incur up to five years imprisonment."

I have removed the above text from the article, as is poorly phrased, and gives the impression that the Defendant is unable to mount a defence. This is not the case - although the original contributor may have in mind the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, which places a duty of disclosure on the prosecution and defence. Where a Post conviction ASBO is made, obviously the CPIA will apply, and where an ASBO is made by Magistrates sitting in a civil capacity, different rules of disclosure apply. To state that D has no right to evidence that may tend to disprove the claimant's case is simply incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowjm (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In the UK, there has been criticism that an ASBO is sometimes viewed as a badge of honour by youth."

[edit]

Lol, seriously? It is viewed as honourable among some people to have been caught for a petty crime? Regardless of whether you're a virtuous citizen or an aspiring master criminal, that's pretty sad, but nonetheless, if a claim like this is to be included in a Wikipedia article, it needs to reference an authoritative source. It is also advisable to elaborate on this criticism and tie it in better with the rest of the article rather than sticking it in the middle of a paragraph among relatively unrelated sentences. Cheers. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the sentence to the "Criticism of ASBOs" category, where it ties in better with the rest of the article. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa May's further reforms 2012

[edit]

This article says that Theresa_May wanted to reform ASBOs in 2010, but it has been on the news this month (May 2012) that she wants to ban them. If any one knows about this, it would help to update the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information might be on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/18150193ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

imprecise

[edit]

The statistic about people having "problems of subtance abuse or learning difficulties" is not good. It mixes up two completely different things. 88% of people who were carrying a shopping bag or a sub machine gun will agree with me. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-social behaviour order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-social behaviour order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-social behaviour order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-social behaviour order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-social_behaviour_order&oldid=1204892642"