Brits divided on lout crackdown

LONDON – A teenager is forbidden to say “grass.” A great-grandfather is banned from being sarcastic. And two record companies are told not to put up posters.

All have fallen foul of the British government’s latest weapon against petty crime, vandalism and hooliganism – the anti-social behaviour order. Prime minister Tony Blair yesetrday highlighted the growing use of the orders as meeting the concerns of many voters.”It doesn’t always get the headlines but if you’ve got really difficult people living next door or down the street… it makes life absolute hell,” Blair said during a visit to Harlow, 40 km northeast of London.The orders have been used to ban thousands of people, some as young as 10, from activities as varied as shouting, swearing, spray painting, playing loud music and walking down certain streets.Supporters say the orders – popularly known as ASBOs – are a valuable tool against persistent offenders.Opponents say their sweeping power threatens civil liberties and may be ineffective.Issued by magistrates at the request of police or local authorities, the orders can ban certain types of behaviour, associating with particular individuals or visiting a proscribed area for a minimum of two years.Breaching an order is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.Because the orders are issued in civil rather than criminal court, an offence only has to be proved “on balance of probabilities,” rather than the criminal court standard of beyond reasonable doubt.Supporters acknowledge that ASBOs function in the grey area between boorish behaviour and outright crime.The British Crime Survey found that 33 percent of respondents cited teenagers “hanging around” on local streets as a big problem.A problem, perhaps, but not a crime.Critics point to cases like that of Alexander Muat, 87, a great-grandfather brought to court in Liverpool for breaching an ASBO that bars him from shouting, swearing or making sarcastic remarks to his neighbours.”The last time I looked it wasn’t a crime to be sarcastic,” wrote columnist Nick Cohen in The Guardian, slamming the government for “the criminalisation of everyday incivility.”- Nampa-APPrime minister Tony Blair yesetrday highlighted the growing use of the orders as meeting the concerns of many voters.”It doesn’t always get the headlines but if you’ve got really difficult people living next door or down the street… it makes life absolute hell,” Blair said during a visit to Harlow, 40 km northeast of London.The orders have been used to ban thousands of people, some as young as 10, from activities as varied as shouting, swearing, spray painting, playing loud music and walking down certain streets.Supporters say the orders – popularly known as ASBOs – are a valuable tool against persistent offenders.Opponents say their sweeping power threatens civil liberties and may be ineffective.Issued by magistrates at the request of police or local authorities, the orders can ban certain types of behaviour, associating with particular individuals or visiting a proscribed area for a minimum of two years.Breaching an order is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.Because the orders are issued in civil rather than criminal court, an offence only has to be proved “on balance of probabilities,” rather than the criminal court standard of beyond reasonable doubt.Supporters acknowledge that ASBOs function in the grey area between boorish behaviour and outright crime.The British Crime Survey found that 33 percent of respondents cited teenagers “hanging around” on local streets as a big problem.A problem, perhaps, but not a crime.Critics point to cases like that of Alexander Muat, 87, a great-grandfather brought to court in Liverpool for breaching an ASBO that bars him from shouting, swearing or making sarcastic remarks to his neighbours.”The last time I looked it wasn’t a crime to be sarcastic,” wrote columnist Nick Cohen in The Guardian, slamming the government for “the criminalisation of everyday incivility.”- Nampa-AP