Thursday 1 October 2009

Sledgehammer/Nut Interface…

Fancy a nice bottle of wine in the park on the next sunny day? Well, tough luck:
Drinking in streets and parks will be banned in a fightback against 'Binge Britain'.

Town halls are drafting new laws to introduce the first blanket bans on public drinking applying to entire towns.
And how can they do something so illiberal, you ask?

Simples! NuLabour’s legal geniuses strike again:
Nottingham intends to be the first city to implement the ban. It is taking advantage of new legislation which, for the first time, will allow bylaws to be passed without needing approval by a Cabinet minister.
So, now the idiots that harass people putting out bins two minutes too early or leaving their buggy in the passage while they struggle up two flights of stairs with their shopping can enforce all sorts of mad new legislation unscrutinised by Parliament.

Who thought that would be a good idea?

Who thought giving people like Jon Collins more power could lead to chaos?
Council leader Jon Collins said: 'People understand clear messages.
Yes, Jon. I certainly understand the one you’re sending…
There's no confusion in alcohol-free zones.
Or, to translate ‘We don’t employ the sort of people we can trust to make value judgements, so zero tolerance is easier..for us’
I do not think it's a civil liberties issue.
Well, you’re an idiot then.
It's about saying we do not want people drinking in the street.'
But the problem you are trying to solve isn’t ‘people drinking in the street’.

It’s people breaking the law. All kinds of laws. Existing laws…
Richard Antcliff, Nottingham's chief antisocial behaviour officer, said the council wanted to target 'loutish behaviour' and street drinkers who intimidate law-abiding members of the public.
Then do that!

Don’t pass blanket legislation that penalises all for the actions of a tiny minority who are already breaking those existing laws and could be dealt with if only the justice system could find its courage for once…

And don’t look to the Tories for any civil liberties:
The Tories backed Nottingham and said it was 'absolutely right' they should get tough on binge drinking on the streets.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'We've also got to deal with the huge flaws in our licensing system and in particular with the proliferation of late night off-licences which are adding to the very real problem of drink and anti-social behaviour.'
So, this time next year, when you are on the way home after working late and you fancy a bottle of Merlot, hard luck.

The Tories will have closed down the late night off license in case you do something ‘anti-social’ with it…
However, there are concerns that some councils may be too heavy-handed in the way they introduce new byelaws, possibly putting an end to picnics in the park.

Dylan Sharpe of Big Brother Watch said: 'This is yet another piece of legislation with the potential to create criminals out of law-abiding people.'
Thank you, Dylan Sharpe, for being the one voice of sanity in this article. You are wasting your time, though. No adults are listening…

I’m not the only one who can see the pitfalls herein. So can Leg-Iron:
“Well, the ones that apply in Aberdeen are only really enforced if someone is drinking in the street and also causing a nuisance. They are pretty much ignored on New Year's Eve unless someone is being more of a nuisance than the rest of the population, which is hard work. I suspect that once the English council jobsworths get their teeth into this new way to clobber the innocent, it'll be different.

This law will be abused by the authorities. You know it. The feeble officials will shy away from real trouble and go after easy targets instead. This will have no effect on real troublemakers, but will give picnickers with a bottle of wine reason to be fearful.”
Of course they will. It’s like the parable of the frog and the scorpion.

It’s in their nature…

8 comments:

ivan said...

Another law that needs to go on the list of those to be repealed.

JuliaM said...

I propose we don't let them make any new law until they've repealed five old ones...

Quiet_Man said...

3000+ laws and still they wonder why they're losing the respect of the voters.

Why don't they just leave us (the law abiding majority) alone and go after the troublemakers?

Because we're honest and will pay up.

James Higham said...

which, for the first time, will allow bylaws to be passed without needing approval by a Cabinet minister

Charming, just charming.

staybryte said...

Breach of the peace, drunk and disorderly, disorderly conduct, conduct likely, public nuisance, ad infinitum.

Perfectly good, common law-based legal remedies for the kind of problems we're talking about. And if we're talking about the Pilkington case - and let's face it we are - then you can add trespass, criminal damage, threatening behaviour, harrassment, carrying an offensive weapon, assault, making threats to kill, false imprisonment, actual bodily harm... need I go on?

And perhaps the most effective remedy of all, the one we gave up in baby steps. A set of assumptions, based on discretion and experience and simple observation, as to what is right and what is wrong. And a presumption that this will be acted on by the relevant agencies.

Still, a new, contrived offence will restore all that, won't it?

I'm being flippant, as is my way, but the Pilkington case just won't leave me alone in terms of the anger I feel.

AntiCitizenOne said...

QuietMan,

The only "law abiding" people left are those in a permanent vegetative state. That's because the law is so broad everyone breaks it.

Unknown said...

Hand on a second

There are three issues here

1. Are there existing laws to deal with this behaviour and are they being used?
2. Is it better to have decisions taken locally rather than nationally?
3. Will the local politicians use their power sensibly?

I've no doubt that as things stand, the answer to 3 in all the quoted areas is "No" and Staybryte has already pointed out the answer to 1.

However I'm left with the fact that returning powers like this to local level is a good thing. That suggests to me that municipality A might do things differently to municipality B, which is undoubtedly a good idea.

Before Maggie drew power to the centre councils had a much greater authority and one of the ways good politicians emerged was by learning the ropes at local level. That's an advantage that particularly benefited the Conservatives because they actually could offer some tangible difference instead of being just different coloured administrators. Second, if a council imposes a local draconian law (whilst others do nothing) then one of two things will happen: (a) people will vote to change the council (b) people will move their business or themselves.

will allow bylaws to be passed without needing approval by a Cabinet minister.

You know what? I want the local council to pass laws that aren't scrutinised by the Labour government. I also want Labour the right to totally fuck up places like Liverpool while the Conservatives are in power, so that people can say "look what you're voting for".

AntiCitizenOne said...

Excellent point TDK.

It's just a pity you can't get the council to buy your house if the council suddunly get an infestation of moonbats.