I don't personally know what an ASBO is. So I'm probably not the only one. Spare a thought for us plebs...

 http://www.google.com/search?q=asbo+indymedia

jim, if you were a pleb, you would know what one is! - anti social behaviour order - commonly applied to council estate teenagers with nothing to do but hang about.

I'm not convinced they are allowed to do that. My understanding is that there needs to be an order in force for the area to the effect there has been a 'problem with anti-social behaviour'. Then they can invoke it whenever they want. To control you on a temporary/emergency basis they have to use the Public Order Act, althugh this was amended by the ASBA to say the minimum number of people on a demo before they can put conditions on is reduced from 20 to 2.

May be wrong on this so if anyone knows more,,,,

Wow, I never heard of a temporary ASBO! I thought they were just served on named individuals or something.

This use of them would thus seem to give the police powers to ban any demonstration or picket ar anything really - is this right? Do the polivce have to give you any documentation of this?

I'm sure that can't be the proper use. People need to start recording every instance where this is used. Helpful if you can use a video camera or a audio recorder. There will surly be a legal challenge to this soon if the police keep using them like this.

The legal challenge over the use of Section 44 of the terrorism act would have been much easier if more people had kept a good record of when it was used asgainst them.

It doesn't matter what legislation they come up with, the must still interpret it in line with Human Rights Act 1998 (and in turn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

This was a blatant infringement of Human Rights and is a case for suing. (That's what i'd do anyway).

An ASBO must be in place in the locality with the police being able to use it whenever they want but they must still allow protest. They can use a section 14 on a group of 2 or more people - allowing them to say how long the protest can be held and how many people. (They must still allow the protest to occur and cannot be rediculous with their restrictions - there is no power to stop use of megaphones/drums etc...)

Finally, if the 'public highway' was a pavement - they cannot move people holding a protest (so long as normal people can get past).

If you were on private property but weren't obstructing anyone from doing something they are legally allowed to do then you were only committing civil trespass and the police only have powers to move you (not arrest you). That is unless they fear a breach of the peace (used regularly but is a case for suing if they cannot show how the breach of the peace was going to occur).

The cops in Richmond are doing Operation Peacemaker ( http://www.richmond.gov.uk/depts/chiefexec/policy/community-safety/news/default.htm) to cut down on anti-social behaviour.

The cops didn't give us any documentation. They didn't even have a special form for the Order - they just logged it in their notebooks.

They mentioned public order, but not S14s, just that they could nick us for public order offences. I know that technically I was not obstructing the highway or committing a public order offence, but that wouldn't have necessarily stopped them from arresting us. Legally we were entitled to protest as we were but we would have to prove that in court. And at the time we chose not to get nicked in the first place.

From your answers, I would look into suing them for breaches of human rights. They were blatantly in the wrong and should be taken up on this.

 http://www.freebeagles.org has some good info on suing the police.

These articles have been posted in the past on ASBOs:

* Statewatch blows the lid on Nazi ASBO's
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296676.html

* Resist Social Cleansing! Victory to the Anti-social!
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/295956.html

* How to oppress and domesticate a whole community!
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/295501.html

* Misuse of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/294455.html

* Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/294072.html

* ASBO's are now being used against the working classes!
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/293482.html

temporary ASBOs can be slapped on, but generally they are legal rubbish.

because the orders are not criminal penalties and are not intended to punish the
offender (i know they are used like that but its scare tatics).

and the standard of proof must be ‘criminal’ when considering whether a person has acted
in an anti-social manner although they can use hearsay evidence in deciding that. for the standard of proof to be 'criminal' they have to jump through bigger hoops in court.

so don't think that because they threaten an ASBO you have to shift. Ask questions. or just call their bluff and don't move.

They are trying a massive ASBO scare tactic at the moment based on their usual shaky legal ground.

sometimes their stupidity works in our favour. just don't get scared. if necessary, see them in court. "criminal" standard of proof is just not worth it to them and they know it. does anyone know anyone whose had a temporary asbo stick? or even a permenant asbo stick for protest shit?

btw, "not intended to punish the offender" is their words, not mine. the point i'm making is that this underlying background to the creation of an order, and the reasons for enforcing an order can work against them. i'm totally cynical about courts, but it can work for us, playing them at their own game. if its not worth it to them, they will pull out of the game.

if we get scared now. they win.

videoing/cameras etc for evidence is good.

Usually I'd agree and say that's it's far better to stay and try to call their bluff. However these cops had already threatened to nick us for a myraid of other offences and were more than ready to do this. As I say usually this wouldn't have bothered me, but I value the saftey of my eight month baby far more than I do challenging a legal point or pushing the cops to a point where the nick me, especially as they kept threatening that if nicked me they would call social services.

They were saying that our behaviour was "criminal" as they said that we were causing harassment which is one of the prequisites of the temoprary asbo. There is also a penalty of up to three months for breaching a temporary asbo and we didn't feel that this was the time to challenge this for the above reasons.

 http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30038--e.htm#30

Lucy , you are confusing the issue. There is no such thing as a 'temporary ASBO' - check ou link to the Act itself. There are two kinds of ASBOs - the pre-existing ones that were put on individuals to ban them from a specific area. These are done in court but do not rely on a criminal standard of proof. That is why councils like them so much.

The second sort is the recently introduced blanket type of ASBO (See article below. An order is made for an area and any cop on the scene can then enforce it. From the Richmond police website, it seems that although they have an Operation to clean up the area, they do not have a formal ASBO in place.

What you are talking about when you refer to 'slapping on temporary ASBOs' is something completely different. This is the new power to issue tickets for offences under S5 of the Public Order Act 1986. These are like parking tickets for behaving badly in public (remember Blair's 'march the hoodlums to the cashpoint' stunt???) If you get one you can agree to pay or ask for a court date, which is where what you are talking about re criminal standard of proof comes into play. Anyone issued with one of these should definitely ask for a court date, as was done last week by the person arrested on the Oxford Street M&s PICKET who got issued with exactly one of these things.

You are absolutely correct about how we should deal with these s5 notices, but they are not 'temporary ASBOS' We need to be clear on this stuff, cos the police won't be. As usual they do not know the law but rely on scare tactics. I do not blame the people in Richmond one bit for deciding to leave rather than have this argument in court. There's no sense in getting arrested when you don't know if the police are within their powers or not and you have a baby with you. But next time they will be better informed, have a solicitor's phone number in their back pockets and hopefully a few more supporters with them on the day to help them stand their ground.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anti-social behaviour
Large sections of Camden are now covered by blanket anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), under which any group of more than two people can be asked by police to disperse, and no-one under the age of 16 can be on the streets after 9pm. The first high-profile days of the Camden Town ASBO were marked by a massive police presence, including a mobile CCTV camera van, helicopters and marine support units on the canal. Sixty-four individuals, mainly drug users, were served with exclusion orders. Meanwhile, in the back streets, young teenagers on bikes, who had previously behaved in an entirely sociable fashion, taunted the police and rode off laughing. In Somers Town, the other ASBO area, policing has so far been low-key but it is abundantly clear that the spectre of ‘gang violence’ will be used to prohibit young Asian men from gathering in the streets during the summer school and college holidays.

This is naked totalitarianism, modelled on New York-style policing. It is intended as a visible show of force and a warning to all in the vicinity. The heavy-handedness is not accidental and all the behaviour they new powers claim to address could be dealt with under existing laws. The parliamentary committee that scrutinised this act in 2003, was at a loss to understand why it was necessary to introduce such a draconian law. It asked the government to ‘explain why existing powers (... such as those under the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) cannot adequately address the mischief’.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (ASBA) is an attack on civil liberties at so many levels it is almost impossible to list them. It is a generalised attack on freedom of movement in its content, racist and anti-working class in its application. It stigmatises and criminalises entire sections of society by labelling them as a problem, as anti-social. It punishes parents living in cramped flats without gardens by making them keep their children inside for no reason. It does nothing to solve any genuine problems of crime.

And whilst it is central government that passed the ASBA, Camden Council is entirely responsible for its local implementation. The powers conferred on the police cannot operate without the agreement of the local authority.

Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism 180 July/August 2004

ok, sorry for the confusion and I agree this is something we need to get right.

The legislation used was the one to clear up the whole area. There are signs around Richmond town centre warning that this operation is in place and that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated.

Therefore there was the very real possibility of arrest and as I said before the cops were very keen to nick us for something (and think they probably would have done earlier if it hadn't been for the baby). It wasn't a question of a ticket.

Anyway, the reality is the law has changed a lot recently and think we need to be getting together to educate ourselves on these laws and how we're going to fight back.

Right, good, glad this is getting cleared up! Richmond, like Camden, Islington, Hackney, Basildon, Brixton and no doubt many other places apparently has an ASBO in place and you were asked to disperse using it. You decided on this occasion to do so. Fine. Another time it will be worth not doing. Sorted.

As for the S5 'tickets' the bizarre and interesting point about these is that although they have come into force, the power to issue them without actually arresting you has apparently not, so if you are given one on the street it is not lawful. I don't know when this changes but it is soon.