Michael Noonan's hoodie ban

[dcfcsteve]

the hoodies thing is pure daft though, one kid in Manchester has been banned from wearing hoodies for 5 years under an ASBO. And don't even get me started on ASBOs.

I'm afraid I will have to get everyone started on ASBO's WAR....

Now - I personally don't like ASBO's. But what I will ask is - tell me a viable, workable alternative ?

Try living in some of the less salubrious parts of London, for example. There you have kids who are to all intents and purposes feral. They have no respect for anyone what so-ever, literally do what they want when they want, would stab/punch you as soon as look at you, and when challenged by the Police they know the limitations of the legal system inside-out so simply trot out all the rights in the world and get away with everything on the basis of the acts being very minor, evidence being difficult to gather and their age being so low. I'm talking about a very small number of people (not always kids) who are continuously involved in activities that make the lives of people in the communities in which they live an absolute and utter feckin' misery - day and night. That leave old people afraid to leave their homes, and neighbours afraid to speak out. For example - for 4 weeks either side of Halloween, parts of South London resemble Fallujah. There's kids launching firework at Council tower blocks at 4am, firing them across the street at random passers by etc. This happens for weeks - until they can no longer get their hands on fireworks. Then they go back to their usual acts of petty thuggery, vandalism and general crime for the rest of the year - like setting large estate-bins alight, then stoning the fire brigade when they come to put ithem out. Or attacking ambulance crews called to emergencies. Or... need I go on ?

It's usually the same small number of people who cause 95%+ of the problems in certain areas, and they are well known to the rest of the community. The police can do little about them, and their neighbours are too afraid to stand up to them. So what exactly do you propose is done to stop these people being an absolute menace to society ?

Dahamsta - if you're saying the answer to problems like these is simply to put more police on the beat, then you have a very limited grasp of public sector budgetary pressures and/or Police priorities. The Police in London do not have the time or resources to put to such relatively petty issues, nor indeed should much of their resources be prioritised on such relatively trivial issues. London is under the constant threat of major terrorist attack. It is the gun crime capital of Britain, a major international drugs centre, has massive sex-slave and inter-linked people smuggling industries, serious racist and homophobic crime, constant corruption and fraud occuring at all levels throughout the public and private sectors etc etc. And you want police resources spent and/or diverted to patrolling shopping centres keeping an eye on potential shop lifters........?

So what is the answer ? ASBO's are anti-libertarian and far from perfect. But you know what - they work ! There are plenty of examples of the level of crime and sheer thuggery in areas declining spectacularly as a result of ASBO's being served on known troublemakers. ASBO's were introduced because all other systems - parental control, police surveillance and intervention, community pressure, the standard judicial system - were failing to deal with a tiny number of people who destroy the quality of life of so many. No alternatives were working. ASBO's go some way towards giving a degree of power back to communities who are blighted by those who believe they are above the law.

So ignoring what is wrong with ASBO's for the momnent - tell me other genuinely workable ways of dealing with people who act and believe that they are above the law ?

P.S. My favourite threatened use of ASBO's has been against the Marketing Directors of the record labels etc that mess-up entire city centre areas with constant and indescriminate fly-posting. Has really cleaned-up the appearance of parts of certain English cities, without even having to act upon the threat.

[Peadar]

I don't get it Peadar, are you seriously trying to tell me that we should round up all guys in shopping centres with their hoods up, because they're criminals? Or because they're potential criminals? Both are misguided, dangerous precendents.

No, what I meant was that if you have someone committing a crime and covers their face with a hood, then it may not be easy to get a conviction when your main body of evidence is CCTV footage.

It's grand for people in Cork or well to do areas around the country to be talking about civil liberties and all that ideology but you never seem to consider the civil liberties of the victims of crime.

It's not too much to ask that someone remove their hood while entering a private premises. Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Hats and sunglasses because they hide your eyes. Everything else because they could disguise tattoos, birthmarks, body frame, artificial limbs, penis length and girth. Then we can start using cellulite patterns as an identifier and have this information logged in horrendously insecure RFID tags implanted under our skin. Live life in the nude, tracked constantly.

You think this is exaggeration? Look at America for chrissake! If you want to go there now you have to give a thumbprint in the airport, and you have no idea where that goes, or where it will go in the future. Social Security numbers are a commodity in the US, do you want your thumbprint to become one too?

adam

Adam you are of course perfectly correct in your theory but somewhat off the mark in your detail and application.

The discussion and issue is of well defined and contained phenomena -stickey headed, barcode-tached chavs using their hoods to disguise their identity while committing crime -in this case -predominantly petty theft.
As a baldy who weres a hat (and often a hood) about 60% of the day and 95% of the time I'm out of doors I have no problem whatsoever with a minor inconvenience re-instituting what is no more than a faded piece of ettiquette -just to make life a little more difficult for the slitty eyed glue-sniffing cnuts.

I could argue I'd be better off if they spent all their time in the shopping centers rather than at the end of my street -bravely harrassing people from the safe long grass of the hoods on their immitation Nike gear.

However -the end of my road is out of doors so they should of course be free to wear what they will as they like. Though one of these nights I'm gonna get me a giant hoodie for my wee punto and reverse over a few of wee *****s.

[anto1208]

If we had enough cops on the beat, which is the real solution to this any many other problems, they would be much more likely to be apprehended. This is putting the cart after the horse, trying to fix things on the cheap. This is a politician - an unimaginative, failure of a politician - trying to budget my security.

are you proposing a cop for every shop in the country just so some scum bags dont have there human right infringed on while they are robbing the shops , because thats the only way the cops will catch them .
if they have a hood up and cant be identified then as soon as they leave the shop there away with it . there is no evidence to convict them because there is no video footage of them commiting the crime !!.


think about what is being asked of them , take down a hood is it really such a big deal , this is worse than the smokers that would nt walk all of 5feet to the door of a pub the smoke there fags because they think there right to smoke im more important than my right not to breath in there smoke . its rubbish .


ive no problem with any of these ideas no hoodies , id cards , even dna data base , why because im not a criminal ive nothing to hide so what if the gov have my fingerprints it means nothing its not going to chance my life one single bit .

it winds me up people taking about there human rights , ye dont know how good ye have it in this country , ther are people starving to death being murdered raped etc all over the world as we speak and ye're here complaining about not being alloud to wear a hood up indoors FFS

[John83]

also with the asbo's people are very quick to dissmiss them , normally they are the same people that dont have scum drinking on the wall outside there house , trowing rubbish into there gardens , breaking windows , trowing horse sh1t at the house, kicking in doors , setting fire to the house , shouting abuse at them as they go about there day , stealing there car , writting grafety all over there house ...

I note that all of that is illegal without further legislation. Which neatly brings in Dahamsta's point:

If we had enough cops on the beat, which is the real solution to this any many other problems, they would be much more likely to be apprehended.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I note that all of that is illegal without further legislation. Which neatly brings in Dahamsta's point:

Fully agree that the guards need more cops on the beat. However chavs are well versed in the law -better than you'd imagine. You have to catch them in the act and have witnesses who along with yourself are willing to forego work, piece of mind and general security in order for successful prosecutions to be brought.

So in that respect I'm all for asbo's. I'm against the abuse of asbo's but the concept itself is fair.

On the other hand we have now slipped away from the nub of the issue, which is petty theft -onto general anti-social behaviour which is a much wider issue.

[Peadar]

I note that all of that is illegal without further legislation.

You're entirely correct but ASBO's target people who are too young to be prosecuted as adults.

[dcfcsteve]

I note that all of that is illegal without further legislation. Which neatly brings in Dahamsta's point:

Cops on the beat are widely recognised - particularly by the police themselves - as not being a significant source of crime-busting. Without gettign all Dvaid Brent, that is a fact.

It's obvious when you think about it - as if they're going to be walking around all day in their dayglo yellow jackets, endlessly tripping over people indulging in car-crime, vandalism, thuggery, shop-lifting etc mid-act. They're hardly in-disguise with those high-vis jackets, so would be spotted half a mile away by any vaguely observant/organised criminal fraternity. The reality is that cops stumble upon very few crimes on the course of their beat- paticularly crimes of any great magnitude. Admittedly at night they do find lots of drunken fights breaking out etc, but that's more a reflection of the incapacitated state of those involved, than on the sleuth-busting beat officers.

The main benefit of extra Police on the beat is that they increase people's perceived sense of safety. They do detect/prevent the odd crime, but it's laughable to suggest they would make a serious dent on the crime stats without literally saturating areas with them. And would you be happy with the massive increase in your taxes to pay for that ?

Throwing loads of Police out the station door to endlessly trawl the streets is a completely inefficient and ineffective response to crime. The Police have much bigger priorities than graffiti-painters, petty-vandals and occupational shop-lifters. And anyways - as soon as a beat Police officer aprehends someone, they then have to spend the next few hours off the streets tied-up in the paper work to process that petty criminal. It's madness to suggest this as a sensible way to impact upon crime - it just doesn't work in reality !

[pete]

Wasn't that the unofficial policy of the Donegal Gardai for year.....?

That was working fine until do gooders in D4 found out

The suggesting that we need to have extra gardai on the beat to preserve the right to wear hoodies indoors is laughable. Why should we have to pay more taxes for skanger rights?

BTW hoodies + Celtic tops should be banned too.

[John83]

Cops on the beat are widely recognised - particularly by the police themselves - as not being a significant source of crime-busting. Without gettign all Dvaid Brent, that is a fact.

Is it? I'm not talking about having a cop on every corner. I'm talking about the police responding to reports of crime. The force is undermanned as it stands, and that impacts on their ability to deal with "petty" crime.

...The Police have much bigger priorities than graffiti-painters, petty-vandals and occupational shop-lifters. And anyways - as soon as a beat Police officer aprehends someone, they then have to spend the next few hours off the streets tied-up in the paper work to process that petty criminal.

Hence, they need more staff. Are you suggesting that we ignore those crimes? That would make them effectively legal. Where's your car parked?

[Macy]

I really can't decide on ASBO's. My lefty heart says they're bad, but then the local shops in Manch used to be plagued by, eh, plagues of little townie shíts. Petty vadalism aside, their main role was to intimidate people walking past, particularly older people, and particularly again women (and not so young women at that). For example me mam, and her neighbours would drive the 3 minute walk as the late opening shop was the other side of them. This has been significantly reduced in recent years since the introduction and threat of ASBO's.

I am obviously worried about the blatant abuse of them by some police forces, but it's hard to argue that they've worked in some situations.

On the hoods up on hoodies - I'm not sure what the problem is. It's only in the shop you have to have them down, not the whole time. If the stats are correct it's hard to argue if it's purely not to have hoods up inside shops. As has been said, no different from making bike riders take off their helmets.

[John83]

I am obviously worried about the blatant abuse of {ASBOS} by some police forces, but it's hard to argue that they've worked in some situations.

Sure they'll work. So would tagging everyone, tracking our movements continually, and thus getting a 100% detection and capture rate. The problem with that is exactly the same as with ASBOs - potential abuse. I don't think anyone here needs to be reminded of what crooked policemen are capable of, or that they exist. I also have a problem with the government having that kind of authority and power, no less with that than with the Patriot Act. I just don't trust those people.

As has been said, no different from making bike riders take off their helmets.

I tend to agree with that.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Sure they'll work. So would tagging everyone, tracking our movements continually, and thus getting a 100% detection and capture rate. The problem with that is exactly the same as with ASBOs - potential abuse. I don't think anyone here needs to be reminded of what crooked policemen are capable of, or that they exist. I also have a problem with the government having that kind of authority and power, no less with that than with the Patriot Act. I just don't trust those people.

I tend to agree with that.

The highlighted bit is sensationalist in fairness John.
Again I'd agree and have concerns on the likelihood of ASBOs being abused -but the concept, fairly applied, is sound.

[John83]

The highlighted bit is sensationalist in fairness John.
Again I'd agree and have concerns on the likelihood of ASBOs being abused -but the concept, fairly applied, is sound.

Sure, it's an extreme example - that's the point. Why would you object to being tagged though? Got something to hide? What's so much worse about being tagged than being wrongfully arrested and charged on insufficient evidence? Go on, tell me, what elements of ASBOS do you think are better than tagging?

[pete]

Again I'd agree and have concerns on the likelihood of ASBOs being abused -but the concept, fairly applied, is sound.

Don't judges have to approve these just like search warrants?

[dahamsta]

I'll come back to the stuff I was tackled on earlier later (if you catch my drift), I just don't have the brainpower for it at the moment. I just want to add this:

Cops on the beat are widely recognised - particularly by the police themselves - as not being a significant source of crime-busting. Without gettign all Dvaid Brent, that is a fact.

It may well be Steve, and I can't argue with that because it is a fact that that belief or opinion exists (note emphasis). But here's another literal example: CCTV is widely recognised - particularly by the police themselves - as being a significant source of crime-busting. This is despite the fact that:

1. in many cases, crime has simply moved off-camera; and
2. in some cases, crime has become more violent as a direct result, because of the increased risk involved.

Further, there is zero evidence - zero - that CCTV is better at solving crime than policemen on the beat. Zero because the two have never been compared properly. Zero because they can't, because politicians have cut the arse out of the budgets for beat policing.

Further more (futhermore!), where do we stop? Crime has moved off camera, so by the police's logic, we need to keep adding cameras -- until they're in your street, your driveway, your living room, your bedroom. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but really: Where does it stop?

Actually I will cover the policemen on the beat thing now, because I'm on a roll, but I won't quote anyone because I'm in the middle of this post.

No, I wasn't suggesting that we should have a policeman for every retail outlet, etc out there, and with respect, that's a bit of a silly conclusion to draw because it's illogical, and I rarely make illogical statements. (Ok, sometimes I do. But not that illogical.)

Policemen on the beat is a numbers game, that in an odd way is very, very like gambling, casinos in particular. Calculating the number of policemen required on the beat is very like running the numbers for the roulette wheel, or the Blackjack table. It's all about calculating and managing risk, crunching statistics.

It's like that because beat policemen tend to come across crime randomly: because they happen to be passing when a crime is being committed; because they're nearby when someone calls in a crime to the call centre; because someone spots them in the next street and shouts for them.

At a certain point in the numbers game, the police will hit a sweet spot where a very large proportion of crime is being tackled in this way. Any less policemen and they won't catch enough; any more and it's not cost-efficient. It works very well when the numbers are crunched properly, and the only reason we're not seeing it work today is because of cost-cutting.

I'd give good odds - while we're on the subject - that if they stopped surface cost-cutting and actually spent a bit of time tallying the cost of all that CCTV, and the cost to the community of bad policing (and the lack of community policing, which is hugely important socially), beat policing would win hands-down.

With all that in mind, I tag CCTV as the same kind of garbage policy that I talked about earlier: bad political decision made by bad politicians, all done in the name of budgeting my security. I don't know about you, but I don't want my security budgeted, I want it examined properly, considered carefully, and implemented in a way that makes me secure. If it costs more to do it right, I don't mind paying for it.

It's too late to take the cameras down now, but it's not too late to stop putting up more and more, and it's not too late to get back to good, old-fashioned, community beat policing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it wasn't broke. It was just considered too expensive. By morons like Michael Noonan*.

adam

PS. By beat policing I'm not just restricting myself to plod. I'm talking about plod, community policing (i.e. liasons), cruisers, etc.

* Of course Noonan isn't a moron. He's obviously a very clever man, or he wouldn't be a politician at all. But you wouldn't think it to look at this garbage.

[dcfcsteve]

Is it? I'm not talking about having a cop on every corner. I'm talking about the police responding to reports of crime. The force is undermanned as it stands, and that impacts on their ability to deal with "petty" crime.


Hence, they need more staff. Are you suggesting that we ignore those crimes? That would make them effectively legal. Where's your car parked?

ASBO's are a suggested solution to petty crminality that blights the lives of people in the areas in which they occur. they are not a perfect solution - but in the context of the ongoing budgetarey pressures faced by the Police and governments, they are an efficient way of dealing with thse problems.

Look at it this way - employing more Gardai/Police in sufficient numbers to make a significant dent on anti-social behaviour would cost an absolute bloody fortune. Societies in most Western countries (with the exception of the Scandis) are increasingly tax averse. No-one will want to pay the many, many millions needed each year to recruit, train, pay and service a large increase in Police numbers. We can all pretend that that isn't the case, but it simply is.

Therefore - we have the reality of a situation where Police resources are limited. They should therefore sensibly be prioritised towards the activities that will have the greatest impact and be of the gratest importance. Chasing spides with spray cans around council estates are sadly not the greatest priorities - even if it does make the lives of those who live near those spides hell.

ASBO's offer a very cost effective solution to this problem. For a miniscule fraction of the cost of placing many additional officers randomly around, or dragging them away from serious work to visit the scene of petty crimes, they effectively force the individuals responsible for anti-social behaviour to self-police themselves, under threat of action.

The key thing with ASBO's is to ensure the requirements for their granting is fair - in particular with regards the weight of evidence required. You can't just slap an ASBO on someone for no reason, you know - there has to be evidence, often gathered from local residents who are being extremely brave to come forward to report instances, and a judge is involved in granting it. I can honestly say I've yet to hear of anyone served an ASBO who has been widely regarded as innocent. Given we often hear of innocent people being caught by other laws, I'm sure that sooner or later if someone entirely innocent got one, we'd hear about it through the media. This hasn't happened because the weight of evidence required helps insure that, beyond reasonable doubt, you are targetting someone who is guilty of behaving in such a way.

In summary - society doesn't want to pay the significant increase in taxes necessary to fund a sufficiently large boost in Police numbers to ensure the manpower is there to tackle anti-social behaviour directly. Given this reality, the option is to either let such anti-social behaviour continue in the face of greater police priorities - or seek a solution that will tackle it in an effective, cost-efficient and in-the-balance fair way. I have yet to hear of any alternative to ASBO's that will do that.

[Peadar]

Just to expand on this a little further, I think everyone convicted of any criminal offence, should have their DNA stored on a central database for a minimum of 3 years.

I also think that driving licenses and passports should contain biometric data.

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

[dahamsta]

I think everyone convicted of any criminal offence, should have their DNA stored on a central database for a minimum of 3 years.

The big stuff, yes. But not "misdemeanours", i.e. posession of soft drugs, petty crime, etc.

(I could have retorted with "you want traffic offenders in a DNA database Peadar?", but I've decided to be entirely logical and passive today. )

I also think that driving licenses and passports should contain biometric data.

Possibly. But not RFID, because it's too dangerous, even with encryption. (The american administration doesn't want any!)

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

Rubbish.

(Oops, there I go again. But you are talking rubbish. If you have nothing to fear, you'll have no objection to walking around in the nude, with the aforementioned tag attached to your ankle, and CCTV in your bedroom. After all, you have nothing to hide, right?)

adam

[John83]

Possibly. But not RFID, because it's too dangerous, even with encryption. (The american administration doesn't want any!)

I've read a bit on that. Frightening prospect.