Slashdot Mirror


4 UK Urban Explorers Face Orders Not To Talk With Each Other For 10 Years

First time accepted submitter Trapezium Artist writes "Four friends apprehended exploring the disused Aldwych station in London's Underground are faced with an 'anti-social behaviour order' (ASBO) which would forbid them from talking to each other for a full 10 years. The so-called 'Aldwych four,' experienced urban explorers, were discovered in the tunnels under the UK's capital city a few days before last year's royal wedding and the greatly increased security measures in place led to their being interviewed by senior members of the British Transport Police. Nevertheless, once their benign intentions had been established, they were let off with a caution. However, following an accident caused by another, unrelated group of urban explorers in the tunnels a few months later, Transport for London applied to have ASBOs issued to the Aldwych four. These would forbid them from any further expeditions, from blogging or otherwise publicly discussing any exploits, and even from talking with each other for the 10 year duration of the order. One could argue about the ethics of urban exploration, but this nevertheless seems like an astonishingly heavy-handed over-reaction by TfL."

387 comments

  1. They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd imagine there'd be a way to comply with the heavy-handed order while having a venue that is out of reach of the ASBO.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by alienzed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, like, another country.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    2. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The order would be placed on them, so it is in effect wherever they are - unless they remain outside of UK jurisdiction until no one cares about the violation anymore.

    3. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      The Principality of Sealand would be one candidate.

      In any case, I'm not sure why is everybody so down about ASBO, from what I know of it, it seems like a much surer way of getting laid than urban exploring.

    4. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Sealand lies in UK territorial waters. Just go abroad and talk all you want, or rely on slack ASBO enforcement.

    5. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      I'd imagine there'd be a way to comply with the heavy-handed order while having a venue that is out of reach of the ASBO.

      Yes, by staying in the UK.

      The order is absurd and totally disproportionate if the guardian story is to be believed. The courts in the UK will never uphold it under even the mildest of appeals.

      An oft forgotten fact about laws in the UK is that they are not absolute, indisputable edicts. Ultimately the courts decide on the scope of any law, and that is what case law and precedent is all about.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way, that order is pretty damn totalitarian. This might be the most obscene 'punishment' I've ever heard of for what is nothing more than trespassing.

      UK justice system should be ashamed of itself, and the Officer who requested the 'Aldwych Four' should succumb to such irrational living conditions should lose his job and any retirement package.

      This is down right sickening.

    7. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      fuck sealand. they can go live free lives in Amsterdam! AMSTERDAM I'M TELLING YOU!!!

      and free in two ways, first free as in free to be able to talk to each other, fuck each other, whatever, and secondly free in the sense of getting political asylum and social security through that.

      Last month TfL applied to issue anti-social behaviour orders which would not only stop them undertaking further expeditions and blogging about urban exploration but also prohibit them from carrying equipment that could be used for exploring after dark. Extraordinarily, it also stipulates they should not be allowed to speak to each other for the duration of the order – 10 years.

      coming up with that _after_ first letting them off with a warning is just pure bullshit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK needs civilization taken away from it. It needs it's major cities wrecked, it's transportation and energy generation infrastructure destroyed. Something that evil should not be allowed to continue to exist. The filth left over can be left to evolve for a few centuries then we can let them try again.

    9. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The ASBO stuff seem very arbitrary. Like going back to the bad old days of having an all powerful king. I thought the English did that Magna Carta thing?

      What's the big problem on them exploring the station? It was an abandoned station (as per the link).

      By the way the french seem to have maps of the underground: http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?gpslat=51.513962&gpslon=-0.114629&zoom=4

      Not that surprised though: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_ux/all/1

      --
    10. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      An oft forgotten fact about laws in the UK is that they are not absolute, indisputable edicts. Ultimately the courts decide on the scope of any law, and that is what case law and precedent is all about.

      That kind of depends on who you asked. The government and Parliament like to think their laws are supreme and cannot be questioned (aside from within Parliament, or through a process set out in another law, i.e. the ECA or HRA). Judges sometimes have a different idea. In this case, though, an ASBO is a court order, so given by a judge (or magistrate). Reading the article it seems that TFL have just applied for it, but haven't been given it yet. Hopefully the judge will realise just how silly it is, but sadly I'm guessing there's no downside for TFL in applying for the strongest, toughest order they can.

      Of course, this just goes to show how ASBOs are being abused (surely banning people from talking is... anti-social itself, and exploring isn't..?) and how we really need our courts to take a stand against the ludicrous abuses of power our executive get up to.

    11. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by metacell · · Score: 1

      You want USA to annect them?

    12. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Actually there is no way they can comply since it is impossible to not communicate.

    13. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      As you can see from your map, it's actually not an abandoned station (there is a solid line, not a dotted line). It's maintained as a filming location -- hence why one of the pictures shows new, plastic station signs. The track is maintained, and the electricity supply works -- it could potentially be live. V for Vendetta uses Aldwych station, for example.

      More importantly, they ran through tunnels to get to the station -- tunnels that probably wouldn't have had a train in them, but only because it was at night on a national holiday. There was certainly the possibility of engineering trains (the system is maintained overnight). There is generally hardly any (a few centimetres) clearance -- if a train had come while they were running along the line to the branch they'd have been seriously injured at best.

    14. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      if a train had come while they were running along the line to the branch they'd have been seriously injured at best.

      People die and get seriously injured in rock climbing/mountain biking/horse riding/hiking/racing accidents all the time. So what's the big deal? They were aware of the risks, and as far as I know they took measures to reduce them.

      The only problem I see is if they screwed up the train would be delayed, and someone would have to clean up the mess. I doubt they'd derail the train with their bodies so easily.

      Fine them if you want. But the proposed ASBO is ridiculous. If you want a better arbitrary ASBO, give them a warning that if they get crippled/maimed while exploring the prohibited areas they'd no longer be covered by the NHS.

      --
  2. So it's like a restraining order for friends? by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think anyone has been told who they can and can't be friends with since they were about 10. Now the government gets to decide? Alan Moore is a prophet.

    1. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not married I take it ;p

    2. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by jimicus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The point of an ASBO is that magistrates can basically make up a law on the spot and announce that it applies to just a few people.

      In theory, it's meant to deal with small numbers - maybe as few as one - of people that are known to cause trouble by making it illegal for them to do things that would normally be perfectly OK because most people would be able to apply some common sense - but in their case aren't. Essentially it gives some flexibility when you've got someone who's discovered a way of persistently annoying people but can usually stay on the right side of the law. The BBC picked up some good examples a few years ago.

      Critics have pointed out that it's absolutely ripe for abuse.

    3. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I personally doubt any magistrate would actually give this order. TFL can ask for the guys to be hang drawn and quartered if they like, it doesn't mean the bench will agree.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    4. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They now appear to be using asbos on repeat offenders of actual crime to strengthen the punishments available. There is a repeat offender from London who travels to Scotland to steal the eggs of protected birds, he now has an asbo preventing him from travelling to Scotland during hatching season.

      IIRC the asbo increase the maximum sentence for egg theft (6 months) to 5 years.

    5. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by karlandtanya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds more like a bill of attainder.

      This kind of thing is a serious hazard to liberty (remember when that word didn't mark the speaker as a crackpot? wasn't so long ago). The law only applies to a few of us. So there is no outcry. Nibble, nibble, nible, oops--all your freedoms are gone! We didn't wait for amendments to prohibit this one. It's in Article I, sec IX. It took almost 90 years and a civil war for us to figure out that freedom applies to everyone or no-one. Even those members of society we don't like.

      Good to know thing that sort of thing can never happen here.
      Again.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    6. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      he said "the government", not "the dictator"...

      It is interesting that "antisocial behaviour" is punished by preventing communication. I guess sexual misconduct is punished with inflatable dolls?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    7. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful
    8. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Scareduck · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's why I despise the arguments against the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision that begin with "But corporations aren't people!" So what?

      --

      Dog is my co-pilot.

    9. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC picked up some good examples a few years ago.

      To my mind these actions cited as being a good use of ASBO's are (or should be) illegal. Why not prosecute these offenders for offenses such as vandalism and disturbing the peace, instead of bypassing due process.

    10. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because even if you do, the ECHR makes it impossible to actually punish the cunts.

    11. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Those members of society that aren't liked still have their rights arbitrarily removed by the legislature, eg bill of attainder.
      The felons who lose basic rights for life, not as part of their sentencing, but due to act of congress. People convicted of sex crimes really lose rights, once again not because a judge made an order as part of sentencing but because Congress passed a law.
      Especially removing the right to vote means that people convicted of an unjust law can't even vote to change it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And suppose by some linguistic trick, focusing of prejudices or just dumb luck the bench agrees, should that be an acceptable punishment?

    13. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      No, they should run away and seek asylum in a country that would treat them better.

      Or appeal. Or both if possible (IANAL, so not sure how the appeals court considers people who run away and try to appeal).

      --
    14. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      There is a code of honor that others subscribe to.

    15. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It took almost 90 years and a civil war for us to figure out that freedom applies to everyone or no-one. [wikipedia.org] Even those members of society we don't like.

      The civil war ended in 1865. The US didn't give women, regardless of color, the right to vote until 1913. The civil rights movement didn't even gain real, national traction until the 1950's. The actual rights of the young are still a confusing mess.

    16. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by operagost · · Score: 1

      You don't understand what a bill of attainder is. A felon isn't a race, creed, religion, or association. And anyone who has been tried, convicted, and sentenced has certainly experienced due process. We're talking about persons who have NOT been convicted of any crime in the judicial system, but have had their rights to life, liberty, or property curtailed nonetheless. What you are talking about is a separate issue.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically any Criminal who is released back into society (whether they serve time or not) will have, as part of their release, a clause stating that they can't have contact with any other criminals. So, the Government has been telling people who they can and can't talk to for quite some time. Prior to that (back in times of Divine Right), the King (who was the State) could pretty much do the same, so it's not exactly new.

    18. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      It's not ripe for abuse, it's "rife with abuse".

  3. No. by Jmanamj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I swear to God. This is the premise for a fiction/science fiction novel. If two of the 4 were developing romantic feelings for each other the UK could be sued for copyright infringement by several publishers. I dont...I dont think I'm OK with the world right now. I need a hug. Before that's banned too.

    1. Re:No. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I need a hug. Before that's banned too.

      You can have your hug, as long as it's from a paid prostitute.

      On another note; does UK law take intent into account?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The world has never been so kind as this before. Grow up.

    3. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need a hug. Before that's banned too.

      Just make sure its not in India http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/feb/240212-mumbai-Price-of-a-kiss-goodbye-Rs-1-200-and-police-harassment.htm

    4. Re:No. by ybanrab · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes it does, you need a guilty mind and a guilty act to constitute a crime.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law

    5. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that mens rea can be established via intention, recklessness or mere knowledge of a set of events. Obvious examples of the latter include walking around with a knife - the only way in which your mind was guilty was that you knew you were carrying a knife. But there are more insidious laws. For example, from 2001 it has been a criminal offence to either not notify the DWP of "relevant" changes of circumstances or to allow others not do so, even though the relevance can only be determined after the fact in terms of how the DWP would have treated that information.

      And while there is the presumption in reading a statute that a guilty mind is required, this can be overridden by wording which suggests otherwise. You have two outcomes: (i) that mens rea is read into a statute in some very contorted way - for example, dangerous driving is an offence worded entirely in terms of how a good driver would view your driving, so the only thought required from the offender is to know that they are driving; or (ii) the offence is simply regarded as "strict liability", which is another way of saying that Parliament intended for no guilty mind to be necessary as the actus is so heinous to public policy that people should be punished merely for not following the rule.

    6. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is the topic of one episode of the Drew Carey show. The four friends have to stay away from each other because a judge has decided they are too dangerous and stupid together.

      See episode 3, season 5: "Drew and the Gang Law"

    7. Re:No. by Plekto · · Score: 1

      If two of the 4 were developing romantic feelings for each other

      This does bring up an interesting point, which is that what does happen if one of them decides to marry one of the other people of the group? I don't think there is any precedent for legally forbidding two normal people to get married.

    8. Re:No. by masmullin · · Score: 1

      They can get married so long as they both don't go to the church at the same time.

    9. Re:No. by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Heh. I think this judge is going to get his ass handed to him in short order, anyways. I've never heard of such a ludicrous law. It would be so easy to force the issue to conflict with one of more basic legal rights (such as marriage or something similar).

    10. Re:No. by Builder · · Score: 1

      No you don't. I can go to jail for 5 years for carrying a Leatherman with me with the sole intent of using it to fix things that break and work on things in my day-to-day life.

  4. Are they serious? by msobkow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They were let off with a warning, but some bozo expects to issue a court order demanding that a group of friends NOT EVEN TALK TO EACH OTHER for a DECADE?

    WTF?

    I mean, seriously, WTF?!?!?!?!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Are they serious? by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's almost as if Transport for London were engaged in.... anti-social behaviour.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as if Transport for London were engaged in.... anti-social behaviour.

      YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

    3. Re:Are they serious? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Funny

      almost? I take it you have not attempted to drive around the North Circular any time in the last 3 years?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:Are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the UK. Pretty much everyone is a criminal by default and the game is simply to stay ahead of the police.

    5. Re:Are they serious? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will someone please apply to put the relevant people in the TfL under an ASBO?

      Attempting to force 4 friends not to talk to each other for 10 years is anti-social behaviour.

      --
    6. Re:Are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The last paragraph states that the "Stop the war coalition" were also allowed to throw their shoes - I've been to more than a few of their rallies and although it's hard to determine religious beliefs from sight alone, the number of them smoking and drinking would indicate at least half weren't Muslim.

      Your tone and use of derogative language suggests a strong prejudice against Muslims - something that requires wilful ignorance - so I won't waste my time trying to engage you in that dialogue.

    7. Re:Are they serious? by hellop2 · · Score: 0

      "liberal elite's war machine"

      haha, what are you smoking? What does liberal mean to you? Do you think there are some elite war mongers somewhere that are profiting from war but also support social welfare and personal freedom such as abortion and drug use?

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    8. Re:Are they serious? by Sollord · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure liberal and conservative mean different things in England vs the US

    9. Re:Are they serious? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Yes, and as cyber-vandal was discussing the EDL and the BNP, it's a fair assumption that he's probably English. Which makes his use of the US term [market] liberalism (as a euphemism for a free-market capitalism, as opposed to the traditional meaning of individual freedom) even more of a sign of ignorance.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:Are they serious? by rolandw · · Score: 1

      Can Boris please have an ASBO as well?

      Might as well give on to Ken at the same time (just in case).

  5. Unenforceable? by sam_paris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I may be completely missing the point here, but this ruling seems completely unenforceable. How do you stop four friends talking to each other if they are not incarcerated? There are a hundred and one ways to talk to people in this modern age and many of those are anonymous and not easily tracked or monitored.

    This just seems like one of those sentences which is "harsh" to make a point but doesn't actually make any difference to how these men will communicate. That said, it's also completely ridiculous that these people with no ill intent were made such an example of, and that they were given a punishment which is illogical and far too much trouble than it's worth to enforce.

    1. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they explicitly wrote talking.

    2. Re:Unenforceable? by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do you stop four friends talking to each other if they are not incarcerated?

      You stop them by threatening to incarcerate them if they break the order. Add in a dash of behind the scenes, off the record, "if any of you violate this order, we'll be very nice to any of the others that report it to us" and you have a winning combination.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    3. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's still breaking and entering. Call it urban exploring or whatever, but tresspassing is still illegal.

    4. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You incarcerate them when you catch them breaking the ruling. ASBOs are a huge end-run around due process, being civil orders that are written with the intention that they'll be broken so that criminal penalties can be applied.

      I remember this government admitting that ASBOs didn't work and promising to do something about them, but nothing seems to have changed.

    5. Re:Unenforceable? by pacc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We forbid you to do forbidden things,
      And when you do it you can' t tell anyone,
      And tell us immediately if you do it,
      Because you will, won't you

    6. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.

      Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.

      Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.

    7. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's still breaking and entering. Call it urban exploring or whatever, but tresspassing is still illegal.

      And the punishment should fit the crime.
      They could have tried them, they chose to only issue a warning. Attempting to upgrade the penalties without filing additional charges is not justice.

    8. Re:Unenforceable? by hopelessliar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's still breaking and entering. Call it urban exploring or whatever, but tresspassing is still illegal.

      Obviously, I haven't read TFA, but the summary says nothing about breaking and entering. Trespassing is a very different thing. IANAL but I think you'll find that in the UK if you're caught trespassing - assuming you haven't done anything else 'criminal' - then the first redresss of the property owner is to ask you to leave. As long as you comply with that request, there is no crime.

      I could google this and checl my facts but it's Sunday morning, I just got up and it's far easier to just write something I vaguely recall as though it were definitely true - which, by the way, I think it is.

    9. Re:Unenforceable? by r1348 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's breaking and entering long time abandoned structures that nobody cares about, and for no malicious intentions. Alright, give them a fine if you catch them, but this orwellian ASBO order is way beyond reasonable. Now governments have the right to regulate and forbid social interactions? I'm not very accustomed to British law: how common are these ASBOs, and what is their typical use case?

    10. Re:Unenforceable? by Will_TA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To get there you have to go over the active tracks, on the underground. Trespass on the tracks, past any notice that forbids it is a criminal offence under byelaws.

    11. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      There are a hundred and one ways to talk to people in this modern age and many of those are anonymous and not easily tracked or monitored.

      Ah, but the *individuals themselves* are relatively easy to track & monitor. Besides, I'm sure that if the government is willing to inflict such an Orwellian and illogical/impractical punishment in the first place, I'm sure that, if one or more of these people begin using some anonymous communication method, the government would be more than willing to prohibit them from legally engaging in anonymous communication.

      This just seems like one of those sentences which is "harsh" to make a point but doesn't actually make any difference to how these men will communicate. That said, it's also completely ridiculous that these people with no ill intent were made such an example of, and that they were given a punishment which is illogical and far too much trouble than it's worth to enforce.

      No surprise. What else would one expect from an authoritarian police state? That's what the UK has become, with the US hot on it's heels in a race to see which country can remove the most privacy, rights, & freedoms from their citizens the fastest.

      It's what has always happened throughout history when a government grows too large and powerful. But of course, anyone suggesting smaller government in either nation is painted as a lunatic-fringe extremist that hates the poor, and is probably a racist to boot.

      Those pushing for total government power and control over a helpless, powerless, and dependent-on-government-for-basic-survival population see their goals figuratively only inches away from fruition, while citizens who are intelligent and engaged enough to see what's happening and value their and their children's continuing and future freedom are awakening and rising up in opposition.

      Hang on boys and girls, because it's going to get VERY nasty and bloody in the next few years in both the UK and the US.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Unenforceable? by philip.paradis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are byelaws the sort of laws that bid you farewell as you're carried off to prison?

      (I'm in the United States, you insensitive clod!)

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    13. Re:Unenforceable? by blackest_k · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's still breaking and entering. Call it urban exploring or whatever, but tresspassing is still illegal.

      If there was any breaking involved then it might be, but if they didn't break in then it generally isn't.

      In London there are a large numbers of squatters occupying various empty buildings. While it is illegal to break in. it isn't illegal to enter and live there if the building isn't secure. They can even install their own locks. Yes an owner can apply to the court to remove squatters but until the court issues an order they can stay. I believe that if someone occupies a place for five years then they can even get ownership (take that with a pinch of salt).

      Asbo's on the other hand do not need a law to be broken to be applied for and granted. Currently there are Asbo's being served on homeless people in order to be able to remove them from central london in time for the olympic games later this year, (this I know from a lawyer trying to represent one of said homeless people).

    14. Re:Unenforceable? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      But of course, anyone suggesting smaller government in either nation is painted as a lunatic-fringe extremist that hates the poor, and is probably a racist to boot.

      E.g., "Derp, herp, why dontcha just move to Somalia if you want a libertarian paradise, herp, derp"

    15. Re:Unenforceable? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      Nice straw man you've got there.

      There is nothing wrong with a smaller government, the administrative bit of the public sector has been out of control in the western world for years. But we don't have to abolish the government entirely or make it completely bare-bones as libertarians apparently want. What we need are more nurses and teachers, and a lot fewer administrators and bean counters.

      The staunch opposition to hard-line libertarianism concerns the utopia of the all-correcting "free market", which WILL quite effectively oppress the poor and those without money and power.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    16. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You think the SNP care about Scotland? No, they are politicians who a want to go down in history as having achieved indendance and b) increase their own power by removing power from Westminster. If you think it is anything to do with what is right for Scotland you are a fool.

    17. Re:Unenforceable? by Lunar_Lamp · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not a ruling. A court hasn't applied this ASBO, it's just TFL requesting it.

    18. Re:Unenforceable? by cardpuncher · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's unenforceable in the sense that most of it would almost certainly (if initially granted) fall foul of the Human Rights Act. It would be entirely disproportionate to stop people communicating with each other.

      I'd imagine TfL would be able to get an ASBO against trespassing on the railway - it's an unbelievably stupid and dangerous thing to do especially in the confined tunnels of the London Underground - but they'd have a hard time making the rest of it stick.

      Why would they even try? Well, I've worked (fortunately briefly) for TfL and I found them a very weird organisation with a very paternalistic attitude to both staff and passengers; I always felt an underlying sense that you might be hauled off to the Gulag if you failed to toe the party line and I'm not really surprised that they have overreacted in such a spectacular fashion.

      Aldwych Station is, ironically, opened up to visitors fairly often so there's no particular difficulty in getting to see it. I went several years back and you can probably gauge some of the internal contradictions at TfL from the fact that we were encouraged to take photographs by the (enthusiastic and knowledgeable) engineer leading the tour but told not to make them publicly available as it would upset the marketing department that makes money out of selling images and result in future tours being cancelled. There has recently been controversy about a ban on DSLRs and Tripods at Aldwych Station (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2130486/-tight-schedule-forced-ban-dslrs-london-transport-museum) which again might appear to be as much about preserving TfL's image rights as anything else.

      So although there's a clear public safety issue in the original incident, I think this has much more to do with TfL wanting to let everyone know they're the boss. Which is an odd position for a publicly-owned and funded body to take.

    19. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      thank fuck Scotland will be independent soon and we can let westminster so Scots can be rid of this bullshit.

      Yeah, being run from Brussels will be so much better.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Unenforceable? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      They most certainly started the slow creep of the nanny state

      "Nanny" state? This sounds more like a wicked stepmotherstate to me.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:Unenforceable? by amck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bylaws are local council ( or in this case transport authority) laws.
      Fines can be levied, etc. but they cannot be criminally prosecuted : the local authority can bring you to court, but not criminal court; for that a case has to be prepared by the police for the Director of Public Prosecutions (an independent prosecutor).

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    22. Re:Unenforceable? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that Labour kept the ball rolling, I'd say they did everything in their power to go far beyond what Thatcher started:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

      I'm looking forward to Scottish independence, no really I am. I'm Irish, but living in England, if the majority of the country want to be independent, then they should be. The benefit for England will be that they won't have a bunch of MPs voting on things that will never affect their own constituents.

    23. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Adverse Possesson. At least ten years (often twelve), openly and continuously occupied. The reason to have this rule is, suppose you mistakenly build something in very slightly the wrong place. Well, if someone notices while they're still building it, or shortly after, you have a big argument with various builders, architects, map makers, etc. and then you end up claiming on insurance to either buy the extra little bit of land or have your wall re-built in the right place. But suppose they only notice 20 years later, by which time probably the company of builders don't exist any more, the architect has retired... it can't be that important or they'd have noticed sooner, and making you tear down a wall (or even a whole house) is disproportionate, so instead the land transfers to you if the problem comes before a court.

      But yes, if you go onto a piece of private land, build a permanent structure like a house on it, and nobody stops you from building and occupying the strucure for twelve years, then you own the land it was built on outright.

    24. Re:Unenforceable? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      It was supposed to be a joke that referenced different spellings for the term, making a tongue in cheek reference to corporate bylaws, in a sort of twisted nod to the influence of corporate entities in civil governance.

      Hey, I thought it was funny.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    25. Re:Unenforceable? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, my interpretation of UK anti-social behavior laws means (essentially) "being unfriendly". Seriously, how the fuck do you allow a government to become so corrupt that they can arbitrarily define what is and is not "friendly" and then arrest people for violating their arbitrary rule?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    26. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not fair
      what if i own several thousand houses? am i supposed to check EACH of them every 12 years just in case somebody tries to steal ("claim") it?
      or even worse be forced to pay someone to do it for me, and what if that person i pay accidentally or intentionally skips one house one year because their cousin is trying to claim it?
      after all i DID pay for all those thousand houses why should they be given to someone else just because i do not use them for 12 years?

    27. Re:Unenforceable? by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      I thought it referred to laws regarding dead balls in cricket.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    28. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "...hard-line libertarianism..."

      Seriously?

      So, people who just want to be left alone and not have the government constantly interfering with their lives, taking their earnings away for things they don't agree with and didn't vote for, and (in the case of the US) want it to honor & obey the limitations to the government's powers set out in plain language in the Constitution, without trying to control and regulate everything down to monitoring all our communications, watching us with drones, telling friends they can't talk to each other (UK) and that children can't set up a lemonade stand in their driveway (US) are "hard line" or somehow "extreme"?

      Are you freaking kidding me?

      I feel almost like I'm in a psychotic and twisted version of that Capital One TV ad, the one where Jimmy Fallon is talking to a baby in a highchair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9CjeZ1Mod0

      ---

      Fallon: "Our surveys show everyone likes more freedom and money... [looks at pie chart with tiny sliver marked] Well, almost everyone."

      Fallon [Talking To Baby In Highchair]: "Don't you WANT more freedom and money?"

      Baby: No!

      Fallon: "But, it's MORE FREEDOM AND MONEY!"

      Baby: NO!! [Throws Cereal At Fallon]

      Fallon [Closeup]: "How much freedom and money has the government taken from YOU?"

      Baby: [Off Camera - Throws Fire Extinguisher At Fallon In-Camera]

      Fallon [Ducks] WHOA!

      ---

      Thanks, now I have that stuck in my head!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    29. Re:Unenforceable? by jacks0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ownership requires stewardship. It is a responsibility that the old aristocracy understood, but the new aristocracy seems to think the government should do for them at no cost.

    30. Re:Unenforceable? by Fallingwater · · Score: 2

      If you own several thousand houses, you're unlikely to be bothered by the fee to the guy who has to check them once in every 12 years. Make it two or three guys and you remove the cousin problem.

    31. Re:Unenforceable? by amck · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I got the joke; it was mildly funny.

      I was just pointing out 'bylaws' are kind of the opposite of 'byelaws': they're local laws that, barring exceptions, cannot be prosecuted criminally.

      Caution: IANAL, I know some Irish law which is derived from British law but British law may have changed, but exceptions are possible only when the DPP says so. In particular the DPP gives a blanket permission for certain crimes to be prosecuted "in its name", e.g. speeding. So a local council can set the speed limit on a road to 30mph (by byelaws, which don't need to go through Parliament), and prosecute them criminally in the name of the DPP, but if they make spitting on main st. illegal, they can impose a fine (non-criminal) but no further.

      So normally, the Aldrych 4 could expect to be (1) told to leave (for trespassing). No proceedings if they just agreed and left, or worse (2) fined, no criminal record. That an arbitrarily hard punishment is enforced on them is immoral.

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    32. Re:Unenforceable? by Fallingwater · · Score: 1

      This is hilarious. That ban explicitly only includes digital SLR cameras, which would allow anyone to bring in a MILC (with the same high-quality, high-res sensors) simply because it doesn't have a mirror. Or, hell, a film SLR, with the results to be later digitalized on a high-res photographic scanner, essentially with the same output as a DSLR.

    33. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I thought it referred to laws regarding dead balls in cricket.

      Sort of the same, but the "dead balls" in the kind of game the government is playing in TFA is the type inflicted upon anyone that annoys or embarrasses the government. Except an ice-pack won't help in many cases.

      Heads they win, tails we lose.

      I don't like that game. We've been playing it in the US since at least the 1930s.

      Time to change the rules...and the rulers.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    34. Re:Unenforceable? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Put down the Daily Express and rejoin the real world.

    35. Re:Unenforceable? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Like police, courts, affordable medical care, an army to defend our borders, someone to enforce minimum driving standards, minimum safety standards in the workplace, no child labour, no slave labour and all the million other things the free market has never and will never provide. We need better government, not a free for all that will take us back to feudalism. By the way TfL has APPLIED for this ridiculous thing. They haven't been GRANTED it. See the all important difference. Come back in a few months when the judge has told them to fuck off.

    36. Re:Unenforceable? by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.

      Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.

      Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.

      Hmmm

      In recent years a number of Police forces have issued ASBOo's to Motorcyclists. In some cases the issuing of the ASBOo's has been because of offences committed by the motorcyclists (speeding / illegal exhaust / number plates), the police chose not to prosecute, but to instead issue an ASBO, the terms of the ASBO being that any future "anti-social" behaviour performed by the motorcyclists would enable the police to seize and crush the motorcycles. So the end result is the potential punishment is far harsher than that laid down by the law for the offences committed, and at the same time, the police do not have to prove their case in a court of law...

      The above was an example of ASBO's being abused when offences have been committed, but some police forces have issued ASBO notices when no offence has been committed. North Wales Police used to have a chief constable that was very anti-motorcycle. During the summer months the North Wales Police would be out in force every weekend pulling over every single motorcyclist using the roads. As part of one of their crackdowns on anti-social motorcyclists they started to issue ASBO's to every motorcyclist stopped. When questioned as to why ASBO's were being issued when no offence committed, the police would trot out the line that some (other) motorcyclists had committed offences and this had raised concerns from the local community and so the ASBO orders were justified...Guilt by association, and none of it needing to be proved in court...

    37. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Oh don't worry, I'm under no illusions about any of the rest of them reintroducing common sense and scaling back the bullshit (Though was pleasantly surprised when ID cards got scrapped).

      The conversation I was referring to started with someone saying "well who would I vote for, they're all awful" and some Labour true-believer trying to defend their corner, which made me rather angry.

      Good luck with your politics North of the border, I don't personally have any faith you'll be any better off, but at least the illusion of self-determination will be in place!

    38. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      The idea was to bring in a non-custodial legal sanction that could be used against repeated anti-social behaviour (graffiti, loud music at night, those damn kids hanging around on the street corner - things that old people get all het up about), and to be fair that's largely what it has been used for.

      However the way it's written in law, and the edge cases of its application are what you describe - effectively the imposition of a brand new law on an individual or set of individuals, which they can then be fined or imprisoned for breaking. It's unbelievable.

    39. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 2

      Because it's housing stock, and people need somewhere to live, and if you aren't renting them out and aren't paying attention to a property for over a decade, then frankly you deserve to lose it to people that want to live there.

    40. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except people who own thousands of houses usually employ their own cousins for that kind of work anyway.

    41. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      So, people who just want to be left alone and not have the government constantly interfering with their lives, taking their earnings away for things they don't agree with and didn't vote for, and (in the case of the US) want it to honor & obey the limitations to the government's powers set out in plain language in the Constitution, without trying to control and regulate everything down to monitoring all our communications, watching us with drones, telling friends they can't talk to each other (UK) and that children can't set up a lemonade stand in their driveway (US) are "hard line" or somehow "extreme"?

      You don't have to be libertarian to want the US government to stick to the constitution, or the UK government to stop the nanny-state bullshit.

      A libertarian utopia would devolve into feudalism in no time, not to mention the tragedy of the commons around every corner when it comes to food safety, pollution etc. Some government functions are good in the political opinions of many, many people. It very much is hard-line and extremist to claim that no government functions can ever be good and the whole thing must be scrapped. It's ludicrous.

    42. Re:Unenforceable? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Informative

      not fair

      Life isn't fair.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    43. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      what you mean like NOW with the UK in the EU?
      while the SNP is considering EU membership, at the monent and the next few years that would probably be folly, purely on an economic basis.
      membership of the free trade agreement will do just fine as we are the biggest oil producing nation in Europe, i would assume they would like to do business with us

    44. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      here here sir!
      what you call the benefit for England is what Tam Dalyell ,an MP in 1977 , asked The West Lothian Question

    45. Re:Unenforceable? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that chief constable was a perfect example of why the Police need to have very constrained powers controlled by the judiciary.

    46. Re:Unenforceable? by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      Illegal it may be, but trespass is not a crime. It is a civil offence only (except in certain circumstances, e.g. high-profile areas, railways, etc.)

    47. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Scots!

    48. Re:Unenforceable? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      You can't get an ASBO without a magistrate's approval so your comment confuses me. They cannot be issued by the poice like fixed penalty notices. Are you mixing up the two?

    49. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely: why would you own several thousand homes which sit empty for 12 years? Get tenants. They'll pay tax, and you and the government will profit.

    50. Re:Unenforceable? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Especially to those who don't own thousands of pieces of land.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    51. Re:Unenforceable? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      We need better government, not a free for all that will take us back to feudalism.

      So you AGREE with the libertarians then, right? Because they want better government and to put a stop to the creeping feudalism.

      Its not suddenly better when an "elected" official demands the fruits of your labor that you then only get marginal benefits from in comparison to the efforts you must sacrifice by writ of law... its the exact same thing just with elected folk and nepotism instead of birthrights and bloodlines.

      Libertarianism does not mean lack of regulation you ignorant twit.. libertarianism means personal freedom, which includes freedom from the adverse effects of others. Of course I dont expect you to ever give up whatever theology you subscribe to that requires logical fallacies to support your bullshit tyranny of anti-freedom.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    52. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Like police, courts, affordable medical care, an army to defend our borders, someone to enforce minimum driving standards, minimum safety standards in the workplace, no child labour, no slave labour and all the million other things the free market has never and will never provide. We need better government, not a free for all that will take us back to feudalism.

      We could have police, courts, a top-notch modern national army, minimal workplace standards regarding safety and abusive practices, as well as basic marketplace laws and most all the other essentials for a relatively well-functioning society with a small fraction of what the governments in either country spends and with a fraction of the laws and regulations on the books. Very few laws are ever repealed. There are more than anyone could possibly read and understand. The police can always find a law you've broken if they look hard enough. It's next to impossible to *not* be a lawbreaker and still have a pulse.

      There is no "right" to free health care, as nobody has the right to make a slave of people by making another person's labor, like the doctors and nurses that provide care, your right. It's just as wrong and for the exact same reasons as slavery was in pre-Civil-War America. Same with free housing and free food. That's what charitable organizations, groups, and churches are for, and if the government didn't confiscate so much wealth, people would have much more money to give to those charitable organizations, groups, and churches.

      It would be great if all we had to do is just turn government loose to provide all these wonderful-seeming things. It's just that whenever a government has been given anywhere near that much power, control of that much of the nation's wealth and economy, and has constructed a large & powerful enough bureaucracy to manage all those things, money, and people, it has always resulted in loss of individual freedom and eventually collapsed, typically into an authoritarian/totalitarian or anarchic, feudal hellhole.

      I know TFA concerns the UK, but these principles (among others) espoused below are true regardless of nation.

      ---

      A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

      The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

      ---

      By the way TfL has APPLIED for this ridiculous thing. They haven't been GRANTED it. See the all important difference. Come back in a few months when the judge has told them to fuck off.

      Great! I hope the judge tells them right off. The problem is that such things are even being seriously proposed, and all the other things that already HAVE been granted or otherwise permitted to occur. It's not like either the UK or the US has a lack of unjust, unfair, and just plain wrong laws and regulations that destroy freedom and wealth being passed/enacted nearly every day, it seems.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    53. Re:Unenforceable? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Libertarian, Anarchist, Minarchist..... not the same thing.

    54. Re:Unenforceable? by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      No, formal written notifications under the ASBO laws were handed out. These were widely reported in the motorcycle press at the time. I know that Motorcycle News covered the stories.

    55. Re:Unenforceable? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If I received such an order I'd just go Ghostrider on their asses. No plates, flee when the cops see you.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    56. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      A libertarian utopia...

      I stopped reading right there, as there is no such thing, nor have libertarians proposed or suggested such a thing. You're starting with a strawman. Nothing else after that means anything, as it's all a construction of your imagination.

      I'll tell you what.

      I'm going to unilaterally IMPOSE libertarian principles on you RIGHT NOW!!!!!

      I shall FORCE YOU to...

      Well, nothing at all, really.

      Whatever you do or don't want to do that doesn't actively affect me negatively, like commit unjustified violence or rob someone.

      There!

      I've unilaterally imposed libertarian values on you.

      Do you feel "dirty"?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    57. Re:Unenforceable? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      as for you being as Scottish as anyone here... YOU ARE HAVING A LAUGH!!!..

      Oh? You now know my heritage? You know how far removed from the throne of Scotland I am? You've traced my own history back to Roman times?

      No? I thought not. You're full of shit on every single fucking count.

    58. Re:Unenforceable? by oboeaaron · · Score: 4, Funny

      as for you being as Scottish as anyone here... YOU ARE HAVING A LAUGH!!!..

      This made my day. A literal example of the No True Scotsman fallacy!

      --
      Journey onward.
    59. Re:Unenforceable? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      "in the UK if you're caught trespassing - assuming you haven't done anything else 'criminal' - then the first redresss of the property owner is to ask you to leave. As long as you comply with that request, there is no crime."

      In my state in the USA, if you circumvent some barrier, like a fence or door, it is a crime. From my state's statues (laws) on Trespass:

      Violation (not a crime, no jail time): The simple offense is defined in terms of entering or remaining on premises with knowledge of this fact ("...the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises"). [..] knowledge that the actor's presence on the premises is not licensed, invited, or privileged. Simple trespass is a violation.

      Misdemeanor (max 1 year jail time): The most serious aggravation occurs when the trespass is to a dwelling [...](criminal trespass in the first degree), makes this offense a misdemeanor.

      Petty Misdemeanor (up to 30 days in jail): A second, less serious aggravation, occurs when the premises are enclosed or fenced. [...] (criminal trespass in the second degree), this kind of trespass is made a petty misdemeanor.

      The laws vary by state. Are you saying that in the UK you can hop a fence and it's not a crime? In my state, you cannot.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    60. Re:Unenforceable? by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Some links I found on MCN :

      MCN
      MCN
      MCN
      MCN
      MCN

      I will see if I can find any more, but in some cases the details were in letters to the editor published in the printed version of MCN and not on the forums

    61. Re:Unenforceable? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There is no "right" to free health care, as nobody has the right to make a slave of people by making another person's labor, like the doctors and nurses that provide care, your right. It's just as wrong and for the exact same reasons as slavery was in pre-Civil-War America.

      Really? You're a slave? If you don't go to work tomorrow, someone's coming to take you there with a whip?

      Also, just out of curiosity, does your opinion also extend to soldiers? That is, if your county gets attacked, is it okay for people who have been paid as part of military to suddenly quit? If not, why not? If yes, how do you propose your society defends itself?

      Same with free housing and free food. That's what charitable organizations, groups, and churches are for, and if the government didn't confiscate so much wealth, people would have much more money to give to those charitable organizations, groups, and churches.

      The reason the government began to redistribute wealth in the first place is that people didn't give anywhere near enough to charitable organizations on their own, resulting in constant strife.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    62. Re:Unenforceable? by headLITE · · Score: 2

      In my state in the USA, if you circumvent some barrier, like a fence or door, it is a crime.

      Here in Germany, that's the case as well - but the distinction is that there has to be a barrier. A railroad track is not a barrier. An open tunnel entrance is not a barrier. TFA makes it seem like they only used openly accessible tunnels, and in one instance explicitly mentions that a closed gate meant they had to take another route.

    63. Re:Unenforceable? by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      They are not all that uncommon. The typical use case is to slap a naughty teenager on the wrist. They can and have been used to forbid behaviour which is not in itself illegal, by a single individual.

    64. Re:Unenforceable? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are many ways for them to communicate. Sounds like all of those are illegal now. Laws don't stop or compel any behavior. They only allow for punishment when someone is caught not complying.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    65. Re:Unenforceable? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Since this ruling is unenforceable, what do they mean by it? That they're stupid? That they hope the targets of this ruling will meekly submit out of fear or mistaken belief in their powers of enforcement, or even respect for the law? That they're just trying to score points with the gullible among the public, pump up their crime fighting stats and burnish a tough-on-crime image?

      File this with the proposals of copyright extremists and patents on perpetual motion.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    66. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not any more. The law used to be: after twelve years of unchallenged posession the property was yours. But Labour (cunts that they are) changed it to: after twelve years of unchallenged posession you can ask the owner if he wouldn't mind giving you the property. Guess what he's likely to say? Unless the property is actually unowned (which is nowadays extremely rare since the introduction of compulsory land registration), adverse posession is basically dead.

    67. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They most certainly started the slow creep of the nanny state"

      Interesting that you call it "creep of (towards?) the nanny state", while during that same period social services have been diminished.
      Usually "nanny state" means a state that takes care of its people (welfare state), which by some is thought to be a very bad thing. What's been going on since the 1980s is more ore less the opposite, with the state basically arresting everyone, and certainly spending ever less tax money on its people.

    68. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 0
      LOL if you were a juke box.. my guess is you'd be a vitriola :P
      as for your heritage.....why would i really care what it is?

      get this - I'm fucking British, not English, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh

      you yourself denied being Scottish,Welsh,Irish or even English and stating you were British.. and that was that
      so that kinda pissed on your chips there
      as for "being full of shit" ... well i am putting forward points of debate and you are..........a frothing at the mouth unionist who spews bilious bullshit at everything and who cannot respond to a well put counter points such as i made in my reply above.
      Also your comment

      Only if there's no fucking democracy.

      LOL so holding a referendum of the SCOTTISH ELECTORATE to democratically decide the constitutional future of OUR country isn't democratic???... wow.. that just shows how silly you really are to be frank..... keep digging that hole bud, it's funny :)

    69. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Do shut up, there's a good chap.

      Libertarian principles leave us without roads, police or fire services. If you don't want to be part of a society that considers these and other things necessities for the state to provide then, well, frankly you can suck it because you'll never get your way.

    70. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Also, you're a liar. Multiple libertarians have proposed all sorts of utopia-like systems, all of which are horribly flawed. Unless you want to go down the 'no-true-scotsman' road', I suggest you start reigning in your fellow libertarians to stop them flapping their mouths.

      Only that would be against your principles, wouldn't it?

    71. Re:Unenforceable? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      TfL

      I had to go back up to the summary when I saw your capitalization; posts above yours had used "TFL". The amusing part? I had assumed it was "The Fine Legislature". That'll teach me to parse the summary in full. :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    72. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One ASBO already got granted. Ask TFL.

    73. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      People who own that many houses usually are their own cousins.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    74. Re:Unenforceable? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Informative

      The laws vary by state. Are you saying that in the UK you can hop a fence and it's not a crime? In my state, you cannot.

      There are two different legal systems in the UK. Scottish law does have an offence called "entering lockfast premises". So it's illegal to bypass a barrier and enter an otherwise-secured area.

      Entering someone's house/building without authorisation is a criminal offence, but you cannot be taken to court for this alone. It can only be presented on a charge sheet with another crime. If you break a window or door to get in, it's chargeable. If you walk in and punch someone, it's chargeable. If you walk in and steal a TV. It's chargeable. But if you walk in and walk out, it's not chargeable.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    75. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      you know in The Republic of Ireland they speak their own tongue... as well as.... guess what?? english!!!

      And they write the latter considerably better than you do.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    76. Re:Unenforceable? by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Well done, you missed the fucking point completely. Every point.

      Frankly if cunts like you plan to run Scotland, the country's doomed. But the inability to articulate an economic future for the country's already demonstrated that.

      Carry on being vitriolic and stupid. Just don't drag down the rest of us with you, please.

    77. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Put down the Socialist Worker and get a fucking job.

      See what I did there? No? Well, when you get to the second year of your lolotechnic course in standup comedy and comparative basket weaving maybe the lecturer will explain it to you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    78. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Usually "nanny state" means a state that takes care of its people (welfare state)

      Not really. A welfare state takes care of its citizens (the original post WW2 UK model).

      A nanny state takes it a further step, meddling in people's lives somewhat above and beyond fighting the evil giants of squalor, ignorance, and whatever the other three are.

      Though I concede there's grey areas 'twixt the two.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    79. Re:Unenforceable? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I'd actually vote for an independent Scotland so that the fucking Scots can't keep voting for anti-English policies. Then I'll claim dual citizenship because - get this - I'm fucking British, not English, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh. I have an equal right to live, work and fuck anywhere in the United Kingdom and I will retain that right.

      You have spectacularly missed your own point. You object to other people's self-image: because it clashes with your own self-image, you consider it an imposition. Your reaction? To assert your own self-image at the cost of others' self-image. Which is itself an imposition.

      Furthermore, while you deny the existence of "Scottishness", you simultaneously show disdain for Scottish people -- "the fucking Scots". This is actually the core of the problem that many Scottish people have with the very concept of "Britishness": that all too often it is exclusive of the plurality of Britishnesses. Things that are particularly English, or specific to certain English regions, are considered "British", but things that are particularly Welsh or Scottish tend never to be accepted as British. So while something might be "as British as Lancashire hotpot and Yorkshire pudding", nothing would ever be described as "as British as a male-voice coliery choir sitting down to a plate of haggis".

      Britishness is imposed upon Scotland, and we don't like someone else telling us who we are.

      Meanwhile, the rest of the world speaks a common language and looks on you with contempt.

      Well, you should get studying again, because the world's common language is American English. It's not all that different from what you speak, but given how vociferously you defend your self-identity, it's probably going to be very hard for you to write colorize, even just a couple times.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    80. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Libertarianism does not mean lack of regulation you ignorant twit.. libertarianism means personal freedom

      It's my arm, I'll swing it wherever and however I like

      which includes freedom from the adverse effects of others.

      Your nose appears to be bleeding.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    81. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Libertarians and monarchists, however, are pretty darn close.

      The latter think they should be ruled by a king. The former think they should be the king that rules.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    82. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban exploration is not even anti-social.

    83. Re:Unenforceable? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      No surprise. What else would one expect from an authoritarian police state? That's what the UK has become, with the US hot on it's heels in a race to see which country can remove the most privacy, rights, & freedoms from their citizens the fastest.

      It's what has always happened throughout history when a government grows too large and powerful. But of course, anyone suggesting smaller government in either nation is painted as a lunatic-fringe extremist that hates the poor, and is probably a racist to boot.

      Sorry, I don't think you understand the UK at all. The UK does not have "big government". Most industry is completely unregulated, except by "voluntary codes", and there's no punishment for breaking a "voluntary code". All public utilities are long-since privatised, and when UK banks failed and needed a government bailout, there was no talk of "nationalisation" -- instead the government simply bought shares and leaves the board to make all the decisions.

      The current government is currently dismantling state education and healthcare, selling off bits and bobs and giving independent companies a blank cheque to "provide services".

      There are very many people who want us to believe that "authoritarianism" and "big government" are synonymous, but they most certainly are not.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    84. Re:Unenforceable? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Libertarians and monarchists, however, are pretty darn close.

      The latter think they should be ruled by a king. The former think they should be the king that rules.

      That doesn't even make a damn bit of sense. Libertarians are the last folks who would want a king, even if they were appointed to the post. Let's do a quick google... ah, here's the Libertarian party platform:

      As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

      We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

      Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

      Hard to reconcile that philosophy with a desire to be authoritarian rulers. In fact, monarchists and libertarians are almost entirely polar opposites, although I suppose that also depends on the nature of the monarch. I guess you could posit a benign monarch that doesn't interfere in anyone's life in any way. Not a great deal of likelihood in that, but if you are going to have a purely theoretical discussion I suppose it is something you could propose...

    85. Re:Unenforceable? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Do shut up, there's a good chap.

      Libertarian principles leave us without roads, police or fire services. If you don't want to be part of a society that considers these and other things necessities for the state to provide then, well, frankly you can suck it because you'll never get your way.

      I think you've conflated libertarians with anarchists. And even anarchists have plausible mechanisms for providing those services. Let's ask google... first link that comes up for "anarchist provides roads police"

      Government is the only way to solve problem X.
      This is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately.

      I never heard of this ozarkia site before, and he seems to be talking the anarcho-capitalism subvariant of anarchists, but still, it puts the lie to your straw man arguments. (see how I went back to the GP's use of "straw man"? That's the sign of some quality entertainment right there, coming back to the theme... Shakespear did it all the time. James Cameron too... it is only a matter of time before Slashdot gets its due on the big screen.)

    86. Re:Unenforceable? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Has it occurred to you that I just hate the entrenched view of 'us' versus 'them'?

      Scots hate Britishness being imposed on them? Sorry but no fucking sympathy - they are fucking British. Maybe if they spent less time hating the English and more time contributing then they'd do better.

      I hate localism within England and Wales too. And don't go telling me I'm not Scottish, because I'm not fucking English either. I'm definitely not Welsh and I don't even want to be Irish.

      Still, feel free to be ignorant, isolated, bigoted and small-minded. Seems to fit well with the Scottish Nationalist cadre, but please, don't pretend you represent the kind, generous, friendly and engaging majority living in Scotland.

    87. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 0

      Well done, you missed the fucking point completely. Every point.

      Frankly if cunts like you plan to run Scotland, the country's doomed. But the inability to articulate an economic future for the country's already demonstrated that.

      Carry on being vitriolic and stupid. Just don't drag down the rest of us with you, please.

      LOL the vitriolic crapioca is coming from your direction .. just have a read at what you wrote
      As for the economics of it, well now... if i was you i'd read more about it and especially how westminster hides Scottish oil income and vast amounts of it by marking it as "extra regio territories" in the G.E.R.S report.. you know... the Government Expenditure and Revenue Report".

      Also note that income tax raised in Scotland and corporate tax raised in Scotland isn't counted as Scottish revenues as it goes straight to westminsters coffers. Also please find a link HERE to an analysis of the GERS 2005 report done by forensic accountant Niall Aslen. Niall has been a chartered accountant for over 40 years and knows more about accounts and fiscal policy than myself or yourself...... in fact especially you.

      Scotland survives at the moment and provides free education,free universal healthcare(including free prescription medicine) and much much more on the pittance on just under 31 billions per year as provided under the Barnett formula.... this is less than half of what we put into the union according to westminster numbers.

      once the ACTUAL figures are worked out and the numbers crunched Scotland has revenues of just over 120 billions per year and, from that we can do better and put a little away like Norway does into a national oil fund. their oil fund is so vast now that it earns more in interest than their annual deposit... (hint it's over 300 billions now and rising)

      as for running the country.... me..naaaah, but i WILL leave that happily to Alex Salmond... an economist of long standing and great repute and his chosen team from the people elected by Scotland to form government in an independent Scotland.

      in summing up, i can only point someone like you in the direction of the facts but it's blatantly obvious that your prejudices and strict adherence to westminster dogma and perhaps the sun or the daily fail will always lead you to be the one full of vitriolic crapioca.
      you do realise how bad you are making your side of the debate look don't you? i freely admit to taking a few wee sideswipes for a laugh as your point of view is dated and amusing to me, however you just come out with coarse insults, and frankly, it's making you look very muppet like
      it's up to Scotland and it's electorate to decide whether it wants to be in the union or not.

      it's not up to people not registered to vote in Scotland, it's not and English vote, Irish, nor Welsh..... it's ours and we will take the first step in the referendum in 2014.
      Saor Alba (Free Scotland)

    88. Re:Unenforceable? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So you do indeed want to disenfranchise anybody not currently living in Scotland. Which includes many Scots in England, while many English people living in Scotland will be able to vote.

      Democracy? Alex Salmond hasn't fucking heard of it. Economist of long standing and corrupt politician, you're welcome to him. Shit, he hasn't even worked out that he can't run a country that isn't in control of its own currency yet.

      Even your fucking slogan of 'Free Scotland' is inherently ignorant. Try living in the 21st century, it's great here. Scotland is free, it's part of a successful nation, achieving far more than it ever did alone (or in its alliances with France).

      As I said, I'll vote for Scottish independence. I'll claim dual nationality, as I'll qualify for it on multiple counts. I'll choose to live in whichever country suits me best. I just wont pretend that Scottish nationalists are acting in the interests of their country, because they clearly aren't.

    89. Re:Unenforceable? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      thank fuck Scotland will be independent soon and we can let westminster so Scots can be rid of this bullshit. At least in Scotland we have the Scottish National party who do actually give a fuck about Scotland.

      Uh, dude? Scottish votes put the Labour government into Parliament and kept it there. Without those Scottish votes, England would have had the Tory government that it voted for.

      And, of course, if the Tories had pushed for arbitrary law-making by magistrates in this way, the Labour supporters would have been out on the streets demonstrating against it.

    90. Re:Unenforceable? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Though was pleasantly surprised when ID cards got scrapped.

      You have to infer that there were some corporate interests that figured out it would have caused too much efficiency and thus deprived them of profits. Or that the balance would have cost more than the PR they would have had to produce to overcome it.

    91. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      ...I suggest you start reigning in your fellow libertarians to stop them flapping their mouths.

      Only that would be against your principles, wouldn't it?

      Yes, it would.

      Only Leftists/Statists (as they're the same thing for all intents and purposes) want to pass laws & regulations to shut people up and censor and forbid competing speech and ideas, as the ideas of the Left cannot compete in a free & open marketplace of ideas, and must silence opposing ideas and destroy those who espouse them as examples.

      As my sig points out, Liberal/Progressive ideas must be mandatory laws, rules, and regulations, where small-"L" libertarian ideas start from the natural state of human freedom. As I pointed out in my post above, "imposing" libertarian principles has no meaning, whereas imposing Leftist/Statist ideas has historically caused hundreds of millions of deaths and the suffering of millions more under despotic, totalitarian regimes.

      I know which I prefer.

      The other posters who replied to you are perfectly correct. Small government /= no government. There are those on the Left that say they want strict eugenics policies enforced and expect to send about a quarter to a third of the population to death camps if they gained power. Yet, painting them as representing your views would be equally as unfair and inaccurate as what you've done here concerning those with libertarian views.

      It might behoove you to stop and actually think critically about what you've been told by others, rather than simply parrot other people's views and ideological dogmas that sound good on the outside, without seriously thinking them through yourself.

      Two more principles for you to consider that are true regardless of nation or government:

      ---

      The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. - Thomas Jefferson

      If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson

      ---

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    92. Re:Unenforceable? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's what has always happened throughout history when a government grows too large and powerful. But of course, anyone suggesting smaller government in either nation is painted as a lunatic-fringe extremist that hates the poor, and is probably a racist to boot.

      It is not the size of government, but what they're pushing. Here in Canada we now have a government that totally believes in smaller government so what they're doing is getting rid of the parts of the government that protects people while pushing a totalitarian state. A small government can still have enough power to stomp on its citizens faces while a large government can be there to help its citizens and protect their rights.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    93. Re:Unenforceable? by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      Libertarian principles leave us without roads, police or fire services

      Libertarians are not anarchists, sir.

      Where there are externalities or public goods (such as police protection), each person may be better off if some of each person's rights are infringed [...] Given the importance of such services, it is arguably permissible to force individuals to provide certain services (in violation of full self-ownership) as long as everyone benefits appropriately.

      But, don't let me stop you from being rude and ignorant.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    94. Re:Unenforceable? by green1 · · Score: 1

      graffiti, loud music at night, those damn kids hanging around on the street corner

      1) already illegal under other laws, enforce those!
      2) already illegal under other laws, enforce those!
      3) none of anybody's damn business!

      I'm not in the UK, however this sounds like one of those laws that does absolutely nothing for it's claimed purposes (because those are already covered in other places) and only serves to foster abuse of the legal system. (unfortunately every country has tons of these sorts of laws)

    95. Re:Unenforceable? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Every libertarian I have ever met, even the most die-hard libertarians, agree that your freedom to do what you want ends the moment it affects somebody other than yourself. They all tend to agree that a government is necessary, and that it's one and only true roll is to police for exactly those things.

      You can swing your arm wherever and however you like, as long as it never impacts anyone else's nose. (or other body part, or personal property, etc)

      Your argument would be correct if you were talking about anarchists instead of libertarians.

    96. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      So you do indeed want to disenfranchise anybody not currently living in Scotland. Which includes many Scots in England, while many English people living in Scotland will be able to vote.

      Democracy? Alex Salmond hasn't fucking heard of it. Economist of long standing and corrupt politician, you're welcome to him. Shit, he hasn't even worked out that he can't run a country that isn't in control of its own currency yet.

      Even your fucking slogan of 'Free Scotland' is inherently ignorant. Try living in the 21st century, it's great here. Scotland is free, it's part of a successful nation, achieving far more than it ever did alone (or in its alliances with France).

      As I said, I'll vote for Scottish independence. I'll claim dual nationality, as I'll qualify for it on multiple counts. I'll choose to live in whichever country suits me best. I just wont pretend that Scottish nationalists are acting in the interests of their country, because they clearly aren't.

      your ignorance and clinging to dogmatic nonsense of the past shows me you are the one who isn't into 21st century thinking
      As i said before, the decision is FOR PEOPLE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN SCOTLAND
      if you want to vote then live here, be registered to vote......... sorted
      your statement of claiming dual nationality just shows your blatant hypocrisy after your denial of being anything but british
      the SNP have clearly and repeatedly shown through their action in government that they do give a shit, some of the examples are stated above and many more that i haven't stated.
      as i said before, the foaming and frothing at the mouth you are doing speaks volumes about you and it's not good

    97. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      eh? labour won landslides, well certain;y their 1997 win. Scotland only had 59 seats out of 659(at that time) we now have 52 out of 600
      Scotland is pretty much allergic to tories, more so after the thatcher years , so i'll grant you that Scots would generally vote labour(at that time).
      Scotland is more naturally left leaning than England, this much is true however labour have shifted so far right they are pretty much tories V2
      the SNP are a centre party who believe in having universal free healthcare and all the sorts of things that at one time labour were for but are not now.
      the liberals are a washout who jumped into bed with the tories for the only chance they'll have for govt at westminster.
      If you are so upset with the system in place.. campaign to change it... in Scotland we are and it's working.....
      it is interesting to see though how far reaching attempts to lay the blame on Scotland for Westminster's failings go really.

    98. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      There is no "right" to free health care, as nobody has the right to make a slave of people by making another person's labor, like the doctors and nurses that provide care, your right. It's just as wrong and for the exact same reasons as slavery was in pre-Civil-War America.

      Really? You're a slave? If you don't go to work tomorrow, someone's coming to take you there with a whip?

      Try not paying what the IRS (which is the gov. entity that will enforce the individual mandate provisions of Obamacare) thinks is due them. They will send many large, armed men to put you in a cage or kill you if you resist for not turning over the fruits of your labor.

      Also, just out of curiosity, does your opinion also extend to soldiers?

      Of course not, as you well know and understand, military service is necessarily different by it's very nature. You are not free in the military...any military. That is part of the very nature of a military and has nothing to do with the rights and freedoms that are inherent to free citizens.

      The reason the government began to redistribute wealth in the first place is that people didn't give anywhere near enough to charitable organizations on their own, resulting in constant strife.

      This is pure and utter horseshit.

      Government redistributes wealth to increase politician's power and garner support and votes with "bread and circuses".

      The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth...are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. - Samuel Adams

      The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

      If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    99. Re:Unenforceable? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      LOL i don't hate the English and i don't hate the people that say they are British.
      i just don't count myself as British.. i am Scottish and happy with that

      i just want my country to be able to determine it's own future and manage it's own finances, for it NOT to be drawn into illegal wars and not to have nuclear weapons stored in it

      i see you have changed tac however the vitriol and petty venom is still visible in spades.
      i shall re-iterate, just because you want your country to be independent, just because you care for and love that country doesn't mean you have to hate anyone
      i just want a better future for me,my kids, my family and my country and for any mistakes that we as a nation make TO BE OUR OWN
      what is it cederic that makes you think that YOUR opinion should outweigh the democratic will of the Scottish electorate?
      Half-pint HAL.. some well made points put forward but more interesting to note is cederics pretty poor attempt to twist what you mean by it!

    100. Re:Unenforceable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      It is not the size of government, but what they're pushing. Here in Canada we now have a government that totally believes in smaller government so what they're doing is getting rid of the parts of the government that protects people while pushing a totalitarian state. A small government can still have enough power to stomp on its citizens faces while a large government can be there to help its citizens and protect their rights.

      I agree, and I did not exclude that a relatively-smaller government is perfectly capable of being totalitarian.

      However, the larger a government becomes, the more totalitarian it becomes, and the more power it has to enforce it's will upon the people.

      This falls back to something I posted here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2679831&cid=39091503

      Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows. Both governments and fire, once either has grown to a certain size, becomes impossible for the ones who started it to control and morphs from a useful force for good and champion for freedom and the Rule of Law, to a force for tyranny, evil, and the capricious rule of men.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    101. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An "Anti Social Behaivior Order" is an order to prevent people from engaging in social behavior.

    102. Re:Unenforceable? by shikitohno · · Score: 1

      Your argument would be correct if you were talking about anarchists instead of libertarians.

      Not really true. Anarchists would simply argue that there are better ways to deal with asshole punching everyone in the face than governments. For example, if you ran around punching people in the face, a town organized around anarchist principals might simply get together and say, "Hey, this guy really sucks. How about we agree that we'll all keep him out of the town? Alright, he comes back, we'll just tie him up, and take him away to set him loose 20 miles away from here."

      I find it rather amusing that someone defending an ideology that sees the exact same inappropriate criticism levied at it would hastily turn around and wing that criticism back at another ideology that really only differs in how it suggests the goals (personal freedom) would be best obtained. I can't say I buy into it myself, but anarchy doesn't say, "Okay, all bets are off, go crazy people. Kill, rape, whatever, we don't care." If you look past teenagers trying to look rebellious and read some stuff by genuinely intelligent, and mature people who've written on the topic, the idea tends to be more along the lines of thinking that having a government in order to protect yourself against crimes often leads to more severe restrictions of freedom and other problems than the protection they offer you. The benefits of government are supposed to be implemented at a community or personal level instead. I'd suggest it's naive, but it's hardly the absurd ideology you paint it as.

    103. Re:Unenforceable? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was not passing judgment on whether libertarianism is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad", just clarifying that nobody who believes in libertarianism thinks it's a good thing to be allowed to run around and beat people up, and specifically that Libertarians do believe that dealing with this is government's proper role.

      As for Anarchy vs Libertarianism, Although the specific post I responded to didn't mention it, the context I read in to the whole discussion was about criticism of lack of government, and I responded in that context. The fact that Anarchists would propose a different solution doesn't really change the fact that the government would not be fulfilling that role. and as such the poster would be valid in criticizing Anarchism in that way, but not correct for criticizing Libertarianism for the same thing. Now if you are looking at the larger picture of if you think you would remain consequence free after beating someone up under each of the two systems (instead of only the government's role in the process) then you would be correct in that Anarchists do propose a solution to such things as well, simply not one involving any form of organized government.

      Now I have to admit that from a personal perspective, I have not spent as much time reading up on, or researching, Anarchism, as I have Libertarianism, so I am not as well able to speak of their ideal solution to such things. I should also add that I have occasionally described myself as having some libertarian leanings, though not in any way to the extremes some people would take it to (I favour a government and legal system that gets back to the basics, and stops meddling in things that people do which harm nobody, and which stops funnelling my ever increasing tax money to whatever the fad of the week is. However I do believe that there is still a place for government involvement of one form or other in many of their traditional roles such as health care, education, and infrastructure (especially anything leading itself to a natural monopoly))

    104. Re:Unenforceable? by shikitohno · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat difficult to really propose any "ideal" solution with anarchism anyway, seeing as it splits off into a million different splinter factions. I was more responding to the notion I saw as implied in that post as anarchism basically being a free for all with no notion of justice. I also saw some irony in this interpretation, since for most people who go with a knee-jerk reaction, libertarianism comes off as being anarchy, but only for certain individuals or corporations. And so it gets the same sort of criticism lobbed at it. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent, but that's how it came off to me. That idea of, "Screw it all, let's go wild. No rules, no consequences, isn't anarchy awesome!" seems to really only exist for the high school punk crowd that appropriate it as a quick and dirty way of excusing their own misbehaviour. Once you start looking at individuals who are giving it serious thought as a way of organizing society, like Kropotkin, they try to incorporate some form of punishment of individuals who act against the wishes or morals of society, while minimally restricting their freedom.

      If you read into it more, there's some pretty interesting ideas out there about it. There is the splintering issue I mentioned to watch out for, which you can easily see just by clicking 'show' for the Schools of thought and Theory/Practice section of the box on the right. To a certain extent, anarchism is really just libertarianism stripped of the idea that a government of any size is good or necessary. A good chunk of the ideals and stated goals are largely the same. Again, part of the reason I was poking fun at a libertarian criticizing anarchism for a topic where they're basically on the same exact page.

    105. Re:Unenforceable? by sjames · · Score: 2

      I knew health care in the U.K. was universal, but I had no idea it included hormone supplements for crickets!

    106. Re:Unenforceable? by sjames · · Score: 2

      So you believe it is your right to degrade the value of multiple neighborhoods essentially forever by owning houses but not even managing to send someone around to mow the lawn or make sure they haven't become a rabid squirrel sanctuary once every 12 years?

      You have a duty to maintain the property at least to some minimal extent.

    107. Re:Unenforceable? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      Good to know. So that's why in UK based movies people are always wandering into people's homes and out the fire escape. I'll be sure not to punch anyone next time I do that.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    108. Re:Unenforceable? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Really? You resort to arguing semantics already?

      Just the other day, there was a discussion on this very website, where multiple well-spoken libertarian posters seriously tried to argue for a "first come, first serve" free market approach to land zoning and environmentalism. Meaning that if you came first and setup your factory in an area, people who moved in later would have no right to complain about your pollution. Unless of course it increased, then they could sue, obviously.

      And we all know that every kind of pollution is visible and obvious and that no silent, long-term mutations or degenerative effects happen at all. Additionally, who would represent the natural wildlife in court after you've destroyed their habitat with your factory?

      The free market is a fallacy. Human greed and lack of compassion will see to that.

      It would behoove you to read up on things like actual, proper marxism, and I don't mean the propaganda and spin-infested spiel you have been fed by politicians and others with political interest your whole life.

      Go read all three unabridged parts of Das Kapital (the Penguin Classics edition is quite nice), it really is an eye-opener. No matter what you've heard of communism and marxism, I am willing to bet that the pictures you have in your head of these ideologies are completely out of line with reality.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    109. Re:Unenforceable? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Especially when it's due to the actions of a completely unrelated group of people. The question is why are the first group being made a scapegoat for the second, rather than punishing the new perpetrators for the new offence? Perhaps they're islamists, so it'd be against their human rights or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    110. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call that fence law in the United States. It's got a lot more to do with farming. They were some of the first laws that states / territories created.

    111. Re:Unenforceable? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Has it occurred to you that I just hate the entrenched view of 'us' versus 'them'?

      If that is your problem, they you have again missed your own point, because your entire argument is "us and them".

      Take this example:

      Still, feel free to be ignorant, isolated, bigoted and small-minded. Seems to fit well with the Scottish Nationalist cadre, but please, don't pretend you represent the kind, generous, friendly and engaging majority living in Scotland.

      IE. anyone who supports Scottish independence is "them": ignorant, isolated, small-minded bigots. Anyone who doesn't support independence is therefore "us", who are presumably broad-minded, well-educated and tolerant. Except one of your "us" (ie yourself) just started swearing at me and insulting me with a broad generalisation.

      Now, as a quintilingual working towards my fourth degree with mixed Scottish, Irish and English ancestry and having worked in Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales and Spain, as well as visiting every country in Western Europe except Portugal, I wonder how anyone would mistake me for being ignorant, isolated or small-minded. Such a view would be rather ignorant, isolated, bigoted and small-minded, if you ask me.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    112. Re:Unenforceable? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      You don't enforce it. You don't WANT to enforce it. You simply wait for them to break it then BAM! they're guilty of breaking the terms of an ASBO and can be prosecuted. ASBOs are kind of bespoke little specific laws when someone is being an ass and it's too much trouble to prosecute them under general laws. The terms of this one look pretty crazy but most are fairly reasonable.

    113. Re:Unenforceable? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      At the end of every single tunnel, and at every access point to the railway, there are signs forbidding access (with the standard red-ring crossed-out-man sign).

      Here's an example.

      "Trespass on the Railway" is a specific, criminal offence.

      Also, they can't have accessed it by an open tunnel. The station in question is in the very centre of London, miles from any end of the tunnel.

    114. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "not fair
      what if i own several thousand houses? am i supposed to check EACH of them every 12 years just in case somebody tries to steal ("claim") it?
      or even worse be forced to pay someone to do it for me, and what if that person i pay accidentally or intentionally skips one house one year because their cousin is trying to claim it?
      after all i DID pay for all those thousand houses why should they be given to someone else just because i do not use them for 12 years?"

      lololoooooooooooool

      Poor little owner of thousands of houses. Owners of thousands of houses can never catch a break!

  6. To me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me I get the mental picture of a large amorphous giant made out of people, blundering about on the landscape saving people from themselves with one hand and crushing others for their own good.
    We so need a better system.

    1. Re:To me by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      I very much want someone with far better visual arts skills than me to produce what you've described in a painting or other rendering. I'd buy it.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    2. Re:To me by MrMr · · Score: 1
    3. Re:To me by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      I was actually envisioning something of a more literal depiction of the GP's expressed image. In my mind, I can see a giant humanoid figure, composed of perhaps a few thousand people, sweeping its hands through a vast landscape of people, alternately cradling some in one arm and crushing the life from others in the opposing fist.

      My first mental image also included some of the scenery described in passages involving the giant in Ender's Game.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    4. Re:To me by Leo+Sasquatch · · Score: 1

      http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liew3uMF7G1qbmgeto1_500.jpg

      or

      http://cf.sketchfu.com/i/72185.png

      The images are from the Clive Barker story - In the Hills, the Cities. This more like what you had in mind?

    5. Re:To me by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Quite, thanks!

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    6. Re:To me by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      awesome dood! Thanks

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  7. ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously folks, you have to Google them.
    One basic summary of them is that you can issue an ASBO to stop someone from doing something *that isn't a crime*, if they then break the order, then *that is a crime* and you can arrest and jail them.

    1. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that they can still choose a jury trial. I would hope that any decent group of people would let them off because of the massive impingement on human rights this stupid law represents.

    2. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brings a whole new sickining feeling to "Nanny State."

    3. Re:ASBOS by Bongo · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's right. The "healthy" side of ASBOs is that there are a lot of things which are bad but not technically illegal. Dropping money in the street is not illegal. Screaming loudly during sex is not illegal. But paedophiles have been known to drop money outside school gates to entice children to pick it up and come over and offer it back. Some woman was screaming loudly during sex repeatedly and ignoring requests from neighbours that she quieten down. So do you let it go on, or do the authorities have something to do? ASBOs are very specific, there's maybe a few dozen in one city per year, and you have to apply to a judge to have one granted. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, they are quite scary, but so are some of the things people do "legally". The ones I've heard about, judges just don't like granting ASBOs. The ASBO has to be very specific. If the police catch you breaching the terms of the ASBO then they can arrest you. People often say that ASBOs don't work because half the time people breach them anyway, but that's the point -- breaching it allows the police to arrest you.

    4. Re:ASBOS by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The problem is that (last I checked) its not legal for for the cops to give you a caution and then later go back and issue a new punishment for the same crime.

      Also, community service alone would probably not act as a deterrent to anyone thinking of going exploring in the abandoned parts of the Underground in the way that the threat of an ASBO like this would.

      What they should do is to invest more money on security. All access to tunnels, track areas, unused stations and other off-limits areas should be blocked with gates, doors, bars, locks and grills. Access to the track via the platform edge should be blocked by doors (already in use at some stations) that only open when a train pulls up.

      Keep these people from being able to trespass in the first place and there wont be any need to issue ASBOs.

    5. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So do you let it go on, or do the authorities have something to do?

      Something that isn't illegal? You let it go on, obviously! Until there is a law that makes these things illegal, free people doing legal things should tell the police to fuck off, and not apologize. If they want to step it up, they should press charges against the police who is trying to interfere with legal activities for arbitrary acts by the authorities. WTF is wrong with people that this even needs explaining?

    6. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd want a law against dropping money on the streets or loud sex? Or would you rather have a targeted law against people who abuse this?

    7. Re:ASBOS by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I understand the intent behind ASBOs. They are supposed to be a halfway house of sorts. And they do have the effect of preventing the criminalisation of behaviour that is antisocial and that can feel threatening to others. A good example is the gang culture. Now, no one wants to criminalise people walking in groups (at least I don't), but gangs (of you people I must add) most certainly walks in groups and do cause a nuisance, engage in threatening behaviour and in some cases commit crimes. ASBOs can specifically disallow them from congregating in a certain area, and if they are followed, they can make the community feel like (and maybe be) a safer place. But what do we care here on Slashdot. It's not like most of us live in these rough neighbourhoods, so let them have freedom to walk in groups and cause a nuisance. It doesn't affect us.

    8. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. We have this entire system of increasingly arbitrary, arcane, and even silly laws in place that, when broadly interpreted, effectively give the police discretionary powers over almost anything they don't like. This is basically saying that now they don't even have to use that system.

    9. Re:ASBOS by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      All access to tunnels, track areas, unused stations and other off-limits areas should be blocked with gates, doors, bars, locks and grills. Access to the track via the platform edge should be blocked by doors (already in use at some stations) that only open when a train pulls up.

      Disclaimer: This post brought to you by the gate, door, lock and grill makers' association.

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd have to look into how big of a problem either of those are and if they're not already restricted. In the case of money-dropping to lure kids, that's probably already illegal if you can prove intent, and the loud sex is probably already limited by noise ordinances. Either way, yes, if we want that behavior to stop, there should be a law or an ordinance that applies to everyone or none at all. The police is the executive branch, the courts are the judicial branch and laws should be made by the legislative branch, or you end up in a fascist police state.

    11. Re:ASBOS by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

      GP is wrong. Causing a breach of the peace and being a pediodiddlerist are illegal.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:ASBOS by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't see why we need to make dropping money on the streets illegal. That story about pedophiles smells like a bullshit excuse, and even if it isn't, it's still not a good enough reason.

      As for loud sex... there are generally laws on the books already that regulate noise in general. If it's not loud enough to be covered by those noise, then I don't see why it should be illegal, either.

    13. Re:ASBOS by matunos · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that known pedophiles attempting to interact with schoolchildren and women disturbing the peace with her late night orgasmic screams probably are both illegal.

    14. Re:ASBOS by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention the only people complaining about loud sex are ones who are bitter that they're not getting laid. ;-)

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    15. Re:ASBOS by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      Now, no one wants to criminalise people walking in groups (at least I don't), but gangs (of you people I must add) most certainly walks in groups and do cause a nuisance, engage in threatening behaviour and in some cases commit crimes.

      So pass a law against causing a nuisance and engaging in threatening behavior. (I assume "committing crimes" is already against the law in the UK.) Surely you don't want anyone doing those things, whether or not they have an ASBO.

    16. Re:ASBOS by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The "Breach of the Peace" offence is a huge overbear to cover the example given (and its a true example), a court binding the defendent over to not do what they were doing is exactly what is needed - and that is what an ASBO is.

      Similarly, simply dropping money on the ground does not a paedophile make, and its certainly not covered under child protection laws regardless of whether the intention is to attract children or not - there has to be an intention to do something further.

    17. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the GP's examples is a woman who screamed during sex, which sounds fine until you find out houses across the street heard this at over 100 decibels and it went on everyday for several hours. Her argument was she couldn't help it, a judge didn't find that reasonable, can you imagine being at home eating tea suddenly having to listen to that everyday. The judges argument was there was no medical reason for making that level of noise and was causing pain, misery and embarrassed to dozens of her neighbours.

      An example on TV I saw recently was an elderly woman was placed in to assisted living and her 40 year old drug addict on kept using her place to stay. His being there brought other dealers and addicts to that elderly woman's (shared) back garden, the council had him arrested since they had gained proof and started criminal proceedings against him. Since they knew he would go back they got an ASBO banning him from the area, this meant when he went back there they would be able to remove immediately. He wasn't going to change his mother wouldn't hear a bad word said against him and they didn't care about the levels of fear and stress they were placing on the other vulnerable OAP's.

      ASBO's have scary implications and I am pretty certain they have been abused (TfL want to abuse in the article), but I think they are a useful tool that can stop peoples obnoxious actions ruining peoples lives and protect others. I'm a great believer in letting people do/say/thinkk whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect other people and for the most part ABSO's are about upholding that principle.

    18. Re:ASBOS by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Wait, so the taxpayers should pay huge amounts of money to build walls with little doors in them at the sides of the platforms so that somebody who ought to know they they can get run over by a train doesn't get run over by a train?

      I don't want to live in a world where we endeavour at great expense to make it *impossible* for you to commit a crime.

    19. Re:ASBOS by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Now, no one wants to criminalise people walking in groups (at least I don't), but gangs (of you people I must add) most certainly walks in groups and do cause a nuisance, engage in threatening behaviour and in some cases commit crimes.

      So you want to retain a right to walk in groups while denying it to others. Got it. But wouldn't it be easier to just pass the law and selectively enforce it only against "you people"? I mean, that's what you really want here, right?

      Also, if a gang already commits crimes, how would an ASBO stop them?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:ASBOS by mpe · · Score: 1

      Seriously folks, you have to Google them.
      One basic summary of them is that you can issue an ASBO to stop someone from doing something *that isn't a crime*, if they then break the order, then *that is a crime* and you can arrest and jail them.


      The irony here is that they are apparently being applied to try and encourage "anti-social behaviour".

    21. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win a googlebomb award for being the only hit on that long untranslatable p word you used

    22. Re:ASBOS by I_Voter · · Score: 1

      Re: Jury nullification.

      I am not from England. but I seem to remember someone named Tony Blair who modified the right of jury nullification.

      U.S. background article
      The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law

      Ron Paul supporters take note - I can not find any mention of Jury nullification on "Mr. Constitution's" campaign website.

    23. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they were complaining that they couldn't get sleep as the person in question was having her 6+ hour sex sessions almost every day and then sleeping in until the afternoon.

      She should have been charged with disturbing peace and making noise after hours.

    24. Re:ASBOS by green1 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you instead enforce existing laws?

      The pedophiles dropping money, ok, no problem, if they drop money and a kid comes over and gives it back I don't see any problem at all. Now if they kidnap said kid, get them for that offence, or if they assault the kid, get them for that. don't get them for dropping money that's not the thing they did wrong.

      The woman screaming loudly during sex, is she breaking laws regarding loud noises? fine her under those laws, if she isn't, where's the problem?

      These ASBOs are being used as excuses to avoid using existing laws for their purposes, if something is illegal, enforce the related law, if it isn't illegal, why are you bothering with it in the first place?

  8. This is unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck can Government order people NOT to speak to each other! I understand giving an order not to speak to each other for a week or two, that's somewhat acceptable but a whole decade, that is a little bit too much. Next they will be telling us where we can't walk for next, I don't know, 100 years? Would that be acceptable for you Mr. President? You shat there and nobody MUST not see your shit, and everybody alive will die when 100 years pass so nobody will know about it.
    By the way I do understand security side of this nonsense and nevertheless that fear must not control us, for we are not sheep (or at least we think we are not).
    And why would there be a need for all that security if their Government weren't policing other nations around, together with US, like some kind of parents, abusive at that.

    1. Re:This is unacceptable! by Crookdotter · · Score: 0

      It's about criminals not associating with each other, which I agree with. This case doesn't do anyone any good it seems though, although are we romanticising 'urban explorers' - why not call them 'tresapssers', or 'burglars'?

    2. Re:This is unacceptable! by anonymov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > why not call them 'burglars'?

      Better yet, call them "terrorists" and the public will immediately see how bad and wrong they are.

      After all, nomenclature, not what someone actually did, is what really matters.

    3. Re:This is unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, we're not calling them "burglars" because they don't take stuff. Trespassers is accurate, since urbex frequently does entail that, but urbex clarifies the harmless (purported) intent; it's a good distinction to make.

    4. Re:This is unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You agree with restricting their freedom of speech (yes, yes, I know this isn't the US) because they might talk about doing something?

      Wow.

    5. Re:This is unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about criminals not associating with each other, which I agree with. This case doesn't do anyone any good it seems though, although are we romanticising 'urban explorers' - why not call them 'tresapssers', or 'burglars'?

      Because burglars steal stuff - these kids didn't.

      And we don't call them trespassers because the UK has a pedestrian right of access law - how is this any different than crossing the garden of a country estate (which is legal btw)?

    6. Re:This is unacceptable! by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Burglars?

    7. Re:This is unacceptable! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Better yet, call them "terrorists" and the public will immediately see how bad and wrong they are.

      Wrong. Sure you should call them terrorists for starters, but the main reason is that terrorists you can simply toss them in jail for an extended period of time, without having to come up with any real charges - just calling them terrorist is more than enough. And no worries about the law getting in the way, because that's how current laws stipulate the handling of terrorists!

    8. Re:This is unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was owned by TfL, and closed off to the public? There are many fine places to visit in London without going all hipster and edgy about it. I'm all for freedoms, but letting teens explore hazardous, closed to the public locations isn't a good one to have. Urbex sounds like a stupid, inflammatory passtime. Fine, the burglars thing was a bit harsh (I'd assume they'd keep a 'trophy' from every location), but trespass is right on.
       
      I disagree with the potential use of an ASBO for this entirely. They should be charged with trespass.

  9. This is not how ASBOs are meant to be used by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is terrible. There are already laws in place to prevent the "anti-social" aspects of what these guys did. They were arrested and charged with these crimes (a caution does count as a conviction). Every urban explorer knows this is a risk.

    ASBOs are meant to deal with anti social behaviour that isn't actually criminal. The only "anti-social" aspect of their behaviour was the illegal part.

    1. Re:This is not how ASBOs are meant to be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You confuse two things here

      a. The publicly stated reason for the introduction of the ASBO, "antisocial control"
      b. The true intended function - a device for making the legal, illegal, and therefore actionable...

      It was never about anything other than giving them a legal device to criminalise non-criminal behaviour, to be used as and when they required. Having it on the statute books for so long unchallenged also gives them a precedent.

    2. Re:This is not how ASBOs are meant to be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You parsed it wrong. It's (Anti (Social Behaviour) Order).

  10. Did they get their gear back ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    Their laptops, cameras and hard drives were confiscated.

    What reason not to give them back (other than summary 'punishment' by the police) ? If they did not get them back, they have probably been back to take new photos.

  11. Striesand Effect by djl4570 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Streisand Effect.
    It is very disturbing to read that anyone seeking to take pictures of an abandoned or unused subway stations are subject to any sort of "Anti social" order. Taking pictures of a disused public conveyance is hardly "antisocial." Given the violent tendencies of yobs and chavs I've read about elsewhere; law enforcement in this jurisdiction has better things to do with their time.
    BTW Did they ever let Tony Martin out of jail or is he still a danger to burglars?

    1. Re:Striesand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tony Martin's a really bad example.

      He hated gypsies. He owned guns illegally. He shot a gypsy burglar in the back whilst he was running away.

      There's no self-defence argument there at all.

  12. Doing it for the rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did these guys even consider writing to TfL and asking for permission to go to the station? Nope. They were doing it for the rush, the danger, the excitement - the risk of getting creamed by a train or getting caught. They got caught. Too bad. That's what the rush is all about. So they should stand up and take their punishment.

    1. Re:Doing it for the rush by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      The point is not that they got punished. The point is how they got punished.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Doing it for the rush by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The ASBO hasn't been granted. Learn to read. Fuck it's like reading the Daily Mail comments here.

    3. Re:Doing it for the rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ASBOs are not intended to punish the individual.
      There should be some evidence before the court that the behaviour in question has caused or is likely to cause harassment alarm or distress,

      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/anti_social_behaviour_guidance/

    4. Re:Doing it for the rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check with TFL. A 10 year one hasn't but a 2 year one has.

    5. Re:Doing it for the rush by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ASBOs are not intended to punish the individual.
      There should be some evidence before the court that the behaviour in question has caused or is likely to cause harassment alarm or distress,

      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/anti_social_behaviour_guidance/

      Hmmm ... the music industry's behaviour surely causes harassment alarm and distress to many people. Can we get an ASBO against them? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. LOL appeal in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i must say that is bullshit. I live in Minnesota and there is group that does this types of thing. I wish i was with them cause even if i got arrested the pictures would be worth it. Im so sorry the "Crown of england" thinks there super special even thought the only power they have us dismiss parliament. They did nothing wrong. We have several of those abandoned train lines in the USA. LA and NYC has stations that are not used. If i had the money and better photo equipment i would so do what they did. I also would love to see that ruling stand in USA. Cause the second i couldnt see my friend i would laugh then appeal to the highest level of courts in the US. Then i would laugh some more as i sue the lower courts.

  14. FUCK THE UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The UK has become a third-world nation with a first-rate Nanny State.

    1. Re:FUCK THE UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For various reasons, I stopped buying UK products years ago. These including whiskey ("Scotch"), beer, and Colman's Original English Mustard.

      Replacing their alcohol with USA products was easy (esp. given the proliferation of micro-brewing); although I haven't found anything comparable to their mustard.

      Anyway it's sad that the country which created Magna Carta (although all but three clauses have been repealed!) and other documents of personal liberty has come to this.

      Unfortunately the US is heading towards the same direction.

    2. Re:FUCK THE UK! by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For various reasons, I stopped buying US products years ago.

      Anyway it's sad that the country which created the Bill of rights (although numerous clauses have been all but repealed by the PATRIOT act) and other documents of personal liberty has come to this.

      Unfortunately the UK is heading towards the same direction.

      I'm not trying to be an arse - I completely agree with you, but in reality both countries are as bad as each other.

      Just today I was reading about a retired UK businessman that has been extradited to the US for making £500 for transporting batteries to the Netherlands. He says he was the target of entrapment. The US say he's an arms dealer as the batteries were destined for anti-aircraft missiles in Iran (which were sold to them by the US).

      Who's the worst? The US for extraditing somebody on flimsy evidence, or the UK for handing over one of their citizen without being allowed to examine the evidence. I think we can all agree that we're all losers.

    3. Re:FUCK THE UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been watching this case for a while and he was no innocent party, he was a multi millionaire weapons dealer, he knew what he was getting into, how do you think he made his millions ? the lottery ?
      he was quite prepared to concoct a shell game (for 500 quid yeah right), he knew where they where going, if he wanted a car battery he could of just phoned his local Halfords

      while the extradition is one sided, in this case the buyers gave him every opportunity to back out, but he continued.
      fuck him , and people like him, dealer in death.

    4. Re:FUCK THE UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "are as bad as each other."

      No, just no. Repeat after me: "I shall never compare doubles with equality"

      How can we hope for improvement if we can not even recognize it? What you could do is of course to say that "I have not researched this enough to be able to say which one is the worst". If you want to state that they are /about/ as bad as each other you should definitely have something to back it up.
      Which is the worst? ACTA or SOPA? ASBO or Guantanamo? Try!

      note: I'm not saying that you should go into a religious war over these things.

  15. So If the UK Doesn't like you're Rock Climbing by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    They slap you with an ASBO?

    It is not illegal to climb, but you might hurt yourself or your friend, and that would be "antisocial".

    And then if you do skateboarding...

    And tattoos and nose piercing...

    We have a room in this insane asylum...

    1. Re:So If the UK Doesn't like you're Rock Climbing by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      We have a room in this insane asylum...

      Room 101?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  16. Sounds like this might lead to a by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 0

    New World Antisocial Behavior Order

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  17. Trainspotting by PatPending · · Score: 1

    (Slightly edited from the original)

    Tommy: Doesn't it make you proud to be English?

    Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: It's SHITE being English! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any fucking difference!

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Trainspotting by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      Changing 'Scottish' to 'English' negates the impact of the original statement and changes a lot more than the nationality of the subjects discussed. The majority idea of an individual nations' identity trumping being British is relatively new (2 decades). It took a long time for the policy of 'North Britain' from the C19th to be reversed (with London also refusing acknowledgement of any vestige of being Welsh). Growing up English meant little to me- people who waved flags of St George were racists, pure and simple. I was British. The English football team even used to fly off waving the Union flag. Welsh and Scottish nationalism has, of course, been around for centuries, but a subtle sea-change happened around the time of Scot's Parliament and Welsh elected assembly (and, interestingly, Euro 96).

      So when Renton rants about being Scottish, he's talking about its status within the Union, how it acts like a provincial city declaring themselves "The Best", how insularity can be celebrated 'cause it's Scottish, how the Scots still always come second to English in the priorities of the UK [e.g. Poll Tax] and haven't [at publication of 1993] done anything about it.

      Thanks for the reminder though.

    2. Re:Trainspotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly edited text - completely different point.

      The 'effete arseholes' Renton was referring to are the English.

  18. OH HAI you are antisocial, do not associate by tlambert · · Score: 1

    OK, uh, that's weird...

    -- Terry

  19. check out their site by dr_blurb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out their site: silentuk, very cool pictures there.

    Here are the Aldwych station pictures

    1. Re:check out their site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFS has the same URL!

      I don't know whether to label you a Karma Whore or congratulate you for living up to the /. standard of not reading TFS.

    2. Re:check out their site by Lev13than · · Score: 1

      I Googled the accident mentioned in the summary, and it turns out that the the other group of urban explorers had derailed a Mail Rail car. Didn't know that the line existed - very interesting. Looks kind of like the Chicago freight tunnels.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    3. Re:check out their site by dr_blurb · · Score: 1

      > TFS has the same URL!

      argh, sorry, yes, you're right.

      I ended up only reading the Guardian article,
      finding the link from there, and didn't check
      the summary anymore :-(

  20. Huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we sure we defeated the nazis?

    Watching the world lately i'm really not sure we did...

  21. The worst ASBO ever has to be by Shemmie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that "there will be no prison for an 88 year old man". (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)"

    I know ASBOs are a farce, but jesus, I didn't know how far we had sunk - as a Brit, I'm amazed at this list of more controversial ASBOs - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm

  22. Anti-social behaviour order by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    An apt name: They are ordered to exhibit anti-social behaviour, namely not talking to each other.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  23. Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by billcopc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a kid, what is now called "urban exploration" was a treasured hobby. Living in a big, boring government city, we'd ride our bikes far and wide in search of interesting areas and abandoned buildings. And by "we", I mean about half the kids my age. We'd venture out in groups, anywhere from two to ten of us, exploring all sorts of out-of-view places like unmanned water supply hubs, underground walkways, decommissioned train stations and the abandoned warehouses. The worst thing we ever encountered were a pair of crackheads who threatened to steal our bikes. So they got their asses beat by a pack of little kids with rocks and sticks :)

    At no point in any of this did we feel like we were harming persons or property. We didn't even tag stuff, we just wanted to admire cool spots and all the kitschy 60's and 70's crap that has been left behind. To criminalize such acts of natural curiosity seems patently ridiculous to me. That said, it's not kosher to sneak around an active subway system past security lines, but I'd like to suggest an alternative solution: official tours of the abandoned subway stations! People like to see those out-of-the-way areas, so why not charge them a couple bucks and have guide safely lead would-be explorers in a perfectly legal manner. Sure, for some it takes away the thrill of sneaking around, but at least for myself, the goal was never to break laws, it was merely satisfying my curiosity.

    As an aside, my high school was situated in a 150 year old castle, erected by one of the region's pioneers and eventually donated to the church, who repurposed it as an agricultural college in the early 20th century. Like many buildings of the era, it had vast underground catacombs and passageways connecting the various buildings, as well as upper levels that formerly housed residents, staff, and clergymen. They even had their own barber shop up there! We had an underground tunnel lined with lockers, something many of us considered a privilege as it conferred some peace and privacy. Most of these areas were not used during my time, but we were invited to explore, with guided tours arranged at least a few times a year. If you knew the routes, you could get to any building without stepping outside, a welcome luxury on rainy days or in -40'C winter storms. And if the indoors weren't your thing, there was a 30 acre forest island with beaches, rapids, a large rock formation, abandoned booths and small cabins from sporting events dating back 50-60 years, and all sorts of places to climb. Snooping around is what we did for fun, and it was encouraged!

    It sure beats what today's kids do: sit around, baked out of their minds as they escape the mindlessness of our scared society.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by PatPending · · Score: 0

      You do realize -40C == -40F, right? So there's really no need to go SI on us. (It's okay; you're among friends.)

      Just being pedantic.

      Well, actually, I was just sitting around, baked out of my mind as I was escaping the mindlessness of our scared society, thinking how Slashdot comments have become the new urban exploration. I shall call it: Urban Exploration 2.0!

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Some+Bitch · · Score: 3, Funny

      150 year old castle

      This is probably very British of me but my immediate internal response to this was "150 year old castles? Leeds has a shopping centre that's over 100 years old!"

      I did quite like your post though :)

    3. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do realize -40C == -40F, right? So there's really no need to go SI on us. (It's okay; you're among friends.)

      As horrifying as the thought may be, some people actually use Celsius all the time. Scary, I know. They don't even bother remembering how to convert to Fahrenheit since that's generally not useful.

    4. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 2

      This is probably very British of me but my immediate internal response to this was "150 year old castles? Leeds has a shopping centre that's over 100 years old!"

      The difference between America and England is, the Americans think 100 years is a long time and the English think 100 miles (160.93 Km) is a long distance.
      Not sure who originally said it but it seemed relevent.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    5. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You've shared this story on /. before, haven't you? That bit about the crackheads getting beaten up by little kids seems vaguely familiar.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      The difference between America and England is, the Americans think 100 years is a long time and the English think 100
      miles (160.93 Km) is a long distance.

      Not sure who originally said it but it seemed relevent.

      Whoever it was I'd say had it spot on.

    7. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a vacation my family went on some years back. We lived near Philadelphia, Pa and my siblings and I had sent my parents to Mexico City to visit a cousin earlier that year. We were in Michigan at a "castle" that was celebrating its 150 year anniversary. The tour guide was so impressed by something that was "150 years old!" until my dad mentioned that we were from Philadelphia which had recently celebrated its 300th anniversary, which he followed up with by saying that pales in comparison with the age of the ruins in Mexico City. I kind of felt bad for the guide. It was a very neat building, but what made it interesting was the architecture and the fact that someone from that time period, in that location went to the effort to build such a structure, not its "antiquity".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you go to school at hogwarts?

    9. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes and that's what they would prefer you do. be mindless and let the people in control do whatever they please, whenever they're bored and feel like incarcerating random people and killing them, so be it. sit back and stay baked out of your mind, keep your head in fantasy while your ass gets fucked by reality.

    10. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to suggest an alternative solution: official tours of the abandoned subway stations!

      You mean like these tours, perhaps? http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/whats-on/events/events-calendar/367-events-aldwych-underground-station

      They don't run all that often, but they do exist.

    11. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by jjp9999 · · Score: 1

      Harry Potter and kids running through secret tunnels suddenly makes a whole new realm of sense.

    12. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by evilviper · · Score: 1

      This is probably very British of me but my immediate internal response to this was "150 year old castles? Leeds has a shopping centre that's over 100 years old!"

      Castle doesn't mean what you think it means. Have you ever heard of "Hearst Castle"? We co-opted the term a long time ago to mean, well, whatever the hell we happen to want it to mean.

      There was certainly no need for medieval-style castles in the US 150 years ago, or ever, for that matter... And in the western US, yes, there are tracts of empty desert as large as most of western europe, that never had permanent structures on it until modern technology came along. You can say we're lacking in history out here, or you can say it needs to start somewhere, and we're the ones making it as we go.

       

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Actually, no I don't believe I have. If I did, it must have been 10+ years ago. These aren't the crackhead-beating kids you're looking for.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    14. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by billcopc · · Score: 1

      s/Castle/Mansion/g

      It's big, is all I'm saying. And for Canada, 150 years ago was a long-ass time, since the city itself was founded by this man's grandfather only 50 years prior. Both predate the official "birth" of Canada, at least according to the British Empire.

      What can I say, the natives weren't all that big into mansions and slavery...

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    15. Re:Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by billcopc · · Score: 1

      That's only two consecutive weekends in the whole year. Pretty shitty IMO. Perhaps once a month would be better, after all, it looks like those two weekends sold out.

      That is exactly what I was thinking though, they just need to dial it up a notch.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  24. He was released long ago by F69631 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I understand that he had been burgled many times before (losing a total of about 10 000 dollars) and that he had all the right to be frustrated about police inaction... That said, he had no reason to believe he was under any threat when he fired his shotgun at the backs of two people who were trying to flee through the window, killing one and injuring the other. The court thought that he was clearly using inappropriate force and he spent 3 years in jail after which he was let free because he behaved well.

    Call me crazy freedom-hating left-wing nutjob if you want to, but I don't think that anyone has the right to execute people without a trial if it's not in self-defense... especially when it comes to crimes that don't carry a death penalty in the first place.

    1. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm curious what an "appropriate" force would have been then. Throwing the TV remote at them? Turning around and walking away while saying "shucks, I do hope they really are leaving and aren't just trying to find a way to attack me by surprise"?

      If people broke into my home and I saw them, I would feel threatened until the police captured them. Since the people obviously had no problem breaking into my home once, I would have no reason to believe they wouldn't come back to prevent me from potentially identifying them. Historical precedent had proven that Tony Martin could not count on the police to do anything, so he did the only thing he could do to protect himself.

      Call me a crazy, freedom-loving, right-wing nutjob if you want to, but I just can't feel sorry for someone who's purposefully destroying and stealing other people's property and threatening their safety.

    2. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you don't know if it was the same people, and you can't shoot them if they are walking away. If they are coming back, then you can shoot them then.

    3. Re:He was released long ago by olliM · · Score: 0

      You're a crazy, freedom-loving (?), right-wing nutjob! I'm glad I live in a country where human life is valued higher than property and where you can't shoot people just because they are committing a crime.

    4. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think shooting at someone who was breaking into your place is ok?
      Good thing you replied anonymously, otherwise you'd have to be arrested.
      I mean, what would you do if some children accidentally shot a football through one of your windows?

      I'm pretty sure we can't have your kind in our society.

      PS: tl;dr: a sarcastic comment on the parent as well as on the "think of the children" hogwash.

    5. Re:He was released long ago by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The kid who was killed had been 29 times by the time he was killed at the age of 16 and had just been released that day on bail for another burglary. May I suggest that the people responsible for his death were the members of the English judicial system who failed to administer sufficient punishment to him to convince him that committing burglary and assault were a bad idea? What reason did Tony Martin have to believe that they would not return and assault him on another occasion?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:He was released long ago by superwiz · · Score: 1

      If anyone had been robbed many times, don't they have a reasonable expectation of being robbed again at a future time? If police don't protect them, don't they have a reasonable expectation that the same people who just robbed them would rob them again? Isn't it also reasonable to expect that any future robbery would endanger his life? Would your answer be different if someone was taking a daily morning walk and was always punched in the nose during that walk? Would they have a right to expect that they would get punched in the future and take proactive measures to stop it?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:He was released long ago by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Breaking into someone's house is equivalent to reaching into your pocket when a cop tells you to put your hands up: at the moment deadly force is legitimate, though disobeying a cop or trespassing are very minor crimes. Now if you are shooting them in the back the moment has perhaps passed, but the burglars are in a way still threatening the citizen's life by running because if he feels forced to tackle them his life will be in serious danger. Certainly in many circumstances cops "exterminate" criminals who are too difficult to arrest.

    8. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a crazy, freedom-loving (?), right-wing nutjob! I'm glad I live in a country where human life is valued higher than property and where you can't shoot people just because they are committing a crime.

      And I'm glad I live in a country where you can shoot people who are threatening and endangering your family.

    9. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you don't know if it was the same people, and you can't shoot them if they are walking away. If they are coming back, then you can shoot them then.

      Unless they shoot you first when they come back. Not everyone can be the "fastest gunslinger in the West".

    10. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a crazy, freedom-loving (?), right-wing nutjob! I'm glad I live in a country where human life is valued higher than property and where you can't shoot people just because they are committing a crime.

      If only criminals had similar views on human life. But the fact is that most don't, so although they might be there just to take your stuff, you can never know for sure what they'll do. And sitting around waiting for them to pull out a gun first will surely leave you nominated for a Darwin award.

      You should be able to shoot people who break into your home and threaten the lives of you and your family. If you think that a burglar breaking into your house is not a threat, then you really need to consider taking off your rose-colored glasses and look around.

    11. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you would shoot them in the back because they might sneak back and shoot you in the front?

      You fucking gun-toting moron.

    12. Re:He was released long ago by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he's a fucking live gun-toting moron defending himself and his family and what belongs to him on his own private property.

      Where do YOU live ? Where does HE live ?

      I have to wonder if one of you is an urban dweller and the other a rural one.

      In which case, you'd both be right - and wrong.

  25. Historic places of interest are of public interest by jools33 · · Score: 2

    As a keen photographer myself - to me these disused areas of the city are areas of public interest - particularly the old closed down underground stations. Rather than slapping down ASBOs on people - London Transport should wake up to the potential of their sites - and turn them into museums or at least offer guided tours of these sites - open them up to the curious public to view the sites in a safe manner - and let photographers take the pictures they want to take. Just stop treating photographers as potential terrorist - because that is the last thing we are!

  26. Is it even legal? by Hentes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that the British legal system is somewhat different than the continental one, but I thought that getting punished twice for the same crime was forbidden everywhere in the civilised world. After they got a caution for what they did, on what grounds can they be punished again for it?

    1. Re:Is it even legal? by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 1

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm

      it is known as double jeopardy...and it does not apply in the UK anymore...at least according to this(quick google search)

      --
      -Noc
    2. Re:Is it even legal? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Being tried twice and being punished twice are different things. Retrial in light of new evidence if in the first trial the defendant was found innocent is a fairly common thing. However, in this case they already got a caution the first time.

    3. Re:Is it even legal? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Did you even read the link you posted?

      One, important new evidence is required. Two, it's only for serious crimes like murder. Three, it allows the possibility of a retrial where someone was acquitted, not a retroactive change to the sentence for someone found guilty.

      So, as far as this case goes, 0 out of 3.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Is it even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that the British legal system is somewhat different than the continental one

      Being pedantic.
      there isn't a 'British legal system', there are

      1. A legal system which cover England and Wales (won't go into the Cornwall situation, take it for granted they're covered here)
      2. A legal system which covers Scotland (which *does* have some similarities to the continental one).
      3. A legal system which covers Northern Ireland.

      Laws passed by the UK Parliament (Read: English) which have UK wide scope, have to be separately 'ratified' / reworded for the Scottish legal system, to take into account the differences betwixt the two legal systems. Usually, it's a rubber stamp job.
       

    5. Re:Is it even legal? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Fairly common? Not in the US. In the US you cannot be charged twice for the SAME CRIME. You can be charged for committing a given crime, such as theft, on multiple different occasions and be charged for each one individually, but they cannot prosecute you for stealing Mrs. Thatcher's purse on January 1st 1984 more than once - no matter the outcome or the original trial. That means that literally you can commit murder and if you're found not guilty, you can openly admit it and they cannot put you in jail for it. Civil lawsuits are a completely different issue though.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Is it even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're not getting is that in this case, the "urban explorers" weren't tried to begin with.

      The police letting you off with a warning != actually being tried by a court of law, as far as I know and yes, IAAL.

      Simply put: there is no double jeopardy here since these kids haven't appeared before a court yet.

    7. Re:Is it even legal? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      So you think a person who's accused of a serious crime and is found not guilty should be harassed and threatened with jail AGAIN just because on rare occasions criminals openly admit to committing the crime? That's retarded and serves nothing but to harass people who were found NOT GUILTY. If you wanted to make a law saying that if you confess to a crime after being found not guilty you can be punished, go ahead - that at least involves proof of guilt.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:Is it even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not being a lawyer but the obvious way to get around it:

      An ASBO isn't a punishment in itself, it's simply an order not to behave in a certain way in the future. You aren't sentenced to an ASBO, you are just given it, like an order. If you then breach it you aren't sentenced for your behaviour that was in breach either, but rather for breach of the ASBO. 'Contempt of court' or whatever. In all cases a court can still punish you for the original actions that motivated the ASBO.

    9. Re:Is it even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pertinent section of the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

    10. Re:Is it even legal? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they can (although I think the Framers intended to prevent this as well) charge you with something else for the same crime...or, at least, if you are found not guilty of charges in state court for a crime federal prosecutors can still follow up and charge you with a different crime for the same action. I do not know if any prosecutor has yet tried to bring separate charges for the same crime after losing the first case in court.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:Is it even legal? by houghi · · Score: 1

      everywhere in the civilised world

      I think that is the asnwer to your question.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Is it even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually here in the uk you can be tried and punished repeatedly for the same crime. we did away with double jepardy because some girl got hit in the head with a bottle

  27. Asking for and getting are two different things... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3

    From what I read in TFA the ASBOs have been applied for but not (yet) granted. Think we have to wait and see what the UK legal system says about this before we can comment intelligently.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  28. Indirect communication, human rights by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd imagine there'd be a way to comply with the heavy-handed order while having a venue that is out of reach of the ASBO.

    Can they communicate indirectly, via mutual friends?

    If not, then since they likely have a number of mutual friends, they are effectively being told not to communicate with anyone who communicates with others in the affected group. After all, what if a mutual friend mentions something one of the other members of the affected group said? How about indirect communication via two degrees of separation? If they are forbidden from indirect contact, then the order is perilously close to requiring solitary confinement or other drastic social exclusion.

    An exclusion which prohibits communication with mutual friends is likely a good test case for the ECJ or the ECHR. Similarly, an order which imposes an onerous obligation on mutual friends which were not subjects of the order, would be a good test case for said mutual friends to bring to the ECJ or ECHR.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by gilleain · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Reminds me of a story by Will Self called 'Between the Conceits', the first in the book Grey Area. In it, all of London is controlled by just 7 people, who communicate with each other by elaborate mass orchestration of mundane movements of the other Londoners.

      I stretch, then relax - and 33,665 white-collar workers leave their houses a teensy bit early for work. This means the 6,014 of them will feel dyspeptic during the journey because they've missed their second piece of toast, or bowl of Fruit 'n' Fibre. From which it followed that 2,982 of them will be testy through the morning; and therefore 312 of them will say the wrong thing, leading to dismissal; hence one of these 312 will lose the balance of his reason and commit an apparently random and motiveless murder on the way home.

      Hmm. Don't think I can really explain this with one quote. The first chapter is readable here.

    2. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by zidium · · Score: 1

      Too bad there isn't an ebook. It sounds fascinating!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    3. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, I suspect this wont survive judicial review in court.

      But then, they repeatedly gave the lady who was too noisy when having sex ASBOs and seemed to win in court when she carried on fucking regardless of them so who knows.

    4. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can twist up the theoretical limits of this order all you like, as if you were a catholic schoolboy trying to find a loophole to get out of some medieval church ritual, but these people can live their lives pretty normally. They should just not be dicks about trying to circumvent the intent of the order.

      Or is that too complicated a concept for you?

    5. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 4, Funny

      But then, they repeatedly gave the lady who was too noisy when having sex ASBOs and seemed to win in court when she
      carried on fucking regardless of them so who knows.

      Yes, this is definitely FTW...

      Do you have a phone number for that one?

    6. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can twist up the theoretical limits of this order all you like, as if you were a catholic schoolboy trying to find a loophole to get out of some medieval church ritual, but these people can live their lives pretty normally. They should just not be dicks about trying to circumvent the intent of the order.

      According to TFA, the order being sought does not state an intent. It states a number of independent requirements to be legally imposed on the affected persons. One of these requirements is that they should not communicate with each other for 10 years. In other words, if they communicated in any way at all in the 10 year period - even just one asking another what the time is - they would be in actual breach of the order being sought. A communication between them would be in breach no matter what its topic or content, and no matter whether it employed speech, sign language, text message, Royal Mail letter, semaphore flags, Morse code, or any other medium.

      Or is that too complicated a concept for you?

      Apparently, the simple language of the order being sought is not nearly complicated enough for your twisted interpretation. A ban on communication between persons is quite simple, and it clearly would preclude all direct exchange of information, opinion, gossip, etc.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    7. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... They should just not be dicks about trying to circumvent the intent of the order.

      Or is that too complicated a concept for you?

      No, Mr. Stalin, it isn't. The Party -is- the Soul of the People. Forgive me, sir.

    8. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by turgid · · Score: 2

      Too bad there isn't an ebook. It sounds fascinating!

      Are you allergic to paper?

    9. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by zakkie · · Score: 1

      Trust me, you need to look at her picture first. Then you'd not worry about the phone number...

    10. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if one of them wore a t-shirt with some sort of text on it, and another of them saw that shirt from across the street, then the order would be violated.

      Wow. Are we sure the U.K. isn't a totalitarian regime?

    11. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by Larryish · · Score: 1

      You can't download paper.

    12. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by drfreak · · Score: 1

      Typical geek. You'd probably just start hitting the agreement's ceiling in different ways until you find a way out.

    13. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by drfreak · · Score: 1

      Yes you can. Scan it, then put a bird on it.

    14. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You seem to be suggesting that screaming during sex is involuntary. It isn't, you can limit the volume of your outpourings (unfortunately phraseology) and that is what the ASBO in question required her to do. It was disturbing her neighbours in the same way as having the TV turned up to max at 11PM or screaming kids all day would.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      It's called a pillow.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    16. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by Xest · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on your point of view, but personally last time I went looking for a house and looked at a rather nice semi-detached I didn't think "Oh, I wonder how easy it'll be to get an ASBO slapped on the neighbours if they make too much noise", I instead thought "I wonder how much it'd cost to slap up a bit of sound proofing against that wall", and ultimately decided "I don't really want to put up with noisy neighbours, so I'll go for a detached even if it's a bit smaller".

      Your screaming kids analogy is quite apt. in fact, do you think an ASBO against screaming kids would be succesful?

      Annoying or not, it's something you accept as a possible issue when you share a wall with someone else.

    17. Re:Indirect communication, human rights by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      One phone number for the woman, another (e.g. from the phone book), for paper bag manufacturers in the area ; order two.

      ISTR the woman in question was a Geordie.

      R + R Packaging 4, Ballast Hill, Blyth , Northumberland , NE24 2AU Tel: 01670 546666 Packaging Materials & Services ; All Types Of Packaging ; Plastic, Polystyrene, Film ; Polythene, Paper Bags, Sacks ; Hygiene & Catering Technology ; Industrial Packaging ; Cardboard & Printed Packaging

      That didn't take long. Where are my ear plugs?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  29. ECHR by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    IANAL but I strongly suspect that the ECHR would completely strike out non-association. It is clearly a human rights violation. Unfortunately our pathetic right-wing Murdoch/Rothermere Press is totally uninterested in civil liberties - except of course their right to hack computers, listen in on voicemail, threaten vulnerable people (Charlotte Church case) and misrepresent the EU.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:ECHR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and their right to lie about the ECHR being an EU institution.

    2. Re:ECHR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your first two statements are spot-on while your third is pathetic because while you blame these corporations for the actions of a small number of its employees (who have been arrested or are under investigation), you curiously did NOT mention the numbers of civil servants and others who were NOT part of these corporations but have also been arrested or are also under investigation.

      Feel free to continue to believe (if you can still do this in the UK) that all guilt and evil comes from the people and institutions which you personally disagree with.

      I for one believe in the rule of law and "innocent until proven guilty."

  30. Perfect solution for David Haye & Dereck Chiso by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Viola! No trash talk press conference brawls anymore!

    . . . and for Adele and her finger . . .

    The UK now has a law to order folks to, "Oh! Behave! . . . "

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  31. Punished for embarrassing the 'security' services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A £23 million operation prior to the royal wedding and these guys were roaming the underground.

    As the treatment of Manning shows, the greatest crime is to embarrass a politician.

  32. Reall, Britain? by Totenglocke · · Score: 0

    Yea, this is ridiculous. Christ Britons, aren't you getting sick of the constant elimination of basic freedoms? Is there any point whatsoever where you'll actually say "Enough!" and stand up for yourselves?

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Reall, Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't. Those that stood up have ASBOs.

    2. Re:Reall, Britain? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Too busy blaming Muslims, the PC Brigade and health and safety.

    3. Re:Reall, Britain? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Comprehension fail but don't let that stop your rant of invective.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:Reall, Britain? by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Informative

      *cough* poll tax riots

      *cough* student fees riots

      *cough* 1 million people marching through London against the Iraq war

      What have **you ever done**, what civil disobedience (what a term!) have you participated in ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Reall, Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What have **you ever done**, what civil disobedience (what a term!) have you participated in ?

      I still seed until my ratio reaches 2.0

    6. Re:Reall, Britain? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I can't say about the poll tax riots (because frankly, I don't have the energy to look them up), but the students fees are about immature people rioting over being forced to be more financially responsible for themselves instead of forcing others to pay their bills, and the war has nothing to do with people's right - so I'm really not sure what your point was. Maybe your point was that they love to riot, just not over things that actually relate to a tyrannical government that constantly takes away more and more freedom?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    7. Re:Reall, Britain? by Saintwolf · · Score: 1

      I can't say about the poll tax riots (because frankly, I don't have the energy to look them up), but the students fees are about immature people rioting over being forced to be more financially responsible for themselves instead of forcing others to pay their bills, and the war has nothing to do with people's right - so I'm really not sure what your point was. Maybe your point was that they love to riot, just not over things that actually relate to a tyrannical government that constantly takes away more and more freedom?

      And yet Scottish students still get free university education, at the British taxpayers' expense of course.

    8. Re:Reall, Britain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Note how of those three only one had any effect, and only after it turned violent for a long and sustained period. By ignoring protest the government broke our democracy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  33. Re:Asking for and getting are two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think we have to wait and see what the UK legal system says about this before we can comment intelligently.

    You must be new here.

  34. Re:Historic places of interest are of public inter by RDW · · Score: 1

    As a keen photographer myself - to me these disused areas of the city are areas of public interest - particularly the old closed down underground stations. Rather than slapping down ASBOs on people - London Transport should wake up to the potential of their sites - and turn them into museums or at least offer guided tours of these sites - open them up to the curious public to view the sites in a safe manner

    They actually did this a couple of months ago in the same station the 'explorers' were arrested in:

    http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2011/11/01/your-chance-to-visit-an-abandoned-tube-station/

    - and let photographers take the pictures they want to take. Just stop treating photographers as potential terrorist - because that is the last thing we are!

    This, it seems, is a step too far for them!:

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/DSLRs_banned_from_Aldwych_tube_station_news_310663.html

    AP and the BJP made a fuss, which has at least got TfL thinking:

    http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2136431/london-underground-apologises-dslr-ban-blunder

    'The Museum is also exploring the possibility of holding a photography day at the end of the year at the station. "This would be for a much smaller group of people who could use digital SLRs and other equipment. The smaller group will be much easier to manage and allow visitors to get the photographs they want whilst being able to safely get up and down the spiral staircase."'

  35. ASBOs ... by jopet · · Score: 1

    ASBOs are virtually unknown in all the European countries I know of. They seem to be the perfect tool for state terrorism against citizens though. So I expect something similar to creep into the laws of other European countries too ...

    1. Re:ASBOs ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had them in the United States for years. Even the lowest magisterial courts can issue restraining orders forbidding one person coming within a certain distance of another, from contacting them or attempting to contact them, either directly or indirectly, for an arbitrary period of time.

      It's amazing that it only took 12 years from the founding of our nation to fall into deeper and more covert tyranny than that which we were trying to escape.

    2. Re:ASBOs ... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Even the lowest magisterial courts can issue restraining orders forbidding one person coming within a certain distance of another, from contacting them or attempting to contact them, either directly or indirectly, for an arbitrary period of time

      I'm not aware of any situation where a restraining order has forbidden someone from approaching or talking to someone who wants to talk to them. Restraining orders are from keeping someone away that you don't want to see.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  36. Transport for London ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Transport for London members are banned from placing their heads up their own rectums for a period of ten years. It is felt the ban will improve safety on London roads and aid in the overall function of Transport for London.

  37. Sounds like a cover-up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What dark secret lies at the heart of Aldwych station?

    1. Re:Sounds like a cover-up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the obvious: This whole thing is smoke and mirrors to catch your attention and prevent you from noticing the real issues at hand.

    2. Re:Sounds like a cover-up... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I've heard they found a "blue phone box" but that doesn't make any sense...

  38. Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You quoted the BBC's examples. e.g. the wheel clamper:

    "Not only was he clamping cars parked on land where he had no licence to operate, but he once impounded a police car. "

    The crime he committed was extracting money with menace. However that's a pain for the police to prosecute, you know they'd have to record his actions and take witness evidence etc. Far easier to get a magistrate (magistrates are not legally trained, they are not lawyers they are laypeople), to issue an ASBO.

    I don't think ASBO has a real use, its used because it's so easy to use. It's exactly because it's easy to get that it's used instead of a real prosecution.
    But it ends up with this and many more ridiculous nonsense. The idea that freedom of speech is so low, that trespass (which is not a crime BTW) trumps it? Who decided this? Parliament? No, one layperson. All it takes for rights to disappear is one layperson in the UK it seems.

    1. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      However that's a pain for the police to prosecute, you know they'd have to record his actions and take witness evidence etc.

      Cry me a fucking river. I don't think I'll ever accept "but it's haaaaard" as an excuse from the police if they're bitching about fucking due process.

    2. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder, what would happen if you were to get a magistrate to issue an ASBO forbidding all magistrates to issue ASBOs after the date on it?

    3. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trespass on the railway is a criminal offence.

    4. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      The idea that freedom of speech is so low, that trespass (which is not a crime BTW) trumps it? Who decided this? Parliament? No, one layperson. All it takes for rights to disappear is one layperson in the UK it seems.

      In many countries, trespassing on a rail line is a special offence. Where I am, it's an instant $10,000 fine. It's all meant to discourage you walking on railway lines in front of 80 tonne metal bricks which require an entire kilometre to stop. The Underground is also likely electrified, further increasing that risk.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    5. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that was the OP's point -- thanks for clarifying what everyone else had already noted...

    6. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those playing at home, trespass is not a crime as it's not considered a Criminal Act, but it is still covered under Tort Law. So you can still be prosecuted for it. Just thought I'd mention this as some might have read the bit

      trespass (which is not a crime BTW) and suddenly thought it could be done without consequences.

    7. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trespass comes under Tort law, not Criminal law, so isn't a crime (which is what the parent meant by it not being a 'crime'). It doesn't mean you won't get prosecuted for it, so a $10,000 fine for walking on the tracks is entirely possible for a non-criminal act.

    8. Re:Wheel clamper committed a crime by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yes, but trespassing on a rail line is a criminal offence. Not a tort.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  39. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And people say the US sucks, at least they tell you who to be friends with...

  40. Re:Indirect communication by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    "I didn't talk to him. I just posted stuff on my Facebook Wall. It's not my fault he read it along with my 1300 other Facebook Friends!"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  41. Leveson enquiry by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I don't normally respond to ACs, nor do I ever mod them. However, you have managed to annoy me by misrepresenting the facts (and calling me "pathetic" is not rational argument.)

    I have actually been following the Leveson Enquiry, and it is pretty obvious that (a) it is not a small number of employees; the last I remember we were up to 47 arrests and Leveson is being told that it was part of the corporate culture and (b) the police and CPS officials who are having their collars felt got money from NI. To slightly mis-quote a retired KGB official "Capitalism is wonderful. You would be amazed how little money it takes to get someone to betray their country".

    The point of my complaint is that the British right-wing press is very quick to support erosions of civil liberties, while very loud in demanding its own right to exceed the limits of the law. As a result, obvious attempts to erode civil liberties go unreported (or supported). It is an unhealthy climate which has been imported from the US.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Leveson enquiry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not call YOU pathetic--I labeled your third STATEMENT pathetic. (Note that you yourself used the word in your original post.) Your knowledge of the facts are far better than mine; I truly did not realize it was 47! It was not my intent to misrepresent the facts; I was simply ignorant of them.

      Now that you have told me what annoyed you, it's my turn: your use of "pathetic right-wing".

      The point of my original reply was (and remains): it is not JUST the "right-wing" which is guilty of the stuff you cite. Have a look at this: WikiLeaks begins publishing 5 million emails from STRATFOR, lines 46--73. Clearly this shows guilt from MANY news sources.

      Thank you for your reply.

    2. Re:Leveson enquiry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, I should have used "allegedly guilty of the stuff you cite."

  42. Clearly there's more behind the scenes... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

    Presumably they stumbled across the assembly facility for the secret robot army the UK is going to use reconquer the dissident colonies.

  43. the law isnt like that now by waterbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    you need a guilty mind and a guilty act to constitute a crime.

    The law might have been like that once, but it isn't now (strict criminal liability) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal).

    Strict liability is one of those things that seems to creep in when it seems to lawmakers like a good idea at the time. But once it's in place, the lawmakers find it rather easy to overextend it, and make it cover more and more matters that many people would say ought to be judged under the old standard of intent.

    -wb-

    1. Re:the law isnt like that now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Many people"? I seriously doubt that there are that many people who oppose DUI laws, or other forms of criminal negligence. In the UK (to stay on-topic) you can't infer intent from a likely outcome, you need virtual certainty of an outcome to deduce intent. (Prosecution can of course still prove mens rea in other ways.)

  44. Anti-social behaviour order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should issue anti-social behaviour orders to any asshole with over 100 watts of audio in their house or car instead.

  45. Suitable punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agree that the authorities are right when they pursue these geezers, but this punishment seems to interfere with their basic civil rights. I would much rather see them fined heavily (£1k per infringement + reimbursement of all damages, including law enforcement, public transport and internal security – easily in the neighbourhood of several million GBP). If they can't pay up, the punks should prepare to have all their property confiscated and auctioned. Repeat offenders should be put behind bars without a question.

  46. Rum, Sodomy and the Lash. And Facebook by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Hard to believe you lost the WHOLE empire.

  47. Hi Orwell! by haggus71 · · Score: 1

    Whenever I worry about how invasive or "Big Brotherly" things might be getting here, I just have to see one of these stories from Great Britain and relax.

  48. Rather harsh for trespassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The crime these 4 committed is called "trespassing" (in the US). Unless you trespass on a restricted government site, then it is a simple misdemeanor.

  49. IMO, some stuff TfL does should be ASBO'd. by mwooldri · · Score: 1

    Things like: Buses and tube trains terminating before their advertised destination. Roadworks in the wrong place at the wrong time. Spokespeople contributing to global warming. Yep, TfL should give itself an ASBO.

  50. How to re-establish contact by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    If any of the urbexers are reading this, here's how you can re-establish contact with your friends anonymously:

    1. Set up a Tor node and torchat on your home computer.

    2. Create instructions for your friends on how to set up a Tor node and torchat, and through Tor with a locked-down browser, put it online. Putting it on your own .onion hosting and using a tor2web URL would be best so that you can take it down later, but Pastebin could do if you're not that good with computers. If you use Pastebin be sure to include your Tor hidden service name (chat username).

    3. Now all you have to do is get this document to your friends. At a time when you are normally sleeping, leave the house wearing a hoodie and gloves (through an exit where CCTVs can't see you, don't make it possible to pin down where you came from), leave your cell phone at home and turned on. Do not take your car. You can take public transportation if you pay with cash. Use a pay phone as far as convenient from your house to call your friends. Mask your voice and don't give names. Just tell them to write down a website and visit it. Leave a voicemail if they aren't there or hang up on you thinking it's a prank.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  51. I don't think that's constitutional by kikito · · Score: 1

    You can't just tell two people not to talk to each other. The same way you can't tell them to pray to a particular god or only have sex in a certain way.

    1. Re:I don't think that's constitutional by PPH · · Score: 1

      Not sure how the Constitution applies in the UK, or what sorts of freedom of speech rights they have there.

      Be aware that even in the USA, there are conditions of parole (and other court ordered situations) in which your freedom to associate with certain other individuals can be restricted.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:I don't think that's constitutional by kikito · · Score: 1

      Well, in the US they can call you "terrorist" and remove all your rights, so ...

  52. Geocaching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were just trying to find a logbook. Since GPS does not work so well underground, they had to follow clues and explore.

    Now they cannot post their experience on geocaching sites to warn others not to follow the cache. :)

  53. Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport by trudyscousin · · Score: 1

    Let me ABSOs go loose, Lew
    Let me ABSOs go loose
    They're of no further use, Lew
    So let me ABSOs go loose.

    (with apologies to Rolf Harris)

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
  54. Granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One was already granted for 2 years.

  55. So sports, driving, etc. injuries get a pass? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    However, following an accident caused by another, unrelated group of urban explorers in the tunnels a few months later, Transport for London applied to have ASBOs issued to the Aldwych four.

    What is unique about exploring tunnels that is different than mountain climbing, playing sports, skateboarding, etc. etc. etc.

    Was the accident especially horrific?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  56. This is what is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these comments, and I can't find a reference to Seinfeld. Some nerds you are.

  57. Re:Asking for and getting are two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is politics on Slashdot. No one will comment intelligently.

  58. These are "civil rights" not "human rights" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To me, telling people they can't associate with their closest friends is an incredible invasion of human rights," says Garrett.

    No, it isn't a human right to associate with people. Its a civil right. Its a civil right that is guaranteed to all people residing in incorporated territory of the United States (the 50 States + Puerto Rico), not just citizens, by their Constitution; British have no such unalienable right.

  59. Doublespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone else note that that an Anti-Socal Behavior Order (something, allegedly to limit anti-socal behavior) is telling them they cannot be socal?

    War is Peace
    Freedom is slavory
    Ignorance is strength

  60. my god, ive forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the abandoned london underground.

    must explore the deep level sections before i die.

  61. pfff.. by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    And you wonder why people are going to bomb/fight goverment facilities.. What nonsense is this kind of crap if you can't even discuss a simple thing as those tunnels. If goverments are issueing unnecessary warrants like this, then they should be targeted because that just goes against all democratic sense.. It looks like even hitler was more lenient than the UK goverment..
    If they were planning to bomb something instead of just exploring the tube's then it would be a whole different matter, but comeon, stop this useless abuse of power.. what's hidden in those tunnels they don't want 'us' to see?

  62. Re:Punished for embarrassing the 'security' servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totally agree with this.
    I KNOW that neither group did any breaking or entering and knew the risks that they were taking as well as knowing equally as much what they were doing. Both groups are quite experienced at this type of thing. They were foolish (imo) to do something on that weekend when there was a very high security presence in the capital.

    TfL have been hugely embarrassed by this, a 'bunch of 'kids' breaking into the the underground' as I am sure the Daily Mail readers would call it. The ASBO is surely non-enforceable and a breach of rights.

    TfL would be far better expending efforts researching how they got in and shoring up the security for the games in a few months.

  63. A caution is far more than a warning by Builder · · Score: 1

    A caution is not just a warning. It is pretty much the same thing as a conviction. It shows up on all criminal records bureau checks. But unlike an actual conviction, that follow you around for longer.

    NEVER accept a caution. If your solicitor advises you to, get a new solicitor. Always opt for charges and a trial. You're far more likely to walk away clean that way.

  64. Time to move by halfkoreanamerican · · Score: 1

    Wow. This is ridiculous. It is certainly time to move to another country, is it not?

  65. That ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    monkey island...

  66. The way of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) People do stupid things
    2) Other people think the stupid thing should be stopped
    3) A Law is written
    4) If the law is sufficiently well written it will be applied in a fair manner and all will be well
    5) If the law is not sufficiently well written it will be applied in an unfair manner, in which case it becomes an instance of people doing stupid things. Go to point 1.

    And so on.