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."

61 of 387 comments (clear)

  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. 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 JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful
  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 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

  4. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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).

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

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

      not fair

      Life isn't fair.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    17. 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.
    18. 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'
  5. 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: 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?

    2. 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."
    3. 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.

    4. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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?
  8. 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?

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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 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 :)

  14. 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 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
  15. 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?

  16. 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
  17. 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 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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
  18. 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.

    --
  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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
  22. 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

  23. 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-