Nuisance and Annoyance Injunctions

[Mark]

Loud children and nudists ‘target of anti-social plans’

Plans to tackle anti-social behaviour could target noisy children and nudists, critics warn.

The proposal to introduce injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance could be used on anyone over the age of ten.

Former chief constable Lord Dear was among those warning that the wording ‘nuisance and annoyance’ casts the net too wide.

The injunctions, which only require proof on the balance of probability, would have a ‘chilling effect on lawful conduct’, he added.

Lord Dear said: ‘It risks being used for those who seek to protest peacefully, noisy children in the street, street preachers, canvassers, carol singers, trick-or-treaters, church bell ringers, clay pigeon shooters, nudists. This is a crowded island that we live in and we must exercise a degree surely of tolerance and forbearance.’

Police, British Transport Police, the Environment Agency, councils, Transport for London, the health secretary and housing providers would be among those able to apply to use Ipnas.

The government wants to replace anti-social behaviour orders with the injunctions, which it argues will be used to better deal with nuisance neighbours. However, peers last night defeated the proposals, 306 against to 178 in favour.

Labour peer Baroness Mallalieu told the Lords most anti-social behaviour was covered by existing criminal laws. She said: ‘Whoever thought up clause one of this bill and managed to slip it under the radar of the Commons is a strong contender for some kind of award.’

The bill will now return to the Commons where ministers could try to tweak it once more.

(Source)

[Leah]

Who said the House of Lords was a waste of space?

[ToneBender]

Labour peer Baroness Mallalieu told the Lords most anti-social behaviour was covered by existing criminal laws. She said: ‘Whoever thought up clause one of this bill and managed to slip it under the radar of the Commons is a strong contender for some kind of award.’

Who said the House of Lords was a waste of space?

The house of 'sober second thought'? I agree. It has a number of important functions not the least of which are oversight of secret budgets (espionage/special ops etc) and kaiboshing bad laws - we (in Canada) just aren't great at vetting candidates.

[Nudielad]

Most of the British government is a waste of space never mind the House of Lords.

[Mark]

Hear hear!

[Leah]

Most of the British government is a waste of space never mind the House of Lords.

...and the alternative is?

[Nudielad]

There isn't, unfortunately we have to put up with them.

[ToneBender]

There is an alternative at least as far as your upper chamber is concerned and that is 'reform'; it's not a cure-all but a step in the right direction.

For example if membership is hereditary obviously that has to go - that's a no-brainer. How can you take a job seriously when you know you already have it for no other reason than birth-right?

Another idea is to add the ability (again if you don't already have it) to eject members for incompetence, non-performance and crimes.

How do you get people into the senate then?

I don't like the idea of election at least not from the public at large as the whole idea is to put experienced, intelligent, level headed people in place to provide quality control and handle the most top-secret aspects of statesmanship.

Unfortunately either public appointment or election from a publicly appointed pool of candidates are the only options that I can see, that make sense.

Thoughts?