This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/may/27/antisocial-behaviour-bill-threat-naturists

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Antisocial behaviour bill's threat to naturists Antisocial behaviour bill's threat to naturists
(4 months later)
The antisocial behaviour, crime and policing bill is currently working its way through the House of Commons and receives its second reading on 10 June. It is our contention that this bill, as drafted, is flawed and will lead to a host of unintended consequences.The antisocial behaviour, crime and policing bill is currently working its way through the House of Commons and receives its second reading on 10 June. It is our contention that this bill, as drafted, is flawed and will lead to a host of unintended consequences.
Our first cause for concern is section 1 (2), which defines antisocial behaviour as "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". With such a broad definition, it is tantamount to making everything illegal. At a time when police services are looking to utilise their resources effectively, this bill seems to be counterproductive as it is inviting those in dispute to seek the intervention of frontline police officers. The bill, however, does not just deal with events that have happened – as long as someone believes the potential for misbehaviour is there, he or she can seek a police officer's assistance.Our first cause for concern is section 1 (2), which defines antisocial behaviour as "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". With such a broad definition, it is tantamount to making everything illegal. At a time when police services are looking to utilise their resources effectively, this bill seems to be counterproductive as it is inviting those in dispute to seek the intervention of frontline police officers. The bill, however, does not just deal with events that have happened – as long as someone believes the potential for misbehaviour is there, he or she can seek a police officer's assistance.
Our other cause for concern is section 1 (3), which provides the courts with the power to: "grant [an] injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour". Without any kind of definition, this will lead to magistrates – and in the first instance police officers and PCSOs – making decisions on what they personally deem unacceptable behaviour. It is our contention that the provisions of the bill have the potential to be misapplied, if not abused, just because the person in the dock has a different belief.Our other cause for concern is section 1 (3), which provides the courts with the power to: "grant [an] injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour". Without any kind of definition, this will lead to magistrates – and in the first instance police officers and PCSOs – making decisions on what they personally deem unacceptable behaviour. It is our contention that the provisions of the bill have the potential to be misapplied, if not abused, just because the person in the dock has a different belief.
Many naturists already have the perception that the Public Order Act 1986 – introduced as an anti-riot measure – are being misapplied against them. These instances are frequently overturned at a higher court. It is our belief that the potential for a miscarriage of justice is higher with this new flawed bill than is currently endured by naturists.Many naturists already have the perception that the Public Order Act 1986 – introduced as an anti-riot measure – are being misapplied against them. These instances are frequently overturned at a higher court. It is our belief that the potential for a miscarriage of justice is higher with this new flawed bill than is currently endured by naturists.
Edmund Burke said in 1780 that "bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny". We contend that this bill is bad law in the making, and would urge readers to inform their MPs of the need for amendment.
Reg Barlow
Chairman, Naturist Action Group		Edmund Burke said in 1780 that "bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny". We contend that this bill is bad law in the making, and would urge readers to inform their MPs of the need for amendment.
Reg Barlow
Chairman, Naturist Action Group
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.