Well Labour appear to be gearing up to next year's STV council elections by attempted to centralise some control. Possibly scared of losing control of certain councils they are going to insist that councils use ASBOs to deal with issues. What will happen if they don't? Will the council be served with an ASBO or a dispersal order from Labour's Holyrood Politburu?
Other proposals include giving front line teachers the power to exclude pupils without refeeral to senior staff, sin bins in schools and tougher punishments for certain crimes.
Looks like a serious case of control freakery to me.
Showing posts with label ASBO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ASBO. Show all posts
Monday, 25 September 2006
Monday, 26 June 2006
Labour Not so Tough on Crime
Prime Minister's Questions in the last couple of weeks has been dominated by law and order so Channel Four have a timely report comparing the main parties voting records on these issues.
In the vote on the Criminal Justice Act at its third reading on 20 May 2003 Labour voted for and the Liberal Democrats and the Tories voted against. But what were the reasons. It introduced a range of measures including indeterminate sentences for anyone committing a serious sexual or violent offence, and an early removal scheme to allow foreign nationals to be deported at the halfway point in their sentence.
The reason that the Lib Dems voted against was that it introduced a measure that allowed automatic parole at half of their sentence for anybody with being sentenced to over four years. The Lib Dems believed this should be the decision for a parole board on a case to case basis. The Tories did not give a reason for their opposition.
The Lib Dems voted against the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill at its third reading on 24 June 2003. However, we had voted in favour of their introduction in the Crime and Disorder act 1998. The reason that the vote changed in 5 years is that Lib Dem Councils had introduced Anti-Social Behaviour Contracts which have proven to be such a good idea that they are now being taken on by the Home Office. Both Labour and the Tories back ASBOs which may not be around much longer following the Home Offices new consideration of ABCs.
The view of Channel Four on all this is that the Lib Dem and Tory vote against Labour policy is either because they seek to introduce tougher policy or because they have seen fundamental flaws in the legislation that labour has introduced.
Therefore Mr Blair is not so tough on crime and muddled on how to legislate on crime. So next time you hear the alternative New Labour sound bit rolled out remember the facts.
In the vote on the Criminal Justice Act at its third reading on 20 May 2003 Labour voted for and the Liberal Democrats and the Tories voted against. But what were the reasons. It introduced a range of measures including indeterminate sentences for anyone committing a serious sexual or violent offence, and an early removal scheme to allow foreign nationals to be deported at the halfway point in their sentence.
The reason that the Lib Dems voted against was that it introduced a measure that allowed automatic parole at half of their sentence for anybody with being sentenced to over four years. The Lib Dems believed this should be the decision for a parole board on a case to case basis. The Tories did not give a reason for their opposition.
The Lib Dems voted against the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill at its third reading on 24 June 2003. However, we had voted in favour of their introduction in the Crime and Disorder act 1998. The reason that the vote changed in 5 years is that Lib Dem Councils had introduced Anti-Social Behaviour Contracts which have proven to be such a good idea that they are now being taken on by the Home Office. Both Labour and the Tories back ASBOs which may not be around much longer following the Home Offices new consideration of ABCs.
The view of Channel Four on all this is that the Lib Dem and Tory vote against Labour policy is either because they seek to introduce tougher policy or because they have seen fundamental flaws in the legislation that labour has introduced.
Therefore Mr Blair is not so tough on crime and muddled on how to legislate on crime. So next time you hear the alternative New Labour sound bit rolled out remember the facts.
Monday, 17 April 2006
ASBOs: Is There One Rule for the Rich?
According to Saturday's Daily Record residents of the Knightsridge area of Livingston are furious about not being granted an ASBO to deal with teenagers in their area who throw petrol bombs and have nightly running battles around the estate.
Unlike Mid Calder, Knightsridge is a former council estate and many of the residents there are accusing Lothian and Borders police of having one rule for the rich (Mid Calder) and one rule for the poor (Knightsridge).
However, as reported here last December the Livingston division had already said they would be stretched to run to area ASBOs simultaneously. They have according to the report assigned more officers to the area. However, reading of the nature of the disturbances Knightsridge appears to be in more need of control at the moment than Mid Calder.
Unlike Mid Calder, Knightsridge is a former council estate and many of the residents there are accusing Lothian and Borders police of having one rule for the rich (Mid Calder) and one rule for the poor (Knightsridge).
However, as reported here last December the Livingston division had already said they would be stretched to run to area ASBOs simultaneously. They have according to the report assigned more officers to the area. However, reading of the nature of the disturbances Knightsridge appears to be in more need of control at the moment than Mid Calder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)