In which I agree with George Monbiot

****

I promise this won't become a common occurrence but George is absolutely right about the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill:

The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". It would replace asbos with ipnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations. In other words, they can impose a kind of community service order on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.

I've written before about how the concept of "anti-social behaviour" makes criminals of people who have committed no crime:

I'm finding the term "anti-social behaviour" - or ASB - increasingly worrying. While the authorities deny that the purpose of the term (one of those mealy-mouthed, third way Blairite catch-all ideas) is to criminalise behaviour that is not actually criminal this is precisely what seems to happen.

This new Bill extends the arbitrary power of the police and councils to include "dispersal orders",  a "community trigger" essentially allowing people to gang up on a neighbour and get the police to support them, and the use of these new orders to speed up evictions. The result will be a further collection of bans, restrictions and controls all imposed to give the police powers to criminalise normal, peaceful behaviour such as you and I having a quiet drink and a chat sat on a wall in the park. The only criteria the authorities need is "nuisance or annoyance" - how subjective can that be?

....

The digital police state - not so far away at all

****

You, of course, have nothing to fear. You are an honest citizen and Judge Dredd isn't going to swoop down and exercise summary judgement over any infringement. Or so you think and you call for more CCTV cameras, for DNA databases, for biometrics on passports, for speed cameras and for in-car tracking devices. And the government smiles benignly as it rushes to comply with your desire for security - protection from terrorists they say or 'responding to anti-social behaviour'. Sometimes it's even simpler - the government tells you as it licks its chops that these measures will be ever so convenient for you as you go about your life.

We have constructed much of the infrastructure for control and it is but a short step to tie all this together:

….everything a regime would need to build an incredibly intimidating digital police state—including software that facilitates data mining and real-time monitoring of citizens—is commercially available right now.

And don't pretend that this digital police state will be in China or Saudi Arabia, it's as likely to be right here in Britain. They'll say you have "rights" but they'll also know that surveillance brings power that mere rights do not protect. And those rights will be shoved aside for 'security', for 'community safety', all lovingly enforced by the authorities and a a legion of 'concerned citizens'.

I hope I am wrong and that this isn't the path we're set on. But I am right to fear what that path means.

....