There are no pros. This is salami slicing. First a short-term local ban, then watch as the terms lengthen and areas widen.

In every area of society, this government eschews spending the necessary funds to enforce existing law on lawbreakers, in favour of passing more and more illiberal laws which are easier and cheaper to enforce on everybody.

It's about time the public, judiciary and police presented a united front and stood up to them.
Infoholic UK | 07.02.08 - 2:37 pm | #

"I am going about my lawful occasions, officer."

Sounds like more of a PG Wodehouse moment to me.
Mark Dowling | Homepage | 07.02.08 - 2:42 pm | #

Is it me or should it not be the Police who deal with this problem rather than banning alcohol sales generally?
essexlad | 07.02.08 - 4:39 pm | #

It is not usually advisable to have a "Magna Carta" moment in 2008.

The law has been heavily tipped in favour of the Police since the "halcyon" days of 1984. Even during the miner's strike the High Court made several decisions favouring the Police - e.g. to stop coaches and turn them back etc.

An interesting book - (now a bit out of date) - is Ewing and Gearty's "Freedom under Thatcher." Pity that they don't do an update to "Freedom under Blair" and a further sequel relating to Brown.

OUR English freedom is now extremely limited.
Peter Hargreaves | 07.03.08 - 10:42 am | #

Premises closure orders - see

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts...#pt8-pb1- l1g160

Magistrates probably need to ask - and insist on proper answers to - questions such as:-

On what evidential basis is disorder expected? It should not be assumed to be so just because a lot of young people are coming to town.

If the court agrees that disorder is to be expected then - should any order apply to ALL licensed premises in the town or could it be limited to premises "at or near" the place of the expected disorder.

Is an order actually necessary to prevent any expected disorder? Why, for example, cannot normal police presence suffice or an enhanced police presence?

The possible loss of trade is probably not a factor the court should consider since if the court agrees that disorder is expected and that an order is necessary then they should make it.

It is also interesting that section 160 allows the police to use "necessary force" to enforce the order should, for instance, anyone try to ignore the order and stay open. Nothing there about "reasonable force."

Will this be a District Judge case - probably drafted in for the occasion? I hope not since local magistrates are supposed to know their area and local knowledge might well be relevant to a proper understanding of the application. Watch this space.
Peter Hargreaves | 07.03.08 - 11:02 am | #

"lawful occasions"?

It might be instructive to consider the charging options available to a member of the constabulary nowadays in response to that answer.

For starters, surely refusal to assist a police officer is a suspicious action? The classic incident is probably this one - http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspec....html#2005072 , - but there must be many since then.....
Dodgy Geezer | 07.03.08 - 11:18 am | #

You can cherish your hundred of years of an Englishman's freedom all you like, but the fact is those hundreds of years are now in the past. All of them.

Try giving an answer like that to the Fuzz these days and see what you get.
Andrew Duffin | 07.03.08 - 5:41 pm | #

Some of us "Enemy Within" consider it extreamly fortunate that Bystanders demeanure was not of the working class - Otherwise chum, your paws would not have touched the ground after giving an answer like thay.

And where was David Davies and Cameron when this was going on? Crying out for more represive laws ?

GW
GW | 07.03.08 - 8:20 pm | #

And on what lawful grounds could I have been dealt with? Don't forget that this was about 1980 during the Thatcher Terror, not the New Labour dawn.

Oh dear, nothing seems certain any more.
Bystander | Homepage | 07.03.08 - 9:42 pm | #

Give an answer like that in these post-SOCAP days and you'll find the plod in question radioing for assistance as a m.o.p. is being agressive and threatening, then you get arrested for a public order offence and try to intimidate you to take a caution, so that they've got a nice detection to go with the arrest!
Howard Wilson | Homepage | 07.04.08 - 3:36 am | #

"I am going about my lawful occasions, office"

I bet that sounds a lot better slightly slurred from ones morning sherry (if it's possible to buy enough for a little tipple)
7db | 07.04.08 - 2:12 pm | #