House of Lords blocks law on being annoying in public

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019

Peers block law on being annoying

Ministers want to give local authorities an alternative to anti-social behaviour order.

Peers have vetoed a government proposal under which courts could stop people being annoying in public.

Ministers want to replace anti-social behaviour orders in England and Wales with injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance (Ipnas).

Courts could impose these on anyone engaging - or threatening to engage - in "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".

But the government was defeated by 306 to 178 votes in the Lords.

The 128-vote defeat came despite ministers offering to hold talks about how the proposed measure could be improved.

The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said many peers believed the new injunction would undermine freedom of speech and association

Crossbench peer Lord Dear, who led opposition to the plan, said anyone over the age of 10 could be served with an Ipna, which could last for an indefinite period of time and result in a prison term if breached.

"It risks it 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," he said.

"This is a crowded island that we live in and we must exercise a degree surely of tolerance and forbearance."
'Crazy law'

The Home Office has said the new injunctions - part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill - would never be imposed in an unreasonable way.

But campaigners said the laws would not deter those most intent on causing trouble and likely to be committing other offences.

"But it will give massive power to the authorities to seek court orders to silence people guilty of nothing more than breaching political correctness or social etiquette," Reform Clause 1 campaign director Simon Calvert said.

MPs could seek to reinsert the proposal in the bill when it returns to the Commons.

After debate on the report stage of the bill, the legislation still has to go through its third reading in the House of Lords.

The House of Commons will then consider any amendments made by the Lords before the bill can be sent for Royal Assent - when the Queen signs bills into law.

Well done to the House of Lords.

As somebody who used to advocate it's abolition, i've come full circle. The second (unelected) chamber is a great leash on which the elected House of Commons is put on. Much like the Monarchy. As far as i'm concerned, the more oversight over our politicians - the better.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Replacing ASBOs with IPNAs would have been hilariously bad, it's basically lawfully stopping people from talking too loud or saying the wrong things

[GommeInc]

The Lords are amazing, they're better than the idiots we have in the Commons. As per usual, they've stopped something stupid coming into force. Why the Commons thought this would be a clever idea is beyond belief. It doesn't need to change to become more restricting. Quite the opposite in some respects.