» Thursday, October 28, 2004

Anti-Social Behaviour

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) briefed journalists on the Prime Minister’s anti-social behaviour speech this afternoon. He pointed in particular to the announcement about giving more power to town and parish councils – which now covered something like a third of England – to build cleaner, safer neighbourhoods – specifically the power to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for offences like dog-fouling, litter, graffiti and night-time noise. The FPNs would vary in amount, ranging from £30 to £100, depending on the offence. For example, a £50 penalty notice would be issued for dog fouling. The PMOS pointed out that town councillors would not be personally responsible for issuing FPNs. This would be the job of rangers and wardens whom town councils already employed. David Blunkett had also announced today that civil courts would be able to order compulsory drug treatment with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). The purpose of this was to strengthen our drive to break the link between drugs and crime. Put to him that no member of the Lobby had ever seen a parish or town council ranger or warden and were not even aware that they existed, the Times correspondent took the opportunity to inform his colleagues that there were, in fact, wardens in Norfolk where he lived. Responding to the resulting babble of excitement from journalists, the Times correspondent said that he didn’t just go up to Norfolk at weekends to play golf, you know.

Questioned as to whether this new role for wardens and rangers was necessary in the light of the fact that the police and community support officers did the same job, the PMOS pointed out that just as there were different elements of anti-social behaviour, there were also different responses to it at different levels, depending on what the offence was. For example, persistent drunken loutishness outside a pub would require one kind of response, while terrorising a neighbourhood would require another – just as dog-fouling or graffiti would necessitate yet another. It was important not to under-estimate the real difficulties that anti-social behaviour caused communities and the subsequent desire of local communities to take action. People should be very wary about dismissing these problems as minor complaints, because to some people they were not. Put to him that the new responsibilities given to wardens and rangers increased the danger of introducing “army after army to nose into people’s lives”, the PMOS said that he would disagree. If someone was destroying a neighbourhood by spraying graffiti everywhere, for example, no one would consider it nosing into the offender’s life to make sure they stopped doing it. Put to him that this was already the responsibility of police and community support officers, the PMOS said that this wasn’t necessarily the case at a local level.

Asked if parish and town councils had been consulted about the new proposals, the PMOS said that there had been full consultation on these matters with the relevant parties, as you would expect. Asked who would fund the new measures, the PMOS said that these measures were about empowering parish councils to tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour. In any event, parish and town councils already employed rangers and wardens to act on a local level. Asked if rangers and wardens were being asked to take on additional responsibilities, such as issuing FPNs for dog-fouling, because police officers thought they were above such things, the PMOS said that anti-social behaviour, such as dog-fouling, was a real problem which destroyed neighbourhoods. However, we recognised that the police had other priorities. Therefore, it made more sense to give certain powers to wardens and rangers because they were better able to act at a local level.

Briefing took place at 15:45 | Search for related news


  1. It still amazes me the amount of drivel that they come out with……
    " Put to him that this was already the responsibility of police and community support officers, the PMOS said that this wasn’t necessarily the case at a local level" – so why arent the police dealing with this, and do they only deal with ‘national’ cases of graffiti and dog fouling……..
    "civil courts would be able to order compulsory drug treatment" – that would be like trying to force a smoker to quit by force……..oh, wait, i forgot theyre trying to ban it in all public places…
    Cant work out if all this is because the police are too overstreched with all the speed traps and all, or if this is planned as another money making scheme with the on the spot fines dished out by overzealous ‘wardens’ like the parking and litter ones there are about now.

    Comment by tony — 1 Nov 2004 on 6:41 pm | Link

    Comment by SHIVJEET — 22 Oct 2006 on 9:31 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


October 2004
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Sep   Nov »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh