yes, for instance the banker community behaved in a very financially antisocial manner. Though that's probably not what you meant. Your task next is to work out the comparative magnitude of these different problems and to compare that to the magnitude of effort expended on prosecuting them.

Anyway global regulators are doing all they can to clean up the banks and have them pay restitution for their actions. So it's not like they are being allowed to carry on either.

Oh, you mean like how the credit default swap market is back to 2008 levels already? Perhaps you're referring to how clearly illegal behavior (HSBC) was settled without any well-earned prosecutions? Yes, they are definitely on the case! Just after we remove some of these undesirables first...

That's not what was said, nor was it what was meant. I explicitly mentioned prosecuting both of them, but brought up the blind spots that contain the larger problems. Paying a lot more attention to the much smaller problem is not logical.

> Anyway global regulators are doing all they can to clean up the banks and have them pay restitution for their actions. So it's not like they are being allowed to carry on either.

Not as far as I know. Citation needed of the number of bankers prosecuted or jailed for malfeasance. And to why it can't happen again.

You mean the banks themselves?

In the light of the recent complaints on this blog about homeless people in SF: maybe there is a completely surprising "disruption" lurking, if you do not address this subject with a "we" mindset.

Early research suggests that some people drink lots because they think that's the norm and it's what everyone else is drinking.

When someone ends up in a&e for alcohol related stuff a note is taken of who sold them alcohol. This allows us to aee if any particular clubs need to work on harm reduction.

Change minimum pricing for alcohol, and prevent special offers for alcohol. This would have minimal impact on most people, but would help reduce binge drinking.

Have better training for gps and gp nurses. Most people drinking too much are not serious enough for specialst drug and alcohol rehab, and primary care is a more appropriate setting for them.

Urban design and planning can set expectations - early experiments show that clubbers leaving a premises are quieter with good planning of te environment.

Sensible enforcement of existing laws.

I think it's difficult to paint retube as believing that society doesn't exist when they used the term "anti-social". It kind of implies society, don't you think?

Some behaviors can fine by themselves or excusable as one-offs, but become obnoxious in particular circumstances, often persistent repetition such as constantly playing very loud music, persistently parking a car in front of someone's driveway, etc.

We all have the right to do many things, but in some situations if those rights are persistently abused it can be fair that there's a way to withdraw them, or escalate the penalty of an otherwise minor infraction, but only in specific circumstances.

This may be annoying, but it is not a crime.

Loud music, blocking driveways: now there are often existing rules about these. Rules that are objective (eg: no noise heard in a residence that exceeds 40 db between 9 PM and 8 AM) are the right way to stop the nuisance behavior not: "I don't like your looks, so you can't make any noise here."

On paper, that sort of thing is great, but as far as I've seen, it falls apart pretty quickly in practice. As someone currently trying, and failing, to use proper channels to deal with antisocial behaviour from a neighbour, the `objective' rules actually end up tying the hands of those trying to fix the problem. What starts out as a well-intentioned action with the aim of ensuring fairness pretty quickly ends up acting as a shield for the offender and a roadblock for the victim. In my particular case, and the case of several others with whom I've spoken, the problem is compounded because the victims have Uni degrees and non-regional accents, so they're clearly bo-boes throwing their weight about and drive out the `disadvantaged'.

So the only solution to "bad government" (lack of enforcement) is more "bad government" (we-don't-like-you laws.) Sorry, I don't agree.

I used to work in local government doing ordinance enforcement and I would have pilloried any inspector who performed as you describe.

It was my experience however that people would move into certain areas because they were extremely cheap and then complain about the pre-existing problems. My favorite were people who moved into new condo building adjacent to commuter train tracks and then complained about frequency and noise of the trains.

Depends on the extent. If it is persistent, and makes you genuinely fear for your safety, it can be assault (in the UK assault does not require the person to touch you).

Which is another reason why this law is idiotic: The legal system in the UK already have ways of dealing with this. However the police generally do not want to follow up allegations related to these crimes because e.g. assault without any physical contact is extremely hard to prove for obvious reasons.

If they try hard to avoid enforcing the current laws, there's little reason to think the new law is being pushed forward to help the public.