Is this really the best way to deal with criminals? prevent them from giving you evidence so you don't have to investigate their crimes.

Do we have a bunch of Fred Colons and Nobby Nobbies running that police force? do they stand on street corners making sure not to see anything too alarming?

"Kellett has been officially banned from being a criminal camerawhore as well as taking part in dangerous driving, failing to observe traffic regulations..................."

How can you be banned from doing something illegal? Isn't everyone already banned from that kinda thing?

I'm hoping that he truly does have a genuine disorder, otherwise he's as dumb as a box of rocks.

He has a right to post anything unless it is illegal surely? If he wants to give the Dibble all the info they need to get an easy arrest then that's his own stupidity but I am personally going to fund a campaign to get this overturned and have him declared a National hero with the keys to the City of Leeds and stuff.

You sure? didn't the owner of a manky beehive and small piggy eyes augmented by mad eye makeup get caught doing this then have no charges?

as for the rest well they are criminal offenses and surely they should be prosecuted rather than asbo'd if they got the evidence?

Most of these young men, who commit crime as frequently as most people brush their teeth, consider the punishemnts they face as a badge of honour.

Jail time or an ASBO are to be bragged about.

How about reversible chemical or surgical impotence as a punishment?

"You can't get it up for one year sayeth the judge".

Then make sure everyone who knows the criminal knows what the sentance is.

It is, after all, young men who mainly cause the problem and young me will not brag about a limp dick.

Well, actually I love to be pedantic. The 'former' video you mention contains no drug use, the latter however does.

Telling the man not to publicly confess to his crimes is conspiracy to cover them up! Tut tut. Hilarious though.

Probably is a vialation of his freedom to express himself. I see his advertising of his crimes as a call for help, with the right electroshock therapy to his testes he could lead an almost normal life.

This one was just some chav wanting to show off. For a more impressive one, how about someone showing up at the Leeds office of West Yorkshire Trading Standards hawking a load of counterfeit DVDs: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/18/confused_dvd_pirate/

what it is about todays criminals in that they seem to have this insane predilection for publicly circle jerking about their illegal exploits as though they cannot get caught.

Is this an inbred genetic trait that seems to be working it's way through the mainly chavish petty criminal classes?

A suitable punishment would be to make them do knitting while being force to listen ot a looped version of Jame Blunt's "Your Beautiful" for a week straight.

On second thoughts the last part of that would not be allowed under the UN's Convention on Human Rights, which applies to everyone but his record company, it seems.

Paris because she is disappointed at not coming up with this brilliant idea for publicity herself.

Say no more....

As far as I can tell, it's been abolished in the UK to the extent that it ever existed (ie, the government suffers the population to have it despite there being no particular legal reason for it to exist). Despite that it still kind of amazes me that you guys seem to tolerate your government having the power to arbitrarily apply any punishment to any situation. You're posting videos we don't like? You now have an ASBO to... let's see... move to London and wear pink hats on Tuesday! Right, then...

I'm genuinely surprised that he has managed to learn to operate a mobile phone and a computer with his knuckles dragging on the floor. What a prat, but like previous posters have said, if he wants to record his crimes for easy processing through the courts, let him.

However there's the problem, so much of this sort of thing is going on, being publicly recorded and these troggs still continue to walk free. So much for all the survellance equipment being put up by Gordo and his cronies, does it only track terrorists and the genuinely innocent going about their business calling a cult a cult? It sure as hell isn't cutting petty crime is it!

> about their illegal exploits as though they cannot get caught.

Civitas surveyed prisoners and found that the average is about 140 crimes per year - with druggies committing over 250. At that rate, it does seem likely if you've already committed a load of offences and didn't get caught, then one more won't materially affect their chances of getting nicked. So yes, it does seem like baddies can commit crimes with impunity. Likewise, I'd be surprised if the penalty for committing 140 crimes is going to be much different from committing 139, so once you''ve started down that path, where's the incentive to stop?

So this guy with his 80 offences on video - at the going rate he's somewhere between 1/3rd and halfway towards getting his collar felt. Quite a way to go before he even reaches the average for getting caught. No wonder he's not worried.

The reason i think so many young criminal types put their videos on youtube etc, is exactly because they don't get caught so they may as well show off to their chums.

This person has 80 videos, so thats 80 times he has not been caught. Now he has been caught and there is video evidence yet he gets an ASBO, which is the most pointless and ill conceived legislation ever.

So any other kids watching him see him doing all this and the worst that happens in the police ask to have his youtube account closed.... boo hoo.

That always makes me laugh when criminals and idiots claim that things infringe their right to free speech, because in the UK there's no such thing! Nor is there a right to peaceful assembly, or in fact, just about anything that comes under the US Constitution.

Well... It is clear it has not so there is a simple tried and tested solution for that - outsource it.

I will really like to see someone wanting to go to prison for "the badge of honour" if this means chopping your own firewood in middle of the Russian taiga.

By the way, the Germans are already doing this instead of Asbos and it is rumoured to work well. I bet that we can improve on the financial arrangements they negotiated with the Russians. After all the UK can probably negotiate bulk rates. It will be cheaper than maintaining the various forms of HMP and it will never suffer from lack of space.

On a second thought it may be just easier to do this in Canada. In either case it will cost half the current cost of keeping a low grade criminal in an HMP.

What do you expect from somone from the wrong side of the Pennines.

But seriously wtf did he think was going to happen after posting these things on youtube? Ahh yes he DIDNT think like most of these idiots .. pity he didnt drive so fast as to get a Darwin award.

Mine is the one with Lancashire on the back.

It's only illegal to take drugs if you're not rich/famous. If you're a pillock from Leeds then it's definitely against the law.

If you're rich/famous or just a dodgy wailing geezer bird with piggy eyes and big hair ), then it's about as serious as being five minutes late back to your parking meter.

If your names Pete Doherty (has anyone got any clue what the little turd is famous for apart from the drugs and knobbing supermodels?) it's part of the Fair Trade scheme for supporting impoverished indigenous hill farmers.

Paris, as a shining example, she'd never be dumb enough to post dodgy videos of herself on the internet.

@Mark Vale:

"and young me will not brag about a limp dick."

I'm glad you're not going to brag about a limp dick. Crucial, crucial 'n' missing there I think.

Hmmm, with all this crap happening , sounds to me like the "ASBO" is now well past it's use by date of stupidity in the extreme , as it is absolutely useless both in thought and the concept is now being abused to the point it has become irrelevant in any society !

Who so ever thought about and created this phoney law should wash their minds out in soap and water and clean flush the law of the statute books at the same time they throw out the contaminated water !

Oh , how low indeed , can all the elected 419er style self wanking politicians of the land that vote for these irrelevant surreal laws that protect no one at the best of times , sink below the level of sewer pond scum now (with apologies for the sewer pond scum as it does useful work unlike other lot mentioned thus!) ?

If he's stupid enough to keep posting videos of his crime on the net, why stop him? Seems to me they're just making it harder for themselves to catch the dimwitted tard in the future.

Bragging about a crime is not the same as committing the crime, you may be worried that it will encourage others to commit the crime, but then your prison sentence isn't working as a deterrent then and you should increase it.

"He also said restricting his internet activities could be a breach of his right to free speech"

Someones been watching a bit too many american movies methinks.

and most other UK urbanities as well I should think.

Even dreamy Oxford has it's own crew of extra stupid crims and equally stupid counter crim professionals with the relevant ITC skills.

If you want to gross stupidity at work, ie; blatant drugs use and criminal activities as they happen, you need to get friends on Beebo. Or tune in to any local radio station that has anti drugs adverts sponsored by FRANK.

I was as surprised as you .........

It can't be the stuff they put in the water, or we'd all be doing it right !

Talk about halls of fame. These sad, sad people, are the chaff of life, discarded by the education system and often parents/children's homes as well.

They are only looking for their own "three minutes of fame" and yes, they are the Best of British, and we deserve no less.

If Gordon Brown can use t'internet to give us proof that he is a stupid, out of touch, moronic, dickhead, wot deserves an ASBO, then why can't these young scally wags do the same.

If only our politicians were as open about their own criminal exploits, we wouldn't need expensive Judicial Reviews to find out what they are up to.

Now there's a thought !

I don't agree with the other comments:

If an ASBO is issued explicitly prohibiting some of the things he's clearly doing, then as soon as he reoffends, they can chuck him in the nick PDQ. Quite clever of the police, really.

As for the free speech - I can't imagine why he's fighting the ASBO on this basis. Not posting to internet is his only hope of not adding to the charges...

As a denizen of Sheffield, I can only say that puts him in the running for dumbest criminal in Europe...

>How can you be banned from doing something illegal? Isn't everyone already banned from that kinda thing?

I think it means that while you or I would get sixty quid and three points for running a red light, once they slap an ASBO on you with the "failing to observe traffic regulations" bit then the offence you're committing is actually breaking the ASBO, not just the traffic regulations. Breaking the terms of an ASBO incurs a custodial penalty IIRC, so you're going down.

What right do the police have to ban him from making and posting up videos of his crimes? If they believe that he is going to cause crimes so he can video them or to promote unhealthy or immoral behaviour, then I believe it comes under section (2) of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 1 says you have the right to put this stuff up, then section 2 says except when the law says you can't.

Human Rights Act 1998

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Really tells us what's wrong with the country.

Have to agree with Mark Vale though, chemical impotence for JUST the duration of his sentence. That certainly wouldn't be a badge of honour.

Either that or we could bring back chain gangs, get them to work on revamping our rail network. It would get lorries off the road, reducing the country's carbon footprint, thus saving the planet. Everyone's a winner (except possibly the HGV drivers)

Damn, I'm sounding like a Daily Mail reader.

..."has been officially banned from ... taking part in dangerous driving, failing to observe traffic regulations, or act in a manner which causes alarm, harassment or distress to any person in England and Wales."

So before-hand he was entitled to break the law any time he wanted?

Whew... I'm glad this court order went in place. That'll certainly stop him from ignoring the law some more!

Paris. Because she'd never cause distress.

in it may deter other idiots from commit infractions just to create a video to post.

I'd rather the fools don't have the incentive of publicity to act more foolish than they otherwise might.

He posts evidence of his law breaking on youtube, and just get's an ASBO preventing him from posting on youtube?

He's obviously a complete tw*t, and I pity those who have to live anywhere near him.

Why don't the authorities just download the clips, and haul the moron into court and hit him with all the charges. (vixy.net does a good line in youtube downloading).

The authorities are obviously complete tw*ts and I pity those who have to live with them.

the plod discussing this.

Inspector - "Sargent, this youf has posted 80 videos of him taking part in illegal acts, and we haven't stopped him or caught him. He's making us look like fools"

Sargent - "Surely we're doing that ourselves sir."

Insp - "Well yes, but he is making it worst. We've got to stop him, there's nothing else we can do."

Sgt - "Certainly sir, we'll stop him posting those videos immediately."

Insp - "Good show Sargent. That'll be much easier that catching him actually doing anything illegal. Anyway it's not like he's copying MP3's or anything _really_ serious, eh?"

This is a percularly American (USA) thing, where shouting obsecenities is allowed under the banner "Free Speech" although try saying "Kill Bush", when not at a Garden Centre might get you into trouble. You can say almost anything you wish in UK, if you are at Hyde Park Corner, and what you are saying will not outrage public decency or you do not call the Scientology lot a cu*t.

Wondered what this icon meant, but found out under the Cult posts.

Actually, despite what it's name might suggest, an ASBO isn't actually an order to behave antisocially, or indeed to do anything at all. It's a court order to stop doing something.

I.e., an ASBO _can't_ tell you to come to London on a Tuesday and wear a pink hat, or indeed to do anything at all. It can only tell you to stop doing something.

And in that aspect, it's not that fundamentally different from US justice or anything else. An US court of law can order you to stop stalking your ex-girlfriend and/or to stop making any contact with her, for example. Or they can order you to never be within X miles of any place with children (apparently in at least one county the only place that's ok is under a bridge) if you peed in public. Civil cases can (and routinely do) also effectively result in being ordered to do something, or stop doing something, or it can be a part of the settlement.

Or you can get effectively an implicit ASBO, so to speak, via "three strike laws", parole checks, etc. There's an implicit "if we catch you doing illegal stuff again, you're getting some extra jail time", even if it's not a formal ASBO like in the UK.

In this case, slice it as you want, they've effectively told this guy "ok, we're calling you before a court, and if you're doing any of that shit again in the meantime, you're getting some extra jail time." I'm guessing that ASBO or not, the outcome would be the same in any western legal system. (And probably everywhere else too.) If you're called to court for stealing cars, and steal another car to get there, I'm guessing you'll get slapped harder by any judge in the world. Adding an ASBO to it just makes it formal, so the retard can't pretend that he still didn't know he's not supposed to do that.

Now I'm not saying Britain's system is flawless, or that it doesn't produce some hilarious mis-applications of the system. But please at least have some clue what you're talking about, before letting it rip with the "your government" comments. Criticizing any country or government or legal system based on little more than your own imagination about how it works, is kinda silly, ya know?

asbos are abit bullshi*t i mean i once read about a 14 year old chav who got banned from shipley town center for two years. he was only allowed on his own road but everywhere else he had to have his mam! what good is it to keep a 14 year old confined for two years. you should be trying to show them that being a chav isn't a good thing not getting them set on the path of hating! my plan is why don't we make chav island, like we did with australia that turned out ok in the end! we might have 100 years with a shortage of foul moth builders tho

which leads one nicely to the presumption that those of us who do not have ASBOs are perfectly within our right to break the law. Cool, in that case: regarding drug taking - I no longer wish 10,000 other offenses to be taken into consideration; regarding speeding - I no longer with 1,000 other offenses to be taken into consideration; regarding theft - could I just hang your coat up for you... etc

trespassing isn't a criminal act it's a civil one.

Anyhow, what's wrong with bragging, now that were a servalance state surly he should be rewarded for this kind of activity.

Paris, because she knows the difference between criminal and civil

The ASBO is essentially nothing more than a legal mechanism for attaching a criminal penalty to behaviour that the community finds objectionable, but which is not in itself criminal. The fact that ASBOs are being breached doesn’t mean they aren’t working as intended. Arguably they are working exactly as intended – giving the police legal grounds to incarcerate people for grossly anti-social behaviour. The fact that the police don’t actually take up that opportunity to prosecute is hardly a fault with the ASBO itself, though it does make issuing them singularly pointless.

Personally, I find the idea of giving courts the power to criminalise certain types of behaviour without recourse to parliament – essentially giving them the power to legislate - more than a little worrying, but since they can only do so on a case-by-case basis, and the process is subject to review all the way up to the Lords, I was prepared to give it a chance. But if the criminal penalties attached to a breach aren’t actually enforced, then they are a complete waste of time. It’s just another example of the state being too incompetent to succeed at being oppressive.

Good job, 'cos the police don't seem to have the ability to investigate for themselves anymore. They need CCTV, databases and public appeals to get anything done these days.

How on earth does this idiot manage to get out of bed in the morning?! What kind of imbecile films his own crimes and winges when he gets collared?! My question is why hasn't he been arrested, charged and convicted of the crimes he seems so proud of?! And the subject of his ASBO!!!! Since when are the rest of us allowed to break the law!!! There are times when comedy and satire just become superfluous.

Court decisions have long been part of the English legal process. This is called "case law", and can be damn useful in working out a sensible/coherent application of halfwitted legislation, or helping to plug gaps in the law.

It is, of course, always subject to review (i.e. appeal to yer higher legislatures) in the normal way.

It makes it extra-specially illegal if you're on an ASBO and multiplies the effects of being caught doing it; stealing a mars bar normally is wrong, but stealing a mars bar while on an ASBO banning you from stealing would be "wrong X ASBO" and you'd be punished accordingly.

In theory, anyway.

“Kellett must be in the running to be Leeds’s dumbest criminal," Leeds City councillor Les Carter told the The Times. "He has handed us the evidence against him on a plate."

It's already been said but Kellett is still a damn sight more intelligent than the judge who has banned him from owning up to his crimes. Now that's dumb.

Paris hasn't been banned from making videos.

Yes, case law and the precedents that spring from it has always been a major part of the English legal system. But hithertoe, the courts have merely interpreted the law. Admittedly, those interpretations have sometimes stretched the letter of the law to breaking point (Lord Denning made a career out of that), but there was still a limit to how far they could go.

ASBOs go a lot further than any other law I can think of, in that they allow the courts to criminalise virtually any activity, as long as it can somehow be shoehorned into the extremely broad and ill-defined category "Anti-social behaviour". While I do have faith in the courts to reject attempts by the police to spread the net too widely, it still worries me.

I don't like broadly defined laws. It implies to me either that the government can't be bothered to write a useful law, or that it doesn't actually know what it is trying to achieve. Probably both.

It's like someone walking down a town centre shouting "I've just killed my cat" being told to stop shouting.

Serious repercussions need to be felt by these criminals. Bare cells, no TVs, proper sentences, hard labour - any of the above!

Come to think of it, there may actually be some logic to this. YouTube is not exactly big on quality, and cameravideophones are pretty rubbish as well. Combined with the fact that the video is from an unregulated and uncertified source (ie not a licensed CCTV), and has been hosted by a third-party, and therefore, is vulnerable to manipulation, it would not at all surprise me if not a single one of those videos is of evidentiary quality, and therefore actually admissable in court. Of course, they may be good enough to help the police find other evidence, but maybe not.

However, by applying an ASBO, and monitoring his internet activity, they can send him down even if there is nothing in the videos he posts that is remotely useful to either the police or the courts.

Leeds is already a fair way up the country, what's to stop him driving (in accordance with road regulations of course) up to scotland to harass someone?

I doubt very much the Police didnt want to do anything. More likly the CPS felt that there was not enough evidence to take the cases to court. Most probably the case would have been trowen out because you could not prove the YouTube video was real and one video was not enough for a crime.

They probably dicided to go for an ASBO because it basicly says "we know you did it, but cannot prove it in court, but if we do catch you you are in a whole world of crap"

"How can you be banned from doing something illegal? Isn't everyone already banned from that kinda thing?"

- It's a government con-trick, they now give ASBOs which are not criminal convictions, but civil orders applied for by the local authority. So that's 80 fewer crimes on the crime figures.

...breathing.

Seriously, this moron is an oxygen thief. The sad thing is, he's hardly alone.

It would be a crime to allow him to carry on living and a crime to humanity as a whole if he's allowed to breed (god forbid he already has)

Paris Hilton because she's about as intelligent.

Can someone give a me a damn good reason why we shouldn't render people like this infertile? Surely it can only be a good thig for the human race?

Let the tw@t (and hiss buddies) have cars on an empty but wet road.

With luck, we'll be able to present them with a Darwin Award to accompany their ASBO.

Will we see the same thing happening to a sizeable portion of Rap 'stars' as they seem to pretty much do the same and they would argueably reach an even wider than this guy could have; until they gave all this press coverage of course :)

Penguin because he would love 'Free' expression :p

> You can say almost anything you wish in UK, if you are at Hyde Park Corner, and what you are saying will not outrage public decency or you do not call the Scientology lot a cu*t.

In an infamous case a marxist academic, fond of some Hyde Park Corner Sunday afternoon urging of UK workers to unite, throw off their yokes, etc, was prosecuted for sedition. He ended up with 7 days in pokey. Sending him down, the judge said "there are some opinions so stupid that only an academic could hold them". That was before Co$ was invented.

interim anti-social behaviour order? What the hell kind of law is that? and I thought our liberties had been curtailed here in the U.S.

When I read the reg articles that casually mention being monitored by gov camera on the street, people dying in the trunk of their car for fear of drunk driving (via doing the right thing and sleeping the in car) arrest, holding a sign, and now this interim anti-social behaviour order / law, it bothers me. It makes me fear the incremental nanny police state that is coming our way too.

He should be able to get out of this easily. 1. As a bystander. "I am a journalist, and this is a documentary. I am simply trying to expose and document this behaviour". 2. As a participant. "I am a film maker. The actions you see are all 'acting'. I had assumed that my assistant had paid for the petrol and arranged for everythin with the owner. I appoligize for the misunderstanding".

asbo? Do you think they just rearranged the letters of A S.O.B.? That sounds like who the law is targeted at.

Nah, put him in the stocks and cry fresh fruit for rotting vegetables.

Paul :-

"They probably dicided to go for an ASBO because it basicly says we know you did it , but cannot prove it in court, but if we do catch you you are in a whole world of crap"

So, therefore the asbo is based on heresay too. If its possible to prove they are HIS videos (ip address of poster, isp records tracing back to broadband account/telephone number, proof there wasn't a open ap in the house etc), or maybe some kind of fingerprinting embedded in them from one of the various stages involved in making/converting them, then fine. Otherwise its just that, a guess.

I know of people who have been receiving ASBO's for alleged traffic offenses where clearly there was already a existing law covering the alleged offense but there was not the evidence to support a conviction (mostly because they weren't actually doing what the neighbor's allegation was). And now they have the threat of breaching order, having their vehicle seized etc if they are deemed to be breaking said order (again, in the opinion of the plod, with a bit of help from the lying bugger next door).

This guy in the vid's is clearly a idiot, but he should be prosecuted on a solid basis, or when the law is leaned off to let plod get him, they will use and abuse this in other areas too. Which they are already doing.

Posting anon, because I don't want a asbo for disagreeing with current gov policy.

ASBOs were created to give the courts a way of prosecuting people for doing things that wouldn't normally merit jail time. In this case, many of the things he is prohibited from doing would only merit a fine or points on his driving licence, and others would not be crimes at all, e.g. uploading videos of his mates' dangerous driving.

There are two main problems with ASBOs:

1. You can be considered to have commited a criminal offence even though you have only been found guilty by the standards of magistrate/civil justice. A lower standard of evidence is required for the issuing of an ASBO than would normally be required to lock someone up, and courts may be tempted to use them to get rid of someone who is a bit of a nuisance.

2. No one seems to get punished for doing anything these days anyway. People can pretend that justice is being done because people are getting ASBOs left, right and centre, but few of those ever lead to prosecution. Maybe if we took all the money in court time wasted on issuing unenforced orders and spent it on prosecuting the same people when they *do* get caught commiting a crime...

Oh why bother? I'm off to neck a bottle of Diamond White and do doughnuts on my neighbour's front lawn.

And post the video on YouTube.

I can see our future, and it's us in adjoining cages in Guantanamo arguing about whether it was the US that led the UK into 1984 or whether it was the UK that led the US.

"It's your fault, you were the ones who showed that people would accept constant surveillance!" "Well you showed that people would accept anything if you justified it with a permanent war!" "You let the police prosecute people for crimes they make up on the spot!" "You let the CIA kidnap people for no crime whatsoever!" "Phorm!" "NebuAd!"

I completely agree with Mark Vale - criminals just brag about Jail time or ASBO's

Instead, lets put them in the stocks for a month dressed as Dame Edna Everage and remove their willies - lets see them brag after that.

Actually, on doing some research, it isn't that bad. Although an application for an ASBO is handled in a civil proceeding, the court must use the same standard as applies to criminal trials - that is to say, the applicant must prove beyond all doubt that the applicant acted in an anti-social manner - specifically, "in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself". Equally, while heresay is admissable, the court is not obliged to give it any weight - in fact, the Court of Appeal has made quite clear that it will almost certainly reject any case that relies heavily on hearsay.

The reason people aren't being prosecuted is that breaching an ASBO also requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt. So using an ASBO really is no easier than prosecuting a normal criminal act, apart from the fact that you are able to designate certain - presumably easier to detect and prove - acts as criminal.

In this particular case, I have a sneaking suspicion that the council is may well lose on appeal. Posting videos of violence that appears to be real is not "preparatory to a criminal offense", nor is prohibiting it "necessary" to prevent said offense, so the law may not actually cover this situation.

There is no such thing in UK and in the US it is just fake! Have none or have fake, what is worse? When you have none, at least you know, when you have fake free speech, you think you have it, until you say something the Female Body Inspectors don't like ... ;-)

I guess around speakers corner you may be allowed to say that stuff, show that stuff... but then again.... am not sure. He could claim he uploaded it from speakers' corner, would that count? no idea .... God shave the queen, as I always sing ... hand on heart. ;-)

Anonymous Brit'

LOL, this guy posted 80 vid's and gets ASBRO now, he can post another 80 until he gets put in jail ... and by now he has attracted a lot of attention ...

I've checked out a few of his videos on youtube, thought the bus hijack/crash was superb, really highlights how much this country has turned into a shitpit under present Government (local authorities and Westminster)

What crimes is he supposedly committing? Theft of Petrol, why no Police car chasing him? Probably because he paid and edited that part out... WOW speeding, jesus thats a real crime 85% of drivers have points on their licence. Hardly a crime when the whole country has points nowadays.

Really, I think you have to put yourself on the "other side of the coin" literally, life is absolutely shit and i mean absolutely shit in this country unless you are wealthy. There are NO prospects for people like him, im serious, nobody is ever going to get 'careers' round his area so what the fuck do you expect? For him to be planting flowers on roundabouts?

Im *not* saying I agree with him implicitly breaking the law but this is probably a shot in the foot for the local authorities who say crime is going *down* and this guy and his camera show crime in Britain is (and has been) exponentially rife and is NOT lowering as the authorities would have us all believe.

I lived in a run down area like his for a few years and my car would be regularly done over for no apparent reason (nothing to steal) My gripe was the Police would NEVER ever come near my street and when I kept complaining (Ranted!) about my constant crime problems all they did was caution ME for MY behaviour.... The police are scum.

I despise the government for what it has let this country become. Gordon Brown sits in his big chair laughing his manTITS off at us all.

Dont blame this individual, get the entire police force off their arses and get catching these people red handed rather than the WHOLE police force scouring youtube for crimes. My god what have our police become? Lazy bastards.

>life is absolutely shit and i mean absolutely shit in this country unless you are wealthy

Well, yes, but that's largely because of the likes of this prick.

It's interesting that the court has completely ignored the crimes he's allegedly participated in, no, what the authorities are bothered about is the depiction of crime - not the crime, just making it public.

After all, he hasn't done anything that undercover journos don't do.

...then tie it to a second video of him being charged and sent down for his crimes after he inevitably breaks the terms of his ASBO...

That is all.