This is an attempt to collect some relevant information and analysis to help resist dispersal orders. It is focused on the situation in Nottingham as a campaign has sprung up recently to resist the order imposed on Forest Fields.

The law

The police powers to impose a dispersal order are contained within Sections 30-36 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). A Police Superintendent or higher ranking officer may make a written Authority if s/he has "reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed in public places in a specific area (referred to as the Relevant Locality) and that anti-social behaviour is significant and a persistent problem in that area". The consent of the Local Authority (Nottingham City Council, in this case) must be obtained. Dispersal orders can be made for a maximum of 6 months although they can be renewed at the end of that period.

During the period specified a Police Constable or Police Community Support Officer may require a group of two or more people to disperse immediately or by any time specified in any manner specified, if they have "reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the Relevant Locality has resulted or is likely to result in any member of the public being intimidated, harassed alarmed or distressed". If the person does not live in the designated area they can be ordered to leave the area for up to 24 hours. Children under the age of 16 can be taken home.

Breach of a dispersal order is a criminal offence under S 32(2) of the ASBA punishable by up to 3 months' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.


Research

An investigation into the impacts of dispersal orders was published by Crawford & Lister in 2007. The authors found that 'Where targeted at groups of youths, dispersal orders can antagonise and alienate young people who frequently feel unfairly stigmatised for being in public places.' They noted displacement effects, where problems were shifted to other places, sometimes just for the duration of the order. The report concluded that 'dispersal orders constitute a 'sticking plaster' over local problems of order that affords a degree of localised respite but invariably fails to address the wider causes of perceived anti-social behaviour'.

Interestingly, the study found that the use of dispersal orders did not correspond to 'victimisation risks' and that 'certain communities and businesses are able to influence dispersal order authorisation, primarily as a means of drawing police resources into an area.' This may be the case in Forest Fields given the history of CCTV introduction, which was championed by particular businesses on Berridge Road.

Dispersal orders were seen by young people as a factor in increasing intergenerational conflict and were thought to unfairly target youths. They were seen as giving the message that all youths are problematic:
Dispersal orders potentially criminalise youthful behaviour on the basis of the anxieties that young people congregating in groups may generate among other people. As such, the power is potentially less concerned with the agency of individuals than the assumptions that are made about what they might do.
Dispersal orders can emphasise the view that young people are a risk whilst hiding the extent to which they are at risk.

Sampson & Raudenbush (2004) suggest that concentrated disadvantage is a major predictor of urban disorder. Anti-social behaviour, then, may be 'a symptom of wider neighbourhood inequality, degraded public spaces, failing schools and poor local institutional infrastructures'. According to Farrall et al. (2000), much of what surveys measure as 'fear of crime' is linked to 'wider personal feelings of well-being, self-assurance and a sense of control', all of which may be lacking in disadvantaged areas. Anti-social behaviour and fear of crime can be seen as the products of social inequality and atomisation.


Resistance

I managed to find a couple of examples of resistance to dispersal orders in the UK. In Being young is not a crime a member of Revo describes an attempt to organise against an order in Leeds in 2006. A dispersal order had been imposed to remove groups of youths who had been hanging around outside the Corn Exchange. The group organised a stunt involving dressing as police and handing out spoof ASBOs as well as cordoning off an area. They also organised meetings with anarchists and made connections with youths resisting a dispersal order in Wakefield.

A report by the Bristol Radical History Group describes a campaign agaisnt a disperal order imposed on College Green in 2007. Youths from the area had a 'demonstration or two and an active media campaign protesting against the order' although it didn't sound as though the local authorities were moved to act.


Other dispersal orders in Nottingham

A dispersal order was imposed in Radford last May 'to move on groups hanging round and causing problems in Alfreton Road' -  problems such as 'drinking, committing minor damage or ...swearing.' The order was extended until 26th Nov.

In November 2008 a dispersal order was brought in in Sneinton, following 'complaints from residents and businesses that groups are congregating in and around Sneinton'. Interestingly these groups were also described by a police officer as 'often seen drinking, committing minor damage or heard swearing'. This seems to be Nottinghamshire Police's operational definition of anti-social behaviour. A local resident was quoted by the Evening Post as saying 'There are a lot more girl gangs now. They just scream and shout and cause havoc.' The order was extended until November 2009.

There is also mention on this police page of a dispersal order covering the Wells Road/Ransom Road area which came into force on 2nd Nov 2009 for 6 months. It was re-applied for and will run until 16th May 2011. The police intend to renew the order.

In the Nottingham Post article advertising the Forest Fields dispersal order, there is mention that a dispersal order was introduced in Long Eaton town centre in March and will run for 6 months. A police sergeant described the problem as 'groups of teenagers congregating in public areas'.


Conclusion

Dispersal orders are part of the draconian legislation introduced by the former Labour government to tackle 'anti-social behaviour'. They cause rifts between the young, who feel unfairly victimised by them, and older generations. Dispersal orders give Nottinghamshire police the power to disperse any group of people they suspect might be planning on 'drinking, committing minor damage or swearing', but in practice this only seems to be directed at marginalised youths. The order will be in place for 6 months but it is very likely that the police will ask for it to be extended.

'Anti-social behaviour' seems to be a mixture of the normal activities of youths and minor criminal acts born out of frustration and boredom. Both the lack of other opportunities that inspires anti-social behaviour and the excessive fear that drives the authorities to crack down on it, are products of a capitalist economic system. Dispersal orders will not solve our problems.