Thread by @StuartDNeilson

When people say or write "anti-social behaviour" they are almost always defining "us" opposed to "them". The term is almost always used by people whose needs are fulfilled to identify people with many needs, and to label the "other" as undesirable.

"Anti-social behaviour" is almost always about competition for resources, and the exclusion of already more deprived people from shared spaces and shared resources. It is very rare to see "anti-social behaviour" defined.

In recent news reports, a whole range of youths, groups gathering, noise, pavement cycling, graffiti, arson, assault and homelessness have been bundled into "anti-social behaviour", as if they are a single issue, for which a single group is responsible.

"Anti-social behaviour" almost always revolves around public infrastructure, and making the shared public environment less welcoming and more hostile.
People whose needs are met want those who need public space, the "others", excluded from their own environment.

Benches are a frequent target of "anti-social behaviour" complaints, although benches don't create bad behaviour and removing benches does not reduce bad behaviour. The behaviour simply moves somewhere more welcoming, (with benches) or less hostile (without CCTV or Gardai).

If residents were genuinely concerned about harmful behaviour, they would propose intervention programmes - alcohol & drug supports, leisure facilities, youth diversion, more play space.
The reality is a wish to exclude "them" from "our" space.

People whose needs are met, who have homes to drink, meet & make noise in, are prepared to beggar themselves and degrade their own public spaces simply to exclude the "other" from sight.
Removing resources to limit "anti-social behaviour" beggars us all.

Hostile public spaces with impoverished resources do not reduce "anti-social behaviour", they simply displace "them" to other places, concentrating those behaviours, increasing conflict for public space.
More public space and more welcoming spaces dilutes and reduces conflict.

There is a tremendous unwillingness to understand "bad" behaviour, as if understanding is condoning or encouraging. What need does any specific "anti-social behaviour" fulfill? What resources do people lack to push their needs into the public gaze, and into conflict over space?

Every person "behaving anti-socially" is a resident, as deserving of representation as any other resident. If their "anti-social behaviour" is because of a lack of access to resources, they are more in need of a listening representative.