This article from Reasononline sounds hard to believe from the land that brought us Magna Carta http://reason.com/news/show/133423.html.

But apparently it is true.

48 year old Caroline Cartwright is facing jail in the UK because she offends her neighbours by making too much noise during sexual intercourse.

She's breached an Anti-Social Behaviour Order which forbade her from being noisy in Britain. Now she could be jailed. Another one for the Blair/Brown government.

Seems to me that parties of the left tend to be more prudish and get away with more deprivation of liberty than parties of the right. Which seems counter-intuitive in that parties of the left tend to have platforms which are vocal about civil liberties. And also, pertinently in this case, the rights of women.

I wonder how likely Australia is to go down the British route. The tendency certainly exists here. Would a bill of rights widen rights, or be complicit with those trying to restrict rights? Certainly the UK bill of rights doesn't appear to have stopped this.

Interesting! At times, I wish my neighbour could be locked up for yelling obscenities at his lawnmower - he is so aggressive that I avoid going into my yard except when he is out of sight. That said, I deal with the problem rationally - I ignore it. And when drunks stagger down the alley beside my house at all hours of night, yelling and screaming, I just roll over and go back to sleep. For this woman to have irritated her neighbours enough to have them call the police, she must have been one hell of a screamer.

The ASBO concept is a sound one, but I would suggest that this case illustrates a clear flaw. Rather than locking up drunks and hoons, they are looking to lock people up for enjoying sex too much. What are her options? Gagging herself? Abstaining? Both possible, I suppose, but not reasonable.

Dear Graham,

I wonder what kind of responses you're
going to get to this thread?

My initial reaction was - "You've
got to be joking - right?"

This can't be serious. So I did a bit of scrawling
on the web - and my goodness, it is for real.

My next reaction was - Lucky woman!
Until reading further (sorry I'm trying hard not
to laugh)... it seems that this was the third
court order the couple have ignored. The police
even tape-recorded the noise levels,
after the neighbours
kept complaining - and confirmed that the levels
were indeed high. The neighbours said that they
hadn't had a solid nights sleep for 2 years (and
one of the neighbours was partially deaf) :)
The neighbours said the noises came from both
parties.

There you have it. Flounting the bans with her husband
Steve, Caroline Cartwright doesn't seem to care who
she antagonizes. What I don't understand is -
why don't they have their bedroom sound-proofed?
Unless they're enjoying all this publicity? Or
being banned adds to their thrill of the experience.
Something like having sex in public places - a turn
on for some people.

Will this happen in Australia? I don't think so.
Our homes are not as close together, they're larger,
more modern, and are
better insulated. We don't live in each other's
pockets in this country. And we're got more open
spaces in which we can indulge. I don't think
we're going to have similar problems here.

As for our laws? Well, we already have laws in place
that prohibit noise pollution after certain hours -
so I guess if the police were called they'd have
to act on it. But as I said - I doubt if we're
going to have a problem here.

"Seems to me that parties of the left tend to be more prudish and get away with more deprivation of liberty than parties of the right." (Quote:GY)
___________

Oooh I dunno. There was this fella called Bush. His regime got away with 'deprivation of liberty'-and then some!,...for all of his time in office. Perhaps you need pay more attention to your more conservative members on OLO. They can be quite 'prudish'..
___________

"Which seems counter-intuitive in that parties of the left tend to have platforms which are vocal about civil liberties. And also, pertinently in this case, the rights of women." (Quote: GY).
____________

Come now! Given what we have recently gone through, SOMEBODY had to care about 'civil liberties'.

As to the rights of women...HA!! pffft to the 'rights of women'! Who the hell do they think they are!

Don't even mention that on OLO..

The screaming Sheila? Lock that bitch up and throw away the key, I say! The disgusting slut.

Agreed.The next time you go to a restaurant Graham,don't lasiviate too noisily on your favourite dish,lest you too are brought to the attention of the authorities.

We are losing our freedoms in the guise of fighting a phantom terrorist.US foreign policy which we blindly follow,creates western haters.The real terrorists are in our midst.

I have changed my mind on a rights bill.
We need a bill of rights tempered with a bill of responsibilities that defines not only the rights/responsibilites of the individuals,but those of GOVT and the legal system.

“The screaming Sheila? Lock that bitch up and throw away the key, I say! The disgusting slut.”

Ginx, – I have got to stop laughing at the screen, my family thinks I am nuts.

We have this problem in our home (nah not that!). Have a four year old foster child here who chatters constantly and often to herself. I ignore it and don’t think I even hear it anymore on any conscious level. Hubby gets home and it drives him nuts. He doesn’t like telling kids off cause often they get scared because he’s a big fella. This is how a quiet conversation goes regularly in the evening:

“Can you tell her to stop it?”
“No”
“I’m trying to watch the news”
“So”
I can’t hear it with her making that noise
“Turn it up”
“If you don’t tell her I will”
“Turn it up and leave her alone she’s happy”

I’m sure these people had the same conversation with the police many times before, like me, for the sake of peace I finally get the girl to be quiet because I get sick of being bothered about it.

It is the perception aye. The article turned it in to something about sex and making women timid but it was about the noise and not being able to afford a home in the country.

My nieghbours get fed up when I have 6 or 7 under five year olds here making noise in the back yard. I sympathise and pretty much ignore them. But I do believe no one should take babies to the movies or have children they can’t quiet down in restaurants. So being a hypocrite is limited to my own property.

I tell nieghbours off for being noisy at night when I have the odd light sleeper come to stay.

I wish the police did come and quiet people down regularly in my nieghbourhood but I don’t think I’d like to see anyone go to jail for the times I am sensitive to noise. Maybe just taken out the back and given a quick beating.

two points come to mind
one about a sqeaky wheel getting the grease

two those who talk about it [or i presume yell about it usually know the least about the topic]

a third option comes to mind[would the neighbour even notice if the woman was screaming RAPE]

i guess some are able to get away with just silently getting on with the job..clearly the woman has oral limitations..[as i for one am unable to talk with my mouth full]

other options come to mind...but thats all i feel like putting out at this time..i dont think this is a topic i need to glog up my email with, so will skip tickling the response button at this time

I agree that this seems ridiculous, but I think that Graham's drawing a rather long bow in attributing this flagrant intrusion of the State into this woman's bedroom to "the Left". Freedom of speech and expression is indeed under attack worldwide - but it's hardly restricted to societies with "Left" governments.

The unprecedented assaults on civil liberties under the guise of the so-called "War on Terror" in recent years in the USA (under Bush) and in Australia (under Howard) spring to mind...

I wondered how long it would take someone to bring up the War against Terror. So which significant freedoms have we lost in Australia because of the War against Terror? (I'll agree Bush went too far in some areas, but I haven't seen Obama actually rushing to dismantle too much of it either.)

An interesting case in point when it comes to civil liberties is the Internet Censorship being proposed by the current government. The Howard government looked at it, but eventually walked away from it. It just wasn't that important to them. But Conroy just keeps ploughing ahead.

All governments have a tendency to unwarranted intrusion, often as a result of community pressure, but governments which are more collectivist or communitarian are more likely on balance to pursue it further. And those sorts of governments tend to lie on the left.

It's not a long bow, it is a truth that is inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of the different world views.

Anti-Social Behaviour Order

The good old ASBOs.

ASBOs disproportionately affect young people, people with disabilities, people with mental health concerns and people from low socio economic backgrounds. A policy response that in effect criminalizes legal behaviour by marginalised people.

With regards to this case though, it just comes down to noise, and really it's irrelevant what causes the noise. Why should one person be allowed to keep 3 or more houses of people awake all night.

Even if an old decrepid deaf granny scratches the floor all night wondering around and keeps everyone awake, it's still annoying. This reminds me of the people who stopped others smoking in their own flat because they could smell it in the hallway. The smokers eventually had to move home.

Jewely,

'The article turned it in to something about sex and making women timid but it was about the noise and not being able to afford a home in the country.'

Exactly.

Dear Yabby,

You seem to be focused on assigning blame.
That's your right. And you're entitled to
stick to it. I get it - and you're not
alone on this thread.

However, you've got me wrong. (once again).
I'm not assigning blame - both the young men
and women are the victims. Re-read my previous
post. It's the culture that encourages and
condones this sort of behaviour that needs
to change.

What you seem to fail to realise (although Matthew
Johns clearly understands now) is that consent and
willing participation does not excuse someone's
behaviour, especially when there's a resulting
potential for psychological damage not only for the
women for all parties involved.

Phil Dye argues the point rather well, "Fining
any club for the extreme pack mentality of their
players won't suddenly make for sexually
responsible young men. Mass sacking of the coaches
and administrators who allowed this behaviour to
occur may help build lasting change.

Even the players, those like Hasim El Masri, who
espouse a socially responsible position for players
and fans, could stage their own 'action' to rid the
game of the leaders who allow pack-mentality behaviour
to occur."

And please find another argument besides - "if the
women are willing," then it's allright!"

It's not! For all copncerned.
The culture has to change!

Sorry - I had a server error - and this
got posted to the wrong thread - my apologies.

If you rememeber about 12 mths ago Morris Iemma tried to stop people wearing T-shirts protesting about the Pope's policies.He also tried to ban peaceful protests.If he'd had gotten away with this,how long would it have been before we would not be able to protest against out own Govt.

We have a creeping authoritarian socialism that has mistaken the free market for being the cause of this economic collapse.The free market was not and is not being allowed to operate.The so called toxic debt and failed financial institutions should be liquidated and let the free market determine what is of value.Tax payer borrowed money should not be used to bail out failed institutions.

Bankrupt Govts cannot bail out privately owned failed institutions.Creating more debt to elimate debt is an oxymoron.

We are not only losing our personal freedoms but also our financial ones.

Graham writes

'Certainly the UK bill of rights doesn't appear to have stopped this.'
I doubt whether anyone can name anything positive that the Bill of Rights has done for the UK.

GrahamY: "But Conroy just keeps ploughing ahead."

In the budget monthly expenditure for the DBCDE line item Cyber-Safety is about $3M..$4M / month, except in October/2009 which is $30M. (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/department/governance_and_administration/budget/dbcde_budget_09-10 section 2, table page 42). This is unchanged from last year.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp2/html/expense-04.htm

In last years budget the $30M was described as:

"From 2009-10, Internet Service Providers will receive a one-off subsidy towards the costs of installing Internet Service Providers filters."

So apparently current trial will be a success, and roll-out will commence in October. I don't know what is driving it, but the fact that Rudd and Conroy are both left leaning Christians keeps springing to mind.

runner: "I doubt whether anyone can name anything positive that the Bill of Rights has done for the UK."

A "Bill of Rights" that isn't part of the constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on.

CJ Morgan: "The unprecedented assaults on civil liberties under the guise of the so-called "War on Terror" in recent years in the USA (under Bush) and in Australia (under Howard) spring to mind..."

The xenophobia under Howard was a bit hard to swallow. But it appeared to me he didn't have his heart in it - it was more political theatre designed to win Pauline Hansen votes. Bush's assaults on the liberties of foreigners at home was unmatched, but the worst erosion of civil liberties on its own civilians occured in the UK, under a labour government. National ID cards http://www.no2id.net/, DNA database http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/dna-database/index.shtml, world's most comprehensive CCTV network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television, 28 day detention without charge http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4075503.ece, illegal to protest within 1km of parliament. It goes on and on.

The same disease seemed to infect all three (Australia, the UK and USA), but I agree with Graham when he says the left seems more comfortable with restricting individual freedoms than the right, as you might expect.

As for this story about the noisy housewife - foxy nailed it. Change the activity from sex to singing I doubt anyone would think what happened was unfair.

I was kept awake in a motel most of the night once by noisy sex next door.

Next morning, I went to remonstrate with the joyful jumpers and saw at the foot of the bed (the rooms had those big sliding doors) through the open curtains a lad who looked about 14 years old, clad in a pair of striped flannelette pj, trousers and built like a rabbit, flexing his muscles at the object of his desire, who was still in bed.

I laughed so much at the sight that I had to get in the car and drive away.

I suspect the article Graham provided is a beat-up and how many of us during sexual romps have said to our partners: "Shssh....the kids will hear" and made sincere efforts to keep the noise down? So why would you want your kids to be listening to someone having sex who lacks the slightest regard for her neighbours?

Noisy sex would be particularly irritating in Britain. Has anyone seen the council flats there? All crammed together with common walls? On the other hand, noisy sex during the day would more tolerable I guess, however, I suspect one driving factor for any complaint would be by those who are kept awake at nights. Sleep deprivation's a serious health hazard, which has been the reason on the odd occasion for the sleep deprived to assault a noisy neighbour!

The real issue here is noise whether it be from sex, loud music or otherwise.

I am not sure how even this, can be made into an ideological statement vis a vis the usual left/right stalwarts.

If we are to keep an open mind without prejudice, surely extremism is prevalent at both ends of this spectrum.

Detaining inmates in Guantanamo Bay was wholly against civil liberties and the right of trial or innocent before proven guilty. It is mainly the religious right screaming out for more regulation in regard to personal freedom gay/lesbian mardi gras, same-sex marriage, sex before marriage etal.

It was the Howard government that made the public service less free with its advice and 'dangerous' for ethical public servants and potential whistleblowers. These were not only threats to civil liberties but the public's right to know in the interests of more open and transparent governments.

I see your point Graham, but frankly I don't think the conservatives are conservative any more, nor are the liberal's liberal... if indeed they truly ever were.

Government's tend to push for more powers, regardless. Occasionally, we get lucky and one winds a few things back.

Depending on our political orientation, when it comes to government intrusion, we usually only see the strides forward that clash with our views.

Though, I'm concerned that the usual civil libertarians aren't kicking up more of a stink about Bagram prison in Afghanistan, but it seems OK for Obama to do guantanamo-type things, provided he does it somewhere in the middle east.

This sex thing though, seems to me, to be a noise issue and not really in tune with the typical civil liberties infringements.
Would we be having this same debate if it was a frequently played loud stereo?

Well Leigh I never thought you'd make me laugh, but that little anecdote had me in fits!!

TRTTL:"Would we be having this same debate if it was a frequently played loud stereo?"

Why is it always in England? Years ago that English chick got jailed for playing the theme song from "Bodyguard" over and over. Whitney Housten or something.

Can someone explain what the debate is?

“Another one for the Blair/Brown government.”

Aw… steady on Gra. The woman was charged with breaching a noise abatement order, two days after it was imposed. What has that to do with the Blair/Brown government or a Bill of Rights?

Magistrates heard that the Cartwrights' neighbour Margery Ball had not had a decent night's sleep in two years because of the noise made by the pair - even though she is partially deaf.

After receiving complaints environmental health officers placed recording equipment in the flat next door to her house in Concord, Tyne and Wear.

Another neighbour, Rachel O'Connor, pressed a button on the machine every time she was disturbed by noise from next door. She told Sunderland Magistrates Court: 'I heard sounds of a sexual nature. They were really loud, and there was a lot of moaning and groaning and screaming as if in pain.It wasn't just the woman, it came from both parties.'

Miss O'Connor told the court that when she first moved into the flat, in November 2007, the noise started at midnight and lasted until 3am.

Now, she said, the noise started at about 6.30am and lasted until 9am. Environmental Health officer Pamela Spark told the court she had listened to 23 recordings of the couple having sex.

She said: 'There was an excessive screaming female voice on the recordings.'

Chairman of the magistrates Alan Griffins said: ‘You were ordered to refrain from screaming and shouting at such levels when engaging in sexual activity with your husband.

‘You could have made efforts to minimise your vocalisation while having sex. You have not shown due respect for other human beings.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171244/Woman-handed-Asbo-loud-sex-sessions-neighbours-complained-police-25-times.html#

The real issue is the heavy hand of Govt.They did not have to arrest this woman.It is also the duplicity of Govt whereby they will not confront real criminal activity since it costs too much to keep the real criminals in long term dentention.

Instead, our Govts target minor criminals who can afford to pay.It shores up their bottom line.

A philosophy of ignoring real criminal behaviour in order to achieve Govt profit,diminishes all of our society.

That's it Arjay - the real heavy hand of govt. This has a strong odour of self righteousness about it. Could it only happen in UK? We are not so far off here and for the same stupid reasons.

Seems like Winston and Julia are alive and well after all.