Targeting groups – Antisocial Behaviour and Higher Education Students

I have been digging through some old files and folder while sorting out moving house, and have realise I have never got round to posting some of the academic work I completed, some of which I am pleased with and even enjoy re-reading. I hope that those who are that way inclined may do so as well.

This is a peice I completed about 2007 about Antisocial Behaviour and Higher Education Students which was highly rated by the external examiner who asked that his commendation of the work be communicated to me.

Targeting groups – Antisocial Behaviour and Higher Education Students

Introduction – What is Antisocial

Antisocial behaviour, argues Burney (2005 p.3), has “come to dominate Britain’s law and order discourse”. Certainly the term is often quoted in recent legislation, political campaigning and the media and has become, according to Squires (2006 p.151) “a virtual metaphor for the condition of contemporary Britain, particularly its youth…”. By examining discussion on the definition and underlying meanings of the term, along with the philosophies which contributed to the instigation of New Labour’s policies on crime and disorder since their election in the mid Nineties it will be shown how rather than a discrete change in peoples behaviour, antisocial behaviour is better defined as an effect of tensions between groups with different social norms, and a politically pragmatic attempt to ameliorate this. To illustrate this point, higher education students, a group maybe not instantly associated with crime and disorder, will be used as an example of the “uncivilised ‘other’” from whom, political rhetoric can be seen to argue, law-abiding citizens must be protected (Nixon & Parr 2006 in: Flint & Nixon 2006 p.943).

Antisocial behaviour is often seen as synonymous with youth (Burney 2005). One could be forgiven for believing that recent times have seen an uprising of badly behaved young people requiring increasingly punitive measures of control, despite historical evidence of continual concern about this section of society (see Pearson 1983). Though antisocial behaviour legislation is, argue Squires and Stephen (2005), inextricably linked with youth justice, the measures provided by the two main Acts addressing antisocial behaviour (the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003) focus on a number of perceived problems involving disparate members of society.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is the legislation responsible for the legal genesis of the term “Antisocial Behaviour” and for the creation of the Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO), a civil order which can be used to prohibit a person from almost any behaviour identified as antisocial. Breach of an Antisocial Behaviour Order is punishable by criminal sanctions. The ASBO is perhaps the most well known and most commonly discussed part of antisocial behaviour legislation and many aspects of ASBOs can be criticised; Squires (2005), for exmaple, notes issues such as misuse stemming from the ease of use of ASBOs, targeting of vulnerable individuals, and the that they simply do not work becase many ASBOs are breached. The problem of the overlap between civil and criminal is also mentioned as a concern, particularly concerning the civil standard of evidence required – the burden of proof required for ASBO to be served is based on a “balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” (Squires 2006).

However, perhaps the most problematic aspect in itself, and also one which exacerbates many other identified concerns, is the definition of the behaviour that the ASBO is aimed at controlling.

The 1998 Act defines antisocial behaviour as: “acting in a manner that caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household” (cited in Squires & Stephen 2005 p.38). It seems that the idea of antisocial behaviour is a novel attempt to give an identity to a possibly disparate set of minor issues by categorising a number of disparate behaviours into a new pseudo-crime. Certainly the term, used in this “precise, enforcement driven way” (ibid. p. 43) is a neologism; until the Labour Government of 1997 the term was used either in the specific context of a psychological disorder, or colloquially to describe behaviours distasteful to the general population (Burney 2005). Though examples are provided and an, albeit somewhat nebulous, definition is given, it would appear that there is more to antisocial behaviour than a problem requiring control: as Brown (2004 p.203) suggests it is “a social construction which indicates the creation of a new domain of professional power and knowledge”.

This emphasis on reaction and the fact that no complaint need be received – the behaviour simply must have to potential to cause distress – is important to an understanding of the control that these measures provide; some forms of behaviour become a priori “antisocial” even if no one has been affected by them (Squires & Stephen 2005 p.38). Conversely other forms of behaviour which may not be problematic to the average person may become antisocial if harassment is reported to have been caused. Clearly, as Flint and Nixon (2005) point out, this therefore depends highly on individual tolerance. There is no qualifier such as that provided by Section 3(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the offence of Affray i.e that “his conduct is such that a man of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for his safety” (Cited in Card 1998 p.451 italics added). Behaviour can potentially be classed as antisocial if anyone believes it to be so.

This subjectivity was pointed out by the Joint Commission on Human Rights, who found that the term was “unacceptably vague”. This report was published shortly after the House of Commons stages of the bill which led to the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. This act did not offer a more succinct definition of antisocial behaviour, however the preceding White Paper “Respect and Responsibility – Taking a stand against Antisocial Behaviour” acknowledged the subjectivity of the description, yet did provide a number of examples, such as drunken “yobs”, litter, graffiti and begging. The 2003 Act provided a number of quick and easy measures to deal with these problems, including 21 new acts for which spot fines may be levied (Burney 2005 p.35).

However many of the acts covered by the home office’s typology of antisocial behaviour are already crimes (Squires and Stephen 2005) and so theoretically measures existed to control them. Squires and Stephen hint that they feel political rhetoric attempts to promote antisocial behaviour as a new and un-addressed problem endemic to late-modernity when in reality it is a way of packaging together a number of perennial problems for easy enforcement; as Burney (2005) suggests, a redefinition of acts which have hitherto proved difficult to punish. Squires and Stephen (ibid p.3) discuss the idea of a perceived enforcement deficit (after Hansen 2005), that traditional interventions are based around discrete incidents and fail to address the effect that behaviour has on a community. The relevance of this emphasis on community will become apparent as the influences on the thinking of New Labour and, particularly, Tony Blair are discussed.

Burney’s 5 point model of Policy Formation

Burney (2005) provides a model of how policies may develop which, along with additional discussion, will be used to build a picture of how the current legislation came to be. Initially, a problem is identified which governments may feel under pressure to deal with. The opening lines of “Together, Tackling Antisocial behaviour” (Home office 2004 in: Squires and Stephen 2005) states: “As crime has fallen, antisocial behaviour has become a major cause of concern […]”. This, it seems, sums up much of New Labour’s argument surrounding the “threat” caused by antisocial behaviour. Leaving aside discussion on the accuracy of crime statistics and changes in methods of quantifying crime, the British Crime Survey does show that the first part of this statement may be justified; however the evidence for a definable increase in antisocial behaviour seems a little more tenuous. What is likely however is that minor yet more visible transgressions cloud the public’s ability to perceive any decrease in more serious crimes (Squires and Stephen 2005), thus it can be argued that the problem identified by New Labour may not have been the one that they chose to publicly promote.

The next stage in Burney’s model is the influence of interested parties and leading politicians. She discusses how in many poor areas represented by Labour MPs, the fear of crime became localised in relation to certain problem families, and how local authorities pressed for new powers. Burney re-iterates here that a problem addressed in the genesis of antisocial behaviour control measures is that is it may simply be difficult to use criminal sanctions against “behaviour that is merely troublesome”. Again, public perceptions seem pertinent; parties such as local authorities or MPs for troubled areas input into the process of creating policies, perhaps, in this case fuelled by the way that fear of antisocial behaviour may undermine what successes the government has “achieved” in other areas of crime reduction (Squires 2006).

The next important influence on policy, as defined by Burney’s model, is that of global influences. Burney discusses Blair’s admiration for the apparent success of Bill Clinton’s Democrats’ tough stance on crime, and also Blair’s new awareness of communitarian ideas such as those of Etzioni (1994). However a major influence (or as Burney (2005 p.24) suggests: a “convenient American explanation”) was Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) “Broken Windows” thesis. Essentially, this theory asserts that if an area appears (or indeed becomes) run down then community cohesion is lost and “incivilities” (to use the American term) increase. Skogen (1990 in: Burney 2005 p.25) took this idea further, reporting a direct correlation between perceptions of low level disorder and perceptions of victimisation in the sample he interviewed. Further research cast doubts on the validity of this assertion (see Burney 2005 p.25-26), however (and seeming to take a subtly different stance from the aforementioned 2004 Home Office paper only a year later which relied on a drop in crime for its key argument) the ASBA 2003 White Paper clearly indicates David Blunkett’s belief that low level disorder directly increases crime and fear (Burney 2005). While there are strengths in Wilson and Kelling’s idea that experiencing incivilities provokes a belief that crime is increased, or that incivilities may normalise more serious crimes, much else here can be highly debated (Squires 2006). However, Blunkett’s assertions in this White Paper seem to indicate that even when largely discredited, appealing political theories stick in the minds of those who find them useful for policy purposes.

The final thread of Burney’s model, political culture, helps complete the picture. Hudson (2003 p.45), drawing from the work of Beck (1992) and Giddens (1990) discusses the effect of risk awareness leading to crime prevention strategies which are defensive and repressive: “we want those who threaten us excluded from our immediate environment, and thus from any possibility of inadvertent contact, both before and after the crime, the risk event”. Burney (2005 p.17) discusses Garland’s (2001) thesis that society has become preoccupied with a fear of crime, leading to demands for more punitive control measures. In essence, governments have accepted that crime happens, and that attempts to control this with reference to the causes have largely failed, so emphasis moves to managing the problem or effects rather than discerning and addressing the causes. It is further argued that there has been identified a move away from emphasis on punishment or rehabilitation of the individual and discuss and a move towards a more general targeting of groups (Feely and Simon 1992). Furthermore Feely and Simon discuss how a high rate parolees returning to prison would once have indicated failure of the system, but is now seen to show the effectiveness of parole as part and parcel of punishment. This seems similar to the suggestion put forward by Squires (2006) that ASBOs, instead of preventing problems without using criminal sanctions are, by dint of the fact they are often breached, a quick way to invoke punishment.

These analyses certainly provide insight into the way that antisocial behaviour legislation seems to take little interest in reasons for behaviour and aims simply to control or exclude those responsible. Burney (2005) cites numerous examples of ASBOs served against people for behaviour that is clearly the direct result of unmanaged mental ill-health, and discusses at length the idea of contested space – how groups whose behaviour offends others are dispersed from the public arena. It also appears that more groups are being identified and targeted; certainly Cohen’s (1985) predictions of the concepts he described as net widening and mesh thinning seem to be being realised.

Studentification and the defintion of community

Higher education students may not appear to the casual observer to be a group with whom antisocial behaviour is instantly associated. However in some circles, attention has turned to the interplay between students and the communities in which they live during term-time. Kenyon (1997) discusses how for some communities, rather than having a regenerative effect, high student populations are often perceived to have a more negative and even damaging impact upon an area, and that the historical “Town and Gown” conflicts described as far back as medieval times are less removed from the current climate in many university towns than they may appear. Smith (2002), researching the impact of students on communities coined the term “studentification” to describe the processes occurring when high volumes of students move into a local area. This term has now been adopted by UniveritiesUK and pressure groups such as the National HMO Lobby[1] when discussing management of these problems.

The exact meaning and definition of studentification is still developing, however it is said to encompass a number of social, cultural, physical and economic effects, such as changes in the housing market, tension between students and locals and growth of youth based cultures and lifestyles (UniversitiesUK 2006). The national HMO lobby presents a lengthy analysis of the symptoms of studentification, including noticeably, and the focus of this discussion, crime, antisocial behaviour and street blight:

“Low-level antisocial behaviour is endemic (during term-time) – noise (especially at night), minor vandalism, evacuation by pubbers and clubbers (vomit, urine, faeces)

[…]

“…The student audience has attracted ubiquitous fly posting and discarded flyers. The general air of neglect encourages graffiti.” (Tyler 2005)

It would appear that nationally this problem is beginning to gain attention in the media (see BBC 2006b, The Guardian 2006, THES 2006, inter alia) and that university students are being added to the list of “folk devils” (Cohen 1973) that the current climate of obsession with antisocial behaviour seeks to denigrate. In response, local authorities and universities appear to have picked up on these concerns with responses that utilise the provisions of antisocial behaviour legislation; and where these are not a direct part of antisocial behaviour legislation fit with the general move to community crime prevention (Crawford 1997) and “responsibilisation strategies” – the involvement of multiple agencies (Garland 2001 p.124).

University responses appear to combine punitive actions against students accused of immoderate behaviour with positive actions to support the communities affected, for example in Leeds, the two main universities run a neighbourhood helpline enabling residents report unruly student behaviour which if proven can result in warnings and, ultimately disciplinary proceedings against the students concerned. This is a clear example of “shifting ownership of crime prevention strategies” to the community (Pease 2003 p.968). Other Institutions have taken a more punitive stance, supporting the direct use of antisocial behaviour legislation: during discussions surrounding the implementation of the use of ASBOs in Northern Ireland, Queen’s University Belfast stated that they would consider supporting the use of ASBOs against unruly students (BBC 2004).

Local authorities can be seen to be adopting measures provided by antisocial behaviour legislation to manage the behaviour of the student population. Canterbury District Safer Community Partnership’s Student-Related Anti-Social Behaviour Protocol (2006) provides for the use of Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and ASBOs as methods of controlling student behaviour. In Leeds, parts of Headingley (a residential area with a high student population) are subject to a designated public places order under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, making it a criminal offence to consume alcohol, or carry an opened container of alcohol in a public place (City of Leeds Metropolitan District Council 2006). The powers provided for spot fines for low-level disorders such as littering and abatement notices for fines are publicised on the City Council’s website and in the case of littering, on bins in the area. Alongside penalties provided by law, creative ways of dealing with this kind of behaviour have also been suggested: West Yorkshire Police and the Universities and Colleges Crime Reduction Partnership have discussed initiatives whereby an alternative to a fine for urinating or vomiting in the street is to publicly hose down the area [2].

Student Unions are clearly concerned and many issue warnings on their websites and literature. Examples include Worcester Student Union’s “Student Asbo” page warning that “Being drunk isn’t an excuse. All it means is that you can be charged with being drunk and disorderly as well as criminal damage and theft” and “Anyone caught removing street furniture or have [sic.] it in their possession on or off campus will be liable to arrest.” Chester Student Union’s “SSHH” (Silent Students Happy Homes) campaign points out the possible results (ASBOs, confiscation of equipment) of noise nuisance [3].

It can of course be argued that these initiatives aimed at students are simply a pragmatic response to a noticeable and definable problem. However the arguments of targeting groups whose behaviour is at odds with the accepted norm can be applied. It may well be that behaviour such as “swearing, public drinking, drug taking…” which Burney (2005 p.65) presents as examples of behaviour seen as problematic in the young, yet becoming more openly acceptable in society as a whole, are simply a part of student culture. Indeed a large section of the night time industry is aimed at students (Mintel 2004 in: Roberts 2006) and after all, students are not much older than the youth who are often seen as synonymous with antisocial behaviour.

The studentification debate contains a number of arguments that resonate with evaluations of how other groups are targeted and controlled and with many of the philosophies that that influenced the government when the legislation was under development. There are echoes in the national HMO Lobby’s arguments of Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) Broken Windows thesis relating (in part) the effect of urban degeneration caused by student housing to explain high crime levels in student areas. This theory does appear, as suggested by Burney (2005) to have become enshrined in folk wisdom, evident in the thoughts of local campaigners as well as politicians. Although the HMO Lobby does not directly attribute problems such as increased levels of burglary to the student population itself, discussions of street blight such as litter and fly-posting making an area appear run down and attracting crime are present in Tyler’s (2005) report. The suggestion of a lack of respect for the community, leading to behaviour that residents should not have to tolerate is also made.

A key argument put forward in Burney’s (2005) analysis of antisocial behaviour is that of “contested space”; how in the public arena some groups (often young people) are afforded lesser rights than others. Many aspects of Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 were presented as methods to empower communities (ibid.), yet it seems that not all residents in an area are afforded the status of belonging to the community. As Squires (2006) suggests, the concept of antisocial behaviour could be seen to involve a relationship between parties but norms may be enforced selectively. Hudson (2003) discussing, amongst other things, reactions to student accommodation argues that schemes labelled as “community” often in reality up hold the interests of certain small groups.

Students: The New Antisocial

There are clear examples of how some groups attempt measures beyond controlling the behaviour of students and attempt to directly limit the areas in which they may live. The HMO Lobby campaigns in Leeds to limit the areas in which student accommodation can be built (Guardian 2004, Tyler 2005). In Loughborough it a provision of lettings in one estate that “the use of any dwelling’ by anyone aged 18 to 27 who is studying at the college or university” is not permitted (Observer 2006). Kenyon (1997) discusses how many residents in areas of high student population feel that they are almost invaded, that the defensible space that is of high importance in peoples feelings about their neighbourhood is threatened by incomers who do not integrate into the community and its shared norms and values. Again these feelings are apparent in the discussions presented by the HMO Lobby and whilst issues such as housing and landlordism are raised, there is an underlying issue of behaviour; these measures may indicate a belief that attempts to directly control the behaviour of student are not sufficient and exclusion from the area or coummunity is the best approach.

As Burney (2005) points out charting or evaluating antisocial behaviour over history is problematic as there is little in the way of concrete records, however there are clear anecdotal accounts of fears about the behaviour of various groups. Students, it seems, are no exception. Kenyon (1997) describes how the violent “town and gown” clashes of medieval Oxford leading to the need for segregation of students and townsfolk were in part related to discontent about students’ immunity to taxes. There is a certain resonance here with the National HMO Lobby’s complaints about the fact modern students are not liable for council tax (National HMO Lobby nd.). A further historical similarity can be seen in complaints about the behaviour of riotous apprentices in the middle ages who devoted Shrove Tuesday to the wrecking of brothels and were hence banned from many public places of entertainment (Pearson 1983, Smith 1973: in Muncie 2004 p.66). In today’s Leeds, the HMO Lobby complains about similar student rituals such as “The Otley Run”, a pub crawl down the main street of Headingley (Tyler 2005).

Tensions between locals and students, and the creation or use of novel methods to deal with the perceived problems are therefore nothing new; students (or groups occupying a similar social niche) have often been personae non grata in the communities that they live in. It seems that their presence is begrudged and it is possibly for this reason that any breach of acceptable behaviour is perhaps seen as greater cause for complaint than would be the behaviour of locals. This may, of course, simply be down to numbers: with students reported to make up 61 per cent of the population of Headingley in 2005 (Tyler 2005) it is understandable that local residents may automatically assume the perpetrators of rowdy and particularly alcohol related behaviour to be from that group, however it is likely that there is a mesh of tensions affecting the visibility and attribution of issues to students.

Whether or not authorities are actively using these measures against the student population, clearly the threat is promoted. Leeds Student (20 April 2007), the student paper produced by Leeds University Union carries a warning from the Police Student Liaison Officer about the possible ramifications of public urination and other indecent acts. The paper also reports on recent police responses to parties in the Headingley area including the confiscation of sound equipment, a power discussed by Burney (2005) as a response to behaviour which may well be unsociable but also may be a normal part of modern living for some. There are also other related stratagies apparent – reports such as the use of Community Wardens in Belfast (BBC 2006a)  show strategies of responsibilization (Garland 2001 p.124) and wider community involvement (Crawford 1997).

Conclusion

It would be erroneous to blindly apply theories to a population, and students are not a group that perhaps New Labour had in mind when developing its political stance on crime, however it has been shown that many of the measures available through antisocial behaviour legislation are seen to be an appropriate method of controlling the problem of student behaviour, and hence are used for that purpose. This example also demonstrates how way aspects of the wider socio-political climate that spawned some these policy shifts can be seen to exist on a local as well as a macro level. Whether or not the use of the term “antisocial behaviour” by groups such as the HMO lobby is simply in its colloquial sense, or should be assumed to come from the available political rhetoric, New Labour’s ideas provide a convenient solution.

As with any legislative advance there will be those who question the motives and effects, and those who see its validity, the latter most likely being those whose lives are affected by the problem (real or imagined) that it seeks to control. Many areas with a high student population may well suffer disturbance from this disproportionately large youthful population. Examples such as this may even serve to strengthen the appeal of the shift (as identified by commentators such as Garland (2001)) away from seeking to address some of the root causes of crime in favour of simple managment. Students do not seem to fit with many of the socially excluded groups (those in poverty, those with mental ill-health, children with a troublesome family situation and so on) of whom it is often said that current legislation targets with no attempt to address their problems (Burney 2005, Squires 2005, Squires and Stephen 2005 inter alia). Indeed, perhaps akin to Cohen’s (1973) Mods and Rockers it may be that it is the relatively high spending power of this group and the construction of a student identity through consumption, rather than exclusion and poverty that dissociates this groups and breaks down community cohesion, particularly as the media takes hold of this new threat to certain localities.

Perhaps it can be argued that tolerance levels are low and there exists a culture of complaint (Burney 2005) and that antisocial behaviour from students is likely to be limited mainly to drunkenness, litter and possibly low level recreational drug use (Ireland 2006), rather then the seedbed of future delinquency that the government has stated antisocial behaviour to be. Sadly this may give credence to those who would stand behind methods of control that focus on behaviour and its effect, rather than cause, as in this case the causes are less apparent. What this example does make it clear that any section of society may be singled out and demonized, and that increasingly punitive and controlling legislation serves to provide methods for this to occur.

Notes

[1] A group concerned with a number of issues surrounding high number of HMOs (Houses in multiple occupation) and the effects upon established communities, particularly in relation to expansion in student numbers in many major university cities.

[2] Personal communication with WY police Student Liaison Officer.

[3] n.b. the links for these are now dead as of 2021

References

AsboConcern (n.d) What’s Wrong With ASBOs [online: http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asbowrong.html Accessed 1 May 2007. [Dead Link]

BBC (2004) Northern Ireland: Anti Social Behaviour Orders [online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/3873813.stm%5DAccessed 4 April 2007.

BBC (2006a) Drive to tackle student behaviour [online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4595354.stm%5D Accessed 3 May 2007.

BBC (2006b) Why students won’t behave badly [online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6098176.stm%5D Accessed 4 April 2007.

Beck, U (1992) Risk Society. London: Sage.

Brown, A P (2004) Antisocial Behaviour, Crime Control and Social Control The Howard Journal. 43, 2, 203-211.

Burney, E (2005) Making People Behave: Anti-social behaviour, politcs and policy. Cullompton: Willan.

Canterbury District Safer Community Partnership Student-Related Anti-Social Behaviour Protocol [Online: http://www.scrutiny.canterbury.gov.uk/docs/studentappendix3.pdf%5DAccessed 2 February 2007.

Card, R (2001) Criminal Law (15th Edition). London: Butterworths.

City Of Leeds Metropolitan District Council (Alcohol Consumption In Designated Public Places) Designation Order No. 1 2006 – Full text available for download from http://www.headingley.leedslearning.org/.

Cohen S (1973, 2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. (Third Edition). London: Routeledge.

Cohen, S (1985) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Crawford, A (1997) The local governance of crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Feely, M & Simon, J (1992) The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging strategy of correction and its implications. Criminology. 30, 4, 449-474.

Flint, J & Nixon, J (2006) Governing Neighbours: Antisocial Behaviour Orders and New Forms of Regulating Conduct in the UK. Urban Studies.43, 5/6, 939-955.

Garland, D (2001) The Culture of Control. London: Sage.

The Guardian (2004) Border controls for Student Shangri-La [online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/0,,1317955,00.html] Accessed 20 April 2007.

The Guardian (2006) Doner Your Way [online: http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1692970,00.html] Accessed 4 April 2007.

Hudson, B (2003) Justice in a Risk Society. London: Sage.

Ireland, J (2006) The fluffy bunny fantasy of the ghetto 1 Times Higher Education Supplement Comment [online: http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=2031149%5DAccessed 30 April 2007.

Kenyon, E L (1997) Seasonal sub-communities: the impact of student households on residential communities. British Journal of Sociology. 48, 2, 286-301.

Leeds University Neighbourhood Helpline [online: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/city/neighbourhood_helpline.htm%5D Accessed 11 April 2007.

Muncie, J (2004) Youth and Crime (Second Edition). London: Sage.

National HMO Lobby (n.d) Taxation of HMOs [online: http://hmolobby.org.uk/natcounciltax.htm%5D Accessed 30 April 2006.

The Observer (2006) You can’t live here, Students told [online: http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/housing/story/0,,1697549,00.html] Accessed 5 April 2007.

Pearson, G (1983) Hooligan: A history of respectable fears.Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Pease, K (2003) Crime Reduction. Extract from: M Maguire, R Reiner & R Morgan (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, M (2006) From ‘creative city’ to ‘no-go areas’ – The expansion of the night-time economy in British town and city centres. Cities. 25,5,331-338.

Smith, D P (2002) Processes of Studentification in Leeds, Report presented to the City and Regional Office. Leeds: University of Leeds.

Squires, P (2005) Rethinking ASBOs. Critical Social Policy 24, 4, 517-528

Squires, P (2006) New Labour and the politics of antisocial behaviour. Critical Social Policy 26,1, 144-168

Squires, P and Stephen, D (2005) Rougher Justice: Young people and antisocial behaviour. Cullompton: Willan.

The Times Higher Education Supplement (2006) ‘Student ‘yobs’ drive out locals’, June 30th, p.11.

Tyler, R (2005) Students & the Community in Leeds: Response to Questionnaire from Dr Darren Smith, February 2005 [online: http://hmolobby.org.uk/leeds/natstudcommresponse.htm%5D Accessed 4 April 2007.

UniveritiesUK (2006) Studentification: A guide to opportunities, challenges and practice. London: UniversitiesUK.

Wilson, J & Kelling, G (1982) Broken windows: the police and neighbourhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly. March: 29-37.