On paper, that sort of thing is great, but as far as I've seen, it falls apart pretty quickly in practice. As someone currently trying, and failing, to use proper channels to deal with antisocial behaviour from a neighbour, the `objective' rules actually end up tying the hands of those trying to fix the problem. What starts out as a well-intentioned action with the aim of ensuring fairness pretty quickly ends up acting as a shield for the offender and a roadblock for the victim. In my particular case, and the case of several others with whom I've spoken, the problem is compounded because the victims have Uni degrees and non-regional accents, so they're clearly bo-boes throwing their weight about and drive out the `disadvantaged'.

So the only solution to "bad government" (lack of enforcement) is more "bad government" (we-don't-like-you laws.) Sorry, I don't agree.

I used to work in local government doing ordinance enforcement and I would have pilloried any inspector who performed as you describe.

It was my experience however that people would move into certain areas because they were extremely cheap and then complain about the pre-existing problems. My favorite were people who moved into new condo building adjacent to commuter train tracks and then complained about frequency and noise of the trains.

Depends on the extent. If it is persistent, and makes you genuinely fear for your safety, it can be assault (in the UK assault does not require the person to touch you).

Which is another reason why this law is idiotic: The legal system in the UK already have ways of dealing with this. However the police generally do not want to follow up allegations related to these crimes because e.g. assault without any physical contact is extremely hard to prove for obvious reasons.

If they try hard to avoid enforcing the current laws, there's little reason to think the new law is being pushed forward to help the public.