How niche should a law be? I ask because the Manifesto Club, which campaigns against over-regulation, has published a list of activities that have been banned under public spaces protection orders (PSPO) since October last year. Some are so specific that you can almost guess at the addressee. Did you know, for instance, that in certain parts of Cambridge it is illegal to possess an open container of alcohol?

This, surely, would cause serious disruption to students’ plans for picnics. But not to worry – the council has thought of this unwanted limitation to personal freedom. The certain part of Cambridge from which open containers of alcohol are banned does not extend to the frontages of university colleges, Parker’s Piece or punts. The trouble spots included in the police evidence submitted to the council include non-collegiate landmarks along Mill Road such as the Co-op, the Sweet ‘n’ Spicy and Jimmy’s night shelter for the homeless. The ban covers a cemetery and the forecourt of a care home. Apparently, police would turn up to these locations, only to find people standing around with containers of alcohol, not really doing anything, causing the police to lament their lack of power to deal with the people who are not really doing anything.

You can see the appeal of PSPOs to councils and police forces. They were introduced in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act last October, intended to give councils the power to ban activities that have a “detrimental impact” on the quality of citizens’ lives. But the outcome is a patchwork of absurd bans. There is something unintentionally comic about the attempt to fit the language of the law, to apply its thoroughness and hauteur to the narrowest local problems. The disjuncture makes the problems seem piffling.

This is apparent in Colchester, where motorists – actually “motorists” is a little too open to interpretation – any person in “a mechanically propelled vehicle” is prohibited from entering the car park of Turner Rise Retail Park between 6pm and 6am unless they are a customer of Iceland, Jollyes pet store, Dunelm Mill or any other store there. This seems harsh. What about motorists who need to use the loo, do a quick U-turn or pick up a friend or relative from the end of their Pizza Hut shift? Never mind them. The PSPO is really directed at the people who congregate in the car park for “events which include the attendance of burger vans”. The Daily Gazette calls them “boy racers”, although perhaps they are just people looking for a cheap night out and find the car park better value than Pizza Hut.

Of course, antisocial behaviour can have a far-reaching impact on the health and happiness of those it affects. But these PSPOs make a mockery of the idea of social justice by appearing to apply general laws to a generic situation while actually targeting specific groups. There is something dishonest about the way they purport to cover all comers but are really interested in only a few. It gives the PSPOs a spurious feel: you can sense the brainstorm behind the language of each, and the tighter the field of application, the more ludicrous they sound. They suggest that a small amount of thought, and the odd legal tweak, could make all our lives better. Where will this end? How about the following PSPOs:

1. To stop people walking up my garden path and, specifically, from using the door knocker, doorbell or letterbox unless I have invited them to.

2. To prohibit the routine addition of liquid dressing, mustard, pickle, mayo and garnishes to sandwiches. (“Garnishes” to include sliced tomatoes and gerkins.)

3. To make cat owners responsible for the removal of cat mess from the gardens of their non-cat-owning neighbours.