Historians have long debated the meaning of the term "scold" and its implications. Were these women merely outspoken and independent? Did men bring these charges to keep women in "their place"? Social conformity was extremely important during these centuries and it seems that neighbours felt they had a right to keep a constant eye on the comings and goings of their fellow citizens. The following deposition from Hereford illustrates this:

"Information against Margaret Woodliffe for being idle, abusive, malicious and envious, and for cursing and abusing Richard Dobles, a neighbour, and creating discord between him and his wife by her slanders; and for being too drunk to stand and having to be put to bed by neighbours before she did herself a mischief."

Margaret sounds like a neighbour from hell, but would she today be charged with anything at all? The closest the current legal system comes to curtailing such alleged anti-social conduct is by allowing housing associations to expel families who display extremely bad behaviour. Anti-social Behaviour Orders allow for various measures to be taken (such as banning culprits from creating a nuisance during set hours of the day, imposing curfews etc) before eviction is resorted to. Local authorities as well as housing associations can take these measures (which have to be approved by the courts) against their tenants. In Tudor times, the remedy was a stint in the ducking stool.

Crime prevention measures were taken seriously. In Leominster, by order of the Court Leet (1534), young people were not allowed to be out and about without permission after 10 p.m. under threat of imprisonment.

"It is orderyd by the xii men that no mans son nor wagyd sevnt shall walk in the strette after the owre of x of the Clok in the nyght, upon peyn of Ipsonment, unlesse that the father or the master will make for them a lawfull excuse."

Not all criminal activity could be prevented, however, and the ingenuity in meting out punishment is illustrated in the following example:

An interesting exception to the general paucity of outcome is a case of forgery of 1535. A John Bedo hired a William Blast to forge a document claiming to be a letter from the Commissioners of the Marches and got a James Watkyns to deliver this forged letter. In spite of using an old seal to make the letter seem more authentic they were caught and brought to justice. The punishment was carried out during the time of the market in Hereford, when the streets would have been full of people to watch and jeer and throw things. The two accomplices had to lead John Bedo through the streets of Hereford, whilst he was sitting on a horse back to front, wearing a large sign around his neck with the following message: