But this isn't a case like the death penalty.
The death penalty is wrong; deterring people from street drinking and drug taking is right. Right for those individuals, right for our local area, right for businesses and right for our community. There isn't any downside to deterring this type of activity.
Smearing local traders and denigrating the actions of our police and police panel isn't going to help. Nor is it helpful to cast our local population as a group who simply "couldn't care less" about issues such as street drinking and crime. That's certainly not my experience.
Barry Milton
Street drinking survey
Nasaroc wrote 'deterring people from street drinking and drug taking is right. Right for those individuals, right for our local area, right for businesses and right for our community. There isn't any downside to deterring this type of activity'
However the means in which this is done is very important, an ineffective intervention will further demonise and marginalise these people. If you treat people as criminals they will feel more inclined to act like criminals.
Moving people on will not stop them regrouping somewhere else ( nearby)and carrying on drinking else where. Drug dealers will not be deterred from dealing ( or indeed living) in sydenham because the street drinkers have been moved on.
In my experience street drinkers do not always use drugs as well. In fact the older street drinker is more likely to use alcohol alone and despise people who use drugs.
However the means in which this is done is very important, an ineffective intervention will further demonise and marginalise these people. If you treat people as criminals they will feel more inclined to act like criminals.
Moving people on will not stop them regrouping somewhere else ( nearby)and carrying on drinking else where. Drug dealers will not be deterred from dealing ( or indeed living) in sydenham because the street drinkers have been moved on.
In my experience street drinkers do not always use drugs as well. In fact the older street drinker is more likely to use alcohol alone and despise people who use drugs.
-
Paddy Pantsdown
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 10:04
- Location: Venner Road
There is surely a presumption that killing is wrong.
The only defence is that it prevents an even worse outcome. You could justify the death penalty if it lowers the murder rate. Taking a life saves a life. I do not think this has been established. Until it has then I have no problem with Nasaroc's presumption.
I do on many other things!
PP
The only defence is that it prevents an even worse outcome. You could justify the death penalty if it lowers the murder rate. Taking a life saves a life. I do not think this has been established. Until it has then I have no problem with Nasaroc's presumption.
I do on many other things!
PP
Eagle wrote: I wonder by what authority you have to say it is not right and dismiss the others , who you acknowledge are the majority.
The point was a rhetorical one really; illustrating the fact that just because a lot of people (or most people) believe something then it doesn't make it true. In centuries gone people believed the world was flat, that didn't make it true.
If you want a discussion on the death penalty (and why it is abhorant) then we can start a new thread if you'd like.
Why, precisely, aside from the fact that drug-taking is, on the whole, illegal?nasaroc wrote:deterring people from street drinking and drug taking is right.
And discouraging and penalising are two completely different things...
Ok, educating and encouraging people to look after themselves is a good thing...Right for those individuals,
Why? What harm are they doing to you or the area? It seems that the crux of the issue is that you don't like them, you think they look scruffy and you'd rather we all lived in utopian paradise where we all supped chablis in the Dolphin and pushed our children around in three-wheeler buggies.right for our local area,
As I have said time and time again - and which you havn't addressed - if they are doing illegal things then there are already laws in place to deal with that. Being drunk in a public place, being drunk and disorderly, being in posession of a controlled substance, using actions or words that case people harrassment alarm or distress, assaulting people, stealing - or whatever - are all illegal and can be delt with, if they are doing any of these things. What harm are they doing by sitting and drinking? Why should anyone who feels like walking along the street drinking lager from a can and minding their own business be potentially penalised?
How, precisely? Businesses won't like scruffy people outside because they put off custom. So, basically, businesses are interested in their profit margin. That's fair enough, that's what businesses are for, but it is a misnomer to suggest that their "concern" exists for any wider social reason. The fact that these people are unattractive is not cause for penalising them. The fact that they may be more likely to attract or cause sorts of crime are not, in themselves reasons to penalise them; we can already deal with them using existing laws if they are involved in crime. Should we ban other groups of people because they might put off custom or might be more inclined to be involved in crime in some way? Should we just ban people that don't fit in with our image?right for businesses and right for our community.
Well, yes there is actually; on a basic level restricing peoples (lawful) activity is fundamentally unfair.There isn't any downside to deterring this type of activity.
Yes, there are medical and social cocerns for these people - and they can be addressed through medical and social means: drop in centres, health checks and the like. But stopping them from going about their (lawful) activity isn't going to help them access these things is it? Its just going to push the "problem" somewhere else.
Out of sight out of mind eh
I don't want to discourage people from trying to help their local communities. That is a laudable aim - something I am very interested in. However, we should focus on the real issues; the issues where people lives are adversly affected, the injustices and criminality in our local community. This sad bunch of people don't really fall into that category do they? Offering help is a good thing. Sweeping them away is not.Smearing local traders and denigrating the actions of our police and police panel isn't going to help.
how many people go to the sydenham assembly or are involved in community issues, or are even registered on this website?Nor is it helpful to cast our local population as a group who simply "couldn't care less" about issues such as street drinking and crime. That's certainly not my experience.
What proportion of the 15400 or so people that live in Sydenham are they?
Most people do not feel passionately enough about this subject to really give two hoots. If you would stop them and ask them I don't doubt quite a few would say they "didn't like" these drinkers, but not liking someone is not grounds to penalise them is it? That, though, seems to be what your argument boils down to at the end of he day. What I really object to is the self-appointed "busy-bodys" who tell us (and the authorites) that they represent local people and local feeling with absolutely no mandate. Helping out the local community is one (laudable) thing. Marginalising and criminalising the vulnerable is another...
I've become very bored of this prejudice against people who like to go to a smart, clean pub for something other than a pint of bitter. In Sydenham, the Dolphin is my preferred pub. This is not because I believe that to enter the place is to find Utopia, nor do I go there in order look down on people who drink in other pubs. I just prefer it to other pubs on Sydenham Road, other pubs which I do occasionally visit. It irks me that some people use my choice of pub as a way of denigrating other opinions that I hold on unrelated issues.bensonby wrote:you'd rather we all lived in utopian paradise where we all supped chablis in the Dolphin and pushed our children around in three-wheeler buggies.
As for the three-wheeled buggies comment, I do not yet have any children of my own, but when I do, I'll wheel them around in whatever I find best for the job. Whether it has three wheels, four wheels, or ten wheels, this won't affect my political convictions or my views on social issues.
For what it's worth bensonby, I think that our hard-won civil liberties should be treasured; I think that the current government has dangerously eroded these liberties and Labour will never get my vote in any election (this from the son of a coalminer brought up in a Yorkshire mining village in the 80s). I think we've got more than enough laws as it is and, while I do not like the look of the street drinkers, I do not think they should be criminalised unless there is evidence that they have committed a crime. While I would be just as pleased if they left Sydenham Road as I would be if any other eyesore were removed from the local area, I would prefer them to be given assistance with re-integrating into wider society, rather than be jailed or simply moved on to a different high street.
I was actually going to keep these thoughts to myself, as these views are adequately represented on this post, but I feel that your unnecessary comments about chablis in the Dolphin and three-wheeled buggies somewhat lessened the impact of the rest of your words.
I think we are all looking to improve our environment. Whether that is in our front garden, or the places we frequent.
I have no particular axe to grind against the street drinkers, except that they are (in part) a hinderance to the betterment of Sydenham Road.
On occasion I have been subject to verbal abuse from people who regularly use the bench outside the post office. On two occasions in the past 2 years I have become a participant in a traffic jam as drunks have brawled in the road outside the post office.
I would imagine owning a pub, or other businesses, in the immediate vicinity would be detrimentally impacted by such behaviour.
Why should Joe Public and local businesses have to suffer this?
Ali B
I have no particular axe to grind against the street drinkers, except that they are (in part) a hinderance to the betterment of Sydenham Road.
On occasion I have been subject to verbal abuse from people who regularly use the bench outside the post office. On two occasions in the past 2 years I have become a participant in a traffic jam as drunks have brawled in the road outside the post office.
I would imagine owning a pub, or other businesses, in the immediate vicinity would be detrimentally impacted by such behaviour.
Why should Joe Public and local businesses have to suffer this?
Ali B
If that's the case, they have committed a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. If it was a group of youths/"gang of hoodies (c) Daily Mail" doing this, I don't think anyone would be standing up for their rights and an instrument such as an ASBO would be used to prevent them entering the area.ALIB wrote:I have been subject to verbal abuse from people who regularly use the bench outside the post office. On two occasions in the past 2 years I have become a participant in a traffic jam as drunks have brawled in the road outside the post office.
I don't normally go down the high street in the week, but whenever I have been there recently I haven't seen any street drinkers - I wonder if they have found somewhere else to go? I hope that any elderly or infirm people using the high street now feel free to use the bench, although it could probably do with getting a good clean first.
