Tim.
Yes, of course there is a case for a bit of tidying up. But, lets be clear that it needs to be done fairly and everywhere. My Swift allusion was just a bit of frustrated sounding-off.
Carrot AND stick and targeted compassion can be usefully applied in order to get the results we are looking for.
Street drinkers and heroin users
what is the problem though? Why are these people a problem? I've yet to see anyone put forward a decent argument that demonstrates someone drinking super-strength alcohol in a street constitutes a "problem".Tim Lund wrote: focused on the problem.
What harm are they doing?
If they are committing offences they can be dealt with as such for those offences. If they aren't, then what is the problem and why would restricting alcohol consumption help anything?
I get the distinct feeling that people just "don't like them" and they "bring down the tone of an area"
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
Bensonby:
The problem is behaviour, typically linked to various types of drug use, which perfectly reasonable people find disturbing. For example, being loud and offensive, urinating, dealing drugs, leaving discarded needles around. They make Sydenham Road a less attractive place to be - there is the real harm.
You write:
You ask
We do have a problem, and it is entirely reasonable to see police involvement as part of the solution, and to give them the greater flexibility that comes with a DCZ.
The problem is behaviour, typically linked to various types of drug use, which perfectly reasonable people find disturbing. For example, being loud and offensive, urinating, dealing drugs, leaving discarded needles around. They make Sydenham Road a less attractive place to be - there is the real harm.
You write:
I really don't think this is true, as long as they have the wit not to commit offences when the police are watching them. And they do have some wit - it was almost funny when one of them came into the Post Office asking how to spell 'petition', because they wanted to petition against being bothered by the police.If they are committing offences they can be dealt with as such for those offences.
You ask
The answers are obvious: (1) to the extent that consumption goes down, there is less disturbing drunken behaviour, and (2) if the same behaviour happens where it disturbs fewer people, it has been some help.why would restricting alcohol consumption help anything?
We do have a problem, and it is entirely reasonable to see police involvement as part of the solution, and to give them the greater flexibility that comes with a DCZ.
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
I'm not quite sure what saying 'fix bayonets' would mean in this context, so I can't answer that one.
What I am trying to say is that it is entirely reasonable for us as citizens living in Sydenham to insist that this is a problem that the Council, in its role as co-ordinator of other local agencies, should be addressing more effectively. It's a fine example of the sort of issue where discussion gets polarised, and hence time wasted, with participants using emotive language such as 'bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood' and 'human rights', with either a sneer or passionate intensity, depending on which side they come down. I take both these sorts of argument seriously, and I think we need to be able to argue the case seriously to make progress.
Hence my question to Bensonby about the nature of DCZs - and whether they do usefully increase enforcement powers, and my welcoming the link put up by Mikecg about wet day centres, etc. Privately, I was also talking yesterday to a friend who lives in the area, and has worked for St Mungo's for many years - http://www.mungos.org/ - dealing with people with 'chaotic' lifestyles. I wanted to know what she thought the best thing to do might be. Not only should we be well informed, but we should be seen to be interested in being well informed. The same goes for being principled rather than self interested.
I hope that's not all too boring. There's a time and place for expressing anger and frustration, but on its own, it doesn't help that much.
What I am trying to say is that it is entirely reasonable for us as citizens living in Sydenham to insist that this is a problem that the Council, in its role as co-ordinator of other local agencies, should be addressing more effectively. It's a fine example of the sort of issue where discussion gets polarised, and hence time wasted, with participants using emotive language such as 'bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood' and 'human rights', with either a sneer or passionate intensity, depending on which side they come down. I take both these sorts of argument seriously, and I think we need to be able to argue the case seriously to make progress.
Hence my question to Bensonby about the nature of DCZs - and whether they do usefully increase enforcement powers, and my welcoming the link put up by Mikecg about wet day centres, etc. Privately, I was also talking yesterday to a friend who lives in the area, and has worked for St Mungo's for many years - http://www.mungos.org/ - dealing with people with 'chaotic' lifestyles. I wanted to know what she thought the best thing to do might be. Not only should we be well informed, but we should be seen to be interested in being well informed. The same goes for being principled rather than self interested.
I hope that's not all too boring. There's a time and place for expressing anger and frustration, but on its own, it doesn't help that much.
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
Apologies for neglecting the motive and detail of my 'method', Tim.I'm not quite sure what saying 'fix bayonets' would mean in this context, so I can't answer that one.
I was merely alluding to the possibility of an altogether different approach. Since the street drinkers and other assorted pond life who shout abuse at passers by and pidgeons alike starkly mirror the barbarian hordes. I think it's about time the freeborn of Sydenham rise up against these savages and run the buggers through!
Allow me to demonstrate with this short clip. Notice the similarity between the target and our own, 'tattooed man' of Kirkdale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RCvdm8-vTM
There are offences in amongst that lot - specifically drugs offences - which they can be dealt with for those offences....repeat offenders can be given ASBOs.Tim Lund wrote:The problem is behaviour, typically linked to various types of drug use, which perfectly reasonable people find disturbing. For example, being loud and offensive, urinating, dealing drugs, leaving discarded needles around. They make Sydenham Road a less attractive place to be - there is the real harm.
offences don't just have to happen in the presence of a police officer for it to be an offence and to be dealt with....that's a bizarre supposition.You write:
I really don't think this is true, as long as they have the wit not to commit offences when the police are watching them.If they are committing offences they can be dealt with as such for those offences.
But I'm not entirely sure what you think the problem is? People sitting on a bench making the place look untidy? If, as you say, they are taking illegal drugs then fair enough - they can be arrested and dealt with for those offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971....We do have a problem, and it is entirely reasonable to see police involvement as part of the solution, and to give them the greater flexibility that comes with a DCZ.
Indeed, if they are willing to be taking a bit of class A in public then what makes you think that banning them drinking alcohol will make them stop?
but I'm still not sure you've defined clearly what the problem is.... the fact these people are there?Tim Lund wrote:What I am trying to say is that it is entirely reasonable for us as citizens living in Sydenham to insist that this is a problem that the Council, in its role as co-ordinator of other local agencies, should be addressing more effectively.
What are they doing that is so unpalatable? As I've said time and time again - if they approach you and abuse/assault you or whatever then they can be dealt with because that is an offence.
If they are taking drugs - then they can be dealt with because that is an offence.
If they are sitting there drinking a can of super-strength and nothing else then what harm are they doing?
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
They're causing unease. Strong lager is associated with the unpredictable. If you spot someone drinking a can of Special Brew you - quite rightly - assume they could become unpredictable which also translates as 'threatening'. O.K, it's not against the law, but neither - correct me if I'm wrong - is walking around wearing a balaclava or ski-mask in public.If they are sitting there drinking a can of super-strength and nothing else then what harm are they doing?
Doing so may not be against the law but I know how I would feel if I was waiting for a bus next to someone who was wearing one.
Basically, however cliched - it's socially unacceptable behaviour.
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
-
digime2007
- Posts: 258
- Joined: 10 Sep 2007 18:26
- Location: Sydenhham
I think it's pretty irresponsible to ignore the issues here.
Their behaviour is clearly bad for local business, intimidating to some, and harmful to themselves. Everyone loses.
The question is what the best way of addressing the issues might be so that everyone benefits.
I don't have that answer but I think it's worth discussing and thinking about. Ignoring things doesn't help anyone.
Their behaviour is clearly bad for local business, intimidating to some, and harmful to themselves. Everyone loses.
The question is what the best way of addressing the issues might be so that everyone benefits.
I don't have that answer but I think it's worth discussing and thinking about. Ignoring things doesn't help anyone.
Bensonby wrote
You also write:
also:
This is an area where we should allow the police discretion to use their experience and common sense, taking into account their knowledge of the individuals.
It sounds from what you write elsewhere:offences don't just have to happen in the presence of a police officer for it to be an offence and to be dealt with....that's a bizarre supposition.
that you feel the solution is for us as citizens to be more prepared to make statements to the police - initially I thought you were suggesting citizen's arrests. I can agree that this might be part of the solution, but some evidence as to why this doesn't seem to happen would be welcome. In any case, it has no bearing on whether the greater flxibility police would be given in a DCZ might also be part of the solution.if they approach you and abuse/assault you or whatever then they can be dealt with
You also write:
No. In arguing with Bensonby I know that careful use of language is necessary. I quite clearly wrote about 'behaviour ... linked to various types of drug use' - not the individuals being there.I'm still not sure you've defined clearly what the problem is.... the fact these people are there?
also:
Actually, in this context, I'm not too fussed about the illegality or otherwise of the drugs. If they are indeed 'sitting there drinking a can of super-strength and nothing else' it would not bother me, in the same way as it would not bother me if they were taking E - would I know? - or just smoking tobacco.If, as you say, they are taking illegal drugs then fair enough - they can be arrested
This is an area where we should allow the police discretion to use their experience and common sense, taking into account their knowledge of the individuals.
so if your problem is purely their behaviour then the simple fact of the matter is - if their behaviour transgresses the law - for the police to arrest/disrupt that behaviour. There are plenty of laws that they could potentially be breaking: support the police by reporting such behaviour.
If their behaviour is within the bounds of the law then leave them alone....it's none of your business.
One of the reasons why I'm against giving the police the power to confiscate open containers of alcohol is because it is a blanket power that the police do not have to apply any kind of necessity or proportionality test to; theoretically you could be on your way back from a dinner party with half a bottle of wine in your bag with the cap back on which could be seized. Why shouldn't you have the freedom to mind your own business sipping from a bottle without fear of someone taking your property away from you if you are behaving yourself?
There are plenty of laws in force that prohibit people from behaving inappropriately. The act, itself, of drinking alcohol is not inappropiate in any respect.
If their behaviour is within the bounds of the law then leave them alone....it's none of your business.
One of the reasons why I'm against giving the police the power to confiscate open containers of alcohol is because it is a blanket power that the police do not have to apply any kind of necessity or proportionality test to; theoretically you could be on your way back from a dinner party with half a bottle of wine in your bag with the cap back on which could be seized. Why shouldn't you have the freedom to mind your own business sipping from a bottle without fear of someone taking your property away from you if you are behaving yourself?
There are plenty of laws in force that prohibit people from behaving inappropriately. The act, itself, of drinking alcohol is not inappropiate in any respect.
but there aren't really any issues - they are being created by people getting their knickers in a needless twist.digime2007 wrote:I think it's pretty irresponsible to ignore the issues here.
What behaviour?Their behaviour is clearly bad for local business, intimidating to some, and harmful to themselves. Everyone loses.
I've met people who are intimidated by a group of black males congregating together... should we put restrictions on certain ethnic groups assembling?
For an act to be restricted by law there has to be some positive act; not merely people being in a location minding their own business.
-
digime2007
- Posts: 258
- Joined: 10 Sep 2007 18:26
- Location: Sydenhham
No Bensonby is not lost, he holds a view that most replying so far people don't agree with.
This was discussed at length on the 'street drinkers survey' a couple of years ago.
I've worked with street drinkers in the recent past, although not the only remit of the job I was doing the experience gave me some informed knowledge of who they are and where they came from...and most importantly their motives for sitting around drinking.
Alcoholism/drug addiction and the basis for this is obviously varied but overall the people I met had problems that where so consuming that causing offence/ committing crimes or actual injury to others was not something they would actually set out to do, or indeed did.
Marginalising this group of people, serves, in my opinion to further isolate them from the community.
Isolation of a group of people from a community serves only to breed a sense of contempt and fear.
This can then become the only belief both the community and the isolated group share ....of one another.
This was discussed at length on the 'street drinkers survey' a couple of years ago.
I've worked with street drinkers in the recent past, although not the only remit of the job I was doing the experience gave me some informed knowledge of who they are and where they came from...and most importantly their motives for sitting around drinking.
Alcoholism/drug addiction and the basis for this is obviously varied but overall the people I met had problems that where so consuming that causing offence/ committing crimes or actual injury to others was not something they would actually set out to do, or indeed did.
Marginalising this group of people, serves, in my opinion to further isolate them from the community.
Isolation of a group of people from a community serves only to breed a sense of contempt and fear.
This can then become the only belief both the community and the isolated group share ....of one another.
Let's put it this way
AFAIK there is no dispute about what the pattern of behaviour under discussion is - just that for most STFers it is a problem but for Bensonby it is more a "problem".
A DCZ would give the police greater powers, and if these were used, it would change the pattern of behaviour - by reducing it or merely displacing it - which would result the behaviour being less of a problem for those for whom it is such. I have asserted this, and Bensonby has not contested it.
Bensonby makes the good point that just because people - and to strengthen his case, I'd grant even if a large majority of people - find a pattern of behaviour a problem, that doesn't mean they are right to expect the police to curb it.
At this point I could try arguing why in this case we can reasonably ask the police to intervene - and it would come down to arguing the street drinkers' rights against ours. It would quickly get us into deep water, so alternatively -
We could argue that, thanks to the adoption of Human Rights into UK law, there is a place where such arguments can be conducted with a rather greater authority or sophistication than we can muster here. Since DCZs will have been enabled by some statute or other, we can take it that due consideration to Human Rights was taken - and if not, then we can expect it to be challenged. However, if you google "Drink control zone" "human rights" there doesn't seem to be much about it - the most relevant being a report from another London Borough making a case for why a DCZ does not infringe the HR Act of 1998.
Moving on to practicalities, there may be an argument as to whether DCZ powers will help - although Bensonby doesn't seem to have followed this yet. Some in the police - and other authorities - are clearly reluctant about DCZs, and there are probably some practical reason for this, e.g.:
1. DCZs may be ineffective and so will disappoint, and reduce confidence in the police. The response to this is to look at the evidence, probably with DCZs as part of a wider set of measures - setting up wet centres, etc.
2. A DCZ merely displaces the pattern of behaviour to outside the DCZ. I think it will to some extent, which is why I think a borough-wide DCZ makes more sense. A special boundary would also seem an unnecessary administrative headache.
Hopefully we can leave it there - but I doubt it
AFAIK there is no dispute about what the pattern of behaviour under discussion is - just that for most STFers it is a problem but for Bensonby it is more a "problem".
A DCZ would give the police greater powers, and if these were used, it would change the pattern of behaviour - by reducing it or merely displacing it - which would result the behaviour being less of a problem for those for whom it is such. I have asserted this, and Bensonby has not contested it.
Bensonby makes the good point that just because people - and to strengthen his case, I'd grant even if a large majority of people - find a pattern of behaviour a problem, that doesn't mean they are right to expect the police to curb it.
At this point I could try arguing why in this case we can reasonably ask the police to intervene - and it would come down to arguing the street drinkers' rights against ours. It would quickly get us into deep water, so alternatively -
We could argue that, thanks to the adoption of Human Rights into UK law, there is a place where such arguments can be conducted with a rather greater authority or sophistication than we can muster here. Since DCZs will have been enabled by some statute or other, we can take it that due consideration to Human Rights was taken - and if not, then we can expect it to be challenged. However, if you google "Drink control zone" "human rights" there doesn't seem to be much about it - the most relevant being a report from another London Borough making a case for why a DCZ does not infringe the HR Act of 1998.
Moving on to practicalities, there may be an argument as to whether DCZ powers will help - although Bensonby doesn't seem to have followed this yet. Some in the police - and other authorities - are clearly reluctant about DCZs, and there are probably some practical reason for this, e.g.:
1. DCZs may be ineffective and so will disappoint, and reduce confidence in the police. The response to this is to look at the evidence, probably with DCZs as part of a wider set of measures - setting up wet centres, etc.
2. A DCZ merely displaces the pattern of behaviour to outside the DCZ. I think it will to some extent, which is why I think a borough-wide DCZ makes more sense. A special boundary would also seem an unnecessary administrative headache.
Hopefully we can leave it there - but I doubt it