how about coldharbour lane?,there's a bit of space outside house of bottlesBlagsta said:Displace it to where exactly?

how about coldharbour lane?,there's a bit of space outside house of bottlesBlagsta said:Displace it to where exactly?

top_biller said:I've come very close to opening my window and telling them to shut the fuck up but I imagine it would have the opposite effect.

memespring said:The thing I dont understand is why the police are unable to deal with it. The same people are smoking and dealing in the same places.
reNnIe said:I've wondered much the same.

Giles said:It's a pity someone can't just go out and shoot a whole load of them. Then they wouldn't be "displaced" to go and shit on someone else's doorstep.
Giles said:It's a pity someone can't just go out and shoot a whole load of them. Then they wouldn't be "displaced" to go and shit on someone else's doorstep.
memespring said:Bit of a Daily Mail solution! I dont think being a crackhead is a path many people take out of choice.
Displacement is an issue, but not an argument to do nothing. It should be about making fast lowcost changes wherever there is a problem. e.g. If soemone boarded up the doorways into Brady's people wouldnt be able to deal there anymore.
top_biller said:...or put the library/Ritzy fire exit doors flush with the wall. WHY THE RECESS? WHY? I'd love to get hold of the architect who designed that feature and ask if he envisaged it as a handy toke spot cum urinal.
Then put some some low spikes on the wall that runs down each block (I've always liked the jagged bits of glass you see cemented in, that would mess with the high). Nothing too harsh, just so you can't sit down.
Harpoon turrets on the roof and its job done.
Bob said:You could probably simply lobby the Ritzy directly to change the configuration of their doors - it probably wouldn't cost much and I suspect they are the sort of company that would value the opinions of their neighbours.
memespring said:Thats sort of why I suggested a mailing list - if you have 50 + people lobbying the ritzy you'd probably get further than doing it on your own.

Bob said:Good point. I nominate you to run it! I'll pm you my email.![]()
top_biller said:...or put the library/Ritzy fire exit doors flush with the wall. WHY THE RECESS? WHY?
Crispy said:Because fire exit doors can never open directly onto a pavement, the door swings could easily hit someone or, more seriously, be blocked by something. It's the law!
As a result, buildings everywhere have fire exits that are also fantastic for pissing/smoking/shooting up in.
EDIT : Unless the pavement's really wide - then you can get away with it
Giles said:It's a pity someone can't just go out and shoot a whole load of them. Then they wouldn't be "displaced" to go and shit on someone else's doorstep.
Johnny Canuck2 said:I've always wondered: these people are so obviously poor and down and out. How can they afford so damn much crack?
How much change can one person steal out of parked cars in a day?
They were there before the yuppies.Giles said:It's a pity someone can't just go out and shoot a whole load of them. Then they wouldn't be "displaced" to go and shit on someone else's doorstep.
The answer is metal grille gates or similar which have to be locked "open" during performance but which can otherwise be locked shut, barring access to the recess. Whilst this still leaves the recess accessible for some of the time, it reduces it significantly and restricts it to times when, by definition, there is activity at the venue and staff who could be tasked to monitor / move on anyone using the recessed areas inappropriately.Bob said:I bet there are solutions though... can't obviously see what they are. Have signed the pledge incidentally.
detective-boy said:The answer is metal grille gates or similar which have to be locked "open" during performance but which can otherwise be locked shut, barring access to the recess. Whilst this still leaves the recess accessible for some of the time, it reduces it significantly and restricts it to times when, by definition, there is activity at the venue and staff who could be tasked to monitor / move on anyone using the recessed areas inappropriately.
Because the police do not have the answer. They only thing they can do is enforce the law - arrest, charge, bail, see imprisoned for a short time, then round and round and round again. The criminal law only treats the symptom (and does that poorly!).memespring said:The thing I dont understand is why the police are unable to deal with it. The same people are smoking and dealing in the same places.
detective-boy said:Because the police do not have the answer. They only thing they can do is enforce the law - arrest, charge, bail, see imprisoned for a short time, then round and round and round again. The criminal law only treats the symptom (and does that poorly!).
They cannot do anything to reduce demand by education, to provide support to people trying to give up drugs, to provide health related interventions where necessary, etc. Other agencies (health, social services, education, charities, etc.) have roles to play but they are notoriously underesourced and even ten years after the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1994, which was clearly intended to legally oblige them to assist the police in reducing crime, and often still reluctant to play their part. There is also a strong thread of reluctance to try anything which may be considered "soft on drugs" by central government. They constantly use enforcement as their only response despite clear evidence that it does not work.
You can say "What are the police doing about it?" until you are blue in the face - it will not, and cannot, make any significant difference.
detective-boy said:Because the police do not have the answer. They only thing they can do is enforce the law - arrest, charge, bail, see imprisoned for a short time, then round and round and round again. The criminal law only treats the symptom (and does that poorly!).
They cannot do anything to reduce demand by education, to provide support to people trying to give up drugs, to provide health related interventions where necessary, etc. Other agencies (health, social services, education, charities, etc.) have roles to play but they are notoriously underesourced and even ten years after the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1994, which was clearly intended to legally oblige them to assist the police in reducing crime, and often still reluctant to play their part. There is also a strong thread of reluctance to try anything which may be considered "soft on drugs" by central government. They constantly use enforcement as their only response despite clear evidence that it does not work.
You can say "What are the police doing about it?" until you are blue in the face - it will not, and cannot, make any significant difference.
phildwyer said:It worked in New York, quite dramatically so.
Johnny Canuck2 said:What: no crackheads in New York?
phildwyer said:And it was aggressive policing wot done it.

memespring said:I dont think aggressive policing has a very good history in Brixton.![]()
phildwyer said:Far, far fewer than 15 years ago. The whole atmosphere of the city changed dramatically between 92 and 96--the first 4 years of the Giuliani administration. I've never seen such a transformation. And it was aggressive policing wot done it.