Dispersal Zones

[tarannau]

And I have (purposely) not stated a personal opinion on the matter because I have no contemporary knowledge of the Peace Gardens drinkers (about whom the original poster specifically raised an issue). It is YOU and ianw who have extrapolated my simple posts into something more, apparently attributing views and opinions to me that I do not hold.

Sorry DB, I'm not having that. i can appreciate that you were trying to state the 'full' criminology theory in retrospect, but this idea that you acted as a dispassionate conduit for information, with your views or opinions not visible, doesn't seemed backed up by the thread.

Simple posts? What was all that nonsense about kids being pushed off their playgrounds by vagrants, propelled to a life of stabbing each other as a result? And was the (duff) differentiation between 'vagrants' and acceptable drinkers on post 14 an accurate representation of the latest 'zero tolerance' theory or something of a personal take on the situation. I suspect the latter.

You contribute some good stuff on here, but you seem to want to have your cake and eat on this thread. On one side you're massively misrepresenting my views, complete with all that hysterical ACAB nonsense, plenty of angry smilies and lots of fucking this and that, and then you've the bloody cheek to complain that at least a couple of folks seems to have drawn the same conclusions from your posts. Which aren't nearly as half as clear, detached or neutral as you seem to believe.

 

[CPCG]

That's hilarious. I hardly think someone who stands directly outside a popular store like Woolworths, clearly saying "skunk skunk" to passers-by is worried about "cover".

I think the issue is 'cover' to retreat to at first sight of uniformed police and the possibility of cover for whoever is holding the stash...the guys on the pavement rarely have more than 'personal quantities' on them, if that.

 

[London_Calling]

In this instance, it was the police that put forward the idea to deal with a particular problem. However, it is up to the community to give them the go ahead and place limitations on the scope of the initiative. Or, as could possible be the case, the community can tell the police that it does not believe dispersal zones are the way forward. In which case, they won't happen. Unless, of course, the council gets its way.

So the police were made aware there was a problem, I presume by community members, and proposed this dispersal zone ?

So sure, that does have potential for the police and other parties to include their own agenda in a proposed solution.

 

[detective-boy]

Don't police already have the powers to move people on for loitering?

No. There is no other power to require people to "move on" - it usually has to be achieved by persuasion and rarely does any offence follow if people do not (perhaps an obstruction offence or something like that).

The dispersal order brings teeth to a formal power to require people to move on - if they do not, or if they return within 24hrs having been directed to leave, then they commit an offence for which they can be arrested / charged / convicted. In effect, it's a bit like a mini-ASBO, applicable for a very short time in a very local area in a very restricted way.

 

[detective-boy]

Can't the Public Order Act deal with that? Section 5 iirc.

Not really. There may be some behaviour which amounts to an offence under this section, but the dispersal power effectively extends things back a bit so an anticipated problem can be dealt with and, hopefully, avoided. s.5 only comes into play when something actually happens.

 

[detective-boy]

I suspect the latter.

You suspect wrongly. On all counts.

But you have obviously made up your mind. I can't be arsed trying to change it. To be honest, I couldn't really give a fuck.

But I reserve the right to respond similarly when I am told what I think again.

(For what it's worth, I think the whole Broken Windows concept has some merit, primarily in relation to the maintenance of property, clearing litter, etc., but I have huge concerns over how it's application a la New York victimised a huge swathe of vulnerable people. But I don't suppose you or anyone else will believe that).

 

[RushcroftRoader]

So the police were made aware there was a problem, I presume by community members, and proposed this dispersal zone ?

So sure, that does have potential for the police and other parties to include their own agenda in a proposed solution.

That is about the sum of it.
The police are not selling the idea as a panacea to all Brixton's ills, but rather another tool in the fight to stop drug addicts shooting up in people's front gardens etc.
One of the main points of contention seems to be whether it should be introduced solely for purely residential areas or whether dispersal zones should also include the high street etc.

 

[Blagsta]

Not really. There may be some behaviour which amounts to an offence under this section, but the dispersal power effectively extends things back a bit so an anticipated problem can be dealt with and, hopefully, avoided. s.5 only comes into play when something actually happens.

The police have powers of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. Surely, along with s5 POA, they already have the powers they need?

 

[RushcroftRoader]

The police have powers of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. Surely, along with s5 POA, they already have the powers they need?

Maybe. But consider this scenario: A group of say, 10 people, are hanging around on a residential street at 2am. They are crack addicts waiting for their dealer to arrive. They have no drugs on them and the dealer will only appear briefly, make his trades, and disappear again. The police, currently, have no powers to move on the group, even though intellgence indicates that they are there solely to buy drugs. If these individuals were in a dispersal zone, the police could move them on, and prevent them from shooting up in someone's front garden and causing a huge disturbance into the bargain for the residents of that street.
It also disrupts the market for the dealer.

 

[Blagsta]

If these individuals were in a dispersal zone, the police could move them on, and prevent them from shooting up in someone's front garden and causing a huge disturbance into the bargain for the residents of that street.

Sounds like grounds to believe a breach of the peace is imminent to me.

 

[RushcroftRoader]

Sounds like grounds to believe a breach of the peace is imminent to me.

Surely better to try and prevent the disturbance happening in the first place?

 

[Winot]

(For what it's worth, I think the whole Broken Windows concept has some merit, primarily in relation to the maintenance of property, clearing litter, etc., but I have huge concerns over how it's application a la New York victimised a huge swathe of vulnerable people. But I don't suppose you or anyone else will believe that).

[topic diversion]

I've just got round to reading Freakanomics and it argues quite convincingly that the drop in crime in New York predated the adoption of the zero tolerrance/broken windows policy and was caused more by (a) employment of more police officers and, controversially, (b) the legalisation of abortion in the NY state.

[/topic diversion]

 

[editor]

I've just got round to reading Freakanomics and it argues quite convincingly that the drop in crime in New York predated the adoption of the zero tolerrance/broken windows policy and was caused more by (a) employment of more police officers and, controversially, (b) the legalisation of abortion in the NY state.

Wasn't it also related to the the crack epidemic dying out?

 

[Blagsta]

Surely better to try and prevent the disturbance happening in the first place?

Yes, the police already have powers of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

[detective-boy]

The police have powers of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. Surely, along with s5 POA, they already have the powers they need?

No. A breach of the peace is the use of force to a person or damage to their property in thier presence and so it excludes quite a lot of anti-social behaviour of different types. s.5 POA, as I have already pointed out, requires something to have happened for the most part.

Neither is preventative in the way that a dispersal order is.

And neither has any teeth to back up any early warning, a fact well-known to those who are intent on committing anti-social acts who ignore pre-arrest police attempts at persuasion and reasoning.

 

[detective-boy]

Sounds like grounds to believe a breach of the peace is imminent to me.

That is not a "breach of the peace" as per legal definition. It is anti-social behaviour.

Since the repeal of the Metropolitan Police Act (and it's provincial equivalents) there has been little preventive law to address it.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes, the police already have powers of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace.

But what is being described isn't a breach of the peace.

You may as well keep posting that "The police have powers of arrest to prevent shoplifting ...".

 

[detective-boy]

Surely better to try and prevent the disturbance happening in the first place?

A lot of anti-social behvaiour legislation has been designed on this basis.

The downside is that as it is preventive, almost by definition it leads to action prior to any substantive offence being committed and, as a result, can only be evidenced to a "reasonable grounds to suspect" sort of level. This leads to the potential for misuse by police officers (individually or generally) which has been raised on this thread.

It also means that sometimes people will be affected by the legislation who weren't actually going to do what was suspected anyway.

That said, the consequence is relatively minor - being told to leave a particular area in this case, being served with a sort of injunction with teeth in the case of an ASBO. These are not, in themselves, convictions and although breach may well lead to a conviction, if the people are not intending in continuing the behaviour which has led to the initial action, that simply will not happen.

Overall I think they are a useful addition to the measures available to the police to deal with contemporary issues which are always being complained about by local residents (I, and many others, would love to see some of the younger occupants of the late evening H22 and 490 buses from Richmond to Twickenham made subject of ASBOs for a start ...) and which cannot effectively be dealt with using existing powers, at least not until something has actually happened.

 

[potential]

there seems to be alot of divisions about what happens in the peace gardens and the area outside the ritzy...
whenever ive been past in or near these areas ive been offered drugs,
class A's to "skunk skunk"
and remember see'ing to progamme about the murder
outside the bug bar. where the gang the "muslim boys" were said to loiter around this area as it was there patch. they stabbed this poor soul, repeatedly, kicked his dying body, then went threw his pockets stealing from the dead corpse.
also how many times have i read in these posts about the gangs of youngsters mugging, steaming shops on coldharbour lane,
the police are trying to deal with these problems, if this means telling a group of kids who realy shouldnt be around a high crime area at these times stated to move on... good

 

[Blagsta]

No. A breach of the peace is the use of force to a person or damage to their property in thier presence and so it excludes quite a lot of anti-social behaviour of different types. s.5 POA, as I have already pointed out, requires something to have happened for the most part.

Neither is preventative in the way that a dispersal order is.

And neither has any teeth to back up any early warning, a fact well-known to those who are intent on committing anti-social acts who ignore pre-arrest police attempts at persuasion and reasoning.

IME, a breach of the peace is whatever the police want it to be at the time. I suspect you know that.

 

[Blagsta]

shooting up in someone's front garden and causing a huge disturbance into the bargain for the residents of that street. .

Sounds like a potential breach of the peace to me.

 

[Blagsta]

There is a breach of the peace whenever a person causes harm or appears likely to cause harm to persons or property, or acts in a manner, the natural consequence of which, is to provoke others to violence.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...blic-order-offences/breach_of_the_peace.shtml

 

[detective-boy]

IME, a breach of the peace is whatever the police want it to be at the time. I suspect you know that.

In Sctland it is (well, near enough). But in England and Wales it is what I defined it as. There have been a number of cases where the courts have ruled as unlawful arrests made for "breaches of the peace" in other situations.

Are you really suggesting that because the police can bend the law to fit situations where they actually have no lawful power and yet the public expect them to act, that is preferable to providing a lawful power?

THAT is exactly how the police developed to the situation pre-PACE in which they regularly exercised "just cause corruption" to deal with situations whihc were not catered for within their lawful powers. We are still seeing the effect of those days, and will do for some time yet. Do you want to go back there?

 

[detective-boy]

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...blic-order-offences/breach_of_the_peace.shtml

Yes.

You cold have just posted "Oh, I've looked it up on "Know your rights . org" and what you posted was correct.

Now make the circumstances being discussed here fit that?

HOW are a group of ten potential drug buyers hanging round in a street at 2am either causing physical harm to someone, likely to cause physical harm to someone or likely to provoke others to violence?

And HOW, apart from stationing a police officer there for the rest of the night to keep reminding them every time they return, are they to be kept away once the police officer has gone (bearing in mind that the law is that someone arrested for breach of the peace is to be released from custody as soon as the likelihod of the beach of the peace has subsided ...)?

 

[detective-boy]

Sounds like a potential breach of the peace to me.

Strangely the Lord Chief Justice really couldn't give a flying fuck what you think. He's a bit strange like that, keeps looking up what the law actually is...

So let's get this straight ... regardless of what the law actually is, you don't agree with the concept of a dispersal order because the law because you think the current law should cover it ...

 

[Nickster]

Seems like some people are more concerned about the human rights of crack dealers and addicts than those of residents living in fear.

IMO dispersal orders are another useful tool for the police to tackle the crack problem in Saltoun Road (this was discussed at the residents meeting with local police and local councillors on thursday at the Beat on coldharbour lane).

As far as I can tell, the police aren't bothered about the drinkers in the Peace Gardens. It's the dealing/shooting up/mugging/street defecating/shouting and general chaos that's going off every night all night long on Saltoun Road that they're aiming to tackle.

 

[Gramsci]

ALL I was doing was explaining that "street drinkers" (as in "derelicts" / "vagrants") were an integral part of the American Broken Windows theory - go fucking read about it. If you go back and look, you will also see that I (quite specifically) included the word "full" in front of the theory as there are other, lesser evrions knocking about.

It's not an "official line" - it's a criminology theory.

QUOTE]

Ive read some of these posts and Id like to point out that DB(and i dont always agree with him) is correct.If u read Broken Windows theory then it works on basis that cracking down on minor misbehaviour that a PC would normally use his discretion to ignore helps create an environment where more serious issues like hard drug dealing are reduced.There is a knock on effect.This also encompasses removal of "Grafittii"(as in the recent case of Banksys at Old Street) and strict enforcement of byelaws.

If I remember correctly a previous administration brought in a no street drinking byelaw covering central Brixton that never has been enforced.

DB is also correct on dispersal zones.Seems to me once there in place its up to the police to disperse people.I dont quite follow the argument that there are different kinds of dispersal zones.I thought all dispersal zone came under the same legislation.That they didnt differ in diferent areas.There are several in the West End.They put up signs saying where the zone is and that as DB says people can bew told to leave the area.

Perhaps DB or others can make this clear.

A problem with dispersal zone is that its subjective.One persons idea of bad behviour is someone else having a good time on Saturday night -even if a bit bousterous and noisy.

As it happens im not a great believer in Broken Windows theory.

I was listening to a radio programme about Gangs/guns here and in the states.A problem with dealing with underlying social problems is that Government grants for community initiatives are sparodic,top down and bureaucratic.In some US cities the police have set up a designated officer for an area who can directly get small things down like get street lights repaired or enable a local group to get funds to set up a youth group(the local US cop ran US football training club.Here people get pushed from pillar to post-from one department to another.

Still i prefer to keep cops at a distance

 

[Gramsci]

As dispersal zones have been in place in the West End for a while I dont know of any research to see how "effective" they are.What Ive seen in the daytime at least is a reduction of crack heads and heroin addicts.However they could just be moving to another area or time of day.Nor am i sure this is due to a dispersal zone or more targetted policing and boarding up of corners that they used.

If anything gets up my nose its the dealers hanging around the bus stops on Brixton road.I just dont like it as I cant avoid it.And I dont like seeing parents with kids having to deal with this in there face.

From what Ive seen in the West End its more likely that a new New Labour Council is trying to show how "tough" it is on crime rather than the Police asking for a hard line dispersal zone.

I notice that Lambeth Council is part of a pilot scheme for ASBOS -sin bins for problem families.They want to show how much more "tough" they are by bringing in more ASBOs.

 

[Blagsta]

Strangely the Lord Chief Justice really couldn't give a flying fuck what you think. He's a bit strange like that, keeps looking up what the law actually is...

So let's get this straight ... regardless of what the law actually is, you don't agree with the concept of a dispersal order because the law because you think the current law should cover it ...

You can't see how someone taking drugs in someone else's garden could constitute a potential breach of the peace?

Errrr...how...odd.

 

[Blagsta]

Seems like some people are more concerned about the human rights of crack dealers and addicts than those of residents living in fear.

IMO dispersal orders are another useful tool for the police to tackle the crack problem in Saltoun Road (this was discussed at the residents meeting with local police and local councillors on thursday at the Beat on coldharbour lane).

As far as I can tell, the police aren't bothered about the drinkers in the Peace Gardens. It's the dealing/shooting up/mugging/street defecating/shouting and general chaos that's going off every night all night long on Saltoun Road that they're aiming to tackle.

I'm not arguing against dispersal zones. I'm arguing that the police already have powers to deal with a lot of this stuff. They just pick and choose what they tackle. I've been arrested to prevent a breach of the peace for sitting in a van on a country road (which was blocked in by police vehicles - we weren't going anywhere. They smashed the van windows to arrest us), when the hunt we were sabbing was miles away. The police interpret the law politically - I sometimes wonder whether the police allow certain things to happen in Brixton they wouldn't allow elsewhere.