Dispersal Zones

[detective-boy]

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 far as I know, all the dispersal zones come under Part 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

As you say, the actual moving on of people within that zone is then an issue of discretion ... but then again virtually all police operation IS discretion-based. There is a requirement for certain parameters to be met and (as in the case of the youth in Richmond) if people made subject to an order wish to challenge it, there is legal avenue available. The outcomes of any such challenges will, as with any legislation, settle the debate about where the borders actually lie. I don;t think you could ever define some entirely objective criteria which would be any more workable, bearing in mind the almost infinite number of situations the legislation may be applied in.

 

[detective-boy]

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

Errrr...how...odd.

(a) What goes on in a private garden is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of dispersal zones - they only apply to public places.

(b) If, by your question, you mean a householder may come out and lose it with the drug takers and use / threaten unlawful vilence to them ... then, yes. That may well be a breach of the peace ... but one in which the law would really require the householder to be arrested to prevent the breach of the peace, not the drug user. The normal approach would be to arrest the person threatening the unlawful violence, not the person who may be victim of it.

 

[Gramsci]

It is a fairly illiberal measure to introduce. However, the dispersal zones would be limited to entirely residential areas and not communal areas such as outside the Ritzy or in St Matthews Peace Gardens. There would also be time restraints on the use of the dispersal powers.

However, there is an alternative plan on the table as well. The local council wants to introduce similar proposals. However, it does not need residents support to do so, and it's main aim appears to be to remove drinkers from St Matthews Gardens and other similar areas. The police have already told the council that there is no volume of objections to the drinkers in such areas. The BTC Panel is informing the council of its opposition to this plan. However, the council is not obligated to listen.

So, it would be great to hear what you all think. Let me stress that the police proposals would be overseen by local representitives in the form of the BTC Panel and dispersal zones would be very limited in scope. The council plan appears to be far more wide-ranging.
Personally I feel that dispersal zones are a draconian measure to introduce. However, anyone how lives on a street plagued by chaotic dealing in all hours of the night, need protecting too.
Thoughts please.

Seems to me the BTC proposal is preferable to the Councils-if u are going to have dispersal zones at all.Why dont the Council listen to the BTC proposals?As the Council makes a big issue about "consultation" in reality it has a take it or leave it attitude.Or says ur not "representative" if u dont agree with them.

 

[Gramsci]

As far as I know, all the dispersal zones come under Part 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

As you say, the actual moving on of people within that zone is then an issue of discretion ... but then again virtually all police operation IS discretion-based. There is a requirement for certain parameters to be met and (as in the case of the youth in Richmond) if people made subject to an order wish to challenge it, there is legal avenue available. The outcomes of any such challenges will, as with any legislation, settle the debate about where the borders actually lie. I don;t think you could ever define some entirely objective criteria which would be any more workable, bearing in mind the almost infinite number of situations the legislation may be applied in.

As in the case in Richmond (I think the boy was contesting the curfew for unaccompanied children) this shows the problem with the Government legislation rather than the police.Its vague and verges into social control rather than criminality like street robbery,assault,criminal damage to property.As has been frequently said it makes criminal behaviour that wasnt before-as if u return to area etc u can be arrested.

 

[Blagsta]

(b) If, by your question, you mean a householder may come out and lose it with the drug takers and use / threaten unlawful vilence to them ... then, yes. That may well be a breach of the peace ... but one in which the law would really require the householder to be arrested to prevent the breach of the peace, not the drug user. The normal approach would be to arrest the person threatening the unlawful violence, not the person who may be victim of it.

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]

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

Yes. I know that, thank you. It is why I qualified my comment with the words "the normal approach ..." (I know U75 posters are not big on qualification and like to live in a monochrome world, but, hey ...)

And your point is?

(Mine, which you seem to be missing, is the part of the phrase you quoted which reads "natural consequence". Having been there dozens of times, I would not necessarily expect to succeed with people taking drugs in someone's garden. Maybe, maybe not. But no matter what, the law is neither clear-cut enough, nor robust enough in terms of consequences, to form the basis of an argument that dispersal order powers are not needed because breach of the peace exists already.)

 

[PacificOcean]

[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]

Sorry if I am missing the obvious, but why would this affect the crime rate in New York?

 

[Belushi]

Sorry if I am missing the obvious, but why would this affect the crime rate in New York?

Less poor people.

 

[Blagsta]

Yes. I know that, thank you. It is why I qualified my comment with the words "the normal approach ..." (I know U75 posters are not big on qualification and like to live in a monochrome world, but, hey ...)

And your point is?

(Mine, which you seem to be missing, is the part of the phrase you quoted which reads "natural consequence". Having been there dozens of times, I would not necessarily expect to succeed with people taking drugs in someone's garden. Maybe, maybe not. But no matter what, the law is neither clear-cut enough, nor robust enough in terms of consequences, to form the basis of an argument that dispersal order powers are not needed because breach of the peace exists already.)

You really really hate being challenged on points of law, don't you? The fact of the matter is that the police often pick and choose as to what laws they enforce. The police have the powers to deal with a lot of anti-social behaviour, they just choose not to. You know this, I know this, so quit the pretence.

 

[PacificOcean]

Less poor people.

If that was the case, how did it affect the immediate crime problem?

Surely it would take 10-20 years for that to have an effect?

 

[tarannau]

If that was the case, how did it affect the immediate crime problem?

Surely it would take 10-20 years for that to have an effect?

Who said it affected the crime problem immediately?

 

[gaijingirl]

If that was the case, how did it affect the immediate crime problem?

Surely it would take 10-20 years for that to have an effect?

Exactly. It was legalised in 1970.

 

[PacificOcean]

Ah, I misunderstood.

I thought the zero tolerance approach and the legalisation of abortion had happened at roughly the same time.

 

[RushcroftRoader]

Less poor people.

Its a controversial theory but basically the rationale is that lots of mothers chose to have abortions that might have otherwise had children who statistically had a higher chance of becoming criminals.

 

[gaijingirl]

Its a controversial theory but basically the rationale is that lots of mothers chose to have abortions that might have otherwise had children who statistically had a higher chance of becoming criminals.

It would be near-impossible to prove too I should think - pretty tenuous.

 

[detective-boy]

You really really hate being challenged on points of law, don't you? The fact of the matter is that the police often pick and choose as to what laws they enforce. The police have the powers to deal with a lot of anti-social behaviour, they just choose not to. You know this, I know this, so quit the pretence.

I have no problem with being challenged on points of law or anything else. If I am I consider what the challenge is and either accept it or, if I still disagree, ask for more information.

That is what I have done here.

You have not provided any additional information to justify your assertion that dispersal powers bring nothing that breach of the peace does not. You are wrong. And no amount of repeating your view will change that. Nor will the fact that I accept that the police have all sorts of powers to deal with all sorts of things, some of whioch they choose to use and some of which they choose not to.

Breach of the Peace is NOT the cure-all you portray it as. Get over it.

 

[Blagsta]

You really can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with you, can you?

Please stop misrepresenting my post. I have not stated that breach of the peace is a "cure-all". What I have done is show that the police can use it as a preventative measure - and indeed do when it suits them. They just choose not to a lot of the time.

 

[detective-boy]

Please stop misrepresenting my post. I have not stated that breach of the peace is a "cure-all". What I have done is show that the police can use it as a preventative measure - and indeed do when it suits them. They just choose not to a lot of the time.

You have suggested it is a cure-all. From the outset your point has been that the police don't need the dispersal order powers because they already have breach of the peace, it's just that they can't be arsed to use it.

Who has ever said that they can't / don't use it as a preventative power sometimes?

BUT. THEY. CAN'T. ALWAYS.

AND. IT. IS. SIGNIFICANTLY. LESS. USEFUL. THAN. A. DISPERSAL. ORDER. IN. SOME. SITUATIONS.

You are the one misrepresenting posts.

 

[Blagsta]

Calm down dear, you'll give yourself a heart attack.

You obviously missed this post of mine

I'm not arguing against dispersal zones. I'm arguing that the police already have powers to deal with a lot of this stuff.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5907799&postcount=60

btw db, when someone disagrees with you about the law? It's not the end of the world y'know.

 

[Blagsta]

Who has ever said that they can't / don't use it as a preventative power sometimes?

You did btw.

 

[detective-boy]

You did btw.

Care to provide a link.

Because in my very first post on the subject I said:

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. Added emphasis

It excludes quite a lot ... i.e. it includes the rest.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5904151&postcount=45

 

[Blagsta]

whatever

 

[RushcroftRoader]

can you two stop using this thread to wage your own little playground squabble!!!

 

[Winot]

Originally Posted by RushcroftRoader
Its a controversial theory but basically the rationale is that lots of mothers chose to have abortions that might have otherwise had children who statistically had a higher chance of becoming criminals.

It would be near-impossible to prove too I should think - pretty tenuous.

There were a handful of US states which legalised abortion before Roe -v- Wade. The Freakanomics guy (Leavitt?) reckons that crime dipped in those states x years after legalisation, and then dipped in all other states x years after Roe -v- Wade (where x is years for the aborted foetuses to reach the age of criminality).

 

[detective-boy]

can you two stop using this thread to wage your own little playground squabble!!!

He started it! ...

(Sorry!)

 

[tarannau]

He started it! ...

(Sorry!)

Yes. yes DB, this thread hasn't at all been characterised by you flying off the handle at a number of posters, wildly misrepresenting their views and getting on your high horse in a flurry of smilies.

It's amazing how so many people seem to misread your posts isn't it, even where they directly quote you. Including well known 'firebrands' and ACAB style bastards like IanW it seems.

Please. It's just not plausible. Have a word with yourself.

 

[Spark]

Back to the original topic:

It looks like these have been introduced now. There is a notice on Kellett Road stating that there is a dispersal zone starting on 21 May until I think 21 November.

I can't remember exactly where it covered, but seemed to be Kellett Road, Saltoun Road, Rushcroft Road, part of Rattray Road and some other places.

 

[clandestino]

It's amazing how so many people seem to misread your posts isn't it, even where they directly quote you. Including well known 'firebrands' and ACAB style bastards like IanW it seems.

I don't even know what ACAB means!

 

[hendo]

'Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux'? They're bastards and no mistake.

 

[clandestino]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071018/tuk-uk-britain-displacement-fa6b408_2.html

"Dispersal powers, brought in to tackle antisocial behaviour, merely act as "sticking plasters", shifting the problem to other areas and in some cases increasing crime levels, a report said on Thursday."