Lambeth to ban all public drinking

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Do you really think that Community Support Officers will deal will problem drinkers or go for the easier option of non-problem drinkers.

or the easier option of nabbing people for dropping cigarette butts

 

[ajdown]

Probably the easier option, that seems to be what the police tend to go for.

Dropping cigarette butts is littering whether you like it or not, and there are proper bins for them as well as normal bins so there's really no excuse.

 

[DotCommunist]

Do you really think that Community Support Officers will deal will problem drinkers or go for the easier option of non-problem drinkers.

It gives OB an excuse to move on street drinkers who aren't causing any harm. Threat of booze confiscation and or a nicking.

 

[Badger Decoy]

Alcohol is, directly and indirectly, the cause of many of society's problems.

I have sufficient self control to survive without it, therefore I see no reason why anyone else can't.

It's not part of any form of 'social life' that I have any desire to be part of.

My aren't you a self righteous turd! I really can't stand bananas - the smell, texture and sight of them make me feel distinctly nauseous, all mushy and stringy and eurrghh! In fact I could quite happily go through the rest of my life never seeing or smelling the disgusting things again. Does that mean that because I hate them they should be banned from being consumed outdoors? No, obviously that would be ridiculous. Same with drinking - there are plenty of responsible outdoor banana-eaters who don't leave the skins around for people to have cartoon slip-ups on.

 

[ajdown]

Actually I don't like the taste or smell of bananas either, although banana milkshakes are ok.

 

[Badger Decoy]

Actually I don't like the taste or smell of bananas either, although banana milkshakes are ok.

Banana milkshakes - traitor!

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Probably the easier option, that seems to be what the police tend to go for.

Dropping cigarette butts is littering whether you like it or not, and there are proper bins for them as well as normal bins so there's really no excuse.

yes I know and I don't agree with littering, but I've yet to see anyone nabbed for spitting in the street or spitting out chewing gum

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

No, obviously that would be ridiculous. Same with drinking - there are plenty of responsible outdoor banana-eaters who don't leave the skins around for people to have cartoon slip-ups on.

I wouldn't argue with him if he dropped a banana skin

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Alcohol is, directly and indirectly, the cause of many of society's problems.

I have sufficient self control to survive without it, therefore I see no reason why anyone else can't.

It's not part of any form of 'social life' that I have any desire to be part of.

excellent

we're unlikely to meet

 

[matt m]

I'd rather the police (or CSOs) just properly dealt with the anti-social accompaniments of on-street drinking: ie pissing in the street and noise. Being drunk and disorderly, and pissing in the street, are both already illegal, but I rarely see anyone doing anything about them. (Well, occasionally the former...) Don't see how banning public drinking will help when the problematic side-effects of public drinking are already banned yet rife.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

oh just read the article and found the reason:

Although drinking is not banned in the zones, police can ask anyone to stop drinking and it is an offence to refuse, punishable by a maximum £500 fine. No explanation or suspicion that the person could be a public nuisance is required. The highest fine will soon rise to £2,500.

money makes the world go round, world go round, ...

 

[snowy_again]

Aside from Lord AJ's opinions, the Controlled Zone is still in simply a proposal and is in consultation at the moment isn't it?

I've just been in the dentist reading the Lambeth Life half page consultation document; there's still a few weeks left to respond, but as poster above says, its not a blanket ban, but it gives additional powers to the polive to stop, confiscate, arrest and / or fine people they don't want to see drinking.

Its unlikely that this will be Tarquin and Jacinta sipping a pimms at the top of Brockwell Park will be affected, as the police will target their own version of 'undesirables'. A borough wide Zone strikes me as madness.

Oh and depressingly; I've been away for two months, and AJ is still trolling.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I'm not convinced AJ is a troll, I'm not even convinced he is real.....he's like a part of our collective conscience, the ultra-conservative part that we are all slightly ashamed of and keep well hidden.

He's like the Larry Daivd of Urban 75 - he's all of us and none of us and everything we think, feel and see.

 

[phildwyer]

Instead you will be a misery guts of a father

I wonder what kind of a father you'll be? Oh hang on...

 

[Crispy]

Stop it phil.

 

[ajdown]

I'm not convinced AJ is a troll

I am real. Honest. Sorry.

 

[berniedicters]

Its unlikely that this will be Tarquin and Jacinta sipping a pimms at the top of Brockwell Park will be affected, as the police will target their own version of 'undesirables'. A borough wide Zone strikes me as madness.

The trouble with that is that it's getting dangerously close to "They came for the Jews..." reasoning. Maybe they don't want to stamp out Tarquin's Pimm's today, but you can't legislate for who'll be in charge tomorrow. And maybe Tarquin's Pimms will be safe for tomorrow, but someone's decided to half-remember some research that says beer drinkers are more violent, or something, and they're telling you "no cans". It is a slippery slope, in my view.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I am real. Honest. Sorry.

That's just me telling myself that you're real!

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I realise I don't "fit in" with the average demographic of this board's users, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to share my point of view, even if it's likely to be unpopular.

If someone chose not to drink alcohol "for health reasons" or "for spiritual reasons", nobody would question it. But when I simply state "I don't like it, and I don't like other people drinking alcohol" somehow that isn't acceptable?

You're comparing apples with oranges ajdown.

I think you're probably right, when you say: "If someone chose not to drink alcohol "for health reasons" or "for spiritual reasons", nobody would question it."

But you're not just saying that you don't like it for yourself, which would be comparing cider apples with cider apples. You're going one further from the healthy/spiritual people and trying to dictate what other people can do.

So it would be a better comparison to say:

If someone chose not to drink alcohol "for health reasons" or "for spiritual reasons", and they also said that they didn't like other people drinking alcohol then yes, people would question it.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I don't need to justify my point of view. My point of view is simply what I have stated already.

If you choose to disagree with it, that's your choice. Your view is no more, or less, valid than mine.

What kind of right-winger are you? What is this mealy-mouthed relativism?

 

[nick h.]

We had a thread about this 4 weeks ago. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=290607

I like the way the Times make themselves out to be super sleuths: "the Times has learnt that Lambeth etc". It was in Lambeth Life - there was a press release.

Anyway, the old thread has the predictable drivel from the usual suspect which he has seen fit to repeat. God knows why anyone indulges him by rising to the bait.

 

[pboi]

they will use it as a bit of paper to move on the hobos. they wont stop people from drinking in brockwell park

 

[pboi]

also the drinkers from Brockwell park have moved to tulse hill roundabout it seems. saw some coppers playing kiss chase with them this week

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Jesus bloody christ - this is ridiculous!

Read this about my home town in the article...

Police in Brighton and Hove appear to be the most energetic in the country. Their 45 community support officers are making 25 confiscations a week. The Manifesto Club was inundated with claims of over-zealous enforcement, such as two young women forced to pour away glasses of wine that they were drinking on the beach, and three men having cans of lager confiscated as they stood on the promenade. Researchers observed drinks being confiscated from people having a quiet drink while admiring the plants in the Pavilion Gardens.

There are bars on the seafront where people buy drinks in plastic glasses and then will sit on the beach outside the bar if there are no outside tables available. Sounds as though people who do that could now quite probably have their recently purchased drinks taken away.

I just can't actually see the justification for this in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Winot]

The trouble with that is that it's getting dangerously close to "They came for the Jews..." reasoning.

They came for the booze...

 

[berniedicters]

Jesus bloody christ - this is ridiculous!

Read this about my home town in the article...


There are bars on the seafront where people buy drinks in plastic glasses and then will sit on the beach outside the bar if there are no outside tables available. Sounds as though people who do that could now quite probably have their recently purchased drinks taken away.

I just can't actually see the justification for this in the vast majority of cases.

They came for the booze...

I think Sparrow's post illustrates far better than any hypothetical examples I could have come up with what the danger is, here.

Time and time again, we see The Authorities using powers they've been given for purposes they haven't been intended for. This kind of "mission creep" goes from coppers using ASBOs to manage traffic offences (eg the motorcyclist hit with an ASBO for filtering), councils using terrorist provisions to snoop on residents, and so on.

These broadly-drawn police powers are just more of the same. They are open to abuse, and - as Agent Sparrow has already described - are capable of being misused in an oppressive and unreasonable way that targets people a long way from those that were no doubt held up as the reason why such bans are needed.

We do have to protect our ability to quietly go about our business without being harassed by gangs of hoodie-clad youths, drunken oiks, and so on. But if the price of that is being harassed by gangs of dayglo-clad coppers, CPSOs, Council Inspectors of various types, and all the rest of the apparatchikisti, all with the power to take our booze away, write us fixed penalty tickets, or even have us arrested, you have to start wondering if the cure isn't a lot worse than the disease...

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Well quite anges.

I remember watching the eclipse a few years ago on the beach in Brighton. Myself and a friend made a picnic and drank gin, tonic and pink grapefruit juice - twas a really pleasant experience, it helped create the sense of occasion, and we certainly didn't cause any trouble afterwards. The idea of that being banned just sounds bonkers, if I'm honest!

 

[rennie]

also the drinkers from Brockwell park have moved to tulse hill roundabout it seems. saw some coppers playing kiss chase with them this week

I saw them sat by a half-finished new build on Tulse Hill recently.

 

[pboi]

yup, that wall is their new spot to chill at. or they get moved the church past somefield where they teach Krav Maga

 

[wurlycurly]

I realise I don't "fit in" with the average demographic of this board's users, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to share my point of view, even if it's likely to be unpopular.

If someone chose not to drink alcohol "for health reasons" or "for spiritual reasons", nobody would question it. But when I simply state "I don't like it, and I don't like other people drinking alcohol" somehow that isn't acceptable?

T.W.A.T