Name & Shame drugs tourists??

[colacubes]

Was it on 5 live this morning some police rep. (??) from Brixton seemed to be blaming drug / gun crime in Brixton on "hoardes of celebs, plus the Hampstead dinner party crowd visiting Brixton on a Friday night to score their cocaine" ?

Yep - it was Lee Jasper.

 

[detective-boy]

Bollocks. If a conviction is spent, it should remain spent.

Er ... yes. Where did I say or suggest otherwise?

The private sector can check criminal records, using the CRB, if the job being applied for is what is called an "exempt post", i.e. exempt from the Rehabiliation of Offenders Act. This includes posts like bank manager, insurance manager and other responsible financial positions, security guards, any job where you will be handling explosives and firearms etc.

I am perfectly well aware of that, thank you. But you are very wrong if you think it covers anything like as wide a range of positions as you think. Take security guards for instance - if you need an SIA licence then they carry out a CRB check on application ... but nowhere near all security guards need an SIA licence (in-house, as opposed to contracted, ones, for a start). The same applies to huge numbers of jobs where there is a genuine need to be able to carry out criminal record checks and it simply is not possible (I know, I work with a company which is a CRB "umbrella organisation" as well as with the security industry, trying to mitigate the (no doubt unintended) consequences of this issue).

 

[detective-boy]

Yep - it was Lee Jasper.

If it was, then he is not a "police rep". He is the Mayor of London's Policing Advisor. He is nothing to do with the police per se. He is a political advisor.

 

[detective-boy]

However to make all spent convictions a matter of public record is completely unacceptable and a breach of privacy.

Why though? What is the logic, if every conviction is carried out in public? And why should people who commit offences be able to deny that - shouldn't some degree (and I would agree there is a discussion to be had about how much, including rehabilitation periods) of label / stigma be part of the punishment?

 

[Blagsta]

Because if someone committed an offence 20 odd years ago, its not relevant and is no one else's business.

 

[Jonti]

Was it on 5 live this morning (Lee Jasper) seemed to be blaming drug / gun crime in Brixton on "hoardes of celebs, plus the Hampstead dinner party crowd visiting Brixton on a Friday night to score their cocaine" ?

Yep - it was Lee Jasper.

... He is the Mayor of London's Policing Advisor. He is nothing to do with the police per se. He is a political advisor.

So, Jasper's the sort to stoke class hostility in the interests of repressive legislation then?

 

[gabi]

If it was, then he is not a "police rep". He is the Mayor of London's Policing Advisor. He is nothing to do with the police per se. He is a political advisor.

Whoever he is, hes talkin out of his arse.

 

[detective-boy]

Because if someone committed an offence 20 odd years ago, its not relevant and is no one else's business.

Sorry, I meant to amend the quote and ask why not make unspent convictions a matter of public record? I have never suggested spent convictions should be. (Occuptional hazard of posting whilst answering phone, sorting post, etc!)

 

[detective-boy]

So, Jasper's the sort to stoke class hostility in the interests of repressive legislation then?

I just heard him on the news, giving evidence to some committee, asking for a Royal Commission into vioence within the black community, I think. (Not paying full attention again ... )

He usually has a reasonable basic point but he's got very political since working for the Mayor and the message sometimes get lost / obscured.

 

[Dopermine]

I can't belive middle class professionals score on the streets of brixton.

Ahem. Don't start that again.

 

[scotlander]

Ahem. Don't start that again.

Ahem....don't misquote me!

 

[Blagsta]

Sorry, I meant to amend the quote and ask why not make unspent convictions a matter of public record? I have never suggested spent convictions should be. (Occuptional hazard of posting whilst answering phone, sorting post, etc!)

I still stand by what I wrote. If someone got a 3 stretch for dealing 30 years ago and has kept their nose clean ever since, what relevance does it have now?

 

[William of Walworth]

Nearly 20 years ago, I used to score in Brixton, but VERY rarely on the streets ....

Nowadays, if whistled/called at (cos they reckon I've travelled down from Hampstead innit ), I generally say something along the lines of 'no thanks' or (if a bit pissed) 'nah, no problem, I'm sorted' (when there's a copper nowhere near anyway ).

I agree with those arguing that a properly pragmatic and REAL problem-focussed policy would turn a blind eye to discreet indoor/in-building selling of sensi and skunk ten- or twenty-bags, etc.

The real problems lie elsewhere IMO.

 

[William of Walworth]

I've never found it much of a problem, to be honest. Should one catch a merchant's eye, an almost imperceptible shake of the head is all I've ever found necessary.

Mind you, if I actually lived in Brixton I'd develop this skill a tad better ...

 

[lang rabbie]

I've never found it much of a problem, to be honest. Should one catch a merchant's eye, an almost imperceptible shake of the head is all I've ever found necessary.

Hmmm... you've been very lucky in your encounters.

I still remember walking from Lambeth Town Hall to a Coldharbour Lane restaurant with a suited and booted very senior person responsible for social care in the borough. Despite said person, whose only known vice was beer, making emphatic body language to the effect no, they weren't looking for an invitation to treat, the "merchant" was absolutely convinced that my acquaintance was one of their "out of town" regulars, and pursued us loudly down CHL until we dove into the restaurant.

 

[Jonti]

That kind of pestering is fookin' outrageous.

Mind you, I have a hunch that dealers with faulty punter spotting skills don't last long in the competitive Brixton environment

 

[Dopermine]

I generally say something along the lines of 'no thanks' or (if a bit pissed) 'nah, no problem, I'm sorted' .

You could try: "S'alright, bruv, m'all ganja'd up" or "Thanks, that's terribly kind of you to offer, but I am not in the market for drugs at the moment".

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Mind you, I have a hunch that dealers with faulty punter spotting skills don't last long in the competitive Brixton environment

I dunno, most of them go for quantity not quality in that respect.

 

[William of Walworth]

You could try: "S'alright, bruv, m'all ganja'd up" or "Thanks, that's terribly kind of you to offer, but I am not in the market for drugs at the moment".

I prefer the half way house option

 

[detective-boy]

I still stand by what I wrote. If someone got a 3 stretch for dealing 30 years ago and has kept their nose clean ever since, what relevance does it have now?

You don't seem to be differentiating between spent convictions and unspent ones (as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act). A three year sentence is never spent.

Do you agree unspent convictions should be a matter of public record, but not spent ones, as a matter of principle BUT the defninition of spent should be changed? Or are you saying that you think that no convictions, spent or unspent, should be a matter of public record at all?

 

[Blagsta]

You don't seem to be differentiating between spent convictions and unspent ones (as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act). A three year sentence is never spent.

Yes, I know. That was my point.

Do you agree unspent convictions should be a matter of public record, but not spent ones, as a matter of principle BUT the defninition of spent should be changed? Or are you saying that you think that no convictions, spent or unspent, should be a matter of public record at all?

No convictions should be a matter of public record after a certain time period.

 

[detective-boy]

No convictions should be a matter of public record after a certain time period.

None?

10 years for rape?
12 years for paedophilia?
16 years for terrorism?
Life for murder?

None?

And what time period would you suggest as the ultimate cut-off point?

 

[Blagsta]

You want me to come up with time periods in a bulletin board debate? Don't be daft.

Obviously for serious crimes, it would be a long time. But no, criminal records should not be public record. They should be on a need to know basis. I don't want my neighbour to be able to find out what my criminal record is.

 

[detective-boy]

But no, criminal records should not be public record. They should be on a need to know basis. I don't want my neighbour to be able to find out what my criminal record is.

So would you argue that the criminal courts should operate behind closed doors then? Otherwise your neighbour could be sitting in the public gallery when you are convicted and your previous record is read out.

 

[Giles]

It's an interesting one, this issue of what is and isn't "public" information. And peoples attitudes change depending on how easy information is to get at.

Many magistrates court cases are reported on by local newspapers - you know - a two paragraph story saying that Mr Fred Bloggs, of 23 Acacia Avenue was fined £300 after admitting shoplifting/assault/criminal damage etc etc.

This is public domain information - the local paper can freely report on it.

But what if someone took all of those details and put them on-line, in an easily searchable format?

Should the rules change because the technology changes?

Many newspapers now have fully searchable online back-issues, and in future, probably all of them will have this.

So, it is becoming a lot easier to find out about someone's past indiscretions, not because of any change in the law, just because of computerisation.

Giles..

 

[detective-boy]

But what if someone took all of those details and put them on-line, in an easily searchable format?

Should the rules change because the technology changes?

That, effectively is my point.

As with many areas, the increased searchability brought by new technology is the issue (look at the concerns over computerisation of medical records - absolutely nothing at all new in relation to who can get access, or why, is proposed, the concerns all arise from the fact that improved searchability and remote access means that improper leaks are more likely (e.g. one bent doctors receptionist gets access to the whole database, not just the whole surgery ...).

But we need to look at the underlying reason why the courts are public. If we do not we risk making an irrational decision. I think that by deciding not to use available technology to acess what is, when all is said and done, publicly available information, we are, in making proper vetting more difficult, creating a bad unintended consequence, albeit for understandable reasons.

 

[Blagsta]

You're being very contradictory. On one hand you want unspent convictions to be a matter of public record, but you're also concerned about the searchability! Make yer mind up!

 

[Jonti]

I can see what he's getting at, though.

Do you remember when it became possible to do reverse lookups on phone numbers, using computers? Until that time, one could only search oneway, from the name (and possibly address) and find a person's phone number. But when PCs got sufficiently powerful, there appeared on the market CDs which were effectively giant telephone directories of the entire country. Suddenly (given the right kit) one could find a person's address given no more than their phone number. The easy availability of reverse lookup doubtless has had a social effect.

Again, no difference in principle (before this, one could, theoretically have done reverse searches anyway). But in practice, it made all the difference. Put it this way, the principle may be black-and-white. But how things pan out in practice is always in shades of grey. For practical purposes, that shading matters.

 

[Jonti]

I dunno, most of them go for quantity not quality in that respect.

This conversation has jogged my memory -- I did once see a guy being virtually mobbed by eager dealers, a whole bunch of guys calling to him and rushing over to him. But I am on the streets a lot, and, although I've been racking my brains, I do not recall having seen that kind of scene other than the once.

I didn't take much notice, tbh. The fact that I've never been "mobbed" in that way suggested to me the guy must have been fairly well known to the dealers as someone who'd perhaps buy an ounce at a time, at street prices. I can understand your average street herb seller getting well exited about closing a deal like that.

 

[Blagsta]

I can see what he's getting at, though.

Do you remember when it became possible to do reverse lookups on phone numbers, using computers? Until that time, one could only search oneway, from the name (and possibly address) and find a person's phone number. But when PCs got sufficiently powerful, there appeared on the market CDs which were effectively giant telephone directories of the entire country. Suddenly (given the right kit) one could find a person's address given no more than their phone number. The easy availability of reverse lookup doubtless has had a social effect.

Again, no difference in principle (before this, one could, theoretically have done reverse searches anyway). But in practice, it made all the difference. Put it this way, the principle may be black-and-white. But how things pan out in practice is always in shades of grey. For practical purposes, that shading matters.

Yes, which is why unspent convictions should not be a matter of public record. DB seems to be arguing on the one hand for a publically available database of unspent convictions, but then also saying that database technology could be a breach of privacy. Maybe I'm not reading him properly.