WTF's going on in Brixton now: *15+* police cars have just gone by
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Mr Retro said:
It's alright mate, I live on the 'wrong' side too, just by the Saltoun/Rushcroft 'Axis of Evil' to boot. Strangely enough, neither I, my neigbours or friends seem to share Poster341002's apocalyptic views of Brixton either.
It's going to hell in a handcart I tell you. Bully this, bully that, bully-bully, a bully obsessed. Not everything comes down to a mind-numbingly simplistic analysis of everyone out to intimidate you.
Strangely enough the property values don't seem to be reflecting the flight out of the area that Poster34 keeps waffling on about, so I guess we're not doing a very good job instilling fear and driving out the newcomers. Either that or the 'infesting yuppies' have got balls of steel these days...
You think the gay community ARE exempt from normal policing activity ...ovaltina said:
How the fuck do you justfy that?
Sadly that's nothing new. Whilst it tends to come and go (and it sounds like it's a bit more lively than the average at the moment) this sort of thing has happened regularly since the 80s problems.Bazza said:
"The community" is not uniform - half of them jump up and down and (quite rightly) demand the police "do something" about a variety of crime problems ... and the other half don't want any police activity at all (for a variety of reasons). The bad guys take advantage of this by "hiding" amongst the local community - even ten years ago we regularly found the dealers and robbers had travelled to Brixton from elsewhere (in London and beyond) to carry out their badness because they felt (with some reason) that the "community" there would protect them from any police activity and that local tensions meant that the levels of proactive / robust policing would be lower than elsewhere because they were wary of setting off a major incident (again with some reason - we were).
Precisely. You try getting the media to pursue that line though! They'll have "police harassment" stories on the front page and the rolling news as soon as someone makes them up ...poster342002 said:
I'm sure that is probably true (it usually is) ... but that won't be the way it plays in the media. The majority voice will simply be ignored because it doesn't make a good story.poster342002 said:
detective-boy said:You think the gay community ARE exempt from normal policing activity ...
How the fuck do you justfy that?
To be honest I think any community should be exempt from suffering a police raid that used over 200 officers to end a peaceful party, subjecting the clubbers to a row of sniffer dogs, searches and photographs.
If that's properly discerning and targeted 'intelligence led' policing then I'm a lesser red-toed stoat. Where's the sensitivity and sense of priorities lads?
tarannau said:
They were suspected of breaking the law taking drugs
You trying to suggest that people in an all night club aren't taking drugs?
Even my nan when she was alive could have suspected that much, it's hardly intelligence led, just common sense
It's a valid point about what constitutes a priority though. Whilst those people were enjoying themselves, not really harming anyone except a bit of there own grey matter how much street crime could 200 plod on the beat have dealt with/deterred.
that's actual walking beat, not driving about in a car somewhere.
gaijingirl
Well-Known Member
ovaltina said:
Did they not do you justice? - BASTARDS!! 
gaijingirl said:
It was just plain shoddy, amaturish work. The plod photographer was trying but after the first couple of hundred people he just didn't seem interested.
"Work it darlings, make love to the camera, oh for fuck's sake do what you like then."
eta - I've well and truly derailed this thread. Sorry
The priorities are the dealers who were well-known to be operating at Fire as if the law did not exist. The only way of obtaining sufficient evidence, especially if it was necessary to have evidence against the premises operators if they were not cooperating with other attempts to control drug dealing, involves a search during opening hours ... and that means all persons at the premises being subjected to some search / identification process (otherwise the dealers would be able to put up the defence "It wasn't me - the real dealers were all those people you let go ... now who were they officer? ... and what did they have on them? ...).tarannau said:
We had the same debate after the Fridge raid. On this scale they are rare and they are invariably launched where the licensees and premises owners fail to cooperate with other attempts to keep drug dealing under control.
Don't break the law and don't frequent places where loads of other people do, then. The various comments from clubbers along the lines of "It was only a matter of time" demonstrated that they were living in the real world far more than you appear to be.ovaltina said:
detective-boy said:
Yes sir!
detective-boy said:
Don't presume you've got any right to tell me how to live my life, you utter prick.
detective-boy said:
Tell me what I said to prompt that comment? I thought I was complaining about a bizarre, intrusive and insensitive police tactic. By coincidence the Met took pictures of hundreds of gay clubbers during the same week another British police service was forced to apologise for using photographs of a decapitated RTA victim to illustrate why speeding is dangerous.
And you expect me to trust the police with those pictures, and believe you when you say you'll destroy them, because we can trust the Met to comply with the Data Protection Act. Of course we can.
Same way we can trust the Government not to hold onto sensitive information about individuals and use it against us, legally or not. Not just the present govt, but all governments going ahead forever. We can trust them all. It's fine. Stop being so precious and stop complaining. And stop being so naughty!
I'm not "telling you how to live your life", you fuckwit. Choose whatever you fucking like as long as it doesn't harm others. But don't come whinging about the fucking consequences when you do. Take responsibility for your own fucking decisions. Cunt.ovaltina said:
detective-boy said:
What a lovely sentiment. I would, of course, be wary of treating an out of context quote on a website as proof that certain folks are more in the real world than others. Any old gobshite leaving the venue may not be representative of wider opinion.
Still, I'd love to see this practice put more into action though. I'd love to see a similar number of police rush through the doors of Pangaea, China White and Boujis (for example) where drugs use, particularly cocaine, is clearly endemic - think of all the sloanes and b-listers turfed out onto the pavement, photographed and crotch-sniffed by dogs. It'd go down a storm wouldn't it - they couldn't possibly object because they knew it was 'frequented' by lots of drugs users.
Sure DB, it was a proportionate and hugely useful employment of police resources. Those officers clearly couldn't be better employed doing other things than hassle folks outside a peaceful gay club. Now we can all rest assured that we won't be robbed by that desperate camp crackhead on the way home.
detective-boy said:
*grits teeth and promises not to swear*
I'll ask again - where did I say I was against the operation being carried out?
I said I'm against the pictures being taken. It's obvious I'm complaining about the creeping surveillance society, of which this was possibly one of the most scary examples yet.
As for telling me to choose whatever life i want, thanks! I will. Don't try telling me not to go to places where crimes are taking place tho - I'd have to leave the country.
ovaltina said:
So what are the police supposed to...? Get out their crayons...?
(Btw, if you stop and think for a second, you'll realise the operation wasn't to catch some gay boys popping pills, but rather an organised operation to catch some dealers. You don't get evidence for a handful of people for 57 drug related crimes (allegedly) just by raiding a club one night)
jæd said:
I'm bored of this now but here's a link explaining why it's a concern.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/philip_hensher/article2499308.ece
ovaltina said:
I'd rather you'd tell us why its a concern, rather parroting a piece of lazy journalism*... The police will no doubt be trying to put known faces to photos. Or would you rather they had covertly photographed everyone...
* Do journalists ever actually write anything new these days instead of just copying stuff from websites...
Drug USE is clearly endemic in lots of places.tarannau said:
What is NOT endemic is overt dealing such as had become the norm at Fire (and previously at the Fridge). The police always seek to deal with drug issues with the cooperation of the management in the first (and second, and third ... ) instance. This sort of operation is ONLY mounted as a last resort where that cooperation is not forthcoming or where, despite that cooperation, the dealers are running the show. Otherwise there'd be hundreds of these raids every week, wouldn't there? And there aren't, are there?
Your "go and deal with some real crime" approach is, frankly, pathetic.
You're bored ...ovaltina said:
But it's interesting to note that that article pretty much says exactly what my posts have said ... you wouldn't just be taking issue with what I am saying "because I is an ex-pig, innit", would you?
DeadManWalking
Active Member
a good point in that article was that it is better to have dealers in clubs where you can keep an eye on them rather that on the street on a saturday afternoon.
Personally I think the whole "War on Dugs" is a waste of time (and less likely to succeed even that the "War on Terror" ...DeadManWalking said:
) but whilst drugs do remain illegal the "surprise" expressed when unsubtle dealing and usage causes police action is a waste of breath. As the article also says, there is no way the police can be expected to pick and choose which laws to enforce - if they did then you would be "sleepwalking into a police state" ((c) U75 posters everywhere). The best that can be expected is discretion in enforcement and I would suggest that that is exactly what we have - you could argue for a little more (and there is more support for this amongst the population as a whole who tend towards the Daily Mail position) or a little less but, broadly speaking, police activity is at a relatively low level compared to the number of breaches of the law which exist. In effect, where licensees cooperate to keep drug use (and, to be honest dealing) discreet and a reasonable level then no raids are carried out - this applies to pretty much every club in the country every night it's open.
