and here come the sus laws

[detective-boy]

(a) is decidedly dodgy, but could be justified. I don't trust the police with this judgement, though. It's too open to abuse, generally speaking. I see it regularly where I live – people are harassed not for being black, but for being scruffy. People are told they can't sit and drink in certain places, so they just go elsewhere to do it, often outside my door, as it happens, as there are steps to sit on. All they want to do is sit and have a drink, though. I have never seen any trouble from them. If in doubt, leave people alone!

Being scruffy is equally insufficient on it's own as the basis for stop and search as is ethnicity.

The issue of people sitting around drinking is something different. It is where a particular type of activity (street drinking or whatever) has been identified by local people as a problem, acting through the local authority and / or the police, and a Dispersal zone or other type of order has been put in place to deal with it. Here it is very much the activity which is targetted, not the characteristics of the individual.

(c) is unjustified. Simple as that. The police – and the rest of us – need to find other ways to address such problems.

I'm not sure how you can seperate (b) and (c) in some circumstances. If there is a robbery tonight, then two more tomorrow and three more over the next week, surely action taken on the basis of the analysis of them all together is actually likely to be based on stronger grounds than action taken later this evening on the basis of one?

And could you please suggest some other ways in which the police could "find other ways" to deal with situations in which we know something is likely to happen but we don't know who is likely to do it? If someone rings Crimestoppers and says that, say, there is a major planned fight between Chelsea and Millwall supporters to happen at London Bridge Station on Saturday, with knives and other weapons to be used, what should the police be able to do? If they do not make use of some sort of preventative powers they will, by definition, have to wait until an actual fight starts which, if that big, will then result in serious injuries and possibly worse, major danger to ordinary citizens using the station and will likely be impossible to quell without significant injuries caused to and by police officers. Do you really think that that would be better than using preventative action to try and prevent or disrupt the event before it even starts?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Being scruffy is equally insufficient on it's own as the basis for stop and search as is ethnicity.

The issue of people sitting around drinking is something different. It is where a particular type of activity (street drinking or whatever) has been identified by local people as a problem, acting through the local authority and / or the police, and a Dispersal zone or other type of order has been put in place to deal with it. Here it is very much the activity which is targetted, not the characteristics of the individual.

In practice, that is not how it happens. Taking the specific case of St Leonards, what the police do, and I've seen this many times, is approach an individual or a group sat on the sea front minding their own business. From long-distance, all they can see is that they are scruffy types. That is the first thing that attracts the police over. They will then move the men (usually men) along using local bylaws about drinking. But the reason they attract attention in the first place is their scruffiness.

I'm a local person. I strongly suspect that it was at the behest of a vocal minority that such a policy was put in place. The St Leonards festival is a non-drinking event held each year in Warrior Square Gardens. I saw a drunk man manhandled to the floor by two coppers, handcuffed and led away for the 'crime' of being a bit drunk. I didn't do anything to stop it, to my shame, and neither did anyone else, but pretty much everyone was stunned by it. Giving coppers these kinds of powers is wrong. We need to be able to police ourselves more effectively, not to rely on someone in uniform to drag away an old fool (and this man was old) who's had one too many.

Oh, and the police blatantly lie about the law too. They've put up notices saying that it is illegal to drink in certain areas, which it most certainly is not. These are areas where the police can ask you to stop drinking and it is illegal to refuse to stop, which is very different. Give a copper an inch on this kind of social control...

 

[detective-boy]

That is the first thing that attracts the police over. They will then move the men (usually men) along using local bylaws about drinking. But the reason they attract attention in the first place is their scruffiness.

Are most street drinkers not scruffy? So long as any action is taken on the basis of what they are doing rather than their scruffyness I'm not sure what the issue is ... Or are you saying that smartly-dressed street drinkers do not have any action taken against them?

[quoteI strongly suspect that it was at the behest of a vocal minority that such a policy was put in place.[/quote]
Most stuff like this is. It goes back to the point I have made previously about people not engaging with the various consultative mechanisms which exist. The views of those who can be bothered (which frequently translates as the intolerant and the busybodies) therefore get excessive weight and the views of those who cannot (frequently the majority) are not heard.

Did you engage with the consultation exercise which must precede such a zone?

I saw a drunk man manhandled to the floor by two coppers, handcuffed and led away for the 'crime' of being a bit drunk. I didn't do anything to stop it, to my shame, and neither did anyone else, but pretty much everyone was stunned by it. Giving coppers these kinds of powers is wrong. We need to be able to police ourselves more effectively, not to rely on someone in uniform to drag away an old fool (and this man was old) who's had one too many.

The fact that being drunk in a public place is an offence for which you can be arrested is nothing to do with these powers. It has been an offence since at least 1872! As for the appropriateness of the arrest, you would need to know what had led up to it being made - was there anything else you didn't see, hear or know about? People regularly get up in arms about an arrest, and sometimes even intervene in it, allowing the suspect to escape, without knowing the full story. Drunks frequently resist on arrest and have to be restrained / handcuffed ... and taking them to the ground whilst it looks pretty bad is one of the best ways of doing so without causing significant injury to either suspect or officers.

Oh, and the police blatantly lie about the law too. They've put up notices saying that it is illegal to drink in certain areas, which it most certainly is not. These are areas where the police can ask you to stop drinking and it is illegal to refuse to stop, which is very different. Give a copper an inch on this kind of social control...

I'm not sure that is a "lie" as such! And I'd be surprised if it was the police (or at least the police alone) who put up the signs. It would usualy be the Community Safety Partnership.

But the wording is wrong. You should complain about it.

 

[little_legs]

So the BBC is reporting that a London woman has been granted a permission to challenge the legality of the stop and search powers. BBC London is reporting that she was restrained face down on the floor and handcuffed because she did not have enough money on her Oyster. :-(

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14084418