Rough Sleepers

scott.l.hamilton · Post by **scott.l.hamilton** » 13 Jul 2009 17:56

Today the upstanding (or sitting at first) quality street drinkers verbally abused my wife and 4 year old daughter on their way home from getting their haircut and doing some local shopping. It all started from him throwing a lemon (must have been Pimm's day) at her as she walked by. She asked him to not do that as it set a bad example for children and he proceeded to use every foul word possible while verbally abusing my wife and daughter. I think he ended with " F*** Off you F***ing posh c**t!

Now some will say "now that they have committed a crime of drunk and disorderly and Anti-social behaviour you should report to the police and Safer neighborhood team for action. And then let the police and council take it from there." she reported the incident and the response was quick and friendly and they sent an officer to "do something". What happened I don't know because my wife didn't stick around.

I will be polite on the forum, but the fact that society and policing is "reactive " to the dregs of society rather than proactive is B*"*@cks!

I don't put it all on the police as they have to operate as they are instructed but we are catering to the lowest denominator. We know these street drinkers are drunk and disorderly on a regular basis and yet they are allowed to come day after day and do what they want until someone complains. Be Proactive and be a deterrent, that is part of what you are paid and (presumably) joined to do.

How many times must something like this happen before something effective and permanent will be done by the council or the police...

Absolutely ridiculous... wonder if they will be there tomorrow....

rant over

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 13 Jul 2009 18:40

Very sorry your wife and child were subjected to such abuse. Do not forget thanks to Anthony Blair they have human rights.
I assume they are paying for their drink with public money. No wonder our welfare system is the laughing stock of the world

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 13 Jul 2009 18:55

scott.l.hamilton wrote: I will be polite on the forum, but the fact that society and policing is "reactive " to the dregs of society rather than proactive is B*"*@cks!

Of course, policing shouldn't be "fire brigade" style.. police need to show a presence and prevent crime where possible. However, we tread a dangerous path if we are to start interfering with people's liberty before they have done anything against the law.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 13 Jul 2009 18:56

Eagle wrote:Very sorry your wife and child were subjected to such abuse. Do not forget thanks to Anthony Blair they have human rights.
I assume they are paying for their drink with public money. No wonder our welfare system is the laughing stock of the world

you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Human rights existed long before Mr Blair came to power....

simon · Post by **simon** » 13 Jul 2009 19:42

Yes bensoby, Eagle obviously never heard of the likes Thomas Payne John Locke!

Scott, sorry to hear about your wife and I know your an upstanding, law abiding feller. I also know your not small either and probably fit as fiddle. Why dont you just go and give the toerag a slap? Thats what I would do if anyone spoke to my beloved like that. May not be strictly lawful but might make him think about doing it again.

Chazza · Post by **Chazza** » 13 Jul 2009 20:14

simon wrote:not small either and probably fit as fiddle. Why dont you just go and give the toerag a slap

I've had some abuse off them before and would have loved to have done that, but the police would then prosecute me for assault.

raymondus · Post by **raymondus** » 13 Jul 2009 20:33

bensonby wrote:
Eagle wrote:Very sorry your wife and child were subjected to such abuse. Do not forget thanks to Anthony Blair they have human rights.
I assume they are paying for their drink with public money. No wonder our welfare system is the laughing stock of the world
you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Human rights existed long before Mr Blair came to power....

Isn't the issue that Eagle was referring to the fact that prior to the 1998 Human Rights Act 1998, people only had an indirect right to enforce those human rights now part of UK legislation indirectly through the European Convention on Human Rights? And then only if the Courts made an Article 177 (or 77) reference? The practical effect of this is that the relatively unmeritorious claims never got off the ground, whereas now, anyone can apply the Human Rights Act to anything they care to? I might be wrong and would be willing to be corrected on that one - it has been a while since I last read up on them and these are recollections from lectures in 1994!

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 13 Jul 2009 21:13

raymondus wrote:
bensonby wrote:
Eagle wrote:Very sorry your wife and child were subjected to such abuse. Do not forget thanks to Anthony Blair they have human rights.
I assume they are paying for their drink with public money. No wonder our welfare system is the laughing stock of the world
you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Human rights existed long before Mr Blair came to power....
Isn't the issue that Eagle was referring to the fact that prior to the 1998 Human Rights Act 1998, people only had an indirect right to enforce those human rights now part of UK legislation indirectly through the European Convention on Human Rights? And then only if the Courts made an Article 177 (or 77) reference? The practical effect of this is that the relatively unmeritorious claims never got off the ground, whereas now, anyone can apply the Human Rights Act to anything they care to? I might be wrong and would be willing to be corrected on that one - it has been a while since I last read up on them and these are recollections from lectures in 1994!

You are correct, but human rights existed in law since the European Convention of Human Rights was passed in 1950. British people could petition the European Courts for rulings that were enforcable in Britain ever since the inception. The Human Rights Act has just made it easier for ordinary people to make those representations.

In general terms most laws that already existed complied with the HRA and the guarantees granted by the law are rather wishy-washy to say the least when, if, someone wanted to get around them. That said, they express noble ideals and codify inaliable rights in one document.

I'd challenge anyone to argue against any of the sentiments of the convention or the act. They are basically expressions of fundamental ideals and guarantee that the state cannot interfere with these fundamentals (or, if they do, it has to be with very good reason)

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 14 Jul 2009 07:04

Simon are you refering to the goog Thomas Paine of Lewes who was a bit of a rogue in UK ptior to fame in Philadelphia and Paris ? I think even Thomas would have agreed rights come with responsibility , something the human rights act does not agree with. At present the act just a way out of punishement for every criminal and layabout.

ALIB · Post by **ALIB** » 14 Jul 2009 07:21

Excatly, Eagle. Someone posted on one of the forums i visit only last week that .."people want their rights, but forget they also have responsibilities"

Or something like that.
Scott's family have the right to walk in safety down public walkways, and the street drinkers have a responsibility to others not to put them 'at risk'.

My own right wing tendancies on law and order probably aren't suitable for these boards.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 14 Jul 2009 08:01

Thanks Alib , I find most people on these type of sites are liberals until they or a loved one gets mugged , raped etc.
Problem is also that people are told that all state handouts are a right. Surely they are a generous gift which should be taken away if bad behaviour occurs. Not sure how we have got to this terrible situation noy just New Labour but they are worst offenders.
Another example we cannot return some criminals or illegals to their countries because they appeal to a court in Strasburg. Recently Ms Smith wanted to send notorius troublemaker home to Jordan ( The Hashemite Kingdom , not large lady ) . Jordan always friendly to UK and we insult them by saying they are not safe. What they do is up to them .

By the way Thomas Paine loved his Harvey's .

Thomas · Post by **Thomas** » 14 Jul 2009 09:10

Scott - really sorry to hear what happened to your wife and daughter. But what is the best way to tackle offenders like that?

You could fine them - but that would further clog up the criminal justice system and anyway how would they pay?

You could imprison them, but in the scale of things this is a fairly minor crime so they would be out on the streets again in a few days or weeks, and the problem would most likely reoccur soon enough. You could lock them up for a much longer length of time, but that would be disproportionate compared to other offences and be hugely expensive.

Community service? Are they in any fit state to do any sort of manual labour?

Professional treatment? Wouldn't work if they didn't want it to.

You could I suppose restrict their ability to buy alcohol but that could push them into buying illegal drugs.

Anyone have any better ideas?

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 14 Jul 2009 09:17

How about chain gang. Please do not start me on this,
We assume drink being paid for by us yet they abuse us.
Thomas you seem to be saying nothing at all can be done and regretably you could be correct.

Cllr John Getgood · Post by **Cllr John Getgood** » 14 Jul 2009 09:19

We had a similar problem in Penge High Street, The police successfully applied for it to be made a no-alcohol zone. That gives them the power to move on or arrest anyone seen drinking alcohol in the prescribed area. Some people find this oppressive but it has undoubtedly made the High Street more pleasant. There are now plans to extend the zone to include Penge Rec which is more contentious.

Cllr John Getgood
Penge & Cator

Thomas · Post by **Thomas** » 14 Jul 2009 09:24

Yes, I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that at least some of the street drinkers are refugees from Penge, so you have shunted your problem drinkers a mile down the road to us! But suppose there were restrictions like that everywhere - what would happen then?

Big Ben · Post by **Big Ben** » 14 Jul 2009 16:16

For more on our street drinkers, check out the Slice of Life column on the inside back page of Time Out - you'll find that in a thinly veiled reference to this part of south-east London the tattooed man & friends have quite a presence (see the issue dated July 3). This makes good copy, but it's not much fun for people living in Sydenham. Cllr John Getgood (above) tells us that Penge (which is in LB Bromley) now has a 'no drinking' zone & consequently the environment for shoppers and families has got much better. Unfortunately Lewisham have vetoed a no drinking zone for Sydenham, which means that the street drinkers congregate here - despite the fact that they live elsewhere. The only answer is to lobby councillors and the Mayor - enough pressure and they might re-consider this bizarre decision.

poppy · Post by **poppy** » 14 Jul 2009 19:26

When did the council veto this? Was it recent? We need to kick up a fuss if this is the case. It is banned in Catford too, as we have discussed on another thread.

poppy · Post by **poppy** » 14 Jul 2009 19:30

Scott I have pm'ed you with some info about them.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 14 Jul 2009 23:04

oh, for goodness sake, there is no such thing as a "no drinking zone" as I've pointed out on many occasions.

How about we penalise people when they commit crimes (such as when they abused Scott's family) rather than pre-empt people's criminality...

Being a sad wino is not, and should not be, a crime......get that through your heads' people!

Rebelmc · Post by **Rebelmc** » 15 Jul 2009 00:27

bensonby wrote:oh, for goodness sake, there is no such thing as a "no drinking zone" as I've pointed out on many occasions.
How about we penalise people when they commit crimes (such as when they abused Scott's family) rather than pre-empt people's criminality...

Being a sad wino is not, and should not be, a crime......get that through your heads' people!

Can you explain Cllr Getgood's post then?

How can they possibly enforce a 'no drinking zone', when no such zone can possibly exist?

Are you calling him a liar?

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

Rough Sleepers