I phoned 101. I might as well not have bothered!

[MontyVeda]

The situation in Lancaster seems to be similar to what Brandane describes... no drinking zones in the town centre, which moved them to the canal towpath, which is now also a no drinking zone and the police seem quite active at moving them on (the sign itself can't be that effective). The downside is the council's approach of removing many of the benches the drinkers used to occupy... i.e. all undercover benches in and around the town centre meaning there's nowhere dry to sit and rest when it's raining.

 

[Brandane]

Or they created designated no drinking zones, but then failed to give the dibble any power to enforce them. That was a favourite.

Should have stayed in your homeland!
Police powers were simple. No power of arrest, but take their drink from them and charge them with the relevant offence, which would then be reported to the Procurator Fiscal who would decide on what action to take (usually a fixed penalty fine, then court proceedings when that wasn't paid).
The common law power of arrest for "failing to desist" was quite often called upon for this offence, when you left the scene only to return 10 minutes later to find them drinking again.

 

[MontyVeda]

Or they created designated no drinking zones, but then failed to give the dibble any power to enforce them. That was a favourite.

When Lancaster was designated a no drinking zone it was nigh on impossible to walk through town at night with a couple of cans in a carrier bag without some over enthusiastic copper reminding me that it's a no drinking zone and trying to either confiscate my booze or make me pour it down a drain... i refused because booze is precious and they let me go on my way, but followed me half way home just to make sure i didn't park my butt on a bench and open one.

 

[Drago]

Should have stayed in your homeland!
Police powers were simple. No power of arrest, but take their drink from them and charge them with the relevant offence, which would then be reported to the Procurator Fiscal who would decide on what action to take (usually a fixed penalty fine, then court proceedings when that wasn't paid).
The common law power of arrest for "failing to desist" was quite often called upon for this offence, when you left the scene only to return 10 minutes later to find them drinking again.

Aye, Grampian police wouldn't have me. Something about spending too much time doon sooth and talking like a pork pie eating sassenach.

 

[classic33]

Aye, Grampian police wouldn't have me. Something about spending too much time doon sooth and talking like a pork pie eating sassenach.

An undesirable then?

 

[Drago]

Aye, positive non-Gaelic speaking English Riff Raff. Worse even than a lowlander. That and something about me being a nutter.

 

[mybike]

What do you think "having a word" would achieve? It's usually just wasted breath. Offenders at all levels rarely care what the police say to them - they wouldn't be offenders if they did! I can understand that it might make you feel a mite better, that the police had done something, but in actual fact it would have achieved zero.

Persistent "having a word" would actually achieve a lot. It would remind the miscreants that people do care and that their behaviour is not acceptable.

There is the possibility that the Police were busy dealing with more serious matters.

All those 'unimportant' matters let slide eventually result in more serious behaviour.

[QUOTE 5221466, member: 10119"]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-statistics-home-office-figures-a7851576.html

I think the narrative that coppers all spend their days sitting around eating doughnuts is about as helpful as the one that teachers work short hours with long holidays, that all public sector employees are going to retire with gigantic gold-plated pensions, and that benefits claimants are lazy scroungers who are swinging the lead.[/QUOTE]

They're certainly not patrolling the streets.

 

[Drago]

The miscreants simply do not care, and having a wee chat with them makes not a jot of difference to their behaviour. I spent 26 years "having a word" with them, and I can tell you first hand its an utter waste of effort, time, resources and life.

 

[mybike]

The miscreants simply do not care, and having a wee chat with them makes not a jot of difference to their behaviour. I spent 26 years "having a word" with them, and I can tell you first hand its an utter waste of effort, time, resources and life.

That's why it has to be persistent, and I mean over a very short period, moving people on so they don't have a chance to settle. The police forgot how to do that getting on for 50 years ago.

 

[classic33]

Persistent "having a word" would actually achieve a lot. It would remind the miscreants that people do care and that their behaviour is not acceptable.



All those 'unimportant' matters let slide eventually result in more serious behaviour.



They're certainly not patrolling the streets.

If memory serves me right at present there's half a dozen for an area of 140. square miles and a population of over 203,826.

 

[Drago]

That's why it has to be persistent, and I mean over a very short period, moving people on so they don't have a chance to settle. The police forgot how to do that getting on for 50 years ago.

There are legal reasons why you can't harass people now. The police also have no powers to simply move people on - they never did back then, but decades ago society accepted the police doing so because it generally worked. Now their "Yuman Rights" do not permit the feds to violate their freedom of movement and assembly in such a manner.

Policing worked 50 years ago because people had more respect for the police, and had some fear of the consequences, not least of which their Ma or Pa finding out. If that didn't work then everything from a clip round the ear to falling quite heavily down the stairs in the back of the police van would be deployed until the message was received and understood. Again, can't do that any more.

Until something positive is done, like putting handcuffs on them, nothing changes. Even then, once the handcuffs come off, they're back on the same bench the next day being a PITA. Having a word, even daily, even hourly, is of zero consequence to what remains of their their alcohol/cannabis/spice/insert other substance addled brains. A copper giving them a bollaricking is of no significance at all. In fact, getting nicked is often of no consequence, and is often viewed simpy as a minor and inconvenient interruption to their wastrel lives. Indeed, sometimes its welcome as the nice police doctor will give them methadone to keep them going until they can get back to the bench in the grave yard the next day.

If simply speaking firmly and persistently to people cured such behaviour we'd have been in Utopia decades ago. Unfortunately, people inclined to behave in that manner are disinclined to care very much at all about anything the Feds can lawfully do to them. All they care about is where their next can of Red Stripe/spliff/score is coming from. Getting in their faces daily - forget it. Unless you can back it up with some action nothing changes, and even then the changes are usually only very short term, and they'll be back the next day. This is why there is NO link to crime levels and police visibility.

Shoplifters don't care about CCTV. Speeders don't care about Gatsos. PITA members of the public nuisance underclass don't care about plod. Period (I hate that term, but its very apt).

 

[flake99please]

Between Christmas & New Year I discovered 3 young men on my way to work. 1 had a cordless drill with plasterers wheel attachment, and another unrecognisable power tool. The other 2 were carrying a small petrol generator between them, and other powers tools between them. This was on a small 'cut through' road at around 0300hrs, which I think many people would agree would be a little unusual to be on a legitimate plastering job at that time.

I called 101 giving my name, address, DOB, exact location of the three guys, direction they were headed, general description (height/clothing). I followed these 3 young men up this track for some time up this road, until it met the main road near my workplace. Despite being told that there were 2 crews within 5 minutes of the location, no-one showed up before I got to my workplace.

 

[mybike]

There are legal reasons why you can't harass people now. The police also have no powers to simply move people on - they never did back then, but decades ago society accepted the police doing so because it generally worked. Now their "Yuman Rights" do not permit the feds to violate their freedom of movement and assembly in such a manner.

Policing worked 50 years ago because people had more respect for the police, and had some fear of the consequences, not least of which their Ma or Pa finding out. If that didn't work then everything from a clip round the ear to falling quite heavily down the stairs in the back of the police van would be deployed until the message was received and understood. Again, can't do that any more.

Until something positive is done, like putting handcuffs on them, nothing changes. Even then, once the handcuffs come off, they're back on the same bench the next day being a PITA. Having a word, even daily, even hourly, is of zero consequence to what remains of their their alcohol/cannabis/spice/insert other substance addled brains. A copper giving them a bollaricking is of no significance at all. In fact, getting nicked is often of no consequence, and is often viewed simpy as a minor and inconvenient interruption to their wastrel lives. Indeed, sometimes its welcome as the nice police doctor will give them methadone to keep them going until they can get back to the bench in the grave yard the next day.

If simply speaking firmly and persistently to people cured such behaviour we'd have been in Utopia decades ago. Unfortunately, people inclined to behave in that manner are disinclined to care very much at all about anything the Feds can lawfully do to them. All they care about is where their next can of Red Stripe/spliff/score is coming from. Getting in their faces daily - forget it. Unless you can back it up with some action nothing changes, and even then the changes are usually only very short term, and they'll be back the next day. This is why there is NO link to crime levels and police visibility.

Shoplifters don't care about CCTV. Speeders don't care about Gatsos. PITA members of the public nuisance underclass don't care about plod. Period (I hate that term, but its very apt).

Moving people on worked then, it would work now and the police would get the support of the public if they were seen to be doing something. Trouble is, no one sees a police officer in their street, they can't report problems at police stations, the police officer is now a stranger who might turn up if you have a problem.

 

[mybike]

If memory serves me right at present there's half a dozen for an area of 140. square miles and a population of over 203,826.

There are more than there were in the 1960s and they have fewer jobs to do. That's what the stats say.

 

[User10119]

There are more than there were in the 1960s and they have fewer jobs to do. That's what the stats say.

Got those stats handy?