Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 28 2009, 08:09 AM

I thought it must be April 1st but I have now read two articles in which it is stated that the Police will no longer respond to incidents of ASB as it is designated as being the responsibility of the Local Authority.
What the **** is going on!!!!
Would one of our Police members like to comment? Is it really true?
I find this incredulous if true. What number do you call when Yobbos are scratching your car or throwing eggs at your windows. Who will actually turn out to stop it while it's happening?
This will push more people into taking the law into their own hands.

Posted by: Sarah Sep 28 2009, 08:13 AM

Not sure on this but I seem to remember reading that this has been the policy since 1998.

Posted by: Chesapeake Sep 28 2009, 08:26 AM

I believe that it is down to each individual Police Authority as to their stance on anti-social behaviour.

I think you will be pleased that TVP will and DO respond to anti-social behaviour and take it very seriously.

Please see the attached link http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/pub-search.htm?qt=Anti+Social+Behaviour

Despite what other people on here have said TVP are a good and effective Police Authority who try hard to do what the public want. Their performance statistics show that they are consistantly performing at or above the required levels.

I am not however a Police Officer so I would also be interested in their views on this matter.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 28 2009, 08:33 AM

Thanks for that, I am reassured that at least our Force are still looking out for us regarding ASB.
Bit of a worry though as these sort of ideas tend to be justified as legitimate cut backs when Government funding gets difficult.

Posted by: GMR Sep 28 2009, 09:43 AM

I agree it down to individual police commanders. There was a documentary on PCSO's and he was saying about procedure that is is down to the individual police force how they go about their business. Some counties have a no tolerance policy towards Anti social behaviour and others just as the main poster suggested.

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 28 2009, 11:34 AM

Did you read the daily Mail report by chance?

I think the report was out of context to what was actually meant, albeit I cannot comment on that because I didnt say it.

Yes call the police for ASB, but I think what was meant was the long term issues, i.e neighbours who don't get on, people whos children run riot around the estate etc should also have involvement from the council.

I know that West Berkshire council have done a lot of work in the Newbury area moving family's that cause no end of greif to their areas. I think this is how the comments are meant.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 28 2009, 11:50 AM

Hi Ossy, yes it was the Mail and I have seen two separate stories.
I know the Mail can be controversial but I am not seeing any puplic contradiction, explanation or denial by a Police representative which is why I raised the issue.
But thanks for the above and I understand.

Posted by: Chesapeake Sep 28 2009, 11:56 AM

I bet there's a **** of an internal investigation going on though don't you Ossy1?

Posted by: GMR Sep 28 2009, 01:28 PM

It is certainly true that the papers can lie (they all do it) but if they say something that isn't true (but also gets the backs up of their readership) shouldn't they be suing the paper for misleading the public. After all they got a code of conduct (i.e. the papers) .

Posted by: lordtup Sep 28 2009, 03:48 PM

Could someone explain to me in words of one syllable what the blankety blank use is re-locating problems families .

Wherever they live they are going to be a nuisance , so why inflict suffering on to others , surely the answer is to have them put down . ( Bit like an uncontrollable dog ). Bet we wouldn't get to much trouble then , which would prove that they can control their actions but they choose not to because it's to easy .

Posted by: Darren Sep 28 2009, 04:19 PM

As far as I know, they don't move them as such.

If evicted for ASB, they are considered to have made themself homeless and local authorities are under no obligation to re-house them anywhere in the UK.

Of course that does pose the question "Where do we move to...", but that their fault.

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 28 2009, 07:02 PM

I don't think it's a lie, rather a reword of the original statement. After all putting a few catchy words on the front page does make people buy!!

As for not seeing any of the public contradiction or response from the police 1) public never contradict bad press, and the daily mail certainly don't print to much of it. (they never publish my comments)!!! and 2) It is rare that the police actually stick up for themselves it just goes over our heads and we keep on banging our heads against the wall!

Lordtup, sometimes neighbour problems are just down to a clash of personality, if moved they can get on well with their new neighbours and live a peacful life!!

Posted by: GMR Sep 28 2009, 07:06 PM

OK, thanks for that.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2009, 07:53 AM

I know it's not your Force and so I guess you may not want to comment but the article, in the Mail again, about the Police failing to respond to 33 calls for help by the lady who killed herself and her daughter is pretty damning and supported by the roasting that the Police's council got at the inquest.
There does seem to be a consistent theme of no reponse to ASB issues emerging.

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 29 2009, 08:26 AM

I spend more time dealing with ASB than anything else, some times a feel a bit sorry for the kids really. People complain they are playing football?? I'm sure some folk would have them locked in cages until they got to middle age!!

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2009, 08:54 AM

Yes, I understand however the level of ASB that I am bringing here is not kids playing football.
Incidentally if kids were playing football in my street I would complain as not only would kicking the ball inadvertantly against the cars in the street possibly damage them the kids also stand the risk of getting run over.

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 09:19 AM

I agree that people over react but isn't that usually a product of fear? Fear of the reputation of those that actually are bad. We can see this in other areas; English football hooligans, Muslims bombers, Christian extremists extra. The few tarnish the rest. But saying that there is a real serious problem with yobs and anti social behaviour. So much so that I believe - according to the radio - that when Brown gives his speech today at the conference he is mainly going to talk about anti-social behaviour and how to deal with it.

Hopefully - but sadly - this women's death (including her daughters) will make this government sit up and take notice. After all Blair did come into power saying "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and then brought in the European Human Rights laws to protect the yobs, rather than the innocent (and that is how it has come over in most cases, not all, but most).

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 29 2009, 09:23 AM

[quote name='GMR' date='Sep 29 2009, 10:19 AM' post='9627']
[font="Century Gothic"]I agree that people over react but isn't that usually a product of fear? Fear of the reputation of those that actually are bad. We can see this in other areas; English football hooligans, Muslims bombers, Christian extremists extra. The few tarnish the rest. But saying that there is a real serious problem with yobs and anti social behaviour. So much so that I believe - according to the radio - that when Brown gives his speech today at the conference he is mainly going to talk about anti-social behaviour and how to deal with it.

In some cases fear but mostly intolerance.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2009, 09:27 AM

I think it is too late for Gordon Brown and this bankrupt government to start to take notice of what the people of this Country have been asking for. They have missed the boat due to their support of the party and it's members above the needs and concerns of the people and the Country.
Speeches supporting stronger deterents for ASB and control of Yobs will be too little, too late as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 10:05 AM

True... but there still a problem and it needs sorting out.

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 10:08 AM

I agree it is too late for Brown and the Labour party. They've had 12 years in power and they are now bankrupt. The only thing we can hope for is that the Conservatives get into power and that they offer us - the people - something better.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2009, 10:24 AM

You see Ossy I think your comment is another example of saying that we are all frightened of our own shadow and that there is not really a problem and If this is the Force talking rather than your own view then this worries me. In fact it worries me either way.
I am not frightened of crime, I am a victim of it, 3 times, and I see precious little being done at the ASB level and effective deterents to prevent it happening again.

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 11:27 AM

I must also say that I am also a victim of crime/ anti social behaviour. At the moment I've got the local police and a PCSO trying to sort it out.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2009, 11:33 AM

Well, I am sorry to hear that and the recent West Berks resident survey indicated Thatcham and the surrounding area as a particular hot-spot for ASB and I know this from personal experience also up at Turnpike which I believe is your area.
But it does emphasise the point that ASB is real and not a figment of our imaginations or over reactions.
I hope the Police give you the attention that is required. If not let us know.

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 29 2009, 11:46 AM

wow hold on!! you were talking about ASB and now your relating my comment to being a victim of crime which is totally different.

My comment about intolerence relates to what we were talking about, ASB.

Don't twist my comments to fit in with your ideal. I always missed the bit when the thread turned into being about you. I thought you were orginally refering to an article in the paper.

I did not say you were frightened of your own shadow more that society is less tolerant than it used to be. Re read the posts then read my comment in the context it was meant before you all start with the police bashing against me.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2009, 12:43 PM

OK,your're right I appologise.

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 29 2009, 12:46 PM

Thank you

Posted by: Chesapeake Sep 29 2009, 01:36 PM

Ok, Bloggo was decent enough to appologise but where is GMR, the original Mr Me-Me-Me?

Or would appologising be too much against his nature? Maybe the whole reason he comments on here is so that he can turn each thread into his very own discussion vehicle!

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 29 2009, 01:42 PM

Finally other people are starting to suss him out

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 06:38 PM

So why are you attacking me all of a sudden and what have I done this time?

And what do I need to apologise for? I haven't said anything wrong and nobody has criticised me on this thread?

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 06:38 PM

Could you tell me what I've done wrong?

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 29 2009, 09:55 PM

I could be flippant, but I won't.

My serious reply is manyfold but mainly posting for the sake of it, hijacking threads, patronising people and never backing down.

Not always mind, just too often.

A recent example would be Iommi's bat query.

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 09:57 PM

First of all I don't post for the sake of it. However, my question was about this thread; what did I do wrong here?

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 29 2009, 10:01 PM

Wow that was quick!

I decided I didn't like my response so I edited it, anyway I was talking generally, not about just here.

Still I'm off now, as you may have noticed I am not on here as much these days, as it can suck one in and suddenly one finds that one has not done much with one's time.

Tara

Posted by: GMR Sep 29 2009, 10:05 PM

When you mention about spoiling Iommi's bat thread; you mean the same as you did to this thread? By bringing something up that has no relevance to this topic? I suppose we can all be guilty of that

So I didn't do anything wrong on this thread; thank you.

All the best.

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 30 2009, 08:33 AM

Actually GMR I was agreeing with this which was posted earlier on this thread.

Posted by: GMR Sep 30 2009, 09:17 AM

But that still doesn't change my question; what has that post got to do with this thread? Also were do I need to apologise on this thread, if I need to apologise?

We were having a perfectly good and civil debate before Chesapeake got the wrong end of the stick and you jumped on the bandwagon (accusing me of something you did yourself). As for Chesapeake; I PM'd her and asked her what I had done wrong. Even though she has looked at the PM she hasn't bothered to acknowledge me.

There is too much finger pointing on here, only for the finger pointers to do what they are accusing others of doing. Can we now get back to the topic?

Posted by: Roost Sep 30 2009, 12:56 PM

Topic Schmopic!

Looks like we'll need another thread for "Bill1 vs GMR" in addition to the Iommi one already running!

Let's save time and just have a "World vs GMR" topic, although it seems that the whole forum is already heading in that direction!

Posted by: Chesapeake Sep 30 2009, 01:05 PM

Hi GMR and Co.

Sorry I have not responded but been tired and unwell. I was referring to the fact that you (GMR) had mentioned your own problems again and how you have been a victim and Ossy said "wow hold on!! you were talking about ASB and now your relating my comment to being a victim of crime which is totally different" and "missed the bit when the thread turned into being about you" and it seemed to fit in with you and your post as well as Bloggo's.

Sorry if I got it wrong. Can't tell if I am wrong or right at the moment. Going back to bed I think and I'll get out of the other side and see if things get better.

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 30 2009, 01:22 PM

Get well soon Chesapeake!

Posted by: GMR Sep 30 2009, 01:46 PM

What is the 'co' bit for?



This thread – if you read the main topic – is about 'yobos'. So I thought I would contribute, as it concerns problems I was having with 'yobos'. Are you now saying we are not allowed to mention personal issues on here (more so if they are related to the topic)?


My reply about the problems I was having was in response to Bloggo who happened to mention the problems he was having.

So you are saying Bloggo and I shouldn't have mentioned our situation; ok, I apologise.

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 30 2009, 01:51 PM

I think you've responded to the wrong post there GMR

Posted by: GMR Sep 30 2009, 01:53 PM

Thanks, I've sorted it.

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 30 2009, 01:58 PM

Now you've corrected it my post looks foolish, not for the 1st time though eh?

Posted by: GMR Sep 30 2009, 02:00 PM

Not really because I thanked you; so people will know that there was a problem and I sorted it.... so again, thanks.

Posted by: Chesapeake Sep 30 2009, 02:03 PM

I have to ask GMR are you sure that they are not making a counter allegation against you for anti-social behaviour?

Posted by: Chesapeake Sep 30 2009, 05:41 PM

The above was a really kind thought Bill and I thank you for your gentlemanly compassion.

Manners Maketh Man (William of Wykeham Chancellor of England and Founder of Winchester College and New College, Oxford)

Posted by: ossy1 Sep 30 2009, 06:48 PM

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Blame-The-police?-Its-All-We-Know_20375.html

Now this is a good peice of writing and just about sums it up.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Sep 30 2009, 07:22 PM

Interesting article, thanks Ossy.

Certainly it's a sad indictment on society that the culture of blame is to pin problems on the police and all the time take away the means for them to do their job. Of course the media and politicians will never take any form of responsibility and as it can never be an individuals fault any more, it leads to unnecessary pillorizing of an important institution.

My experience of 'the law' over here is a little different I guess. At my local Starbucks we often get 4 or 5 deputies and sherriffs grabbing a drink and a table for a bit. As a result they are present in the community, know many of their public by face and name and present a human face beyond the badge (and of course the gun). It's rare to see any of the local yobs disrespect them to their face (how much that is due to the gun I'm not sure ).

That they are afforded the time to take breaks in public together without being accused of wasting public money is a big part of this. When I read about similar breaks in the UK it's been inclusive of such a reference to 'waste' - I think even on these forums people have suggested that it's unreasonable for them to get a bite to eat while on duty!!

You can't ask/expect the police to be present in the community and yet deny them the opportunity to participate in community activities such as grabbing a coffee. Little thing, sure, but it all adds up.

Posted by: Darren Sep 30 2009, 08:40 PM

Very interesting point.

If the police did that in the UK, can you imagine the fuss.

"Haven't you got any murderers/rapists/child molesters to catch!"

Watching C.O.P.S. does show that the US police have a lot less disrespect from the the locals. Lots of "Yes Sir, No Sir"

Maybe not on here, but there is a view from the public that eating is somehow not allowed.

Posted by: Jayjay Sep 30 2009, 11:28 PM

Posted by: Chesapeake Oct 1 2009, 06:15 PM

I am afraid that people on here have in the past commented negatively on the police having a break!