Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jimpanzee May 29 2009, 08:16 PM

After seeing that people on here also seem to express the same disgust at the sorry state of various individuals sullying our streets, I have decided I am going to detail anything that I see and thought was wrong.

I would love it if the rest of you guys joined in and as a community we stand up and point out the people doing things that are illegal, unsavoury and morally wrong.



I'll start with a little one.


Just been to co-op in Thatcham, and on exit I saw someone clearly dealing some illegal substance right outside. A place which is meant to be a safe area for kids.



Now i've not always been a clean cut individual, far from it. But you can have the common decency to take things away from the general public, especially the young.


What have you seen on our streets lately?

Posted by: GMR May 30 2009, 09:57 PM

I went into town today - Newbury - and there were plenty of drunks swearing etc. Going by peoples faces they weren't too pleased. Where are the police when this sort of thing happens?

Posted by: JeffG May 31 2009, 01:22 PM

A little one?


Litter, mainly. And usually from school kids whose parents have obviously not instilled a basic social conscience into them. Thinking about it, it's probably those same parents as well.

Posted by: Road User Jun 1 2009, 07:46 AM

I agree about the litter. I live with in walking distance of three schools and my front garden becomes a litter bin for the little angels on their way to school and during their lunch breaks. It's not just the litter that they drop in my garden but the litter that blows in from the street that they drop. The vast majority is chocolate wrappers and crisp packets. If you say anything to them they swear at you or their parents do. I guess it could be worse with so many being driven to school at least their litter is dropped down Andover road.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 1 2009, 08:04 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10175

Group of youths Asault Man.

So a guy is battered unconcious by a group of yobs in the middle of the high street.

Bailed to return on the 27th June.

At least we know theirs a good chance another member of the public will take a good kicking before then.
I'm just suprised the Police attended. Must have been a nuisance.

Posted by: GMR Jun 1 2009, 03:49 PM

I've also noticed a lot of drunks going to the toilet in alleyways. Why has it gone so bad recently?

Posted by: JeffG Jun 1 2009, 04:45 PM

Doesn't that warrant a new thread? I don't see how it fits in with the OP.

Posted by: Anon Jun 2 2009, 01:03 PM

I know it's not illegal but today I was waking in to the kennet centre through a crowd of mothers with pushchairs, all smoking around their children.

Although this is not illegal this is one thing I can not bear to see, children having to breath in their mother's smoke! I suppose I should be greatful that they were at least outside smoking!

Posted by: Andrea Jun 2 2009, 01:32 PM

This drives me up the wall! I grew up in a home where both my parents were chain smokers who smoked in the house. for years when I was growing up I thought I had a constant cold cause my nose was always stuffed up and I was always coughing up crap. When I was 14 I finally convinced my parents to smoke outside, ever since then I can breath although I still have a cough which I don't think will ever go away.

I think it's absolutely disgusting that people smoke around children, and when I see a pregnant woman smoking, I want to scream! How can these people be allowed to have children. Even though this isn't illegal, it should be!

Posted by: GMR Jun 2 2009, 04:22 PM

Even though I understand what people are saying, I don't think they could ever ban it..... people/ mothers/ fathers would just do it in private.

Posted by: Anon Jun 3 2009, 01:14 PM

After all this would be an infridgement on their human rights, doesn't matter that their children don't get to have a say in the matter

Posted by: GMR Jun 3 2009, 07:38 PM

It is not about "infringement" of peoples human rights, but it would be practically impossible to prove.

Posted by: Anon Jun 5 2009, 01:29 PM

Sorry obviously my sarcasim was missed on this point

Posted by: GMR Jun 6 2009, 01:36 PM

It wasn't missed

Posted by: Lemonade Jun 15 2009, 07:44 PM

Actually from my experience the police have been more than useful in these situations. People always say 'where are the police and what are they doing' but coming from someone who used to get drunk around parks and such in my earlier teens (about three years ago or so) the police regularly were around. I was walking through a park the other night on my way to a friends and I saw the police then talking to a group of young people.

I don't think it's the police's problem and to be honest, I'm kind of sick of hearing it. The problem is there is nothing to do at night. No teenager wants to go to a shoddy youth club and drink apple juice, after a week at school they want to do something fun as I'm sure you all did in 'your day'. It's a bigger issue and it's something the government really needs to address. Perhaps if they lowered the drinking age on some softer drinks and made places especially for younger teenagers to go there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 11:50 AM

In some cases you maybe right.... however, the police could be a bit more high profile and observant when seeing people behaving in a certain - unacceptable - manner.

Drinking is a problem but those that offend must know that bad behaviour will not and must not be tolerated.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 16 2009, 11:56 AM

Maybe the Police resources are over stretched and the Government needs to allow more to be recruited.

Posted by: AmieB Jun 16 2009, 12:03 PM

More police walking the beat is what we need. I never ever see them.......

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 12:14 PM

I don't think it is just that reason.... when they get to court they must be dealt with in such a way that it sends out a message to others that, that sort of thing won't be tolerated. unfortunately, most of the time they go to court, get an ASBO and then wear it with pride; in some cases they've got hundreds. What is the point of just passing ASBO's out, as if they are a reward? One should be enough, after that confinement is the only answer.

Kids will always push the boundaries; it is society that should sent the rules and if broken immediately punished.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 16 2009, 01:49 PM

It's not all kids causing the problems though.

If a man with a previously unblemished record can be given 120 hours community service and be warned that he only just escaped a prison sentence for slapping a cyclist for slight provocation (see Newbury Today) then surely these repeat offenders must be treated much more strictly by the courts.

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 02:35 PM

Yes, it is not only kids that are to blame. I also agree with your prognosis. We should be seen to be tough... not just speak it. Blair came into power saying "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and just made token gestures. Nothing changed, in fact things got worse under his watch; in more ways that one.

Posted by: Anon Jun 16 2009, 03:20 PM

Unfortunately its not only the fact that police resources are overstretched, but also the fact that the criminal justice system is so historic and out of date, when people are arrested it doesn't feel like the punishment fits the crime! It's an unfortunate fact of society these days!

Posted by: Betjo Jun 16 2009, 04:35 PM

Yesterday up at Tesco car park a man was using the space behind a car for a toilet. An innocent mother was walking across the park with a youngster aged about 4 and the kiddie distincly said to his Mum "Look at that man having a pee" The man took no notice or gave an apology.

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 08:01 PM

Yes, and the police know this so they should stand up and be counted. It is not just enough to say "we are following orders, that is all". They, themselves, do not accept the penalties that are dished out by the courts.... so they should stand up and say "enough is enough."

Posted by: On the edge Jun 21 2009, 03:40 PM

Its a shame that those who are responsible set pretty poor examples themselves. Being a grumpy old g** I don't generally hold back. Imagine my surprise when I challenged a driver of an unmarked car who'd driven the length of Northbrook Street and stopped by the lights in the Market - chatting to a street cleaner. 'Sorry about butting in old son, but this is a pedestrian street' - 'Oh its OK, I work for the Cleaning people and need access to check my staff''. Major row follows, started because I said I'd like such a privilege to check my own. Call to WBC Reception to report matter resulted in the usual 'don't understand, there's no one in the office at the moment' response.

Posted by: GMR Jun 21 2009, 04:05 PM

The trouble is those people think they are god. We've got to stand up and be counted. I would/ have done the same thing in your shoes. Whether he worked for the cleaning people or not he still has to abide by the laws as everybody else does. You did the right thing; it is a pity more people don't do the same.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 22 2009, 09:30 AM

Saw a chap who tried to intervene when he saw four kids trying to smash a fence up in the alley between Catherine Road and the Station the other day. Needless to say they threw Stones at him, swore at him and were very agressive. Nice kids. I expect their parents were on their 3rd tub of white lightening.

Posted by: GMR Jun 22 2009, 09:49 AM

Yes, and if he did retaliate it would be him who gets into trouble and not the kids; because kids have human rights, innocent, good citizen's don't. And if the police witnessed this behaviour, what would they have done? Give the kids a stern talking to? Or even their parents? I don't think so. Those kids do it because they behave like masters; untouchable... and they are that way because society doesn't act. They just defend the indefensible.

GOD THIS SORT OF THINK MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL... and my anger is not directed towards the kids but the government and authority for allowing us to get into this situation.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 22 2009, 11:22 AM

You should see/hear the goings on in and around Highfield Avenue, right next to WBC head office everyday, kids (why aren't they at school?) pull down fence panels almost as soon as they are repaired and dodgy looking people are in and out of the road, which is immediately behind the bus station and obscured from view also by hedges and aforementioned fence, all the time, it is especially "busy" on Friday afternoons.........

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2009, 11:29 AM

And which political party is going to take tough action to rectify this situation?
None of the mainstream parties!
Which is why so many people are saying enough is enough and backing some of the minority parties.

It's no use moaning when this happens - the mainstream parties have to take the necessary action on the issues where the people want it or the more extreme parties will only gain more power.

Posted by: GMR Jun 22 2009, 11:44 AM

I agree... that is why so many people, as you said, have turned to minority parties. But if we don’t stand up and be counted we can’t point the finger at other people.

All this rot started with Blair’s government. He promised so much (“education, education, education” & “tough on crime, tough on the causes on crime”) and actually delivered just his famous sound bites. He turned this country into a Big Brother society (we are the most watched country in the world), gave us the Human Rights bill (that protects the yobs of our society) and then walked away leaving Brown to deal with his mess and the worst recession in 60 years. Next year can’t come quick enough; a general election that might, just might, bring in a new dawn.

Posted by: Anon Jun 22 2009, 12:55 PM

Maybe its the parents that you should vent your frustrations at for not installing simple morals and values in to their children and teach them some respect.

Posted by: Anon Jun 22 2009, 12:57 PM

this quite regularly amuses me!

Posted by: GMR Jun 22 2009, 12:59 PM

Again i totally agree. If kids are under and certain age then peoples frustrations should be directed at them. Problem is, as soon as you do that the law comes out and protects them and shoves their human rights down our throats. Authority is just as culpable as the parents.

Posted by: lordtup Jun 27 2009, 05:35 PM

So why has it got this bad?Because we have allowed the liberal do-gooders to erode our ability to reclaim the moral high ground.Time was when an unruly yob got a swift cuff round the ear from a "concerned" member of the public and that was that.Now anyone who even considers,let alone does,runs a very real risk of finding himself in front of the bench.
Whoever it is that owns this country it certainly ain't the citizens.

Posted by: GMR Jun 27 2009, 07:07 PM

Agreed.... and this government has done nothing for Law and order.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 27 2009, 09:12 PM

Dont think the previous one was any better to be honest.

Posted by: GMR Jun 27 2009, 09:14 PM

It wasn't any worse; i presume you are talking about the Major government and not the Thatcher government?

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 27 2009, 09:18 PM

Both!

Posted by: GMR Jun 27 2009, 09:36 PM

The Thatcher government started off ok and brought some good laws in and they were tough on crime, however, when Thatcher run out of ideas she should have gone in 1987. Major was a hostage to fortune and was in a very weak position. However, no matter how bad they were they could never compare to the Blair/ Brown years, which were a total disaster.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 28 2009, 08:37 AM

Are not the children of the 80s now the parents of today? I don't know that there is any specific law change that has resulted in youths being 'permitted' to commit crime. It is claimed the Thatcher Government were tough on crime, if this worked, I wonder why subsequent Governments went 'soft' on crime.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 28 2009, 08:54 AM

Thatcher created the "me first" ethos, which has a lot to do with the degeneration of society (which didn't exist, according to Thatcher).

Posted by: Iommi Jun 28 2009, 09:01 AM

I'm not sure that is true, perhaps it would be better to describe the policy of paving the way for people to become more prosperous and by definition appear selfish. I'm not convinced about her contribution about the degeneration of society, I remember what it was like in the 70s and it wasn't that good then either.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 28 2009, 09:33 AM

I don't agree that prosperous = selfish, which is what you seem to be saying. I am all for prosperity, and I like to think that the majority of people, prosperous or not, still have consideration for people other than themselves. Thatcher's statement that "there is no such thing as society" encouraged the opposite. I am firmly of the belief that things really started to go downhill around that time.

Yes, there were some good things, like curbing the power of the unions. Actually, I'm not sure who I dislike more: Thatcher or Arthur Scargill

Posted by: Iommi Jun 28 2009, 10:07 AM

What I said was prosperity can appear selfish. As you become prosperous, you get bigger houses, cars and one becomes more protective of their wealth. This could be demonstrated through people buying houses and then encapsulating themselves with what suits them best, regardless of their neighbour.


I would as well, but often when people do things like vote, they are thinking of themselves first.


That phrase, I think, has been misinterpreted. The purpose of the passage was to explain that people need to take responsibility for them selves and stop expecting the the state (the state is created by society) to bail themselves out. It was never meant to say go and get everything you can.

Here's the section I mean...

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Margaret Thatcher, October 31 1987.


I know what you mean.

Posted by: GMR Jun 28 2009, 10:36 AM

Thatcher didn't create it, the people did themselves. She just gave people the opportunity... what they did with that opportunity was down to them.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 28 2009, 10:38 AM

She was known as Milk Snatcher in the mid 70's when she stopped free school milk and that should have been enough to put everyone off!

Posted by: GMR Jun 28 2009, 10:47 AM

Yes, I remember that.... but it didn't put anybody off as she became the longest serving Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in the 1800's. I wouldn't actually call that putting people off. The reason she was popular because people were pleased she was doing something that the previous governments only talked about.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 28 2009, 12:03 PM

She put me off and many others I know.

Winning a war in 1982 helped. (Who knew of the Falklands before then?) "Rejoice Rejoice" Eh Maggie?

Then there was the Poll Tax

Posted by: GMR Jun 28 2009, 01:31 PM

Winning the war helped, as you say, but also beating the unions also helped.

The poll tax and Europe was her down fall.