All posts in the topic What should Police priorities be in South Headington and Quarry? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 56 posts — by 19 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by nicholas fell at 2009 Jan 08 16:54 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| red | Picture 190 (Small).jpg | 2009 Jan 08 16:24 UTC |
| red | Picture 245 (Medium).jpg | 2009 Jan 08 16:29 UTC |
Don't forget that the Neighbourhood Action Team (Police, PCSOs, Street Wardens,
and other officers) are holding two public consultations, one on Tuesday 16th
December when they will be at the Wood Farm Community Centre, Titup Hall Drive
between 5pm and 7pm, and one on Wednesday 17th December when they will be at
‘The Coach House’, Quarry Road, between 5.30pm and 7.30pm. The meetings will
be informal and anyone who attends will be asked to fill in a questionnaire
stating their three priorities.
If you have any major concerns about what is happening in the area south of
London Road (i.e. Windmill Road side), in Headington Quarry or in Wood Farm,
this is a great opportunity to bring them to the attention of agencies who can
do something about them. Cycling on pavements has always featured heavily
before, and cycling accidents, but David Rundle and I know that issues like
antisocial behaviour and prostitution have also been cause for concern. Even
issues like rubbish being left outside houses all the time can be raised at
these consultations so feel free to go along and have your say! At every
meeting for the next year, the NAG team will review what progress is made on
the three issues considered most important by residents and plan their future
actions to make improvements that will really make a difference. I'm going to
the one on Wednesday as it's North East Area Committee on Tuesday night. If you
can't make the meetings please post up your concerns here or email your city
councillors direct!
Why can't we actually have some proper Police Officers on the streets, instead
of these pretend plastic police as everyone now jokingly and sarcastically
refers to them as, in lookalike uniforms. We don't want Policing on the cheap
thank you very much, they are no replacement for the real thing.
I have just seen quite literally eight or nine PCSO staff lounging around all
just wasting resources persecuting a few innocent cyclists, haven't they got
anything better, or more important to do with their time, obviously not I
conclude. They seem to be people who have too much time on their hands,
obviously filling the government target quota I guess for easy results at the
moment. We pay the Police to work not to stand around doing nothing while
trying to look important.
I certainly don't see going after cyclists as important, nor do I think it a
priority frankly. It seems to me that these so called NAGs are perverting
Police priorities.
I don’t think that cycling on pavements is a big problem in Headington South.
But in the shopping centre (which is in Headington North), cycling on pavements
is quite rightly a very high priority, because some elderly people are too
frightened to go shopping. I would put it at the very top, and I am glad to
hear that police are taking it seriously.
I am not sure which NAG covers you, Nicholas, but it is not Headington South.
The map still shows the area to the east of Bury Knowle Park as being in the
Barton, Sandhills, & Risinghurst NAG, but I remember Nicholas Newman saying on
this forum that the boundary was going to be changed so that you would be in
the Headington North NAG. You must go to your own NAG meetings and let the
police know what you think.
I am in Headington South, and I think that this is the first time that this NAG
has held a meeting which working people will be able to attend.
> I don't think that cycling on pavements is a big problem in Headington South.
Hm. Maybe not here, but I've often had to skip out of the way of a
pavement cyclist on Hollow Way (the irony being that there's a
perfectly servicable cycle lane just off the pavement). Twice the
cyclist in question appears to have been working for the Royal Mail.
Careless undertaking, Ignoring red lights and, in particular, cycling
without lights ought to be cracked down on as it's extremely
widespread. A common journey from Headington into the town last week
and about 75% of the cyclists had no lights at all. I came within
inches of splatting one chap who was steaming down Windmill Road as I
was turning right onto St Leonard's.
I have come to the conclusion that we are wasting Police time sending them
after adult cyclists during these sporadic so called crack down campaigns, I
think it is a counter productive effort. I believe that we have got to change
long term behaviour, that can only be done by a sustained long term educational
campaign, that means sending the Police into the Schools, Colleges of Further
Education and the Sixth Forms and the Universities. This was done in the past
and you know what, it worked!. It was done when I was at school as a child and
the scheme was scrapped a year or two later as I seem to remember.
These short term, financially motivated, quota driven easy result, sporadic
punishment crack downs are not the answer, because it is not going to cure the
problem.
It may delight the Something Must Be Done brigade, but the fact is
realistically these tactics are not going to change anything.
As a Windmill Road resident, I can assure the forum that cycling on the
pavement is a real problem!
I have almost been knocked over at least twice, and once was whilst coming
out of my path, pushing my daughter in her wheelchair.
Unlike Mr. Fell, I think stopping cyclists doing this is important, and
frankly I don't mind if the people stopping them are PCSO's or PC's. Unlike
some
roads in Headington, we do have a cycle lane in Windmill Road, but it is not
used by all the cyclists
Debbie Evans
The fact that not everyone uses Cycle Lanes goes to prove my point.
The only way to get an improvement in the way cyclists ride and behave is by
driving up standards, and that can only be done through proper organised cycle
training schemes and a long term campaign of education. Until that is done
nothing will change.
They can't actually do you over just for being on the pavement, that by itself
isn't technically illegal as such per se. Or at least legally it isn't enough,
they would need something more than just being on the pavement in order to be
able to justify giving out a ticket.
I don't share your enthusiasm for 'education' (many of the offenders are
likely to be some of the best educated people in the country already). Seems
a bit like arguing that we ought not to persue drink drivers, but instead
'educate' them as to why they're wrong....
Some digging produces the fact you can be both prosecuted or issued with a
fixed penalty:
Cycling on *footways* (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is
prohibited by *Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1)
of the Local Government Act 1888*. This is punishable by a fixed penalty
notice of 30 under *Section 51* and *Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988*.
*The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to
enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on
the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.*
The police can prosecute cyclists who ride dangerously, carelessly, ignore
traffic signs or signals, cycle on the pavement or commit any other road
traffic offence. These offences carry maximum fines between 500 and 2,500.
Also, 30 fixed penalty notices can be issued for cycling on the pavement,
by police and community wardens.
The accompanying guidance (for pavement cycling) talks about inconsiderate
use - clearly being run down on the pavement where a cycle lane is < 2ft
away should qualify!
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, nicholas fell
Police priorities? Well... what a pity that those running the meeting last
night at the Wood Farm Community Centre left ahead of time. It is an excellent
idea to invite people along to discuss issues, but if we adjust our plans to
get to the meeting, only to find everyone has gone home, it hardly makes one
keen to try to get to the next meeting.
Well I think you might be interested to know that most Police Officers don't
like being second guessed, and that they also don't particularly appreciate
having well meaning civilians telling them how to do their jobs, most of them
already know what is important and what is not from common sense and
observation, and what is called in the trade Coppers Nous, a form of sixth
sense radar if you like. Basically you've got it or you haven't, part of it is
natural the other part comes with training.
My advice would be to stay off Police Officers backs, and give them room to get
on with the job as they see fit.
You might be surprised to know that actually very little useful information
comes from the ordinary public, and that most of a coppers useful information
comes from the criminal underworld of inside informers, and the rest comes from
trading information with other Police forces. And by hanging around the right
locations where the underworld elements associate with each other you would be
be quite surprised at what information one can learn.
Actually Nick, all the local Neighbourhood Team leaders are quite good
and are receptive to ideas and information - I even have mobile phone
numbers for all three of them so we in halls can get hold of them if
we need to outside the "usual channels".
I suspect they would prefer not having their minds closed for them by
people in e-mail lists.
I suggest: police assigned to Headington/Marston ... and police/governments
the world over, make a serious crack-down on drugs/drug houses/drug users/'
their absolute priority in 2009.
The way I see it is:
Serious crime is not committed by bikers The person who breaks into your
house/steals your dog/mugs your grandma etc. is, for sure, going to be a
druggie/on foot/sold his bike (if he ever owned one) for drugs long ago.
I just, putting it mildly, hate what drugs are doing to
Headington/Marston/Cowley/ our world.
And ... if more of our councillors backed the need for more re-hab centres
... most neighbourhood problems would be solved -- end of.
Joan Williams
Don't get me started. How has prohibition helped?
Oxford was one of the first places in the country to have a drug
squad, to look after its 12, yes, that's twelve, registered addicts in
the sixties. Four decades of prohibition later we have 2000 and it's
still rising.
Drugs aren't the problem, prohibition is. Vurtuially all these
substances that are habit forming can be managed perfectly well if
there was a regular supply. Prohibition puts that supply into the
hands of organized crime, into the crack houses and so on. It kills
far more than the drugs ever would.
Yes, let's have more re-hab, but let it be done in an open manner, not
through the criminal law. Use the tax you would collect on the drugs
to fund it (they'd still be cheaper than the current black market
prices so there would be no economic incentive to deal with the
criminals that control the markets currently).
Those who support prohibition are supporting an immoral law that
itself kills people, executied in the streets by sixteen year olds as
well as by police and armed forces' thuggery.
As you say, end of.
For once I find myself thoroughly and totally in agreement with Joan Williams
on the subject of Drugs, and I have to say that Jock is confused in his
position on drugs, and considering what he does for a living I find his
attitude totally irresponsible and maybe he ought to consider his position, and
I hope Rex Knight finds out what Jock thinks on the subject.
My position on drugs is that they need to be kept illegal and that they need to
be firmly stamped under. Maybe Jock should try reading the Nicholas Kane Blog
about why drugs should be kept illegal.
Does Jock not understand about the harm that drugs can do to one's mental
health? that they cause schizophrenia, psychosis and deep level paranoia.
These substances cause memory loss and make people become violent and unstable.
I just happen to have friends who work in the Mental Health service industry.
Drugs are linked to serious and organised crime, both in our country and
overseas.
Long heavy harsh prison sentences are what one deserves for doing drugs, like
they have in Malaysia and Singapore, it seems to me they have the right idea.
When it comes to drugs there should be No excuses offered and No exceptions
made. For me Zero Tolerance is the only way to get the message across.
>
> For once I find myself thoroughly and totally in agreement with Joan
> Williams on the subject of Drugs, and I have to say that Jock is confused in
> his position on drugs, and considering what he does for a living I find his
> attitude totally irresponsible and maybe he ought to consider his position,
> and I hope Rex Knight finds out what Jock thinks on the subject.
I don't understand why a call for an end to prohibition is confused ?!
Plenty of senior policemen (and politicians for that matter) openly call for
change in the law. Are they just 'confused' as well ?
Bringing this topic back to the local level, I went to the Headington South Neighbourhood Action Group consultation at the Coach House in Quarry yesterday evening and was very impressed. Everyone who attended was given a personal interview with a police officer. I went early, and there were disappointingly few people there: I hope that more turned up later. Debbie (but not Nicholas) will be pleased to know I listed cycling on pavements as one of my three main priorities. Just because it doesn't tend to happen in my own road doesn't mean it isn't a serious concern in the rest of Headington South. Earlier this week the police issued 21 fixed penalty notices (£30 fine) to cyclists at the main London Road crossroads, and six children were spoken to about the dangers of cycling on the pavement, so the police are listening to us. But most of my concerns relate to Headington North, which isn't my NAG. They are having a surgery in Bury Knowle Park today from 9 to 11, but how many people can get to that? I find the increased incidence of armed robberies in the London Road area alarming: the one at NatWest a few weeks ago the first I ever remember on a Headington bank. The Oxford Mail have put up a Photofit of the man believed to have committed the recent armed robberies at the Headington Ladbrokes, on the London Road bus, and in Marston: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3985563.OXFORD_GUNMAN__Have_you_seen_the_robber_/
Armed Robbery is nothing unusual in this day and age, in fact it is fast
becoming the norm in criminal circles, crime is becoming ever more violent, its
just a fact of life.
The fact is that as Armed Responce Vehicles (ARVs) become more widespread the
more criminals turn to weapons.
On the subject of Armed Robberies in Headington, historically they have been
happening for years if not decades. Your being interested in local history
Stephanie, I am surprised you don't remember the famous armed robbery at the
Mobil Garage in Headington that went down late one afternoon back in the 1970s.
Probably the reason why this guy is carrying out armed robberies in the
Headington area at present is likely I would think because either a) a
consignment of drugs is going to be delivered somewhere soon that has got to be
paid for, or b) cash is being scraped together in order to set up another
Cannabis Factory somewhere in Headington. This definitely appears to be
following a pattern I have noticed emerging in Oxford over the last few years,
that the armed robberies always seem to happen at the same time/date points in
the year.
One thing that strikes me about this string of armed robberies is the
relatively careless unsophistication of it, the lack of planning and
preparation, an almost haphazard recklessness to it. Who ever the guy is he
appears to me to be someone who is out of his league in the criminal scheme of
things.
As has been hinted at by others, many will find this discussion not
germane to Headington & Marston issues. However, the point was made
that Headington/Marston/Cowley were being ruined by drugs and several
other claims and ad hominem arguments have been made here yet again by
Nicholas Fell and so I feel I ought to have a right of reply. But I
promise this will be my last word on the issue.
On 17 Dec 2008, at 17:33, nicholas fell wrote:
> For once I find myself thoroughly and totally in agreement with Joan
> Williams on the subject of Drugs, and I have to say that Jock is
> confused in his position on drugs, and considering what he does for
> a living I find his attitude totally irresponsible and maybe he
> ought to consider his position, and I hope Rex Knight finds out what
> Jock thinks on the subject.
What an odious sentiment. Someone has an opinion that you don't like,
so you would like him fired from his job. I have to say it is typical
of pro-death campaigners (those who support prohibition) as was
evident at the time of the local elections in May where my
opponents' (Labour, not Tory - the latter sympathized with me about
the overt attack and he works in rehab) leaflets sought to infer that
since I held certain views on drugs (which at the time I would also
have said were not germane to those particular elections given the
city council has little if any influence over national policy in this
area) my entire existence and other opinions were worthless.
As a result I very much doubt anyone in the city does not know my
position in any case. But as regards my work, and I presume you are
referring to my role "looking after" intelligent adults at nights and
weekends, let me tell you, we have had a few mental health related
incidents this year, and in previous years, and I think I can
confidently say that where any substances were involved it has
invariably been the legal drug, alcohol. And certainly by far the
majority of incidents that involve people being carried home comatose
and subsequent loss of memory and so on have been related to alcohol.
I am not confused on drugs. I am not even confused when not on them!
(that's a joke for the humour-impaired by the way). I am clear:
legalize, regulate and tax; all of them, yes, all of them. It is
prohibitionists that are utterly confused. They cannot even tell me
what it is they seek to prohibit - the substances themselves, the
effects users seek by taking them (which are often good effects - like
an ecstasy tablet making the otherwise shy person a bit more
gregarious and sociable for example), or the harms that may or may not
arise from them, both to the individuals or the community around them?
Banning the substances themselves is futile. Recreational pharmacists
will always be one step ahead of the law. There are plenty of
perfectly legal (at the moment) pills and potions that emulate what
the illicit versions do and which cannot be stopped. Are we just to
go through every conceivable substance and ban them? Second guess
what combination of molecules someone's going to discover next? Quite
impossible.
However what that does do is put potentially more dangerous chemicals
into circulation. Excepting the adulteration of many natural
substances (the opiates, coca based drugs, mushrooms and cannabis in
the main) during the criminally controlled supply chain, we do at
least have thousands of years of knowledge about these substances,
which cannot be said for some new concoction created in a bucket with
household chemicals by some recreational pharmacist and which, because
it is not controlled, could be doing all sorts of damage other than
what the thing it is seeking to emulate would do.
It is simple fact - prohibition has failed, spectacularly so. What
was it Einstein said about if at first you don't succeed trying
something different? Prohibition has seen the number of users, and
consequently the number of problem users also, skyrocket, prices
plummet and availability is now ubiquitous. And the more force with
which the "war on drugs" is prosecuted the more innocent people get
pulled into it and the more people die, in both law enforcement and
users. How is that a success? Chemists remain one step ahead here
too. Were you aware that it is possible to concentrate the active
part of heroin so much that you could fit the entire supply for a
single addict per month under a postage stamp if they knew how to
reconstitute it safely? How *do* you propose stopping that - sniffing
every single letter in the postal system?
> My position on drugs is that they need to be kept illegal and that
> they need to be firmly stamped under. Maybe Jock should try reading
> the Nicholas Kane Blog about why drugs should be kept illegal.
If you are referring to a chap called "O'Kane" who describes himself
in his own words as "*The* New Zealand Conservative" should I be
surprised at his mangling of statistics for his own pro-death ends?
The exact same data that led New Zealand researchers to conclude that
cannabis could double the potential risk of serious psychoses (by the
way, the DTs is a serious psychosis too and drinkers seem to weather
that reasonably well several times in a lifetime) led Canadian
researchers to conclude that people more at natural risk of serious
psychoses were prone to self-medicating by taking cannabis.
The researchers in London described the schizophrenia risk as more
like the "risk of being hit by a bus the first time you cross the road".
> Does Jock not understand about the harm that drugs can do to one's
> mental health? that they cause schizophrenia, psychosis and deep
> level paranoia. These substances cause memory loss and make people
> become violent and unstable. I just happen to have friends who work
> in the Mental Health service industry.
What broad brush statements which again are typical of the propensity
of the pro-death alliance to hyperinflate the risks - Even your own
source, Mr "Conservative New Zealand" admits that the risk of a
serious psychosis is 1% naturally and 1.4% or 2% depending on
consumption levels post cannabis use. Sleep deprivation cases memory
loss and makes people unstable. I rather suspect that I have
researched this a deal more than any of you reactionaries who take the
sort of Daily Express headlines like "One Spliff and You're Schizted"
or whatever it was at face value. Skiing causes broken limbs. What's
the figure - 25% of people who climb Everest never make it back? What
people do with their lives and their health is none of your business.
The levels of harm done by drugs are greatly increased by their
illegality and the unscrupulous organized crime that supplies it - it
would almost certainly be cheaper to treat users of drugs like users
of alcohol if they develop problems - even where it affects others -
like families.
Nonetheless, you have failed to show how prohibition minimizes those
risks. Indeed all the evidence points to prohibition increasing
consumption, decreasing the quality and exacerbating the risks.
Nobody I know that supports legalization is suggesting that such a
course is part of a scheme to have everyone snorting coke every day
(though the medical profession seems only too eager, in the name of
"mental health", to get people hooked on Seroxat, Prozac and Valium -
more addictive than heroin and potentially more dangerous judging by
the number of suicides put down to their use and the danger of serious
psychoses in withdrawal).
I doubt there's any serious practitioners in the mental health
"industry" who would suggest, nonetheless, that referring patients to
them by force through the criminal justice system is the ideal way to
get them to change. I suggest you ask your "friends" rather than
assuming. When people hide their problems until they overwhelm them
it tends to make interventions more difficult. It is hard enough to
get an alcoholic to acknowledge a problem, and their drug of choice is
perfectly legal. How much more difficult is it, even for family and
loved ones, to broach the subject with someone who is doing something
they know will land them in choky if they admit to it.
> Drugs are linked to serious and organised crime, both in our country
> and overseas.
As Nigel said - of course they do - the supply is driven underground
by prohibition. QED, legalize, regulate and tax and this would
disappear - some £18bn worth of crime a year in the UK alone, together
with all the gangland shootings, all the quasi-military operations
that result in deaths and injuries during enforcement, all the
prostitution caused by girls (and boys) getting hooked on something
their pimp then exploits. This is the cost of prohibition. If you
are living next to a crack-house it's because of prohibition. Ask the
Swiss. Temptation would be largely removed and intervention for those
who develop problems (and not all do - just as not all drinkers do)
made much easier.
> Long heavy harsh prison sentences are what one deserves for doing
> drugs, like they have in Malaysia and Singapore, it seems to me they
> have the right idea. When it comes to drugs there should be No
> excuses offered and No exceptions made. For me Zero Tolerance is
> the only way to get the message across.
I presume we will not see you at the next Forum meet up in a legalized
drug den then - a pub, and certainly not with a glass of drugs in your
hand. But you can apologise any time you like for impugning my
motives and wishing me disciplined for holding an opinion. One which,
unlike yours, seems at least to have been based on significant reading
up and following the issues.
We had a visit from a PCSO last evening asking us about our concerns in the
area. I mentioned the problem about cyclists on paths and it would appear that
such people profess ignorance about the fines. I suggested that some notices
about fines could be put up in appropiate places so that pavement cyclists
could see them.
I also commented on the Quarry rat run, which due to to the junction tables
along Quarry Road, has now increased the traffic flow in Mark Road some of it
travelling above the speed limit. I'm guessing that Weyland Road has also been
affected.
The PCSO, along with several others covers Headington South, Quarry and Wood
Farm.
Can I ask what this obsession is with cycling all of a sudden? I spend a lot of
time driving and walking around Headington and I never see this problem that
people seem to be magicing up, could it be this is being stoked up for
political gain ahead of the County Council Elections I ask myself? I don't
understand why your all so worked up about something so trivial. What really
irritates me is cyclists that go around with ipod earphones in, deaf and dumb
to everything going on around them, don't cyclists realise how dangerous this
is?
How about getting worked up over cyclists who disobey the law by not using
lights, and not wearing reflective belts and vests, and the ones who never use
arm signals so you never know where they are going or what they are going to
do. Cyclists in Oxford appear to be an absolute law unto themselves.
All of that is much more worth pursuing than doing people over simply for being
on the pavement. Personally I don't really care about cyclists on the
pavement, in fact in some streets I rather they were on the pavement keeping
safe than risking their lives and facing the possiblity of getting squashed by
the traffic by being on the road.
And just for the record I have no intention of apologising for my stand on
drugs, because I have nothing to apologise for.
I happen to know that I am actually right, my position on drugs is backed up by
the National Crime Squad, and as for legalising drugs that is a specious, false
argument if ever there was one as is proved by Theodore Dalrymple in his City
Journal Spring 1997 article titled Don't Legalize Drugs.
When the Headington North Neighbourhood Action Group (which includes the
shopping centre) asked people what their concerns were, cycling on the pavement
came very high on the list. Many people including myself hate it and think it
puts vulnerable pedestrians at risk; but everyone responded individually and
privately, so it was not a conspiracy.
You are entitled to have different priorities, but have you told your NAG what
you would like to see? This would be more sensible than expressing incredulity
at other people's views.
Obviously the police were pleased that this was something that they could deal
with so easily and visibly. Although we are grateful, it doesn’t mean that we
don’t have other concerns -- perhaps we don’t want to voice them all here in
public, because NAGs operate at a very local level.
If cycling on the pavements in Headington are peoples 'biggest' concern then we
as local residents we should all count our blessing's !!!
With all the recent crime activities in Headington, see http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/HEADINGTONNEWS.htm What about converting one of Headington's empty shops into a local police office?
Considering that Thames Valley Police are still languishing in third from
bottom place in the league table of Police Forces I cannot see changes in
basing arrangements making much of a difference. What Thames Valley Police
requires is nothing less than a thorough change in culture. I personally would
like to see Thames Valley Police broken up as at the moment the force is, I
believe, far too big.
Thames Valley Police currently are, I believe to quote John Reid "Not Fit For
Purpose". More needs to be done financially as well to stop London
Metropolitan from poaching Oxford Thames Valley Police Officers. I believe
that what Headington needs is its own Police Force separate from Thames Valley
Police.
There has been talk of a police office in central Headington for a long time,
but there is nowhere obvious for it to go. They won't be able to move into one
of the empty retail shops (unless a special temporary arrangement is made that
bypasses the Local Plan): they need an empty A2 office.
I think that the police were close to getting the office that Andrew's Estate
Agents moved into a few years ago, but I don't know what went wrong. The empty
Adkin office would have been well placed, but someone else has again got in
first. And even if Connell's get John Leon House (the appeal took place on 9
December: decision still awaited) the deal is that their old office beside Bury
Knowle Park would become A1 retail.
If the Bury Knowle toilets close down, that building would be available.... I
hesitated about putting a smiley there -- is that in fact as daft as it sounds,
if we really are destined to lose them anyway?
The amount of crime in the Headington shopping centre seems to me to have
increased tremendously just in the last year. Radio Oxford reported this
morning, for instance, that on Thursday night/Friday morning at about 1am
thieves got inside the Co-op on the London Road with drilling equipment and
attempted to remove the ATM.
If we had a police office, would it be open at night, I wonder? And could we
expect more night patrols?
I hope people who live in the area of the Headington North Neighbourhood Action
Group are talking to their officers about all this. I find it frustrating that
those of us just to the south of the centre and who use it every day are not in
the NAG that includes the shops.
"I believe that what Headington needs is its own Police Force separate from Thames Valley Police" Rather as York Minster does. Mind you, they were on duty the night the roof caught fire in 1984 and failed to notice it till too late... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Minster_Police http://www.yorkminster.org/news/minster-news/story119/behind-the-scenes-with -the-minster-police.html Would that then make Headington (and perhaps even Mr Fell) a 'Royal (or rather better perhaps a 'Civil') Peculier?' Merry Christmas all David Clover
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM, David Clover <email obscured>>wrote: > "I believe that what Headington needs is its own Police Force separate from > Thames Valley Police" > > Perhaps with their own distinctive uniforms. I did hear that Thames Valley Police are piloting a new uniform for their officers which I looked up online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7687192.stm). Whatever you think of the change, I thought it rather unfortunate that noone had thought about the connotations of a force of police in black shirts... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts).
I'm not sure I've seen the baseball caps (I think I maybe have - I
can't think of any other headgear that would go with that uniform),
but this looks very similar to what our neighbourhood teams have been
wearing at least all this semester. It seemed to be an "option"
though as they choose to wear it when "appropriate" (which appears to
mean when they want to skulk around observing unseen in the dark!).
They used a phrase like "we'll be out watching, in our blacks".
When they first turned up wearing it I wondered where the rest of the
SWAT team was. Two other officers were wearing it on Friday in the
early hours when we called them out to deal with an issue in halls.
Again I didn't see hats, of any kind.
Personally I'd prefer then in a red coat, black breeches, knee length
boots and a wide brimmed buff hat. Do you think the local connection
with John Buchan is too tenuous to use as justification? And they
should carry a truncheon, notebook and whistle instead of being
trussed up with every electronic and chemical warfare device going!
But the police have long abandoned Peel's principles.
"I believe that what Headington needs is its own Police Force separate from
Thames Valley Police."
To (mis)quote Captain Mainwaring from 'Dad's Army': "I think we're entering the
realms of fantasy again here, Fell".
But given our 'royal' status, we could go for a yeoman warder style outfit for
our police force. A grand ceremony of the keys at the Bury Knowle toilets
could then be enacted, to act as a tourist attraction...
Re policing, I would like to raise the topic of neighbourhood watch schemes.
When I moved to Quarry, I joined one (as I thought). Nothing happened for three
years, then I suddenly heard that the Friends of Quarry had been given the
funds of the NWS, which had been closed down owing to lack of interest.
Well, it's hard to take an interest in something if nobody tells you there are
any meetings or includes you in what is going on.
I would have thought this was a good way of improving police relations with the
community as well as local security.
If it was being wound up, it would have been nice to use the outstanding funds
to hold a farewell gathering, or just some sort of social event where newcomers
to the area could be greeted. I do think that members should have been told
what was going on.
It is good to see out local Police - using Bury Health Centre Carpark as a temporary HQ in their fight against local crime - for latest local crime news see http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/HEADINGTONNEWS.htm
I would just like to clarify the record re the disagreements above. Nick never
said that Jock should lost his job just for expressing an opinion Nick didn't
like.
What Nick said was, that the opinion that all drug use should be completely
legalized is not appropriate for someone in a position of care for the young
and vulnerable, in an institution which has a general responsibility for them.
The attitude could be taken as giving the wrong messages - and, I think, very
likely would be taken as giving those wrong messages. i.e. legal = OK = safe.
To legalize would be seen as approving, condoning and encouraging drug use.
So there was nothing at all "odious" about Nick's opinion and I think Jock
should withdraw his rude response.
We've moved on about fifteen messages since this drug argument, and everyone has had their say. Please can we get back to Headington & Marston issues. There is some good news on the crime front: two arrests have been made today with regard to the armed robberies in Headington: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3999552.ARMED_ROBBERIES__Two_arrested/
I do not think a separate Police Force for Headington is in the realm of
fantasy, considering the fact that Oxford once had its own Constabulary back
before the creation of Thames Valley Police Force, and considering also the
fact that Oxford University up until recently had its own Police Force. Plus
London has two Police Forces, the City of London Police Force and the
Metropolitan Police Force.
What Julia has said in her last post is exactly the point I was trying to get
across, maybe I just didn't phrase it to well in my original post on the
subject. Julia doesn't seem to have had any problem in understanding my
argument, she has summed up the point I was trying to get across very nicely
indeed. She has explained the point very clearly. Thank you for that Julia.
Just thought that everyone should know, it would appear that there has been a
break in at the Co op on London Road, I saw two Police Cars outside, in
attendance at the scene of the incident, one on the forecourt car park, and one
parked in the street alongside the pet shop, one of the front windows of the
shop to the side of the entrance doors looked like it had been smashed from
what I saw as I walked past on my way to Budgens/Londis shop.
I am very concerned about this break-in, and also about the two armed robberies
carried out in Headington just before Christmas.
Of course, the Police are doing their best, and I'm glad to read that various
arrests have been made, but all this makes me even more convinced that it was a
mistake to close down the Neighbourhood Watch scheme in Headington Quarry. For
the Police to have any chance of success, they need the help of the public. I
think that the closure of the scheme was not valid because the members were
simply not informed, or asked their opinion.
If people really are too apathetic to continue a NWS despite a series of armed
robberies in the area, it does not reflect very well on them.
They should also consider prioritising anti-social behaiviour and vandalism in
girdlestone road. Lots of broken alcohol bottles
near the shop.
Two things about the broken alcohol bottles Red, that you mention, first up is
it being done by local people who actually live in the local area? secondly, is
it being done by people coming in to the area from outside who don't live
locally? obviously the Police are never around at the time when the bottle
breaking is being done, or it wouldn't happen, do the Police know when it is
being done, such as what time of day and which day of the week it happens, and
also has anyone told the Police about it if they don't already know about it.
So obviously the Police need to be around at the time the trouble kicks off in
order to be able to put an end to it, by arresting who ever is responsible.
Another thing to try would be to maybe think about going to Trading Standards
if you suspect there is any violation of license terms involved by local
trading establishments, such as selling alcohol to underage young people. Is
the vandalism alcohol driven and induced that you know of? Solve the broken
alcohol bottle problem and you probably will also as a by product solve the
vandalism problem. Have you tried talking to the City Council Street Wardens
about it as well? that might be another angle to try.
Redgie,
Thanks for this, problems at the shops at Girdlestone Road have been an on
and off problem for some time (as you'll know). The last year of the Wood
Farm NAG did have this as one of the priorities as it was raised by
residents previously. This means the police have been reporting back on
anti-social activity there regularly (and hopefully taking action).
I suspect that this will again be an area that the police and the NAG will
want to focus on , I will email you outside this forum so we can discuss
feeding this back to the police and street wardens to patrol/investigate
asap.
Best wishes
Joe McManners
City Councillor Churchill and Wood Farm
2009/1/1 red <email obscured>>
Thank joe and nick for the reply. Nick, they are locals they are from
girdlestone and wood farm hanging around the area during the nignt near the
shop or the bus stop or in dynham place. Empty bootles of vodka can be found
sometime tucked between hedges.
Red, what about applying for one of those orders that stops people from being
able to congregate, I forget what they are called, but I seem to remember
reading in the local press about such orders being used in Rosehill at one
stage, that the Police then have the power to move people on if they are
congregating in the area covered by the order. I believe that you can be
arrested if you refuse to move on and leave the area when requested to do so by
the Police in this situation.
Any chance this might work in your location? or would it just move the problem
elsewhere?
Nick, you're referring to the dispersal order which was applied on Rose Hill
which was extended from six to twelve months. I was heavily involved in the
local neighbourhood action group at that time (as a resident). The way it
worked was that, if groups were hanging about and doing things which were
intimidating or harrassing local residents, they were stopped by the
neighbourhood police and moved on.
The situation has to become incredibly serious before this type of order is
granted. There has to be a huge case file of evidence showing that this action
is needed because it is basically a restriction on personal freedoms. Young
people like to hang around together, it's a sort of lifestyle thing - I know I
used to like hanging around with my mates when I was a teenager.The Police have
to apply for this order through the Courts. The main problem with a dispersal
order is that there is very often nowhere to move the kids to - end result,
some would just cross the footbridge and make trouble in Littlemore instead of
Rose Hill, I'm afraid that's what you get in areas where there is almost
nowhere for young people to go on housing estates which are jammed so full of
houses there's no space left to build extra facilities.
The case for introducing the dispersal order in Rose Hill was made because the
situation was approaching the stage where the main route for residents to buses
past the shops without intimidation had become a no go area and some vulnerable
residents felt frightened to go to the shops. And there was other criminal
activity going on too. In my view, that's a very different situation from the
one we have here. Joe has indicated that the local councillors and the police
are working together on this one at this time, so I'm sure the situation will
improve. I just hope that residents are keeping the police updated on the
situation, I can't emphasise that enough - don't forget you can report any
instances of antisocial behaviour on 08458 505505
What about going for an alcohol free zone then, instead of a dispersal order,
would that be easier and less trouble to implement? and another thing that
possibly needs doing is a ramping up of the fines for public littering, and
perhaps also consider increasing the fines for being drunk and disorderly in
public as well to a thunderingly heavy amount.
Nicholas wrote:
> What about going for an alcohol free zone then ....
Yes, this is how other counties have dealt with trouble spots -- get caught
drinking alcohol in the streets/shopping centres/precincts in many parts of
the South East and you're nicked! I'll bet there are less groups of youths
hanging around in those parts .... bet there is less litter too.
Joan Williams
Hello Ruth
You wrote:
> I'm afraid that's what you get in areas where there is almost nowhere for
> young people to go ..
I am tired of this excuse. What's wrong with the huge Leisure Park at the
Kassam Stadium? There is more than enough to do there and it's minutes away
from the troubles at Rose Hill! Decent kids always find somewhere to
go/something to do, but the trouble with these offending yobs is: all they
are interested in is cigarettes, booze, making noise, and worse. Instead of
an "on your way" from the police, I'd like to see them escorted home and
fair warning given to their parents..."get off your sofa and take your kid
bowling or else ..". A two minute Dispersal operation is not enough: there's
no come-back, and it's all a good laugh/let's do it again tomorrow.
Joan Williams
I have got so irritated by the last post on this topic that I must try very
hard to keep my comments brief and succinct!
The Rose Hill dispersal order is just one example of where this has been
introduced. The situation on Rose Hill is not comparable with the one we are
concerned about here, but there are some points of accuracy that need to be
made. The statement that the Kassam stadium is minutes away from the Rose Hill
estate is misleading, in my view. It would take me getting on for half an hour
to walk it from my end of the estate if I was with a group of friends and there
is no bus route between the two. I suppose it might take minutes if youngsters
were taken by car. I'll stop there!
As we all know, many young people behave perfectly acceptably. I get concerned
at the way children under 18 obtain and drink alcohol, that is a problem in
many areas as customers in shops buy alcohol perfectly legally and then pass it
on to the young people outside. I don't know if this is happening in
Girdlestone Rd but it's certainly happening elsewhere in Oxford. The
shopkeepers can't be blamed for this as they have complied with the law. Does
anyone have any good ideas about how we can get the message across to over 18s
that that they should not supply children with alcohol?
It is actually an Offense in law for an adult to knowingly buy alcohol with the
intention of then supplying it to a juvenile minor, for which I believe you can
be prosecuted and if not convicted and sent to prison depending on
circumstances, in fact signs in shops say in no uncertain terms that it is
illegal for an adult to buy alcohol on behalf of a juvenile minor. I think
that makes the situation more than clear enough, I don't think there can be any
ambiguity about that. I forget what the size of the fine is that is mentioned
on the signs in the shops. Maybe the size of the fine needs to be raised and
made even stiffer.
If an adult went into a shop, bought some alcohol and then left the shop and
was seen to hand the purchase to juvenile minors, then if that customer was to
return to that shop again on another occasion then I would guess the shop staff
would have good enough cause to refuse to serve the customer, and perhaps even
to perform a citizens arrest, and then call the police.
Juveniles who come into contact with the Police can have their details recorded
on the MERLIN database in certain situations, and soon the details of all
juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities for whatever reason will
go on the Contact Point database as well.
The city centre/Cowley Road alcohol free zones were extended some time ago to
include the whole of the city. This means anyone caught drinking alcohol in
the street or open spaces and causing a nuisance, can have it confiscated.
On local police matters generally; the consultation currently being carried
out in the Headington South, Quarry and Wood Farm NAG area is to establish what
residents consider of sufficient concern for it to be a police priority. This
can include arguably 'low level' crime such as cycling on pavements and
littering. It does not mean that the police are going to ignore more serious
crime and whilst out and about doing spot checks on cyclists the local team
will be a visible presence in the area. Incidently I have spoken to three
older residents recently who have had incidents with cyclists, and two have
been injured. It is unacceptable for people to feel unsafe merely walking on
the pavement, and terrifying to have a hefty cyclist racing up behind you if
you are partially sighted, hard of hearing or have other physical disabilities.
Whilst out helping with the consultation over the holiday period it was
reassuring to hear from a number of residents that they had no community
safety concerns, but they appreciated being asked. An interesting comment from
one gentleman who demanded that police should get off their backsides and be
seen, didn't have any problems either! However when incidents do occur it is
vital that they are reported. Police can only take action if they have the
information in the first place and it might be that the report you give is part
of a bigger picture of criminal activity.y
Neighbourhod Watch groups can soon be reactivated it simply requires interested
residents to contact the NW administrators Steve Morant or Michelle Beahan on
01865 335133
I think it is a little more than a 'nuisance' that is required to bring down
the confiscatory hand of the law. The actual phrase is 'causing harrassment,
alarm or distress' which is rather different, and very likely wouldn't apply to
small groups hanging around drinking cheap supermarket lager.
Some how the words breach of the peace, public disturbance and drunk and
disorderly come to mind, drinking alcohol in public is classed under the
heading of Public Order offences I think you will find. To see for what
reasons Police Officers confiscate alcohol in the public street you only have
to watch some of the better Police documentary programmes on television, they
can be quite an eye opener.
I think Chris Brewer might be quite surprised by what can be covered under
Public Nuisance. Although small groups hanging around would at one time have
come under that famous phrase 'loitering' and to be acting suspiciously and/or
looking particularly shifty in order to attract the attention of the Police.
I'm sure police documentaries can be most informative, as well as entertaining. However, I was quoting from City Council resolution which led to the extending of police powers against people drinking in the street in Oxford. If anyone is interested, it is at point 142 here - http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/meetingdocs/36097/Item%201(a).pdf
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
That what anti- social behaivior has done to our fence and empty bottles of
alcohol (found just this morning) been dumped between hedges in our property. I
know it is illigal to sell alcohol to minors but who's checking? Is there
anyone checking the CCTV installed to shops if they are selling to minors?
The following file was added to this topic:
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
If shops are selling alcohol directly to juvenile minors then that is a matter
for Trading Standards, the Police, and the Courts to deal with, shops caught
selling alcohol to juvenile minors can, ultimately, lose their trading license.
Police and Trading Standards would need to view CCTV footage to be able to
prove it, and probably mount one of their sting operations using a Juvenile to
make a test purchase for them to get evidence. They do this in order to be
able to catch the shop in the act of making a transaction. Once the Police and
Trading Standards have got their evidence and proof they then need to bring a
prosecution in Court.
You could also try mounting CCTV cameras on the front of your property along
with infra red trip switch activated security lighting which might deter
vandalism. I have heard it said that having CCTV on your property can get you
a five percent discount on your home insurance bill. I know someone who
adopted both these measures as a result of vandalism to his property and the
problem immediately ceased, so there you have it.
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.