|
|
 |
| |
Dispersal zones – time to move on?
With the advent of large areas designated as anti-social behaviour dispersal zones, it is not acceptable to deny young people the right to sit or stand in public places… even if the police don’t like what they are wearing, argues René Lavanchy
RESIDENTS of Camden, I have a confession to make, and as much as some of you may find it shocking – disgusting even – I can’t bear to keep it to myself any longer.
I wear a hoody. Not all the time, but at least once a week. And sometimes I wear the hood up. Generally if it’s raining.
Apart from the hoody, there’s not much to mark me out as a dangerous juvenile delinquent. I have no criminal record, I use knives mainly for cookery and I have been known to have a hot chocolate before bed.
However, some seem to think that the sort of people who wear hoodies, hang around on streets, and happen to be a few years younger than myself are the very least deserving members of society.
So undeserving that they are not entitled to claim a patch of pavement as their own.
Last month, Camden council declared about a fifth of the entire borough an anti-social behaviour dispersal zone.
This month, another swathe is being marked off in the same way. Both apparently without too much consultation, as the New Journal reported.
What does this mean? Well, on one level it means that police officers can order groups of people anywhere between Regent’s Park and King’s Cross – including Fitzrovia, where I live – to go away.
They can tell individuals under 16 to shove off too, between 9pm and 6am.
And anyone who doesn’t live here can be told to leave “in a stated way” (Backwards? Tugging your forelock? Not sure).
The police’s motive is a good one. They want to crack down on the drug trade, which is indeed alive and well in Fitzrovia as in other parts of Camden and London.
I don’t blame them for trying to tackle it, and I believe they are acting with the best motives. But unfortunately I also have experience to contend with. Here is what being dispersed is actually like.
Two years ago, at the not-so-tender age of 23, I joined some friends in St James’s Park.
Some of the people there were under 18. They were gossiping and drinking alcohol, some under age, indeed. But nobody was threatening anybody, and we were minding our own business.
Presently a police car pulled up, and an officer asked what we were doing. After a jokey, but not abusive reply he told us to get out.
On asking why, we were told that we were being threatening to the public. Evidence? The “style of your clothes”, he said.
Yes, you’ve guessed it. There were hoodies present. There were also skinny jeans, hair grips and mascara, but no matter.
The officer was out of his car and shouting that if we didn’t “f*** off”, he would get very angry.
We obliged.
Later it turned out that we were in fact just outside the dispersal zone.
How would you like to be yelled at to abandon your friends and walk the breadth of the borough because someone has labelled you a threat on the basis of no evidence?
If someone is disturbing the peace or being threatening the police have powers to intervene already.
The only crime “dispersal” neutralises is the crime of having friends.
I don’t think the police are deliberately anti-young people. Sadly however they appear to be egged on by others who are. I have been shown emails from my local neighbourhood watch calling for messages of support for the dispersal zone, saying “These must not mention youths as this will be taken as prejudicial”, instead suggesting “drug usage, intimidating behaviour and/ or late night rowdiness”. Right, so they’d rather say young people but can’t.
One person did anyway, complaining of “shifty” youths.
Another: “Glad the hoodies are gone.”
Back to crime: if the police want to catch drug dealers, I don’t see that victimising people who might or might not be end users is fair or useful. However I could be wrong, and look forward to discussing it with them.
What I won’t accept is that it’s OK to deny young people the right to sit or stand in public places.
It’s easy to take fright at a teenager in a hood.
It’s lazy and cruel to make a moral crusade of it.
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
