/ London Police Sieze Food & Sleeping Bags Of Homeless...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 02 Jul 2013
PeterM - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:
“reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers”.
Normally I'm a fan of the Cops, and maybe it's a case of lions led by donkeys, but I'm sure London has more pressing problems.
Coel Hellier - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Hmm, isn't that theft? On what legal basis are the police taking people's possessions off them?
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Hmm, isn't that theft? On what legal basis are the police taking people's possessions off them?

I initially thought it was just sweeping up items left, that they'd come back for, but to take gear like this.. very 'above the law' approach.. pretty disgusting.
JM - on 02 Jul 2013
I have slept outdoors in various cities around the world and if some copper nicked my sleeping bag I would be well pissed off to say the least!

There is a covered area that joins where I work to a veiwing platform that overlooks the Thames. I have noticed there are some homeless people living there. One of them has his sleeping bag, a range of condiments and a big stack of books and papers stored there. One of the books is a student text book on economics. There seems to be an increasing number of people from the EU (Spain etc) coming to London to look for work or study and I wonder if quite a lot of these people are sleeping rough because they simply priced out the market in terms of affordable rent.
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to PeterM: Its not dealing with the problem.. well I suppose freezing them to near death or forcing them elsewhere is.. but its all a bit out of sight out of mind..
Timmd on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Beats me.
EeeByGum - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to PeterM: I agree. I can't help feeling that the police have been asked to deal with what is basically a social problem. Not sure what the thinking behind this was though. I mean - where are they going to do? Back home?
lummox - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd: Sounds like theft. I await the justification with interest..
Timmd on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to PeterM) Its not dealing with the problem.. well I suppose freezing them to near death or forcing them elsewhere is.. but its all a bit out of sight out of mind..

It's not the kind of thing I'd expect English/British police to do. It's the sort of thing you hear about happening in some other countries in Europe, and around the world. It seems like harassment essentially.
Timmd on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to PeterM) I agree. I can't help feeling that the police have been asked to deal with what is basically a social problem.

Exactly.
rallymania - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:


wasn't this done on here a month or so back and then someone else provided a link with more info...

that the stuff "taken" was in an abandon building and no-one was actually there at the time? and that it was actually council workers that did the siezing, and that the police were there just to protect the council workers?

(google search reveals...)

http://tinyurl.com/osecmgc
owlart - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd: Oops, managed to delete my previous reply my mistake.

The story is dated 23rd May and I'm sure we covered it in some detail on here back then too.
jkarran - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Taken at face value it sounds like theft. I can see what they might be trying to achieve, driving rough sleepers toward shelters or more cynically, simply driving them off their patch. If there's even a grain of truth in this it's an appalling abuse of power.

jk
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to rallymania:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
>
> wasn't this done on here a month or so back and then someone else provided a link with more info...
>
> that the stuff "taken" was in an abandon building and no-one was actually there at the time? and that it was actually council workers that did the siezing, and that the police were there just to protect the council workers?
>
> (google search reveals...)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/osecmgc

Well that's cleared that up.. If there are two version of an event the British Police have a solid track record of never lieing... well apart from hillsborough... or the Guildford 4...
Sir Chasm - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to rallymania: Spoilsport! More uninformed wailing and handwringing and fewer facts please.
rallymania - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

steady on Iain, i'm not saying the report is right or wrong, just pointing out there is more than one viewpoint of events :-)

it's called balanced reporting

a pal of mine was in turkey a couple of weeks ago... her version of the riots was significantly different from what is beiing reported in the UK.



dale1968 - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: Facts, here! Hilarious
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to rallymania: I know.. I just think the police have to accept and take responsibility for the fact we take what they say with a pinch of salt.. certainly we are right for questioning or looking more at police statements.

There are always 2 or more sides of a story though.
off-duty - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to rallymania) I know.. I just think the police have to accept and take responsibility for the fact we take what they say with a pinch of salt.. certainly we are right for questioning or looking more at police statements.
>

Unlike newspaper reports which are the gold standard of factual accuracy?

> There are always 2 or more sides of a story though.

Yes.
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to off-duty: I never said they were. But i would expect the British Police to be above such actions.. and the fact you use the 'they are worse' approach speaks volumes about your own faith in the force.

You could just say 'Yes, the force were a disgrace'.. but you try to point the fingers at those worse..

Off Duty.. aged 5.5 years.. come on.. you are better than that tittle tattle response? no?
Timmd on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd: Seems it's not as bad as reported after all? Interesting.
rallymania - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Timmd) Seems it's not as bad as reported after all? Interesting.

I'd certainly say there is more to this that meets the eye! Not sure if it's better or worse...



jkarran - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:

> Seems it's not as bad as reported after all? Interesting.

The objective appears to be the same. Also, there are inconsistencies between the two reports, one contains a witness saying he tried to negotiate then ran, the other implies (without clearly stating) it was merely a clean up unused old rags, drug paraphernalia and rotting food from a derelict building, not that there were homeless people present and protesting.

Two sides of the same story, a different gloss on each.
jk
owlart - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to jkarran:
> Two sides of the same story, a different gloss on each.

Is that not the problem though, we now automatically assume that the Police's version of events is spun to tell a certain story they'd like to portray rather than being confined to just the facts?
Sir Chasm - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to owlart: That could certainly be a problem, but then so could some one-eyed posters' uncritical acceptance of the initial report.
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to jkarran)
> [...]
>
> Is that not the problem though, we now automatically assume that the Police's version of events is spun to tell a certain story they'd like to portray rather than being confined to just the facts?

Not so sure about that. Personally I just don't take it as fact.

off-duty - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty) I never said they were. But i would expect the British Police to be above such actions.. and the fact you use the 'they are worse' approach speaks volumes about your own faith in the force.
>


I can't see where I have suggested "they are worse". I do think you could be equally as critical of the press as you appear to be of the police.

> You could just say 'Yes, the force were a disgrace'.. but you try to point the fingers at those worse..
>

I could. But given that there are two very different accounts of what occurred,, then I think it is far from certain that what was alleged in the first article is what, in fact occurred.
I do agree, that the account provided initially is certainly worrying, if for no other reason that in the neighbourhood policing world of "community engagement, partnership working multi-agency, reaching out to communities" that sort of confrontational behaviour won't get anyone promoted.. ;-)

> Off Duty.. aged 5.5 years.. come on.. you are better than that tittle tattle response? no?

I had always considered that any account of an incident should be treated with some degree of critical thought, and that should include the initial account. Isn't that the scientific approach?
off-duty - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to off-duty:

And here is another update : -

http://bit.ly/18z039k
Indy - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Can't comment on the taking of various possessions but 2 points 1) do people really need to sleep rough in London? 2) people need to find out what the 'negative impacts of rough sleeping' are as this article sort of dodges the issue.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Indy - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Taken at face value it sounds like theft.

Does it? If a person had items with them that were enabling them commit a civil or legal harm then don't the police have a right to remove those items?

Scarab9 - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty) I never said they were. But i would expect the British Police to be above such actions.. and the fact you use the 'they are worse' approach speaks volumes about your own faith in the force.
>
> You could just say 'Yes, the force were a disgrace'.. but you try to point the fingers at those worse..
>
> Off Duty.. aged 5.5 years.. come on.. you are better than that tittle tattle response? no?


really don't get your response. You seem to have accused Off Duty of blindly following one version of the events while you are in fact doing the same by assuming the initial one was accurate.

I read the first one and something didn't ring true in the reporting. My thoughts were that if it was as stated then it was terrible, but that I'd save comment until I'd seen the response. The response seems pretty clear.

So you have some dislike for the police to to the point you're taking what appears to be 'reporting' based on quote from one witness?

And why on earth would you expect Off Duty to "just say 'Yes, the force were a disgrace'" considering the two reports?!
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Scarab9: I know I should have added if true.

I wasn't saying that they were a disgrace here. I meant at Hillsborough.. and many other incidents.

If there are two versions of events the truth lies in between, it should lie with the police.. which was my point..

Why did the first one not ring true?

IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Scarab9:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
>

>
> I read the first one and something didn't ring true in the reporting. My thoughts were that if it was as stated then it was terrible, but that I'd save comment until I'd seen the response. The response seems pretty clear.
>

Jesus christ.. what a hypocrit.. so one response.. and its all clear.. so you believe the police and think report 1 not true.. yet question me for believing one... brilliant!
off-duty - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Scarab9) I know I should have added if true.
>
> I wasn't saying that they were a disgrace here. I meant at Hillsborough.. and many other incidents.
>

Should i just create a blanket apology as a preface to everything I post regardless of the topic?

> If there are two versions of events the truth lies in between, it should lie with the police.. which was my point..
>

As long as "in between" can include "a lot closer, if not almost identical to one account".

> Why did the first one not ring trueI

Why did the second one not ring true?
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Should i just create a blanket apology as a preface to everything I post regardless of the topic?
>

No, just stop making excuses whenever police failures are brought up. The police only have themselves to blame for the peoples mistrust. Their self protectionist response.



>
> Why did the second one not ring true?

As said.. the truth probably lies in the middle.
jkarran - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Indy:

> Does it? If a person had items with them that were enabling them commit a civil or legal harm then don't the police have a right to remove those items?

The article says sleeping bags and blankets, not crowbars and guns.

Which possessions of yours do you think the police have the right to take out of interest? Only to prevent 'civil or legal harm' of course...

jk
off-duty - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> No, just stop making excuses whenever police failures are brought up. The police only have themselves to blame for the peoples mistrust. Their self protectionist response.
>
>

Ah, so rather than addressing the issue of the truth or otherwise of THIS incident you are happy to just include it in the generic category "police lies" which you expect me to account for regardless of topic.

> As said.. the truth probably lies in the middle.

"in between" does not necessarily equal "in the middle"
IainRUK - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to off-duty: wow... somewhere in the middle...

I needed to check my original statement then.. make sure you'd not changed it..
Ridge - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> And here is another update : -
>
> http://bit.ly/18z039k

So basically police clear crack den from near school? Not exactly what the original article reported.
TryfAndy on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Just be glad we're not in America, the filth shoot everything there for 'not complying' with their arrogant orders, even dogs... http://rt.com/usa/california-police-kill-dog-557/
woolsack - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy: To be fair, that bloke can't say he wasn't provoking a reaction from the police, hardly minding his own business was he?
TryfAndy on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to woolsack:

He was filming them whilst in a public place, hardly inciting a riot. Still no excuse for the absolute scumbag of a pig to shoot the dog & leave it writhing in agony.
Enty - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to woolsack)
>
> Still no excuse for the absolute scumbag of a pig to shoot the dog & leave it writhing in agony.

He should have just let the rottweiler latch on to his leg and pat it on it's head until it released it's jaws.

E

TryfAndy on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Enty:

Shouldn't have arrested the bloke for doing sod-all then, the dog was only being protective & doing what came naturally, and leaving it thrashing around in the road is disgusting. The prick's details have been made publicd, and a bullet for him too would be a good comeuppane.
woolsack - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy: The guy was asking for trouble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBZr4ie2AE
stroppygob - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd: A council spokeswoman said: "Redbridge council has no powers to remove or confiscate property from the homeless and has not done so.

“The council's cleansing officers responded to a police request to clean up following their operation to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour.

“The council provides a range of help and support to homeless people, offering services which include temporary accommodation, a winter cold shelter, and an outreach support line for rough sleepers.

“We also work with our partners to provide rough sleepers with access to health care. We are sympathetic to those who find themselves homeless but we also understand the police's responsibility to ensure that any negative impact of rough sleepers is reduced."

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10444508.
Sir Chasm - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> Shouldn't have arrested the bloke for doing sod-all then, the dog was only being protective & doing what came naturally, and leaving it thrashing around in the road is disgusting. The prick's details have been made publicd, and a bullet for him too would be a good comeuppane.

Assuming you mean "comeuppances", do you have a list of other crimes where you approve of vigilante murder as a solution?
icnoble on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd: The London homeless have got it lucky compared to the poor buggers in Moscow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk05CRdda3M

Apparently during the communist era the Moscow police hosed down the homeless with water at night thus accelerating the freezing process.
TryfAndy on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I've got no issue with community retribution against out-of-order police.
Sir Chasm - on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> I've got no issue with community retribution against out-of-order police.

Just against police? Or should communities be allowed to murder anyone who displeases them?
PopShot on 02 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd: Looks like the Independent was exaggerating/lying as per usual for a leftist rag. People are intimidated by people sleeping and using drugs on the streets. It's anti-social behaviour and theres no excuse for it when they could go to a shelter, homeless unit or be housed by the local council. Sorry but that's just how I see it. Not so sure about the dog being shot though? What was the guy doing anyway? It wasn't clear from watching the video.
stroppygob - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> I've got no issue with community retribution against out-of-order police.

Unfortunately the police would have to take issue with community retribution against out-of-order you. Far better we let them kick lumps out of you, I say.

I've worked with the police in three countries now, never had a bad deal out of them, nor found them out of order.

Enty - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> I've got no issue with community retribution against out-of-order police.

Oh great, sounds perfect for me!! What about community retribution against burglars - can I join in? there's some scumbags around here need a right good shoeing. Can I add child molesters to the list?

E
pebbles - on 03 Jul 2013

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=554966&v=1#x7403837
In reply to PopShot: by - PopShot on - 22:43 Mon
"> IMO the police don't have nearly enough powers."

I can see this must have made you very happy then.
personally I think its a very sad day when we treat homeless people as nothing but a nuisance without the same human rights as the rest of us

Coel Hellier - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:

> The prick's details have been made publicd, and a bullet for him too would be a good comeuppane.

> I've got no issue with community retribution against out-of-order police.

Quite the little fascist aren't we?
TryfAndy on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Considering idolisation of the police and/or armed forces is the cornerstone of a fascist state, then no, not really.

And putting the pig in the same kind of needless pain that dog was put through only seems fair to me.
PopShot on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> Considering idolisation of the police and/or armed forces is the cornerstone of a fascist state, then no, not really.
>
> And putting the pig in the same kind of needless pain that dog was put through only seems fair to me.
>

What exactly did the guy do? I'm a dog owner and I didn't like watching that.
Jim Fraser - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to Timmd:

It's the Met. Nothing would surprise me any more.



(Any chance they could take Stephen House back?)
Ridge - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> And putting the pig in the same kind of needless pain that dog was put through only seems fair to me.

Ah, dehumanise the untermenshen. How quickly one falls into the ways of the oppressor.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Paul F - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:

Right about now UKC court is in full effect.
Judge TryfAndy presiding in the case of UKC versus the police department…….
PopShot on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to TryfAndy)
>
> Right about now UKC court is in full effect.
> Judge TryfAndy presiding in the case of UKC versus the police department…….
>

I have been brought up to be extremely pro police and I think everyone should support them but the video with the dog being shot made me feel sick.
Paul F - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to PopShot:

You're not from Compton are you ?
Coel Hellier - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:

> Considering idolisation of the police and/or armed forces is the cornerstone of a
> fascist state, then no, not really.

The cornerstone of fascism is thuggery, particularly a willingness to use thuggery against anyone whose opinions/attitudes you dislike.
PopShot on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> You're not from Compton are you ?
>

No. Where is Compton?
Sir Chasm - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)

> And putting the pig in the same kind of needless pain that dog was put through only seems fair to me.

So you do agree with summary execution.
stroppygob - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to pebbles:

> personally I think its a very sad day when we treat homeless people as nothing but a nuisance without the same human rights as the rest of us

Which, of course, has not been done.
stroppygob - on 03 Jul 2013
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> You're not from Compton are you ?


popshot's more likely to be from Trumpton than Compton
PopShot on 04 Jul 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Paul F)
> [...]
>
>
> popshot's more likely to be from Trumpton than Compton
>

I looked up trumpton on Google which linked over to videos on You Tube. Hahaha! How very droll :)
Paul F - on 04 Jul 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Paul F)
> [...]
>
>
> popshot's more likely to be from Trumpton than Compton

Straight Outta Trumpton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x71urzdGhE

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.