Plod robs the homeless

This story has popped up a couple of times on my Facebook timeline recently. It's a couple of months old, but I don't remember it being discussed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-possessions-of-rough-sleepers-in-crackdown-on-homelessness-8631665.html

The OB are cracking down on homelessness. The way to do that, according to this Independent article, is to get law enforcement agencies to confiscate the few possessions these people have. I'm personally not sure how that solves the problem, exactly. They claim it "reduces the negative impact of rough sleepers". I reckon we can find better things for the OB to do than rob the homeless.

As always, other views are invited.

Going purely on the article it seems a totally bizarre (and illegal) method of policing to me.

Confiscating (stealing) their sleeping bags/blankets - why? It means that they now have to sleep 'rougher' than when they usually sleep 'rough'.

When this tactic fails - will the police then confiscate the next layer - their clothes?

It's almost unbelievable, and seems to be the exact opposite of what their function is supposed to be; provide a duty to the public. Really does raise questions about what the police are there to do; protect the public or operate as the bully boy of the state.

1) take away sleeping bags and blankets

2) wait for cold snap

3) ??????

4) soylent green on the menu in free schools, privatised hospitals and prisons

Is it April 1st?

In other news... we can reveal a shocking and disturbing trend has emerged within schools in England. Children up and down the country are being held against their will by teachers, deprived of basic freedoms and liberties and subjected to conditions akin to a

Victorian workhouse. Up to thirty children at a time are locked in a room with no food or water, and no access to the outside world. They are not even allowed to call their parents. They are forced to do manual labour or repetitive pointless tasks. Many children understandably find this appalling and degrading treatment extremely distressing, but their pleas fall on deaf ears of the teachers at the heart of this shocking behaviour. Schools have been imposing these sanctions arbitrarily with no right of appeal or redress.

'these allegations are disgusting', a well-meaning but ultimately ill informed and misguided commentator said. 'we trust schools to be a place of safety and education, but in truth they are treating our children as no better than common criminals.

Michael Gove, Education Secretary, has ordered an immediate enquiry and promises the harshest of punishments if the allegations turn out to be true.

...OR...

Naughty children get detention.

It's amazing what you can do with words...

In other news... we can reveal a shocking and disturbing trend has emerged within schools in England. Children up and down the country are being held against their will by teachers, deprived of basic freedoms and liberties and subjected to conditions akin to a

Victorian workhouse. Up to thirty children at a time are locked in a room with no food or water, and no access to the outside world. They are not even allowed to call their parents. They are forced to do manual labour or repetitive pointless tasks. Many children understandably find this appalling and degrading treatment extremely distressing, but their pleas fall on deaf ears of the teachers at the heart of this shocking behaviour. Schools have been imposing these sanctions arbitrarily with no right of appeal or redress.

 

'these allegations are disgusting', a well-meaning but ultimately ill informed and misguided commentator said. 'we trust schools to be a place of safety and education, but in truth they are treating our children as no better than common criminals.

 

Michael Gove, Education Secretary, has ordered an immediate enquiry and promises the harshest of punishments if the allegations turn out to be true.

 

...OR...

 

Naughty children get detention.

 

It's amazing what you can do with words...

Not really. Its a bit embarrassing what you can do with words. The comparison is pathetic.

In other news... we can reveal a shocking and disturbing trend has emerged within schools in England. Children up and down the country are being held against their will by teachers, deprived of basic freedoms and liberties and subjected to conditions akin to a

Victorian workhouse. Up to thirty children at a time are locked in a room with no food or water, and no access to the outside world. They are not even allowed to call their parents. They are forced to do manual labour or repetitive pointless tasks. Many children understandably find this appalling and degrading treatment extremely distressing, but their pleas fall on deaf ears of the teachers at the heart of this shocking behaviour. Schools have been imposing these sanctions arbitrarily with no right of appeal or redress.

 

'these allegations are disgusting', a well-meaning but ultimately ill informed and misguided commentator said. 'we trust schools to be a place of safety and education, but in truth they are treating our children as no better than common criminals.

 

Michael Gove, Education Secretary, has ordered an immediate enquiry and promises the harshest of punishments if the allegations turn out to be true.

 

...OR...

 

Naughty children get detention.

 

It's amazing what you can do with words...

Yes. If I went and took a homeless person's possessions, it'd be called robbery with intimidation.

When the coppers do it, it's called confiscation.

Personally, I can't really reconcile kids being in detention, pretty much the only sanction teachers have left, with Her Majesty's Constabulary turning up mob-handed to "confiscate" possessions from the homeless. Stuff like sleeping bags and tents; things they probably need.

This story has popped up a couple of times on my Facebook timeline recently. It's a couple of months old, but I don't remember it being discussed.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-possessions-of-rough-sleepers-in-crackdown-on-homelessness-8631665.html

 

 

The OB are cracking down on homelessness. The way to do that, according to this Independent article, is to get law enforcement agencies to confiscate the few possessions these people have. I'm personally not sure how that solves the problem, exactly. They claim it "reduces the negative impact of rough sleepers". I reckon we can find better things for the OB to do than rob the homeless.

 

As always, other views are invited.

That's a naive response to a sensationalist and one-sided news article.

Whatever the papers claim, police don't just go up to homeless people and seize their possessions without good reason. As a junior officer from the recession in the early '80s to the illegal rave scene in the early '90s I encountered homeless people regularly and we had to load their possessions in the back of the police car many times. You'd be surprised how often we'd have 5 minutes of "Please don't take my food/mattress, it's all I have", occasionally accompanied with floods of tears, just before we find their cache of Es or other hard drugs in their tin of baked beans/sewn in their sleeping bag.

Obviously I don't know the circumstances here but it's a very one-sided article which says virtually nothing about why the police took the action they did. If the police didn't have sufficient grounds then it's an isolated incident and they'd be subject to disciplinary procedures (given that it's made the national news).

Either way it isn't the start of some draconian police crackdown on homelessness, otherwise we'd have had hundreds of news reports by now. If something like this happens once it may make the national news if they speak to the right people, if it happens more than once the story explodes and spreads like wildfire in the media.

In other words it's an isolated incident that's been turned into a sensationalist news story.

That's a naive response to a sensationalist and one-sided news article.

 

Whatever the papers claim, police don't just go up to homeless people and seize their possessions without good reason. As a junior officer from the recession in the early '80s to the illegal rave scene in the early '90s I encountered homeless people regularly and we had to load their possessions in the back of the police car many times. You'd be surprised how often we'd have 5 minutes of "Please don't take my food/mattress, it's all I have", occasionally accompanied with floods of tears, just before we find their cache of Es or other hard drugs in their tin of baked beans/sewn in their sleeping bag.

 

Obviously I don't know the circumstances here but it's a very one-sided article which says virtually nothing about why the police took the action they did. If the police didn't have sufficient grounds then it's an isolated incident and they'd be subject to disciplinary procedures (given that it's made the national news).

 

Either way it isn't the start of some draconian police crackdown on homelessness, otherwise we'd have had hundreds of news reports by now. If something like this happens once it may make the national news if they speak to the right people, if it happens more than once the story explodes and spreads like wildfire in the media.

 

In other words it's an isolated incident that's been turned into a sensationalist news story.

Bit more context then.

Link has a good timeline of events, if slightly biased.

http://londonist.com/2013/05/police-confiscating-food-and-sleeping-bags-from-homeless-in-ilford.php

Long and short; plod denies everything - even though the incident was verified by two charity workers. Best motive I can see is wanting to move these people onto another patch.

That's a naive response to a sensationalist and one-sided news article.

 

Whatever the papers claim, police don't just go up to homeless people and seize their possessions without good reason. As a junior officer from the recession in the early '80s to the illegal rave scene in the early '90s I encountered homeless people regularly and we had to load their possessions in the back of the police car many times. You'd be surprised how often we'd have 5 minutes of "Please don't take my food/mattress, it's all I have", occasionally accompanied with floods of tears, just before we find their cache of Es or other hard drugs in their tin of baked beans/sewn in their sleeping bag.

 

Obviously I don't know the circumstances here but it's a very one-sided article which says virtually nothing about why the police took the action they did. If the police didn't have sufficient grounds then it's an isolated incident and they'd be subject to disciplinary procedures (given that it's made the national news).

 

Either way it isn't the start of some draconian police crackdown on homelessness, otherwise we'd have had hundreds of news reports by now. If something like this happens once it may make the national news if they speak to the right people, if it happens more than once the story explodes and spreads like wildfire in the media.

 

In other words it's an isolated incident that's been turned into a sensationalist news story.

Probably right - like those stories about families that have 12 kids on the social, live like kings in mansions and have never worked a day in their lives.

I just don't know which newspapers to base my world view on and trust these days! It's as if they've all got an agenda or something - next you'll be telling me they aren't interested in fairly representing a story, but would rather sell lots of copies.

Not really. Its a bit embarrassing what you can do with words. The comparison is pathetic.

Went over your head then...

Went over your head then...

Oh sorry, I didn't notice the expertly attached 'I'm not really trying to be clever, I'm trying to be ironically not quite clever enough to be amusing, amused' emoticon'.

I'll try and pay attention next time. Thankfully, now you've pointed out your hilarious, astute and insightful miesterwork I'm LOL-ing off the ground. Top stuff - keep 'em coming!!

It really does sound like the underpants gnomes scheme doesn't it?

Phase 1.Take homeless peoples stuff

Phase 2. ????

Phase 3. No more homeless people.

The sad thing is it doesn't surprise me. Reminds me of this cartoon

Bit more context then.

 

Link has a good timeline of events, if slightly biased.

 

http://londonist.com/2013/05/police-confiscating-food-and-sleeping-bags-from-homeless-in-ilford.php

 

Long and short; plod denies everything - even though the incident was verified by two charity workers. Best motive I can see is wanting to move these people onto another patch.

Absolute rubbish, they didn't "deny everything", they said an operation had taken place but not in the way the article described - which actually happens the majority of the time.

A couple of clues in that article

"Homeless people and street drinkers are often raised as a significant cause of concern by local residents, schools, businesses and local politicians. These are about health risks from dirty items left in public areas, anti-social behaviour, shouting and swearing, drunkenness and drug misuse.

“We carried out an operation on 15th May to tackle some of those issues."

In other words police responded to a complaint from a member of the public regarding these individuals (as police have far more important things to do than explore every abandoned building in North London searching for homeless people on the offchance they are doing something illegal) and Streetscene removed something that was a health hazard. In other words the police had good reason to be there.

"Because obviously, these men were just having a laugh being homeless. Now the police have made sure it isn’t fun any more they’ll go off and buy a nice semi, and eat in restaurants like normal people."

Translated - "I'm a left wing publication sensationalising hearsay, portraying one side of the story as fact and chucking in a bit of sarcastic guff to provoke emotion and therefore increase my readership".

Like I said, it's an isolated incident that's been turned into a sensationalist news story.

Absolute rubbish, they didn't "deny everything", they said an operation had taken place but not in the way the article described - which actually happens the majority of the time.

 

A couple of clues in that article

 

"Homeless people and street drinkers are often raised as a significant cause of concern by local residents, schools, businesses and local politicians. These are about health risks from dirty items left in public areas, anti-social behaviour, shouting and swearing, drunkenness and drug misuse.

“We carried out an operation on 15th May to tackle some of those issues."

 

In other words police responded to a complaint from a member of the public regarding these individuals (as police have far more important things to do than explore every abandoned building in North London searching for homeless people on the offchance they are doing something illegal) and Streetscene removed something that was a health hazard. In other words the police had good reason to be there.

 

"Because obviously, these men were just having a laugh being homeless. Now the police have made sure it isn’t fun any more they’ll go off and buy a nice semi, and eat in restaurants like normal people."

 

Translated - "I'm a left wing publication sensationalising hearsay, portraying one side of the story as fact and chucking in a bit of sarcastic guff to provoke emotion and therefore increase my readership".

 

Like I said, it's an isolated incident that's been turned into a sensationalist news story.

I didn't really have time to reply fully to your earlier post, JackFrost. I was surprised that you found these events so unsurprising, so day to day. Not a knock; a reflection of how different our worlds are. I live a routine life whereas a copper's entire profession is centred around exceptional events. My personal experience of crime? A couple of nasty blips over a 38 year timeframe, woven into a "life ain't all that bad" tapestry.

My take? The OB was asked by some important Ilford people to remove some rather less important people. They did so, weren't necessarily looking to arrest anyone, and knew up front that if they toughed the roughs enough, they probably wouldn't come back.

You speak of encountering homeless people and loading their possessions into the back of the van regularly, yet you refer to this as an isolated incident. I'm having trouble putting the concepts of frequency and isolation together, and isolated incident is what people say when something really bad has happened, but want to assure people that it's not something that happens very often.

With much respect, JackFrost - I really do like your input on here, and trust me when I say that out of respect, this post has gone through a few revisions to make the content less confrontational. I'm not convinced by the exhibits on offer.

I genuinely believe the OB has a vital role to play in the justice system, but the problems of homeless people are not solved by confiscating their temporary dwellings. It's not a problem the police should even have to solve. It's a symptom of poverty and the consequence of richer people not wanting to look it in the eye. I know coppers operate under a command structure which needs to be rigidly adhered to; I'm not expecting the constables to form an impromptu moral soviet every time an officer has a crisis of conscience. I just think you've got grander tasks to accomplish than sweeping things under the carpet.

I didn't really have time to reply fully to your earlier post, JackFrost. I was surprised that you found these events so unsurprising, so day to day. Not a knock; a reflection of how different our worlds are. I live a routine life whereas a copper's entire profession is centred around exceptional events. My personal experience of crime? A couple of nasty blips over a 38 year timeframe, woven into a "life ain't all that bad" tapestry.

Fair enough.

I spent 30 years of witnessing and dealing with the horrible things human beings can do to each other. There were things that still shocked me in the twilight of my career, not even things I've witnessed myself but cases colleagues have dealt with and credible things I've heard about.

My take? The OB was asked by some important Ilford people to remove some rather less important people. They did so, weren't necessarily looking to arrest anyone, and knew up front that if they toughed the roughs enough, they probably wouldn't come back.

Even those articles have stated the police had to have some of their property seized because it was deemed a health hazard, and it's entirely possible personal possessions were seized from those homeless people for their own well-being.

You speak of encountering homeless people and loading their possessions into the back of the van regularly, yet you refer to this as an isolated incident. I'm having trouble putting the concepts of frequency and isolation together, and isolated incident is what people say when something really bad has happened, but want to assure people that it's not something that happens very often.

There were many times when I had to seize the property of homeless people for a whole host of reasons but it was always because I had to seize it by law. Either because it was a health hazard/item that had recently reported stolen/something that was illegal for them to possess or for another reason. Both articles you've posted clearly only tell one side of the story and the police cannot divulge every detail about operations to the media, but the chances of those articles containing the complete truth are almost non existent. Those homeless people could easily have been druggies that had their drugs seized and then claimed to a local journalist the police had removed all their possessions or could equally easily be a few homeless guys that have been the victims of heavy handed policing.

I may not have put my point across very well earlier. When I mentioned an "isolated incident" I was merely referring it to potentially an isolated incident of heavy handed policing, and there would in no way be a regional operation to immediately seize all the property of every homeless person a police officer comes across, like the articles are implying. The bad PR would be horrendous to the point of national scandal, and I 100% agree that it would be completely bonkers. It would not only be draconian but counter-productive as well.

With much respect, JackFrost - I really do like your input on here, and trust me when I say that out of respect, this post has gone through a few revisions to make the content less confrontational. I'm not convinced by the exhibits on offer.

Fair play,

after myself and many personal friends spent years putting our personal safety on the line I admit I get irritated by media articles that do nothing but aim to generate a emotional and ill-judged response against the police, for the purposes of money.

I genuinely believe the OB has a vital role to play in the justice system, but the problems of homeless people are not solved by confiscating their temporary dwellings. It's not a problem the police should even have to solve. It's a symptom of poverty and the consequence of richer people not wanting to look it in the eye. I know coppers operate under a command structure which needs to be rigidly adhered to; I'm not expecting the constables to form an impromptu moral soviet every time an officer has a crisis of conscience. I just think you've got grander tasks to accomplish than sweeping things under the carpet.

I totally agree with you on this.

I would never have seized any property from a homeless person unless it was illegal, suspected recently stolen or a danger to themselves or others. There are homeless people in London who I've been friends with (and still am) for decades and we've always had a good mutual understanding. They've always known I was a police officer from day one but they've willingly let me form a friendship with them over time like any other person. When I'm in London and near their area I usually visit their regular haunts in case I bump into them just to say hello and ask how they are. They DON'T WANT to be housed, it's just not their way of life. They've never known anything different. It'd be like a jail for them and they are perfectly happy how they are. Then at the other end of the spectrum there are homeless people who you wouldn't want to meet in an alley in the daytime never mind at night. I never treated them any differently to people who aren't homeless. (except they are rather harder to find)