Gangs is a big topic in our May 2005 print edition. Here is what we printed on that sort of subject in May 2003.
Everyone is an expert. “What we really need,” journalist Petronella Wyatt told Evening Standard on February 28, “are more policemen on the streets. That’s much more important than paying £1,000 for private security guards [a reference to households in some better-off parts of London paying for handler and dog patrols by private security firms]. Otherwise you create a vigilante culture where people feel the state is letting them down and they have to take care of things themselves.” A vigilante culture appears to exist however.
SAFE (Safe Areas For Everyone) followed the 2001 Bradford riots that hit Manningham, Heaton and Girlington. The project has had national press publicity as a head-scarved Muslim ‘mum’s army’ reprimanding local youths up to no good. Police have welcomed such community involvement, as more interest in Neighbourhood Watch. Last year the Government’s Neighbourhood Renewal Fund gave a grant of £11,000 to train up to 55 women. Police issued the women – white and Asian – with mobile phones with a pre-set emergency number to call if they see serious crime or get into trouble. Police say they encourage the women not to tackle things that could turn confrontational. What are the health and safety and legal liability issues if a woman does get hurt?
What you could call the community safety establishment has however lauded this scheme. SAFE founder Elizabeth Hellmich, a volunteer, last year was highly commended for the second time in the co-ordinator of the year category in the Norwich Union Neighbourhood Watch Awards. A recent Home Office Crime Reduction College document, Crime Reduction Basics – case studies, quoted SAFE. It said: “Training is given to the women including subjects such as assertiveness, safety issues, body language, calming techniques and first aid … The project meets the local Crime and Disorder Strategy priorities on burglary, vehicle crime, youth crime, drug and developing local solutions … Members of the group patrol the streets in the afternoons and evenings and, using the negotiation skill they have learned, challenge anti-social and criminal behaviour. One of the success factors has been that women are seen to be successful at dealing with young people and are less confrontational than men. Project members do not tackle serious situations …”
Among the Government’s anti-crime measures – improving Fine enforcement (Courts Bill) and measures to tackle anti-social behaviour in and around pubs, clubs and entertainment outlets (Licensing Bill). The British Institute of Innkeeping describe the BIll as the biggest change in the industry for a century. The new licensing regime will give premises the potential to serve drinks 24-7. The Licensing Bill, according to the Government, will establishment priorities for licensing regulation on crime, disorder, and public nuisance. Police will have powers to close any licensed premises without notice for up to 24 hours where disorder or noise nuisance is occurring. Courts will have power to order the closure of all licensed premises in an area for up to 24 hours where disorder is likely to be fuelled by alcohol. This law will cover all licensed premises, including take away restaurants. Section 20 says that where a premises licence includes a condition of door supervisers, the door staff must be licensed by the Security Industry Authority. Police can call for a review of any premises licence at any time. A review could lead to modification of the conditions of the licence (maybe requiring more security staff or CCTV).
We must be much tougher about forcing people not to behave anti-socially. So says Home Secretary David Blunkett. He pointed out the link between anti-social behaviour and general crime at the mid-March launch of the White Paper Respect and Responsibility – taking a stand against anti-social behaviour. “Where enforcement is poor and anti-social behaviour goes unpunished, lawlessness grows and criminals know they can get away with it,” the paper says. Lately, tackling anti-social behaviour has become, in words at least, important to the Government. The security industry cannot zip up its tent. Again, to quote Mr Blunkett: “We all have to play a part in tackling anti-social behaviour.”
If drug-related gangs, arson and the rule of disorder blight parts of every UK city, what does it matter for security and CCTV managers? Well, it does if they are responsible for say convenience stores, schools, pubs or any other property in those blighted areas. Or bus drivers hit by stones, or threatened utilities staff. And it matters for every bus station and train depot blighted by graffiti, every town centre security shutter urinated on at night, every shop plagued by aggressive shoplifters, every bank with aggressive beggars sitting by ATMs.
Labour published an Anti-Social Behaviour Bill in late March following the White Paper Respect and Responsibility: Taking a stand against anti-social behaviour. The Bill proposed: more use of fixed penalty notices against for instance noise nuisance, truancy, graffiti, applied to 16 and 17-year-olds, besides adults; restrictd use of air weapons and replica guns; and what the Home Office called improved operation of Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). Critics however queried whether law enforcers needed more powers and another law to tackle low-level but troublesome anti-social behaviour, that many front-line security staff have to confront.
