St Mungos - anti social behaviour

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 2 of 5
Friday 1 September 2017 12.49pm
Yes I have. Directly.
Friday 1 September 2017 12.52pm
Riverside67 wrote:
Yes I have. Directly.

Sorry to hear that, genuinely.

What do you think the answer is?
Friday 1 September 2017 1.18pm
[quote boroughonian][quote Riverside67]

What do you think the answer is?

[/quote]

How do you think anti-social behavior should be dealt with?

Obviously you make exceptions for those 'afflicted'.

... but what about those who are not 'afflicted' as you put it?

Should they be allowed to destroy the service for those who truly need it? It appears that this is what is happening.

Who is going to support anti-social behavior? Will you be there with your wallet open to replace any funding lost to the service by the bad behavior of a few?

I have a suggestion ... ASBO for people who engage in anti-social behavior. Controversial perhaps but support for those who really need it should remain.

Have you got a better suggestion? One in which the feckless few do not deprive the many needy of support?
Friday 1 September 2017 4.12pm
[quote faraday][quote boroughonian][quote Riverside67]

What do you think the answer is?

[/quote]

How do you think anti-social behavior should be dealt with?

Obviously you make exceptions for those 'afflicted'.

... but what about those who are not 'afflicted' as you put it?

Should they be allowed to destroy the service for those who truly need it? It appears that this is what is happening.

Who is going to support anti-social behavior? Will you be there with your wallet open to replace any funding lost to the service by the bad behavior of a few?

I have a suggestion ... ASBO for people who engage in anti-social behavior. Controversial perhaps but support for those who really need it should remain.

Have you got a better suggestion? One in which the feckless few do not deprive the many needy of support?[/quote]


Nope, that'll do.
Tuesday 5 September 2017 1.15pm
In Gladstone street, off London Rd, there are signs up on the lampposts stating that it is an alcohol free area, I imagine this is because of the mission place on the corner of St Georges rd, can't be sure what kind of effect it has but you never see any anti social behaviour around there, maybe the mission are stricter?
Tuesday 5 September 2017 2.42pm
The whole of Southwark, excepting some parts of East Dulwich is covered by a street drinking ban. See Southwark's old website.

The signs are up all over the borough.
Tuesday 5 September 2017 3.00pm
Truthmonkey-home wrote:
The whole of Southwark, excepting some parts of East Dulwich is covered by a street drinking ban. See Southwark's old website.
The signs are up all over the borough.

I think, perhaps I was drawn to the lampposts in Gladstone street, as I was to the, still operational, telegraph pole there, only to be told by Mrs b that the latter are all over the place as well.

Back to bed.
Tuesday 5 September 2017 6.07pm
boroughonian wrote:
Truthmonkey-home wrote:
The whole of Southwark, excepting some parts of East Dulwich is covered by a street drinking ban. See Southwark's old website.
The signs are up all over the borough.

I think, perhaps I was drawn to the lampposts in Gladstone street, as I was to the, still operational, telegraph pole there, only to be told by Mrs b that the latter are all over the place as well.

Back to bed.

EDIT:although it does appear to be part of a neighbourhood watch scheme.
Wednesday 6 September 2017 10.55am
I had no idea the whole borough was covered. Have seen the signs up in Mint Street park. From the council's wording, it's far from a ban though:
"...This means police and wardens can confiscate alcohol from anyone causing a nuisance in public. If they refuse to comply it could lead to arrest and/or a maximum fine of 500."

You would have thought police could confiscate alcohol from people causing a nuisance anyway.

Either way it doesn't stop people drinking in the street. And I don't really think it should.
Wednesday 6 September 2017 11.27am
Hi All,

Thanks for the notes above.

I met with Neil's office, Southwark Council and St Mungo's yesterday.

St Mungo's acknowledged the many problems raised by multiple residents and local businesses and that a great number of improvements are needed. An action plan has now been agreed with all stakeholders and a take stock meeting has been arranged in October.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, this was not about gentrification / dehumanising homeless people / pushing homeless out of sight. The meeting was solely about the negative impact St Mungo's is having on Great Guildford Street and the area overall.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment to be understanding and the cuts to public services, the negative impact includes: threats of violence to non St Mungo residents ( the police have multiple cases open), fighting in the street, arranging dogs to fight in the street, damage to private property, shouting/screaming outside our flats in the early hours of the morning, cans of alcohol littering the street and residents drinking on the street whilst sat on private property . All of the above are not one offs and St Mungo residents' behaviour have deteriorated over the last 3-4 months. Both St Mungo's management and residents need to take responsibility for this.

Please could I encourage those impacted to continue contact Neil's office (neil.coyle.mp@parliament.uk) which will help put pressure on St Mungo's to effect change and manage the situation appropriately, which they acknowledge is not currently being done.

For those not directly impacted, I appreciate your view but would encourage you also empathise with local businesses and residents for are impacted directly.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 2 of 5

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network