Far-reaching proposals to clamp down on anti-social behaviour will go before the council

Bournemouth Echo: Far-reaching proposals to clamp down on anti-social behaviour before the council Far-reaching proposals to clamp down on anti-social behaviour before the council

AN ORDER that will aim to tackle anti-social behaviour and improve community safety across the whole of Bournemouth will be considered by councillors at Cabinet next week.

Following recent public consultation, councillors are being asked to recommend implementation of a borough-wide, Designated Public Places Order (DPPO) which would enable the police to use additional enforcement powers to tackle anti-social behaviour caused by street drinking.

A spokesperson from the council said the proposed borough-wide order received strong support through the consultation process, with 89 per cent of respondents agreeing that a DPPO should be introduced to cover the whole of Bournemouth.

Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment, said: “We currently have a number of DPPOs in Bournemouth which cover specific areas including the town centre, Boscombe and Charminster as well as some parks land.

"The proposal is to extend the DPPO so that it covers the whole of the borough. From the consultation feedback it is clear that the public feel strongly about taking firm action against anti-social street drinking and support the proposed borough-wide DPPO.”

“We are seeing an increase in anti-social street drinking in some areas of Bournemouth often outside of the areas already covered by DPPOs. By extending the powers to cover all of Bournemouth the Council and the Police will be able deal with anti-social street drinking more quickly and effectively."

He emphasised that a DPPO doesn't mean that it is an offence to drink in a public space, adding: "However, for the minority who cause anti-social behaviour by street drinking, the Police would be able to exercise their powers to confiscate alcohol anywhere in the town.”

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:50am Wed 22 Jan 14

BmthNewshound says...

In a previous article on this subject the police admitted that they use their discretion and will "turn a blind eye" if people ignore the existing DPPO's.
.
There is no point the Council extending DPPO's if those already in place are not enforced. The council should be putting more effort into tackling the cause of the problem rather than expecting the police to deal with the fall out of their inability to deal with increasing problem of Bournemouth's growing underclass.
.
PerhapsChannel 4 could to do a follow up its Benefits Street documentary series to expose the real Bournemouth.
In a previous article on this subject the police admitted that they use their discretion and will "turn a blind eye" if people ignore the existing DPPO's. . There is no point the Council extending DPPO's if those already in place are not enforced. The council should be putting more effort into tackling the cause of the problem rather than expecting the police to deal with the fall out of their inability to deal with increasing problem of Bournemouth's growing underclass. . PerhapsChannel 4 could to do a follow up its Benefits Street documentary series to expose the real Bournemouth. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 12

11:53am Wed 22 Jan 14

BIGTONE says...

And what about the anti social behaviour in the Clown Hall?
And what about the anti social behaviour in the Clown Hall? BIGTONE
  • Score: 22

12:06pm Wed 22 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

Bournemouth and Boscome
make benefit street
look like a street party
Bournemouth and Boscome make benefit street look like a street party nickynoodah
  • Score: 6

12:13pm Wed 22 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

As there is already a 'DPPO' order for Boscombe it appears they are not particularly effective. Good for a 'we are doing something' headline though!
As there is already a 'DPPO' order for Boscombe it appears they are not particularly effective. Good for a 'we are doing something' headline though! muscliffman
  • Score: 26

12:17pm Wed 22 Jan 14

losthope says...

There's an alcohol exclusion zone in Poole too. You usually see a pile of discarded beer cans under the signs warning people. What you don't see is any police to enforce them so they're worse than useless because they reinforce problem behaviour because they reinforce the belief that certain people can do what they like and everyone else just has to put up with the consequences.
There's an alcohol exclusion zone in Poole too. You usually see a pile of discarded beer cans under the signs warning people. What you don't see is any police to enforce them so they're worse than useless because they reinforce problem behaviour because they reinforce the belief that certain people can do what they like and everyone else just has to put up with the consequences. losthope
  • Score: 23

12:19pm Wed 22 Jan 14

smhinto says...

The only two policies that the Police and Council adopt as far as anti-social behaviour is concerned are the -
.
a. Just ignore it and it will go away policy.
.
b. Let's just arrest them and give them a slap on the wrist and release them so they can do it again policy.
.
What we should be doing is re-introducing the 'Gibbett' and locking these lunatics up in 'stocks' for a couple of weeks.
The only two policies that the Police and Council adopt as far as anti-social behaviour is concerned are the - . a. Just ignore it and it will go away policy. . b. Let's just arrest them and give them a slap on the wrist and release them so they can do it again policy. . What we should be doing is re-introducing the 'Gibbett' and locking these lunatics up in 'stocks' for a couple of weeks. smhinto
  • Score: 24

12:37pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Ziggy starburst says...

Pointless. As other posters say, they have no affect at all. Charminster is covered by one of these orders and all they have done is stick up a couple of signs. You can walk up there any time of the day and there are the same crowd striding up and down the road with cans of 8% beer in their hands. The police drive on by. The only thing that will get a police car to stop in Charminster is a spot of bad parking. They can't be bothered to deal with drunks as they cannot be dealt with. Worst case is off to the station to add to the list of crimes and fines that they pay at 15p a week. 3pm horseshoe common is worth a visit to see if they work in town. There are usually about 10 collapsed on the pavement in a pile of cans and urine. Crime needs to be dealt with by the police and not the council who can't even run car parks.
Pointless. As other posters say, they have no affect at all. Charminster is covered by one of these orders and all they have done is stick up a couple of signs. You can walk up there any time of the day and there are the same crowd striding up and down the road with cans of 8% beer in their hands. The police drive on by. The only thing that will get a police car to stop in Charminster is a spot of bad parking. They can't be bothered to deal with drunks as they cannot be dealt with. Worst case is off to the station to add to the list of crimes and fines that they pay at 15p a week. 3pm horseshoe common is worth a visit to see if they work in town. There are usually about 10 collapsed on the pavement in a pile of cans and urine. Crime needs to be dealt with by the police and not the council who can't even run car parks. Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 16

1:25pm Wed 22 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

Make them spend time with nobath in his bedsit
they will soon learn whats coming to them
hope the wind is blowing in the right direction you know
Make them spend time with nobath in his bedsit they will soon learn whats coming to them hope the wind is blowing in the right direction you know nickynoodah
  • Score: -9

2:00pm Wed 22 Jan 14

High Treason says...

Its is not just the drink that is the problem, graffiti, riding bikes on pavements and fireworks etc.
Its is not just the drink that is the problem, graffiti, riding bikes on pavements and fireworks etc. High Treason
  • Score: 2

3:36pm Wed 22 Jan 14

politicaltrainspotter says...

Borough wide ! The authorities can't even enforce or monitor the DPPO'S that are already in place.Why ? Because they're is not enough people to enforce it.Having said that.The DPPO gives an officer or a PCSO the discretion to stop drinking in the street if that person is causing any anti-social behaviour or causing alarm and harrasement.

Look at Charminster.it falls within a DPPO and yet you see people drinking in the street.The QP@C SNT is now made up of two WPC's and one PCSO with one police officer and PCSO being transfered to Townsend.

Also there is an issue around a DPPO as a senior licencing officer pointed out.For example a family sits in a park and has a small picnic.They are well behaved.However, because the area falls within a DPPO they are told to stop drinking.

Strangely enough i have a lot of time for Councillor Morgan and Kelsey who are chair and vice chair of licencing.Yes, i'll get the thumbs down but they do look at things for a realistic point.

It may look good from the chamber within the Town Hall but there are no resources and within the reporting system would be classified as a low priority and not a flash priority.

So with interest i want to see how this pans out as the council has not shown it hands regarding EMRO'S and LNL.
Borough wide ! The authorities can't even enforce or monitor the DPPO'S that are already in place.Why ? Because they're is not enough people to enforce it.Having said that.The DPPO gives an officer or a PCSO the discretion to stop drinking in the street if that person is causing any anti-social behaviour or causing alarm and harrasement. Look at Charminster.it falls within a DPPO and yet you see people drinking in the street.The QP@C SNT is now made up of two WPC's and one PCSO with one police officer and PCSO being transfered to Townsend. Also there is an issue around a DPPO as a senior licencing officer pointed out.For example a family sits in a park and has a small picnic.They are well behaved.However, because the area falls within a DPPO they are told to stop drinking. Strangely enough i have a lot of time for Councillor Morgan and Kelsey who are chair and vice chair of licencing.Yes, i'll get the thumbs down but they do look at things for a realistic point. It may look good from the chamber within the Town Hall but there are no resources and within the reporting system would be classified as a low priority and not a flash priority. So with interest i want to see how this pans out as the council has not shown it hands regarding EMRO'S and LNL. politicaltrainspotter
  • Score: 6

4:07pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Derf says...

It seems most of the commentators on here haven't read the explanation of what a DPPO is.
It doesn't mean you can't drink in the street, it means the police have extended powers if you're being a pain in the 'arris when you're drinking.

I read it as the police can't / won't do anything if you're simply having a drink and not causing a nuisance.
It seems most of the commentators on here haven't read the explanation of what a DPPO is. It doesn't mean you can't drink in the street, it means the police have extended powers if you're being a pain in the 'arris when you're drinking. I read it as the police can't / won't do anything if you're simply having a drink and not causing a nuisance. Derf
  • Score: 3

4:30pm Wed 22 Jan 14

nickynoodah says...

Last week we were told to call them travellers
now it seems every body is referring to them as DPPO'S
what's all this then George.
Last week we were told to call them travellers now it seems every body is referring to them as DPPO'S what's all this then George. nickynoodah
  • Score: -9

4:41pm Wed 22 Jan 14

billy bumble says...

Derf wrote:
It seems most of the commentators on here haven't read the explanation of what a DPPO is.
It doesn't mean you can't drink in the street, it means the police have extended powers if you're being a pain in the 'arris when you're drinking.

I read it as the police can't / won't do anything if you're simply having a drink and not causing a nuisance.
Correct - the problem is that they won't do anything if they ARE causing a nuisance
[quote][p][bold]Derf[/bold] wrote: It seems most of the commentators on here haven't read the explanation of what a DPPO is. It doesn't mean you can't drink in the street, it means the police have extended powers if you're being a pain in the 'arris when you're drinking. I read it as the police can't / won't do anything if you're simply having a drink and not causing a nuisance.[/p][/quote]Correct - the problem is that they won't do anything if they ARE causing a nuisance billy bumble
  • Score: 2

4:56pm Wed 22 Jan 14

spotthis says...

This is just flexing muscles in preparation for the elections just over a year away. The powers exist - as people know - but the numbers of police are not enough to exercise them.
This is just flexing muscles in preparation for the elections just over a year away. The powers exist - as people know - but the numbers of police are not enough to exercise them. spotthis
  • Score: 3

5:13pm Wed 22 Jan 14

David56 says...

Brings me back again to a theme re. Policing and the money to pay for it. This council vetoed the proposal to levy a surcharge on Pubs and Clubs to help with the cost of policing anti-social behaviour. Now Cllr Smith and others argue against increasing our Council Tax by about £4 per year. I wonder why, could it be that there is an election next year???? They say cut down on wasteful spending by the Police. I say the thin blue line is near to breaking. It does seem a little like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

David Butcher
Brings me back again to a theme re. Policing and the money to pay for it. This council vetoed the proposal to levy a surcharge on Pubs and Clubs to help with the cost of policing anti-social behaviour. Now Cllr Smith and others argue against increasing our Council Tax by about £4 per year. I wonder why, could it be that there is an election next year???? They say cut down on wasteful spending by the Police. I say the thin blue line is near to breaking. It does seem a little like the pot calling the kettle black to me. David Butcher David56
  • Score: 3

12:28am Thu 23 Jan 14

bobthedestroyer says...

Why is this a Cabinet decision and not something for the full council. The Cabinet structure is bad for democracy as it allows portfolio holders too much influence. And the Leader of the Council has way too much power as they pick the Cabinet members, so they will pick the people that agree with them and heaven forbid anyone opposes them.

This is not a political party issue as whoever is in power has the same options available to them. Why does Cllr Beesley have the veto on everything, this is just wrong (not because it is Beesley at the helm).

As for the town wide thingy, if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Why is this a Cabinet decision and not something for the full council. The Cabinet structure is bad for democracy as it allows portfolio holders too much influence. And the Leader of the Council has way too much power as they pick the Cabinet members, so they will pick the people that agree with them and heaven forbid anyone opposes them. This is not a political party issue as whoever is in power has the same options available to them. Why does Cllr Beesley have the veto on everything, this is just wrong (not because it is Beesley at the helm). As for the town wide thingy, if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree