Lanes residents beg for their street to be gated at night (From The Argus)

Man living in Hassocks objects to these gates. Let him have a few nights living there and see how he likes what goes on. OK so they could move, but why should they? Drunks and chavs not being able to behave again!

Ship Street Gardens is in the Laines, not the North Laine isn't it???

Another bang-up job by the Subs.

If it's South of North Street, it's in the The Lanes, not the North Laine.

Monkeys.

Mmm..My understanding of 'North Laine' is that area North of North Road, bounded by Trafalgar Street.

Is your headline correct to place Ship Street Gardens in North Laine?

If "there are violent crimes all the time" you should ask why the police are not doing anything about it.

Instead all the police will support is turning your road into a fortress. That is not a success, it is a police failure.

I see the genei in charge of subbing the Argus strike again.

North Laine my backside!

That was quick....!

Hands up - that was completely my fault. Completely unexcusable. I consider myself virtually castigated and am hanging my head in shame.

Sorry.

I think you mean inexcusable...

Castigation is clearly insufficient.

should the council seriously take any notice of a woman from hassocks, who is frightened of losing her back passage through brighton! i had the same fears on saturday!

Mmm wonder how many other men in Hassocks are called Victoria !

bibble wrote:
If "there are violent crimes all the time" you should ask why the police are not doing anything about it. Instead all the police will support is turning your road into a fortress. That is not a success, it is a police failure.

Bibble, if I lived there, and had to endure what they have had to, I would consider having my road turned into a fortress a success, not a failure.
It's antisocial, drunk people that are the problem here - NOT the police.

The answer is surely active policing, not barring law-abiding people from a long established, very useful, right-of-way.

Osama bin there wrote:

bibble wrote: If "there are violent crimes all the time" you should ask why the police are not doing anything about it. Instead all the police will support is turning your road into a fortress. That is not a success, it is a police failure.

Bibble, if I lived there, and had to endure what they have had to, I would consider having my road turned into a fortress a success, not a failure. It's antisocial, drunk people that are the problem here - NOT the police.

Installing gates is a sign of failure and I will explain why.

We both agree that the problem is the drunks. Putting in gates will not stop people from getting drunk and having fights. They will just have them elsewhere. Putting in gates is nimbyism.

Should gates be put up everywhere where people get drunk and fight? And should sober people be prevented from using the highways? No.

The solution is for the police to arrest people who are drunk and disorderly or who are fighting. But that is too hard for them. They prefer to catch speeding motorcyclists.

On any night, but particularly the weekends, there is much evidence of drunken behaviour. But the police turn a blind eye.

I remember being in a scrap in this passageway in the 70's!!!!

Must be even worse now!

If it's locked up, which it probably should be, the residents, I imagine, pay their council tax and should be entitled to peace and quiet like any other resident, would they be allowed to enter??? One would hope so.

As for 'active policing' if the police had to make sure every strange dark back passage was secure I'm sure the bill would be FAR higher than fitting some locking gates.

Until it's done, which it should be, ity'll ALWAYS be a cut through. Just walk five minutes longer to go round it. Might get rid of some of that vile 'Breezer Belly' that so many young 'ladies' seem to enjoy showing off thesedays.

These twittens are important parts of the history and topography of our town. I use them all the time, day, evening and night. There are no alternate routes without a considerable detour. The people who live there were aware they were opting to live at the very heart of a famously lively town, and the value of their properties no doubt took this factor in account, in both positive and negative aspects. While I sympathise to an extent, the problem is overstated and the suggested solution is draconian and unnecessary; and gating one end is absurd. If some residents really find their circumstances impossible, perhaps they should consider moving, rather than asking the rest of the population of the city to move for them.

In my own city centre square, anti social behaviour is a commonplace. I accept it for the privilege of living here and considered it before I did so. While extremely annoying at times, I try to keep in perspective, that of the tens of thousands of people who walk through this square and enjoy it at all hours, only a relative few abuse it. I would object to any measure to make this area more privately secure, even though my life might be a quieter one.

One method of reducing anti social behaviour is to encourage the use of public space by everyone else. Low level crime is discouraged by the presence of the law abiding public. This proposal represents the opposite.

There is no reason whatsoever to privatise public space in this way, and it must be resisted. The city centre belongs to all residents of this City, not only to those who live there. The unacceptable behaviour should be dealt with by the police, the businesses who help create it and the Council, whose policies unwittingly encourage it. For example, where are the public lavatories in central Brighton on a Saturday night, or the moveable urinals that are available in central London at the weekend?

Gating these spaces merely moves the anti social behaviour somewhere else. Gating is not a solution, but a surrender of the public realm as we seem incapable of grasping the real problem, which is the behaviour, not the location of it. After this surrender, there will be further surrenders.

The vast majority of law abiding members of the public should not be inconvenienced by the activities of the few. The problems should be tackled not merely relocated for a quick fix, which as ever, is just cosmetic.

Oh Bibble. For goodness sake. If you can remember having a police officer outside your house 24/7 then you have a right to comment about a lack or reduction of policing. Until then and until you have done the incredibly hard job they do, please refrain from your inane biased drivel.
It's the drunks fault - NOT THE POLICE!!
Mind you, at least people like you give people like me someone to whinge about.

Happy days - Silver lining......
:-)

Page the Oracle wrote:
Oh Bibble. For goodness sake. If you can remember having a police officer outside your house 24/7 then you have a right to comment about a lack or reduction of policing. Until then and until you have done the incredibly hard job they do, please refrain from your inane biased drivel. It's the drunks fault - NOT THE POLICE!! Mind you, at least people like you give people like me someone to whinge about. Happy days - Silver lining...... :-)

If the police do not police areas properly that is the fault of the police, not the drunks.

In the report it says that there are violent crimes "all the time". That suggests strongly that the police are NEVER there.

The police response to this is ludricrous. If gates are installed it will give the police an excuse not to do their job. At the moment they don't have that excuse. They are failing.

Catching speeding motorcyclists is not a hard job.

Congratulations Blighty that says it all.

Will that add to the house value? exclusive gated street, central Brighton? the snobs will be bidding in droves no doubt!
{P/S riff raff need not apply!}

I guess if I bought a house in that location I would do my homework as to what to expect from passers by.
If PeterP was having drunken scraps in this area in the seventies it is hardly a recent introduction to Brighton is it?
It's a bit like buying a house next to a school and complaining that you can hear children all day.
There really are some stupid people around.

Got a thing about speeding, Bibble?

Let me guess, got a ticket recently?

bibble wrote:

Page the Oracle wrote:
Oh Bibble. For goodness sake. If you can remember having a police officer outside your house 24/7 then you have a right to comment about a lack or reduction of policing. Until then and until you have done the incredibly hard job they do, please refrain from your inane biased drivel. It's the drunks fault - NOT THE POLICE!! Mind you, at least people like you give people like me someone to whinge about. Happy days - Silver lining...... :-)

If the police do not police areas properly that is the fault of the police, not the drunks.

In the report it says that there are violent crimes "all the time". That suggests strongly that the police are NEVER there.

The police response to this is ludricrous. If gates are installed it will give the police an excuse not to do their job. At the moment they don't have that excuse. They are failing.

Catching speeding motorcyclists is not a hard job.

.
Sorry Bibble, but I have to agree with you on this one.
.
beep beep.

Page the Oracle wrote:
Got a thing about speeding, Bibble? Let me guess, got a ticket recently?

No, wrong.

But you may remember that the police made a big annoucement when they caught some speeding bikers recently. That's easy "crime" to solve. Very easy.

Initially whan I read this story my sympathies were with the residents, but Blighty puts forward a strong case against.

However, Bibble's arguments are clearly nonsense. Are you really saying that people who drive like complete idiots, causing danger to everyone else on the road should just be left to get on with it? Also, there is anti social behaviour all over the place in Brighton late at night, so to post police in every single street is clearly impossible without massively increasing the size of the police force. Idiot.

Having worked in Ship St Gardens for 7 years, I fully sympathise with the residents who endure a nightly assault on their lives. Unless you've been there at night you couldn't even begin to guess what it's like. The properties are a real mix of shops, businesses, rented and owner occupied homes and people who live and work here have a right to feel safe. Its quite usual for me to have to step over a pool of urine on the doorstep to get into my workplace in the morning, and regular smashing of the glass in the footpath-level windows has become such a problem that they have had to be boarded up. On the odd occasion when I've been at work late in the evening people have banged on the windows threateningly and drunk people have shouted abusively. There's no way I would want to be there on my own late at night. I sympathise with those who live there and have to endure that every night. I fully agree with the gateing order proposal which, sadly, I feel may be the only remaining solution as a naive expectation of mutual respect has become a fairy tale.

Dave in Hastings wrote:
Initially whan I read this story my sympathies were with the residents, but Blighty puts forward a strong case against. However, Bibble's arguments are clearly nonsense. Are you really saying that people who drive like complete idiots, causing danger to everyone else on the road should just be left to get on with it? Also, there is anti social behaviour all over the place in Brighton late at night, so to post police in every single street is clearly impossible without massively increasing the size of the police force. Idiot.

My argument is absolutely right. If there are "violent crimes all the time" in that street, then the police are not doing their job. It is literally not being policed.

What is more important, catching speeding bikers or stopping violent crime? Which is easier to stop? Which do the police seemingly have plenty of time to do?

The only solution the police have to violent crime in that street is to support putting a gate up. Well, thanks Mr Policeman. If that is the best you can do, perhaps we don't need you at all.

You don't like my argument, too bad. But don't deny the truth.

bibble wrote:

Dave in Hastings wrote:
Initially whan I read this story my sympathies were with the residents, but Blighty puts forward a strong case against. However, Bibble's arguments are clearly nonsense. Are you really saying that people who drive like complete idiots, causing danger to everyone else on the road should just be left to get on with it? Also, there is anti social behaviour all over the place in Brighton late at night, so to post police in every single street is clearly impossible without massively increasing the size of the police force. Idiot.

My argument is absolutely right. If there are "violent crimes all the time" in that street, then the police are not doing their job. It is literally not being policed.

What is more important, catching speeding bikers or stopping violent crime? Which is easier to stop? Which do the police seemingly have plenty of time to do?

The only solution the police have to violent crime in that street is to support putting a gate up. Well, thanks Mr Policeman. If that is the best you can do, perhaps we don't need you at all.

You don't like my argument, too bad. But don't deny the truth.

When the resident said there were violent crimes 'all the time' presumably even you were aware enough not to take this literally. The street is probably being policed as much as any other comparable street in the country.

You ask what is more important but imply that one is important and the other not.

Short of putting a police presence in the street full-time, how else do you suggest the police stop violent crime in that street?

Fair enough, gating is not an ideal solution but in the absence of anything better, bearing in mind the limited resources the police have, its better than nothing.

Sadly, society as a whole has to change for an ideal solution, and I can't see that happening anytime soon.

kkj wrote:

bibble wrote:

Dave in Hastings wrote: Initially whan I read this story my sympathies were with the residents, but Blighty puts forward a strong case against. However, Bibble's arguments are clearly nonsense. Are you really saying that people who drive like complete idiots, causing danger to everyone else on the road should just be left to get on with it? Also, there is anti social behaviour all over the place in Brighton late at night, so to post police in every single street is clearly impossible without massively increasing the size of the police force. Idiot.

My argument is absolutely right. If there are "violent crimes all the time" in that street, then the police are not doing their job. It is literally not being policed. What is more important, catching speeding bikers or stopping violent crime? Which is easier to stop? Which do the police seemingly have plenty of time to do? The only solution the police have to violent crime in that street is to support putting a gate up. Well, thanks Mr Policeman. If that is the best you can do, perhaps we don't need you at all. You don't like my argument, too bad. But don't deny the truth.

When the resident said there were violent crimes 'all the time' presumably even you were aware enough not to take this literally. The street is probably being policed as much as any other comparable street in the country. You ask what is more important but imply that one is important and the other not. Short of putting a police presence in the street full-time, how else do you suggest the police stop violent crime in that street? Fair enough, gating is not an ideal solution but in the absence of anything better, bearing in mind the limited resources the police have, its better than nothing. Sadly, society as a whole has to change for an ideal solution, and I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Thank you KKJ - A voice of sanity in the wilderness. I would wage money that the throwaway comment that there were violent crimes 'all the time' did not stand up to analytical analysis when compared to the reported incidents of crimes & antisocial behaviour. The Police put resources where they are most required based on reported incidents – which is why, on a Friday night, you will more than likely find them in West Street, East Street & on The Lower Esplanade.
Bibble really needs some time on the psychiatrists couch to find out where his deep seated hatred of the Police comes from!!!
Every problem in society should not be laid fairly & squarely at the door of one of the only 24/7 emergency services which we would rapidly cal on for help if we needed it. With limited resources, it would make sense to 'force' drunks out in to the open so that their antisocial behaviour was more visible to the police officers who are more than likely in the main streets & not hiding in alleyways.
If Bibble feels that strongly about putting the world to rights, maybe he should volunteer to be a special constable (or ‘hobby bobby’).
Haha.
That would give me a chuckle!!
Peace & goodwill to all (including bubble, sorry bobble, sorry, I meant wibble). ****

Jo Wadsworth wrote:
Hands up - that was completely my fault. Completely unexcusable. I consider myself virtually castigated and am hanging my head in shame.

Sorry.

Jo - Thanks for coming back on this!
nice to see someone reads the comments...

Put the gates up, lock & trap the drunken idiots in then let the residents have revenge

Unfortunately for the residents the Police operate a risk assesment strategy.I am afraid it is too dangerous to police these streets.After all they want an easier life these days.

OP8 wrote:
Put the gates up, lock & trap the drunken idiots in then let the residents have revenge

Best post so far, I like that idea!!!!.

I hate to say it but Bibble has a point, well to at least a certain extent.

If there have been numerous complaints about this area why arn't the police at least making there presence felt on a regular basis. As Page the Oracle says they are patrolling West St and East St, with the lane being inbetween the two it wouldn't take alot to patrol this area. Obviously having an officer or two there permanently is impractical but if it was well known that the area is regularly patrolled the trouble would die down.

One point i do disagree with Bibble, is your argument about catching speeding motorcyclists in comparison. These are two completely different areas of policing done so by traffic police and normal police. Either one has nothing to do with the other really.

You saying something like that has undermined your argument i'm afraid.

Donkey OT wrote:
I guess if I bought a house in that location I would do my homework as to what to expect from passers by.
If PeterP was having drunken scraps in this area in the seventies it is hardly a recent introduction to Brighton is it?
It's a bit like buying a house next to a school and complaining that you can hear children all day.
There really are some stupid people around.

Unless of course you bought that house years ago when pubs shut at 11pm and clubs at 2am. I have been living, working and going out in Brighton for many years - its pretty obvious to me without reading the Daily Mail that, although there have always been drunks about, more people are getting more drunk than they used to.

Your argument is ridiculous - its more like living somewhere for 20 yrs then having a school built next door...

Good arguments both for and against gates: given the loutish society we seem to have encouraged via government policies on opening hours and liberal licencing I'd have to say I'd support the installation of gates. Even people who buy properties in city centres are entitled to feel safe...

Blighty has got it 100% spot on!

THIS IS AN ALLEY!? right slap bang in Brighton city centre inbetween a plethora of pubs and restaurants. WHY on earth would people live there and expect peace and quiet?

I used to live on North Street above strada, it was incredibly noisy and every day the front door was covered in urine from the evening before but I didnt complain because it was my choice to live in the city centre at that time!

This alley is historic and since it was built has seen fights/etc etc. The reputation of dark city centre alleys are well known worldwide. Its like buying a flat above a fishmongers and complaining weeks later about the smell.

JUST MOVE! OR DONT MOVE THERE IN FIRST PLACE! IF this alley is gated it will be a huge shame for all.

BBBrighton wrote:
Blighty has got it 100% spot on! THIS IS AN ALLEY!? right slap bang in Brighton city centre inbetween a plethora of pubs and restaurants. WHY on earth would people live there and expect peace and quiet? I used to live on North Street above strada, it was incredibly noisy and every day the front door was covered in urine from the evening before but I didnt complain because it was my choice to live in the city centre at that time! This alley is historic and since it was built has seen fights/etc etc. The reputation of dark city centre alleys are well known worldwide. Its like buying a flat above a fishmongers and complaining weeks later about the smell. JUST MOVE! OR DONT MOVE THERE IN FIRST PLACE! IF this alley is gated it will be a huge shame for all.

yeah just move! it's not like your house might have precious memories for you, your children might of grown up in them or you might be elderly and quite like your house or maybe your concerned that due to the economic crash you will sell for less than what you bought for.. YAWN move just move it's as easy as that!.....bit ofsarcasm there if you can't work that out bbbrighton, I know you need it nice and simple.

Seven points against the proposal.

1. This will intrinsically add value to the properties in the area, therefore residents and businesses are motivated and biased.
2. This is the public realm and a City having small Lanes to walk through at night is unique and exciting!
3. Aren't many of the ghost walks and other tours that happen at night going to be impacted here>
4. This reminds me of South Africa's 'gated communities', enough said.
5. White Night festival could bring opportunities to use the Lanes in a different way
6. A police presence and or CCTV would not inconvience the thousands of law-abiding citizens who use this lane AND pay council tax for the upkeep of.
7. It is blantantly the easy option for the police. That doesn't mean it is the best.

I will be fighting hard on this.

JamboBrighton wrote:
Seven points against the proposal. 1. This will intrinsically add value to the properties in the area, therefore residents and businesses are motivated and biased. 2. This is the public realm and a City having small Lanes to walk through at night is unique and exciting! 3. Aren't many of the ghost walks and other tours that happen at night going to be impacted here> 4. This reminds me of South Africa's 'gated communities', enough said. 5. White Night festival could bring opportunities to use the Lanes in a different way 6. A police presence and or CCTV would not inconvience the thousands of law-abiding citizens who use this lane AND pay council tax for the upkeep of. 7. It is blantantly the easy option for the police. That doesn't mean it is the best. I will be fighting hard on this.

1) I think they are more motivated by the muggings don't you?
2) unique until you get mugged.
3)i don't really mind making a few ghost walks take diversions if it stops possible rapes
4)seriously?
5)White Night is once a year. if it bothers you that much i'm sure we can open the gates for a night.
6)cctv only helps to identify the attackers it doesn't prevent the attack.
7) the police are strained as it is and tied up with P.C. restraints.

I haven't actually made my mind up about the gates i am mearly debating every angle.

stickman wrote:

Donkey OT wrote: I guess if I bought a house in that location I would do my homework as to what to expect from passers by. If PeterP was having drunken scraps in this area in the seventies it is hardly a recent introduction to Brighton is it? It's a bit like buying a house next to a school and complaining that you can hear children all day. There really are some stupid people around.

Unless of course you bought that house years ago when pubs shut at 11pm and clubs at 2am. I have been living, working and going out in Brighton for many years - its pretty obvious to me without reading the Daily Mail that, although there have always been drunks about, more people are getting more drunk than they used to. Your argument is ridiculous - its more like living somewhere for 20 yrs then having a school built next door...

I agree that if you bought there in the late 50's you might have a point.If not,the progressively worsening situation over the decades would surely have moved you to relocating?
Of course having a school built next door to you would be different.I'm not an **** you know.

Putting up gates just means that the residents will get mugged when they stop to unlock them. The real problem is still left with nothing being done about it.

The residents shouldn't have to consider moving, after all, it's their home. NO, call the Police first and then come out and chuck a bucket of water cold water over the puking drunkards, after all, revenge is always best served cold. As for drunkards urinating through letter boxes, don't they say that fluid and electricity is a lethal combination ?

Donkey OT wrote:

stickman wrote:

Donkey OT wrote: I guess if I bought a house in that location I would do my homework as to what to expect from passers by. If PeterP was having drunken scraps in this area in the seventies it is hardly a recent introduction to Brighton is it? It's a bit like buying a house next to a school and complaining that you can hear children all day. There really are some stupid people around.

Unless of course you bought that house years ago when pubs shut at 11pm and clubs at 2am. I have been living, working and going out in Brighton for many years - its pretty obvious to me without reading the Daily Mail that, although there have always been drunks about, more people are getting more drunk than they used to. Your argument is ridiculous - its more like living somewhere for 20 yrs then having a school built next door...

I agree that if you bought there in the late 50's you might have a point.If not,the progressively worsening situation over the decades would surely have moved you to relocating? Of course having a school built next door to you would be different.I'm not an **** you know.

I'd like you all to know that the word I had asterixed out was not a four letter word,but a three letter word for Donkey beginning with A and ending with S.
Long live freedom of speech,and down with censorship.
I'm lucky can still say Donkey.

bibble wrote:

Page the Oracle wrote:
Oh Bibble. For goodness sake. If you can remember having a police officer outside your house 24/7 then you have a right to comment about a lack or reduction of policing. Until then and until you have done the incredibly hard job they do, please refrain from your inane biased drivel. It's the drunks fault - NOT THE POLICE!! Mind you, at least people like you give people like me someone to whinge about. Happy days - Silver lining...... :-)

If the police do not police areas properly that is the fault of the police, not the drunks.

In the report it says that there are violent crimes "all the time". That suggests strongly that the police are NEVER there.

The police response to this is ludricrous. If gates are installed it will give the police an excuse not to do their job. At the moment they don't have that excuse. They are failing.

Catching speeding motorcyclists is not a hard job.

Yet again you show your child like naivety.

You cannot just blame one public body for all the ills in the world.

Who is to blame - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - seems to be lost nowadays - you are responsible for your own actions - not the police. You need to realise that.

The breakdown of society, the nuclear family, guidance from parents, educational lack of guidance etc etc

The new licensing laws brought in the Gov, irresponsible pubs and clubs selling cheap beer, the list goes on.

Stop blaming everything in life on the police. You really, really do need to get over your rabid problem with them. It is unhealthy and you are finding that people are ridiculing you in all your posts because of your immature, robotic and ill-thought out points.

Balance allows performance and results. Something you sadly lack

mark 62 wrote:
should the council seriously take any notice of a woman from hassocks, who is frightened of losing her back passage through brighton! i had the same fears on saturday!

Haha. Good one! Needed a good laugh.

Problem solved.I suggest that all the affected residents install water hoses(with a bright orange or red fluorescent dye) on the roofs and take it in turn every night to hose any yob urinating or upto no good.Install searchlights as well.Get your own back .Zero tolerance is what is needed in this Country.

you cant do that King Of Hove, If I was covered in dye, it would stop me from doing my work and therefore infringe my Human Rights.

I would then proceed to sue you for compo and get your house in an out of court settlement. hmmmmm. THINKING about it further.

DO IT!

hehehe

and in response to joe le'mott

YES IT IS that easy to move. It is a desirable City Centre location a stonesthrow from the beach and the delights of cosmopolitan brighton.

if you actuall did the maths, - lets say the oldest resident here was what, 80? bought the house 50 years ago and has lived there ever since (unbelievably unlikely as that maybe!)

are you telling me that in the 1950' onwards, these alleys have been respectable places come nightfall? NO! - they have forever been afflicted by drunks, fights etc etc because of their very nature as "enclosed shared urban spaces" Things are no different now to what they always have been, this area has some of the oldest pubs in the county and I know my dad, growing up as a lad in Brighton regularly saw fights down around there so it is BY NO MEANS purely a product of a modern society.

im with jambo, I will fight this hard! I am a lifelong resident of this city, I pay my council tax like every other citizen and I pay for this street to be regularly cleaned (which it is!!) and I do not want great swathes of my city enclosed and cut off to me because some residents didnt like the fact that some people are causing a nuisance in their pub adjacent home.

If the residents WANT gates, its either a total ban or not - I wonder how the shop owners would feel if gates were operated 24/7, I THINK it might affect their business a bit. I hate this argument of "why should we have to move, we were here first" UH NO YOU WERNT!

I agree with the gates - so long as they are funded and maintained by the residents. If a resident makes an addition or improvement to his/her home, and that improvement adds value, fine. If the council makes the improvements to the area, and house prices increase, the difference should be recouped through a higher council tax band. I certainly do not feel safewalking through that Alley on Saturday Evening, so I feel for the residents - it's not nice having scores of Northern stag parties descend upon your street, urinating and chanting football songs, which was the case around 9pm.