# Petition in favour of Brighton Terrace Drug Treatment centre



## Bob (Oct 25, 2005)

A petition for those in favour of the drug treatment centre on Brighton Terrace can be found here 

Just click 'edit' and add your name and rough location.

Basically the arguments in favour are:
It's in a very accessible location both from the point of view of where the drug users are and public transport - so this increases the chances of people succesfully getting treated

The police & NHS are in favour of this location and think it will reduce problems in central Brixton rather than increase them.

Nobody has any viable alternative centre.


----------



## kea (Oct 25, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Basically the arguments in favour are:


----------



## Bob (Oct 25, 2005)

kea said:
			
		

>



Sorry - fucked up the list function. Rapidly re edited now. 

The key thing is that even on Brighton terrace itself the centre is likely to reduce problems - partly because there will be increased attention paid to Brighton terrace and there would be a dedicated warden from the police for Brighton Terrace.


----------



## kea (Oct 25, 2005)

ah i see - sorry


----------



## netbob (Oct 25, 2005)

Everyone knows there is a major problem with crack and heroin in central Brixton. As I see it there are 3 options:

1) Do nothing
2) Displace the problem into another area (mostly likely the estates)
3) Remove the demand by treating users

If this centre doesn't go ahead we are going to be saddled with one of the first two.


----------



## netbob (Oct 25, 2005)

There's a printable copy here  please distribute wide and far.

Apparently the planning people are meeting on Tuesday 29th November to decide its fate.


----------



## RushcroftRoader (Oct 26, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Everyone knows there is a major problem with crack and heroin in central Brixton. As I see it there are 3 options:
> 
> 1) Do nothing
> 2) Displace the problem into another area (mostly likely the estates)
> ...



I agree that a treatment centre is a very good idea and should be supported. 
However drug users are going to keep heading to Brixton while the area is renown for its "softly softly" approach to drugs. 
Anyone who lives in Brixton knows that turning a blnid eye to cannabis dealing leads to dealers handing out rocks of crack like they are sweeties. 
I feel the priority in dealing with the problem of crack in Brixton is to to persuade the police that the softly softly approach has to go!


----------



## tarannau (Oct 26, 2005)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> Anyone who lives in Brixton knows that turning a blnid eye to cannabis dealing leads to dealers handing out rocks of crack like they are sweeties.
> I feel the priority in dealing with the problem of crack in Brixton is to to persuade the police that the softly softly approach has to go!




Er no. I've lived in Brixton for nearly all my life and I would say that's almost entirely untrue.  People don't go to a street dealer for weed and come away with a Haribo style booty bag of smack and crack.

Different market. You may still get the occasional Clapham-style drug tourist looking for weed on the streets, but they're generally a whole world apart from the more desperate unfortunates searching for smack and crack in the early hours.


----------



## netbob (Oct 26, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Er no. I've lived in Brixton for nearly all my life and I would say that's almost entirely untrue.  People don't go to a street dealer for weed and come away with a Haribo style booty bag of smack and crack.
> 
> Different market. You may still get the occasional Clapham-style drug tourist looking for weed on the streets, but they're generally a whole world apart from the more desperate unfortunates searching for smack and crack in the early hours.



I'd agree with that. 

There is some more subtle overlap though. Some crack users do support their habit by selling weed (or what they pretend to be weed) to skunk tourists, and some dealers seem to use weed dealing as cover for crack dealing.


----------



## maximilian ping (Oct 26, 2005)

what is the latest on the decision over the centre? last i can find is SLP saying Hoey was against it but the green light was about to be given on Sept 6 and then nothing..


----------



## netbob (Oct 26, 2005)

maximilian ping said:
			
		

> what is the latest on the decision over the centre? last i can find is SLP saying Hoey was against it but the green light was about to be given on Sept 6 and then nothing..



Basically none of the members of the planning committee were willing to second the proposal because of a campaign against it by people on Brighton Terrace and Trinity Gardens and the lack of any concerted campaign in favor of it.

Most councilors now say they agree with the centre in principle but refuse to put their name to a site. Kate Hoey is proposing a site on Acre lane already turned down by the NHS and Lambeth Drug Action Team and, conveniently, is just outside her constituency.

So unless the centre passes at the next meeting the whole thing will be dead until long after the local elections.

More info here: 

http://www.mybrixton.org/doku.php?id=brighton_terrace_drug_treatment_centre


----------



## maximilian ping (Oct 26, 2005)

fuck me. one of the shit sides of democracy. politicians, councillors too scared to put their name to anything involving that evil word D R U G S so the centre gets knocked back (i've seen on the SLAM document that this is about the 12th location attempted) and drug users have less of a chance to stop using and that means more crimes are committed by drugs users. 

it's such a simple equation but no-one can see past the exaggerated folklore that all drug users are murderous burglars and muggers.

this happens all over the country on an almost weekly basis and it might be a good idea for me to write about it soon...something i've been meaning to do for a year


----------



## Bob (Oct 26, 2005)

maximilian ping said:
			
		

> fuck me. one of the shit sides of democracy. politicians, councillors too scared to put their name to anything involving that evil word D R U G S so the centre gets knocked back (i've seen on the SLAM document that this is about the 12th location attempted) and drug users have less of a chance to stop using and that means more crimes are committed by drugs users.



One of the good sides of democracy is that if enough of us sign the petition and generally put pressure on the councillors then maybe they'll vote the right way. So get on mybrixton.org and sign the petition - and email a few mates to do so if you want to make a difference.

We have until 29th November.


----------



## Bob (Oct 26, 2005)

RushcroftRoader said:
			
		

> I agree that a treatment centre is a very good idea and should be supported.
> However drug users are going to keep heading to Brixton while the area is renown for its "softly softly" approach to drugs.
> Anyone who lives in Brixton knows that turning a blnid eye to cannabis dealing leads to dealers handing out rocks of crack like they are sweeties.
> I feel the priority in dealing with the problem of crack in Brixton is to to persuade the police that the softly softly approach has to go!



a) Welcome to the boards.   

b) I'm sure you'll agree though that a drugs treatment centre can only be a good thing - so signing the petition would be a very good use of a minute of your time.


----------



## Bob (Oct 27, 2005)

Over 20 people so far so going quite well. And we have a vicar.   

If you've signed it and want to help  more then emailing / pming Lambeth friends who might want to sign would be very helpful indeed.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 27, 2005)

*Good stuff*

I can't edit doku wiki files from my mac/outlook combo but as soon as I can get on a pc, I will sign.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 27, 2005)

WAAAAA! I tried it on a friend's PC and it comes up with

"This document has not been created yet"

Can somebody who knows my name and the street I live on please put me on there?


----------



## colacubes (Oct 27, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> WAAAAA! I tried it on a friend's PC and it comes up with
> 
> "This document has not been created yet"
> 
> Can somebody who knows my name and the street I live on please put me on there?



No probs - I've done it for you.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 27, 2005)

nipsla said:
			
		

> No probs - I've done it for you.


Thanx darlin'. 

Why don't we take the paper petition round the Albert when it's busy? Friday night?

We'll have to ask Pat first, though.


----------



## Bob (Oct 27, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Thanx darlin'.
> 
> Why don't we take the paper petition round the Albert when it's busy? Friday night?
> 
> We'll have to ask Pat first, though.



Good idea.


----------



## pooka (Oct 27, 2005)

Just to say I know a couple of people who've told me they have added their name but they're not there. I don't think every one is techy savvy. (I'd put an instruction at the bottom of the page but someone's talen it off again!)


----------



## Bob (Oct 28, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> Just to say I know a couple of people who've told me they have added their name but they're not there. I don't think every one is techy savvy. (I'd put an instruction at the bottom of the page but someone's talen it off again!)



You could always add them in yourself if you know their names / addresses. 

Petition is growing nicely - almost at 40 people now - if people could ask friends/ colleagues/ flatmates etc. who live anywhere in Lambeth to sign that would be ideal because it will help us get far more people. Obviously Brixton is best, but the councillors who will make the decision come from all over Lambeth.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 28, 2005)

Are we going to do this in the Albert tonight then?


----------



## Bob (Oct 28, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Are we going to do this in the Albert tonight then?



I won't be around tonight - but good luck to you. I've been emailing PMing people for a few days and got a fair few people on there - so I'm feeling a bit smug. 

*39 people so far*


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 28, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I won't be around tonight - but good luck to you. I've been emailing PMing people for a few days and got a fair few people on there - so I'm feeling a bit smug.
> 
> *39 people so far*


Hey, where are memespring and nipsla?    

I wasn't volunteering to do it on my own.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 28, 2005)

I'll help. btw, you are definitely on that petition IS


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 28, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I'll help. btw, you are definitely on that petition IS


Errrrrr, it appears I am going out after work in Hammersmith. I may be some time.   

PS, Yeah, nipsla put me on the petition.


----------



## netbob (Oct 28, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Hey, where are memespring and nipsla?
> 
> I wasn't volunteering to do it on my own.



I'm out tonight (mates birthday obligation) but might make it for closing though. 

If not Saturday night? I might even take it to the Trinity.


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 28, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> I'm out tonight (mates birthday obligation) but might make it for closing though.
> 
> If not Saturday night? I might even take it to the Trinity.


Yeah, OK. That sounds more like it. No idea what time I will be back tonight.


----------



## clive diedrick (Oct 28, 2005)

*General Planning Guidance, for Residential and Non-Residential Drug Treatment Centre*

Regarding paragraph/section:                                                            8:LOCATION REQUIREMENTS                                                               A suitable location for a service will depend on exactly what service is to be offered and how it will be used. If clients are to attend daily, easy accessability will be a key factor. A resdentail facility will also need to be relatively accessible.                                                                          Consider the security of the users and staff. Locating drug service in an area with an active drug market may put your service users at risk. The anonymity of the service may also be an important factor for your service users. Areas that already have a predominance of mixed uses including commercial industrial leisure and residential are more likely to be appropriate. (From TOWN+COUNTRY PLANNING+REGULATIONS 1988/1995)                  To all councillors involved in the Brighton Terrace fiasco...I feel you should consider the above section 8 as this clearly states that Brighton Terrace is not just a good location, but an exceedingly good location, (after my favourite cake, "Mr Kipling").Instead of feeling bitter, might we not feel sweet?                                                                                             But seriously. It seems that someone has gone to considerable time and effort to produce this document. So why is it that the councillors are not adhering to the rules/procedures regarding the Brighton Terrace situation?    Clive D.Stockwell Project User Group


----------



## colacubes (Oct 29, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Yeah, OK. That sounds more like it. No idea what time I will be back tonight.



I should be around tomorrow to Badger people too


----------



## treefrog (Oct 29, 2005)

signed!


----------



## Bob (Oct 30, 2005)

Almost at 50 people now.


----------



## netbob (Oct 30, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Almost at 50 people now.



That's better than the 10 letters of support the centre got on the first planning round. (not that anyone knew it was likely to be turned down   )  Pubs next?


----------



## Bob (Oct 30, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> That's better than the 10 letters of support the centre got on the first planning round. (not that anyone knew it was likely to be turned down   )  Pubs next?



Yup. Plus I think we can reasonably ask people who've signed to ask their neighbours etc. to sign. 

Plus we have in Clive D an ex heroin user to give a users perspective. Plus we have a fair number of people who've worked on addiction to give their perspectives.


----------



## linerider (Oct 31, 2005)

it might be worth taking the petition round the albert again tonight as there should be alot of people in for halloween.


----------



## netbob (Oct 31, 2005)

linerider said:
			
		

> it might be worth taking the petition round the albert again tonight as there should be alot of people in for halloween.



I don't think I can tonight (got work to do  ).


----------



## linerider (Oct 31, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> I don't think I can tonight (got work to do  ).


hope the broomstick works ok


----------



## netbob (Oct 31, 2005)

linerider said:
			
		

> hope the broomstick works ok


----------



## netbob (Nov 1, 2005)

Ive added a postcode column in the petition - if we can show people from accross Brixton are for the centre it stands more chance, It also helps show opinion by ward.

Brighton Terrace is also on the agenda tonight at CPCG public meeting (6:00 pm, Lambeth Accord, 336 Brixton Road ) With lots of council and police there and probably a sizable contingent of the anti treatment centre people from Trinity Gardens/Brighton Terrace.


----------



## Bob (Nov 2, 2005)

Over 70 people now. Keep on encouraging friends / neighbours / relatives etc. to sign please.


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

*Who enjoys receiving PM spam?*




			
				Bob said:
			
		

> I've been emailing PMing people for a few days and got a fair few people on there - so I'm feeling a bit smug.
> 
> *39 people so far*



I'd be feeling smug too if I was a spammer. It's not so much a profession as a vocation, right?

People tend to have a blind spot when it comes to spam. While hating it with a vengeance when it comes from other people about things in which they have no interest, it becomes an obvious and useful tool for communication when one is trying to promote a pet cause.

I hate to burst your bubble but spam isn't something that only other people do.

Before sending a mass communication, you need to ask yourself the question, "What if everyone did this? Would I want to disembowel them with a rusty teaspoon?"

I'm not a Brixton resident. I haven't posted on this thread. You have a public message board on which to communicate your campaign message. What more do you want? 

PMs are not the place. Please desist.


----------



## netbob (Nov 2, 2005)

I went to the CPCG meeting last night (I got some filthy looks from Trinity Gardens people when I said I supported it and was a Brixton resident. Think I might avoid The Trinity for a while  ).

Two councillors came out in favour of the centre and there was general support from the CPCG board. An ex drug user, NHS people and a vicar from Brixton hill also supported it (the vicar managed to get away with accusing them of being concerned about their house prices).

But there was very vocal oposition/heckaling from Brighton Terrace/Trinity residents. There arguments dont seem to stand up to me, but there is still the potentual for them to get their way by shouting loudest. They do seem totally unprepared for other Brxton residents to support the centre though.


----------



## Bob (Nov 2, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'd be feeling smug too if I was a spammer. It's not so much a profession as a vocation, right?
> 
> People tend to have a blind spot when it comes to spam. While hating it with a vengeance when it comes from other people about things in which they have no interest, it becomes an obvious and useful tool for communication when one is trying to promote a pet cause.
> 
> ...



Sorry if you're offended by a PM. But you do post on the Brixton boards - so it's a reasonable assumption that you live in Brixton.

And it's deliberately made pretty hard to PM people en masse by not being able to send more than 1 PM a minute and not more than 5 people a time.


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Sorry if you're offended by a PM. But you do post on the Brixton boards - so it's a reasonable assumption that you live in Brixton.



Well it's obviously a crap assumption. But even if it were true, I wouldn't want to be spammed any more than I'd want to be spammed about someone's political interests because I've posted in the politics forum.

Do you need penis enlargement? Brain enlargement? I thought it might be a reasonable assumption given that you have a man's name and are evidently unable to read and comprehend simple concepts.




			
				Bob said:
			
		

> And it's deliberately made pretty hard to PM people en masse by not being able to send more than 1 PM a minute and not more than 5 people a time.



Only being able to spam 300 people an hour must make your life hell.

What do you think the purpose of this public message board is? If I was interested in your issue, I would have read your thread, which I did not. If I wanted to sign your petition, I would have done so.

Just please go and fuck yourself and take your stupid "but it's not really spam because it's a good cause and I can only send five a minute" attitude with you.

Thanks.



> Technical Definition of Spam
> 
> An electronic message is "spam" IF:
> 
> ...



http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 2, 2005)

So you received one PM you consider to be spam (shock, horror), and now you are derailing this highly important thread. Dunno what your agenda is here but if you have no interest in Brixton and don't support this initiative, I suggest you sling your hook. All right?


----------



## netbob (Nov 2, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Just please go and fuck yourself and take your stupid "but it's not really spam because it's a good cause and I can only send five a minute" attitude with you.



Thats constructive. (Its also much closer to my definition of spam than yours.)

This is a specifically named thread about a Brixton issue in a Brixton forum. If you're not interested then you dont ahve to read it.


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Thats constructive. (Its also much closer to my definition of spam than yours.)



"My" definition of spam is the widely-accepted one promulgated by Spamhaus. If you don't like it, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.




			
				memespring said:
			
		

> This is a specifically named thread about a Brixton issue in a Brixton forum. If you're not interested then you dont ahve to read it.



I wasn't interested. That's why I didn't read it until Bob sent me a spammy PM about it.  Is it the reading or the comprehension that troubles you the most?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

If you're not interested, delete it.  Simple.


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If you're not interested, delete it.  Simple.



If it's spam, don't send it. Simple.

Why do you have to make it my problem?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

if you don't like it, piss off from this thread.  simple


----------



## Bob (Nov 2, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> If it's spam, don't send it. Simple.
> 
> Why do you have to make it my problem?



You've had one message you didn't like that took you a second or two to delete. I'm sorry I wasted your time.

But you've now spent a reasonable amount of time arguing about it to no end. 

If you want to have this argument why don't you either: a) have it with me by PM, or b) start another thread that is specifically about this or c) complain to a Mod if you think I've broken the FAQ.


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> if you don't like it, piss off from this thread.  simple



Just as soon as you piss off from my PM box. Simple.


----------



## colacubes (Nov 2, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> If it's spam, don't send it. Simple.
> 
> Why do you have to make it my problem?



And why do you have to derail this thread?  If you're pissed off about the spam raise it with Bob separately. This is not the place to do it.

Anyway back on track...




			
				memepring said:
			
		

> But there was very vocal oposition/heckaling from Brighton Terrace/Trinity residents. There arguments dont seem to stand up to me, but there is still the potentual for them to get their way by shouting loudest. They do seem totally unprepared for other Brxton residents to support the centre though.



They seem to me to be in a state of absolute panic at the moment.  They see any meeting where it's being discussed and turn up mob handed when they don't know what the purpose of the meeting is.  The thing I found startling about last night was that they were absolutely affronted that issues that had already been discussed were being repeated and kept going on about investigating alternative locations.  That's the job of the council not the CPCG .

I think the Chair of the meeting did really well considering their disruptive heckling throughout his summing up.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Just as soon as you piss off from my PM box. Simple.



I haven't pissed in your PM box, fule.


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

nipsla said:
			
		

> And why do you have to derail this thread?  If you're pissed off about the spam raise it with Bob separately. This is not the place to do it.



Because if everyone on this site thought as you did, we'd all spend most our time clearing out our PM boxes rather than reading and posting on the public forums.

I don't see why your precious thread should be sacrosanct while my PM box is fair game.

I'm sure you all hate spam. It seems contradictory that you're happy to defend it when it's in your name. 

Anyway, I trust I've made my point. Too bad you can't see further than the ends of your own noses.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 2, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Because if everyone on this site thought as you did, we'd all spend most our time clearing out our PM boxes rather than reading and posting on the public forums.
> 
> I don't see why your precious thread should be sacrosanct while my PM box is fair game.
> 
> ...


What part of 'piss off' are you having difficulty comprehending?


----------



## untethered (Nov 2, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What part of 'piss off' are you having difficulty comprehending?



The bit where you keep replying to my posts rather than ignoring them and talking about your thread's topic.


----------



## Bob (Nov 2, 2005)

*Back OT*

If people can provide postcodes on the petition when they sign it then it helps since it will make it clear to local politicians which ward you live in.

Ta.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2005)

I've signed it Bob- I still live in Trinity Gardens (not leaving just yet, only when the centre opens ), so hopefully it will be a useful addition to the petition


----------



## pooka (Nov 2, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> I went to the CPCG meeting last night (I got some filthy looks from Trinity Gardens people when I said I supported it and was a Brixton resident. Think I might avoid The Trinity for a while  ).
> 
> Two councillors came out in favour of the centre and there was general support from the CPCG board. An ex drug user, NHS people and a vicar from Brixton hill also supported it (the vicar managed to get away with accusing them of being concerned about their house prices).
> 
> But there was very vocal oposition/heckaling from Brighton Terrace/Trinity residents. There arguments dont seem to stand up to me, but there is still the potentual for them to get their way by shouting loudest. They do seem totally unprepared for other Brxton residents to support the centre though.




The briefing material and also the presentation from Khadir Meer of the Drug and Alcohol Action team are available here


----------



## Bob (Nov 5, 2005)

Up to 90 people now. It's really helpful for anyone who has signed to ask flatmates, friends etc. - from anywhere will do but obviously Brixton is best and Lambeth is good.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 5, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> I got some filthy looks from Trinity Gardens people when I said I supported it and was a Brixton resident.


You understand why don't you? It's because once again the white, middle-class, liberal intelligentsia has decided that it for the best interest of "the community" that something unpleasant be done to the mostly non-white, working-class council house tenants. In this case apparently 90 people, without having heard the debate from both sides, feel that it is a good idea to site a needle-exchange for chaotic drug users opposite a children's playground in an area that has been troubled by chaotic drugs use for well over 5 years.

What stinks most about the drugs centre process is the way the council, the health service and the police cooked up a fait accompli in return for which they offered nothing for the residents' obvious concerns. Every concession they have made has been wrung out of them by the opposition. That's why there's zero goodwill from local people towards the centre.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2005)

So all the people who support it are white and middle class?  How do you work that one out?


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 5, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So all the people who support it are white and middle class?  How do you work that one out?


Saw them at the planning meeting. All white. All apparently middle-class.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2005)

Errrrr...what about all the people who signed the petition?  You think they're all white and middle class?  'cos I can tell you for nowt that you're way wrong on that one.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 5, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Errrrr...what about all the people who signed the petition?  You think they're all white and middle class?  'cos I can tell you for nowt that you're way wrong on that one.


I've never met those people. I am talking about the people who's project this is.

Anyway, I'm saying all this because this thread has a tendency to self-righteousness and it's worthwhile thinking a little more about the backgorund and the oppostion rather than, IMHO, arrogantly dismissing it.


----------



## netbob (Nov 5, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> You understand why don't you? It's because once again the white, middle-class, liberal intelligentsia has decided that it for the best interest of "the community" that something unpleasant be done to the mostly non-white, working-class council house tenants.



This is not a class, race or political issue, it's one of reality. There is an increasingly large problem in Brixton with hard drugs and a drug centre is needed to help remove demand and get people treated. Although as it happens (and not that it matters one bit), I think the person I was referring to would probably best fit your first description rather than your second.

I dont know why you stuck community in quotes like its a dirty word? The problems that centre is looking to address *do* affect many more people than just the immediate residents in BT - market traders loosing business, discarded needles (of which I found one in the alley behind my flat last week), users going untreated to name just a couple.  I'd challenge you to come up with an alternative word?



> In this case apparently 90 people, without having heard the debate from both sides, feel that it is a good idea to site a needle-exchange for chaotic drug users opposite a children's playground in an area that has been troubled by chaotic drugs use for well over 5 years.



This _is_ the debate occurring. People don't just blindly signup to things. You might like to read this as many others have before they signed up.



> Saw them at the planning meeting. All white. All apparently middle-class.



That may well have been the case at the planning meeting, but not now. 
Most people (outside Trinity Gardens/Brighton Terrace) didnt know that the centre was likely to be turned down and so didnt have a chance to voice their support. That is what they are now doing.

EDIT: I'd strongly suggest you read Clive D's posts up ^ way too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

I do think Nick has a point though - residents do feel like they have been railroaded into this by outsiders. It's certainly apparent from the minutes they've pushed through  my door.


----------



## happyshopper (Nov 5, 2005)

There still seems to be some confusion on the part of those supporting this petition about what this proposed centre is for.

The centre is not intended to deal with the problem of chaotic drug users in central Brixton. It's to provide a service for the whole of Lambeth for the minority of people with drug and alcohol problems who volunteer for treatment who cannot get it from a local GP. So it does *not* have to be right in the middle of Brixton - it could be sited anywhere in Lambeth with decent local transport links. In terms of the needs of service users, it would be  better to have two or three smaller centres. So it seems perverse to choose a single location, particularly when it is right next to the most thriving drugs market in the borough.


----------



## Bob (Nov 5, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> There still seems to be some confusion on the part of those supporting this petition about what this proposed centre is for.
> 
> The centre is not intended to deal with the problem of chaotic drug users in central Brixton. It's to provide a service for the whole of Lambeth for the minority of people with drug and alcohol problems who volunteer for treatment who cannot get it from a local GP. So it does *not* have to be right in the middle of Brixton - it could be sited anywhere in Lambeth with decent local transport links. In terms of the needs of service users, it would be  better to have two or three smaller centres. So it seems perverse to choose a single location, particularly when it is right next to the most thriving drugs market in the borough.


 
You're half right. It is the service for the people that can't get treatment elsewhere. But the largest concentration of problem drug users is in the central Lambeth area - and Brixton is clearly the place in the area that has the best transport links plus the largest number of users who will be local. What the centre will provide is an extra 150 treatment places in Lambeth on top of current capacity - something that is needed since only just over half the estimated people who need treatment in Lambeth are currently getting it.

And it isn't a single location - there are already a number of other locations doing this work, as you imply GPs are one group but there are plenty of others that will continue to do their work such as the Harbour crack project at Loughborough Junction.

And old Nick - the treatment centre is in one of the more white middle class streets in central Brixton - yes there are council blocks on it too - but it's not a particularly poor street. And you're wrong to say it's 'something nasty' - the Stockwell Project has had no problems with its neighbours - which is why the Stockwell Partnership is in favour of it. The Stockwell Project is also next to a children's playground with no problems.

I personally would be delighted to live next to the Brighton Terrace centre since I'd get a street warden during the centre's opening hours, and £50,000 of extra street lighting. 

And Brighton Terrace is in Ferndale ward - which according to the census is about 70% white - my guess is that Brighton Terrace is probably roughly representative of Ferndale ward. Most of the rest of central Brixton is in Coldharbour ward which is about 35% white. So the idea this is somehow white people putting the centre in a black area is absurd.

Finally you're right to say that there hasn't been enough reassurance of the local residents - but this hasn't been helped by the local councillors who haven't been willing to try and persuade anyone. There has actually been a consultation process over 3 years by the South London & Maudesley NHS Trust (chaired by a Lewisham Labour councillor) and the police (falling under control of the Greater London Assembly) so there are plenty of ways to try and influence the process if you want. I've attached below a press release from the Ferndale councillors - it doesn't exactly smack of an open minded approach.



> *Drug Invasion Fears Quelled*
> September 2005
> 
> Local residents who feared a new drug treatment centre in the heart of their community would escalate drug-related anti-social behaviour, are rejoicing after Lambeth’s planning committee opposed the move.
> ...



Incidentally Nick would you see any circumstances under which you'd support the centre?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> And old Nick - the treatment centre is in one of the more white middle class streets in central Brixton - yes there are council blocks on it too - but it's not a particularly poor street.


Well, actually, the only middle class whites who live in Trinity Gardens/Brighton Terrace are the ones who live in the posh Georgian terraces. The residents of Daisy Dormer Court, George Lashwood Court and Marie Lloyd Court are much more mixed - many of the families objecting to this is are black, not that it should be relevant


----------



## Bob (Nov 5, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Well, actually, the only middle class whites who live in Trinity Gardens/Brighton Terrace are the ones who live in the posh Georgian terraces. The residents of Daisy Dormer Court, George Lashwood Court and Marie Lloyd Court are much more mixed - many of the families objecting to this is are black, not that it should be relevant



Fair enough - though as it happens the people I've known in those blocks have all been middle class (some white, some not) people renting in ex RTBs. Incidentally all the blocks have working gates and doors now - which is really good for Lambeth. There are whole estates in bits of Lambeth without working doors to blocks - where I used to live in Kennington there are about 70 blocks or so in that area alone without any working entryphones. A bit OT but Brixton generally seems to have far better security on estates than further north bits of Lambeth like Stockwell and Kennington.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> the people I've known in those blocks have all been middle class (some white, some not) people renting in ex RTBs.


----------



## netbob (Nov 5, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I do think Nick has a point though - residents do feel like they have been railroaded into this by outsiders. It's certainly apparent from the minutes they've pushed through  my door.



There does seem to be a more of an open debate going on now though with much more infomation in the public domain. Do you think that might make some people rexamine their feelings about it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Do you think that might make some people rexamine their feelings about it?


Possibly. Though to look at it cynically you might possibly deduce that people make up their minds about these things pretty early on and they are difficult to dissuade from their fixed ideas.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I've never met those people. I am talking about the people who's project this is.
> 
> Anyway, I'm saying all this because this thread has a tendency to self-righteousness and it's worthwhile thinking a little more about the backgorund and the oppostion rather than, IMHO, arrogantly dismissing it.



Maybe some of us actually _have_ thought about it? .


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I do think Nick has a point though - residents do feel like they have been railroaded into this by outsiders. It's certainly apparent from the minutes they've pushed through  my door.



Hopefully there has been proper consultation.  If not, then that's not right.


----------



## Bob (Nov 5, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Hopefully there has been proper consultation.  If not, then that's not right.



It mainly comes down to what you call consultation. The problem is that nobody ever lobbies to have a drug treatment centre right next to their house - so the questions really are:
1. How did the local NHS come to the decision that Brighton Terrace was their preferred location?
2. What did they do then?

The answer to 1. is that they had a set of criteria to do with accessibility, size, disability discrimination etc. and a set of available properties - the list is in the community briefing document they produced. The process of getting from start to where we are now has taken 3 years - and a lot of this was consultation with stakeholders like the police, council, drug users groups, GPs, pharmacies etc. Hence from the points of view of these 'experts' the criteria used are sensible - and so they support the centre.

The answer to 2 is that there have been public meetings on 16th March (general), 14th April (Trinity Residents Association) plus the formal processes of the council. 

On the Health Scrutiny Sub Committee –two Labour and two Lib Dem councillors supported the proposal. This includes a Brixton councillor, Donatus Anyanwu. 

On the planning committee the issue was discussed and deferred.

There has also been some talk of an alternative location on Acre Lane - particularly from Kate Hoey. I understand the residents round there are also highly opposed to that location.

Nobody has any alternative preferred location with anywhere near the support from police & NHS that Brighton Terrace has.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2005)

That sounds reasonable enough then.


----------



## Ms T (Nov 6, 2005)

I haven't yet signed the petition because I still feel conflicted about the issues.   Of course a treatment centre is necessary, but I am not surprised that the local residents are worried about the impact on them.

This is what Louloubelle posted on another thread about this issue, some time ago now.  I think it's very relevant, so I'm reproducing it here. 

Unless they are prescribing heroin I would anticipate there being some effect that local people will find challenging, nothing like that predicted in some quarters, but there will be addicts hanging around nearby and there might be an increase in theft from cars. I don't know the area well enough to know if this would represent an improvement or not.

I used to work at a project affiliated with a DDU and needle exhange, both of which had premises within a 2 minute walk of my office in a hospital.

Everyone in the hospital was extremely careful about leaving stuff in their car as there were lots of break ins. Perhaps it's the same everywhere, but to us it felt like an area where many of the addicts couldn't resist stealing stuff if it was there, so people were extra vigilant.

Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange).

In Camden, the Hari Krishna people set up a free food cafe a couple of years back and petty soon the place was packed with local addicts, many of them needed the food, but they also liked having a place where they could hang out and not be judged.

A local pharmacist (a hindu businessman who I know quite well) made a large donation of his own money to go to the cafe and was very pleased that the addicts were being taken care of and fed. Like me he supports the idea of heroin prescribing and shooting galleries for addicts.

When I last spoke to him he had joined the list of people campaigning to have the place closed down. He felt very sad about it, but his pharmacy had had several armed (knives) robberies since the addicts started to meet there, loads of local people's cars have been broken into, people had started dealing crack in broad daylight in the street just a few yards from the cafe.

I don't know what will happen re this drug treatment centre. I know they have to exist, but I feel they should be prescribing heroin and providing supportive services including specialist and primary care services.

I hope I'm wrong but I think that some people may be being a bit optimistic about the effects of this centre on the local community.


----------



## Bob (Nov 6, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> I haven't yet signed the petition because I still feel conflicted about the issues.   Of course a treatment centre is necessary, but I am not surprised that the local residents are worried about the impact on them.
> 
> This is what Louloubelle posted on another thread about this issue, some time ago now.  I think it's very relevant, so I'm reproducing it here.
> 
> ...


----------



## netbob (Nov 6, 2005)

> Unless they are prescribing heroin I would anticipate there being some effect that local people will find challenging, nothing like that predicted in some quarters, but there will be addicts hanging around nearby and there might be an increase in theft from cars.



I think there are studies that show heroin prescription to be better than (or at least as good as) methadone, and certainly much better than the dirty street heroin mixed with fuck knows what. But I dont think the trials have never been extended, mainly because the Daily Mail headlines become too easy to write (government giving away  heroin, soft on scag etc). That said methadone is still helpfull for lots of people.



> When I last spoke to him he had joined the list of people campaigning to have the place closed down. He felt very sad about it, but his pharmacy had had several armed (knives) robberies since the addicts started to meet there, loads of local people's cars have been broken into, people had started dealing crack in broad daylight in the street just a few yards from the cafe.



I'm not sure about the armed robberies, but the crack dealing and low level theft seem to be things that are already happening. Accepting the centre could be a way to force the authorities to do more about the existing problems. The promise of the wardens for Brighton Terrace seems to be a good start.


----------



## nicky1957 (Nov 8, 2005)

*Birghton Terrace Drug Centre*

Make it legal


----------



## nicky1957 (Nov 8, 2005)

get a life mate


----------



## nicky1957 (Nov 8, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Just as soon as you piss off from my PM box. Simple.



Get a life mate


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 8, 2005)

nicky1957 said:
			
		

> The Police have promised better policing of the area, better lighting, better surveillance etc.


They've been promising all that for 5 years or more. Will it happen? It's a gamble.




			
				nicky1957 said:
			
		

> Also, the fact that the drug centre will have a needle exchange will _decrease_ rather than increase the blight of discarded needles.


Not if attracts more chaotic users to the area. It's a gamble.




			
				nicky1957 said:
			
		

> The Stockwell Project, which is aiming to relocate to the site, has been sited for many years on a local council estate and next to a busy local school (Stockwell Park). Local residents have never complained about the project or its users.


But that's not in an area with massive open dealing that already attracts users from far and wide. What effect will this centre have in such a place? It's a gamble.




			
				nicky1957 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the middle class and so called "professionals" residents of Brighton Terrace know something more on the subject of Drug Misuse that the working classes in Stockwell may not be aware of.


Now I'm beginning to doubt you've ever been to Brighton Terrace. It's a Lambeth Housing estate.




			
				nicky1957 said:
			
		

> It's all a lot of hypocrisy too. I wouldn't be surprised if the residents of Brighton Terrace don't indulge in a line of coke or two as an after dinner indulgence at their dinner parties.


One of the flats was a crack house till recently so probably, yes.

This sounds like the same kind of view that the SLAM people at the planning meeting came up with. Very uninformed about the history of drug problems in Brighton Terrace. Ready to take a gamble on a new centre.

SLAM want to take a gamble with the drug problem in Brighton Terrace (in part to have a location that their staff can easily access by tube). The residents of Brighton Terrace would rather they took their gambles eleswhere. And since SLAM couldn't prove that their plan was anything more than a gamble they lost the support of the councillors present.

(And in response to an earlier question, yes, I think that with more details I could be persuaded that it was a viable idea. But it has been very badly handled as fait accompli between the Lambeth Chief Exec and the NHS, and the plans for protecting Brighton Terrace from side-effects are sketchy and last-minute. It's hard to believe the people running the centre set much store by them. And anyway, I'll be much easier to persuade than most of the residents I've met.)


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 8, 2005)

There's a needle exchange at The Harbour in Loughborough Junction.  Does anyone feel that it has led to more problems in that area?


----------



## nicky1957 (Nov 9, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> They've been promising all that for 5 years or more. Will it happen? It's a gamble.
> ic users to the area. It's a gamble.
> 
> 
> ...



Have you considered attending Gambling Anonymous groups? Sounds like you have a problem with gambling there.


----------



## Bob (Nov 9, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> They've been promising all that for 5 years or more. Will it happen? It's a gamble.
> 
> 
> Not if attracts more chaotic users to the area. It's a gamble.
> ...



Your views seem to come down to:
1. Things are a bit better than they were so it's a risk having more drug users in the area.
2. You don't trust the police / council to provide lighting/street warden that they promise.
3. The Stockwell project isn't comparable because it's not close to a major drug market.

I'd respond:
1. You're also taking a risk that Lambeth will continue to have serious problems with untreated drug users and that Brighton Terrace will take a serious hit because of this. The new security measures on the flats will break down at some point - and will then be competing with hundreds of council blocks within Lambeth that have broken security doors. Being next to a centre with a strong council guarantee they'll be fixed quickly is an advantage.

2. These promises can be made a legal requirement of the planning decision and the centre could be closed down if they're not fulfilled. This is common in planning decisions and something I'd support. 

3. I'm not sure how the Stockwell project is really different from Brighton Terrace. Yup problem drug users will be closer to a major drug market - but they won't be able to take drugs close to Brighton Terrace because of the warden, plus hopefully most of them won't be taking heroin / crack at all. 

All the evidence is that crime among drug users drops dramatically once they enter treatment so Brighton Terrace (like the rest of central Brixton) will gain from c. 150 extra users in treatment across Lambeth - and the consequent reduction in crime.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 9, 2005)

Does anybody have any evidence at all that drug treatment centres increase local incidence of theft from vehicles, etc?

They are only open during the day. Clients don't hang around them at night _because they are shut_. 

What it really boils down to, as Bob touches on, is people wilfully burying their heads in the sand. They would rather have a worse situation with uncontrolled drug use/crime than have a treatment centre that acknowledges the fact that there is a problem. This stupid, selfish attitude is driven by property-price anxiety.  If they want to sell up, they can always pray that there won't be too many crackheads around when potential buyers come to view the property. Drug problem? What drug problem?


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 9, 2005)

There have been many very heated arguments on these boards in the past about the use of the term yuppie, what it means, is it prejudiced (  ) , etc.

OK, here's a working definition. A yuppie is somebody who deliberately and selfishly works to prevent the drugs/crime situation in the town centre from being improved -- and drug users being given a chance to sort themselves out -- because they are afraid of the effect on their property price. It's not about income, career or property ownership; it's about social responsibility.

If I was Anna Key -- and I'm not  -- I would say the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens nimbies are the ones who are tormenting the central Brixton community.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What it really boils down to, as Bob touches on, is people wilfully burying their heads in the sand. They would rather have a worse situation with uncontrolled drug use/crime than have a treatment centre that acknowledges the fact that there is a problem. This stupid, selfish attitude is driven by property-price anxiety.


NO, IT IS NOT! I have pointed this out many times, but people seem to have buried their heads in the sand - the vast majority of the people who have concerns IME, are council tenants with families. Capisce?

To address your other points, surely a drug treatment cnetre makes people better, therefore any problems associated with drug dependence, such as theft and violence would lessen? It's not rocket science. Anyway, as far as needles in playgrounds goes, I can't really see how much worse it could get than it is now, so think people's concerns are, while understandable, misplaced: you fix a problem by fixing the cause of it, rather than moving it somewhere else.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> OK, here's a working definition. A yuppie is somebody who deliberately and selfishly works to prevent the drugs/crime situation in the town centre from being improved -- and drug users being given a chance to sort themselves out -- because they are afraid of the effect on their property price. It's not about income, career or property ownership; it's about social responsibility.


I doubt you would find that definition in the dictionary. Anyway, get with the programme, it's not just property owners who have concerns with social problems in their area and these people are not just worried about prices - despite what you may think this is not the be all and end all when it comes to NIMBYism!


----------



## Bob (Nov 9, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> There have been many very heated arguments on these boards in the past about the use of the term yuppie, what it means, is it prejudiced (  ) , etc.
> 
> OK, here's a working definition. A yuppie is somebody who deliberately and selfishly works to prevent the drugs/crime situation in the town centre from being improved -- and drug users being given a chance to sort themselves out -- because they are afraid of the effect on their property price. It's not about income, career or property ownership; it's about social responsibility.
> 
> If I was Anna Key -- and I'm not  -- I would say the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens nimbies are the ones who are tormenting the central Brixton community.



IS - I think you're wrong here. This really isn't about property prices. 

I understand the unease of the Brighton Terrace residents - I think they are wrong but I can understand anyone being suspicious of Lambeth council given Lambeth's history. However I think the extra street warden, lighting, fixed doors & gates plus treatment for current local drug users that will lower crime.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 9, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> To address your other points, surely a drug treatment cnetre makes people better, therefore any problems associated with drug dependence, such as theft and violence would lessen? It's not rocket science. Anyway, as far as needles in playgrounds goes, I can't really see how much worse it could get than it is now, so think people's concerns are, while understandable, misplaced: you fix a problem by fixing the cause of it, rather than moving it somewhere else.


 Is that directed at me? In which case, why? It bears no relation to anything I've said.

Oh, and are you suggesting that the objectors are exclusively council tenants, not Trinity Gardens property owners?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 9, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I doubt you would find that definition in the dictionary.


Well, we could always alter the Wikipedia definition...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Is that directed at me? In which case, why? It bears no relation to anything I've said.


I was agreeing with your other points ("Does anybody have any evidence at all that drug treatment centres increase local incidence of theft from vehicles, etc?" and "They would rather have a worse situation with uncontrolled drug use/crime than have a treatment centre that acknowledges the fact that there is a problem.")



			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh, and are you suggesting that the objectors are exclusively council tenants, not Trinity Gardens property owners?


No, but I live on the Brighton Terrace estate and the literature coming through my door voicing concerns about the centre are exclusively from the Tenants' Association - there are many more households in the estate than the twenty odd private houses that comprise the rest of Trinity Gardens


----------



## netbob (Nov 9, 2005)

Regardless of whether it's true or not, I dont think the house price argument is one that can be used in favour of the centre. Those against will always be able to cite examples of people on the estate or under private landlords who support them.


----------



## pooka (Nov 9, 2005)

I think in a debate such as this, there's little milage generally in assigning base motives to one side or the other of the argument - it's not the best way to win friends and influence people. On balance, the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents have reasonable concerns and are probably no more or less nimbyist or concerned about house prices than any other locality would be. 

Which is entirely the point. Virtually anywhere in Brixton would elicit the same passionately and sincerely felt feelings. That's why we have a planning process, ultimately arbitrated by elected representatives, to balance the interests of the immediate locality against that of the greater good. Otherwise, we'd never have any motorways, hospitals, schools, power stations...whatever...built.

ANd why, therefore, it is so disappointing that the greater good was not represented by our elected representatives at the Planning Committee and that the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads. Small wonder only about a quarter of those registered to vote in Lambeth elections bother to turn out.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 9, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> I think in a debate such as this, there's little milage generally in assigning base motives to one side or the other of the argument - it's not the best way to win friends and influence people.


Of course not. But we're not trying to win the argument here. I think there is an element of nimbyism and I think it sucks. Of course one cannot and would not say: ''You are a yuppie/nimby". The answer is "So what? I have the same democratic rights as you and I will exercise them." It's all too easy to approve of a drug treatment centre on somebody else's street. 





> And why, therefore, it is so disappointing that the greater good was not represented by our elected representatives at the Planning Committee and that the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads. Small wonder only about a quarter of those registered to vote in Lambeth elections bother to turn out.


 Let's not forget also that there are elections in May. Every decision being made by our elected representatives will be increasingly influenced by that in the run-up to the elections. Not that they would ever admit it.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 9, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads


I would pay to watch this.


----------



## netbob (Nov 9, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Every decision being made by our elected representatives will be increasingly influenced by that in the run-up to the elections. Not that they would ever admit it.



Yep. Although judging by the petition there are many more people (all with votes) in favour than against. 167 at the last count.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 9, 2005)

The political parties will be looking at this in terms of publicity. The risk of bad publicity from railroading through a drug centre far outweighs the potential for good publicity from the same in the run-up to an election. The SLP has a significant influence and it's not exactly liberal. Not to mention what nationals such as the Mail might make of it. Junkies = evil is a much simpler message to get across than junkies = vulnerable people who deserve help.


----------



## netbob (Nov 9, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> The political parties will be looking at this in terms of publicity. The risk of bad publicity from railroading through a drug centre far outweighs the potential for good publicity from the same in the run-up to an election. The SLP has a significant influence and it's not exactly liberal. Not to mention what nationals such as the Mail might make of it. Junkies = evil is a much simpler message to get across than junkies = vulnerable people who deserve help.



I agree, adn it'll be interesting to see if SLP run with a scaremonger style story or not. I think the best publicity we can get is 'councillors = sitting on the fence' (with a couple of exceptions). There is a big hole in their argument if they fail to nominate their prefered locations, which few will do because it will cost them votes in the areas they nominate.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 11, 2005)

*Drug Centre*

There seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy on both the residents of brigthon terrace and the local politicians. Whether both parties ackwnoledge this or not, there is already a rampant drug problem in the Brixton area. I simply cannot see how placing a drug centre strategically (and conveniently for the recipients of the service) in the heart of Brixton can exhacerbate the problem. On the contrary, a drug centre located in the middle of the area where the 'problem' is occurring would certainly address it. At the planning permission the Brighton Terrace residents have vociferously admitted that their area is blighted by drug users and discarded needles. Having a drug centre on their street would undoubtedly address their concerns (unless they prefer to have sadomasotistically the same problem perpetuated ad infinitum). 

The fact that the police have pledged better suirveillance, with outreach workers and police patrolling the area, would certainly increase safety. The council's pledge (and they must come good on this) for better lighting and security on the estates and properties is another added bonus. 

The bottom line is that drug use always evokes emotive and irrational responses, particularly from the media and the government, who never fail in portraying and demonising drug users as sub-standard third rate imbecile citizens. Lest we forget, these 'drug crazed imbecile' individuals are people and they could be your sister, brother, mother, father, friend, colleague, partner etc. 

I also suspect that the private owners of trinity gardens and brighton terrace have the ulterior motive of fearing their properties devalued. The councillors against the proposal have the usual motive of losing precious votes for their vain political  careers. Isn't the ultimate role of councillors to provide the best service for the 'whole' community in the wide borough, rather than the needs of few (privileged) individuals? Yes, I know, I am still the rather naive individual person that I have been most of my life.

As a Lambeth resident of more than twelve years, I have signed the petition because I believe that a whole community must stand together to resolve whatever problem arises in their area. Placing the drug centre in hidden places would be a great disservice not only to needy drug users, but also placing heads firmly in the sand in the face of a problem that will not go away (not with the unenlightened drug policies adopted by our governments). 

I welcome and will support to the full the drug centre proposed. Ultimately it will bring great benefits to both the residents and the recipients of this much needed service. Brixton should applaud SLAM NHS for having proposed such a service in the heart of Brixton. They are offering help and all they are getting are insults.


----------



## happyshopper (Nov 11, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> ... a drug centre located in the middle of the area where the 'problem' is occurring would certainly address it. At the planning permission the Brighton Terrace residents have vociferously admitted that their area is blighted by drug users and discarded needles. Having a drug centre on their street would undoubtedly address their concerns (unless they prefer to have sadomasotistically the same problem perpetuated ad infinitum) .



The proposed centre is nothing to do with the problems from chaotic drug-users and discarded needles that the people who live in Brighton Terrace have to deal with. It is a Lambeth-wide service for people who have volunteered for treatment who cannot get treatment from a more local GP. Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up. 





			
				Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> I also suspect that the private owners of trinity gardens and brighton terrace have the ulterior motive of fearing their properties devalued.



As has already been explained on this thread and is obvious to anyone who has actually walked down Brighton Terrace, most of the immediate area consists of a council estate and other social housing. To the extent that there is any local acceptance of the centre it is found more among the post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens, than it is among the tenants of Brighton Terrace. The idea that it's really all about property values simply cannot fly.


----------



## Bob (Nov 11, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> The proposed centre is nothing to do with the problems from chaotic drug-users and discarded needles that the people who live in Brighton Terrace have to deal with. It is a Lambeth-wide service for people who have volunteered for treatment who cannot get treatment from a more local GP. Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.



Surely you'd accept though that there are more chaotic drug users in Brixton than elsewhere in the borough? And so there are probably more that cannot get the right treatment from their GP?


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 11, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> The proposed centre is nothing to do with the problems from chaotic drug-users and discarded needles that the people who live in Brighton Terrace have to deal with. It is a Lambeth-wide service for people who have volunteered for treatment who cannot get treatment from a more local GP. Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.
> 
> 
> 
> As has already been explained on this thread and is obvious to anyone who has actually walked down Brighton Terrace, most of the immediate area consists of a council estate and other social housing. To the extent that there is any local acceptance of the centre it is found more among the post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens, than it is among the tenants of Brighton Terrace. The idea that it's really all about property values simply cannot fly.



Most drug users who attend GP surgery for treatment, do so only if they are in touch with drug services. Many GPs prescribe to drug users in Lambeth, but they, rightly, would not be able to cope or deal with their patients unless they attend a supportive drug centre. Hence the proposed centre in Brighton Terrace. Easily accessible to everyone.

As for the latter part of your response, I disagree with you. The loudest voices against the proposed centre in Brighton Terrace came from the "post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens", as you describe them.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 11, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> The loudest voices against the proposed centre in Brighton Terrace came from the "post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens", as you describe them.


Interesting. 

But don't discriminate against the poor yuppies. They are dreadfully  oppressed, you know.


----------



## Bob (Nov 11, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> I think in a debate such as this, there's little milage generally in assigning base motives to one side or the other of the argument - it's not the best way to win friends and influence people. On balance, the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents have reasonable concerns and are probably no more or less nimbyist or concerned about house prices than any other locality would be.
> 
> Which is entirely the point. Virtually anywhere in Brixton would elicit the same passionately and sincerely felt feelings. That's why we have a planning process, ultimately arbitrated by elected representatives, to balance the interests of the immediate locality against that of the greater good. Otherwise, we'd never have any motorways, hospitals, schools, power stations...whatever...built.
> 
> ANd why, therefore, it is so disappointing that the greater good was not represented by our elected representatives at the Planning Committee and that the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads. Small wonder only about a quarter of those registered to vote in Lambeth elections bother to turn out.



Such a good post that I think it's worth repeating.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 11, 2005)

I think it's great that this thread has persuaded so many people to join Urban75. (All on the "side of the angels", _bien sur_)

The new poster (whose name eludes me) has merely taken an opposite point of view on all the gambles so I don't have any new response. Great debate though.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 12, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> But don't discriminate against the poor yuppies. They are dreadfully  oppressed, you know.



God, no, I wouldn't want to be so politically incorrect. Apologies for the obvious omission.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 12, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob (Nov 12, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I think it's great that this thread has persuaded so many people to join Urban75. (All on the "side of the angels", _bien sur_)
> 
> The new poster (whose name eludes me) has merely taken an opposite point of view on all the gambles so I don't have any new response. Great debate though.



Snap. I hope that whatever the decision we can continue to get everyone who has got involved with this involved with other local projects.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Quoting from Louloubelle post

"I used to work at a project affiliated with a DDU and needle exhange, both of which had premises within a 2 minute walk of my office in a hospital.

Everyone in the hospital was extremely careful about leaving stuff in their car as there were lots of break ins. Perhaps it's the same everywhere, but to us it felt like an area where many of the addicts couldn't resist stealing stuff if it was there, so people were extra vigilant.

Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange)."

This is an interesting point and I think this is the fear that most Brighton Terrace residents have.

It has been raised in two different public meetings, one the Planning Application Committee on the 6th Sept, where the motion to grant the planning application fell, and again at the CPCG meeting on the 1st November. The vast majority of opposition focuses on this really dumb idea to put a needle exchange for the entire borough right in the heart of drug dealer capital of the area. This is quite simply a silly idea. Talk about making Brixton a one stop shop!!.    

I have to go back to person who quoted from the official guidelines in siting such a centre.  I cant believe that no-one has commented on the obvious

"A suitable location for a service will depend on exactly what service is to be offered and how it will be used… Locating drug service in an area with an active drug market may put your service users at risk"

Considering this advice, I repeat whats being proposed - a needle exchange for chaotic drug users who are NOT in treatment, less than 60 seconds from main drug trade?? If this doesn’t constitute a risk I don’t know what does.  A non residential drug treatment centre may seem like a good idea, but some of the arguments on this thread see to be very misguided in the belief that having one with a needle exchange will lessen the problem of chaotic drug users in the area, if they are coming here from all around the borough to get clean needles so they can carry-on using..

Is it really such an enormous leap of the imagination to see how this would end up.??

It is SLaMs refusal to even acknowledge this significant concern, amongst others, that is generating so much distrust amongst local residents.I want to make that clear.  For the residents, the argument must at least be considered. To dismiss it outright, is arrogant, naïve, and downright stupid.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

I'll ask again - has the needle exchange at The Harbour at Loughborough Junction led to more problems in the area?


----------



## netbob (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> "A suitable location for a service will depend on exactly what service is to be offered and how it will be used… Locating drug service in an area with an active drug market may put your service users at risk"



As I understand it the groups representing the service users for the centre are in favour of this site, including the ex user who spoke in favour at the CPCG meeting as well as several posts on this thread. Also as I read the guidelines, user safety is a consideration to be taken into account, not a defacto reason for refusal. Since the service users have been consulted and are in favour, is this still and issue?




			
				JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> Considering this advice, I repeat whats being proposed - a needle exchange for chaotic drug users who are NOT in treatment, less than 60 seconds from main drug trade?? If this doesn’t constitute a risk I don’t know what does.  A non residential drug treatment centre may seem like a good idea, but some of the arguments on this thread see to be very misguided in the belief that having one with a needle exchange will lessen the problem of chaotic drug users in the area, if they are coming here from all around the borough to get clean needles so they can carry-on using..



This is precisely why a needle exchange is needed. I don’t know about you, but I regularly see disguarded needles and other drug paraphernalia lying around on the streets of brixton. A needle exchange is surely the best way of removing such items from circulation. It also exposes people to treatment services.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> As I understand it the groups representing the service users for the centre are in favour of this site, including the ex user who spoke in favour at the CPCG meeting as well as several posts on this thread...Since the service users have been consulted and are in favour, is this still and issue?.



Regardless of who wants it, there is are SERIOUS CONCERNS in the local area about the impact a NEEDLE EXCHANGE will have. This is a specific concern to do with the needle exchange, not the entire centre itself.  And those who live close by are, rightly in my opinion dismayed that their concerns are not being listened to or dealt with properly. Instead what happens is exactly what you've done here. There is a real tendency to glaze over the argument, or absorb it into another one, or sideline it altogether, in exactly this way. 

There is undisputable evidence from existing centres including the one in Camden that such need exchanges do cause serious issues.  SLaM have not been able to disprove this, and this is one of the reasons the PAC comittee were not convinced by SLaM's insistence and that Brighton Terrace is a suitable location. It appears that they hadn't really thought this kind of thing through.




			
				memespring said:
			
		

> Also as I read the guidelines, user safety is a consideration to be taken into account, not a defacto reason for refusal



Precisely. Safety does need to be taken into account. These guidelines exist for a reason. They arent abstact. Just because they're not statutory, it doesnt mean they can or should be ignored. This is pretty arrogant of SLaM  who seem to override such advice. Talking to local opposers, this kind of arrogance is what they have seen a great deal of, and are very concerned about in relation to the behaviour of project sponsors in general, who insist they know best, and that their view in this should override everything else.

I have been to some of the local meetings and there is evidence, albeit anecdotal. that SLaMs isnt managing what are legit concerns and worries from the BT Community in a constructuve way. They tend to simply deny residents their right to have such concerns.  What residents see as at stake is not just the safety of the users, but also the safety of those who live in immediate surroundings.




			
				memespring said:
			
		

> This is precisely why a needle exchange is needed. I don’t know about you, but I regularly see disguarded needles and other drug paraphernalia lying around on the streets of brixton. A needle exchange is surely the best way of removing such items from circulation. It also exposes people to treatment services.



No, sorry - but there are already two big outdoor medical waste disposal bins in prominent locations in Bernays Grove and Brighton Terrace. And they havent thus far proved the effectiveness of the claim that such facilities reduce the problem. If you want an indication of whether a needle exchange will clean up the area,  look at the impact these have had already on the current 'local' problem. I.E. None whatsoever.  

Its also an interesting point to note that sponsors of the project have been remarkably quiet about the existence of these facilities, because, if you scrutinise it, the evidence is not good. On the Planning Application Committee meeting of Sept 6th, they even tried to deny their existence all together. This was a rather awkward moment. Now this could just have been deliberately duplicitous, or it could have been a mistake, or lack of awareness. Even if it is the latter, it further underlines the claims of local residents that the people who want to try to force this centre through are not at all in touch with the specific characteristics of Brigthon Terrace, which is another one of their complaints.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Moving on...

Something that Bob said in response to Louloubelle's first hand and largely negative experince of what happens at a similar project:


Louloubelle - "Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange)."

Bob (in response) - "The Stockwell Project (which treats heroin users among others) is the closest example we have of how the centre will work - and it is currently thought by residents in Stockwell not to cause problems - and this is why the 'Stockwell Partnership' has specifically written to support the Brighton Terrace centre. I can't speak for the place that Louloubelle worked at but it seems to me that the Stockwell Project is the closest example we have of what will happen..."


Bob. This is almost exactly the standard line that has been heard from the project sponsors at the public meetings.  Its possible that you are not an independent commentator on this?  If so, I think people on this forum should know exactly what your connection, and subsequently what your interests are. Do you have an affiliation to SLaM or one of the other bodies?

Lets just be honest about it and say that stockwell project is actually very different to the one poposed on Brigthon Terrace

It must be said that one of the reasons why the Stockwell project has been able to operate with apparent success is because of its scale. Its really small.  
Another, is that its located on a busy main road (the A3) not tucked away on a residential side street, litterally, with the entrance to a childrens playground less than a 10 second walk away. 
The proposed centre on B.T. is much much MUCH bigger and is that close to actively used childrens play facilities.

One could argue that a strategy of several smaller centres dotted around the area is currently and demostrably a successful one, based on evidence to date. If this is working, why do SLaM feel it necessary to deviate from this proven strategy in favour of a much larger centralised project that is unprecidented and largely experimental. It doesn’t demonstrate strategic thinking. Surely the intelligent thing to do is 'go with what you KNOW' 

The real effects of a much much bigger proposed centre would have on the residents of the Brighton Terrance area cannot be known or predicted, because quite simply nothing else like it exists in a such a setting.

The stockwell project also doesn’t have a needle exchange, so I'm really amazed at your suggestion that "the Stockwell Project is the closest example we have of what will happen".  I'm afraid that’s just not true! It's fundamentally different in this respect. Again, it really glazes over what is one of the principal concerns of the residents in the inclusion of the needle exchange in the proposal.  And this is exactly the kind of thing that has caused them to loose trust and confidence of those behind the scheme. They dont like the way SLaM seems to want to at best downplay, at worst deceive people about this.

I have to say, I really can understand what they're worried about, when i read such responses


----------



## Bob (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> *Bob. This is almost exactly the standard line that has been heard from the project sponsors at the public meetings.  Its possible that you are not an independent commentator on this?  If so, I think people on this forum should know exactly what your connection, and subsequently what your interests are. Do you have an affiliation to SLaM or one of the other bodies?*
> 
> Lets just be honest about it and say that stockwell project is actually very different to the one poposed on Brigthon Terrace
> 
> ...



Simple answer - no I don't have any affiliation to the council, SLAM, or police - I've just read the various briefings - for anyone else who wants to the links are on the mybrixton website. 

As many people on Urban know, and I've posted in one way or another a reasonable number of times, I know and support a number of the Lib Dem councillors in Lambeth. But that's nothing to do with my support for this project - indeed most of the people involved in the petition etc. are explicitly not Lib Dems. 

Am I right in summarising your objections as the following?:
1. The needle exchange
2. The size relative to the Stockwell project
3. The location not being on a main road?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee - can you point to another needle exchange service in the area that _has_ led to the problems you are worried about?


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> JayDee - can you point to another needle exchange service in the area that _has_ led to the problems you are worried about?



Conversely, can you point to one that hasnt?

I dont have first hand evidence of every needle exchange in London!  I know people who live nearby the Camden one so i have first hand experience of this.

I also made specific reference to louloubelles quote that echoes more or less my experience.

*"I used to work at a project affiliated with a DDU and needle exhange, both of which had premises within a 2 minute walk of my office in a hospital.

Everyone in the hospital was extremely careful about leaving stuff in their car as there were lots of break ins. Perhaps it's the same everywhere, but to us it felt like an area where many of the addicts couldn't resist stealing stuff if it was there, so people were extra vigilant.

Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange)."*

I dont think it matters if the centre is in the area or not. My point is that its irresponsible of those behind this proposal to simply dismiss the idea that there will be problems - out of hand.

From what the local residents are telling me, and from what I've seem myself of the public meetings this seems to be what they've tried to do.

Instead, there should be a proper Independent Environmental Impact Assesment study on this to get more information, and real contingengcies for what happens if things go wrong.  This would be the responsible thing to do for EVERYONE involved, but those behind the application have not done so.

If other council can do this, why cant ours??
Its a novell concept called being socially responsible.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Am I right in summarising your objections as the following?:
> 1. The needle exchange
> 2. The size relative to the Stockwell project
> 3. The location not being on a main road?



I'm merely stating that there are enough differences between the current Stockwell Project and the proposed one on Brighton Terrace as to make it innaproprate to compare them 'like for like' in these discussions. A device thats often used in these discussions. Its misleading. The fact that it's not close to a widespread and open drug dealership similar to the one of Brixton Town, is yet another distinction.

My real issue is one of how those behind the planning application have really messed up, by doing what is essentially 'the minumum' required of them, rather than whats actually required of them to address concerns local residents would obviously have.

rubbishing them and labelling them as NIMBY's doesnt really do that. Its just insulting.

I do think residents in the IMMEDIATE vicinity have lots of genuine concerns fears worries etc about what happens if you put such a massive centre with a needle exchange in a quiet little area like Brighton Terrace, and based on what i've seen at the public meetings, the responses to these concerns have been less than satisfactory, SLaM (et al.) havent really demonstrated a willingness to really engage with them and take them seriously. 

At the CPCG meeting there was even a denial by someone speaking on behalf of SLaM that Brighton Terrace is even a residential street!  This elicited quite an angry response if I recall, but I'm hardly surprised.  I wonder how any of us would react if we were told we have no real right to object, because we don’t really have a right to exist!


----------



## clive diedrick (Nov 14, 2005)

*Stockwell project*

The stockwell project is by far the most used service in london.It has a very good needle ex,and even better staff.A lot of great work is being done there and for no thanks,the move to Brighton Terrace would be good for all of us,you me and the dog next door, so what are we going to do,wake up people and get down to the project and sign up.People Power.

The Co-chair Stockwell Project user Group.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

clive diedrick said:
			
		

> The stockwell project is by far the most used service in london.It has a very good needle ex,and even better staff.The manager is a bit of a tit but you cant have the lot.A lot of great work is being done there and for no thanks,the move to Brighton Terrace would be good for all of us,you me and the dog next door, so what are we going to do,wake up people and get down to the project and sign up.People Power.
> 
> The Co-chair Stockwell Project user Group.



I dont doubt it. Really clive. I don't - though i was under the impression there was currently NO needle exchange operating at the stockwell project. 

While i dont doubt peoples good intentions, I do seriously doubt SLaM, Lambeth and the PCT's approach to this particular planning application. They just havent handled themselves properly. There have been many failures on their behalf. 

I think that the residents of Brighton Terrace did deserved to be consulted BEFORE the planning application went in in February rather than a month later in March. This sort of behaviour doesnt look good, and does appear extremely arrogant.  If they'd done only this, then it would have gone some way to allay their fears that there concerns arent being listened to. Talk about SLaM shooting themselves in the foot!!

I think they also deserve some independent assesments, environmental studies etc... to evaluate potential impact on the area, seeing as how they are being asked to live alongside this Centre for a VERY long time to come.

They cant just take SLaM's word for it, or the words of others in support of it. Those of you who dont really understand their conerns- consider if its wise to accept such a large centre purely on trust of the words from 'interested' parties alone; and without lots of independent information to back it up?

Especially when the orgs who promote themselves as trustworthy have demonstrated a propensity for ignorance.

It doesnt really matter how much support there is. Support alone isnt really the issue.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> Conversely, can you point to one that hasnt?
> .



Eh?  You're claiming that a needle exchange on Brighton Terrace will cause problems.  I'm asking you to look at comparable schemes in the area and how they handle any problems (if any).


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Eh?  You're claiming that a needle exchange on Brighton Terrace will cause problems.  I'm asking you to look at comparable schemes in the area and how they handle any problems (if any).



You want ME to look at it. I'm hardly in best position to do that

This is precisely the reason why an independent assesment should be, and should have been already carried out. To gather INDEPENDENT evidence and answer questions like this in the correct context

You've made my point for me. Thankyou.


----------



## netbob (Nov 14, 2005)

Doesnt this all come back to the same thing though? Everyone agrees the centre is needed. It will have to go somewhere, but where ever it does end up people a re going to find reasons to object. All of Brixton is residential or near a school etc etc. The longer the wrangling goes on, the more Brixton suffers the consiquences of untreated drug use and users go untreated.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> You want ME to look at it. I'm hardly in best position to do that



Well you're the one asserting that it will cause problems.  I'm just wondering on what you base that opinion.




			
				JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> This is precisely the reason why an independent assesment should be, and should have been already carried out. To gather INDEPENDENT evidence and answer questions like this in the correct context
> 
> You've made my point for me. Thankyou.



Who would carry the assessment out?


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Doesnt this all come back to the same thing though? Everyone agrees the centre is needed. It will have to go somewhere, but where ever it does end up people a re going to find reasons to object. All of Brixton is residential or near a school etc etc. The longer the wrangling goes on, the more Brixton suffers the consiquences of untreated drug use and users go untreated.



No it doesnt - And there goes another distillation what are very serious issues.  

It must be acknowledged that any failure or delay is the fault of those who cocked up the planning process in the first place. BT residents shouldnt be marginalised or bear the brunt of the risks associated with this.

Especially when, even at this late stage and with all thats been said in 'this meeting' and 'that meeting' I'm being told that the residents concerns are still not being addressed directly by SLaM

I think its dangerous to take this stance as you have. The fact that you describe it as 'wrangling' demonstrates that you too can trivialise the concerns of those immediately surrounding the centre. They do exist, they are real, there are lots of them and they do need to be addressed.

really consider how you're not really thinking about this from the residents point of view. Some of them there really do want to believe this will work. The picture thats painted of them on this forum is really really innacurate. It borders on the personally insulting. Anyone can do that, in any argument. Hardly intelligent!

All they expect is that those who are charged with sponsoring this kind of scheme would act properly under the circumstances. They havent. 

These are your neighbours - they HAVE legitimate gripes. They arent just being obstructive for of the sake of it.

its really sad that this is going on.  It divides the community. Its a shame and it could all have been avoided.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Who would carry the assessment out?



Dont you think these questions should have been asked before anyone went NEAR the planning application process???

Fact is - in other instances of centres like this, in other boroughs - studies like this ARE carried out before they're applied for. Its in everyones interests to do so.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> And there goes another distillation what are very serious issues.


Nothing wrong with applying Ockham's Razor. Especially where Lambeth are concerned. They can lay down a smokescreen like the Battleship Potemkin.

I must say, I find it refreshing the way memespring and nipsla have been actually _doing something_ in the neighbourhood, rather than sitting around going "_it's all so complicated_".


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> Dont you think these questions should have been asked before anyone went NEAR the planning application process???
> 
> Fact is - in other instances of centres like this, in other boroughs - studies like this ARE carried out before they're applied for. Its in everyones interests to do so.



I'm asking you who you think should carry the assesment out.  Who does it in other boroughs?


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with applying Ockham's Razor. Especially where Lambeth are concerned.




That depends entirely if you're the one being cut by it.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

What happens in other boroughs that hasn't happened in this case?


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> Especially when, even at this late stage and with all thats been said in 'this meeting' and 'that meeting' I'm being told that the residents concerns are still not being addressed directly by SLaM
> 
> I think its dangerous to take this stance as you have. The fact that you describe it as 'wrangling' demonstrates that you too can trivialise the concerns of those immediately surrounding the centre. They do exist, they are real, there are lots of them and they do need to be addressed.
> 
> ...



Thanks for putting it accross Its true, we have had to fight tooth and nail to get even the smallest possibility of concession to mitigate the risks. And these still only remain possibilites. Nothing concrete. Nothing concrete about improved street lighting, improved police presence, inproved surveilance  Understand that these measures are needed NOW, not conditionally on building a drug treatment centre. Looking at this forum anyone would think these were all guarantees but they arent.

They have also offered - again nothing concrete - their suggestion to barricade us all into our dwellings for our own protection.  Why offer to do this at all if they are so determined there wont be any problems associated with the centre. It doesn’t follow.

And i want to talk about this idea of a community safety warden. I think it was bob that said something about there being a street warden during the opening hours of the centre specifically allocated to brighton terrace - increasing the presence visibility of anti crime measures.

WHAT???? pfffff

They wont be a Police Officer, or even Community Support Police officer. They will ultimately have a job spec similar to that of the security guard at Woolworths. They wont have any kind of law enforcement mandate.  They will have no more power, no more impact than the local traffic wardens. And there are several of those working brighton terrace at any one time just to deal with the parking problem.  One 'community-not-really-sure-what-I'm-doing-here-warden' cant cover the whole street with all its myriad of hiding places, if people want to score or shoot up there they'll be able to do it regardless of this presence. We already have CCTV and this makes absolutely no difference.  I've seen dealers on Brighton Terrace go after the wardens with baseball bats. What are they going to do, when the trouble starts exactly>?


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What happens in other boroughs that hasn't happened in this case?



independent assesments. I already said that.

If you're asking me who does them i'll need to get info from one of the BT residents who has investigated this issue more fully.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> independent assesments. I already said that.
> 
> If you're asking me who does them i'll need to get info from one of the BT residents who has investigated this issue more fully.



I'm wondering what you wanted to happen that didn't in this case.  I'm also wondering if you can point to an example where the assessment was carried out correctly in your opinion.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Thanks for putting it accross Its true, we have had to fight tooth and nail to get even the smallest possibility of concession to mitigate the risks. And these still only remain possibilites. Nothing concrete. Nothing concrete about improved street lighting, improved police presence, inproved surveilance  Understand that these measures are needed NOW, not conditionally on building a drug treatment centre. Looking at this forum anyone would think these were all guarantees but they arent.
> 
> They have also offered - again nothing concrete - their suggestion to barricade us all into our dwellings for our own protection.  Why offer to do this at all if they are so determined there wont be any problems associated with the centre. It doesn’t follow.
> 
> ...




What makes you think there will be trouble?  Can you point to another needle exchange service in the area that has brought trouble?  I've asked this a few times now and it seems no one can.  I understand your concerns, but they appear to be based on nothing concrete.


----------



## netbob (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> really consider how you're not really thinking about this from the residents point of view. Some of them there really do want to believe this will work.
> 
> its really sad that this is going on.  It divides the community. Its a shame and it could all have been avoided.



If there are residents who do want it to work, what do you think would neeed to be be extracted from the council to convince them? 

If BT residents came up with a list of redline issues, but were happy for it to go ahead on that site, they would probably get alot of support.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What makes you think there will be trouble?  Can you point to another needle exchange service in the area that has brought trouble?  I've asked this a few times now and it seems no one can.  I understand your concerns, but they appear to be based on nothing concrete.


Allow me. I have made reference to my specific experience of the camden one, which is directly comparable to the proposed one on Brighton Terrace. 

I have also quoted LouLouBelle directly with her experience of what happens close to such centres. again - in her direct experience.

I'd say thats a good indication in itself that problems of increased crime - thefts, break-ins and dealing can occur around such centres. 

Is that not enough to even open your eyes to the possibility??
Or dont you consider increased crime thefts break-ins and street dealing as problems?

I'm starting to think that what people are really excited about it the possibility the the whole problem may be displaced to brighton terrace, Out of sight, out of mind.  Great for everyone else. Bad for the residents of this neighborhood.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

I notice you haven't actually answered my question.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> I'm starting to think that what people are really excited about it the possibility the the whole problem may be displaced to brighton terrace, Out of sight, out of mind.  Great for everyone else. Bad for the residents of this neighborhood.



Yes, that's entirely right.  I'm a NIMBY just like you.   


that was sarcasm by the way


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I notice you haven't actually answered my question.



I have answered it as closely as possible. I cant point to one in the area, because I dont have specific experience of the harbour project, though i will certainly be looking into this.

But you're sidelining again.

I repeat, from my own experience of the Camden one, and from Louloubelles post, taking these two, and ONLY these two things as an example, you HAVE to consider the possibility that putting a needle exchange that will be used by people from the whole borough, who wont be in ANY kind of treatment program of any kind, and doing so RIGHT NEXT to the drug dealer capital of London has its risks.

And no-one of the sponsors are really dealing with this. The police response as i heard first hand was to simply deny that any 'hard' drug dealing happens on the surrounding streets at all. Honestly - thats what they said! Ridiculous and wholly untrue.

Wishing it wasnt there, doesnt mean it isnt there, and doesnt mean that dealer wont be rubbing their hands with glee at the possibility of this fresh new clientelle arriving in their droves from all over Lambeth. It will further entrench the dealer problem, which local law enforcement seem unable to police.

Some residents of brighton terrace have told me some really scary stories about what has happened when THEY have tried to move dealers on. Of how they've been watched and followed, intimidated etc... 

Its their current experience that seems to inform them of what may come. And to say that the dealer problem will magically dissappear because of this proposed centre with its needle exchange, is naive for the reasons I've already stated.  There will be more chaotic drug users attracted to the area that arent interested in getting treatment, they're only interested in getting clean needles so they can carry on using.

As such I think the residents are justified that Brighton Terrace is a perfact place, peacefull, really full of hiding places, where users can buy and take their gear.  A 'possible' community safety 'warden' even if they actiually materialised, is not guarantee of preventing that.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 14, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, that's entirely right.  I'm a NIMBY just like you.
> 
> 
> that was sarcasm by the way



of course. Thats obvious
How neighbourly of you.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 14, 2005)

There often seems to be an assumption that if people are in treatment, that's it - they're cured. This is a myth perpetuated by SLaM who do seem to have a great deal of supporters on this forum. 

However there are failures of drug treatment programmes that are not insignificant. These failures have an impact putting these people straight back into the cycle. If drug treatment centres fail at all, then they have to be demonstrated to be able to fail in the safest way possible and not in a way that will exacerbate social issues in the immediate surrounding.  A quiet residential street is not a suitable location for such failures to occur despite its proximity to the tube, if the siting of a treatment centre increases the risks to residents, in terms of health, crime, loss of use of local ameneties, and increased antisocial behavour in the community which they work hard to create and sustain.

I know for a fact that prescribed methodone of treatment centres can become another substance to be traded on the streets,  I know this because I often find discarded methodone bottles alongside needles and faecese on the estates.  One of my neighbours took this up with SLaM with photographic evidence of the batch numbers printed on the bottles, citing it as evidence that people in treatment are not necessarily commited to getting clean. We were simply told that "the methodone originated from outside the borough" and that was it. They werent apprently willing to get involved in a deeper discussion about it, and what it might mean. Another fobb-off.

In every instance where substances are found in the street that originate from treatment programmes, this represents a failure of the programme. The numbers in which we  find them demonstrates that something is very very wrong and that no rationale of what would happen those who fail in their treatment so close to a drug dealer problem in the area has been considered.  

No one seems to be thinking the unthinkable. And somebody must. I'm sure we're all aware of all of the high profile cases of failures of care systems generally, where 'what couldnt happen'. actually did happen, resulting in more human tragedy.

Does this prove that SLaM and others are able to deal responsibly with the concerns of local residents? Does it prove that potential problems have been analysed and are fully understood, and that there are plans of how to deal with them? - I think not. It’s a clear case of denial of which there are so many.

Ignorance of the possible problems is all were seeing at this point. We have no confidence or trust in those who want to install this centre that they will ultimately act responsibly in dealing with any problems that MAY arise. This is based on our experience of trying to work with them to date. Denial that any problems would exist is one of their common tactics. Its not felt by residents that this tendency would improve any once the centre was built, in fact I believe they would be a lot worse. The centre would already be here. There simply would be no motivation for them to do anyhting other than deny knowledge, deny responsibility, and deny action. 

There have been specific cases where they have tried to whitewash certain issues rather than confront them and this is a big reason why we have lost all trust in them. 

Basically if you're going to have such a massive centre, you have to consider failure scenarios. Indeed you have to consider worst case scenarios. Otherwise, you're living in a dream world, crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

hardly realistic


----------



## netbob (Nov 15, 2005)

It sounds like you are suggesting there is no point trying to treat people at all? Agreed methadone prescription has its problems, but that isn’t a reason to discount all forms of treatment (along with the associated outreach and needle exchange facilities).

I also cant help thinking that the community safety issues that you hint at as possibly resulting from the centre (needles, dealing, intimidation etc) are already being experienced by a much larger proportion of Brixton partly because of a lack of treatment provision. 

Obviously the concerns of Brighton Terrace residents need to be taken seriously (accusations of NIMBYism don’t really move things on), and every last consestion should be squeezed out of the council in terms of addressing those concerns. But at the end of the day the centre has to go somewhere and the effects of not going ahead on the rest of town taken into account.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2005)

Just had this through my door:
Public Meeting: Proposed Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre, 12-14 Brighton Terrace

Following the Town Planning Application Committee's decision in September NOT TO GRANT planning permission for this centre in this inappropriate residential setting, the spectre of this proposal still haunts us.
It is felt by many that SLaM and the PCT in their arrogance will still try to force this centre upon us local residents, through duplicitous and underhand political tactics. The sponsors of this project have seriously failed themselves, the local community and ultimately their clients in the way they have conducted themselves during the planning application process.
They have refused at every opportunity to even acknowledge, let alone deal with the many and varied concerns of those who live in this quiet residential area and are still unable to provide us with evidence of a similar centre in a similar setting where serious community problems have not occurred as a result.
The local residents associations have decided to hold a public meeting for residents, to discuss what we do next in objecting to Brighton Terrace as a suitable location for this massive and largely 'experimental' project.

The details for this meeting are as follows:
Date - Thursday 17th
Time - 7.30pm
Location: Room 29, Brixton Town Hall (use main entrance)

We realise this is quite short notice, but time is against us. We may have as little as 2 weeks before the next meeting of the Planning Application Committee who will decide the fate of this area. *This is our last chance.*
We urge ALL local residents to attend, regardless of whether you have been involved in the process or not. The strength and validity of local oppostion is the only thing that has prevented this centre being approved so far.
Your presence and assistance WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
For the sake of our community, we must not allow SLaM to do what is clearly wrong. They must bo back to the drawing board, and onsever a proper and responsible process in finding a location that can be demonstrated as safe, appropriate, and suitable for such services, so they may be of benefit to the whole community.


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2005)

Incidentally JayDee2005 & BoxSurfer - welcome to the boards.   

Hopefully you'll stay involved with a) urban, b) the associated campaigns (not all Brighton terrace related) we're running on mybrixton. Have a look at them - they include lots of other things such as getting doorways that are used by crack users boarded up, reopening Bradys, getting rubbish cleared up quickly where it isn't - basically you can use mybrixton as a resource for what you want to do.

In terms of the centre would anything persuade either of you that it could be a good thing? I can't see that anywhere in Lambeth (let alone Brixton) will be non residential - there simply aren't such places in high density urban areas.

What sort of assurances from SLAM/Police/Council would reassure you? For instance how about a full time Community Support Officer?

I'm asking because I think in the long term there is likely to be a treatment centre in Brixton - because it makes more sense to have one where the biggest concentration of problem drug users in Lambeth is - and so we need to make whatever centre it is as positive as possible. Clearly the requirements put on the centre by the planning committee have some potential to make it better if planning permission is granted.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> Some residents of brighton terrace have told me some really scary stories about what has happened when THEY have tried to move dealers on. Of how they've been watched and followed, intimidated etc...
> 
> Its their current experience that seems to inform them of what may come.


 I am so glad I live in the safe environs of Rushcroft Road and not the drug torn warzone that is Brighton Terrace. 

Scary stories -- that's what this is all about, isn't it? Daily Mail style scaremongering backed up with no evidence. You have no logical reason to believe that a treatment centre will make things worse; all you have is your fevered imagination. 

For the 94th time, this is a facility that will be open during the day, minimising the risk to residents of crime/intimidation/etc. It will hold no interest for dealers or users at night because it will be shut up tight.

I work next door to what used to be a drug treatment centre. I never saw anybody hanging around when it was closed. In fact, I very rarely saw anyone hanging around when it was open. They would come and go in a quiet and orderly manner. And this is in a very expensive street in Hammersmith. No children got stabbed with needles. cars did not get broken into. In fact nothing bad happened at all.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

I used to work in a project in Croydon that had a needle exchange service.  We didn't have dealers hanging around.  I've never seen any hanging around whenever I've been to The Harbour either.


----------



## aurora green (Nov 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I am so glad I live in the safe environs of Rushcroft Road and not the drug torn warzone that is Brighton Terrace.



 Lol! I know what you mean, I'm glad I'm tucked away safely on my estate .
We _all_  deal with crime, and fear of crime around here, where ever we live, rich or poor.
Opposition to this much needed centre is just total nimbyism isn't it?


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Lol! I know what you mean, I'm glad I'm tucked away safely on my estate .
> We _all_  deal with crime, and fear of crime around here, where ever we live, rich or poor.
> Opposition to this much needed centre is just total nimbyism isn't it?




No - its not.

objections are many varied and justified. Your tendency to dismiss them out of hand is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour we have seen from SLaM and its really doesnt help.

As often stated here are some reasons

the fact that residents werent consulted on the proposal BEFORE the planning application went through. consultation started in mid march, the planning application went through in february.

The fact that no environmental impact assesment has been carried out. this has been done in other boroughs.

the presentation of the proposal as 'fait accomplis' - a done deal, BEFORE consultation with local residents

failure to present any reaslistic alternative sites. Most of those in the proposal really are so wholly unsuitable as to constitute 'padding out' of this document.  - further to this one other possible alternative site on acre lane (a main road) was dismissed as being to far away, based on an academic research paper on travel that was produced in the United States!

failure to deal in a satisfactory way with the many and varied issues/concerns/worries/fear of local residents. Whether others here beleive it or not, we have A RIGHT to have them, and a right to have them addressed.

the fact that Brighton terrace is a quiet little residential street - it isnt a thoroughfare of any kind and as such, and thus would be prone to loitering, increased street dealing, drug taking, possible crime and other antisocial issues, as well as the loss of use of local amenities such as the childrens playground.  The fact that no other centre exists that can be used to predict possible outcomes. Its the first of its kind. Its an experiment.

The tendency of SLaM to be economical with the truth about the proposed centre, where NO upper limits have been set as to numbers (this is categorical) would have ANY kind of detremental impact on the area. Indeed from our initial consultation we were deliberately decieved about the scale of this centre in terms of number of staff and numbers of projected service users. its literally DOUBLE the size that we were initially told.

i can go on....


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> the fact that Brighton terrace is a quiet little residential street - it isnt a thoroughfare of any kind


This is simply not true. It's a wide thoroughfare with large buildings that has always been pretty lairy. The opponents of this centre are simply burying their heads in the sand because a drug treatment centre would somehow make it ''official" that there is a problem, whereas now they can remain in denial about it, even though a treatment centre would improve quality of life for people not only in Brighton Terrace but also in the rest of central Brixton.

We suffer - and severely, almost every night  - because of your intransigence.

Despite the Ritzy gates being closed I was woken up sporadically all through the night by fighting crackheads again last night.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> It sounds like you are suggesting there is no point trying to treat people at all? Agreed methadone prescription has its problems, but that isn’t a reason to discount all forms of treatment (along with the associated outreach and needle exchange facilities).



I'm not at all. Please dont suggest that. I'm just saying that with drug treatment centres come a RISK of failures. And the risks and consequences of such failures need to be addressed as part of this plan.  Those behind this proposal are not being realistic on not dealing with such issues, which to date, they dont.




			
				memespring said:
			
		

> Obviously the concerns of Brighton Terrace residents need to be taken seriously (accusations of NIMBYism don’t really move things on), and every last consestion should be squeezed out of the council in terms of addressing those concerns. But at the end of the day the centre has to go somewhere and the effects of not going ahead on the rest of town taken into account.



Again - the residents have serious concerns, not with the idea of a centre in theory, but we think that such a LARGE SCALE centre would be better located on a main road or thoroughfare of some kind, where a constant flow of poeple and traffic and high visibility would solve alot of the safety and security issues were concerned about.  This is echoes in the official guidelines from the ODPM in siting such a centre, which SLaM have chosen to ignore.  

Again - I reitterate, that SLaM have often tried to diminish our right to have these concerns by saying that Brighton Terrace is not even a residential street.  



yes it has to go somewhere, but have SLaM and lambeth council really given this proposal the best chance of success but consulting with residents first on a range of sites (at least 3) for discussion, with RELAVANT impact assesments etc...

The public debate that is starting to occur now should have happened way back at the begining

This is an important project. It will be here for a long time and we ALL want it to have the greatest chance of success with the most MINIMAL possible detremental impact on the local area.  Based on our evidence of the conduct of its sponsors we simply dont think those behind it have really handled this properly.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Again - I reitterate, that SLaM have often tried to diminish our right to have these concerns by saying that Brighton Terrace is not even a residential street.


 Unfortunately, from where many of us are standing, the 'right' the opponents feel is under attack seems to be the right to say 'fuck you' to the rest of central Brixton.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> This is simply not true. It's a wide thoroughfare with large buildings that has always been pretty lairy.



oh come on.

apart from Brighton House, at the foot of the road, theres nothing here but houses and flats. It doesnt go anywhere, or TO anything, except Trinity Gardens and the little pub!

How you can describe it as WIDE, when two cars cant even pass by each other simultaneously!

And describing it as lairy?  Sure - it has its moments, but you can count the individual footsteps of those who use it, its that quiet.  To say that installing a centre that would realistically be seeing up to 1000 people per week will not have even a POTENTIAL impact is just wrong.

And thats all were saying to SLaM and others. Consider the possibility. Be realistic. 

It ought to be mentioned here that Lambeth council themselve held the key to this issues. There were a number of sites that would have been PERFECTLY suitable for this project, that they sold to property developers recently. The old asian community resource centre on Brixton raod, and registry office, down by the police station are two examples.  I urge you to look at really who is willing to put their money where there mouth is in terms of citing this centre properly

To try to force this centre in an inappropriate location, in one of the few remaining buildings the they dont own, while in the bacground they are selling off all the suitable buildings, in more prominent locations. Please GET the levels of double standards. Direct your anger at THEM, becuase they are a great deal to blame in this.

You cant score points just because you get woken up at night. for me its minicabs that park down here beeping their horns at 3am. It still doesnt make an argument that Brighton Terrace is a suitable location where such services can be absorbed without creating an impact.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, from where many of us are standing, the 'right' the opponents feel is under attack seems to be the right to say 'fuck you' to the rest of central Brixton.



thats just offensive. 
Its not reasonable. I'd urge you to calm down a bit before making such inflamatory posts. You're RANK out of order!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> the fact that residents werent consulted on the proposal BEFORE the planning application went through. consultation started in mid march, the planning application went through in february.
> 
> The fact that no environmental impact assesment has been carried out. this has been done in other boroughs.
> 
> the presentation of the proposal as 'fait accomplis' - a done deal, BEFORE consultation with local residents


Welcome to Lambeth!
I've lived here for nearly a quarter of a century and I'm amazed you have any faith in Lambeth's 'consultation' or 'partnership' processes and feel singled out....I suspect you haven't lived here for very long, or are touchingly untroubled by cynicism. Something that has been true in my experience of living here is that whoever is power at Lambeth Council, the residents are always shafted. However, what is needed now, more than anything is some sort of service for drugs users in Central Brixton. They already use the Pavilion Practice (which is also my GP) and I've never had any hassle from drug users there which is but a spit from where the new centre will be. I have had hassle from drug users elsewhere in Brixton often and often and often, and people's lives (not just the addicts) are made miserable by addiction. I hope the centre will be a massive success and that it happens soon.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

What is it that offends you? The use of the word fuck or my analysis of the bottom line? This thread is just going round in ever decreasing circles with increasing quantities of smokescreen. I can't be arsed with that. 

I gave my honestly held opinion as a resident of Rushcroft Road who is driven to distraction, along with my neighbours, every night. It is also my honestly held opinion that a local drrug treatment centre would help matters and that it would certainly do no harm.

I would welcome such a centre in Rushcroft road with open arms and so -- I know --  would the vast majority of my neighbours because compared with what we have to endure, seeing the occasional drug user walk up the street in the day on their way to get treatment would be a thoroughly welcome sight.

But a venue in Brighton Terrace has been chosen instead. So why are you so much more important than us? We are all within a stone's throw of each other. We cannot keep shunting this problem from street to street and back again.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Lol! I know what you mean, I'm glad I'm tucked away safely on my estate .
> We _all_  deal with crime, and fear of crime around here, where ever we live, rich or poor.
> Opposition to this much needed centre is just total nimbyism isn't it?



Again - residents dont oppose the centre. We see the need for it, but we want it to work for the whole community. We dont feel as residents that our legitimate issues should be sidelined and that we ultimately have to bear the brunt of any resulting issues from this 'experiment' 

But we think that placing it in this location would cause potentially serious issues. No other centre like in exists in such a setting and as such this IS experimental.

We also think that putting it somewhere suitable will reduce the risks of such issues in itself. This is the reason why the ODPM guidelines exist. They say more or less the same thing.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Again - residents dont oppose the centre. We see the need for it, but we want it to work for the whole community.


....as long as it's not anywhere near you.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> thats just offensive.
> Its not reasonable. I'd urge you to calm down a bit before making such inflamatory posts. You're RANK out of order!


No, I'm not. This isn't a council meeting. Or a church. I can express my honestly held opinion as I wish within the posting rules of the boards and those do not preclude a poster from saying that someone has a 'fuck-you' attitude to other residents.

You've thrown up smokescreen after smokescreen and I'm more than a little irritated by your assumption that we're going to swallow it.

You haven't yet explained why residents of Brighton Terrace are that much more important than other local residents that it would be morally wrong to place a treatment centre in their road.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> I'm not at all. Please dont suggest that. I'm just saying that with drug treatment centres come a RISK of failures. And the risks and consequences of such failures need to be addressed as part of this plan.  Those behind this proposal are not being realistic on not dealing with such issues, which to date, they dont.



further to this. What this area has - specifically - that distinguishes it from other areas where such centres exist it, is a MASSIVE drug dealer problem.  No one is really talking about the possible impact of that.  This is what i was trying to draw attention to when i was talking about the impact of failure within drug treament programmes. NOT that theyre all just shit and they shouldnt bother. Those who think that are spectacularly missing the point

The Dealers wont be in treatment programmes, they will arguably looking to be visible, or more, to those vulnerable useing this centre. And as such, a quiet little residential street is a perfect place for them to do that, unchallenged, and undistubed.

Again - one community safety warden will not prevent that.

Is it really so hard to consider?

I'm really really REALLY sorry, that this is such a divicive issue. 
I hate the idea that its generating so much ill will. But its NOT our fault!

Us residents really dont enjoy being in this most invidious position at all.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> No other centre like in exists in such a setting and as such this IS experimental.



This just isn't true though is it?  Go and visit Kaleidoscope in Kingston.  A prescribing centre, rehab and drop in in a residential area.  Yes, there are people hanging outside who look rough, but last time I was there, they certainly weren't causing any trouble.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> further to this. What this area has - specifically - that distinguishes it from other areas where such centres exist it, is a MASSIVE drug dealer problem.



This isn't true either.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This just isn't true though is it?



I'm not aware of one.

We have asked on about 10 different occasions for SLaM to privide us with evidence of a centre of this size in a similar residential setting, close to such a massive dealer probelm as a frame of reference. They have not been able to do so.

are you denying that there is a dealer problem here???


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

see my edit about the scope in Kingston


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> are you denying that there is a dealer problem here???



no, why do you think that?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer, you really aren't convincing people of the rightness of your position with the hysterical hyperbole. You aren't talking to people who live in Weybridge who read the Daily Express...we are all Central Brixton residents, some since probably before you were born, so it just doesn't wash.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> ....as long as it's not anywhere near you.



I've no problem with it being near me. (edit:I cant speak for everyone else.)

Just that there are potential risks and issues etc... that are NOT being dealt with in a satisfactory way. If you go back and read all Jaydee2005's posts as well as my own, you'll see thats re-itterated over and over.

given that these have so far largely been ignored by those who propose the centre, we dont believe that any problems will be 'managed' if the centre would have gone here. To back this up there are many specific references in these posts to the obscene levels of 'denial' we've received.

I've not been angry, personally insulting, or diminishing of anyones point of view.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> BoxSurfer, you really aren't convincing people of the rightness of your position with the hysterical hyperbole. You aren't talking to people who live in Weybridge who read the Daily Express...we are all Central Brixton residents, some since probably before you were born, so it just doesn't wash.




I've not been angry, personally insulting, or diminishing of anyones point of view. I tried not to be sarcastic or take the mickey.  I think that you'd get further by doing the same. 

i respect the fact that you're probably older than me, and have lived here longer. I'm not sure how this is relevant to this specific debate. I hope that I will still live here when your time has past and you're pushing up daisys. Point I'm trying to make is that I'm committed to this place. I love it to. its my home and i take the issue of social responsibility seriously

The fact you've lived here longer or are older I doesnt alter the facts as i've tried to present them. As even handedly as possible, just to present an alternative POV.

To those of you who think everyone who lives on Brighton Terrace are lazy fat MINBY fascists who sit on our fat arses all day and dont put anything back into the community, plase go and take a look at the transformation of the garden area outside NTC. This project, planned and executed by two local residents is an absolute wonder, and has done SO much to bring people in this area together, and has a number of really innovative wildlife and insect conservation features. These guys have worked SO hard in doing this. They planned it, submitted proposal for it, got funding for it, and built it. I think its really unfair that there seems to be this prevailant opinion that we just want everything 'our way' but that we sit here all day and dont really do anything.

It really saddens me.

SLaM the PCT and Lambeth Council could and should have acted very differently in their approach to this. They've had enough time to do so. That you are aware of this consistently appaling behaviour in the planning process really doesnt make it okay. And it doesn't get them off the hook.

Again - all we've ever asked is that our concerns are listened to, and that those behind the proposal demonstrate that they really are in touch with this street, are sensetive to the issues, and possible problems, and have realistic contingencies for how to deal with them

is that really so much to ask?


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> They already use the Pavilion Practice (which is also my GP) and I've never had any hassle from drug users there


The receptionists, on the other hand...


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> No, I'm not. This isn't a council meeting. Or a church. I can express my honestly held opinion as I wish within the posting rules of the boards and those do not preclude a poster from saying that someone has a 'fuck-you' attitude to other residents.
> 
> You've thrown up smokescreen after smokescreen and I'm more than a little irritated by your assumption that we're going to swallow it.
> 
> You haven't yet explained why residents of Brighton Terrace are that much more important than other local residents that it would be morally wrong to place a treatment centre in their road.



I'd just like you to leave vehemence and aggression at the door. Personally i find them really negative and generally unconstructive

its not a moral issue - its a practical one.
Likewise I dont see why ANYONE should have to suffer in this instance. If SLaM, lambeth and others had really done things right.  

You're maybe justified in saying that I haven't yet explained why residents of Brighton Terrace are that much more important than other local residents.

thats because its not what i think.
This isnt about who suffers most. or who has the right to suffer and who doesnt, or vice versa

This could and should have been handled better, and should NOT have been tried to be forced through, in the way that it has been, while masquerading what are potentially serious issues - nothing more.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> its not a moral issue - its a practical one.


 This is simply not true. If you continue to be dishonest about this then you cannot be surprised if it annoys people -- and getting on your high horse is not going to change that.

You cannot fool people with superficial appearances. No matter what language you couch it in, much of what you have said is simply not the case, as has also been pointed out by others including blagsta and mrs magpie. We are your neighbours. You cannot pull the wool over our eyes about the truth of this situation.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

I feel I have to bring this back to the front

"There seems to be some confusion on the part of those supporting this petition about what this proposed centre is for.

The centre is not intended to deal with the problem of chaotic drug users in central Brixton. It's to provide a service for the whole of Lambeth for the minority of people with drug and alcohol problems who volunteer for treatment who cannot get it from a local GP. So it does not have to be right in the middle of Brixton - it could be sited anywhere in Lambeth with decent local transport links. In terms of the needs of service users, it would be better to have two or three smaller centres. So it seems perverse to choose a single location, particularly when it is right next to the most thriving drugs market in the borough."

Add to that the point I've made several times about the needle exchange attracting MORE chaotic drug users to the area who arent in treatment of any kind.

I really do think that there are potential problems here. I AM really shocked that others cant see that.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer you're missing the point of what I was saying...Lambeth shits on people from a great height....look through the archives on this forum and you'll have documentary evidence. We've all heard 'Great idea, wrong location' many many times before too. Those of us who have been here a long time have heard similar arguments to the Brighton Terrace residents too because we've heard them all before ad nauseam whether it's about help for drug addicts, people with mental illness or alcohol problems. I have also heard similar arguments from people opposed to a house for people with disabilities. People love the idea of helping the vulnerable as long as it is somewhere else so they don't have to be offended by swearing, scabby arms or possible embarrassing dribbling from the disabled.

For instance, all the guff about the proximity of a childrens playground. I worked on a kids project for 15 years until 9 years ago and one of my jobs, first thing in the morning, was to walk the site and remove needles and drugs paraphenalia that had been left by junkies overnight. The park closest to me is full of junkies, fixing up in their groins and leaving needles everywhere. No drugs treatment centres nearby either. Stop gazing at the navel of Brighton Terrace and look around you.

I love Brixton too with a passion. There are already loads of junkies around the area you live. A couple I know looked at a house there and didn't buy because of the existing prevalence of addicts. Incidentally they are a spit from a centre for people with alcohol and mental health problems and the only problem I have known them have day to day is noisy youths on motorbikes. There already is a big problem with drug addicts in the Central Brixton area and now there is a project mooted to help them, but the residents don't want it. There has been some help for addicts at Pavilion for a while and if it hadn't been for the fact I know one of the drugs workers because he drinks in the same pub as me, I wouldn't even have known it was there. It didn't make me want to change my doctor, it made me pleased that addicts were being helped as they get precious little help. 

My daughter was robbed close to where you live yesterday afternoon. You can bet your bottom dollar her being robbed had a drugs connection. There is a problem that affects us all, you included, so why do you want to squash a possible solution?


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> There has been some help for addicts at Pavilion for a while and if it hadn't been for the fact I know one of the drugs workers because he drinks in the same pub as me, I wouldn't even have known it was there. It didn't make me want to change my doctor, it made me pleased that addicts were being helped as they get precious little help.



not such a long time ago the gates to this centre were deliberately sabotaged, and during the months it took to get them fixed you should have seen the number of people that were using that alleyway at the entrance to Pavilion Practice as a shooting gallery day and night. The police were here every hour or so moving them on.

You dont find people shooting up on main roads that much. Not in my experience

Experience tells me that quiet little residential side street with lots of hiding places are a coveted hangout for people who want to do hard drugs. Putting a Needle Exchange for chaotic drug users from all around the borough in the middle of one, with the dealer problem close by will potentially create a massive problem.

but i guess thats okay, becuase it wont be your problem anymore, right?

wrong!

put this in a SENSIBLE location and we can minimise the impact for EVERYONE without any one single part of the community bearing the brunt of any potential risksin such a large scale project. Its as simple as that.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

Ah, I know what you mean by sensible place...somewhere like the council estate I live on...push it on the poor eh? I knew it...HOUSE PRICES!


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> I feel I have to bring this back to the front
> 
> "There seems to be some confusion on the part of those supporting this petition about what this proposed centre is for.
> 
> ...


I'm really shocked that you cannot see that that is the ultimate nimby argument.

All you're really saying is 'put it anywhere except next to me'.  Like where? 

If the users are not chaotic then what is your problem?


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Ah, I know what you mean by sensible place...somewhere like the council estate I live on...push it on the poor eh? I knew it...HOUSE PRICES!


 I got bollocked for suggesting it was anything to do with house prices. Apparently it's howwible council tenants that are opposing it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2005)

Again you're wilfully misrepresenting people - people are objecting to it cos they have very real concerns - there's no need to polarise things so much. It doesn't help.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Ah, I know what you mean by sensible place...somewhere like the council estate I live on...push it on the poor eh? I knew it...HOUSE PRICES!



I'm not a property owner


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

Orang Utan, I think you have been a sensible voice in all this, but for those of us who have been pleading for a drugs treatment centre in Brixton for a very long time indeed, and doing what we can by sitting on boring committees, actively backing sensible Police initiatives (eg the drugs workers in Custody Suites) it is incredibly frustrating to feel like it's all going to collapse because of guff about the playground and general daft arguments against. I think Lambeth have been crap, but when aren't they? I have suffered at the hands of Lambeth in several particularly dreadful ways that have affected my whole family, never mind what I've seen happen to friends, so buggering up on consultation (what's new?) really seems pretty piddling to me in the scheme of things.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I'm really shocked that you cannot see that that is the ultimate nimby argument.
> 
> All you're really saying is 'put it anywhere except next to me'.  Like where?
> 
> If the users are not chaotic then what is your problem?



you ommitted to quote the last part of that post that really underlines my concerns. For that - i'll re quote louloubelle

"I used to work at a project affiliated with a DDU and needle exhange, both of which had premises within a 2 minute walk of my office in a hospital.

Everyone in the hospital was extremely careful about leaving stuff in their car as there were lots of break ins. Perhaps it's the same everywhere, but to us it felt like an area where many of the addicts couldn't resist stealing stuff if it was there, so people were extra vigilant.

Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange)."

also said by Jaydee2005

"Its their current experience that seems to inform them of what may come. And to say that the dealer problem will magically dissappear because of this proposed centre with its needle exchange, is naive for the reasons I've already stated. There will be more chaotic drug users attracted to the area that arent interested in getting treatment, they're only interested in getting clean needles so they can carry on using.

As such I think the residents are justified that Brighton Terrace is a perfact place, peacefull, really full of hiding places, where users can buy and take their gear. A 'possible' community safety 'warden' even if they actiually materialised, is not guarantee of preventing that."


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2005)

I support the centre myself, Mrs M - I just get annoyed at the guff spouted by both sides, misrepresenting each other as either yuppy NIMBYs or nasty bureaucrats. I don't think it helps matters


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer, I dont mind you quoting me directly, but I dont want to get drawn into what is an increasingly spiteful debate.

I have to agree with Urang. I think the residents have legitimate concerns and are justified in their objection.

I dont live on Brighton Terrace, but I do live near by. I think that there is some logic. I think its wrong that the location there is the only one thats on the table.  Especially when other main road locations could be found that are 

A) not so close to the sizeable concentration of dealers
B) a lot more visible, and more mixed in terms of a spread of commercial, leisure and residential facilities - IE. they are frequented by many more people at all times of the day, as to make location of the centre aid its purpose, and prevent any 'difficulties'

Some places lend themselves well to this kind of use, others dont. I'm not sure that the Brighton Terrace one does.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 15, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I support the centre myself, Mrs M - I just get annoyed at the guff spouted by both sides, misrepresenting each other as either yuppy NIMBYs or nasty bureaucrats. I don't think it helps matters



I've been quite careful not to misrepresent anyone, or spout guff. Do you think that I have done so?
If so - I apologise. Perhaps you can PM me to let me know if or where i have done this, so i can avoid such pitfalls in future

J


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 15, 2005)

I am happy to swap with the eyesore light-blocking 'luxury flats' that are springing up around me....but Brighton Terrace has to have the 'luxury flats'. As it happens though I've said yes to the new secondary school, the training centre and the building works all along Somerleyton (more industrial units I think).


<edited to add>

I've said no to the demolition of the Guinness Trust Estate though because lots of people in social housing will be ousted in favour of people who will buy up new places with precious little social housing as a sop.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Add to that the point I've made several times about the needle exchange attracting MORE chaotic drug users to the area who arent in treatment of



I've asked you to point to another needle exchange in the area that has attracted more chaotic drug users.  You can't.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I am happy to swap with the eyesore light-blocking 'luxury flats' that are springing up around me....but Brighton Terrace has to have the 'luxury flats'



Where are these luxury flats exactly???

I dont think you can call Nelson Thierry court, Daisy Dormer court, or George Lashwood court. Luxury flats. Noor will they ever be. These are council blocks, and are the best the local residents can make them. In some respects, against the odds. There is a lot of objection to this planned location from the residents there also.

the residents of NTC have recently had a very seriuos problem when someone vulnerable was moved in there by social services, when the flat itself was not secure. This was known to some local drug dealers ond prostitutes. It wasnt long before the entire flat was taken over by these HARD drug dealers and prostitutes, despite residents CONSTANTLY asking the council to do something about the poor state of repair before the problem occured.  Such a small thing, through ommission of action (not ommission of good intention) and proper management cause drug dealers to effectively be living 'in residence'.

This is a good example of how care systems can fail the most vulnerable.


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> *I am happy to swap with the eyesore light-blocking 'luxury flats' that are springing up around me....
> *



They look into my bathroom when I have the window open - which I think will substantially increase the value of those lucky residents who are a whole forty feet from my flat!    

I'm told that Network Rail complained about the metal frame of the flats being put up just as it was finished because the crane overhung the railway line. So they ignored the rail guys and finished it anyway. Then health & safety came along and pointed out that they had no cages to stop people falling off the floors of the building.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 15, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> They look into my bathroom when I have the window open - which I think will substantially increase the value of those lucky residents who are a whole forty feet from my flat!



nice to see theres still some humour here  thanks for the light relief!


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> the residents of NTC have recently had a very seriuos problem when someone vulnerable was moved in there by social services, when the flat itself was not secure. This was known to some local drug dealers ond prostitutes. It wasnt long before the entire flat was taken over by these HARD drug dealers and prostitutes, despite residents CONSTANTLY asking the council to do something about the poor state of repair before the problem occured.  Such a small thing, through ommission of action (not ommission of good intention) and proper management cause drug dealers to effectively be living 'in residence'.
> 
> This is a good example of how care systems can fail the most vulnerable.




thats pretty shocking.
Has it been sorted out now? What happened to this poor individual?


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> thats pretty shocking.
> Has it been sorted out now? What happened to this poor individual?



I havent been over there lately but may see some people i know who live there later.  I know that this was still going on when i last spoke to them quite recently.  The council still hadnt managed to do anything about it. The dealers were living with him, running his life. He was being left to rot  effectively.


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> I havent been over there lately but may see some people i know who live there later.  I know that this was still going on when i last spoke to them quite recently.  The council still hadnt managed to do anything about it. The dealers were living with him, running his life. He was being left to rot  effectively.



Isn't this really a police issue? And did you try your local councillors?

I'm not sure what's happened with it but there was a pilot project on the St Matthews estate where they housed council people in charge of housing, social services, rubbish and the police in one office to try and link these things up. Certainly the community safety guys at the council (at least at a senior level) are aware of this since I talked to them about this sort of specific problem (sadly quite common in Lambeth) in the past - which is why they established the St Matthews pilot.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 15, 2005)

As I said a while ago, there are some people who feel more strongly than me about this. I'm glad you've heard from them.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Isn't this really a police issue? And did you try your local councillors?
> 
> I'm not sure what's happened with it but there was a pilot project on the St Matthews estate where they housed council people in charge of housing, social services, rubbish and the police in one office to try and link these things up. Certainly the community safety guys at the council (at least at a senior level) are aware of this since I talked to them about this sort of specific problem (sadly quite common in Lambeth) in the past - which is why they established the St Matthews pilot.



what it actually required was co-ordination from the police and social services, to remove the problem and also to make the flat itself 'safe' to that it couldnt happen again.  Obviuosly this chap would have needed to be moved somewhere else, or the same dealers and prositutes would have been right back.

I dont want to speak for the residents, but suffice to say, they were horrified that this happened, because they knew it would - they tried to alert everyone to the potential problem, but nothing was done to prevent it. I felt they did everything right. Everyone suffered, and someone already in a vulnerable position's life was made even more of a misery.

real world nightmare scenario. --> heads up!
someone needs to think the unthinkable. Bad shit happens. 

and stop calling us all NIMBY's. Its already IN our back yard. We just dont want it getting worse because of a cockeyed idea of a needle exchange that will cause more potential problems becuase of it's innapropriate location

to steal someone elses words - some location lend themselved well to this kind of thing. Others dont. A quiet residential little street definitely doesnt.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> thats pretty shocking.
> Has it been sorted out now? What happened to this poor individual?



That sort of thing happens quite a lot.  Mainly due to the lack of social housing in London.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> That sort of thing happens quite a lot.  Mainly due to the lack of social housing in London.



granted - but it still doesnt excuse the fact that various attempts were made to prevent the problem before it occured. In this instance the problem wasnt cause by a lack of social houing it was caused by a lack of action and co-ordination by the poeple who were tasked with providing care, who all probably thought they were doing a good job.

The system failed - what wasnt supposed to happen did happen.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> to steal someone elses words - some location lend themselved well to this kind of thing. Others dont. A quiet residential little street definitely doesnt.



Oh come on, Brighton Terrace is hardly a 'quiet residential little street' is it? I  can understand some of your reluctance, but let's not exaggerate and make out Brighton Terrace to be some kind of rural residential dirt track. There's a whopping doctor's surgery down there, a nightclub, various industrial premises and it's certainly one of the main roads for that part of Brixton 

You're almost making a PARODY of your own case with such inaccurate, tub-thumping misrepresentations. It's LUDICROUS and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

And yes, the capitals you keep emphasising too many words with are unnecessary and come across as patronising. IMO of course...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> granted - but it still doesnt excuse the fact that various attempts were made to prevent the problem before it occured. In this instance the problem wasnt cause by a lack of social houing it was caused by a lack of action and co-ordination by the poeple who were tasked with providing care, who all probably thought they were doing a good job.
> 
> The system failed - what wasnt supposed to happen did happen.



What has that got to do with the proposed treatment centre?


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Oh come on, Brighton Terrace is hardly a 'quiet residential little street' is it? I  can understand some of your reluctance, but let's not exaggerate and make out Brighton Terrace to be some kind of rural residential dirt track. There's a whopping doctor's surgery down there, a nightclub, various industrial premises and it's certainly one of the main roads for that part of Brixton



oh but it is - and there nothing worse than someone who doesnt live on it, know it or frequent it telling you about the characterisitics of the place where you live.

What you say is misleading, All of the commercial activity on Brighton Terrace that you've mentioned is in 1 building - Brighton House right at the top. It has no other actively used commercial premises. You'll be telling me we all have swimming pools and jacuzzi's next!

This is the same argument we've had with those who've tried to remove our right to object by saying its not even a residential street.

As for the main road thing. As i already said - you cant actually get two cars to drive down here simultaneously. The road isnt wide enough. A lot of the time, the entrance to it is blocked by busses lining up on the main road. There was even talk of them at one time of closing the entrance from the high road all together, as they have done with others.. And the road itself doesnt go anywhere except trinity gardens and the Trinity Pub.

I'm not exagerating when i say i can count the footsteps of those that come down here, individually - mainly on their way to and from work in the morning and evening. Apart from these footsteps - the street is very very quiet indeed. The noisiest time is at night after 1am, with the minicabs and 'crack-fighters' (alluding to someone elses post earlier). It might seem bizarre given its proximity to the high street, but it really is like that. I work from home quite a bit so i really do get to see it at all times.

I'm afraid you dont know what you're talking about


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> The road isnt wide enough. And it doesnt go anywhere except trinity gardens and the Trinity Pub.


That is simply not true. Trinity gardens goes round to Acre lane.  And the road is plenty wide. And it's no good branding people who won't stand up to your flagrant fibs as spiteful. 

How many times do you have to be told? We live there. We know the place.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> oh but it is - and there nothing worse than someone who doesnt live on it, know it or frequent it telling you about the characterisitics of the place where you live.
> 
> I'm afraid you dont know what you're talking about



Oh fuck off. You're not going to win many hearts and minds with that attitude Mr Patronising, particularly with your ability to exaggerate and misrepresent things spectacularly. I've was born In Brixton and have lived here for more than 30 years on and off, so I'm guessing that I know the area fairly well. Even lived in Brighton Terrace briefly, if that's ok with you...

 

The fact remains, Brighton Terrace is not a particularly quiet or narrow residential road, in fact it should be one of the larger mixed-use roads off the high street. It's one of the major roads connecting up to Acre Lane.

And whilst the old D Bess Bakery has been closed for a little while, it's another misrepresntation to suggest that Brighton Terrace is solely a dormitory road. It's certainly no oasis of calm - you could make the same claims for peace and quiet for many of the same roads in the near centre, Rattray, Saltoun and even Rushcroft .... if it wasn't for the sound of desperate, chaotic souls in need of treatment that is...


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> And whilst the old D Bess Bakery has been closed for a little while, it's another misrepresntation to suggest that Brighton Terrace is solely a dormitory road. It's certainly no oasis of calm



Sorry - but i think it is.  And so do others who've stood up and said as much.




			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> The fact remains, Brighton Terrace is not a particularly quiet or narrow residential road, in fact it should be one of the larger mixed-use roads off the high street



so how come you cant fit two cars down it at the same time then?

Alright ok ok ok ok - granted! I might be construde as being a little economical with the truth back there, it does go to Acre Lane - but this part of it is one way, and hardly consititutes main road status. you might be able to call it a cut through, at best. 

As for mixed use? like I said - Brighton house is the only commercial building operating here, and its hardly a typical commercial buidling. It has its own private gated courtyard, mkaing it, to all intents and purposes its own private little community

I'm not bullshitting you - and i dont want to cause offence. It is a quiet residential place, full of little places amongst the flats and houses that far and away make up the absolute majority of the buildings here - where people love to come and shoot up. I'll go and post pictures of them if you like.

Do i have to live here for 30 years to have an insight? I've lived here for 7. I'd say i have a right to comment.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> And it's no good branding people who won't stand up to your flagrant fibs as spiteful.



Sorry - wasnt aware that i had branded anyone anything

(oops my spelling is atrocious sometimes!!)


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What has that got to do with the proposed treatment centre?



It demonstrates Murphy's law - that whatever _can_ go wrong, _will _ go wrong. And that its foolish to assume that there wouldnt be problems, potentially serious ones, that will have a detremental affect on the immediate surrounding.

Those that live here are rightly concerned, because we would bear the brunt of any problems that were created. Problems that you could argue would be caused simply by putting the centre in a location that is not appropriate for it. It would worsen them, just beacuse of where it is - If it enables more open dealing and using around it.

Basically I'm still making the same point
 - right centre, wrong place = more endemic problems

 - right centre, right place = less endemic problems.

But again - this isnt the only argument against. I have to refer back to the 'decentralised' argument - of several smaller centres rather than one big one, being possibly the safest way to do this stuff, as its done throughout the borough today - quite successfully and innocuously

Its also relavant in terms of those who've argued that having a centre here will make council and police services more responsive to any plight.  Its false reasoning. response time isnt related to the strength of anyones plight. 

(he says trying to avoid the use of patronising capitalisation   )


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 15, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> It's one of the major roads connecting up to Acre Lane.


Not really. If you've got onto to Brighton Terrace from the High Street you must have come from the south so you could have got to Acre Lane more easily. It's mostly pretty quiet. If it wasn't they'd put speed bumps in.


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> Not really. If you've got onto to Brighton Terrace from the High Street you must have come from the south so you could have got to Acre Lane more easily. It's mostly pretty quiet. If it wasn't they'd put speed bumps in.



good point.


----------



## JayDee2005 (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> *If* it enables more open dealing and using around it.


Its important to emphasise that I think - 

I think its a laudible aim to want to attract more injecting drug users into treatment programmes, but one has to question the sense in doing so in an area like brixton, given the entrenched dealers. Its a huge a gamble. And to take this gamble with Brighton Terrace, an (arguably) quiet, residential street with many sheltered and hidden spaces where users can  -- and do -- shoot up and dealers can -- and do -- deal. Attracting more users to this area does seem a little like madness.

As i've said before. I can understand these concerns


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> It demonstrates Murphy's law - that whatever _can_ go wrong, _will _ go wrong.
> 
> And that its foolish to assume that there wouldnt be problems, potentially serious ones, that will have a detremental affect on the immediate surrounding.
> 
> ...



But you assume there _will_ be problems.  I've repeatedly asked you to point to a needle exchange service in Brixton that has had the problems you fear.  You can't.  In fact you probably didn't even know the services were there.  If needle exchange = problem, you'd know about it.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2005)

JayDee2005 said:
			
		

> Its important to emphasise that I think -
> 
> I think its a laudible aim to want to attract more injecting drug users into treatment programmes, but one has to question the sense in doing so in an area like brixton, given the entrenched dealers. Its a huge a gamble. And to take this gamble with Brighton Terrace, an (arguably) quiet, residential street with many sheltered and hidden spaces where users can  -- and do -- shoot up and dealers can -- and do -- deal. Attracting more users to this area does seem a little like madness.
> 
> As i've said before. I can understand these concerns



And as I've repeatedly said - there already are services in Brixton.  Services which you don't actually know about 'cos they present few problems.

*Point me to a service in Brixton that is causing problems and I might take you seriously.  Otherwise, you are merely basing your fears on ignorance*


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

"And as I've repeatedly said - there already are services in Brixton. Services which you don't actually know about 'cos they present few problems."

Perhaps because its an example of the right centre in the right place?


----------



## BoxSurfer (Nov 15, 2005)

Sorry . its late and its been a long day.


----------



## netbob (Nov 16, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> This is an important project. It will be here for a long time and we ALL want it to have the greatest chance of success with the most MINIMAL possible detremental impact on the local area.



So where is it going to go then, where is _the right site_? Can you name a site where people are not going to raise simular objections to yourself? 

Are you saying it _has_ to go to another site, or that Brighton Terrace can go ahead with certain safeguards?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm getting a tad annoyed here - IS barnstorming and using wildly exaggerated language - 'flagrant fibs' - oh come off it!

And Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens is a very quiet street - certainly the quietest I've ever lived on.

All this is pointless though and detracting from the real issues (as Brixton threads are wont to do)


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 16, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm getting a tad annoyed here - IS barnstorming and using wildly exaggerated language - 'flagrant fibs' - oh come off it!


No,_ you _come off it. The smell of horse-apples in here is getting overwhelming.  And why are you singling me out for opprobrium, orang utan,  when others have expressed their opinions just as strongly, if not more so? 

Whose side are you actually on because it's got to be one or the other?




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> All this is pointless though and detracting from the real issues (as Brixton threads are wont to do)


 It is impossible to discuss the real issues unless people are being honest about the facts.

And puh-lease, don't trot out the tedious old "S'not faaair, you're playing too rough" whine that people always used to use in the face of arguments they didn't like.

It's a bloody bulletin board. If arguments over crucial local issues can't get heated on a bulletin board then where the hell can they? Stop trying to censor people you don't agree with.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 16, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Alright ok ok ok ok - granted! I might be construde as being a little economical with the truth back there, it does go to Acre Lane.


Well, stop being "economical with the truth" because it won't get you, or the discussion, anywhere.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> No,_ you _come off it. The smell of horse-apples in here is getting overwhelming.  And why are you singling me out for opprobrium, orang utan,  when others have expressed their opinions just as strongly, if not more so?
> 
> Whose side are you actually on because it's got to be one or the other?


Cos you're the one with the most extreme way of articulating your thoughts on the matter.
I'm on my own side and no others - there don't have to be any 'sides' - this is what is pissing me off.
I think the Centre is a good thing BUT the proposals were steamrolled through a tad and I can see why people are upset about this. I can also see why families might be concerned about this and think their concerns are legitimate - these need addressing if the proposal is to be approved. What no-one needs is for people to get tabloid and hsyterically paint each other as baddies just because they disagree about what is good for the community.
It's childish, unnecessary and counter-productive.
'Whose side are you on?' - jeez, I haven't heard that phrase since school!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It's a bloody bulletin board. If arguments over crucial local issues can't get heated on a bulletin board then where the hell can they? Stop trying to censor people you don't agree with.


I resent the implication that I'm trying to censor anyone - that's so much bullshit and you know it.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 16, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Cos you're the one with the most extreme way of articulating your thoughts on the matter.


 No, I'm not. See tarannau's comments, for example, which I agree with. This  is 'so much bullshit' and it smacks of chauvinism.





> I'm on my own side and no others


Exactly. You don't even have the courage of your own convictions. Why make a virtue out of spinelessness? 





> I think the Centre is a good thing BUT the proposals were steamrolled through a tad


How can something be 'steamrollered through a tad'? That's like saying someone was slightly killed. 





> What no-one needs is for people to get tabloid and hsyterically paint each other as baddies


Who is getting hysterical? Again, it's the usual old chauvinistic crap. Don't forget to call me 'shrill' and 'strident' while you're at it.





> and I can see why people are upset about this.


 So can I. But lying about the circumstances isn't going to help anyone.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

Please don't roll out that stupid assertion that my pointing out your hysterical tabloid language is down to chauvinism. It's not. It's down to your hysterical tabloid language.
It's wilfully obtuse and downright untruthful.
Spineless? Get a grip!

(anyway, back to the thread - sorry, I'm being just as tangential as others - my apologies to all - I'll stop now)


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 16, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Please don't roll out that stupid assertion that my pointing out your hysterical tabloid language is down to chauvinism.


Ah. Stupid as well as hysterical.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Ah. Stupid as well as hysterical.


not stupid, just obtuse!


----------



## Bob (Nov 16, 2005)

You'll all be amused to see the following exchange from 'London by London' this week.



> RE: CRACKDOWN
> 
> 'Many of you will know and love Brixton despite the large
> number of people who have serious crack and heroin problems
> ...



For those people against the centre can we work on a list of things that you're worried about that could potentially be addressed?

Ideas from me:
Delaying the needle exchange until there's been some experience of the rest of the centre
More information on the warden - or possibly a commitment to a CSO
Planning permission to be temprorary until people have seen how the centre works.

Other ideas?


----------



## aurora green (Nov 16, 2005)

.....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 17, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Do i have to live here for 30 years to have an insight? I've lived here for 7. I'd say I have a right to comment.


Of course you have a right, but telling people who were born here or have lived here three times as long as you, things that are obviously just not so, does not win you friends or influence them towards your way of thinking. In fact your misrepresentation of what Brighton Terrace is actually like has in fact made me even more determined that the whole anti-treatment centre lot are prepared to misrepresent the facts to get their own way.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 17, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> oh but it is - and there nothing worse than someone who doesnt live on it, know it or frequent it telling you about the characterisitics of the place where you live.
> 
> What you say is misleading, All of the commercial activity on Brighton Terrace that you've mentioned is in 1 building - Brighton House right at the top. It has no other actively used commercial premises. You'll be telling me we all have swimming pools and jacuzzi's next!
> 
> ...



The idea that Brighton Terrace can be compared to a quiet rural backstreet is ludicrous and laughable. It just goes to show what kind of mentality residents of that area have. What next? Fox Hunting in Trinity Square?


----------



## netbob (Nov 17, 2005)

is it me or have they gone very quiet suddenly?


----------



## tarannau (Nov 17, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Of course you have a right, but telling people who were born here or have lived here three times as long as you, things that are obviously just not so, does not win you friends or influence them towards your way of thinking. In fact your misrepresentation of what Brighton Terrace is actually like has in fact made me even more determined that the whole anti-treatment centre lot are prepared to misrepresent the facts to get their own way.



Well put. It's not that I can't understand why people may have reservations about a treatment centre near to them, it's more that it's difficult not to be little disturbed by the misrepresentations and near-hysterical hyperbole of the anti-camp. 

Brighton Terrace may be fortunate in being a reasonably quiet, mainly residential street. But the claims made for it as being some kind of special case, a idyll of quiet residential homes that couldn't possibly be tainted with distasteful druggie activites like this is a little grating. The same claims could be made for nearly every road in Brixton - nearly ever non-A road thoroughfare doesn't have room for two cars to pass, nearly all of them are surprisingly quiet 99% of the time, nearly all of them have 'hiding places' that addicts could be concealed in. It's certainly no worse for dealers than a host of other more narrow residential roads - Rushcroft Road for one. And Brighton Terrace remains well located, comparatively mixed in use, placed  in the centre in town - surely it's right to consider it as a location?

Most of us in Brixton suffer in some way from the activities of users, addicts and dealers. Attempting to falsely portray your patch of the neighbourhood as some kind of put-upon spcial area simply doesn't wash or help the wider picture. It's right to consider the option of Brighton Terrace, not attempt to bluster the proposal out with a load of falsehoods, exaggerations and oversimplifications/misrepresentations...


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 17, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Most of us in Brixton suffer in some way from the activities of users, addicts and dealers. Attempting to falsely portray your patch of the neighbourhood as some kind of put-upon spcial area simply doesn't wash or help the wider picture. It's right to consider the option of Brighton Terrace, not attempt to bluster the proposal out with a load of falsehoods, exaggerations and oversimplifications/misrepresentations...


Yep. Well said.







I think we scared them off.


----------



## happyshopper (Nov 17, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I think we scared them off.



Tired rather than scared.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 18, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Well put. It's not that I can't understand why people may have reservations about a treatment centre near to them, it's more that it's difficult not to be little disturbed by the misrepresentations and near-hysterical hyperbole of the anti-camp.
> 
> Brighton Terrace may be fortunate in being a reasonably quiet, mainly residential street. But the claims made for it as being some kind of special case, a idyll of quiet residential homes that couldn't possibly be tainted with distasteful druggie activites like this is a little grating. The same claims could be made for nearly every road in Brixton - nearly ever non-A road thoroughfare doesn't have room for two cars to pass, nearly all of them are surprisingly quiet 99% of the time, nearly all of them have 'hiding places' that addicts could be concealed in. It's certainly no worse for dealers than a host of other more narrow residential roads - Rushcroft Road for one. And Brighton Terrace remains well located, comparatively mixed in use, placed  in the centre in town - surely it's right to consider it as a location?
> 
> Most of us in Brixton suffer in some way from the activities of users, addicts and dealers. Attempting to falsely portray your patch of the neighbourhood as some kind of put-upon spcial area simply doesn't wash or help the wider picture. It's right to consider the option of Brighton Terrace, not attempt to bluster the proposal out with a load of falsehoods, exaggerations and oversimplifications/misrepresentations...



Right on brother or sister


----------



## Dan U (Nov 18, 2005)

i agree with tarannau. 

where would people rather this place be put?

probably on some council estate somewhere away from their houses. out of sight, out of mind and straight into a place with more than enough social problems to deal with already.

i don't quite get the mentality of some people who move to brixton and bleat about the dealing and crime problems (not that these issue's shouldnt be addressed). 

yes its a problem but surely you knew it was happening before you moved here, its hardly a new problem. 

clapham is up the other end of acre lane you know.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 18, 2005)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Well put. It's not that I can't understand why people may have reservations about a treatment centre near to them, it's more that it's difficult not to be little disturbed by the misrepresentations and near-hysterical hyperbole of the anti-camp.
> 
> Brighton Terrace may be fortunate in being a reasonably quiet, mainly residential street. But the claims made for it as being some kind of special case, a idyll of quiet residential homes that couldn't possibly be tainted with distasteful druggie activites like this is a little grating. The same claims could be made for nearly every road in Brixton - nearly ever non-A road thoroughfare doesn't have room for two cars to pass, nearly all of them are surprisingly quiet 99% of the time, nearly all of them have 'hiding places' that addicts could be concealed in. It's certainly no worse for dealers than a host of other more narrow residential roads - Rushcroft Road for one. And Brighton Terrace remains well located, comparatively mixed in use, placed  in the centre in town - surely it's right to consider it as a location?
> 
> Most of us in Brixton suffer in some way from the activities of users, addicts and dealers. Attempting to falsely portray your patch of the neighbourhood as some kind of put-upon spcial area simply doesn't wash or help the wider picture. It's right to consider the option of Brighton Terrace, not attempt to bluster the proposal out with a load of falsehoods, exaggerations and oversimplifications/misrepresentations...



Well put. I am beginning to form a view of Brighton Terrace residents as Barber's wearing waxed coats, wellies and posh country accents shepherding their sheeps through Brixton Market. Gosh Prunella, what a sight


----------



## Rushy (Nov 18, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> You'll all be amused to see the following exchange from 'London by London' this week.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hi Bob - 

I also saw the london by london exchange and submitted the following myself (in the unlikely event that it is published next week, it might get some new people visiting to U75 boards):

"The Beak – 

Your aggressiveness sadly detracts from a very valid debate currently being held amongst Brixton people and I think it may be you who is missing the point. This is not about whether or not a centre is needed – I have not heard a single argument against need – it is about the scale and location (and whether it should include a needle exchange). There are a large number of good arguments being put forward why this is a bad location by both locals and healthcare professionals alike. You are probably already aware of or involved in the debate on the Urban75.com website – the arguments for both sides have been put forward (ad infinitum) and for anyone interested it makes a very good read if you can sift through the unconstructive yet predictable accusations of “Nimby”ism, “Yuppy”ism and “they’re only concerned about their house price”ism. 

To answer your question – I believe that whilst there are a number of usual suspects with very conspicuous drug (and mental health) problems around the high street these are probably not the most likely people to use the service. The service is intended to target the much larger (but less conspicuous) number of drug users Lambeth-wide. The borough, being large as it is, would IMO be better served by a number of smaller services similar to the successful Stockwell project – one of which should certainly be in Brixton (or in an ideal world, three - to the north, east and south) but not on the proposed scale of the huge old bakery. Even the petition website says that the effectiveness of any such centre would be hugely reduced if located more than a mile from the patient. 

Brighton Terrace is only truly convenient for people who live/work in Brixton. Other than for them, the centre is only really likely to be convenient for drug users who are already in the habit of heading that way to buy their gear. The buyers know the dealers and the dealers know the buyers and the pressure is always there. When my sister was trying to get over years of drugs and alcoholism in Melbourne she only managed after changing all the places she regularly frequented for exactly that reason – she could not expect the dealers (or other users who were not yet ready to give up) to respect or support her own efforts. Breaking the ‘routine’ was also a great help. Sending vulnerable people into 'dealer central' when they wouldn’t normally need to would seem utterly irresponsible. 

But if you are right and the centre would really benefit from being placed right in the thick of it then I would suggest the western half of Coldharbour Lane (for example) – e.g. the very large and recently squatted Brixton Cycles building. It’s a 24hr street and right next door to the new Community Police station. In such a location its presence might even act as a sobering reminder to the 'drug tourists' from London and beyond of the possible consequences (for them and others) of their leisurely dabbling. Alternatively, Lambeth Planning is vacating Acre House at the bottom of Acre Lane - a main, busy road with very few residential neighbours. (Just to pre-empt the nimby charges – until two years ago I lived almost backing on to the proposed site – when you could still wake up to the smell of fresh baked pasties - but now live on the other side of Coldharbour and Acre Lanes.)"
END


As far as your own suggestions above are concerned, I think they represent exactly the kind of dialogue that needs to be happening with local residents. 

To those I would add the possibility of starting with a smaller service - perhaps renting one of the huge units in Brighton House or the new ground floor unit being built at 20 Brighton Terrace, a couple of doors away from the old bakery. That way, if it does really impact badly on the local area (and it might), the service will not have invested such a large amount on infrastructure that it is impractical or even impossible to move it elsewhere.


----------



## Bob (Nov 18, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> Hi Bob -
> 
> I also saw the london by london exchange and submitted the following myself (in the unlikely event that it is published next week, it might get some new people visiting to U75 boards):
> 
> ...



Good to see something reasonable. I suppose I'd amend my list of residents wishes to say something like this:
Delaying the needle exchange until there's been some experience of the rest of the centre
More information on the warden - or possibly a commitment to a CSO
Planning permission to be temporary until people have seen how the centre works or a smaller pilot service on a similar scale to the Stockwell Project

I think if you read the documents round why they want the centre at the planning size it's because they are taking up the 20% or so of people who can't be dealt with by the current GP services - and by their nature these people will need more diverse services like more specialised mental health treatment. With a normal service like a physio then he/she could do a day a week at different centres - probably more difficult though with the clients a drug treatment centre will have. In other words the scale of the centre is partly intended because it will allow them to offer higher quality services - which in the case of drug treatment means less crime among other things.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 18, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Good to see something reasonable. I suppose I'd amend my list of residents wishes to say something like this:
> Delaying the needle exchange until there's been some experience of the rest of the centre
> More information on the warden - or possibly a commitment to a CSO
> Planning permission to be temporary until people have seen how the centre works or a smaller pilot service on a similar scale to the Stockwell Project
> ...



The idea of planning permission for the whole project being "temporary" or "reviewable" is an interesting one. My guess is that this would result in the proposal being withdrawn since the capital investment required to get it off the ground will be far too large to risk if the plug can then be pulled after two or three years. The centre would have to be 100% certain that they could deliver against any criteria for renewal of the permission and I doubt that anyone is quite THAT confident that the centre will not bring an element of trouble.

The idea of a warden does not fill me with confidence, largely because of the pictures the word conjures up for me. I would need to be convinced that it has been properly thought through rather than just some afterthought from a planning consultant - "hey, I know, we'll chuck in a warden - that'll keep 'em happy". In order to be effective he (or she) could not just be some retired parking attendant but would need a huge range of skills and specialist training. If such a warden could be conceived and a clear outline of their remit produced then it could help a geat deal.

I can see why the size of the centre is important but that only makes me feel more strongly that they should be trying very hard to find a better, less risky site. This project is afterall a pioneering experiment and if it does fuck up, whether because it exacerbates problems for residents or because placing it in the centre of the biggest (I'm guessing) drug market in Britain makes it less effective, it will not help other much needed centres get the go ahead.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 19, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> The idea of planning permission for the whole project being "temporary" or "reviewable" is an interesting one. My guess is that this would result in the proposal being withdrawn since the capital investment required to get it off the ground will be far too large to risk if the plug can then be pulled after two or three years. The centre would have to be 100% certain that they could deliver against any criteria for renewal of the permission and I doubt that anyone is quite THAT confident that the centre will not bring an element of trouble.
> 
> The idea of a warden does not fill me with confidence, largely because of the pictures the word conjures up for me. I would need to be convinced that it has been properly thought through rather than just some afterthought from a planning consultant - "hey, I know, we'll chuck in a warden - that'll keep 'em happy". In order to be effective he (or she) could not just be some retired parking attendant but would need a huge range of skills and specialist training. If such a warden could be conceived and a clear outline of their remit produced then it could help a geat deal.
> 
> I can see why the size of the centre is important but that only makes me feel more strongly that they should be trying very hard to find a better, less risky site. This project is afterall a pioneering experiment and if it does fuck up, whether because it exacerbates problems for residents or because placing it in the centre of the biggest (I'm guessing) drug market in Britain makes it less effective, it will not help other much needed centres get the go ahead.



The idea of a warden patrolling the area is not an 'afterthought' thrown in to appease the residents. On the contrary, I understand the warden will be an established outreach worker from the Lambeth Crime Prevention Team, who incidentally already works closely with the local police in the Brixton area. This outreach worker is very much part of the drug initiative to reduce the presence of persisten drug users hanging around the tube and surrounding areas. The suggestion that SLaM and the police made the proposal lightly is misplaced and rather cynical. This proposal was made very clear by the Police representative at the planning meeting in September. It seems that lack of knowledge of this proposal is simply an indication that most people in the anti camp were not listening or perhaps faled to ask more details of what was proposed. There are hundreds of drug services strewn across the country, some much larger than the one proposed, which are based in the heart of residential areas. I cannot of a single one that has experienced, or created the problems envisaged by most in the anti-camp faction.

Call me cynical, but I believe the problem with this proposal being so vociferously opposed is the fact that some residents (not all) in the Brighton Terrace area ARE indeed professional with powerful links within the council and the Labour Party, hence the Labour Councillor's opposition to the centre. It's the same old story of a few privileged individual with strong political connections lobbying their representative. Nothing will make me change my mind on this one. Most people have agreed that Brixton NEEDS a drug centre. I am not so naive as to claim that there will be no problems at all, but overall I strongly believe that the proposed drug centre will bring more benefits to the area than problems. The residents have eloquently argued that they have already a significant problem in their area with discarded needles and drug users roaming the area. I simply cannot see how a drug centre located in such a blighted area could make things worse. On the contrary, I believe that the drug centre will displace the problem somewhere else and bring much relief and benefits to the local residents.

As was pointed out in a posting somewhere above, 90% of drug users are to all effect 'invisible' to the general population simply because not every drug user is a chaotic user rampaging through the streets. This is a long term problem of wrong perception of drug users, who are invariably described in 'hysterical' tones as out of control criminals. Let's get a grip on reality. This country used to be a tolerant and pragmatic country, it seems that the media and successive governments have succeeded in wrongly demonising this vulnerable group of people. Let's not forget that the reason our community is so divided and at each other's throat is a direct result of the unenlighted policies of our politicians, who have created the 'problem' in the first place by sticking to the American style prohibitionism that has created the largest criminal wave in history. Do we really want to continue to wage of war on people because that's exactly what the 'war on drugs' is really all about. Drug users are the convenient punch bag of our society who can conveniently be blamed for all the ills of our inner cities. Do we really want to create teh same situation that Americans have created in their society? Can we start again to be British rather than a colony of America blindly adopting policiies that are clearly not working as well illustrated by the enormous problems that our American cousins are experiencing.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 19, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> The idea of planning permission for the whole project being "temporary" or "reviewable" is an interesting one. My guess is that this would result in the proposal being withdrawn since the capital investment required to get it off the ground will be far too large to risk if the plug can then be pulled after two or three years.


This question was put to the architect at the planning meeting. He stated that the resulting building would be suitable for normal office use with very little conversion work and that temporary planning permission might not pose too much of a financial risk.

The "warden" BTW, was an "afterthought" in that it did form part of the original proposals. But you could equally say that the idea was thought up "as a result of consultation with local people" so not much propaganda value there.

The idea of testing the effectiveness of a treament centre next the drugs market of central Brixton by starting with a smaller centre and dropping the drop-in needle exchange idea is the best one so far. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets past most of the residents too.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 19, 2005)

But there already are treatment centres and needle exchanges in Brixton.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 19, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But there already are treatment centres and needle exchanges in Brixton.


They must be different. SLAM were clear about only running centres in Stockwell and at Marina House (in fact in Southwark).

There are outreach schemes that you see from time to time. There's often one I see in Tunstall Road. It certainly hasn't done anything to turn Tunstall Road into anything less of a crack-smoking, neede-littered, piss-smelly alley.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 19, 2005)

"They must be different".  What you mean is, that you don't know.  In what way are they different?  What are they doing that this new propsed centre won't?


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 19, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> "They must be different".  What you mean is, that you don't know.  In what way are they different?  What are they doing that this new propsed centre won't?


It'd be great if the people planning this new centre would say why they are different to, for instance, the outdoors scheme in Tunstall Road which does nothing to reduce the anti-social behaviour from chaotic drug users in the local area.

But they don't. They make assertions. Objectors voice scepticism. The proposers make the assertions again. It's not an argument, it's just contradiction.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 19, 2005)

You're arguing from a position of ignorance.  Maybe if you educated yourself a little about drug treatment and services that already exist in Brixton, people might take you a little more seriously.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 20, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're arguing from a position of ignorance.  Maybe if you educated yourself a little about drug treatment and services that already exist in Brixton, people might take you a little more seriously.



I'd agree that the vast majority of people are arguing from a position of at least partial ignorance. We're not all trained healthcare professionals and many people only really know what they see around them. But the proposers cannot expect to say to the residents "Hi - we're proposing to put a new drug treatment centre next door to your home. We know drugs and drug users are a sensitive issue for you so if you would each kindly go away and educate yourself in drug rehabilitation you'll realise just what a great opportunity this is for you."

Whatever the planning application, it is surely the proposers job to understand the fears of the local residents - however ill-founded they may judge them to be - and then provide relevant information in an easily accessible format that will help to "educate" them. They do not appear to be doing this very well and are giving the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that they don't really give a monkey's about the locals.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 20, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> "They must be different".  What you mean is, that you don't know.  In what way are they different?  What are they doing that this new propsed centre won't?



Surely it is fair to assume these projects (which I admit I am also not particularly familiar with) are fairly different becasue the proposers of the new centre are arguing that theirs is a much needed service that does not already exist.

If the proposed new service is in fact not wildly different to what is already available in Brixton, then I would think that may be a good reason why many residents fear the project being located on Brighton Terrace. It is not as if their successes are overwhelmingly obvious to the average 'man/woman in the street' that most of us are.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> I'd agree that the vast majority of people are arguing from a position of at least partial ignorance. We're not all trained healthcare professionals and many people only really know what they see around them. But the proposers cannot expect to say to the residents "Hi - we're proposing to put a new drug treatment centre next door to your home. We know drugs and drug users are a sensitive issue for you so if you would each kindly go away and educate yourself in drug rehabilitation you'll realise just what a great opportunity this is for you."
> 
> Whatever the planning application, it is surely the proposers job to understand the fears of the local residents - however ill-founded they may judge them to be - and then provide relevant information in an easily accessible format that will help to "educate" them. They do not appear to be doing this very well and are giving the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that they don't really give a monkey's about the locals.



If you're arguing against something, it might be an idea to educate yourself with the facts first, no?


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> I'd agree that the vast majority of people are arguing from a position of at least partial ignorance. We're not all trained healthcare professionals and many people only really know what they see around them. But the proposers cannot expect to say to the residents "Hi - we're proposing to put a new drug treatment centre next door to your home. We know drugs and drug users are a sensitive issue for you so if you would each kindly go away and educate yourself in drug rehabilitation you'll realise just what a great opportunity this is for you."
> 
> Whatever the planning application, it is surely the proposers job to understand the fears of the local residents - however ill-founded they may judge them to be - and then provide relevant information in an easily accessible format that will help to "educate" them. They do not appear to be doing this very well and are giving the impression - perhaps incorrectly - that they don't really give a monkey's about the locals.



But how can you educate people when they hang for dear life to all their worst prejudices? SLaM can 'educate' people till they are blue faced, it simply will not succeed. Placing the centre observing the due course of the planning officer, who did not object to the centre, is the only way to educate people. Once they realise and see with their own eyes that the centre will not materialise all their worst nightmare, then they will be educated.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> But how can you educate people when they hang for dear life to all their worst prejudices? SLaM can 'educate' people till they are blue faced, it simply will not succeed. Placing the centre observing the due course of the planning officer, who did not object to the centre, is the only way to educate people. Once they realise and see with their own eyes that the centre will not materialise all their worst nightmare, then they will be educated.



A couple of posts ago you appeared to express a fairly strong prejudice yourself against some of the residents of Brighton Terrace followed by the statement "My mind will not be changed on this one." Unfortunately when both sides hang on for dear life to their prejudices you inevitably end up with stalemate.

Unless it is accepted that not everyone protesting against the centre is as prejudice (and as powerful) as you suggest and that there are normal people like you and me who have genuine concerns about the potential for an increase in drug related activity and crime on their doorsteps then no solution can be reached. These fears have to be addressed.

Surely the only way forward can be compromise and understanding from both sides.

It occurs to me that, if what Ol' Nick says regarding the feasibility of converting the building back to office space is correct, this must also be true in reverse. If that is so - would it be possible for SLaM to purchase the whole building with planning granted for a smaller centre on the ground floor and non-related offices on the upper floors which could be leased out? SLaM could then proceed with the project and take the opportunity to show that they are able to help address the local problem before they opens their doors to become an Lambeth-wide centre. If it can be shown that it has benefitted the immediate local area as well as the clients the centre is serving then I'm sure there would be litle protest against them getting change of use to use the upper parts (and if there was protest it would be hard to substantiate). If not, SLaM can choose to continue to operate a smaller service and receive an income from the upper floors or look for another site.

All that said, my own opinion is currently that there could well be more appropriate locations very nearby (if indeed locating slap bang in the middle of Brixton is the right choice which, as you know, I can't help but doubt). Does anyone know whether SLaM has carried out a feasibility study on any other central locations?


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> A couple of posts ago you appeared to express a fairly strong prejudice yourself against some of the residents of Brighton Terrace followed by the statement "My mind will not be changed on this one." Unfortunately when both sides hang on for dear life to their prejudices you inevitably end up with stalemate.
> 
> Unless it is accepted that not everyone protesting against the centre is as prejudice (and as powerful) as you suggest and that there are normal people like you and me who have genuine concerns about the potential for an increase in drug related activity and crime on their doorsteps then no solution can be reached. These fears have to be addressed.
> 
> ...



Though I agree with you that a compromise would be acceptable, I still do not agree that the centre should be located somewhere else. The whole point for the centre being located in central Brixton is the easy accessibility that such a centre should have for ALL Lambeth residents who may need this type of service. My prejudice stems from my perception of the arguments of the residents as being hypocritical in the extreme. They are also doing a disservice to themselves. In my humble opinion if the centre is forced on another location, they will just continue to experience the same problems they are experiencing now. It all comes down to short-sightedness and prejudice. Do the residents REALLY want an end to the blight of discarded needles in their streets? The answer and help is at hand.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Though I agree with you that a compromise would be acceptable, I still do not agree that the centre should be located somewhere else. The whole point for the centre being located in central Brixton is the easy accessibility that such a centre should have for ALL Lambeth residents who may need this type of service. My prejudice stems from my perception of the arguments of the residents as being hypocritical in the extreme. They are also doing a disservice to themselves. In my humble opinion if the centre is forced on another location, they will just continue to experience the same problems they are experiencing now. It all comes down to short-sightedness and prejudice. Do the residents REALLY want an end to the blight of discarded needles in their streets? The answer and help is at hand.



It seems that your prejudices are based on the same thing as everyone elses - perceptions made on what we observe around us and which are then influenced by our own limited knowledge and life experiences.

OK - assuming that the argument that it needs to be in central Brixton is correct and that no other area with excellent transport links would suffice and that multiple smaller centres would not make the service more accessible - why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered.

More importantly though, if, as Blagsta says, there are already needle exchanges / treatment centres in Brixton how is this one, which is designed to attract additional non-local users (albeit people who are trying to deal with their addiction), going to improve the problem where the others have not visibly done so. That seems to me to be a valid question?

As far as the exchange itself is concerned, I can see the benefits for the user but I don't entirely understand how having an exchange will necessarily solve the 'needles on doorsteps' problem (to which I would add faeces on doorsteps problem in my own experience). My understanding is that the centres do not allow injecting on site so needles will need to be taken away for use elsewhere. The principle of an exchange is as I understand it that the user will need to produce a used sharp to qualify for a fresh one. If they don't produce one, where do they get their sharps from? My garden is constantly being littered with both used and unused needles so they are clearly readily available without exchange. 

So where's the incentive to exchange?
What happens when the user can't produce a needle to 'exchange' -are they excluded from the system and what happens to them then?
Even if users don't leave the needles lying about, they still need somewhere to shoot up and why will they stop using the same doorsteps, front gardens and alleys..?
If they still need to use doorsteps etc.. why will they not be more likley to use the steps and gardens closest to the centre?
And if the centre is attracting users from a larger catchment area, why would that behaviour not be expected to increase?

(Sorry for so many questions!)


----------



## Ms T (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> OK - assuming that the argument that it needs to be in central Brixton is correct and that no other area with excellent transport links would suffice and that multiple smaller centres would not make the service more accessible - why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered.



I think this is a very valid question.  Brixton Cycles in particular would seem to be an excellent location for this kind of centre, as it is a stone's throw from the new police station on Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction.


Why not Brighton Terrace? As I have said before, I would be happy to have such a place close by -- and I know a lot of my neighbours would agree -- BUT the site on Brighton Terrace has been chosen as the most suitable in the area for development. Why not just accept it?  I am not seeing a single convincing argument or shred of evidence that this is anything other than nimbyism on the part of Brighton Terrace residents.


----------



## Bob (Nov 21, 2005)

Ms T said:
			
		

> I think this is a very valid question.  Brixton Cycles in particular would seem to be an excellent location for this kind of centre, as it is a stone's throw from the new police station on Coldharbour Lane.



I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it - it's privately owned. So they could only buy it by offering the owner enough cash to give it up - probably a million or two.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it


Indeed.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> More importantly though, if, as Blagsta says, there are already needle exchanges / treatment centres in Brixton how is this one, which is designed to attract additional non-local users (albeit people who are trying to deal with their addiction), going to improve the problem where the others have not visibly done so. That seems to me to be a valid question?



Errr...it is rather a large assumption on your part that the current services have done nothing to improve the situation.  On what do you base this?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it - it's privately owned. So they could only buy it by offering the owner enough cash to give it up - probably a million or two.



Unless I am mistaken the council does own Acre House on Acre Lane (ironically, planning have just moved out) and Lambeth definitely owned the other property on Effra Road I referred to.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> Unless I am mistaken the council does own Acre House on Acre Lane (ironically, planning have just moved out) and Lambeth definitely owned the other property on Effra Road I referred to.


But why are they better sites than Brighton Terrace? And from whose point of view?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Errr...it is rather a large assumption on your part that the current services have done nothing to improve the situation.  On what do you base this?



I haven't assumed that they had done nothing to improve the situation - I said they had not *visibly* done so. My own observation over the past eight years (five of them living on Tunstall Road) is that the problem of drug related litter and faeces has increased - it is much worse than it was in 97/98. And that which is visible is what most people will be basing their objections on - and what else do you expect people to do? If there is a good reason why that should be considered an improvement no-one is really communicating it very well.

Admittedly, my own ignorance about the Central Brixton help groups/exchanges you referred to earlier does not help. Could you let me know some details so that I can find out more for myself? Cheers.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Why not Brighton Terrace? As I have said before, I would be happy to have such a place close by -- and I know a lot of my neighbours would agree -- BUT the site on Brighton Terrace has been chosen as the most suitable in the area for development. Why not just accept it?  I am not seeing a single convincing argument or shred of evidence that this is anything other than nimbyism on the part of Brighton Terrace residents.



You feel happy with the siting of the centre and so, you say, are many of your neighbours. And that has to be respected. But many aren't happy and "it has been chosen - accept it" can't really be expected to win anyone over.

That's why in the post to which you responded I asked:

"Why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Coldharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered."

 "It has been chosen - accept it" wouldn't be an acceptable response if the proposal was a club, or a supermarket or a telecoms mast - so why is it acceptable for a drug clinic?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> I haven't assumed that they had done nothing to improve the situation - I said they had not *visibly* done so. My own observation over the past eight years (five of them living on Tunstall Road) is that the problem of drug related litter and faeces has increased - it is much worse than it was in 97/98. And that which is visible is what most people will be basing their objections on - and what else do you expect people to do? If there is a good reason why that should be considered an improvement no-one is really communicating it very well.



Again, that is so loaded with assumptions based on little evidence.




			
				Rushy said:
			
		

> Admittedly, my own ignorance about the Central Brixton help groups/exchanges you referred to earlier does not help. Could you let me know some details so that I can find out more for myself? Cheers.



www.drugscope.or.uk
www.nta.nhs.uk

are good places to start if you want to educate yourself about drug treatment


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> You feel happy with the siting of the centre and so, you say, are many of your neighbours. And that has to be respected. But many aren't happy and "it has been chosen - accept it" can't really be expected to win anyone over.
> 
> That's why in the post to which you responded I asked:
> 
> ...


Oh come on, enough with going round and round  in circles.  I still can't see anything but nimbyism in your argument.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys


----------



## netbob (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys



Probably not as that's a valid concern. But without effective needle exchange facilities needles in playgrounds (and elsewhere) are probably more likely aren't they?


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys


 There are children living _everywhere _ in Brixton. This kind of Rebekkkah Wade style emoting (and emotional bullying) by numbers does not help anyone


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

So parents worried about their kids are guilty of emoting by numbers and emotional bullying? 
What doesn't help is demonising people who disagree with you. As I said before.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> So parents worried about their kids are guilty of emoting by numbers and emotional bullying?
> What doesn't help is demonising people who disagree with you. As I said before.


 They didn't say it. You did. Their self appointed  young, professional, childless spokesman.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> They didn't say it. You did. Their self appointed  young, professional, childless spokesman.


Didn't say what?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

FFS I'm only informing people about one point of view as I have seen it expressed in literature posted through my door - I'm not any kind of spokesman, I'm just getting sick of wilfully obtuse misrepresentation again and again.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> FFS I'm only informing people about one point of view as I have seen it expressed in literature posted through my door - I'm not any kind of spokesman, I'm just getting sick of wilfully obtuse misrepresentation again and again.


Bull. You've already said you're on nobody's side but your own. Those were your own words. 

You either have the courage of your convictions about something or you don't. And seeing as you apparently don't, I want to know why you have appointed yourself spokesman for these people. Especially when there  already several Brighton Terrace residents posting. It's not as though they need you to speak for them and there is something a little patronising about your assumption that they do. 

You are clearly not the impartial observer you're trying to make yourself out to be. Be honest and stop trying to diguise spinelessness as  some sort of intellectual superiority. You simply aren't fooling anyone. 

We keep hearing from Brighton Terrace residents that, basically, all these issues are far too complex for us to understand. On the contrary, we understand _perfectly. _


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh come on, enough with going round and round  in circles.  I still can't see anything but nimbyism in your argument.



Interesting - particularly since I would like to see a treatment service introduced and both locations I mentioned are closer to my own home.

I'm sorry that I don't agree with your point of view but the "they're all nimbies" argument hasn't really swung it for me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

Oh fuck this for a game of soldiers - your talking out of your arse, you silly woman


----------



## pooka (Nov 21, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it - it's privately owned. So they could only buy it by offering the owner enough cash to give it up - probably a million or two.



I'm not sure the bakery isn't in private ownership. Plus, the proposers are SLaM, not the Council.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Oh fuck this for a game of soldiers - your talking out of your arse, you silly woman


I rest my case.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

Oops, I meant *you're* talking out of your arse! How remiss of me.
Don't fucking call me spineless just cos I disagree with you. That's a disgraceful lie. 
I'm getting out before I say something rash


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Oops, I meant *you're* talking out of your arse! How remiss of me.
> Don't fucking call me spineless just cos I disagree with you. That's a disgraceful lie.
> I'm getting out before I say something rash


Calm down dear, it's only a bulletin board. 

In future, try not pitching in and attacking people unless and until you've actually got an argument.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Oh, and I was referring to your antediluvian attitude towards women, not your punctuation.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

First you scream hysterically at so-called NIMBYS who have genuine concerns that should be addressed if we are to convince them of the merits of having the centre on Brighton Terrace.
Then you spout hypocritical nonsense about being on sides as if it's a fucking war.
Then you call me spineless for acknowledging other points of view.
Now you're patronising me - how nice.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Again, that is so loaded with assumptions based on little evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links (there's a typo in the drugslink one - should be ".org").
I assume it's the Harbour Project on Coldharbour Lane which you were referring to. The other locally is the Stockwell Project.

Sorry to hear that you feel my response is so loaded with assumptions. I though I had made it pretty clear that I was basing it what I have seen and experienced of Tunstall Road over a fairly long period. And that I thought lot's of others are probably doing the same.

I don't suppose that you are disagreeing with what I have seen but how I have interpreted what I have seen.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> your antediluvian attitude towards women


Liar - how did you work that out?
How dare you?


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> First you scream hysterically.


*drums fingers on table*


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links (there's a typo in the drugslink one - should be ".org").
> I assume it's the Harbour Project on Coldharbour Lane which you were referring to. The other locally is the Stockwell Project.
> 
> Sorry to hear that you feel my response is so loaded with assumptions. I though I had made it pretty clear that I was basing it what I have seen and experienced of Tunstall Road over a fairly long period. And that I thought lot's of others are probably doing the same.
> ...



I'm disagreeing with the conclusions you come to.  You're saying - I have seen more drug use therefore drug treatment doesn't work.  Do I have to point out the idiocy in that?


----------



## gabi (Nov 21, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I think families worried about needles in playgrounds aren't necessarily nimbys



I don't get that logic at all.  The junkies are already there, so surely putting the treatment centre in would, if anything, reduce the number of needles lying around the neighbourhood?

I live in Trinity Gardens, and am all in favour of the centre. I doubt most of my relatively wealthy neighbours are though. I don't they've actually put any thought into it though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2005)

gabi said:
			
		

> I don't get that logic at all.  The junkies are already there, so surely putting the treatment centre in would, if anything, reduce the number of needles lying around the neighbourhood?



I think so too, but not everyone can be persuaded so unfortunately - I'm constantly encountering needles stickinh out of recycle bins or discarded on lawns, and I can't see how it could get any worse than it is, so the presence of the centre can only do good.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm disagreeing with the conclusions you come to.  You're saying - I have seen more drug use therefore drug treatment doesn't work.  Do I have to point out the idiocy in that?



I guess if you say so (although I've a had a look back through the posts and can't quite see where I concluded that). Not to worry.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2005)

Errrr...




			
				Rushy said:
			
		

> I haven't assumed that they had done nothing to improve the situation - I said they had not *visibly* done so. *My own observation over the past eight years (five of them living on Tunstall Road) is that the problem of drug related litter and faeces has increased - it is much worse than it was in 97/98.* And that which is visible is what most people will be basing their objections on - and what else do you expect people to do? If there is a good reason why that should be considered an improvement no-one is really communicating it very well.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 21, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> It seems that your prejudices are based on the same thing as everyone elses - perceptions made on what we observe around us and which are then influenced by our own limited knowledge and life experiences.
> 
> OK - assuming that the argument that it needs to be in central Brixton is correct and that no other area with excellent transport links would suffice and that multiple smaller centres would not make the service more accessible - why is Brighton Terrace the ideal location? Why not Colharbour Lane (Brixton Cycles for example) or Acre Lane (Acre House for example) or the five storey day centre on Effra Road that was recently sold at auction. I am sure it would help people to know why this very precise and clearly contentious location is so crucial and what other properties had been considered.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that. Your answer simply shows your ignorance on the subject.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2005)

NHS Models of Care
http://www.nta.nhs.uk/publications/Models_of_care.pdf
http://www.nta.nhs.uk/publications/MOCPART2/mocpart2_feb03-old.pdf


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Thanks for that. Your answer simply shows your ignorance on the subject.



Thanks Kiddo, but that's a bit rough IMO. Lot's of genuine questions there. 

Perhaps if people weren't so afraid to ask and answer questions there would be more a bit more understanding about the issues. I'm not afraid to admit it when I don't know something. It's just a shame that you are so reluctant to share the knowledge that relieves you of the ignorance from which you believe I suffer.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 21, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Errrr...



 I don't claim to be a master of the Queen's english but the sentence which you highlighted _[there appear to be more needles and poo in the street now than in 97/98] _ would appear to be an observation  rather than a conclusion and is even conveniently labelled as such.

Conclusions, on the other hand, are the reasoned judgements usually arrived at after interpretation of information, observations and experiences.

What I have said is that people will undoubtedly interpret their own personal observations in concluding whether the services you referred to have been successful. If you or someone else wishes them to include in their interpretion relevant information which you believe they may be ignorant of - just share it.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 22, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> I'd think the main reason is that the council doesn't own it - it's privately owned. So they could only buy it by offering the owner enough cash to give it up - probably a million or two.


The council doesn't own the Brighton Terrace site either. And I think the owners have permission for private housing on the site. They certainly applied for it.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 22, 2005)

gabi said:
			
		

> I live in Trinity Gardens, and am all in favour of the centre. I doubt most of my relatively wealthy neighbours are though. I don't they've actually put any thought into it though.


I think you'll find more support in "relatively wealthy" and slightly more distant Trinity Gardens than in relatively not wealthy Brighton Terrace. How do you know how much thought they've put into it? Have you talked to them? Or are you airing prejudices?


----------



## gabi (Nov 22, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I think you'll find more support in "relatively wealthy" and slightly more distant Trinity Gardens than in relatively not wealthy Brighton Terrace. How do you know how much thought they've put into it? Have you talked to them? Or are you airing prejudices?



My opinions are based on living right slap bang amongst 'em. Strange little spot of Brixton this. I lived for two years on Brighton Terrace too, so I have some knowledge of the 'community' there.

On what are you basing your theory that the Trinity Gardens lot are broadly in favour btw? I'd be surprised.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 22, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> I don't claim to be a master of the Queen's english



Obviously


----------



## Rushy (Nov 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Obviously



From my limited experience of chatting with you, you do appear to be a Master of the Insubstatial Response. Just lots of Grrrrrr...

Not really my bag so I'll leave you to it.

Have fun!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 22, 2005)

I say as much or as little as I feel the need to.  Writing lots does not neccessarily make you more informed, as you illustrate quite well.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 22, 2005)

If it did, Barbara Cartland would have been on _Mastermind_.


----------



## IntoStella (Nov 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I say as much or as little as I feel the need to.  Writing lots does not neccessarily make you more informed, as you illustrate quite well.


 Hear hear

Succinctness is a virtue.


----------



## netbob (Nov 22, 2005)

The planning meeting for the centre is due on the *13th December*. 

A big turn out will make it harder for a repeat of the fudge that happened last time (i.e. no reason to turn it down, but no councillor willing to second it    ). Please bump closer to the time.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 22, 2005)

Did anyone go to a public meeting at the Town Hall on Thursday 17th last week? Apparently it was held at quite short notice - I only just saw the flier.


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 22, 2005)

gabi said:
			
		

> On what are you basing your theory that the Trinity Gardens lot are broadly in favour btw? I'd be surprised.


On the various meetings and from talking to them. I'd say that those without children are broadly (but not passionately) in favour. Those with children are more suspicious.

The hardcore oppostion comes from those living nearby in Brighton Terrace.

It's been like this at every meeting on the subject that I've been to, anyway.

(Is it a "strange little spot of Brixton"? I don't get that bit. Is it because half the people have lived there for 30 years rather than being more recent incomers?)


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Nov 28, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> Thanks Kiddo, but that's a bit rough IMO. Lot's of genuine questions there.
> 
> Perhaps if people weren't so afraid to ask and answer questions there would be more a bit more understanding about the issues. I'm not afraid to admit it when I don't know something. It's just a shame that you are so reluctant to share the knowledge that relieves you of the ignorance from which you believe I suffer.



To answer your 'questions' in your previous post. Firstly, there are NO treatment services in Brixton. The issue you raise regarding the needle exchange just shows you have simply not grasped the nature of a needle exchange. It's in the word itself 'EXCHANGE'. Drug users take home clean needles, together with cin-bins, and when they need new ones they must return the used ones. A database is used to check how many needles where taken at previous visit by each individual client and the returns are also logged in. 

The reason for so many discarded needles in the BT area is BECAUSE there is no needle exchange in the area. Placing a needle exchange in the service would solve the problem of discarded needles. Simple, innit?


----------



## Bob (Nov 28, 2005)

For people's information there are now about 250 people signed up of whom about 220 are in Lambeth.

There is also updated information as to which councillors are for and against the centre here .


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 28, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> To answer your 'questions' in your previous post. Firstly, there are NO treatment services in Brixton. The issue you raise regarding the needle exchange just shows you have simply not grasped the nature of a needle exchange. It's in the word itself 'EXCHANGE'. Drug users take home clean needles, together with cin-bins, and when they need new ones they must return the used ones. A database is used to check how many needles where taken at previous visit by each individual client and the returns are also logged in.
> 
> The reason for so many discarded needles in the BT area is BECAUSE there is no needle exchange in the area. Placing a needle exchange in the service would solve the problem of discarded needles. Simple, innit?



There is actually a needle exchange run by Mainliners out of the Lambeth Harbour project at Loughborough Junction.


----------



## TeeJay (Nov 28, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> For people's information there are now about 250 people signed up of whom about 220 are in Lambeth.
> 
> There is also updated information as to which councillors are for and against the centre here .


Good on you for doing this. I wish something like this happened for a all local issues. It really allows people to see what their elected representatives are doing and is a real boost to pushing for more transparency and democracy. In a halfway decent system this would all be done automatically by a local government website.


----------



## cllr (Nov 28, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Good on you for doing this. I wish something like this happened for a all local issues. It really allows people to see what their elected representatives are doing and is a real boost to pushing for more transparency and democracy. In a halfway decent system this would all be done automatically by a local government website.




I agree - it was very intersting to see how we all shaped up on this.


----------



## netbob (Nov 28, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Good on you for doing this. I wish something like this happened for a all local issues. It really allows people to see what their elected representatives are doing and is a real boost to pushing for more transparency and democracy. In a halfway decent system this would all be done automatically by a local government website.



A good start would be for Lambeth to stop publishing everything in PDF format
It makes it difficult to search for and collate information on where councillors stand. If they made the raw data avaliable or used web pages you could build some very smart websites. 

I'd really like to have a stab at replicating something like theyworkforyou.com at a local level.

As far as other local issues go, MyBrixton.org  is open content so anyone can use it for any local issue they want to.


----------



## TeeJay (Nov 28, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> MyBrixton.org  is open content so anyone can use it for any local issue they want to.


Its good to have people doing it voluntarily, but you'd think that given that Lambeth manages to spend £XXX million a year, allowing people to access what is going on at the Town Hall, the basic information about local issues and being able - as a matter of routine - to have on record the views held by elected decision makers would be a service underpinning the democractic mandate for spedning this money and exercising these powers.

This would free up local individuals who want to campaign on things to engage with the media, do further research and develop the arguments further. 

It would also provide a more neutral, consistent and central resource that everyone could easily access as a starting point.

It seems bizarre that local tax payers have to struggle to get even this most basic of information from the body that is meant to be there serving them. It seesm at the moment that a lot of information gets out through gossip and personal contacts, which means that people have to be almost full-time town hall groupies to be able to be in the loop. Hardly transparent or democractic.


----------



## netbob (Nov 28, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Its good to have people doing it voluntarily, but you'd think that given that Lambeth manages to spend £XXX million a year, allowing people to access what is going on at the Town Hall, the basic information about local issues and being able - as a matter of routine - to have on record the views held by elected decision makers would be a service underpinning the democractic mandate for spedning this money and exercising these powers.



I totally agree. Lambeth's website is better than some but its primary purpose is as a properganda tool, rather than as a tool to egage with _us what put them there_.

Personally I think things like this are better done by volunteers (or at least one step removed from government). Government at any level always has contradictory pressures on it that make opening up information a secondary concern.

I'm planning something around opening up the Revitalise 'debate' at the mo. I'll post it up when it's done.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> To answer your 'questions' in your previous post. Firstly, there are NO treatment services in Brixton. The issue you raise regarding the needle exchange just shows you have simply not grasped the nature of a needle exchange. It's in the word itself 'EXCHANGE'. Drug users take home clean needles, together with cin-bins, and when they need new ones they must return the used ones. A database is used to check how many needles where taken at previous visit by each individual client and the returns are also logged in.
> 
> The reason for so many discarded needles in the BT area is BECAUSE there is no needle exchange in the area. Placing a needle exchange in the service would solve the problem of discarded needles. Simple, innit?



Easy, Tiger! 

You are right of course: the basic concept of a needle exchange is very obvious from its name. Exactly how it works is not so obvious and so your answer is a little simplistic.

It is the smaller number of more conspicuous and chaotic users who will doubtless be the ones to find the schemes harder to use and cause any problems. Hence the 'questions' to you such as - what happens when someone does not exchange - are they dropped from the scheme? Do they then have to resort to a no-exchange-required supply? What is the incentive to exchange if the needles are already freely available elswhere? As nowhere is provided for injecting how will this reduce the frequency of the more chaotic users from using the same front gardens and doorsteps as ever? And why will users new to the area attracted by the exchange not also use these same areas to shoot-up? Etc...


----------



## Ol Nick (Nov 29, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> I totally agree. Lambeth's website is better than some but its primary purpose is as a properganda tool


But so is this site! I love the "Arguments Against" link.


----------



## netbob (Nov 29, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> But so is this site! I love the "Arguments Against" link.



Its a wiki, anyone can edit it. Fancy adding some arguments against?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2005)

Rushy said:
			
		

> Easy, Tiger!
> 
> You are right of course: the basic concept of a needle exchange is very obvious from its name. Exactly how it works is not so obvious and so your answer is a little simplistic.
> 
> It is the smaller number of more conspicuous and chaotic users who will doubtless be the ones to find the schemes harder to use and cause any problems. Hence the 'questions' to you such as - what happens when someone does not exchange - are they dropped from the scheme? Do they then have to resort to a no-exchange-required supply? What is the incentive to exchange if the needles are already freely available elswhere? As nowhere is provided for injecting how will this reduce the frequency of the more chaotic users from using the same front gardens and doorsteps as ever? And why will users new to the area attracted by the exchange not also use these same areas to shoot-up? Etc...



Did you read the Models of Care document I linked to?


----------



## netbob (Dec 3, 2005)

Fook! I just checked the petition and its up to 320. Surely councillors can't ignore that kind of support can they?


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 3, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Fook! I just checked the petition and its up to 320. Surely councillors can't ignore that kind of support can they?



I agree, I am surprised at how many people from all over Lambeth have grasped the need for a centre based in central Brixton. But, call me cynical, I don't think Lambeth councillors give a hoot about people's opinion...unless of course it threatens their votes. Paul McGlone (Labour - ferndale ward)  will definetely not get my vote at the next election.


----------



## Justice4all (Dec 5, 2005)

*Brigthon Terrace Planning Permission*

It appears that the Planning Officers may be in favour for the centre being located at Brighton Terrace. For anyone interested in their submission this is the link to the .PDF document outlining their final submission

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C0B66968-8016-4FB9-A287-FA7A021D70A3/0/Agenda131205.pdf 

It is a large-ish document so be patient if you have a slow connection as it may take a while to download.

It would be useful for all in favour to attend the final planning meeting at the Town Hall on Tuesday 13th December at 7pm


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 5, 2005)

Will do. Thanks.

Just printed it out and have had a quick look and it looks GREAT. For once in my life I have to  say good old Lambeth planning officers.


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 5, 2005)

Memespring, make sure you submit your monster petition to PAC before the deadline for submissions. On top of the fantastic job the planners have done (I NEVER thought I'd say that  ), it could well deliver the coup de grace.


----------



## pooka (Dec 5, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Memespring, make sure you submit your monster petition to PAC before the deadline for submissions. On top of the fantastic job the planners have done (I NEVER thought I'd say that  ), it could well deliver the coup de grace.



mybrixton.org is slated to speak.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 5, 2005)

*Free Beneficial Herbs for All*




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Memespring, make sure you submit your monster petition to PAC before the deadline for submissions. On top of the fantastic job the planners have done (I NEVER thought I'd say that  ), it could well deliver the coup de grace.



When is the deadline to submit the petition? I still have a few people who want to sign it and need to get their signature on paper.


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 5, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Will do. Thanks.
> 
> Just printed it out and have had a quick look and it looks GREAT. For once in my life I have to  say good old Lambeth planning officers.


The officers are performing their function: taking heat for fence-sitting politicians in the run up to an election.


----------



## Bob (Dec 5, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> When is the deadline to submit the petition? I still have a few people who want to sign it and need to get their signature on paper.



AFAIK right up until the meeting - though obviously at some point we'll have to print it out.

I'm not sure why they have planning meetings on Tuesdays - it's a real pain for me since that's the one evening of the week which is difficult for me every week!


----------



## Bob (Dec 5, 2005)

nicebutdim said:
			
		

> The officers are performing their function: taking heat for fence-sitting politicians in the run up to an election.



Wrong for two reasons:

1. The politicians on the committe have to take a stance when it comes for a vote. Clearly a couple of them are anti (see their emails on mybrixton) and clearly one is pro (Brian Palmer - who proposed it). 

2. Planning committees are quasi judicial. Hence the purpose of the officers is to advise the committee of the relevant laws so that the politicians can use their discretion when appropriate (so that it's not contested in a higher court). The officers legally have to express an opinion before it goes to the committee - members of the committee legally cannot express an opinion.


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 5, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> good old Lambeth planning officers.:


The planning officers always supported the plan. The whole Lambeth bureacratic machine supported the plan. This whole fight has been between the liberal Lambeth juggernaut and a few tough people who can see when they're being shat on and will not be rolled over by lies and cant.

You bandwagon-jumpers with your after-the-fact petition have never got your facts right, have never understood what's going on here. Why? Because you choose not to.


----------



## pooka (Dec 5, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> The planning officers always supported the plan. The whole Lambeth bureacratic machine supported the plan. This whole fight has been between the liberal Lambeth juggernaut and a few tough people who can see when they're being shat on and will not be rolled over by lies and cant.
> 
> You bandwagon-jumpers with your after-the-fact petition have never got your facts right, have never understood what's going on here. Why? Because you choose not to.



Well, there's a balanced view! This isn't some battle of good and evil. What is playing out here is the inevitable tension between the greater good and genuine local interest. It would be true whereever this centre was proposed to be located. (Where would you put it Ol Nick, by the way?) That's difficult and it's what we have democratic processes for.  

As for bandwagon-jumpers with after-the-fact petition, well, after the last planning meeting those opposing it considered it dead in the water - they said as much. Supporters were resigned to the Planning Officers going away and finding a fig-leaf for the committee. It's the level of local interest that's kept the issue live.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 6, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> The planning officers always supported the plan. The whole Lambeth bureacratic machine supported the plan. This whole fight has been between the liberal Lambeth juggernaut and a few tough people who can see when they're being shat on and will not be rolled over by lies and cant.
> 
> You bandwagon-jumpers with your after-the-fact petition have never got your facts right, have never understood what's going on here. Why? Because you choose not to.



Do I detect some sour grapes?


----------



## happyshopper (Dec 6, 2005)

Those of us who oppose the location of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Brighton Terrace have repeatedly been challenged to come up with an alternative site. I would have more sympathy with this challenge if some sort of wider consultation had been undertaken about the location of the Centre at an earlier stage, i.e. before the Health Authority had already made up its mind. They say they considered 18(?) other sites but have concluded that Brighton Terrace is the only location in the whole of Lambeth that meets all the needs of the service. 

This is simply impossible to accept. These decisions are always made on a balance of advantages and disadvantages and the residents of Brighton Terrace are entitled to see a fuller assessment of all the options that have been considered than has been offered so far. I see no reason for any guilt on the part of opponents, when it is the Health Authority which has mis-handled the situation.

I therefore reject to idea that there is any more responsibility on the opponents of the Brighton Terrace location to come up with an alternative site than there is on any other group of Lambeth residents. 

However, having said all that, we have already suggested a number of other possibilities, particularly the ex-SEGAS offices in Acre Lane, and have not really had a satisfactory explanation as to why this is unacceptable. There is some housing across Acre Lane but this is a question of degree. I agree that no site is going to be perfect but that part of Acre Land is clearly much less of a residential location than Brighton Terrace - it is a main road and not a residential side-street. Transport links are also good for people from across the Borough, being on or near a number of axial bus routes and 5 to 10 minutes walk from two Underground stations. It could also offer some parking for clients, unlike Brighton Terrace. And finally, and crucially important, it is a good distance from the central Brixton drugs market.

There is also another available site that might be even more suitable, i.e. the premises at 18 Brixton Road. This is up near the Oval and is again on a main road and in the middle of what are mainly commercial rather than residential properties. Transport links are as good as or better than Brixton for serving people across the whole of Lambeth and it is away from the Brixton drugs market.


----------



## netbob (Dec 6, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> The planning officers always supported the plan. The whole Lambeth bureacratic machine supported the plan. This whole fight has been between the liberal Lambeth juggernaut and a few tough people who can see when they're being shat on and will not be rolled over by lies and cant.
> 
> You bandwagon-jumpers with your after-the-fact petition have never got your facts right, have never understood what's going on here. Why? Because you choose not to.



I'd contest the point that this is "after the fact". The original consultation was only with immediate residents, the views of wider Brixton residents were'nt taken into account. The planning application is still live and the petition has given the rest of us an opertunity to do show our support. (And you really cant argue that it has got a lot of support)


----------



## netbob (Dec 6, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> Those of us who oppose the location of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Brighton Terrace have repeatedly been challenged to come up with an alternative site................



I believe the ex-SEGAS site was backed by Tally Hoey initially, until in became clear that local residents would object (there's a pattern forming here). When I contacted Keith Hill's office to find out his position, he had heard nothing of it and I got the feeling were suddenly bracing themselves for objections from residents (in this case because it is near a school). At that goes to the hart of it, where ever was proposed there would be objections.

The job of planning committees isn’t to propose alternatives it is to assess applications based on the facts. It seems in this case the committee are unable to find a reason to reject the plan.

As far as siteing the facility away from the drugs market, that is indeed a _recommendation_ from prezza's office (and that is all it is), but it is a recommendation to protect users of the facility rather than residents living near by. Several ex-users and service user groups have backed the plan so I don’t see how that is an issue any more?


----------



## pooka (Dec 6, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> However, having said all that, we have already suggested a number of other possibilities, particularly the ex-SEGAS offices in Acre Lane, and have not really had a satisfactory explanation as to why this is unacceptable.




A Planning application was granted to the former SEGAS offices at teh November Plannning Committee to develop a complx of offices and small workshops, including extending the building up a floor. So, perhaps it's just not available?


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 6, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> Well, there's a balanced view! This isn't some battle of good and evil. What is playing out here is the inevitable tension between the greater good and genuine local interest. It would be true whereever this centre was proposed to be located. (Where would you put it Ol Nick, by the way?) That's difficult and it's what we have democratic processes for.
> 
> As for bandwagon-jumpers with after-the-fact petition, well, after the last planning meeting those opposing it considered it dead in the water - they said as much. Supporters were resigned to the Planning Officers going away and finding a fig-leaf for the committee. It's the level of local interest that's kept the issue live.



Well put Pukka


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 6, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Do I detect some sour grapes?


 We're likely to see sour grapes producing a lot of whine in the near future. 

I don't want to be hubristic but with the watertight work the planning officers have done and the weight of local support in central Brixton, I can't see how the councillors can justify turning this down without it looking like blatant political expediency — and that could easily backfire when you weigh up the residents of one road against the residents of all the other roads in the area, who are desperate to see real solutions to Brixton's drug problems put in place.

Besides, if it loses, it will go to appeal, where it will almost certainly win, given that 100 per cent of such appeals have previously been won (see material about this in the agenda). It is possible that the elected members could deliberately allow this to happen because then they can say to the residents "Hey, we tried". But that would be highly unethical. Even with an election coming up. ;


----------



## Justice4all (Dec 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> We're likely to see sour grapes producing a lot of whine in the near future.
> 
> I don't want to be hubristic but with the watertight work the planning officers have done and the weight of local support in central Brixton, I can't see how the councillors can justify turning this down without it looking like blatant political expediency — and that could easily backfire when you weigh up the residents of one road against the residents of all the other roads in the area, who are desperate to see real solutions to Brixton's drug problems put in place.
> 
> Besides, if it loses, it will go to appeal, where it will almost certainly win, given that 100 per cent of such appeals have previously been won (see material about this in the agenda). It is possible that the elected members could deliberately allow this to happen because then they can say to the residents "Hey, we tried". But that would be highly unethical. Even with an election coming up. ;



I completely agree with you IntoStella. But I am sceptical that being ethical in this matter is an overiding issues with politicians. Drug use always and, invariably, raises a lot of irrational fears and derivative prejudices. It is simply impossible to have a rational discussion on drugs, given how the media hysterically (and hypocritically) stereotypes and portrays drug users. The politicians are not any different. Drug users and drug use are a convenient punch bag for all the ills in our society and politicians take unashamed advantage of this to further their careers on macho posturing (tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime). It is very sad and tragic. This is an issue that has to be dealt with in a pragmatic and sensible way. But it has become practically and almost impossible to have a sensible and pragmatic debate and solution on drugs issues.

You are right in saying that, should this planning permission be refused, it would go to appeal and probably won. I sincerely hope for everyone concerned that it does not come to that.


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 7, 2005)

Justice4all said:
			
		

> You are right in saying that, should this planning permission be refused, it would go to appeal and probably won. I sincerely hope for everyone concerned that it does not come to that.


It would certainly be an indefensible waste of time and taxpayers' money.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Dec 7, 2005)

There's an innate punchline there.


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 7, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> There's an innate punchline there.


There is?


----------



## netbob (Dec 7, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It would certainly be an indefensible waste of time and taxpayers' money.



Yep, especially of time. But I'd bet it could end up going to appeal of some sort whatever the decision is. 

Some local politicians seem to have put alot into opposing the centre (including our normally silent on local issues MP). So  if the application went through they might want to appear to continue the fight to avoid looking stupid. Although it seems from the petition that there are many more votes in supporting it that opposing it.


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 7, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> (Where would you put it Ol Nick, by the way?) That's difficult and it's what we have democratic processes for.


I'd start with a list of criteria:

(1) On a main, well-lit road
(2) In a commercial or industrial frontage to which access can easily be denied.
(3) Not in an area with a large population of transient chatoic drug-users
(4) Not opposite a children's playground

And I would probably add

(5) Not in an a area where I'd pissed off almost all the residents, even those who might have support ed hte centre, by my arrogant and dismissive failure to engage with them or meet their concerns.

They claim to have been looking for a site for two years. There have been 4 or 5 candidates down Acre Lane and Brixton Hill in that time. But of course the real reason would be

(6) An easy commute for the doctors living in Brighton


----------



## netbob (Dec 8, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> (3) Not in an area with a large population of transient chatoic drug-users



Shit! thats Lambeth out then.


----------



## pooka (Dec 8, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I'd start with a list of criteria:
> 
> (1) On a main, well-lit road
> (2) In a commercial or industrial frontage to which access can easily be denied.
> ...



The question was about specific locations.  Which were these 4 or 5 candidates? Do you know who owns them and whether they want to sell? And how you could be so sure that there wouldn't be the same levels of passionate concern amongst immediate locals.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 8, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Shit! thats Lambeth out then.



Maybe SLaM could have made an offer on the town hall building. Very convenient, no immediate residents spitting venom around and a more useful use of the building


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 8, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> (6) An easy commute for the doctors living in Brighton



LOL. And why not? Very handy indeed, quick journey to Victoria from Brixton and a quick hop on a train home hehehehe


----------



## netbob (Dec 8, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Maybe SLaM could have made an offer on the town hall building. Very convenient, no immediate residents spitting venom around and a more useful use of the building


  

The Vicy Line argument is a bit dead though. You could a case like that for most postcodes in zone 3.


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 9, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> The question was about specific locations.  Which were these 4 or 5 candidates? Do you know who owns them and whether they want to sell? And how you could be so sure that there wouldn't be the same levels of passionate concern amongst immediate locals.


*SLAM* has to make that case. *They* have to justify what they want to do.

It's nonsense to suggest that residents need to be continuously surveying all buildings on the off-chance that someone with a Stalinist approach to local consultation may choose to site a potentially harmful institution down the road from them. SLAM thought they had the might of the establishment on the their side and that they could just walk in an push people around. Well now they know.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 9, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> *SLAM* has to make that case. *They* have to justify what they want to do.
> 
> It's nonsense to suggest that residents need to be continuously surveying all buildings on the off-chance that someone with a Stalinist approach to local consultation may choose to site a potentially harmful institution down the road from them. SLAM thought they had the might of the establishment on the their side and that they could just walk in an push people around. Well now they know.



Stalinist? Harmful Institution? Pushing people around? Do you always have such negative thoughts in your mind? As far as I see it, it's been a democratic process with no Stalinist style progroms. On the contrary, credit to SLaM they are at least trying to provide a well needed service and resolve the issues that the residents have been whingeing about for yonkers. What will you do or say if the service provided will be a success and the discarded needles disappear and drug users stop defecating on people's doorstep. Will you be man enough to apologies for your vitriolic, offensive, onesided pronouncements about the NHS?


----------



## CPCG (Dec 9, 2005)

Minutes of the discussion of the issue at CPCG for Lambeth's November public meeting have now been published and are available here(Minute 22 _et seq_).


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 9, 2005)

Goodness! Selective mis-quoting! Whatever next?






			
				Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Stalinist?


"a Stalinist approach to local consultation" is the correct quote. They didn't do any consultation. They just submitted the planning application out of the blue. They attempted a fig-leaf "consultation" after they realised they were going to be opposed, but they haven't answered most of the questions from the objectors. Youc an see them on the minutes for next week's meeting. If you find the adjective "Stalinist" "vitriolic" and "offensive" then I withdraw in favour of "bull-dozing" if that's a real word.



			
				Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Harmful Institution?


"potentially harmful institution" - there are many good reasons for believing that this centre might kick up a whole load of problems. That's what "potentially harmful" means.




			
				Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> credit to SLaM they are at least trying to <...> resolve the issues that the residents have been whingeing about for yonkers.


Even SLaM haven't made such a ridiculous claim! They need to move because they have reached capacity limits at existing sites and they are being given a budget to expand. It is also more convenient for them to concentrate on one site. They at least don't pretend to be doing anyone other than themsleves and their clients any favours.



> What will you do or say if the service provided will be a success and the discarded needles disappear and drug users stop defecating on people's doorstep. Will you be man enough to apologies for your vitriolic, offensive, onesided pronouncements about the NHS?


It will not have made their patronising attitudes to local people and their bulldozer appraoch to consultation any more acceptable. If it succeeds then it is a big gamble that paid off for them. That doesn't justify the way they have tried to force their gamble on people living and working nearby.


----------



## netbob (Dec 9, 2005)

Old Nick, the thing I dont get is you keep on flipping between complaining about the lack of consultation, and demanding alternative sites. Which one are you really after?

Lack of consultation suggests that you think the whole thing could be a goer if only SLAM would consult more. Whilst for the latter assumes that Brighton Terrace is an inherantly unworkable location, in which case consultation is irrelivant since residents would never accept the results of one that gave the site approval.

I get the feeling that what you really saying is you wish there was more/earlier consultation so as to give you more opertunity to kill the plan?


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 10, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Old Nick, the thing I dont get is you keep on flipping between complaining about the lack of consultation, and demanding alternative sites. Which one are you really after?
> 
> Lack of consultation suggests that you think the whole thing could be a goer if only SLAM would consult more. Whilst for the latter assumes that Brighton Terrace is an inherantly unworkable location, in which case consultation is irrelivant since residents would never accept the results of one that gave the site approval.
> 
> I get the feeling that what you really saying is you wish there was more/earlier consultation so as to give you more opertunity to kill the plan?


Oten the state wants to build something that it knows will cause concerns about the effect on the local quality of life: nuclear powers stations, airports, hospitals. They don't usually just choose a place and try to build the thing. They know that they'll only wind people up.  Instead there is an evaluation both of the effects of what they are trying to do and an assessment of the impact on the surroundings. If necessary they'll consider what they can do to mitigate the impact.

This is the kind of consultation that was never done for the SLAM centre. They never considered the impact on the local community, they never showed how this impact on Brighton Terrace was acceptable and they never showed that their proposed mitigation would help solve the problems.

(That's the more reasoned view. The Stalinist version makes better copy, though. BTW, if want to add to the "Reasons Against" section of your website the Lambeth Council planning agenda has a good list of all the objections from the reasonable to the paranoid.)


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 10, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> Goodness! Selective mis-quoting! Whatever next?"a Stalinist approach to local consultation" is the correct quote. They didn't do any consultation. They just submitted the planning application out of the blue. They attempted a fig-leaf "consultation" after they realised they were going to be opposed, but they haven't answered most of the questions from the objectors. Youc an see them on the minutes for next week's meeting. If you find the adjective "Stalinist" "vitriolic" and "offensive" then I withdraw in favour of "bull-dozing" if that's a real word.
> 
> "potentially harmful institution" - there are many good reasons for believing that this centre might kick up a whole load of problems. That's what "potentially harmful" means.
> 
> ...



Nick, I seem to remember the Planning Officer stating at the September meeting that there is no statutory obligation for SLaM to have had a consultation prior to lodging the Planning permission. As for bulldozing, it is still unacceptable. SLaM have not bulldozed anything, they have followed planning procedure and the democratic process correctly. It is also untrue that SLaM have not made the claim that the centre will bring benefits to the area. They have stated this very clearly with good proposals for the area. The reality is that your argument is biased and pessimistic and no matter what is proposed your mind seems to be closed to any alternative view.


----------



## Bob (Dec 11, 2005)

*Just to remind everyone*

If you want to come along and show your support for the centre (please do!) on *Tuesday the meeting is at 7pm, Room 8 in the Town Hall. *


----------



## happyshopper (Dec 11, 2005)

*And those who are against ...*

Alternatively, those who are against giving planning consent for the centre in this particular location can come along as well.


----------



## Bob (Dec 11, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> Alternatively, those who are against giving planning consent for the centre in this particular location can come along as well.



Indeed. I hope that some of you who are against will get involved in the other 'mybrixton' stuff - it's not just about this petition - and you're clearly interested in what's going on in central Brixton - mybrixton will hopefully be a good tool for organising people in favour of all sorts of positive things in Brixton. Some ideas I have at the moment that need people to organise them are:
*Adopt a street* - organising / finding people to look after a bit of their street and report problems to the relevant organisation

*Adopt a ward *- be the point of contact between the streets and ward councillors & candidates (since the May 2006 local elections are less than five months away)
*
Support the market *- all the bits and pieces round the market

*Brixton Rec watch* - some poeple are worried about what's going to happen to it

*Traffic on Brixton Hill* - campaigning for the dodgy bits that cause accidents to be fixed

So anyone fancy volunteering themselves for small amounts of work?   

PS double posted on the original mybrixton thread for obvious reasons.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 12, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> Goodness! Selective mis-quoting! Whatever next?"a Stalinist approach to local consultation" is the correct quote. They didn't do any consultation. They just submitted the planning application out of the blue. They attempted a fig-leaf "consultation" after they realised they were going to be opposed, but they haven't answered most of the questions from the objectors. Youc an see them on the minutes for next week's meeting. If you find the adjective "Stalinist" "vitriolic" and "offensive" then I withdraw in favour of "bull-dozing" if that's a real word.
> 
> "potentially harmful institution" - there are many good reasons for believing that this centre might kick up a whole load of problems. That's what "potentially harmful" means.
> 
> ...



Nick, I wasn't commenting on the full quotes, I was just gobsmacked at your using such puerile and infantile words such as Stalinist, bulldozing, etc. This is very strong language and quite offensive. You don't seem committed to having a debate, on the contrary, you seem committed to using inflamatory language with the specific purpose of offending. Do you really think that what you said is going to win any support to your cause? I doubt it. You just come across as an angry, petulant, immature individual with no respect for the democratic process under way. Accusing the NHS of being stalinist and using a 'bulldozing' approach is tantamount to accusing them of corruption and being in league with the planning officers as part of some conspiracy. This is a democratic process in which the planning officers have looked at the pros and cons of a proposal and appear to have found that the benefit the centre will bring to the area outweigh the complaints presented by the local residents. Your contributions only show that you are a selfish bad loser with no interest, nor understanding, of the wider issues of the benefits for the 'whole community' rather than the minority in a specific area. Without pre-emptying the actual outcome of the planning meeting on Tuesday (which may still go against the proposal) wouldn't your time and those of the local residents be better spent on 'thinking' how you can help the centre be a success if agreed by the council? It would in your interest and those of the residents to do so. Brighton Terrace will not become a lawless frontier with needle toting crazed junkies as you seem to imply. Any intelligent person who understand the issues about drug use knows this. This is your chance and those of the other residents to accept this and to get involved in making sure that the centre is a success and will bring great benefits to all the community, including the local residents. Instead of whinging and making defamatory and inflamatory comments, join the NHS in making sure that the quality of life of the residents is indeed improved. That's what intelligent local democracy is all about.


----------



## happyshopper (Dec 12, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz complains about the word "bulldozed" and then replies by using words like "puerile", "infantile", "whinging" about the arguments against the centre. 

The people who live in Brighton Terrace can only say it how they feel it - they have been told, in essence, that there is no choice about the location of the centre and that they should just put up with it for the good of the community in general. The consultation has been limited to the issue of how any potential problems can be ameliorated.


----------



## Resident27 (Dec 12, 2005)

*General thoughts about posts on Drug Centre*

I am new to this site -- and posting in general -- but I just wanted to say that I was very upset to read a number of the postings on this topic, as it seems as if Brixton resident is being turned against Brixton resident, and the arguments risk making out one ‘side' or another to be bad guys, when I think we all want the same thing – for our streets to be safer. Some of the comments come from people in and around Rushcroft and Saltoun Roads, and I know from friends who live there how bad things are. 

All I want to say is that people living in Brighton Terrace are desperate. All our problems – from the terrifying dealers patrolling their territory with violence and threats, prostitutes fucking on the stairwells, sad junkies shooting up in our communal gardens, to the needles and human turds in our playground – are drug-related, and if we thought SLaM's Drug rehabilitation unit sited here had a microscopic chance of helping in any way we would welcome it. But we don't. We think it will make it worse. 

The service will bring more drug users to our neighbourhood  -- a huge number will be chaotic users not even in treatment programmes, attracted by the needle exchange. SLaM have blithely said there's no problem with this at the Stockwell project, but the situations are very different. The entrance to Stockwell is on a main road, by a massive roundabout, and with constant traffic. Brighton Terrace is a quiet residential street particularly vulnerable (and attractive) for dealers and drug users because of the way the flats are laid out and slightly set back from the road: there are numerous small entrances, semi-enclosed spaces, bin stores, garages, sheds etc. Dealers (and customers) use them now – waiting until the police patrols have passed by – and its unthinkable that they won't be further attracted to this area and its potential new sources of custom. (They are either so expert at avoiding police surveillance, or don't seem to care, so we don't think SLaM's offer of a daytime warden will have much effect.)

And we do have evidence that in areas where there is a major, open, illegal drugs market the presence of a needle exchange can lead to an increase in problems. This has been described in the Health Impact Assessment by Camden and the City of Westminster (Health Impact Assessment of a Proposal to Establish a Fixed Site for Needle Exchange and Other Services in the West End, 2004). The HIA report states that a fixed needle exchange would have adverse consequences (p12) on amenity for residents and businesses, including the attraction of drug users and drug dealers to the area and an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour. Residents, the business community and service providers agreed (p97) that needle exchange services: 
    *    act as a magnet for drug users and dealers; 
    *    lead to more discarded drug equipment, antisocial deposits, drug-related crime, antisocial behaviour and drug using/dealing in public. 

The history of needle exchange provision in the West End (HIA, p43, 4.2.1), shows that at one point the needle exchange service had such an adverse impact on the amenity of residents that the service was restricted to 3 hours a day as a result of Ministerial intervention.

The HIA viewed the consequences of setting up a fixed exchange to be so serious that they suggested, in addition to the lengthy health impact assessment, that an environmental impact assessment should be undertaken once a potential fixed site had been identified ‘to demonstrate that the fixed site and the way in which it is managed will not attract congregations of users, nor encourage injecting in public.' That Lambeth never considered doing any kind of assessment is very worrying, and adds to our somewhat paranoid feelings that Lambeth and SLaM were determined to push this through no matter what the consequences for us. 

They certainly didn't consult us until after the decision had been made. SLaM (and Lambeth Council) had decided on Brighton Terrace as the site, and applied for planning permission, by February. Residents (and our local councillors) knew nothing about the project until six weeks later, at the first so-called ‘consultation meeting' in March. By then it was a ‘done deal', and SLaM had already rejected alternative sites, including what seems to us a good location in Acre Lane (the old SEGAS building) which is on a main road next to an industrial estate, served by a number of bus routes and not far from Clapham North. [Despite this SLaM cited ‘transport links' in their rejection, which made us think they were more mindful of their staff -- travelling from many locations including Brighton -- needing the Victoria line, rather than users from the south of the borough who don't.] SLaM actually think this is a good site – and are seriously considering buying it!

Brighton Terrace residents are a desperately concerned group, and it's upsetting to see us portrayed in some of these posts as selfish middle-class nimbys. Most residents are council tenants in social housing, whose homes are surrounded by a bad situation and we think the location of the proposed treatment centre will make it worse.


----------



## netbob (Dec 12, 2005)

Resident27 said:
			
		

> I am new to this site -- and posting in general -- but I just wanted to say that I was very upset to read a number of the postings on this topic, as it seems as if Brixton resident is being turned against Brixton resident, and the arguments risk making out one ‘side' or another to be bad guys, when I think we all want the same thing – for our streets to be safer...............



Hi Resident27. Brighton Terrace residents are of course concerned, but surely this is an opportunity to extract commitments from the council regarding to deal with what you have stated is an existing problem "We'll take on the treatment centre, but you need to do X,Y,Z"? And benefit whole of the centre of Brixton at the same time?

As far as alternative locations go, the treatment and needle exchange need to be where the problem is (i.e. Brixton). Do you think that users are going to hop on a bus to get a clean needle? A needle exchange attracting users is a needle exchange taking syringes out of circulation (rather than disguarded on the streets).

The Acre Lane site, may have its merits but local residents there have already made noises against it (I think it's near a school). There is no zero cost option here – where ever it is located it is going to be near a residential area and local residents will have concerns. Is Brighton Terrace really such a special case?

The transport from Brighton argument keeps on getting brought up, but its pretty limp and, as you admit, based on an assumption. You could apply the same argument to pretty much anywhere in zone 3.

You are probably right that most people who signed the petition do want the same kind problems solving, but part of the solution requires decent drug treatment services in Brixton.


----------



## pooka (Dec 12, 2005)

Like yourself, Resident27, I think it's a shame if this does become polarised between one group of residents against another. I think in fact it is less the case than might appear to be so here; a bulletin board is often by its nature oppositional and this particular forum has, for a variety of historic reasons, developed a certain 'robust' style.

Having said that, there is an underlying and unavoidable counterpoint - which is that of the general good against the particular interest, which is something we have to face up to and the planning process is meant to resolve. Some of the commentary from the opponents of the Brighton Terrace proosal appears to suggest that as those most immediately effected should have a veto on the development. Where do the rest of us get our say?

In terms of the specifics of your post:

By your description, Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens sounds grim indeed. Why is it such a popular place to live, and one in which the residents have a clear pride and ownership. Those properties that do go on the market for sale are, by most standards, overpriced for the immediate area. Why is that?

Accepting that the area is plagued by dealers and users, just how much worse might the proposed centre make it? If your expectation that a treatment centre invariably creates additional dealing activity in the area, do you not think that setting up in another location will only disperse the problem and lead to less, rather than more, effective enforcement?

SLaM (and their associates) have given, at length, their professional assessment of the viability of the proposal - it's what we pay them for. So have the planning officers. Are there other examples where they have got this sort of proposal seriously wrong?

The Segas site seems to come and go as a realistic possibility (it was granted planning approval at the November PAC for mixed office/workshop use to the present owner). It's very hard to see it as having anything like the transport of central Brixton, though.

I don't think it is fair to portray Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents as house-price obsessed NIMBYs - or no more so than any other group might be. Which is the core of the issue. Given the option between having something contentious on their doorstep or on someone else's, most people would opt for the latter. The BT/TG residents are no better or worse than anyone else for that.


----------



## Resident27 (Dec 12, 2005)

*useful comments*

Hi memespring 
A few thoughts --
– yes it would be great to get stuff from Lambeth, but we’ve been agitating for better lighting for as long as I’ve lived here –20 years – so we don’t have a lot of faith . . .
‘Brixton centre is where the trouble is’ – well not really ... There are streets and estates all over Lambeth blighted by this. 
Transport – I don’t know anyone who lives in Lambeth (who doesn’t live in Stockwell) who comes to Brixton on the tube. People use busses and the Northern line. Actually this is yet another good argument for NOT having a big centralised service, but more smaller local ones. There’s a lot of evidence that successful users of treatment are those who live a short walk away . . .
We suggested sites like Acre Lane because its on a main road with traffic going past. Most research suggests these are the best sites.

Dear Pooka
Although we obviously feel strongly about Brighton Terrace because it our community, in fact we think it’s a bad site in general terms -- I don’t think we should have a privileged veto. Our local neighbourhood police team have called the proposal ‘madness’ and agree with us that it will lead to an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour -- which is bad generally -- not just for us.
Agreed Trinity Gardens is v desirable because, druggies or no, it’s very pretty. Brighton Terrace, even though it’s a friendly community, is where the trouble is.
There are other good points you raise -- and I hope to have time later to reply to them


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2005)

There is a move towards centralising services.  At the moment, someone might get assessed in one place, have to see a doctor in another, pick up their script in yet another place and see a social worker or mental health worker in yet _another_ place.  Centralising makes sense - however the proposed centre will also provide services on other sites.  I understand residents concerns but thay seem to be based on fear rather than anything concrete.


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 12, 2005)

Ignoring all the unpleasantness, mine and others', I would have preferred an enquiry of some sort to the planning process for this centre. As it stands, because an enquiry wasn't set up, it's yes or no, win or lose, us vs. them. I find it hard to believe that a better process than this couldn't have been found.

There's no incentive to compromise because the proposal will either be rejected outright or accepted outright. (Give or take the "outreach worker" and "warden" that have been offerred.)

So to return to the fight: come along tomorrow and watch the everyman of Brighton Terrace fight the bulldozer of the state. And no doubt, if the predictions are right, be comprehensively crushed.


----------



## netbob (Dec 12, 2005)

Resident27 said:
			
		

> Brighton Terrace, even though it’s a friendly community, is where the trouble is.



Really sorry Resident27, but that's absolute arse. You said yourself that roads and estates all over the borough have problems (try taking a trip to Electric Avenue or Rushcroft Road for a start). Lambeth as a whole has a problem with Crack & Heroin and Brighton Terrace isn't some kind of special case.

As far as local serverices vs centralisation goes I understand that 80% of Lambeths drug treatment services will remain distributed via GP's. Brighton Terraces' aim is top mop up those users not catered for by local services. (most of whom are in Brixton).

Finally, you mentioned lighting. Hasnt the NHS promised 50 grand for improved lighting in the Brighton Terrace/ Trinity Gardens area once planning permission has been given?


----------



## netbob (Dec 12, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> bulldozer of the state.



Is prezza comming?


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 13, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Is prezza comming?



yeah, he's driving a motherfucker JCB bulldozer. He's splitting blood and baying for Brighton terrace scalps for daring to challenge The STATE!!!


----------



## happyshopper (Dec 13, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Brighton Terraces' aim is top mop up those users not catered for by local services. (*most* of whom are in Brixton).


 (my emphasis)

How do you know most users potential clients for the centre live in Brixton? The community briefing paper issued by SLaM says "many" clients live in Brixton, while not giving any details. Most is not the same as many and this is the first time I have seen anyone suggest that *most * potential clients for the centre, i.e. not being treated by GPs, live in Brixton. Drug addition is a problem across Lambeth and there is nothing to suggest in any of the material we have been given that the majority of those who cannot get help from their GP live in Brixton.

Perhaps you have got information that we don't.


----------



## netbob (Dec 13, 2005)

happyshopper said:
			
		

> (my emphasis)
> 
> How do you know most users potential clients for the centre live in Brixton? The community briefing paper issued by SLaM says "many" clients live in Brixton, while not giving any details. Most is not the same as many and this is the first time I have seen anyone suggest that *most * potential clients for the centre, i.e. not being treated by GPs, live in Brixton. Drug addition is a problem across Lambeth and there is nothing to suggest in any of the material we have been given that the majority of those who cannot get help from their GP live in Brixton.
> 
> Perhaps you have got information that we don't.



No data only the blindingly obvious. You just dont see as many users in Streatham or Kennington or Clapham.

Doesnt the council estimates that only half of users who need treatment are getting it? I'd put money on most of those living in / using the Brixton area.


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 13, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Hasnt the NHS promised 50 grand for improved lighting in the Brighton Terrace/ Trinity Gardens area once planning permission has been given?


Yeah, under a section 106 agreement.


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 13, 2005)

See you all tonight. This is going to be so much fun and it's not often you can say that about planning committee.


----------



## lang rabbie (Dec 13, 2005)

From the report  to tonight's committee meeting:

Apologies for lengthy c+p, but some people can't open pdfs from Lambeth's site.



> At the Planning Applications Committee meeting held on the 6th September 2005 members raised concerns about the application and instructed officers to draft possible reasons for refusal based on these concerns. Members did not take a vote to refuse the application, and the application was deferred, to be considered again at a later committee meeting.
> The following draft reason for refusal could be put forward:
> ‘The proposed development could result in a potential increase in crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour in the area, posing a threat to the safety of neighbouring residents to the detriment to residential amenity. As such the development is contrary to Policy 7 of the Lambeth Revised Deposit UDP (2004-2017)’.
> The effectiveness of such a reason for refusal should be considered against a number of recent decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate in response to appeals against the refusal of planning permission by local planning authorities due to concerns over an increase in crime or fear of crime.
> ...





> The following additional information, received by the Council since the 6th September 2005 committee meeting, is considered by officers to be material in the consideration of this application.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Examples of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centres in the London area that are located within or adjacent to residential areas.
> SlaM have submitted a schedule of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centres in the London area that are located within or adjacent to residential areas (see below). SlaM advise that their representatives are familiar with several of the centres listed and that no problems arise from their operation.
> ...list of 13 addresses...​The Director of the Home Office Drug Strategy Directorate has also put forward an additional example located outside of London, which is the Waterloo Project, located in the heart of a 24-7 sex and class A drugs market in Cheetham Hill in North Manchester. The project is managed by Bolton, Salford and Trafford Menial Health Trust.
> Letter of Support
> ...





> *Conclusion*
> Given the above considerations officers recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and the Section 106 agreement cited in the previous officers report put forward at the 6th September 2005 committee meeting. It is also considered that the management plan for the centre required by the Section 106 agreement should include details of the following measures which were presented by SlaM at the previous committee meeting:
> A warden proving high visibility to the area, who’s working hours would include one hour before and one hour after the opening hours of the centre. The warden’s area of patrol would be discussed with local residents.
> A member of staff would be assigned everyday to collect any discarded needles in the area of Brighton Terrace.
> An outreach worker would be employed to engage with the local community and allay future concerns once the centre was open.


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 13, 2005)

LR - are you going to post the objections too, or are you taking sides on this one?


----------



## lang rabbie (Dec 13, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> LR - are you going to post the objections too, or are you taking sides on this one?



All I have posted is the "new" information appearing at the start of the officer's report.   Otherwise, the report (including summary of residents' objections) and the planning officers' recommendations appears to be the text from the previous meeting.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 13, 2005)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> LR - are you going to post the objections too, or are you taking sides on this one?



Are there any new objections then?

I don't know, but I suspect that the same old objections, with little additional supporting evidence, will raise their head. And I strongly suspect that's there's only one conclusion to this report....

Don't worry Old Nick; we'll leave the one-sided reporting and near hysterical-alarmist claptrap about the impact of this centre to you..


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 13, 2005)

What's funny about all this is that however the vote goes tonight, the centre is likely to be approved, either tonight or on appeal. That, at root, is what officers say in their report.

Which - given the proximity of the local elections and the heat generated - gives the politicians some room for manoeuvre this evening. Which isn't a bad thing. 

It's going to be amusing to see how they position themselves.


----------



## netbob (Dec 13, 2005)

Planning permission approved.


----------



## Justice4all (Dec 14, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Planning permission approved.



Justice for All


----------



## happyshopper (Dec 14, 2005)

memespring said:
			
		

> Planning permission approved.




A travesty of justice


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 14, 2005)

Well done to all those who campaigned so hard for this!


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 14, 2005)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Well done to all those who campaigned so hard for this!


 Absolutely. I managed to do fuck all but turn up for the celebratory drink in the Albert and get ratarsed. I hope I wasn't rude to anyone this time.  

Darren Saunders: he is a funny fellow, isn't he? 

I have to say: *New Labour: you are a disgrace* 

The day was won by two libs and a tory -- the estimable Janet Grigg. The Labour lot all either stayed away, abstained, or spoke, or voted, against.   Well their cynical electioneering has backfired because they will certainly not be getting my vote.

But I'm very happy. I was certainly very happy last night.


----------



## netbob (Dec 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I have to say: *New Labour: you are a disgrace*
> 
> The day was won by two libs and a tory -- the estimable Janet Grigg. The Labour lot all either stayed away, abstained, or spoke, or voted, against.   Well their cynical electioneering has backfired because they will certainly not be getting my vote.



Yeah, huge support for the centre in Coldhabour and no Coldhabour councillors there to support it. Surely shum mishtake?


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> the estimable Janet Grigg.


Who is one dangerous woman: a living, walking advert for voting Tory.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 14, 2005)

*Brighton Terrace*

I am of course very pleased with the result. But I have to add a few comments. I thought Kate Hoey was a disgrace and a bully. I have great admiration for Councillor Palmer (Chair). He was fair, pragmatic, intelligent and very witty and I abolutely enjoyed his witty repart to Kate when he reminded her that this was not the House of Commons when she kept talking out of place.

The Labour have certainly not come out smelling of roses on this one. They put the interests of the few before the interests of the wider community. It is ironic that the vote was won by Lib Dem and a Tory, but hardly surprising now that we know the true nature of New Labour (or New Conservatives as they should rigthly be known as).

Well done everyone for a great result for the benefit of all of Lambeth and in particular Brixton.

Merry Xmas Everyone.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 14, 2005)

nicebutdim said:
			
		

> Who is one dangerous woman: a living, walking advert for voting Tory.



Yeah, but after last night I would seriously consider voting for her. She can't be worse than Labour...surely


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 14, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> *New Labour: you are a disgrace*



My sentiments entirely. Just wrote an e-mail to Kate Hoey to let her know I will never vote Labour again for as long as I live. and going a bit off subject, I also expressed my greatest wish of seeing one day both Jack Straw and Tony Blair face an International Crime Court on charges of War Crimes and Treason against the British People.

Merry Xmas everyone


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Dec 14, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> Yeah, but after last night I would seriously consider voting for her.


If you vote Conservative you get leprosy in your voting hand. Moral leprosy, anyway.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Dec 14, 2005)

*Jesus heals the Tory voters*








Not that's what I call a treatment centre.


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 14, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> If you vote Conservative you get leprosy in your voting hand. Moral leprosy, anyway.


That's the problem with La Grigg: she's a Tory who's also fully human. It's extremely confusing.


----------



## Bob (Dec 14, 2005)

Bob said:
			
		

> Indeed. I hope that some of you who are against will get involved in the other 'mybrixton' stuff - it's not just about this petition - and you're clearly interested in what's going on in central Brixton - mybrixton will hopefully be a good tool for organising people in favour of all sorts of positive things in Brixton. Some ideas I have at the moment that need people to organise them are:
> *Adopt a street* - organising / finding people to look after a bit of their street and report problems to the relevant organisation
> 
> *Adopt a ward *- be the point of contact between the streets and ward councillors & candidates (since the May 2006 local elections are less than five months away)
> ...




Just to remind people - there are plenty of other things to sort out in Brixton - we now have a working website with a decent email list of people involved in local stuff - please do join in - it's up to you what happens...


----------



## BoxSurfer (Dec 14, 2005)

Kiddo-Whizz said:
			
		

> I have great admiration for Councillor Palmer (Chair). He was fair, pragmatic, intelligent and very witty and I abolutely enjoyed his witty repart to Kate when he reminded her that this was not the House of Commons when she kept talking out of place.



Some peple really are living in a dreamworld.

I really wish you'd done your homework in this issue before jumping on the bandwagon. 

How is it possibly fair that the sponsors of the project be effectively able to 'hold the floor' for an hour when those in opposition were unable to enter the debate after thir 15 minutes were up?

Did you hear some of the wild promises that the SLaM people were saying? Or did you daydream through that, as it seems you have through the whole of this process. 

Most laughable was slams response when quesried on the potential for vulnerable service users to be targeted by the dealers. When asked what they were going to do about that, their answer was suitably feckless and glib.

"we wont let it happen" - i mean, _really_ 
They are living in a dreamworld

Are you blind or what? 
NONE of the councillors on the PAC were in ANY WAY convinced by SLaMs case. They were talking themselves into a corner. The only reason it went through was because of policital lobbying and 'whipping' from council bigwigs, and the complete abuse of the forum by that overfed Palmer bloke. The noticeable abstention of the other LibDem is testimony to that. They had been INSTRUCTED not to vote against.

One thing is for sure, if this centre fails by exposing service users to very real risks in Cental Brixton - as i suspect it will - this wont be a problem felt by brighton terrace, it will affect anyone who lives in central Brixton.

I wonder who'll be sorry then?

there's so much wishfull thinking going on here its funny. With your  here I'd suugest you have promising future as a decision maker within SLaM or the Lambeth PCT

The fact is that there's no precedent for a centre of this scale ANYWHERE. this is a massive experiment. No one knows what will happen. Except for BT having 'carte-blanche' with promises made about security improvements that the sponsors were forced to concede.

History, will ulitmately determine who's right. In the meantime i would recommend you do a little homework on SLaMs plans for assisted care for Mental Health, Double Diagnosis and Dual Diagnosis issues - people who have the highest susceptibility to dependency.

You have no idea! really - you dont

hook line and sinker.


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 14, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> You have no idea! Unfortunately, I do.


Yeah, yeah, it was all an evil conspiracy against you. Compete bull. And offensive, patronising bull at that. Face it: you lost. Enough, finally,  with the sour grapes and whining.


----------



## IntoStella (Dec 14, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> policital lobbying and 'whipping' from council bigwigs.


 This is a serious allegation as whipping is strictly not permitted on PAC.  Do you have any evidence to back up this allegation?


----------



## netbob (Dec 14, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> How is it possibly fair that the sponsors of the project be effectively able to 'hold the floor' for an hour when those in opposition were unable to enter the debate after thir 15 minutes were up?



Its wasnt as one sided as you suggest, several speakers (unconnected with the sponsors) were denied the opertunity to speak. e.g. someone from mybrixton.org was down to present the petition, but wasn't called.

The opposition had alot more than 15 minutes and continued to interject afterwards.


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 14, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> hook line and sinker.


----------



## nicebutdim (Dec 14, 2005)

I've been working out exactly how much the owners of those lovely Pimlico-style-up-to-the-first-floor-white-painted Trinity Gardens houses will lose in terms of equity as a result of this decision.

I suspect their property values will take a small downward hit short term - say 5-10k as the nimbies moan over their garden fences - but then increase in the long term.

There'll be a full time warden. Any centre user caught dropping needles locally faces ejection from the centre. There'll be a small army of doctors and nurses 9-5 weekdays plus one 8pm opening.

Result: in terms of street drug use Brighton Terrace will be one of the safest and most controlled areas of Brixton.

These Brighton Terrace nimbies have behaved like absolute sods  on this issue - as have their Labour Party elected politicians - and those who are owner occupiers will make money in the long term from last night's decision.

I predict they'll now shut the fuck up.


----------



## miss FX (Dec 14, 2005)

*victory*




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Hey, where are memespring and nipsla?
> 
> I wasn't volunteering to do it on my own.



Congratulations;
I heard on the radio this morning that the matter is settled.
Well done.


----------



## minky kropotkin (Dec 14, 2005)

*boxsurfer doesn't have his facts straight*

Boxsurfer seems to falsely attribute much to SLAM. I believe the promises made to take account of residents concerns were by various people including, the police, the drug and alcohol action team (part of the council) and the National Treatment Agency. SLAM was represented at the meeting by clinicans and a couple of managers who are service providers not politicians. SLAM is also a large organisation of which addictions are a minor player - SLAMs core business is mental health and this is managed seperately at the level of Lambeth. SLAM may appear a monolithic unresponsive entity but I think there is a genuine desire from those providing the service in Brixton to make this project work and that includes working with local residents.


----------



## colacubes (Dec 14, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Some peple really are living in a dreamworld.
> ..........
> 
> You have no idea! really - you dont



Boxsurfer I'm really sorry you are so upset about this.

This is not however a great big conspiracy against Brighton Terrace residents.  We're all fucked off about the problems in Brixton with crack and heroin.  We all have to deal with it.

I was at the meeting last night, and I thought it was very fair.  Ultimately a planning committee is just that.  For planning reasons.  They hear arguments on both sides.  Yes, the proposers were given longer, but the only reason was so that the members of the committee could question the proposals.  People with objections were given a chance to put their points across.  But they are not experts in drug treatment and impact assessment.

We were tabled to speak in favour and we didn't get a chance.  We had a petition with 348 people in favour of the proposed centre (which I belive was twice as many as the anti petition).  We didn't heckle though or complain, we sat and let the process of the committee go through.

The challenge is now to make sure that the centre works.  If it works, the centre will make Brighton Terrace the safest place in Brixton.  If there are problems I for one will be there supporting the residents of Brighton Terrace to get it sorted.

We all have to live together in Brixton and we all have to deal with the problems that are around.  I think a lot of frustration has been felt by other residents that arguments such as "Brighton Terrace is too nice for a treatment centre" have been used by residents (and yes someone did say this at a meeting I was at).  I'm sure a number of those residents (not all but some of the most vocal ones) would not have given a monkeys if it was being proposed on one of the estates outside central Brixton.  

We are all aware of the problems.  We all live with them.  We can only make them better by working together as residents.  The decision has now been made.  It is a good one for the addicts who cannot get treated because of lack of facilities.  And if SlaM fuck up the implementation I will support the Brighton Terrace residents in getting it sorted.  But it is still the right decision.


----------



## pooka (Dec 15, 2005)

Excellent post nipsla.

Just so everyone's clear, the process at the meeting was:

The proposers of the project were given 5 mins (turned out to be 8.5) to state their case.

Community opposition to the proposal was then given 8.5 mins to state their case (by my watch they in fact got rather longer). That included Kate Hoey and Cllr Prentice.

In fact, no opportunity was given for community support to be expressed - mybrixton was down to speak the petition but didn't get called. Nor did Cllr Angie Meader who is councillor for a neighbouring ward and Chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

Then the proposers were questioned and challenged by the Committee. There was no session for the Committee to specifically challenge the opponents.

By my reading this all, if anything, favoured the opponents. But I don't think they helped their case by interruptions and heckling.

AS nipsla says, the decision has been made and it is in all our interests to make it work. I think, with a little bit of reflection, the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents will find their best allies amongst many of the local people and organisations who supported the project - most of whom don't think the BT/TG people are NIMBY's or house-price obsessives, just people with understandable concerns that have to be addressed.

In the immediate term that is best facilitated through the proposed project team. But the Treatment Centre and any issues arising from it should properly be addressed within the wider context of community safety and crime in central brixton, and we need to build a genuine and active interest group around that, involving residents, traders, people who work in the town centre and people who use it. That's what we lack and that's why the Brighton Terrace proposal was able to become devisive.


----------



## Kiddo-Whizz (Dec 15, 2005)

BoxSurfer said:
			
		

> Some peple really are living in a dreamworld.
> 
> I really wish you'd done your homework in this issue before jumping on the bandwagon.
> 
> ...



Get over it mate. You are talking through your arse yourself. Do you have any experience of working with drug users? No, I don't think you do. So stop talking shite mate.


----------



## great (Nov 2, 2007)

Is very hard to work with drug users. They are very irascible and hard to manage with. I wanted to be a volunteer in a _shit-eating contest_ but I thought better and I didn't do it. Is very hard for everyone. You have to be very  resistant at stress.


----------



## tarannau (Nov 2, 2007)

I was wondering why this thread resurfaced, expecting to see some kind of update.

Instead it seems to have been bumped by a half-literate spamskull, linking to some rehab site. Pish.


----------



## Mr Retro (Nov 2, 2007)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Instead it seems to have been bumped by a half-literate spamskull, linking to some rehab site. Pish.


----------



## crawlers (Apr 26, 2014)

7 (!) years on, what are the views of the service as it exists and its impact?


----------



## Rushy (Apr 26, 2014)

I was thinking about this just the other day. As far as I can tell the operation is almost entirely inconspicuous (although I don't live in the immediate vicinity anymore) whilst the change in (at least conspicuous) crack and intravenous drug use has been spectacular. I'm sure that lots of different parties have been responsible for that improvement but can only assume SLAM has been a key player.

I was sympathetic to concerns about the exact location at the time. Given the state of Brixton at the time, or at least recent preceding history, I can still understand why people were worried. It was not a "risk free" location compared to some others. But it appears to have been managed really well and Brixton is a very different place now.

I'd be interested to hear some insight from someone involved with the project.


----------



## Rushy (May 14, 2014)

Coincidentally, I was chatting last week to someone who lives on Brighton Terrace. Apparently they were recently leafleted warning of antisocial drug related behaviour in the street although they said they had not noticed anything themselves. No flyers in Tunstall Road that I know of. Anyone else seen this leaflet / heard anything?


----------

