More raids on Upper Brockley Road

Last night, Lewisham police conducted more raids on properties on the corner of Upper Brockley Road and Lewisham Way.

On the Brockley forum, Headhunter reports that he saw:

3 police riot vans and many armed/riot police. Lots of bystanders watching. I saw a guy who looked like a chef with an apron on being led into 1 of the vans with handcuffs on.

On Twitter, Lewisham police explained:

The Brockley Safer Neighbourhood Team and Territorial Support Group officers have just raided three premises at Upper Brockley Rd. We hit the addresses this evening following numerous complaints. A number of arrests made and drugs seized. 

This is the latest in a series of actions by the authorities in this location in recent months, which are aimed at addressing problems with crime and anti-social behvaiour which have dogged residents for more than a decade.

171 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm very happy to see this happen, glad to see the police are taking a no-tolerance approach along this part of Upper Brockley Road. As an effected local resident it is starting to feel like control is finally under-way. You have my support!

Anonymous said...

They were only keeping recreationals FFS!

Live and let live, surely? No harm done?

Anonymous said...

Actually it wasn't just 'recreationals' apparently and in any case open drug dealing had been rife there.
These shops have caused grief on the street for years.

I fully support the police. Well done to them!!

Anonymous said...

What's an "effected local resident"?

One with sound effects and flashing colours? Wouldn't want one of those in my street.

Anonymous said...

I understand there will be a report in the SLP. I bet it wasn't just cannabis found and in any case drug dealing is attracting all sorts of undesirables to the street.
The community supports the police!!

Anonymous said...

That is such a middle class comment! You clearly don't have to put up with the dealing, anti social behaviour and crime in the street.

Anonymous said...

dealing is aften seen around the station

Anonymous said...

An "effected local resident" means I have had to deal with trespass and littering of nearby houses and flats, street urination, threats and obvious dis-respect for local residents.

Anonymous said...

Sounds normal for brockley

Anonymous said...

So an AFFECTED local resident then, rather than an effected one . . .

Captain Perspective said...

"I'm very happy to see this happen, glad to see the police are taking a no-tolerance approach along this part of Upper Brockley Road. As an effected local resident it is starting to feel like control is finally under-way."

"open drug dealing had been rife"

"I bet it wasn't just cannabis found"

"all sorts of undesirables"

"dealing is aften seen around the station"


All of these quotes are what's wrong with the current, reactionary media-led, white middle class scare of drugs.

Drugs are not universally a bad thing. The world we live in is not a simple one with all the good things on one side and all the bad on the other. Take a look at two legal drugs; cigarettes and alcohol, for a lesson in how moderation (as with all things) is key here. The only difference of course being that both have a much larger net cause of anti-social behaviour and illness in the population, and are both legal.

There are many drugs that can be enjoyed in moderation. Cannabis is one. Ecstacy/MDMA and Cocaine are others. It is possible to enjoy all of the above and be an intelligent, working member of society - ask half the conservation area - just as it is possible to enjoy a drink without becoming Oliver Reed.

The reason we're still not having an intelligent, grown-up discussion about sensible uses of recreational drugs is largely for the same reason we're only now getting round to the subject of media reform. Politicians right up to the very recent past didn't criticise the media's workings for fear of landing on their "list". This type of media-led bullying, practised by the Daily Mail and Express particularly, and thus its readers, means that any party wanting to introduce a sensible discourse on drugs has the full might of the reactionary press thrown at them. Scare stories abound in the same way as similar tactics are used whenever asylum or immigration is a topic.

My suggestion to the Brockley Central readers: you may not know it, but you may just have been brainwashed. Ask yourselves rationally why you have such an irrational fear of the unknown. We criticise other countries for implanting opinions and scares into the minds of their populace - how much of that is happening here?

Don't get me wrong - we've come close - the moving of cannabis to a class C drug was a step in the right direction (until it was bumped up again) but still the same bogeymen came out - the great white scare fired up its full force and made the drugs problem out to be just that - a problem, where there wasn't one.

In summary - drugs can be and ARE to many people a good thing. They can being you immense enjoyment and an escape from the everyday world. They don't make you feel like you're in the Beatles' Yellow Submarine. Sorry. That's the stuff of cartoons. It's more like having a drink or a can of red bull. Just different - and more of a seeming threat to the curtain-twitching middle class.

Brockley Nick said...

@captain perspective

I am pro legalisation of drugs.

I am pro-enforcement of the law. (We don't actually know the details of this raid yet, btw).

I don't read any comments by people scared of drugs, they are scared of guns and violence and anti-social behaviour that has been occuring at that location for 10 years. And they are glad that something is finally being done about it. I doubt that all the comments here are made by the "middle class" (heaven forbid!) - and I know that the people worst affected by issues at this location are those without any choice about where they live.

Anonymous said...

I'm a local resident on Upper Brockley Rd, and am sick of the other local residents endlessly going on about the problems on Upper Brockley Rd. A while back I was asked to go to some residents forum with the police, and when I didn't want to I was all but shunned. It's this them and us mentality that depresses me. I'm friendly with most of the people hanging out in the street, and I've not had one problem. In fact the only major problem on the street recently was when 2 paralytic students came down it, screaming and shouting at each other at 4am, before vomiting on someone's car and kicking off the wing mirrors. Didn't see the neighbourhood up in arms about that. Wonder why?...

Walloon said...

"Actually it wasn't just 'recreationals' apparently"

So you've no idea what it was then. It's highly unlikely a coke dealing empire was being run from here, that's just not how coke dealing works. You call up someone and get it delivered, as any moron in the conservation area could tell you.

Anonymous said...

Typical hippy.

Anonymous said...

This I not about the debate over the legalisation of drugs. This is about crime that IS rife in the area around UBR.
If you're happy for drug dealers and other criminals to be in your street then so be it.
I for one support the police and council action here. Good on them!!

Anonymous said...

Let the SNT know. They sound like they will deal with it.

Tired of Brockley, not tired of life said...

"In fact the only major problem on the street recently was when 2 paralytic students came down it, screaming and shouting at each other at 4am, before vomiting on someone's car and kicking off the wing mirrors. Didn't see the neighbourhood up in arms about that. Wonder why?..."

Indeed Anon. Sounds like same old nimyism to me - when people say "undesirables", why don't they say what they really think, which is presumably "darkies"?

Welcome to 2012 said...

" when people say "undesirables", why don't they say what they really think, which is presumably "darkies""

Yes, that's right because 'all black people are drug dealers', you racist fool.

Kate said...

I was there last night. Invited by the police - full report in SLP on Tuesday. It was a massive operation and led by the new sergeant of Brockley SNT John Biddle. It wasn't just premises in Upper Brockley Road that were raided as part of the operation - there was another address which has direct links with UBRd but not in UBRd.

Tamsin said...

Possibly not up in arms about the raucous students because it was a one off. And not much that can be done after the event. If it starts happening weekly, yes, people will be complaining.

While if there are "undesirables" of whatever skin colour dealing drugs and feeding the chain of criminality that leads back to murders in Cambodia and "protection" rackets in Afghanistan this would be an on-going issue and needs to be complained about and dealt with.

Anonymous said...

In what way, other than pursuing a Daily Mail agenda, is this in the public interest?

Osh said...

In what way is what in the public interest?

Headhunter said...

"I don't read any comments by people scared of drugs, they are scared of guns and violence and anti-social behaviour that has been occuring at that location for 10 years."

Exactly! It's not the drugs, it's the crime and undesirables (yes, undesirables) who deal drugs and the broader criminal groups they belong to.

As for whether the drugs were "only recreationals" or not, do you really think it makes a difference? Do you really believe that the criminals and undesirables who deal in "recreationals" have some kind of conscience and somehow draw the line at "recreationals" and are not in any way associated with harder drugs and other crime like people trafficking and prositution? Are you honestly trying to say that cannabis dealers are akin to the local milkman, just trying to make a bit of a living in tough economic times delivering something the community wants?! You're bloody naive!

The police have my full support, these people add nothing to the community...

Captain Perspective said...

Tamsin

"While if there are "undesirables" of whatever skin colour dealing drugs and feeding the chain of criminality that leads back to murders in Cambodia and "protection" rackets in Afghanistan this would be an on-going issue and needs to be complained about and dealt with."

Sadly this type of rationale is indicative of the media-led scare I referenced in my first post.

Take Cannabis for example - most of it is now grown in the UK and sold to mates or those who want to buy. No crime, other than the selling and possession itself of course, is committed. No murders or protection rackets required.

Who here will stand up and say that

a) they've given drugs a go
b) they'd like to, but they're scared
c) they wouldn't like to, but would like to see them legalised and their supply controlled?

We all know people who bang on about natural remedies - the only difference with these is that they actually work...

Captain Perspective said...

Headhunter

"Do you really believe that the criminals and undesirables who deal in "recreationals" have some kind of conscience and somehow draw the line at "recreationals" and are not in any way associated with harder drugs and other crime like people trafficking and prositution?"

Yes, that's exactly what I believe. Those that are associated with 'harder drugs', as goes your leading statement, do so safely. The vast majority act within the Class C domain.

Welcome to 2012 said...

Captain Perspective you keep talking in generalities, but what about this particular case?

What should be done to help the people who have had to live with violence, threats, noise and filth dumped on their doorsteps for a decade?

Nothing?

Anonymous said...

Welcome to 2012... you talk as if all of those things means drugs, and drugs means all of those things... I think the distinction trying to be made here is that they're not as inextricably linked as you'd think.

For what it's worth I've never had any problems on Upper Brockley Road and having encountered some of these businessmen have always found them pleasant and helpful. Oh and quite often black too!

Welcome to 2012 said...

I'm not saying that at all, I'm not interested in having an A-Level standard sociology debate with CP, I'm asking whether he thinks it's OK that people who live here have to put up with that or whether it's the police's job to help people who are the victims of crime?

Headhunter said...

Captain Perspective - In the absence of evidence supporting your view I simply see you as naive...

I am undecided as to whether mind altering substances be legalised however I am certain that for most people it's not cannabis itself that is the problem but the criminals who deal in it and their association with greater crime....

Anonymous said...

Imagine there are two shops in Brockley Cross. One sells recreational herbs to those who ask for them. They're grown, no other crime is committed, they get used and that's that.

One other shop near Brockley cross sells muffins for £3.

Who is the bad man in this so called society?

Brockley Nick said...

RICH -They are very tasteful drawings, Stu, and I'd ask you this question: Who is the real sick man in this so-called society?

Is it the ordinary, normal man who gets some harmless pleasure from stalking five innocent young women, and then possibly sending them drawings - that he's done himself...

STU -You are sick!

RICH -...of his winkie.

STU -You ARE sick!

RICH - Let me finish, Stu! ...of his winkie, depicted as a dragon. They're very tasteful, like a Marillion sleeve.

STU -You are sick!

RICH -Is he the sick one in this society? Or... is it the businessman in his suit and tie - drawing up his expense account?

Yeah, think about it.

STU -Well... it's the first one, Rich. It's the dragon-stalking-winkie bloke. That one, he's the sick one. The businessman has done nothing wrong.

RICH -Well, in that case, yeah. That wasn't a very good example.

Headhunter said...

I think you need to look further up the supply chain for the links to harder an organised crime. Sure the little guy down the pub who offers you a lump of crap cannabis or the guy at our local shop (I think everyone knows which one you mean but we're probably not allowed to name names here!) are probably not linked to the mafia but what groups does the cannabis pass through as it makes its journey from its source?

Are you equally sure that these groups/individuals are entirely separate from groups/individuals dealing in harder substances and involved in harder crime?

Let's face it, in many cases cannabis simply provides access to cash flow for criminal groups who are also involved in "bigger business". Cannabis is akin to a loaf of bread or a pint of milk in Tesco, Tesco doesn't just sell milk and bread but Tesco sells millions of loaves of bread and pints of milk which simply provides cashflow to bigger criminal groups in many cases.

Perhaps if we legalised cannabis and allowed it to go on sale in Tesco next to the bread and milk, the problem would go away...

Headhunter said...

Sorry I didn't mean that Tesco funds organised crime by selling bread and milk....

Captain Perspective said...

Again Headhunter, cannabis is easily grown, often by the sellers, in peoples lofts these days. All you need is a few seeds, some lamps, soil, water and our time. Like those local organic vegetables you keep banging on about...

It's more "upstairs" than "up the supply chain", but you won't get a fanciful DM story out of that.

Tressilliana said...

I think recreational drugs should be legalised and controlled to put them on a par with tobacco and alcohol. I also think the kind of behaviour the majority of people I've seen posting here have reported is completely unacceptable. I don't see these two positions as incompatible.

Anonymous said...

Hats off to the police here. I am a resident in the area and, despite the philosophising about whether drugs should be legal or not, the effects of the drug dealing and taking and the antics that go hand in hand with it have made so many lives unbearable.

At last the police have made steps to making UBR a nicer place to live and to visit. The premises on the parade have so much potential as local businesses. The police's actions will hopefully allow the place to thrive rather than be stifled by the behaviour of a select few.

To all those people who criticise those of us for complaining, no doubt you live in an ivory tower yourselves - easy to shout NIMBY at someone else, harder to recognise it in oneself.

Anonymous said...

As a long term resident of UBR, the phrase "mountain out of a molehill" has never been so relevant. As with a previous poster, I get more day to day trouble from braying Henrys on their way back from the pub than I do from anyone procuring and enjoying a quiet herbal cigarette.

The way you lot carry on you'd think this is the 1950s. Only they were more racially accepting then.

Brockley Nick said...

Anon, it's just your luck to be born in an era when shooting guns near a school is considered a crime while talking a bit loudly on the way back from the pub and being a bit posh isn't. It's a mad world, but we shall overcome.

Anonymous said...

Shooting guns has nothing to do with drugs.

Another anon said...

It can do if it is dealers pulling the trigger and pointing said weapons at other dealers.... which seems to be quite common.

Unfortunately sometimes little dancing girls get in the way.

Brockley Nick said...

"Shooting guns has nothing to do with drugs."

That's why the police are taking action here. That's why residents have been so concerned. Not because there is some innocuous drug dealing going on, but because (for whatever reason) this location has been plagued with violence and anti-social behaviour for 10 years, with at least two gun incidents in the last few years.

I'll leave you to debate the underlying causes, but those are the facts that the police and the Council have acted on.

Anonymous said...

Quite right Nick, thank you.

There is an inextricable link between drugs and anti-social behaviour and violence. Debate the causal link all you like, the link is there and the police's actions last night are a welcome move to improve the quality of life of residents.

And to my neighbour on UBR who is more bothered by slightly inebriated Hooray Henries... I envy you.

And don't say I'm a racist, it's cheap and ill-informed.

Another voice of reason said...

I just want to chime in with those UBR folk that aren't that bothered. I don't live on UBR but very near on the stretch of Lewisham Way near the war memorial and walk past the "HORRENDOUS!" corner nearly every day for the past 5 years, all times of day to the wee hours of the morning after pub closing time. Never experienced any aggression or seen anything untoward except a bunch of police vans one morning last summer (was it?). Anyway, some of a cluster of dudes standing outside, maybe catching a whiff of something green. My daily experience of UBR is just that. Suffered more aggression as a single woman in the Wickham Arms. And, no, it doesn't stop me from going there because I love that pub. The real irony is that I suspect that many of the Brockley anti-drug brigade are part of the Brockley anti-drug treatment centre brigade.

Big C said...

Who's the "anti-drug brigade"? I love drugs but I'm glad the police are sorting out gun crime in Brockley.

Still, it's never affected you, so that's fine. Anyone who does mind is a prude or a racist obviously.

Peter Tooke said...

I for one expect the Police to take action against crime and antisocial behaviour so, enough of this to-and-fro debate about drug categorisation, race, class, nimbyism etc., the Police are taking decisive action to clean up the streets for all of us, whatever age, race, class etc - and GOOD ON 'EM, they have my full and enequivocal support.

Anonymous said...

Hear hear Peter.

To 'another voice of reason'... I am sorry you have suffered aggression in the Wickham Arms, but because it does not affect me, then I don't care.

See what I mean?

Anonymous said...

about time, no doubt cllr johnson will try and claim the credit, it's because we all know how hard he's worked at addressing the problems on that road, the fact that it's taken near on 10 years, is testament to his influence he has on the safer neighbourhood team and council
http://brockleycentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/cut-it-out.html

Anonymous said...

I remember Supercuts. Another local business, just trying to get by, selling good honest fare, who happened to be frequented by black people.

Anonymous said...

Stop the casual 'racist' taunt: as I said, it's cheap and misguided.

As for Cllr Johnson, I'll tell you he is the only of the three councillors in Brockley to have demonstrated any commitment to doing anything. You could argue it was not enough, but he put in more than the other two's big fat zero.

Another voice of reason - FAIL said...

@Anon 18:08 I'm neither asking people to care nor saying that I don't care about anti-social behaviour. I'm drawing a comparison to illustrate that I live in the e/affected area and do not share the same point of view of UBR that many, but not all, of the commentators here have.

But while we're on the subject and using the ridiculous logic that is so prevalent on this blog, I'll give your point the same laughable treatment: you care about a bunch of men standing on the corner smoking cannabis more or less discreetly, but don't care about male aggression toward women in nearby pub. Awesome.

Big C said...

you're not making any sense

JPM said...

There was undoubtedly a problem with UBR. It affected the other businesses there.

I'm not too sure of Councillor Johnson's skills in dealing with these matters, but he did go quite public on it and it now seems to have been sorted.

I would though just like to say to the 'few' out there that not every dark face standing around on a street corner is a threat.

zing said...

Hear hear to what Headhunter said.

As for this "recreationals" distinction, what a load of rubbish. If you grow cannabis for personal use, fine, but don't go out and try and sell it - that makes you a drug dealer.

While some cannabis may be grown in a relatively innocent environment (still deliberately flouting the law though), much is inextricably linked to organised crime, and you're a fool if you think otherwise, and unless you see where it's come from, how do you know which category a particular supply falls into?

The other point I'd like to make is, I know some people who've used cannabis for decades, and still held down responsible jobs (though there's no question it has taken a toll on their brains), and others, especially those who started young, who have become semi-zombies, or become psychotic and committed suicide, including a cousin of mine who was in her 20s. Just like alcohol, some people can handle it, others can't. The fact that alcohol is legal is not a good argument for legalising other dangerous (to some) drugs.

Grown-up said...

There needs to be a proper, grown-up debate on drugs policy. The expulsion of David Nutt after he claimed (rightly) that horse riding was more dangerous than Ecstasy and the endless cow-tailing to the Middle England press confirm this to be the case.

Anonymous said...

Again, typical Hippy.

Anonymous said...

Well said. Let's give the police our support on this one. Well done!

Anonymous said...

Class B actually.

Anonymous said...

It seems you don't really live there.

Anonymous said...

Oh 'another voice of reason' - don't you get the point? Of course I care that you are the victim of aggression, it is appalling (and something for another blog debate I fear). Surely the point wasn't that obscure?

But you're not just making the mistake of not reading between the lines, but you're also misjudging the issue. I (personally) don't care too much about a few guys having a spliff actually. I do care about GUNS BEING FIRED, S**T ON MY DOORSTEP and BEING REGULARLY VERBALLY ABUSED.

You live in the area you say, and maybe you have never have witnessed the worst - lucky you!. But, because you have not seen it yourself, you simply dismiss it.

That was my point about the aggression in the Wickham Arms. And you walked right into it.

That's evidence of an 'awesome' voice of reason....

moi said...

I don't live on or near UBR but I am slightly confused by this as it seems that two things (at least) are being mixed up/confused here. Drug dealing is one issue, and that is presumably what was being addressed by the police during the raid. I can see how this could perhaps tie in with the gun crime, but is it really the people buying drugs that are causing the other problems, i.e. the 'loitering', anti-social behaviour, pissing on doorsteps etc? I wouldn't have thought that they would hang around having bought drugs, and weed smokers don't tend to be aggressive and abusive etc - that's surely the domain of drinkers. Which is why, I thought, the Supercuts problem was addressed. Has that problem not improved since Supercuts had its licence revoked?

Specifics? said...

Like the earlier poster, I live not on UBR, but nearby, and have walked past that corner many times at various times of the day and night over the past few years. Like the earlier poster, I have witnessed nothing to alarm me. Perhaps I have just been lucky. But, genuine question to those who also live nearby / on the road - not to be provocative or rhetorical: what exactly, specifically goes on there that is disruptive and threatening to local residents?

Pete said...

About time too, perhaps about 5 years too late...

Anonymous said...

Specifics - it's a fair question.

I for one have been spat at; verbally abused; have had countless sleepless nights as a result of people sitting on the walls at the corner into the small hours 'smoking'/drinking and playing music, screaming etc; I have witnessed numerous fights; my doorway (and my neighbour's) is used as a urinal on a weekly basis; there is constant litter; I have nearly been run over by a driver who was on his way to get some more drugs (he'd had enough already!); oh, and yes there is the fact that guns have been fired before. It comes and goes, so it is perfectly possible you might have missed it.

Evidently the problems are worse at night, and in summer when it is warm. I am no party pooper but I resent being told by some on here I should get over it simply because the posters are not from the area, or because of some airy-fairy arguments about national drug policy.

Anonymous said...

if you want to legalise drugs just write to your MP. At the moment it is illegal to deal drugs a,b,c,d,e,f g,... it does not matter.

I am glad that the Police takes the time to enforce the law, even when I may find them not effective.

It should not be left to the community to decide what law to enforce, that is why we have a parlament.

If you want to reform the all system of forming laws, I think this may be out of scope in this blog.

Anonymous said...

Duh...I next door neighbour's son and his middle class friends dabble in drugs. Phoning for fresh supplies (cocaine) to be delivered, getting into the back of cars to complete the deal.

Bet mummy & daddy don't know but it might explain why a new expensive item was stolen from their porch while their son was zonked out on a park bench watching.

Anonymous said...

Any plank that says illegal drugs don't have an impact is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Much annoying crime is down to funding drugs habits, many of the drinkers on the street now have drug related issues as well.

If 5 years ago kids of 12/13 were doing drugs think how young some are beginning to do drugs now.

The strength of some preferred drugs are so strong there's been a notable increase in mental disorders relating to being paranoid.

Laws on drink and smoking have been tightened up for the health the nation...yet there are those usually in the media & publicity game who want to legalise drugs.

In the 60's endless streams of people told of how 'smoking never did them any harm' then complain when they or their relatives got cancer.

Now those dimwits want to take the same path with drugs.

Anonymous said...

This feels like another conflict between real Brockley/honest people and post-2005/dishonest Brockley dressed up as crime fighting.

Anonymous said...

What gets me is those who care about the enviroment and go and buy any old drug with no knowledge of its contain as if they are a 'free spirit' rather than selfish mindless twonks.

Anonymous said...

From the 1960's...

'England had never counted more than 3,000 narcotics addicts'

And from 2010...

There were 306,000 ­registered heroin addicts in England.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 21 April 2012 18:49

CLrr Johnson didn't show any commitment in the first 8 years, nor did his two other green councillors who were kicked in to the long grass during the May 2012 elections.

AS for the other current two councillors, I have no way of knowing if they've been involved or not in addressing this problem, only your assertion.

Monkeyboy said...

"Much annoying crime is down to funding drugs habits" yes, now if you were an addict would you rather spend £5 and buy clean drugs from boots or give out blow jobs to raise £50 and buy adulterated drugs from a dangerous criminal?

Legalisation and regulation is a better option on a practical level. It treats it as a public health issue and netralses the crime bit, was the point of jailing addicts? Jail them for theft or violence sure but why not remove the reason why so any turn to theft or violence?

On a moral level, why should the state tell you what you should do to your own body? Smoking and drinking are not illegal but both are regulated. Climbing with out a rope is not illegal even though your death could affect you friends and family. it's not just meedja types who support legalisation, actually most press are not. Plenty of retired police, prison governors and doctors agree. Some din of course but don't claim its just middle aged stoners who think its a good idea. That's not accurate.

Anonymous said...

More than 10 years btw. Shortly after we moved here in 1985 the SLP reported a shooting in Upper Brockley Road and a murder by the war memorial. When our friends moved to a flat above the dry cleaners in Lewisham Way a couple of years later they opened the door to someone with a shotgun wound. Welcome to Brockley!

Brockley Nick said...

@specifics - is that specific enough for you?

Anonymous said...

MB do you have your hand over your hands for fear of seeing the crime including stabbing & shooting that takes place related to drugs?

Those wanting drugs legalised are inviting the government to stipulate what they can or cannot take, as it will be regulated...duh!

Legalising drugs will not stop the people who become addicted or dependent causing annoying disruptive crimes to fund their habit.

Legalising & liberalising drink hasn't stopped people getting drunk and causing mayhem by fighting or driving under the influence.

British people have misguided believe they 'know how to enjoy themselves' when they mean they are self indulgent and lack respect for others and themselves.

If drugs aren't seen as a problem why the outrage in Brockley over a unit dealing with addicts.

Monkeyboy said...

Criminals wouldn't be selling drugs if there were no money in it, addicts wouldn't be buying of criminals if they could get it from their doctor. Prohibition didn't stop people drinking but it did allow organised crime to thrive. There is plenty of drug related crime around so the current system is far from the solution.

Monkeyboy said...

And yes addiction is a problem, perhaps the money saved from jailing addicts could be spent on offering effective treatment.

Monkeyboy said...

And ye, keep driving under the influence ileagal. There's no inconsistency in that and legalisation and regulation.

Anonymous said...

MB--Criminals aren't likely to pay VAT, TAX, PAYE etc so the opportunity to make money from drugs will be there.

It has now become so sophisticated there's a significant criminal market for counterfeit prescription drugs.

Anonymous said...

I love it when people try to simplify and rationalise cannabis dealing.

Harmless dealing to a few mates etc etc. Cannabis factories set up in houses are dangerous and rake in millions for gangs each year. One alone in a flat can make up to £100,000+ in a year.

Gangs that presumably commit no other crimes and don't use vulnerable people to cultivate their crops....

The naivety of the Howard Marx loving hipsters is nauseating.

Anonymous said...

Is this just another 'for show' raid. They did this to the yellow, green and red place at the beginning of Shardeloes, and they were back in business selling drugs the next morning!

Monkeyboy said...

I've no doubt that there will still. Be people selling drugs in an unregulated way but why would addicts steal to raise hundreads of pounds to buy from a dangerous criminal when they cold spend £10 and get it from Boots? There are criminals distributing counterfeit vodka, fags and Viagra. Not sure how full the prisons are of people who have robed their mothers and sold themselves for a pack of cheap B&H. There are some very sad looking people killing themselves buying White Ace, it's tragic but are they breaking into houses to buy it? Nope, they buy it from Londis. Not great but I'd rather that than than the shit cider market being controlled by criminals. It's a public health issue.

Anonymous said...

I don't live in the UBR area but sometimes collect my niece from Myatt Primary - even in the mid afternoon I have seen pretty horrific scenes here... guys beating each other to a pulp, dealing drugs and all sorts. Is it just as bad at night?

Anonymous said...

That's enough now. You all must have homework to do. School tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Let our police get on with keeping the streets safe. I support them 100% on this UBR issue.

Anonymous said...

Completely applaud the local police's actions. I feel sorry for the police having to fight crime and, apparently,a bunch of literate but misguided whingy contributors to this blog.

Get real. The laws against drugs are there to be enforced, exactly as you would be demanding if your house were broken into by an opportunistic addict.

Focuses the mind somewhat.

Drop the bleeding heart stuff - it actually discriminates against those from terrible backgrounds who are trying, trying, trying, so damn hard to keep their heads above water and their families together. Give them a chance.

Anonymous said...

MB I know it's difficult to read with your eyes covered, but in a recent court case an individual stole something worth hundreds and sold it for less than £10 to fund their habit.

That's one example of many, these people will quite often cause more damage that the value of the item they steal.

British people have a history of drunkeness & violence, gambling & debt.

Until recently drinking & betting was rather strictly controlled.

Since being liberalised many town centres have become no go areas for the many do to those out drinking who require bouncers on the doors of pubs and extra policing to deal with the additional number of incidents.

I believe betting shops had strict rules as to what could be seen from the street, now they are liberalised and in deprived Lewisham you have 3 betting shops side by side.

And you want to throw legalised drugs into the mix....those who want it should personally be taxed to pay for the extra burden it costs society.

Would you legalise the selling of Heroin, Cocaine, Smack, Skunk to anyone of any age, if not why?

If you restrict the sale of those drugs to those over 18 then the criminals will still have a market.

If in one generation the number of addicts has increased a hundred fold, then it's very likely the age at which people start using drugs has become younger.

Anonymous said...

How does any of that differ from alcohol or tobacco? Legalised drug users could be age restricted and taxed in a similar fashion. There is a black market in both fags and booze and do you know anybody who waited until the legal age to have a drink?

Anonymous said...

^^^^From your own hand you have explained there are no benefits in legalising drugs....as the illegal trade will continue...raises eyebrows in disbelief at the thinking of the so called 'free spirits'.

Anonymous said...

Anon asked...

Do you know anybody who waited until the legal age to have a drink?

Yes, many Muslims for a start, who have never started drinking.

When you put such a question you are referring to yourself and your small circle of friends.

Expand your horizons and be enlightened.

Anonymous said...

Surely by your own definition they didn't wait to have a drink as they've never had it.

Yet, loads of muslims drink. There's moderation and shades of grey in everything, a fact sorely missed in this blog.

McNimby said...

Like the first ANON I am very pleased to see this happen. It is high time [no pun intended!] that this was put to an end.

I am out and proud to say I will champion the NIMBY's who also want rid of the anti-social behaviour.

You know when people argue against the NIMBY's I view that as cowardice. Survivial of the fittest innit, and in South East London, that means it helps to try and lower the crime rates in your area so some other poor sods taste the metal.

The vicious circle of money that filters through these joints that deal drugs makes me sick, so lets get the drug 'lords' out of here. Just remember those drug fiends breaking and entering your homes, and robbing your cars, are the ones spending their cash on this gear. Who wants to perpetuate that cycle in our beloved Brockers.

#mungs4eva

#NIMBYsofSE4unite

Anonymous said...

Decriminalise all drugs. No? OK then at least give us CCTV at BX.

Crime prevention has to be the new long term focus.

Some interesting stuff by the American the government have hired to look at the costs and benefits of crime prevention and punishment on Radio 4 recently.

Brockley Nick said...

No CCTV please.

Bea said...

I walked past that corner of UBR yesterday and was surprised (or perhaps not) to see two / three windows smashed in. Residential windows as well as shop fronts.

I was wondering what had happened. Now I know (unless the windows were smashed after the police raid?) Glad to see the police are addressing this problem and support them 100%.

Anonymous said...

Tax payers supply an addictive drug to stabilise and stop users having to raise money and mix with drug dealers. Methadone. Why not just supply heroin to addicts? They would not need to rob you and would at least be known off, in some kind of stable situation and be able to be reached and helped.

Taking an intoxicant of your own free will is not a moral issue, it's stupid but not wrong in itself. If an addict robs you to pay for it, there's a problem. Plenty of academics, probation officers and police agree. Not all but some, it's a perfectly rational idea even if you don't agree with it.

Anonymous said...

Mungs HATE CCTV. Even though it's used for crime fighting or evidence building, they think a smelly man in a control room is going to be genuinely interested in watching their every move. Then they complain about crime going unsolved. It would be quite funny to watch if it wasn't so prophetic.

Brockley Nick said...

I don't hate CCTV, it has its place. As ever, it's all things in moderation.

Installing CCTV in private businesses and other areas that are vulnerable to burglary, etc - good.

Setting up CCTV on our high streets to make people feel like they are walking through a war zone - counterproductive, because good people hurry on rather than linger while bad people who don't give a toss about being caught on CCTV loiter.

It's a question of efficacy, that's all.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_supporters.htm

Bastard hippies.

terrencetrentderby said...

Johnny Welfare playing acid rock on a stolen guitar.

Anonymous said...

The illegal trade will be massively reduced as the millions of occasional recreational drug takers will no longer be classed as criminals. This will also free up the police to deal with more serious crime.

Anonymous said...

I know several Muslims that drink. The devout ones aren't likely to be taking drugs either so your example is irrelevant to this discussion.

Anonymous said...

I am actually referring to the vast majority of people in this country. Open a newspaper and be enlightenened.

Anonymous said...

If you tax the legalised drugs it would make the Treasury billions. More than enough to fight the small criminal element remaining AND rehabilitate any addicts.

McBain said...

Why not legalise shop lifting so the police can focus on more serious crimes like armed robbery.

JPM said...

This has more to do with the takeover of the streets by loiterers who were openly dealing or smoking dope in full view of schoolkids and alienating some residents.

If they had kept it 'under the counter' then it wouldn't have come to public attention so vividly.

The real test though will be this summer when that quarter can usually be a bit of a gauntlet.

Anonymous said...

About time. I am so over seeing people going in and out 24/7 to buy their drugs. I wish this had happened many months ago

Anonymous said...

@McBain - with comments that clever I'm sure there are other sites that need your insights far more than we do and we will reluctantly have to let you go.

@Nick - 'Setting up CCTV on our high streets to make people feel like they are walking through a war zone - counterproductive, because good people hurry on rather than linger while bad people who don't give a toss about being caught on CCTV loiter.' for once you're talking balls... it is to make them feel like the are NOT in a war zone and that assault and other local crimes are likely to result in arrest and conviction!

I'm generally lumped in with the M*ngs but want CCTV for BX; then I want CPZ too so maybe it's just the acronyms that do it for me ;)

Anonymous said...

Yes to CCTV, no to CPZ.

Anonymous said...

@McBain, We allow people to buy stuff that they want hence removing the need for them to steal hence allowing police to concentrate on armed robbery so your point, whilst interesting is irelevent. It's the violence and crime associated with the supply of an ileagla substance that's the issue. Why not make it legal? people don;t rob you because they are on heroin, they rob you because they are desperate to raiset the money to buy something from a criminal who is happy to milk the addict for every penny. Heroin can be produces for peanuts. It's ileagal now, it never used to be.

Try again.

McBain said...

Some mighty big assumptions there Anon. Suppose you'll be telling me next heroin is healthy?

Anonymous said...

No HEROIN IS A BAD THING DONT DO IT....people still do and are willing to rob and degrade themselves to do so. That's the point.

Anonymous said...

No HEROIN IS A BAD THING DONT DO IT....people still do and are willing to rob and degrade themselves to do so. That's the point.

Anonymous said...

What about Crack? Will that be legalised too?

Anonymous said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

I can see the drug barons of Columbia which operate armies, happily going legit and paying taxes.

People get really they are first and foremost CRIMINALS, even the munchkins that operate in Lewisham.

They are not interested in being legit they will retain their customers by undercutting the market.

Anonymous said...

The big tobacco companies (and one has to assume the major global retailers also) have contingency plans should cannabis be decriminalised in various juridictions. T4sco skunk, H5BC H and St4rbucks crack all coming to you in a few decades...

Anonymous said...

Heroin used to be prescribed to addicts, and still is to some users, but the system was abused hence Methadone.

The know it all druggies can't even decide which drugs should or shouldn't be legalised or the age restrictions.

If you legalise drugs then the marketeers will seek to increase sales, so the burden on the rest of society will increase.

What next scrap the driving test and licence because many decide neither is required?

Anonymous said...

Many of the crimes associated with drugs are not due to them being illegal.

Anonymous said...

Yet those same tobacco companies have probably been attacked by the 'free spirit' drug users over the sale of tobacco and the resulting health issues.

I do love the 'free spirits' who live in their fantasy land of rizzlas and narcotics....pretending it's not a multi billion industry.

Gideon said...

It's precisely because its a multi billion pound industry that you should legalise drugs - cannabis at least. Think of the tax haul!

Anonymous said...

An ILLEGAL buisness that isn't willing to pay taxes...when will it sink in?

What next legalise dog fighting, for the tax revenue on betting?

People need to get a grip of the reality, which I doubt they are capable of if they are wantingly active in criminal activity.

Anonymous said...

Er... the debate is about LEGALISING that currently illegal business. That is what we are talking about. Are you high?
Put simply. Big company (a tobacco company or pharmaceutical company or even bloody Tesco) farms cannabis on an industrial scale, packages and sells it in licensed premises to those of age.
Government taxes that.
No more street dealers. Big revenue for Government.
Do you see?

Gideon said...

I'm not saying tax the current dealers you idiot. Take over the production and legitimise it. Then tax it.

Gideon said...

Something like that, yes.
Obviously it will never happen - massive vote loser. Far too many Daily Mail readers out there.

Anonymous said...

I think you'll find the idiots are those who think the illegal traders will go away.

The world has moved on doctors are concerned about the strength of drugs at what is regarded at the mild end of the scale.

If big pub chains already see cheap booze at Tesco as a threat and tobacco companies see fake or 'imported' fags as a threat then legalised drugs don't stand a chance.

There is already a market for illegal drugs of which people are quite happy to take the risk of prosecution and dodgey goods.

The legit companies will just be an alternative market who will legally allowed to target a far wider audience leadiing to more issues.

Have you people not learnt nothing from the liberalisation of the drinks laws, the British nature is to go for excess not moderation.

Leading to violent crimes, additional policing, over burdened hospitals and some doped up bright sparks what to add to Lewisham's woes...because they know they won't face the true cost of their selfishness.

The annoying petty crime will increase, already the police will tend to say oh it's probably some opportunist funding a drug habit.

The mainline criminals will continue as normal providing cheaper drugs than that legalised and will continue their trade of illegal any substances.

To pretend legalising cannabis is the cure is complete and utter nonsense.

In 20 years time when kids are born with parnoia due to their parents habits are those demanding legalisation going to stand up and be counted or slink off and let the rest of us pick the cost?

You have a deprived crap borough and you want to take it down further into the mire for your own selfish reasons, and then moan about drug units and the lack of facilities in the area.

Anonymous said...

I do wonder if some of the contibutors to this site can do joined up thinking...they have in their midsts a group of people carrying out illegal activity who we are to believe will overnight turn into honest citzens...hallucinate on.

Anonymous said...

3,000 registered narcotics addicts in the 1960's now over 300,000 and there are mugs wanting to increase that number.

Idiots.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone name any examples where hard drug legalisation has reduced crime and deaths?

Anonymous said...

It is reported in the Netherlands...

The average concentration of THC in the cannabis sold in coffeeshops has increased from 9% in 1998 to 18% in 2005.

...and the sorce of the coffeeshops is rarely investigated.

It was also reported...

In October 2011 the Dutch government proposed a new law to the Dutch parliament, that will put cannabis with 15% THC or more onto the list of hard drugs.....The government finds motivation from its experts' assertions, that cannabis of that strength have an "unacceptable risk" associated with its usage.

So if the level of allowed THC is not to the liking of the public they will go to the illegal market...no government unless it stupid is knowingly going to legalise something which has an "unacceptable risk" while banning tobacco from public display and pointing out it results in death.

Anonymous said...

Anon 20:41

Yes, and if you check you'll find out why.

Britain has a habit of picking up half the story and implementing half cocked schemes that are not suitable for British culture.

For example drink is liberalised and many now get tanked up BEFORE they go out with the aim to get totally blasted.

Then they wonder how they ended up in fights or being sexually assulted, in hospital or being arrested.

Anonymous said...

Someone objected to CCTV cameras as they indicate a 'war zone'.

But look at your British culture, piddly little local pubs requiring bouncers on the doors and no one seems to qusetion why they a have society that demands such measures.

Jake said...

Anyone interested in growing their own can find supplies at Brockley's own hydroponic supplier a few yards from Brockley Cross, now officially known as The Eigths Circle Of Hell. Or something like that.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps if we all had a go at growing some local fare, tied it up in twee bags with a ribbon and sold it on the market for £100 a quarter. The mungs would love it then.

Anonymous said...

The public can't even handle legalised alchohol, now imagine more smacked up people roaming the streets thrown into the mix.

Brockley Nick said...

Are you arguing that alcohol should be banned and made illegal?

If not, then you are making the same point as those who say drugs should be legalised, regulated, taxed and managed.

Anonymous said...

Drugs are vote winning human interest issue.

The classification A, B, C, etc is at the whim of politicians looking to curry favour with one section of voting public or another.

Look what happened when a scientist had the temerity to question the basis on which drugs were classified.

Just like Americans accept the effects that guns have on their society and there is a no consensus for their restriction. We hear in the UK tacitly accept the crime that is a by-product of drug policy.

We also accept the wholesale poisoning of many people by prescribed drugs that do not cure, only harm patients.

Thousands of people, especially the elderly, are rendered insensible by prescription drugs.

I'm afraid this countries attitude to a whole range of legal and illegal addictive substances defies any sort of reasonable examination.

We are a nation of addicts and it is pathetic. Worse we are leeched upon by those who control the supply. Be is Big Pharma, Narcotics gangs or the 'home grown' enterprises.

Anonymous said...

Nick we have legalised drinking and smoking, but that's no reason to throw drugs into the mix.

Countless people have shown they can't control their drinking, it's almost become normal culture for many going for a drink means getting completely blotto.

By legalising drugs, people will feel thaey have the right to stagger around the streets dazed & confused, attempt to drive while under the influence, shoot up in public etc etc.

You raise the threshold at which the police feel obligued to take action....look what happened on the streets when they recategorized certain drugs.

The criminals connected to prove policing has failed so they can carry on their various trades unfetted by police interference.

Anonymous said...

People will always want to take drugs. Drugs will always be available. The 'war on drugs' has cost the taxpayer billions and achieved nothing. There must be another way and legalisation & regulation could be it but as the comments here prove there are too many deep-seated prejudices and knee-jerk reactionaries around to ever give it a decent chance.

Anonymous said...

^^^ There will always be people who want to do things that are illegal, but that's no reason to legalise it.

Passport control and customs have clerly failed as well, so lets scrap those laws as well.

How about the billions wasted trying to stop people using mobile phones when driving?

If skunk, cocaine, heroin remain illegal then by your arguement it would be money wasted trying to enforce a law people will ignore....

Local residents have stated time again they are fed up with drug related offences in Upper Brockley Road and the response is to legalise what causes those social problems!

Anonymous said...

@Nick

Of course alcohol should not be made illegal. But if you legalise hard drugs there is the risk more people will take them, managed and taxed they are still dangerous. Cannabis, a "soft drug", has been linked to long term mental illness and the relaxation of the laws here 10 years ago gave been the green light to smoke more. Dealers got richer.

Clean state bought heroin should be given to addicts but complete liberalisation for the masses is stupid.

Anonymous said...

Passport control and customs have not 'failed' - what a bizarre statement.
And nobody spent billions on stopping the use of mobiles in cars. That is simply rubbish.

Billions IS being wasted trying to enforce a law people ignore - that's the whole point.

If you legalise what the delaers on UBR are selling they'll be out of a job.

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9031855/Its-time-to-end-the-failed-war-on-drugs.html

Anonymous said...

Can we stop with the totally spurious argument that leaglising (or at least decriminalising) something means that a whole raft of laws will go. It's a particularly brainless use of the slipery slope thing.

It's legal to own a shotgun, with restirictions. It's illegal to own a machinegun. It used to be legal to posses a 9mm automatic pistol. It's now illegal...except if you're a policeman and are authorised. The law is quiet capable of distinguishing between cases and EFFECTIVLY regulating. Don't worry anons, murder and beating your wife is not about to be encouraged.

Brockley Nick said...

"Nick we have legalised drinking and smoking, but that's no reason to throw drugs into the mix."

Either alcohol is somehow fundamentally different to other drugs that are currently illegal, in which case your comparison is false.

Or alcohol is not fundamentally different to other drugs and we should treat them in the same way (either criminalise alcohol or decriminalise other drugs).

There are strong arguments to argue either case (alcohol is different, or it is the same) - so you choose where you stand:

Do you believe booze is different, in which case your comparisons are irrelevant. Or do you believe booze is the same, in which case you're arguing in support of legalisation (or criminilisation of booze)?

Just so we're clear?

Anonymous said...

Nick read the thread, evidence from within THIS borough has been provided which indicate why drugs should not be legalised.

The middle class in their enclaves can fool themselves everything is hunky dory while in the real world residents of UBR have to put up with all sorts of drug related crime including shootings.

I'm sure Brockley Central will want to give full publicity to such goings on.

Anonymous said...

But the crime is related to the illegality of the drugs. If you could buy the drugs in Boots there would be no gangs hanging around on UBR selling them because there would be no money in it.
Until then the police can make a few busts but the dealers will just be replaced by others in days.
Supply and demand...

NAT said...

These events you mention, 9:57, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, could prove the opposite argument...if you read the thread.

Anonymous said...

Nick you don't get it...alchohol and tobacco are already legal and as governments know its difficult to turn off the tap once the floodgates have been opened.

As far back the last century in the 1960's 'The World In Action' on ITV (a station partially funded by tobacco companies) graphically warned of the dangers of smoking.

In 1965 a school in Dulwich had an anti smoking campaign in an essay a pupil wrote drew a link between addiction and people who feverioushly light that first morning cigarette and puff blissfully.'

It was stated of the 80% who left school at 15, 55% smoked. Of the remaining 20% only 5% smoked.

Meanwhile the media would be full of people most likely from the 80%, claiming they'd smoked for years and it ain't never them any harm...the hundreds of thousands that died of cancer due to smoking weren't around to have a voice.

50 years on despite all the negative evidence re smoking and horrendous cost to families and the health service it is still legal.

Do we really want set off another path similar to smoking tobacco by legalising drugs.

As pointed out the Netherlands is concerned about the increasing strength of cannabis, dealers wouldn't be supplying it if there was not a demand.

Now engaged your combined university educated brains and realise if you legalise cannabis but it's not of the current strength of TCH then the customers will seek supplies from an illegal source.

So you've increased the likely anti social affects and maintained the illegal trade.

Anonymous said...

If some people CCTV in residential areas is regarded as having a negative impact, why can't those same highly intelligent people see increasing the numbers of people zonked out on the streets is detrimental to an area and its community?

Brockley Nick said...

Anon0957 - no, you read the thread. I have already argued that the problems at UBR are unacceptable and should be dealt with. I have taken issue with the Howard Marksists who say the nice drug dealers should just be left alone to get on with it.

My position is that legalisation would reduce these problems and that it is the status quo that you defend that has got us in this mess.

@Anon1051 (possibly the same person, please use names people, it's not a lot to ask, given how much effort is put in to running this site)

I do get it, I am just asking you be consistent and state your position.

Do you support the criminalisation of alcohol or not? If not, then what is the difference?

Anonymous said...

You would actually reduce both the anti-social cost and the illegal trade.
Buying drugs illegally involves a lot of risk - you are dealing with criminals after all. You very often get ripped off, either not getting what you paid for or even getting nothing at all. You also currently run the risk of arrest and perhaps losing your job.
Given the option most people would buy their cannabis from the legal outlet - it would be safer and the product guaranteed.
Therefore less dealers on the street. Less criminals involved. Less anti-social behaviour.

Anonymous said...

@NAT...

They could only prove the opposite if one was a befuddled drug taking zombie.

Can I remind you Brockleites rose up in their hundreds opposed to a drug clinic for those wishing to better themselves.

The opposition being the impact on the streets, local children and women.

Yet increasing the number of people doing drugs and allowing it on the streets isn't seen as an issue....more fool them.

Anonymous said...

Hooorrraaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so pleased. This situation has continued for far too long.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't get too excited. They'll be back before long.

NAT said...

11.02 I consider it rude not to respond to posts directed at me but that is too self contradictory and, well, daft, to know where to begin.

Sorry.

NAT said...

Ah yes 11:02 I get it now.

So.. to summarise the argument of the befuddled drug taking zombies.

In as much as national policy has an impact on this case, then a legalisation of drugs and a licencing system would remove the source of the disturbances, which is after all the problem, rather than the drug taking/dealing per se.

The opposing case could be summarised as 'It would not'

Anonymous said...

Your lose NAT.

Anonymous said...

wasn't there going to be an article in the south London press about this today ?
I am so glad they did this raid , I live above one of the shops and they have made my life misery with their constant fighting , shouting and shooting. I would have thought that if they wanted to deal drugs openly , then the last thing they need to be doing is causing so much trouble and noise that the police are called there at least twice a week. Idiots.

Mungo said...

We only have to look to Amsterdam for an example of how legalised fare can function in a largely peaceful society. So you have to ask, where would you rather live?; Amster-dam or Lewi-sham?

Anonymous said...

I've lived here for 40 years. That parade had the same reputation 40 years ago.

Anonymous said...

What were prices like 40 years ago, out of interest?

Anonymous said...

To compare Amsterdam with Lewisham based on drugs laws is ridiculas.

I suspect there are many places in London people would rather live than Lewisham despite having the same drugs laws.

Brockley Nick said...

I would rather live in Lewisham.

Anonymous said...

Shock of the century.

Anonymous said...

1968 7 bed house in Tyrwhitt £7k.
1973 Tiny flat in Tyrwhitt £7k. They were inflationary times, double digit interest rates.
In 1973 I earned £2k per year.

Ben said...

Amsterdam is a decent law abiding place with low violent crime rates and nice friendly people. The only trouble makers I've seen there are Brits.

Lewisham is a hole. A few nice places but essentially a tumbling shithole.

Brockley Nick said...

Delightful as ever, Ben.

Ed (CPZ) said...

As many wiser and funnier than I have said, why are we fighting a war we continually prove we can't win? Twice as many cannabis farms in four years is today's story.

When you add the savings of ceasing the 'war' to the tax revenue, quality control, removal of criminal capital, treatment of addictions and loss of cache/cool this really does seem a no brainer.

Shame no government in the conceivable future can communicate this to the narrow-minded majority; such is the nature of democracy.

Anonymous said...

Twice as many, indeed. No mexicans though, despite Lou's outdated DM views.

Stylewise Direct said...

This is an intresting blog that you have posted, you shares a lot of things about Wholesale Women's Clothing & Fashion,Wholesale Womens Clothing UK and Wholesale Womens Clothing UK.Which are very informative for

us.Thanks

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!