Sledgehammer to crack a walnut

PRESSURE is growing on Sussex Police to withdraw their draconian and totally over-the-top Dispersal Order for Worthing, as they concede it has sparked some "very negative" responses.

In a classic case of taking a sledgehammer to crack open a walnut, the force is claiming it needs the Section 30 order imposed on the town centre for the whole summer to stamp out "anti-social behaviour as a result of street drinking".

But street drinking is already banned in Worthing town centre (though not getting drunk in a pub and then going out onto the streets, which means the ban is aimed at protecting the breweries' profits and those who can afford to buy their over-priced products).

And if someone does act in an aggressive way there are plenty of laws already in place that allow police to arrest them.

So why on earth do we need a blanket order that gives police powers to 'disperse' two people walking down the road together, if for some reason they decide to claim they think it is 'likely' their behaviour will upset someone?

Occupy Worthing have joined those warning of the dangerous implications of this order, which takes us a big step further towards a police state, where someone can be found 'guilty' of something before they have even done it!

In a post on Facebook they say: "This order may be open to many abuses, as Police Officers and PCSO’s can choose to use their powers on anyone as soon as they interact with another person.

"They could arbitrarily decide to ban you from the Town Centre for 24hrs. For example, if you are lawfully exercising your right to free speech or they don’t like the way you look, what you have on your T-shirt, or if you are home-less, or maybe they just don’t like you.

"In fact they can use this power as they please, without any burden of proof, without any evidence whatsoever. You have no recourse against their decision, no way to appeal.

"Worthing is the only town in the south of England to have requested and been granted a Section 30 Order for such a large area and long time. Is our anti-social behaviour that bad? Do we really want Worthing to be labelled a problem town, just so the Police can have extra powers to play with?

"There are more than enough laws and powers available for the Police to tackle crime in Worthing, when a crime has actually occurred. Without relying on Police to be psychic and attempting to solve crimes that may never happen.

"We believe that this power is not needed in Worthing and is more suited to Communist China or Nazi Germany, please join us in registering your disapproval of this decision by Worthing Borough Council and Sussex Police.

"Join the ‘Occupy Worthing’ Facebook Group – Watch ‘Occupy Worthing’ clips on YouTube. – E-Mail your Council."

We have also seen a copy of a letter from local resident Bill Geddes to Worthing Borough Council, which is collaborating with the police over the Section 30 order.

He writes: "Yet again a 'ban' is to be imposed which is quite unnecessary and will most probably lead to incidents on the streets of the town.

"What on earth are you and the local Police afraid of? An outsider might imagine that Worthing is a seething hotbed of crime and bad behaviour, rather than the sleepy backwater it really is."

Meanwhile Dan Thompson, who raised the profile of the issue on Twitter during the week, has now apparently been on the receiving end of two phone calls from Sussex Police officers trying to justify the unjustifiable.

His verdict is that he he still thinks "it's a bad law and isn't needed".

He has also now added a new statement from the police, which refers to "some very negative online responses" to the Section 30 order.

This attempt to reassure the public that nothing sinister is going on is, however, less than convincing.

For a start, the police claim the curfew element of  Section 30, targeting under-16s, does not apply to Worthing. And yet the legislation - the link for which was Tweeted for public information by Sussex Police themselves - clearly includes the relevant clause in the main body and not under the 'supplemental' headings.

They also insist the S30 "is not a blanket ban on meeting up or a curfew". While it is clearly not a ban as such, it does mean that police can stop people being together in public on what is more or less a whim and certainly without any offences having been committed. That's not justice!

The police also say: "The powers have only been brought in so we are able to target acts of aggressive disorder, alcohol fuelled disorder."

But, once again, that sort of behaviour is already against the law and, no doubt, has been ever since the police were invented! The powers they have now got in Worthing enable the police to target people who have done nothing wrong, by claiming that they thought they were 'likely' to misbehave in some ill-defined way. That is not the same thing at all!

In a letter about the order sent out this week to Worthing businesses, and some residents, PC Marvin Lucas concludes: "You should not have to put up with the inconsiderate behaviour of any group of people."

No, we shouldn't. And that is why we continue to oppose this nasty order which has been inflicted on our town and call upon Sussex Police and Worthing Borough Council to withdraw it in the face of so much opposition.

Ideally, they might like to do so before Saturday June 9 so they can save themselves the bother of policing the 12 noon protest outside Worthing's town centre police station in Chatsworth Road (see previous post).