THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1986. Police kiosk in Square

Press, 18 June 1986, Page 18

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1986. Police kiosk in Square

The group of youth and community workers who have condemned the proposed police kiosk in Cathedral Square have adopted a peculiarly blinkered view of matters. In a letter to the Christchurch City Council the social workers allowed that Cathedral Square should be “a meeting place where people should feel free and comfortable,” but said that a constant police presence would detract from this. The point surely is that ordinary people cannot feel free and comfortable in Cathedral Square at many times of the day now; that is why the community has sought — and is prepared to pay for — an increased police presence. The youth workers’ contention that the kiosk will increase the potential for violence is fantastic. Their assertion that the proposed kiosk is “a punitive reaction to the recent crime wave” is a nonsense, and useful only for its realistic assessment of the incidence of unsociable behaviour in the Square. The kiosk is neither punishment nor provocation. It is simply an attempt, by an exasperated and much put-upon community, to reclaim its right to the enjoyment of a public place without risk of robbery, assault, or abuse. Some sympathy can be felt for the youth and community workers’ view that the problem of Cathedral Square is “a youth issue, not a law and order one, because most offenders and victims are young.” This statement has elements of the truth, although the “youth issue” and “law and order” are

not divisible in this context — law-breaking is still law-breaking, regardless of age. The law and the courts already make allowances for youth; the community need not make more. Nor is it strictly true to say that most victims of the offending are young. It may be that most of those physically harmed or molested in some way are young prey of young offenders; but the real victims of this behaviour include all who can no longer use the Square as frequently or as freely as they wish. Nevertheless, were it not for the problems posed by young people in the Square, the community would not be as agitated about the need for a greater police presence there. This might suggest that present efforts by social workers and others to remedy youth problems are proving inadequate. Be that as it may, the concern of the youth and community workers offers a possible course: if they believe they have the ability to remove the problems from Cathedral Square, perhaps they should be given a trial — say six months — to prove their effectiveness. If they succeed, everyone should be very pleased. It matters little to the community whether the desired improvement comes through more policing or through the efforts of social workers, as long as there is an improvement. Quite obviously, however, the community is in no mood for messing about with the problem. It wants action.