A conspiracy of containment?
Authorities fail tenants over crack-house problem
IWCA councillor Stuart Craft caused a storm of protest at the South East Area Committee meeting on 7 June when he went public over the failure by Thames Valley Police to move against crack dealing
from 23 Birchfield Close which has been going on for over two years.
The Labour councillors comprising the rest of the area committee refused point-blank to discuss the issue as soon as Cllr Craft mentioned the address of the crack-house—an address they seemed all too
familiar with. When pressed further by Stuart to explain why residents had been forced to put up with this for so long and what action would now be taken on their behalf, the Labour councillors closed down
the meeting and walked out.
But before they left Cllr Craft told the meeting: ‘It is my belief that Thames Valley Police’s strategy is to watch the flat in the hope they may gather evidence for a big drugs bust which they can parade
in front of the media. If this is the case then I would like to register my opposition to such a strategy, which allows decent residents, some of whom are elderly, to suffer while the police wait for a result
they may never get.’
The police officer present claimed no knowledge of the issue but promised to pass on the request that Blackbird Leys officer Sergeant Glanville Williams contact the IWCA to explain the police’s tactics.
The following day Birchfield Close residents contacted the IWCA to say that the police, Blackbird Leys county councillor Barbara Gatehouse and the Chief Executive of Oxford City Council had all been in
touch to show their concern about the crack house at number 23.
Had the authorities finally found their conscience overnight, or had they been thrown into a state of panic because of a sudden realisation that, with the issue out in the open, the extent of their collective
culpability in the residents’ situation would become apparent?
Complicit
The walkout staged by Labour councillors does nothing to undermine the common perception that not only are the police carrying out a policy of containment regarding class-A drugs on our estate, but through
their own inaction over the issue, both the council’s housing office and the local Labour Party have been guilty of colluding in a policy which has led to the growth of crack and heroin use amongst the local
population—especially the young.
Previously, Birchfield Close residents had written to local Labour MP Andrew Smith, Blackbird Leys Labour councillors, and housing officials but no action had been taken to remove the individual at the heart
of the problem.
For over two years residents have watched in growing fear and frustration as the once quiet area has been allowed to deteriorate into a major venue for drug dealing. Throughout this time the authorities
have been well aware of the problem at number 23. This is demonstrated by the fact that regular police raids have been carried out at the address over this period and the tenant has spent time in detention
and drug rehab.
Remarkably—and it must be stressed that this was before the current officers took up their posts—the Blackbird Leys Housing Office has apparently already evicted the tenant once, only to re-house her at the
same address several weeks later. Another recent opportunity to repossess the property was passed over by the council when the tenant was in prison and the property was squatted by crack dealers.
When the IWCA spoke to the housing office at the time we were informed that the matter was out of the council’s hands as the police were dealing with it and would not reveal their plans. On contacting
Thames Valley Police to ask them to explain their reluctance to take action we were met with a stony silence.
Blown out of the water
No explanation has subsequently been produced by Thames Valley Police. Speculation that the police are more interested in staging the occasional high profile drugs bust purely for PR purposes than in
alleviating the day-to-day problem faced by local residents has not been denied.
When Sgt Williams finally contacted the IWCA, nearly two weeks after the South East Area Committee meeting, rather than offer any kind of explanation he accused Stuart Craft of having ‘blown out of the water’
any plans he had for 23 Birchfield Close by bringing the issue into the public domain at the meeting.
Nevertheless, he was also able to say that the situation had been retrieved, revealing that another arrest had now been made which may make eviction possible using Antisocial Behaviour Orders, injunctions and
new ‘Crack House’ legislation. It is still not clear, however, how long residents may have to wait for the problem to be finally sorted out.
This case raises serious questions about the accountability to the public of Thames Valley Police, the housing office and local Labour representatives.
‘In my view,’ commented the IWCA’s Stuart Craft, ‘a case could be made that there has been a serious infringement of the human rights of Birchfield Close residents due to the problem being allowed to drag
on unnecessarily, presumably because the authorities have been working to an agenda other than the protection of the public that they are supposed to serve.
‘Throughout this period the green light has been given for Class-A drugs to be distributed across the estate because these authorities have taken no action to close down a major crack-house, for reasons
known only to themselves. The IWCA believes that there is no higher priority than the safety of the residents of this estate.
‘There are those who oppose the IWCA’s pro-working class politics who will hope that the recent election of three IWCA councillors to Oxford City Council will somehow herald a new era where the IWCA begins
to shy away from criticising the authorities when their actions prove detrimental to the people we represent in order to court political “respectability”. They will be sorely disappointed.’
Leys Independent, issue 24, July 2004
| 
