I think you're creating a false dichotomy. A reasonable police force would start with the gentle approach and escalate as necessary; staying stuck at "gentle" is obviously not ideal, but it doesn't follow that defaulting to violent aggression at all times is the right choice.

Let me clarify then: I am not in favor of a brutal approach to policing, but I am in favor of positive action. If it is 3 AM and residents have complained and there is a very loud scene outside, that is what the British call "anti-social behaviour." There should be consequences for that--not violence certainly, but perhaps a fine, and for repeat offenders, a free trip to the precinct to wait until they are sober.

The person I replied to praised the bobbies for letting them move their party elsewhere. It's entirely possible they went on to disrupt citizens in another part of town. The way London policing works, this sort of thing can go on all night--an "anti-social behaviour crawl." It isn't fair to the people who actually live there.

I do agree with you, but there is a big difference between disruption of the peace and an immediate and dangerous situation.

Partying and anti social behaviour should be dealt with over time with care. Things like dry zones, fines for property owners, police presence and steering the crowd somewhere less impactful.

While not fair for you to deal with, the punishment needs to match the crime. Guns and violence aren't appropriate as per America, fines for property owners could be a solution, and most immediate action such as jail or on the spot fines needs to come after the situation escalates, not on a neighbour's whim.

A word and a written warning is absolutely enough to begin with, if it carries on then start to escalate consequences.

In my experience most people will either leave or tone it down when police show up. Just their presence is usually enough to let you know to keep things reasonable.

In Australia we have some massive fines for things like disturbing the peace, which is why police presence works. 300+ depending on state. But they are not enforced until absolutely nothing else has worked.

I'd argue against the police escalating. The police should take evidence only in this case. The escalation should happen through court and the legal system since there is no one in danger here.

What do you want them to do? Subpoena the drug gang?

> defaulting to violent aggression at all times is the right choice.

or at any times.

Well, I dunno, I think it's reasonable to have training and procedures to deal with actual violent criminals. There just needs to be a lot more clarity on when overwhelming force is appropriate (very, very seldom).

Well, I was referring specifically to the "defaulting."

If you think drug houses in the US aren't a thing, you're sadly mistaken.

or loud parties/people for that matter.

If you want to say that the bobbies are ineffective because gentle, go on, say it.

Not being funny, but if your first concern is a good nights sleep, why move right to the centre of one of Europe's biggest cities?

Two things that people commonly do in the centre of cities is get drunk and buy drugs. They go to parties, nightclubs, pubs, they make lots of noise. That's the whole point of cities. They are supposed to be grimy, raucous and beautiful.

If you want a good nights sleep, move to the suburbs.

London's a big place, including quite a lot of residential areas. Cities are 'supposed to be' dense places where a lot of people live and work, not hipster party drug scenes. That's a byproduct of some cities.