What's the use?

Councillors were taken aback when told they couldn't discuss actual crime, only theoretical crime. One of many restrictions on what local councillors are allowed to concern themselves with.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/rochdale-councillors-loggerheads-police-over-9383279

Some say this is the result of years of conflict and mutual distrust between local, regional and national government. Maybe so. The upshot is that the role of local councillor is very limited, only people satisfied with such a limited role will want to be local councillors.

Local councillors learn they can do very little, so avoid anyone asking them to do anything, as it only leads to disappointment.

Perhaps the role of local councillors should be re-defined? Or is it all too much trouble and fairly irrelevant anyway?

If the police are, as they say in the report, 'aware' of the problem, why have they not done something about it.

It is no use whatsoever for the police to blithely say, "Yes we know this is a dealing hotspot"...

The police might not be under much pressure. It seems it's only local councillors who are prepared to break or get around the rules and protocols that can get anything done.

This is probably more a case of 'resources' than of 'negligence'. They , the police, have probably far more than enough to handle with their moment by moment duties and can only respond with what they have at the time allowed in their 'priorities'. It's easy to criticize when it's not your responsibility. If they 'know' then it is quite possible that other 'ops' are going on whereby in due course not just the peddlers will be roped in. Councilors may continue to accept all and any information given them which they should diligently pass on and allow the police to do their job. The public shouldn't expect their local councilor to become involved (other than as a conduit) in matters of this kind. Nor should the councilors be 'muzzled' or 'ham-strung' when speaking out.