Candid Commissioner

Given that the Electoral Commission has said: “The swearing of an oath will be an important symbol of impartiality, emphasising both the significance of this new role in local communities and that PCCs are there to serve the people, not a political party or any one section of their electorate.” can there be anyone to vote for as Police Commissioner for Avon and Somerset than a suitable independent?

Sue Mountstevens (pictured) looks like she will be the only independent standing in November's Police and Crime Commissioner election (a situation not helped one bit by the high cost - the deposit alone being £5000). She is well qualified to do the job: member of the current police authority; Bristol magistrate for 15 years; vice-chairwoman of the Independent Monitoring Board at Bristol prison. For me she says all the right things on her website too: http://suemountstevens.co.uk/ . Her Twitter site is here: https://twitter.com/sumountstevens. 

Who should I cast my second preference vote for though?

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Police-Commissioner-elections-need-know/story-17093457-detail/story.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19495673

How experts found that the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco are seriously harmful

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: Drugs debate hots up

...the ISCD [Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs] has returned to the fray with what is called multicriteria decision analysis.

This approach includes 16 criteria including a drug's affects on users' physical and mental health, social harms including crime, "family adversities" and environmental damage, economic costs and "international damage".

The scientists, based on their expert knowledge, score a substance on each category from zero to 100...

The problem remains, however, of how much weight to give each of these categories.

"The weighting process is necessarily based on judgement, so it is best done by a group of experts working to consensus," the report authors say.

"Extensive sensitivity analyses on the weights showed that this model is very stable; large changes, or combinations of modest changes, are needed to drive substantial shifts in the overall rankings of the drugs."
What emerges is a ranking of drugs at complete odds with the official Home Office classification system.

The fact that alcohol emerges as the most harmful drug leads the authors to conclude that "aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy" but its place at the head of the table also suggests a legal status in stark contrast to the much less harmful effect of Class A drugs including ecstasy and LSD.

It is also notable that cocaine and tobacco emerge with very similar rankings in terms of harm...

More here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

Defining real progess

Ever wondered why there is still so much inequality, unhappiness, crime, environmental degradation, poor health, unemployment, poverty...The economy has grown and that is supposed to mean that we are progressing - but are we? And what's the alternative? Wouldn't we be better off using our health and wellbeing as the measure of progress? This new book by Prof Tim Jackson - Prosperity Without Growth - argues that its time to rethink economic growth...something I've written about a lot (see here and here for instance). Greens have been arguing this case since their foundation.

The earthscan website has some useful links and many quotes of praise from a wide range of political and other commentators for the book, which it describes as below,

Is more economic growth the solution? Will it deliver prosperity and well-being for a global population projected to reach nine billion?

*

In this explosive book, Tim Jackson - a top sustainability adviser to the UK government - makes a compelling case against continued economic growth in developed nations.No one denies that development is essential for poorer nations. But in the advanced economies there is mounting evidence that ever-increasing consumption adds little to human happiness and may even impede it.

*

More urgently, it is now clear that the ecosystems that sustain our economies are collapsing under the impacts of rising consumption. Unless we can radically lower the environmental impact of economic activity - and there is no evidence to suggest that we can - we will have to devise a path to prosperity that does not rely on continued growth.

*

Economic heresy? Or an opportunity to improve the sources of well-being, creativity and lasting prosperity that lie outside the realm of the market? Tim Jackson provides a credible vision of how human society can flourish - within the ecological limits of a finite planet. Fulfilling this vision is simply the most urgent task of our times.

*

The growth debate

The book is a substantially revised and updated version of Jackson's controversial study for the Sustainable Development Commission, an advisory body to the UK Government. Since the report was published in March 2009, President Sarkozy has asked world leaders to join a revolution in the measurement of economic progress, Sir Nicholas Stern has warned 'at some point we would have to think about whether we want future growth', and John Prescott has called the current economic growth model 'immoral'.

Rights and wrongs and animals

Copy of the press release sent out this afternoon by Vote Cruelty Free is below. Kerry McCarthy and I have signed up for respect for animals - so what about the Tory, Lib Dem and English Democrat candidates - will they be signing up too?

A second Bristol East candidate to Vote Cruelty Free, 19th January 2010

Green Party candidate, Glenn Vowles, has pledged his support for Vote Cruelty Free, a new non-partisan coalition of animal protection organisations working to put animals on the political agenda. He is the second candidate in Bristol East to back the coalition, following sitting MP Kerry McCarthy.

The alliance has sent its manifesto to all candidates announced for the next General Election and asked them to show their support for the issues raised. So far more than 170 candidates have pledged their support.

Glenn Vowles said, “I'm for high respect for animals and for the natural world of which people are a part. We should change the way we run our society and economy and the way we live our lives to practice true and genuine respect - in the interest of animals, of the natural world and of people.”

A Vote Cruelty Free spokesperson said, “Animal protection is an issue close to the UK public’s heart but this is often not reflected in current political debate. It is fantastic that Glenn Vowles has shown he believes in animal protection issues as much as his potential future constituents in Bristol East; we are calling on all candidates to follow his lead by pledging their support for Vote Cruelty Free.”

Vote Cruelty Free comprises the BUAV, Compassion in World Farming, IFAW in Action, League Against Cruel Sports and Respect for Animals. It covers a broad range of animal welfare issues including wild and marine animals, animal experimentation, cruel sports, the fur trade and farming.

Vote Cruelty Free is urging all candidates to pledge their support for the initiative. Voters can track candidates who have signed up by visiting the website at www.votecrueltyfree.org.

Lib Dem fix for Bristol???

Can we fix it? Yes we can! So say both Bob the Builder and US President Barack Obama – and now that they have at last won overall control of Bristol City Council Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have a clear opportunity to fix Bristol. Their manifesto, called ‘Six to Fix’ gives what are in some cases pretty specific benchmarks against which we will all be able to assess their progress, though these most often relate to small scale change in the city not tackling a bigger or general problem and timescales for changes are, with one exception, absent.

To give them credit, Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have performed extremely well in order to get into this position. They know how to fight elections very well indeed. They took four seats from Labour in the recent local elections in addition to successfully defending all eleven of the seats they previously held, including a threat to their Ashley seat from the Green Party. They were helped by the very poor Labour performance – they lost eight out of the ten seats they defended (four to Tories, four to the Lib Dems) and only narrowly held on to the two seats they won. Thus ended years of a ‘hung’ council where no party had overall control, which featured see-saw politics and two parties always ganging up on the other through unholy alliance – this is a very good opportunity to give Bristol some firm direction and leadership.

There are some tough problems to solve. The Lib Dems have said they want to ‘Cut congestion and get better transport for all’ (including backing suburban rail; more money for road safety, pedestrians and cyclists; introducing a cashless ‘Oyster Card’ for Bristol buses). Under the transport heading issues like residents parking and air quality wont go away. The key benchmark of progress here is congestion.

Lib Dem policy two is ‘A clean and green city’ (which includes more money for street cleaning, getting tough on flytipping; a ‘parkie’ in every major park and more play areas for children; fighting the green belt grab and preserving our green spaces). It will be very interesting indeed to see the extent to which the Lib Dems oppose building on Bristol’s green belt, particularly since Bristol City Football Club propose to build a new stadium on green land in Ashton Vale, where many houses are also proposed and at least part of which is green belt. All party leaders except the Greens have given public and enthusiastic support to the proposed new City stadium in principle and they are backing a bid to bring World Cup football to Bristol, which a new stadium would be necessary for. Amount of green belt and other green space built on is a key indicator here. I’d also add that the total carbon emissions of the city are a key indicator because everyone recognises that low carbon emissions are a key feature of being green – and the connection with cutting congestion is obvious.

‘Boost Bristol’s Bobbies’ says policy three (including a fair share of police; campaign against ID cards; new crime reduction schemes on repeat offenders and violent partners). Police and Community Support Officer numbers are easily counted and tracked but this does not necessarily mean more peaceful, orderly, lower crime neighbourhoods, so the benchmark is not so straightforward. Real, effective leadership would give us less crime and more peace and order.

*
The Lib Dems get very specific about policy 4, which promises ‘Three new libraries, a new school [North Bristol] and a new pool [East Bristol]’. This policy includes a promise to ‘fix Labours school places mess’. This year saw chaos for parents and pupils trying to find the school place they need and want for their child and so this pledge to ensure that 2010 sees no repeat of the previous fiasco. The local press has described this as a poisoned chalice!! We will all be able to see whether the various facilities are built and whether school places – but there is no promise on an overall improvement in the quality of education and it looks like the Lib Dems will implement most if not all of the plans to create bigger primary schools which wont be popular in many places and is seen by some as going against the quality of the educational experience. Real, effective leadership would improve the quality of education, not that this is straightforward to assess!

The pledges in policy five ‘Beat Gordon Brown’s recession in Bristol’ (including keeping the council tax as low as possible and campaigning for it to be scrapped; extra help on debt for small businesses and individuals; investment in training and apprenticeships) are more nebulous and designed to pick up votes during a time of recession. We all know that the council cannot make Bristol a recession-free zone and everybody would subscribe to the other policies under this heading the way they are worded!

Policy six ‘50% recycling by 2010 and no incinerator’ (which includes switching from a large, dirty incinerator to clean and cheap new technology; free corn starch brown bin liner bags; reversing the recycling rate drop under Labour) really should be under the ‘clean and green city’ heading. Mass incineration has already been abandoned, though putting alternative approaches into practice within a decent budget is doable but not straightforward. ‘Free’ corn starch bags will need to show that they can more than make up for the carbon cost of producing and consuming them and for their financial cost to the council but its uncertain that all the required data to make the assessments was sought by the council beforehand. Improving Labour’s recycling record wont be difficult because their work on this was poor – achieving a 50% [household waste] recycling rate by 2010 would be great (and a target with a timescale makes a change!). We still need to push on a lot from there if we are to have a low waste city though and someone (central govt??) needs to get a grip on total waste, most of which is not generated in households of course.

The reality of violent crime

I'm for putting a lot more resources into crime prevention and restorative justice processes, whatever the crime but in particular violent crime.

Government is due to announce new measures to tackle knife crime next week. Use of restorative justice processes has increased in recent yrs though they very often still not available as an option in many situations. They are pretty popular with victims of crime and they work (see http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/for more).

We need to get people who commit knife/gun crime to confront reality, realise what they have done to all those who've suffered due to their actions. Where appropriate get them meeting face to face with victims, their families and others in communities who've suffered.

Get them to take compensatory action as far as is possible, as part of their sentence. It might sometimes be appropriate to get them working with teachers and pupils in schools or talking with key groups in communities. Its the beginning to positive change in the criminal and it can help victims and communities .



Its wrong-doing on a different level of course, but whilst teaching I've seen a lot of success with this kind of approach applied to bullying in schools.

A kind of local community level restorative justice project was being initiated in Knowle West this yr but with the loss of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding, money for it may be in short supply now.

Citizen Focussed Policing

I recommend reading this blog entry from Chief Inspector Andy Bennett about Citizen Focussed Policing:

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/blog/Display.aspx?bid=42

He defines it so:

Citizen Focus is: ‘A way of working in which an in-depth understanding of the needs and expectations of individuals and local communities is routinely reflected in the decision making, service delivery and practice.’

This quote equally applies to all public services including our local council, local education and NHS.

In policing terms what does it really mean?

It is a style of policing whereby there is active collaboration between the police, our partners and the public when delivering our service. We have to move away from always ‘doing policing to people’ where there is little or no choice and create an environment where local communities have some genuine opportunities to shape and contribute towards local policing.

This is more like the kind of approach we need. I like the sound of it and will watch with interest to see what happens with regard to putting it into practice.

Drive safely (unlike senior police officers and government ministers!)

The 5-11 Nov is road safety week. I'd urge all drivers to sign up to the Brake pledge to drive safely.

Belt Up - front and back and ensure children are correctly restrained
Slow Up - abide by limits and only overtake if totally safe
Wake Up - never drive tired and take breaks every two hours on long journeys
Sober Up - 'just say no' to alcohol and drugs if driving
Look Up - look out for people on bikes, horses and foot
Wise Up - if it's night, bright, or bad weather, go slower
Buck Up - calm yourself before driving if stressed, angry or excited
Move Up - adjust head restraints so the top is level with the top of your head to help prevent whiplash
Sharpen Up - wear glasses or lenses if you need them
Shut Up - switch your phone to voicemail
Back Up - from the vehicle in front - it's your braking space in a crisis
Check Up - check brakes, tyres, lights mirrors and windows

Its shameful that recently both a government minister and a very senior police officer have not followed road safety charity Brake's advice. What hypocrites these individuals are. Remember these news items?

First, the speeding Chief Constable...

A senior police officer in charge of road policy for Britain's chief constables is facing prosecution for exceeding a 60mph speed limit.

Meredydd Hughes, chief constable of the South Yorkshire force, was allegedly clocked by cameras driving along the A5 near Chirk in north Wales.
He has been summoned to appear before Wrexham magistrates on 21 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7069289.stm

And the Chief Constable has a history of speeding...

Mr Hughes has two previous speeding offences, but they were much less serious and, because they were committed more than three years ago, the six penalty points have been removed from his licence. http://www.naffedoff.com/2007/11/01/why-sy-police-chief-constable-should-receive-a-custodial-service/

Plus the government minister who used his mobile phone whilst driving...

The Government's immigration minister, Liam Byrne, has been fined and had points put on his licence after admitting using his mobile phone while driving.Byrne, who has been a Home Office minister since 2006, was fined £100, ordered to pay £35 costs and given three points on his licence by Sutton Coldfield Magistrates' Court. http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=228986

I dont think magistrates were tough enough on the government minister. I hope that the Chief Constable gets a ban if found guilty, because of his history of speeding and because he of all people should be setting an example and so has particularly badly let the side down. I'd like penalties for driving offences generally to be toughened because of numbers killed and seriously injured on a daily basis on the roads.

So many issues and problems for Bristol are transport-related

Today is World Car-Free Day. If Bristol is going to become the UKs ‘Green Capital’ it is transport-related problems that have got to be tackled perhaps more than any other. The list of issues raised by our current car, lorry and road-focussed, intensive approach to getting around is very long(not to mention flying of course, that’s another – related - issue).

Here’s a list of issues off the top of my head:

climate change contribution from carbon emissions;

toxic air pollutants and their health and wellbeing impacts, especially for children;

noise and vibration and the quality of life effects;

the footprint caused by transporting food over many hundreds/thousands of miles;

congestion stress, delays and costs;

public transport, cycling and walking investment relatively and absolutely poor whilst service quality is also lacking;

deaths, injuries and accidents;

road crime;

contribution to obesity and other health problems through lack of exercise;

loss of green, open space and threat to wildlife and biodiversity due to road construction…

Given these very serious issues doesn’t it make sense to: cut the need to travel as much; protect and enhance local community facilities and services; go by walking, cycling, bus/coach/train (invest serious money accordingly); make the price of travel by all methods fully and fairly reflect their total costs (raise the costs of non-renewable fossil fuel, bring in congestion charging and reinvest money raised in public transport..); plan transport properly (create a Transport Authority for Greater Bristol asap) ?? Challenge the green talk we get an awful lot of and demand green actions and outcomes.

For more on World Car-Free Day.

Multiple studies show road safety cameras save lives!! (Though camera opponents will believe only what they want, whatever the facts)

Bob Bull thinks the evidence does not show that speed/safety cameras save lives and serious injuries. His letter says the figures I gave have been proved wrong (‘Speed Cameras’, Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, 20 Sept). I have to tell him that the evidence in favour of speed/safety cameras, from multiple studies, is overwhelming. I fear that he and possibly others will only believe what they want to believe, no matter what the facts are. An independent review by University College London, published 2005 of more than 4,000 cameras over a four year period, featured on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents website, clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeding and collisions a great deal. Deaths and serious injuries at camera sites were cut by 42%.


The review concluded: vehicles breaking the speed limit at fixed camera sites fell by 70%; the reduction at mobile sites was by 18%; speeding at 15 mph or more above the limit fell by 91% at fixed sites and by 36% at mobile sites; average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 6%; people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites, meaning there were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year – including 100 fewer deaths; people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites; there was a 32% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured at camera sites; the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29% at camera sites; a 22% reduction in collisions involving (fatal, serious or slight) personal injury at camera sites, equating to 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per year.


The impact of the first British speed cameras, installed in West London in 1992, was assessed by the West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project in 1997. In the first three years of operation, cameras: cut deaths by 70% ; cut serious injuries by 27% ; cut slight injuries by 8%.


A 1995 study by the Police Research Group concluded that speed cameras reduced casualties by 28%.


Initial evaluation of the pilot schemes by the DfT in 2003 found that the: drivers exceeding the speed limit fell from 47% to 20%.; drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph fell from 7.4% to 0.3%.; average speeds at the camera sites fell by 10% (3.7mph).; 35% fewer people (numbering 285) were killed and seriously injured; there was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites.; there were 14% (about 510) fewer crashes.


A three year review of cameras in 24 areas (“The National Safety Camera Programme: Three-year Evaluation Report” by University College, published 2004 ) found they significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40%.

Looks like Bob Bull and company are in a small minority of 18% or less since the level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that ‘the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties’.


Public attitude surveys clearly show that people support safety cameras because they save lives. In a 2005 parliamentary statement the Secretary of State for Transport said that 71% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. Surveys conducted in the 8 pilot areas had previously found that: 70% agreed that “fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed”; 67% agreed that "Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught"; 82% agreed that "Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them"

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents site has more.

Cant change the past but can help shape the future - stop slavery today !

‘As regards the current debate on apologising for Bristol's role in the slave trade during the 17th and 18th centuries, a recently published book (50 Facts That Should Change The World) stated that there are 27 million slaves in the world today. Perhaps rather than focussing on the past and seeking an apology for it, we should actually learn from that horrendous episode and now focus our attentions on stopping slavery in the modern (enlightened?) age’, said Damian Wardingley from Eastville (‘Learn from the past – help today’s slaves', Bristol Evening Post, Open Lines, 13 Sept 2007).

This is a very good point. We cant change the past but can help shape the future so that there is no more slavery.

Slavers literally own and control people, giving them little or no rights or freedoms, little or no pay for work, and basic subsistence only. The 27 million figure probably means a definition involving these aspects – use only slightly broader thinking and definitions means there are many more.

For more on slavery today.

What does it take to convince some people about the need for road safety cameras?

Bob Bull’s letter in todays Bristol Evening Post criticising the Green Party (‘Driver education is what is needed’, Open Lines, 10 Sept) for being very strongly in favour of speed/road safety cameras misses the point on several crucially important grounds as well as being plain wrong that cameras ‘…in no way contribute to safer roads or better driving.’. The national pilot scheme on safety cameras showed a 35% average reduction in casualties where cameras had been placed. The pilot also showed an average 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured at safety camera sites. http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/public/speed/index.htm

Bob talks about cameras in relation to accidents but completely fails to mention that speeding not only increases the likelihood of accidents but also of deaths and serious injuries in the event of accidents. Take the 30 mph limit – the police point out that in an accident at 20mph 90% of pedestrians survive, at 30mph 50% survive but when breaking the limit at 40mph 90% die. So Bob, more speed, more death. http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

He also misses the point that its not just the ‘..road safety groups and the Green Party…’ that have, in his terms, ‘…naively supported the speed kills campaign..’ but also our police force, local councils and central government. Are we all naïve? Bob seems to forget why a speed camera can appear in a place – local community concern, evidence of breaking the law by speeding, and a history of road collisions. So Bob, despite the vocal minority against cameras, many people do actually want them and campaign for them! http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/SpeedandRoadSafety.htm

No-one is against the driver education and better traffic policing he calls for but we need these things along with cameras to increase road safety and the quality of life. Finally, its notable that Bob, along with others who have written to oppose safety cameras, did not condemn the illegal destruction of them by extremely anti-social people.

Speed kills, speed cameras save (destroying cameras = more road deaths)

I must respond to the story ‘The Toughest Speed Camera in the World’ (Bristol EveningPost, 30 Aug) detailing the large number of cameras in Avon and Somerset that are damaged/destroyed and also to the several people who commented online on this story on the Posts website, condoning, excusing and/or failing to condemn this gross irresponsibilty. Compare and contrast the website of those celebrating destruction http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm (Motorists Against Detection really are MAD in more ways than one) with those wanting cameras for road safety (http://www.roadpeace.org/index.shtml).

‘On average, nine people are killed and 85 injured each day on the UK's roads. This figure would probably be higher if safety cameras were not used. By reducing speeding and making the roads safer, they save about 100 lives a year.’ (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598).

All those who deliberately damage speed cameras (better called safety cameras) show great insensitivity as they are often put up at locations of death and injury. ‘Safety cameras are generally installed on roads: with a history of road traffic collisions; where there is evidence of a speeding problem; or where there is local community concern. The Police may also use cameras to enforce speed limits.’ Why don’t these extremely anti-social people acknowledge the thousands killed and and tens of thousands injured on UK roads each year? http://www.roadpeace.org/index.shtml

Safety cameras are practical memorials where people have been killed. Every time someone vandalises a camera, they are showing their contempt for the people whose death may well have led to the camera being there in the first place. Presumeably they don’t care about the individual stories of pain and tragedy which these cameras are trying to stop from being repeated. Speed should not come before life and metal should not come before before flesh. Personally, I find it shocking that our society has often waited until there are deaths to take action, instead of being more proactive and preventive. It is a logic which we would never accept to the same extent for other modes of travel.

Road casualties should not be the forgotten victims in society. Road violence should not be a forgotten crime. There are far more road deaths than murders in a major city, yet the law on speeding is very weak indeed. Cars driven dangerously are potential killing machines, yet the police spend far too little time dealing with dangerous driving. Horrendous road deaths and injuries are not simply twists of fate, but preventable acts of social neglect.

Booze ban would enhance the quality of life

Alcohol consumption should be banned from Redcatch Park and areas near Broadwalk Shopping Centre in Knowle. Lib Dem Councillor Chris Davies proposal (‘Lets call time on boozing in the park’, Bristol Evening Post, August 22) is an excellent one that would enhance the quality of life locally.

On this occasion I also agree strongly with what RL Smith said in his letter supporting Cllr Davies idea (‘Police should support public-spirited initiative’, Bristol Evening Post letters, August 25). The comments from the police failing to wholeheartedly back the ban were, for me, a little feeble. Large benefits to the area would result from a ban compared to disbenefits that would be tiny, as statistics on the governments crime reduction website illustrate very well.

‘…40% of violent crime; 78% of assaults and 88% of criminal damage cases are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol.’ www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/ar020101.htm.

The website reports that 70% of people surveyed thought street drinking was a problem and 80% support a ban on drinking in some public areas. There could be ban enforcement problems but even so I don’t see why the police should be so hesitant here. These kind of problems require firm, rapid and decisive action.

Be yourself - no matter what they say!

There''s been quite a bit of discussion in our household about the dispersal order placed on the College Green area that seems to be singling out 'skateboarders, goths, grungers and emos' (the Evening Post's description).

My daughter regularly goes there to meet up with a lot of other young people with similar interests in looks and music. She is adamant about the injustice of the order and I must say I agree with her view and have offered a bit of advice about who to contact about the matter and how.

The issue has stimulated both her and her friends to get politically active and contact councillors/MPs/the media. Good for them! Why does our society demonise young people so much?

I was most impressed with the letter my daughter sent off (copied below):
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Davies
(copied to Bristol's council leader Helen Holland and my MP, Kerry McCarthy)

I've just read the report in the Bristol Evening Post about the dispersal order imposed on the College Green area ('Skateboarders Green Protest', Evening Post, July 18).

As a 14 yr old girl who regularly meets up with friends and has a good, sociable time on 'the green' on Saturdays I would like to know what my local councillors and others will do to help protect my right to be present in an area with my friends, causing no harm. I'd like to know what your views on this dispersal order are, especially whether the order is fair if used in a way that is aimed at a wide range of young people instead of being properly targeted at trouble-makers. Nobody wants those who cause trouble to get away with it.

My friends and I do nothing wrong. We cause no trouble. We are generally peaceful, don't drink and don't do drugs or bother people, just like most of the others who go to the area. We are really quite a close community in many ways. Its only a small minority that cause problems and some people go to the green just to pick on those who look different. I do hope that the order itself wont be used to pick on young people who look different too. Lets remember that drinking, drug taking and violence are a regular problem inside and outside of the pubs and clubs in Bristol every weekend and that these are certainly not problems caused by 'skateboarders, goths, grungers and emos'.

I'm worried that the order might be used in such a way that just a 'presence' in the area could be enough to move me and my friends on. After all the police have said, according to the Evening Post, "members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed by the presence or behaviour of groups in this locality'. Presence or behaviour ! Ok, if a particular person or small group's behaviour is shown to cause a problem then that person or group causing trouble should have action taken against them. This does not apply to the hundreds that go to the green however, and surely just having a presence is not enough in itself?

There has been and always will be people who are different and look different who want to gather to meet in groups. Because they are identifiably different - say they are black, or gay, or disabled or scarred by accident or have long hair, flares and flowers in their hair, or like to wear black and dye their hair red, or whatever - should not mean that they can be moved on just because they gather in a place. Generally, people should be allowed to be themselves, no matter what people say, though they may be feared, often due to ignorance and misunderstanding.

There aren't many safe places, like College Green with its CCTV, in central Bristol for young people to gather and meet. Facilities and open spaces are limited. Perhaps it would help if there was better investment by the council and government in facilities for young people, after asking them what is needed and wanted.

I look forward to receiving your reply, giving your views and saying what you will do.

Ellie Vowles, Age 14

Change the law so that 'grot spots' cant develop in the first place!

A few days ago I had a telephone conversation with Bristol Evening Post reporter Tom Hodson who has written features about littered and vandalised 'grot spots'. I expressed my concern to him about one Knowle grot spot and sent him the email below:

Tom
Please find attached photos of the 'grot spot' in the area of Knowle where I live. Its a former Texaco Petrol Station at 174-178 Wells Rd in Knowle and has been abandoned and left to gradually decay for I think at least 18 months, possibly longer. Its now covered in graffiti and strewn with litter. Its possible that people have been tipping their rubbish on the more out of sight parts of the area too. There is evidence that drinking and goodness knows what else has been taking place on the site, inside the fencing.

I've grown more and more concerned about this increasing eyesore as its been left to get worse. Its a possible health risk and obviously encourages a growing rat population. Why does it have to take so long before a valuable piece of land can be put to good use? Why are an irresponsible minority of people intent on ruining the way this bit of Knowle looks? Why are the land owners allowed to be so irresponsible in allowing the site to decay and become vandalised?

I've contacted the Bristol City Council Clean and Green Team (Denise James) and reported the state of the site. I also contacted the planning department at the council and found that finally a planning application was put in for the site on 29 Jan (13 1-bed and 10 2-bed apartments plus a ground floor retail outlet - application number 07/00377). When open, green spaces are threatened with mass house building its very important to make the very best use of sites like this former petrol station, and so subject to the nature and quality of the application, this development is welcome news.

I very much hope that a clean-up can be done by those responsible, with help from the council as needed. What I'd really like to see is a change in the law to give councils much greater powers to ensure that owners of land and property cant abandon areas to rot for months and years unused. This would stop such eyesores developing in the first place. I shall be following up on this as part of my work within Bristol South Green Party.

Current hunting ban is weak

Given that more than 300,000 people seem to have taken part in 314 fox hunts across the country on Boxing Day it seems that what many have been calling a ban on hunting is not really a ban at all.

Greens like me would enact a proper ban on hunting with hounds. The present Act 'banning' hunting is weak and almost unworkable. The police have said that they are unable to enter private land without the landowner's permission. They have maintained they don't have the manpower to deal with the issue. Hunting with hounds is also a 'non-recordable' offence at present. The political will from the government just wasn't there when it came to banning hunting.