Woman winner!

Fantastic! A victory for independence, impartiality and ability to represent the whole community.

Newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset Sue Mountstevens brings a perspective and approach to the role that we really need. Second time today I've voted for an election winner!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-20353786

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

Super seagulls?

Seagulls are not the biggest threat to Bristol's heritage, though this Post report says they are. Just compare the scale of total seagull impacts with total human impacts for instance! There are problems caused by droppings, noise and so on but the Post headline and story are an exaggeration. The Post could have made a much better attempt to produce and publish a piece which explores all sides of the issue - after all if we are to solve gull related problems its going to be on the basis of everyone being better informed. This BBC report gives a good explanation of why there are so many seagulls in cities and sets the context for cities and birds pretty well - http://tinyurl.com/ctxm9tk .

Those who may be tempted to advocate shooting gulls need to know that all species of gull are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

According to the RSPB, 'This makes it illegal to intentionally or, in Scotland, recklessly injure or kill any gull or damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. In Scotland, it is also illegal to prevent birds from accessing their nest, and in Northern Ireland, it is illegal to disturb any nesting bird. In addition, the Mediterranean gull is protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, making it illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb the birds at or close to their nest in Britain or to disturb their dependent young.

However, the law recognises that in certain circumstances control measures may be necessary. Simple nuisance or minor damage to property are not legally sanctioned reasons to kill gulls. The UK administrations can issue licences, permitting nests to be destroyed or even birds to be killed if there is no non-lethal solution, and if it is done to prevent serious damage to agriculture, the spread of disease, to preserve public health and safety and air safety, or to conserve other wild birds...'

Drugs discussion

Tory MP Michael Ellis has, as reported in this story, reacted to Danny Kushlik in the way many politicians - across political parties - have reacted on the issue of illegal drugs over many years. Its a shame that he's not more open to new thinking on this matter. Does he not realise that continuing on with more or less the same old, failed attitudes and polices, throwing a lot of - misdirected - money at the problem, is irrational? Politicians need to base their policies on drugs on the evidence, such as this research comparing legal and illegal drugs: http://tinyurl.com/3ao562j

Democracy or ochlocracy?

Those who want a town green in Ashton Vale and not a new Bristol City football stadium have again been called NIMBYs (see comments here). Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way, including those in Ashton Vale, usually don’t hold such views and often have a well developed case with a range of reasons.

For example: if the stadium is built green belt land, which is finite in supply, will be lost; carbon emissions will rise; natural flood drainage space will go; land with food production potential will go; wildlife habitats will be smaller in area; green space important to human health and wellbeing will be cut. Our current system has warm green words but little or no green action - which is why planning permission for the Bristol City stadium was given.

A key feature of the UK democracy is the rule of law. The UK is not a straightforward ochlocracy, where there is dictatorship of the majority or rule of the mob. Protection of the law for individuals, minorities and society as a whole has some value here. The law around town greens is one small part of this.  

On another note: it was always a big mistake to assuming that building this stadium will have a net positive effect on jobs and investment. To my knowledge no-one has done the research sums to see if total benefits exceed total costs, taking into account all factors, including those I've mentioned above. Mostly what we’ve heard about the proposed stadium is simplistic benefits - my point is ok but what about the complexities and the costs?? This means trying to account for the impacts both on current generations and the generations of people to come - once green land is built over its nigh on impossible to get it back again.

The planning process very often has no objective evidence whatsoever that total benefits outweigh total costs - and a decision taken on the basis of little or no evidence is irrational. Could it not be argued that the stadium proposal is an inappropriate development based on outmoded, old-fashioned, discredited economic thinking and that therefore pursuing it would be unwise? Bristol is supposed to have 'green capital' ambitions after all. Wouldn't giving the land town green status mean that it would be maintain our ability to: fight climate change; increase wildlife; manage flooding; keep people healthy...If you built a stadium the opposite might happen and therefore shouldn't someone estimate the costs/benefits of all this in order for a rational decision to be made?

The law should help prevent locals from being bullied into a situation they don’t want. The law on town greens does empower people to apply for green spaces to be protected. A real and proper democracy rightly has legal processes to protect a community and its space and the process is being gone through.

Waste war

Excellent work on food waste from Kerry McCarthy, Labour's MP for Bristol East. The Post reports that she has launched a campaign to prevent surplus food from supermarkets from being thrown away.

Kerry McCarthy was today due to introduce legislation that would place a legal duty on companies to donate excess food to charities.

Her Food Waste Bill, which was due to be presented to Parliament this afternoon, has already received cross-party support, including from Green leader Caroline Lucas and Tory Zac Goldsmith. If no objections are lodged, it will progress to the next stage of the legislative process.

Under the Bristol East MP's proposed changes, barriers that are stopping organisations from donating food, like fears over legal liability, would be swept away.

Incentives would be put in place to persuade smaller companies to take part, while food that is unfit for humans would be given to livestock....' (more)

Kerry’s Bill begins to tackle one part of the food waste problem but there’s still a lot to do on food waste as a whole. There is concern about rising food prices yet 33% of the food we buy is thrown away ie one bag in every three! I'm not a fan of big supermarkets. They are a part of the food waste problem certainly but it’s clear that there are food waste and efficiency issues all the way along the chain from soil to shops to home to plate to soil again and each of us must take some responsibility.

Of course not all those who complain of or worry about rising food prices will also be wasteful but levels of food waste are so high that there must be a good deal of hypocrisy out there. This is a problem of lack of awareness but also a problem of plenty and of affluence. Where shortage and poverty are greatest waste is highly likely to be smallest, but shortage/poverty is generally not now the case in the UK and so wasteful habits and cultures have grown. We need to establish a thrifty culture.

Great tips and advice on cutting food waste, saving money and enjoying food from Love food hate waste.

Dinosaurs not extinct

Dinosaurs are still alive and well in the UK today. There are various extinct, frequently large, meat eating or veggie reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that lived mainly on the land between approximately 65 and 200 million years ago. Then there are relics of the past, holding to hopelessly outdated, obsolete ideas and practices - such as some MPs and Cardinals.  A Conservative MP has described proposals to allow gay marriage as "completely nuts". In the House of Commons, Peter Bone urged the Church of England to block the plans, as it believed marriage had to be "between a man and a woman"...(details here).

The government's plans for gay marriage have been criticised by the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right"... (details here). 

Confusion or clarity?

The town green/new Bristol City football stadium in the green belt saga goes on. The latest Evening Post headline says that confusion reigns but the judge '...told the assembled legal teams that he was “minded” to approve the application for judicial review...The judge said he had fresh evidence that he wished to consider.'. This is clear not confusing. The judge is going to mull over some new evidence and deliberate just a bit more. Some journalists are 'easily confused' it seems!!

Car crap

More than 15,000 motorists a year are caught jumping red lights in Bristol, it has been revealed.

The Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership says a total of 15,500 drivers and motorcyclists were caught on camera going through red traffic lights last year...(more here).

No surprise here. In fact the figure is very likely to be much higher than 15,500 a year - this is only those drivers that have been seen and successfully photographed. Anyone who drives around Bristol a bit, as I do, knows that you dont have to be out on the road for long on any one day before you see all sorts of driving offences and breaches of the Highway Code: overtaking on the inside, weaving from lane to lane, through red lights, driving very close behind you, sudden and sharp braking, sudden acceleration, through zebra crossings when people are waiting to cross or are still on the crossing, generally not allowing space and time to pedestrians and bikes, irresponsible parking eg on double yellow lines and on corners, general speeding -including from one set of red lights to another...Many of these people must have more money than sense because they are increasing their chances of a very costly - and more serious - accident and wasting away their fuel with grossly inefficient driving - some of these may be the first to moan about fuel prices too!   

Effective participation in planning: public information and workshop

How we can get involved in Planning

Date: 27th September 2011
Time: 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Venue: Coniston Community Centre, The Parade, Coniston Road, Patchway, South Gloucestershire BS34 5LP

The Environmental Law Foundation invites you to a free public information event and workshop.

Our upcoming event in Patchway aims to educate and inform attendees about effective participation in the planning system. This will be a great opportunity to find out how you can be involved in the decision-making process.

Presentations will be given on the South Gloucestershire Local Development Framework, the planning policy that will shape the way the area develops over the next 15 years and on how the planning process works. Potential changes in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Bill will also be considered. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

If you would like to attend please RSVP

Please feel free to forward this e-mail to any of your colleagues who may be interested.
If you would be able to advertise this event for us by displaying a poster please let us know.

For more information about the event or to book a place, please contact scp@elflaw.org or tel 020 7404 1031.

This event is brought to you by the Sustainable Communities Project funded by
the Department for Communities & Local Government through the Empowerment Fund.

From a culture of war to a culture of peace

Bruce Kent, Vice-chair of CND, will speak at a public meeting on Tues 4th Oct at the Central Quaker Meeting House, Champion Square, BS2 9DB on the subject: 'From a Culture of War to a Culture of Peace'. He asks why our society is dominated by military values and thinking and whether this leads to greater security and happiness. Refreshments from 6.30; informal conversation with Bruce from 7.00; Bruce's presentation at 7.30 p.m. followed by questions and discussion.Admission free but retiring collection. Organised by Bristol Quakers.

Hackgate

It appears in our current system that the purpose of holding positions of power and responsibility in banking, the media, police and politics is to 'know little/nothing' and to resign. Useless, corrupt...

Phone hacking: MPs to quiz Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks [and Former Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and many others!!]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14195259

On: Bristol's unfair handling of a town green application and 'ignorance and stupidity' from senior council officers

Blistering - and correct - attack by the Bristol Blogger here on the [un]fairness with which Bristol City Council officers and councillors are dealing with the Ashton Vale Town Green application process. The phrase 'judge and jury' is certainly apt, as are the words - council: bias; prejudice; skewing; fixing; partiality; preference; unfairness; favoritism; predisposition; preconception; injustice; one-sidedness...

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the sheer scale of the ignorance and stupidity that characterises Bristol City Council’s ruling senior officer clique. In their latest wheeze we find some effete little public sector accountant has awarded themselves the powers of an expert lawyer!

The publication of the report on the Application to Register Land at Ashton Vale as a Village Green for the council’s Public Rights of Way and Greens (PROWG) Committee to consider on Thursday finds the Council House’s chief bean counter, Will Godfrey in this new starring role as judge and jury.

The crucial part of this report into whether greenbelt land in south Bristol should be made a Town Green – as an experienced and qualified barrister advises – or whether the city’s wealthiest man should be allowed to build his football stadium...

...At the very least, surely this compelling so-called “new evidence” needs to go back before a legally qualified inspector and be tested under cross examination before Godfrey forms a view to present to the PROWG committee?

Doing business with illegally logged timber

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP, is renewing her calls for a ban on illegally logged timber in the UK via a Private Member's Bill, which is on the agenda for its second reading this Friday. The Illegally Logged Timber Bill (Prohibition of Import, Sale or Distribution) would make it illegal in the United Kingdom for a person or company to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase timber or timber products illegally taken, harvested, possessed, transported, sold or exported from their country of origin; and for connected purposes. Why have this and previous governments not already dealt with this matter??

For more details, please visit http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201011/illegallyloggedtimberprohibitionofimportsaleordistribution.html
and http://www.carolinelucas.com/cl/media/caroline-renews-calls-for-uk-ban-on-illegally-logged-timber.html.

Councillors Code of Conduct

All councillors sign up to Bristol City Councils Code of Conduct for Members which includes the ten principles of public life below*. I have to say that the way conventional party politics works – with Whips enforcing a party line - it’s very hard to see how all councillors are consistently ‘making decisions on merit’ and reaching ‘their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions’. This is something I will certainly examine and challenge if elected because its very important that councillors are objective and make good personal judgements (note that elected Green Party councillors won’t use a Whip system like other parties do). No point in signing up to a code you only follow part of!

*The Ten General Principles of Public Life

Selflessness – member should serve only the public interest and should
never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

Honesty and integrity – members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questions, should not behave improperly, and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

Objectivity – members should make decisions on merit, including when
making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – members should be accountable to the public for their
actions and the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, and
should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to their particular office.

Openness – member should be as open as possible about their actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for thoseactions.

Personal judgement – member may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions.

Respect for others - members should promote equality by not discriminating against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. They should respect the impartiality and integrity of the authority’s statutory officers and its other employees.

Duty to uphold the law – members should uphold the law and, on all
occasions, act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place in them.

Stewardship - member should do whatever they are able to do to ensure that their authorities use their resources prudently, and in accordance with the law.

Leadership – members should promote and support these principles by
leadership and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

COUNCILLORS may ditch the services of an independent inspector when deciding on town green applications.

In place of using independent legally-trained inspectors to advise on whether a town/village green application, which many Bristolians are using to try to protect their local green space, should be refused or accepted (often involving an oral hearing into contentious evidence), Bristol City Council, who controversially want to flog quite a bit of Bristol's green space, are proposing instead that the decision is based entirely on officer advice, or, in contentious cases, a hearing to be heard by a four person sub-committee of the Public Rights of Way and Green Committee. Fix of fair? I say its a fix - and it cant be fair that the council are both police officer, judge and jury!! Officers and Councillors are not independent - its impossible to separate them from the policies of the council. Decent coverage of this matter by the Evening Post.

...the Green Party believes the council wants to make the changes to "wriggle out" of creating more town greens.

In a statement, the Greens say:

"This proposal to change the procedure may seem obscure but has important implications for protecting Bristol's open spaces.

"We believe the council has about 17 new application for town green status waiting on its books for determination, and if it is intended to use the new procedure, then it is clear from the outset that this is all about saving money and not improving its fairness.

"This proposal is a false economy since the money saved by not employing an independent inspector is likely to be used up very quickly if any applicant makes a challenge to the decision in the High Court."

The Greens believe the new procedure will be open to challenge because:

■ There will be bias because the council itself owns much of the land under application so it is an interested party in the decision;

■ Councillors with their party political pressures will now be making the decision rather than an independent person;

■ The council legal advisers and officers advising on the decisions are directly employed by the council and so will be less likely to decide against its wishes.

Charlie Bolton, Green candidate for Southville, said:

"It's very important for the council's procedures to be fair and any changes must have full consultation."

Gus Hoyt, standing for the Greens in Ashley, said:

"We want decisions on town greens to be taken by legally experienced people and not along party political lines behind closed doors."

The report before councillors says: "In its capacity of registration authority, the city council has to consider objectively and impartially all applications for registration of new greens on their merits, taking account of any objections and of any other relevant considerations.

"Registration as a town or village green is dependent purely upon past use, and not upon future plans."

COUNCILLORS may ditch the services of an independent inspector when deciding on town green applications.

Military action in Libya

This * seemed like a sensible initial position on the Libya no-fly zone for the Greens. Given what Caroline Lucas said on last weeks Question Time, clearly siding with former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie on the panel in opposing military action, things have changed. On this issue I find myself in opposition to the Greens leader, for once, if not my party. MacKenzie basically said '‎'Not worth it...Nothing to do with us...' which is surely not something Greens want to be associated with - I certainly dont.

*On the subject of a no-fly zone, a Green Party spokesperson said:

"We are not ruling out support for a no-fly zone, but it would need to be very carefully handled and would need the support of countries in the region. It would have to be something that the civilian population wanted, and only be enforced to protect the civilian population.

"Past no-fly zones have not always achieved the desired outcome and have not always protected the civilian population.

"Most importantly, the UN Security Council must refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court. Colonel al-Gaddafi must understand that all those responsible for carrying out attacks on civilians will be held to account."

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/11-03-2011-parliamentary-vote-libya.html

Cameron 'committed to full Trident replacement'

There isn't all-party support for retaining the UK nuclear deterrent, though the BBC asserts that there is. The Green Party eg through Caroline Lucas MP, is very clearly and strongly opposed and regards both the threatened and actual use of any weapon of mass destruction as immoral and illegal - and there are other MPs that support this view. Ludicrously our PM David Cameron uses phrases like 'keep our guard up' and 'insurance policy' about nuclear weapons!

It is, sadly, right to say though that few politicians are now arguing a fundamental case against nuclear weapons. I watched the 1959 film On the Beach about a post-apocalyptic world again recently. Its not a cheery number - with characters played by Gregory Peck, Ava Gardiner, Anthony Perkins, Fred Astaire and others facing the end of their lives and the end of human beings as fatal radiation levels spread across the globe - but for me its a classic film that makes some very telling points.

I'm 100% with Fred Astaire's character when he says 'The war started when people accepted the idiotic principle that peace could be maintained by arranging to defend themselves with weapons they could not possibly use without committing suicide.' (see video clip). Our PM David Cameron continues, with the support of the Labour and Lib Dem leadership, to support this idiotic principle.

"In terms of the future, all I can say... is that I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, for continuous at-sea deterrent, and to make sure we keep our guard up.

"That is Conservative policy. It will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party."'

All-party support

Labour MP John Woodcock, whose Barrow-in-Furness constituency builds the Trident submarines, also asked Mr Cameron for reassurance that he would not go back on his word.

Mr Cameron said: "I profoundly believe we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. I have looked at all of the alternatives over the years and I am completely convinced that you need a submarine based alternative - a full replacement for Trident in order to guarantee the ultimate insurance policy for this country."

BBC News - David Cameron 'committed to full Trident replacement'

Legal advice charities call for help – save our services! Rally, Queens Square, Bristol, Mon 7th February 12noon

A network of charities that offer free, independent, and confidential legal advice to households on low incomes in Bristol and the surrounding areas are calling for help from the people of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Proposed cuts in government funding will mean a huge reduction in the services that these agencies can offer to the most vulnerable individuals in society.

Proposals to remove Legal Aid funding for all welfare benefits, employment, and immigration cases for most debt cases and for many housing cases, will result in destitution, poverty and hardship for thousands of households across the region. It is estimated that in Bristol alone over 4,000 households will not be able to access advice to deal with their complex, life-changing problems if these cuts are made.

“Providing high-quality legal advice to vulnerable people on low-incomes is a good investment for society,” says Jane Emanuel, who works with advice agencies in the region. “The governments own research shows that the people most affected by these changes will be people with disabilities, people over pension age and other groups less able to help themselves. Government research also shows that for every £1 spent on advice the state saves anything up to £10 in reduced costs elsewhere in the system – for instance, lower NHS spending, lower housing spending and reduced social care spending. Not only are these proposals a disaster for individuals and families who will suffer because they cannot resolve their problems, they are a clear false economy that will not, in the long run, save the Government money.”

Local advice agencies and their supporters have arranged a rally in Queens Square, Bristol on Monday 7th February from 12noon to raise public awareness of this looming disaster, and to encourage the public to contact their MPs before the governments consultation finishes on 14/02/11.

We would ask everyone who values access to justice for vulnerable people to support us – see www.advicewest.org.uk for more details.

###

Notes for editors:

1 - The Advice Network is a three-year project managed by Avon & Bristol Law Centre on behalf of Advice Centres for Avon (ACFA). ACFA is a network of advice agencies who have been working together for over 25 years; most members are registered charities and all offer free, confidential, impartial, high-quality legal advice on issues such as housing, debt, welfare benefits, community care, employment, education and health. For more details visit our website – www.advicewest.org.uk.
2 – Local advice agencies in Bristol alone will lose over £500,000 in funding if the cuts to legal aid proceed as proposed
3 – Legal aid-funded advisers and solicitors are not ‘fat-cats’ – the average salary for a highly-trained and experienced adviser in the South-west is c£25,000
4 – Alternative funding sources simply do not exist – Bristol City Council have ring-fenced the funding they currently provide for advice services, but cannot fill the gaps left by government cuts; other cuts to funding for advice from national government have just been announced – this will result in a further loss of c£750,000 in funding for debt advice for people in Bristol and the surrounding areas.
5 – For further information, or for media interviews, please contact Ben Sansum, Jane Emanuel or Liz Freeman at the Advice Network project on 0117 929 2153, or 0794 838 2676

All Out: Brenda Namigadde

Dear Friend, I just signed an urgent petition to support Brenda Namigadde, a young Ugandan lesbian who is scheduled to be deported from the UK and sent back to the life-threatening persecution she fled from eight years ago.

More than 50,000 people in 160 countries have successfully pressured the High Court into granting her a temporary reprieve, but we need to keep the pressure on to make sure she wins her appeal.

Will you join me and sign this urgent petition right away to stop Brenda's removal -- it could very well save her life:

www.allout.org/brenda