On LineYou Can Email
at In this issue A Flume with a View Page
by Page N16 Editions Issue 16
|
|
. | ||||
| . | p15 Dear N16 Your readers will want to know the latest developments at Betty Layward Primary School, where seven households are fighting a legal case to gain exclusive access to a wooded section of the school grounds. They claim a 'historic' (opportunist) right of easement, whilst most of them have lived there less than ten years. As the case drags on, 180 children, many with no gardens at home, are cramped into a small tarmac area, whilst the handful of children in the £400K+ houses on Carysfort Road enjoy sole access to the other half of the school grounds. The case goes to court on 7 January with angry parents at the school booking a coach for their day in court. In the meantime, detailed plans for the school playground remains on ice, and a large number of Hackney school children miss out on a much-needed green experience. David Vail Dear N16 1 am glad to see the home secretary has started to change the government policy on drugs but it is piecemeal and does not fit into a workable structure. What could a change in drug law mean for Stoke Newington and Hackney? It could mean: the removal of the drug distribution turf wars and therefore many shootings; the reduction of burglaries and street theft, allowing our law enforcement agencies to refocus on other priorities; the reduction of the risks of the adverse effects from buying unregulated, untested drugs; the removal of drug dealing cartels in bars and clubs; and the removal of undue influence by traffickers over law enforcement agencies and public officials. Currently the more successful law enforcement agencies are at reducing the supply of drugs, the higher the price goes. The law sees the plight of rich and poor drug users in a very different light. One receives a warning while the other can be lead to prison The benefits of controlled social drug industry are the same as any regulated industry: quality, safety, consumer protection and tax revenue. Why not make information and education available about the true risks involved and allow informed choice. Transfer taxpayer's money from enforcement, to rehabilitation and education. One option could be to consider the availability of social drugs from licensed pharmacists over the counter and from doctors on prescription, under a controlled system. As for which drugs should be available; this would have to await the outcome of drug trials with full risk assessment. Most of the benefits of repeal of prohibition come from the reduction in criminal activity around the more addictive habitual drugs. The link, which needs to be broken, is the need for a drug and need to finance it. The drug laws are not working and a serious debate on the way forward is well overdue. Prohibition does not work. Regulation, education and rehabilitation may have a chance. Adrian Gee-Turner Dear N16 After reading the articles of Melanie McFadyean and Dorothy Grace in your recent issues, some of us, whose children go to state schools in Hackney, are a bit worried about the daughter of Dorothy Grace in case she grows up to be a stuck-up, self-satisfied prig like her mother. Yours sincerely
In the last edition of N16, the article 'Back to the Future' mentioned that in days of old the smaller Borough structure was more democratic and people had more of a say. Well you can still say what you like, I am sure, but how much this will influence events is doubtful. Having said that, one protest recently, organised by individuals, succeeded: the campaign against using a large sum of money to change the area fronting Hackney Town Hall. As for democracy, the idea that if a borough is small it is more democratic, or could possibly be more democratic, was not demonstrated in this article. No concrete examples were provided to support this view. This looks to me like partly 'golden past syndrome' and partly the theoretical viewpoint 'smaller is better'. The key ingredient of democracy accountability - was ignored entirely. I do not mean by that the usual account one can ask for from the council as an entity or from your own local councillor. I am talking about transparency: the right to go to the town hall and look at the activities of the council and all the financial accounts. If this sounds unrealistic than we should ask ourselves why not? What is there which has to be kept hidden? It is not about protecting the privacy of individuals or commercial secrets. We are often told that Hackney belongs to the people who live here. If this is true, we should be able to check every aspect of what is done in our name. Alain Hertzmann |
. | ||||
|
|
||||||
Dear N16