Thoughts about Gary (Speed)

Something I want to share after the terrible news about Mr Gary Speed: When it became obvious that the 2nd tumour had changed my life forever I got so low that one day I contacted the Samaritans. Each day is hard, some harder than others but with their help I realised that simple things like a smile from people you care can be 1000 times more powerful and with thoughts of them it does get easier, even on the darkest days. Please never feel alone folks or afraid to ask for help if you need it.

Why bother?

Been a bit of a difficult time recently health wise and with other things but I've still been trying to get something sorted on the anti-social behaviour front, when I've been able to including getting my ugly mug in the paper http://www.leylandguardian.co.uk/news/local/disrespect_to_our_war_dead_1_3747569 (warning if you click the link) on the lowlife who defaced our war memorial.

Unfortunately a Government Minister has reconfirmed my view that telling Government and it doesn't matter which party (s) is running it is often pointless.

Productive initial emails ended with:

"Many thanks for your email. I just wanted to you know that I have received it, and will get back to you with a more detailed response shortly".

Only to be followed up with:

"There is a strict parliamentary convention which states that MPs must only deal with their own constituents. Therefore I must ask you to approach your own MP instead"

The reason why the Minister, who shall remain nameless here but can be identified via my tweeter feed, was contacted directly was because if you go down the route of Ministerial Office you get spin and if you go down the road of contacting via your MP you get spin, none answers and in some cases lies.

Cameron's version of what he calls the big society is frankly laughable because all the doors supposedly open to take a proactive approach are shut with the Parliamentary Protocols hand-stamp.

This for me is unacceptable and if you hear Government saying we haven't been told or we need to know and can't do anything until we are told about it take it with a huge pinch of salt.

The reality is they will have been but they will have chosen to simply not listen!

Response to the eviction for anti-social behaviour consultation

I have been looking at your consultation on mandatory power of possession for ant-social behaviour.

As someone who has been campaigning against crime and anti-social behaviour for over a decade I will submit all my response in answer to Question 6:

6. Are there other issues related the introduction of a mandatory power for possession for anti-social behaviour that we should consider?

Your proposals give me very real concern and I am troubled that your intentions which are clearly reactionary to the riots we have recently seen, guise what anti-social behaviour is, in reality for communities blighted by it, that you will contribute to problems in other areas and take the process of what needs to be done backwards.

You also appear to believe that anti-social behaviour is from and in areas run by landlords and miss the divide of how it is dealt with by those who live in the remit of housing associations and 'normal' residents.

You need to be extremely cautious about moving problems on, the problems any anti-social individual (s) may bring to their new community and how you deal with individuals should they once evicted start or maintain their anti-social behaviour in the new area they are forced to reside in.

There also needs to be real consideration given between the eviction being served and the evicted leaving the premises and what protection is available to the community that has been so badly effected that they have had to be removed from it.

If someone is being anti-social and has been evicted for being anti-social there appears to be no reason for them to stop being anti-social in that community, until they leave.

Consideration also has to be given to associates of the evicted, who may have not done sufficient activities to warrant a similar eviction but who will remain in the area and if reprisals could bring consequence to the community involved and also been seen as an opportunity to be re housed.

Although there is a very clear need to provide what can be best described as rest-bite from anti-social residents in neighbourhoods and a reduction in time scales will obviously bring that sooner, all outcomes from the the eviction being served to the evicted arriving in their new community need to be thoroughly investigated and appropriate safeguards for the community moved to have to be ensured.

A real handover to all organisations Police, council etc must be given. If anti-social behaviour is repeated then the eviction process must be fast tracked with prosecution and custodial sentences given for repeat offenders.


As mentioned in my opening comments the reason for your proposals are based on reactionary measures to the recent riots.

There are clearly issues for them to have taken place which have come about through the failure to implement all of the key objectives within Community Safety Strategies in full.

All reasons why these proposals are necessary have to be investigated, as does what anti-social behaviour is and why, with the tools that are in place, have some offenders been dealt with when they have been given an ASBO but others haven't been.

You need to look at why for example when loud music is being played can the response to turn it down, be ignored, why alcohol being confiscated from under age drinkers is merely replaced and why parenting orders are rarely given etc before any eviction is served and if those within authority are actually doing what they are responsible for.

Keep antisocial behaviour on the agenda

For social responsibility to work it needs the state's involvement. At time when cuts, even those on the scale Labour admits need to be made, are getting so much attention the social responsibility question is also deserving of some attention.

Most are in agreement that we can't go on as we are and there is nothing more stronger to be said on 'social responsibility' or in far too many cases the lack of it.
Having spent another Friday night working with the police, to help stop underage drinking and in turn the antisocial behaviour that follows it, one thing that is absolutely clear is that while 'social responsibility' plays a significant role in dealing with most problems within our communities, it can only 'deal with those problems' when it has the full support of 'the state'.
While it possibly is within social responsibility's remit to see that those kids giving money to older albeit still under age teenagers are educated as to why it is wrong and the teenagers buying the alcohol for their peers to be educated about why it is wrong, 'the state' has to get involved when the 'children' refuse to listen.
Those sellers of the alcohol need not only to be fully aware of their 'social responsibility' they need to know that they are accountable to 'the state' and that if they do break the law that there will be significant and not little if any consequence for their actions.
Parents also need to know that if their child does cross paths with the authorities, that they have failed in their 'social responsibility' and they will be held to account for it.
Only when 'social responsibility' becomes the norm for all, not just the 'civic-minded', will society ever be the place that we all would want it to be.
The 'civic-minded' are not simply society's moaners and whingers, they are the elderly hiding behind curtains shut through fear, the 'normal folk' who won't go out after a certain time, the residents who don't get a decent night's sleep because of their 'neighbours' actions and the child who takes the long walk home from school to avoid a handful of bullying morons.
The 'civic-minded' are the community and Labour should fight things like the ridiculous scrapping of antisocial behaviour orders whenever it has the opportunity.