You searched for 10 more reasons - Page 13 of 15 - Aberdeen Voice

Aberdeen 0 Hibs 0 – Easter Road Stadium 11/9/11

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion, Sport, Sport  No Responses »
Sep 122011
 

Sometimes nil-nil can be a deceptive scoreline, masking an exciting encounter between two evenly-matched sides. Sometimes, though, there are simply no goals because neither team is good enough to score any. This was a match almost completely devoid of incident, a scrappy bottom of the table snooze-fest from which neither team even deserved a point. Philip Sim reports from Easter Road.

merkalnd1pic

The grim performance on the pitch induced a funereal atmosphere in the stands, as it slowly dawned on supporters of both sides that they’d just paid in excess of twenty pounds to be bored and depressed.

You could be forgiven for initially assuming that at this stage of the season, Aberdeen and Hibs are in false positions at the bottom of the SPL.

However on Sunday’s evidence the position is more than deserved – few teams in the league could conspire to serve up such dire, uninspiring fare.

At times the game was a comedy of errors – an Aberdeen player would walk the ball straight out of play, only for his Hibernian counterpart to send the throw-in straight back to a red shirt, inevitably ending in another aimless long-ball to no-one in particular. An actual football team could have run riot against either side.

The Dons lined up in a less than ambitious 4-5-1 formation. Really, such a formation should see a team dominate the midfield, but Aberdeen rarely managed to string three passes together in the middle of the park, let alone control it. Isaac Osbourne was effective as usual in spoiling opposition play, but Fraser Fyvie and Rob Milsom appeared completely incapable of retaining possession. Ricky Foster’s pace and drive down the left provided a few meagre highlights, but on the other flank Chris Clark put in an absolutely dreadful performance, with the Dons looking characteristically short on width or creativity.

The failings of the five were compounded by those of the one, with lone striker Scott Vernon looking increasingly isolated and starved of  service. In a functional 4-5-1 the midfield is supposed to push forward to support the striker, maybe turn into a 4-3-3 when attacking, but the Dons showed little offensive invention or ambition save the occasional foray forward from Fyvie.

Vernon is a penalty-box striker, not a target man. He is not the man to win flick-ons or hold the ball up for his team-mates – he’s a finisher, not a creator.

He prefers to play facing the goal, rather than with his back to it, so in short he could not be less suited to the lone striker role. This does not however explain why he spent two thirds of the game at Easter Road offside.

At the other end of the park, Hibs had more of the ball but offered few real threats, mostly being restricted to long-range efforts. Garry O’Connor conspired to make Youll Mawene look quick, and what the Hibs front line conjured up was easily dealt with by David Gonzalez.

The home side’s toothless attack is one of the reasons they’re bottom of the league, so really there was no need to move Kari Arnason back into defence. He strolled through the game as usual, and his composure and presence could have made a huge difference to the Dons midfield, which was relatively transparent throughout. Moving the Icelander to centre back meant shuffling Considine out to left-back, and with Rory McArdle in the other full-back position there was never a hope of any attacking ambition from the full-back position.

By contrast when Hibs came forward down the flanks they often outnumbered the visitors’ defence, because their full-backs were willing to overlap and leave their own half.

To be fair to Considine and McArdle, neither of them are full-backs, and neither can be blamed for their manager’s decision to play them there. Meanwhile, the players in the Aberdeen squad who have looked reasonably exciting in recent weeks – Josh Magennis and Peter Pawlett – were left on the bench, and only introduced after the game had settled into a coma.

Seven games of the season gone, then, and Aberdeen have still only scored in one of them. The complaints remain the same, of width, creativity and attacking ambition, while the excuses grow thinner by the game – the return to the bench of Yoann Folly heralds the last of the team’s injury worries, and the squad has had ample time to gel.

Other teams who have undergone similarly large rebuilding jobs over the summer have settled much more quickly – fourth placed Kilmarnock and SPL new boys Dunfermline for example. With former Plymouth striker Rory Fallon reportedly offered a contract, Brown obviously recognises the shortcomings of his side, but patience in the stands is beginning to run thin – the Dons need to start producing results soon.

Old Susannah No.50 – Open Doors, Open Season

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Environment, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour  No Responses »
Sep 092011
 

Old Susannah watches the latest developments in the ‘Deen and the wider world and feels like a deer caught in headlights.  Here is this week’s look at what’s happening where and who’s doing what to whom. By Suzanne Kelly.

dictionary

This Saturday is Open Doors day; I urge you to get out and visit sites in Aberdeen normally closed to the public.  (I will try and get to Marischal College – but I will also be whale-watching at Torry Battery with local expert Ian Hay at 10:30).

From noon Old Susannah will be at Marks & Spencer collecting signatures on postcards to highlight the plight of our Tullos Hill Deer. The postcards are free and will be sent to the City; please come see me.  The design is a powerful one, I think you’ll agree.

Old Susannah spent last week in France and Italy. I wandered around small towns and capital cities, and was struck at the lack of concrete, shopping malls, and ‘connectivity’.  Small, intimate spaces were around every corner – but you actually were better off walking from place to place. 

Not a single monorail was in sight either.  Small, local shops were busy with locals and tourists – there was no choice but to buy individualistic, hand-made items in most of the places I visited.  Streets were tree-lined; parks filled with interesting plants, and the pavements were amazingly clean.  Even the smallest of towns had rich programmes for retired/elderly people.

I even came across a programme to teach dog owners the importance of keeping their animals under control and cleaning up after them.   Don’t worry – nothing like this will happen here.

Sad to say I missed this year’s Offshore Europe. 

While historically a few firms hire attractive fashion models to talk to prospective clients about North Sea joint venture economics and showcase the latest in directional drilling techniques and so on, this year it seems one firm took things a bit further.  I am told swimsuit models were window dressing for one of the stands.

Perhaps this bathing-suit theme was something to do with subsea operations or ‘diving’ of some sort or other.  Whatever happened to the old-fashioned practice of giving OE visitors lots to drink? In any case, it is a good thing we have more women involved in the oil business, and the presence of glamour models should by no means be seen as a cheap publicity stunt or a large backwards step for equality.

In a happy development, the baby gull that I rescued (with a co-worker’s help) made a complete recovery at New Arc Animal Sanctuary, and will be released soon, along with a Fulmar and some ducklings. Keith at New Arc has his hands full, and is still looking for volunteers and donations.  New Arc will shortly open a charity shop in Banff, and will want your unwanted quality goods (new and used) to sell.  Get in touch with New Arc at  thenewarc1@aol.com. 

I realise not everyone loves birds and gulls – I’ve not forgotten Mervyn New, who happily blasted baby gulls with a gun (at his work no less).  But it seems a contributor to Aberdeen’s newest free newspaper, Aberdeen City Life, isn’t fond of them, either.

‘Fona’ McKinnon writes in City Life about the ‘Terrorists From the Sky.’  Er, they are birds and not quite terrorists; some people might object to the comparison in this run-up to the anniversary of 9/11.  Best not to feed them (terrorists I mean) in town, but it’s definitely best not to blast them with guns either.  Old Susannah wishes City Life all the best, and  is glad there is another hard copy newspaper in town.

Finally, a tired, old, Aberdeen institution has had a much-needed facelift (no, not you Kate).  Aberdeen City’s website has been re-vamped, and looks absolutely vibrant and dynamic.  (More on its contents in a minute).

Time for some timely Deen definitions.

Family Business

(modern  English compound noun) An organisation or enterprise staffed, organised and managed mainly by members of one family.

Much has been said lately about the excesses of the UK’s MPs when it comes to  claiming expenses.   Gone are the days of flipping second homes, flipping padded expenses and flipping new luxury bird houses in moats for the flipping MPs.

Much has also been said about the MPs using unpaid interns.  The interns work for free, and more often than not are people who don’t need to work for money; often internships are given out to the well connected.  But one area where the MP is still free to do as they please concerns hiring family.

Family members serve as secretaries, assistants and office managers.  The Independent Newspaper’s sister paper ‘i’ reports that the taxpayer is shelling out a few million pounds annually for the 130 or so MPs’ family members. I  am sure it must be a hardship working for mum or dad; the interviewing process must be rigorous.

I guess the jobs are  all advertised widely, and a number of candidates are shortlisted before junior  gets the job.

Closer  to home, I note that many of our elected City Council officials still have time  to run Aberdeen along world-class lines while still keeping a hand in their own  family businesses.  Some work as  assistants for family plumbing or electrical businesses.  Old Susannah knows it’s possible to do more than one job at once, but has always been confused by one little detail. 

Some of these councillors list on their  council web pages that they work for a family business – but when I look at the official register of interests, I can’t find where that work is actually  listed.  Are they working for free?  Possibly – they are all quite selfless souls.  Even so, I believe such work is  meant to be on the official register of interests.

I am still trying to get to grips with what is/is not put on the registers, and aside from one rather terse email to me from the City (which took months for them to compose), I’m just not there yet.

Of course if any of these family business companies were doing any work for the City, the relevant councillors would bow out of any relevant meetings, and there would be complete transparency.  I am sure that everything is above  board.  I just can’t find it in writing, that’s all.

‘Open Data Initiative’

(Aberdeen modern phrase) 

Just when you thought the  City had completely shown its hand and come clean about deer, trees, expenses, garden projects, planning, and selling land at less than market value – along comes:  the ‘Open Data Initiative’.  I mentioned the swish new website layout (I have to admit – it is an improvement), well one of the new-look site’s great successes is the Open Data Initiative.

I  can practically feel the suspense building, and almost hear people asking aloud “What is the Open Data Initiative”! Without any further ado – here you go:-

Open data is about increased transparency, about sharing the information we hold with the wider community to build useful applications.

We’re always looking for new ways of making it as easy as possible for developers and website owners to access and present data held by us in ways that they want – allowing you to remix, mashup and share data easily.

Use the links to the right to navigate to our various datasets available.  We’ll be adding more datasets soon, as well as pointers to online tools for making use of this data.

 http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/open_data/open_data_home.asp

I am confident the City knows about data ‘mashup’; I would in fact swear to this.  Well, what possible data are they now freeing up for us to mash and re-organise?  

Will they tell me how much they are paying the deer ‘expert’? 
Will they (finally) say how much land they sold at less than market value? 
Will they let me know if any companies doing building maintenance at council properties are Councillors’ family businesses?

Brace yourself:  if you go to the Statistics page link on the Open Data page.
(http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/open_data/statistics.asp)
You will find everything you might want to know.  About how many hits the City’s website gets per month, the population figures, and the expenditure on something called the  ‘Accord’ Card.

These are the very things I’d put on a Statistics page if I ran a city that was millions in the red.  I was dying to know how many visitors the City’s web page had in August 2010 – the answer was (of course) 214,000.  I guess that’s all of our questions answered now.

With our debt level in mind (and not being 100% certain a carpark and mall in UTG will save us from ruin), I followed a link to the February finance meeting documents.  With our newly-launched ‘Open Data’ initiative in place, surely the City will be open with its – I mean our  – finances, I thought.

Not all data is for the public of course. For instance, I was relieved to find that about half the information the Finance Committee discussed in February last year is off limits.  Have a look for yourself if you like: 
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=146&MId=1925&Ver=4

You’ll see that many documents are withheld as they are tip top secret, must never be released, and are commercially sensitive. And thank goodness.  It’s hard to get any privacy sometimes; so I’m glad to know that privacy is respected by our City’s officials.

However, I noted that an item from this Finance meeting about ‘Managed Data Centre and Virtual Desktop Environment’ was deemed secret.
If we have an ‘open data’ policy I guess it’s reasonable to withhold information from the public on the ‘Managed Data Centre and Virtual Desktop Environment ’ –  I’m just not sure why.

But the good news is now you can see the reasons why you can’t see the items on the agenda.   And that, I suppose, is ‘Open Data’.

On that note I feel the need for a Brewdog coming on.  I will say here and now I bought a few shares in Brewdog, so please consider that my interest in Brewdog to be declared.  I bought the shares, the T-shirt, and the beers.  Why?  Because they are great.
If I had a family business, I’d like it to be Brewdog, I do declare.

– Next week:  ‘Police and Thieves’

Truth, Untruth And Consequences: Part Two

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion  No Responses »
Sep 012011
 

A look at more contradictory information from different arms of the council – with deadly consequences for the Tullos Hill Roe Deer by Suzanne Kelly.

deer5pic
In the first instalment of ‘Truth’, I revealed part of Valerie Watts’ response to my formal complaint.
This contained the shocking story of how we have already paid £43,800 for a previous failed plantation on Tullos Hill – and that Ms Watts failed to clarify the existence of this debt when asked.
In fact, Aberdeen Council (ie the taxpayer) “could be liable for a reclaim of up to £120,333.91” if trees to be planted fail, says a Forestry Commission Scotland letter.

The second part of the story will examine Watt’s response in more depth, revealing yet more contradiction; council use of general statements to justify the specific Tullos Hill situation; and the deliberate snubbing of experts who offered objections to as well as solutions to this completely arbitrary tree-planting.

As detailed in Part One, I launched a formal protest following my researches into the details of the tree scheme and the cull; these can be found in Aberdeen Voice. I found no fewer than 10 main points, which I felt the Council should be called to account on.
See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2010/12/10-more-reasons-to-call-off-the-deer-cull/

The Council and I have traded emails back and forth. My specific, targeted questions are largely going unanswered. Either that, or I get sweeping, non-specific statements (such as ‘deer culling is perfectly normal’ – which has nothing to do with killing deer to protect trees that could be elsewhere – or not planted at all). This all wound up in my formally complaining, and the initial response from Ms Watts was much in the same vein as what I had heard before. I sent a reply, which I had to chase twice.

The first time I chased my reply was 8 July. The Council now say that they sent a reply to me on 11 July, and this date appears on a letter sent via email (although there is no trace of it in my inbox).

Interestingly, their first letter, also sent by email, was addressed to me at my home, and was posted. The second letter the city says it sent on 11 July did not include my street address, and certainly did not ever reach me in the post. I do wonder why they would change their method of communication.

But there are larger points at stake.

Time is running out, and this article cannot touch on all the new information or recap all of the previous points raised. There are previous stories still available on Aberdeen Voice, and a good deal of information can be found on the internet.

If at the end of reading this and other articles you decide you want the deer spared, then please contact your councillors as soon as you can, as well as the City Council. Your voice can make a difference yet. Details of councillors can be found at:
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1

Here is a selection of some (certainly not all) of the issues arising from my last letter from Valerie Watts – the one that never arrived either in the –post or by email at the time it was meant to have been sent. Sadly, I am not getting any closer to getting any definitive, meaningful answers, which the following examples will show. It is time for everyone concerned for the deer to consider other forms of action.

Income from trees? Depends who’s talking

Various council officers and rangers have written to me saying that there will be ‘income streams’ from the trees.

In fact, some of the reports say that some income can be relied upon from this giant forest in time. I asked Ms Watts for the financials. She replied:

“There is no business plan to justify the potential future timber crop and subsequent potential income stream.”

Either Ms Watts is right and the rangers and others who mentioned an income from the trees are wrong – or the City is confused. In fact, here is what the public consultation for phase 2 said:-

“… the trees should be well established and require minimal maintenance before they start generating income”

Which leads us to Watts’ comments on the public consultation.

Public Consultation: ‘was robust’

We have already established what a flawed, misleading document this phase 2 consultation exercise was, but Ms Watts insists the consultation was ‘robust’.

Those supporting the tree scheme are adamant that the consultation was never about the method of tree planting, and it was not relevant. This is the excuse they give when asked why shooting the Tullos deer was not in the document.

If it had been mentioned, the scheme would never have passed the public consultation in a million years. But people like me and those I have spoken to cite this passage from the public consultation as the reason we thought the deer were safe:-

“Where necessary some sites will require rabbit fencing to minimize damage from rabbits…”

If you read this document, you would come to the conclusion that animal damage had been considered: why mention fencing to control rabbits and not mention damage from other animals? I concluded –as did dozens of others (and more) that if deer were a problem, they would likewise have been mentioned.

We now know that in November 2010 the Council and Scottish Natural Heritage were already planning to shoot the deer to plant these trees: they just decided not to tell us this.

The Scottish Natural Heritage letter suggests handling the public over the deer. Well, the public has most definitely been misled by this poor excuse for a consultation. It was biased. It withheld information. To date, no one has come forward despite my requests to say they were the author of this document; the author certainly has some questions to answer.

See: shhh-dont-mention-the-pre-planned-deer-cull

The Media can’t see the Trees for the Forest

Perhaps the most pompous claim Ms Watts makes is that the media got the facts wrong, and that the community councils got misinformation from the media, so didn’t understand the scheme.

I find it a bit late in the day to blame the media – does Ms Watts include the P&J, EE, BBC, STV, Northsound, and the Scotsman as well as Aberdeen Voice? Where and when did the City’s Public Relations staff counter any inaccuracies in the media? In fact Ms Aileen Malone, convener of the housing committee and large proponent of this plan spoke to the media on many occasions. Here is what Watts wrote on the matter:-

“Aberdeen City Council has no control over how the media report Council meetings. In this case the media did not accurately report on the decisions of this Committee and have continued to publish inaccurate information about this project. They have published their interpretation of the committee decisions.”

It should be noted that when the media have published inaccuracies in the past the Council swiftly jumps in to make corrections when it suits them. We saw the recent debacle of the City countering its own press office’s release about the frequency and costs of using outside consultants. I also recall a Press & Journal editorial stating that the P&J would apologise when it made errors, but would not apologise for publishing information the City released and subsequently retracted.

Scottish SPCA don’t understand the project – says Watts

The work and the position of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is world-renowned and respected. Except here.

The Scottish SPCA issued a statement specifically about the Tullos cull: they called it ‘abhorrent and absurd to kill deer to protect non-existent trees.’ Ms Watts doesn’t believe the Scottish SPCA are clever enough to have formulated its stance, and writes the following:-

“You quote the Scottish SPCA in your response. We* have been unable to find any evidence from the charities [sic – she must mean charity’s] policies that it has one that is against culling.

“We are in the process of checking this with the organization. We believe that the quote from Mr Mike Flynn is based on inaccurate reporting of the committee decision in the media. If the SSPCA were financially able to and prepared to relocate the deer legally within the project timescales, then the City would be amenable to them doing so.”

However, this amazing about-face needs examining, regarding allowing the deer to be relocated. The Council and the Scottish Natural Heritage made their positions clear previously that moving deer was not a solution.

I wrote to the Scottish SPCA to get their feedback on Watt’s paragraph above, and spoke to Mike Flynn on 26th August. He explained the difficulties in catching and moving deer, and says this idea just does not work. Mike confirmed the Scottish SPCA’s position on culling: it is to be carried out only where there are clear animal welfare issues or public safety issues.

Flynn confirmed that a person from the City did contact the Scottish SPCA to ask for its policy on culling. He was not happy that Watts believes he didn’t understand the issues and had been misinformed by the media. He understands, and is happy to stand by the previously-stated position: it is abhorrent and absurd to cull the Tullos Hill Roe Deer to plant trees. And whatever anyone at ACC may say, Mr Flynn is right.

* (somehow Ms Watts is now a group or is using the royal ‘we’ –she does not spell out who she means when she says ‘we’)

My Opinion and Conclusions Summarised

• The main conclusion I reach from months of research and asking questions is that I will be given different information from every council official, officer and elected member I speak to.

• They are united in one thing: they want the deer shot and the trees planted at all costs.

• The expert they hired after a tender process (note – the cost of this expert should be queried) is not interested in other experts’ opinions: this is no longer detached scientific expertise, but dogma.

• They are not actually as united as they think they are. There is increasing SNP resistance to this plan, which must be encouraged. Ms Malone insists the ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme was a Lib Dem election pledge. Ms Watts writes the Lib Dems and SNP jointly pursue this scheme, which “… has the mandate of the people of Aberdeen.” This Mandate is most definitely in the past tense – now that we know what the planting means for our deer and other existing wildlife.

• Most importantly: it is not too late to stop this insane scheme!

Watts next? – my opinion

A radio presenter had invited me and Aileen Malone to speak about the deer situation some months back.

Aileen was far too busy to spare the 20 minutes of a Sunday morning for this phone-in debate. A shame – as she could have rectified all the ‘misunderstandings’ which Watts claims the media are putting about. The show’s researchers were told I was not part of any group. And, I am not.

Still, the presenter seemed keen to draw me into an argument about direct action and getting people to stand in front of guns. I do not want to tell anyone to do anything, particularly anything to do with gun-toting shoot-to-kill mercenaries. However, it is plain that reason, logic, expense and the will of the people are being thrown out the window.

Before I had seen Emily James’ film about average people taking direct action, ‘Just Do It’ (at the Belmont a few weeks ago), I would not have considered taking steps to directly intervene in this tree plan. I am now re-thinking my position. When campaigning and logic have no effect, other (peaceful) means may be needed.

In the meantime, please get in touch with your elected representatives. Details of councillors can be found at:
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1

Tell them what you do and do not want to happen regarding Tullos Hill. Stopping this cull is not down to me or any one group – it is down to everyone.

If anyone wants a postcard to send the City, or a poster to put in their window, or to be kept informed of any developments, please write to oldsusannah@aberdeenvoice.com – sooner rather than later.

Libya Ablaze

 Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion  No Responses »
Sep 012011
 

By Jonathan Hamilton Russell.

libyatankpic

In June of this year I  wrote an article on the situation in Libya called ‘Libya another Brutal Conflict’.
In it I suggested a way forward would have been via negotiations, which would include the expectation for fair elections run by the United Nations, the withdrawal of NATO and the use of UN peacekeepers.

Qaddafi would have been forced to face his opposition but in a non-bloody way. Only if such negotiations failed would military action be considered.

The mantra regarding the war on Iraq was ‘weapons of mass destruction’; this proved to be a lie. The mantra in relation t oLibya has been ‘the defence of innocent civilians’. This, as the conflict has escalated, has proved clearly not to be the real objective. Investigations by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a UN commission headed by the legal scholar Cheri Bassioni found there was no evidence of the atrocity stories which were given as the reasons for NATO action.

Yet this was not listened to by our politicians and was not widely reported by the media. What has clearly happened is a mission of regime change which went far beyond the UN mandate. Such developments were opposed by the US Congress and never properly debated in our own Parliament.

Rather than protecting civilians, NATO weapons have inevitably killed them.

Their targets increasingly widened from attacking tanks that were moving towards Benghazi, to attacking all Libyan Military installations, to attacking any building that was seen as supporting the Gaddafi administration.

Inevitably there were civilian casualties. On the day of the rebel attack on Tripoli, more bombs were dropped than on any other day in NATO’s history. The rebels were also being supported and trained by troops from NATO countries, and as evidenced by the Sunday Times, some were Libyan exiles living in the UK. This has led to an even more bitter war between the ‘rebels and Kaddafi loyalists with disastrous human consequences.

The hospitals are not coping and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are reporting human rights violations on all sides. Human Rights Watch consider that the evidence suggests that the old governments Khamis Brigade killed 45 detainees. The horrors of what happened to Kaddafi troops and the disappearance of all the medical staff at Abu- Salim hospital is just unfolding as are other atrocities, but these are only the most heavily reported incidents.

We never seem to learn the lesson of the horrors that war can bring.

Richard Seymour in the Guardian reported on Peter Bouckaert from Human Rights Watch findings that he had not identified one mercenary among scores of men being arrested and falsely labelled as such by journalists. Many Libyans are black but have been labelled as black mercenaries from Africa and led to racist incidents.

Qaddafi’s regime became increasingly oppressive over time

On top of this, much of the country’s infra-structure has been destroyed. The Libyan Transitional Council estimate it will take ten years to repair the damage done to the country’s infrastructure.

So what is the future for Libya? It is almost certain that Qaddafi will be eventually defeated, but how long that takes and at what continuing human cost is still to be seen. Worryingly, anyone supporting Qaddafi will not be seen as a civilian but as a supporter of a mad and dangerous dictator. The rebels are not a united force. The National Transitional Council has been recognised by over 40 foreign states; however, has it been recognised by the militias on the ground?

Abul Fatah Younes, the leader of the  Rebel army, was murdered by one of the Islamic militias and this in turn led to the sacking of the whole cabinet by Musta Abdul Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Government.

Will this Government be able to rule or will fighting continue between the various factions, in particular those aligned to a more Islamic agenda and those not? These groupings are now highly armed and as our policies did in Afghanistan, they could easily come back to bite western interests. Atiyha Abdl al Rahman, the deputy leader of Al-Qaida who was killed by US drones in Pakistan, was Libyan.

Qaddafi’s regime became increasingly oppressive over time. In his early years as a revolutionary leader, he was involved in pulling down prisons.  Being active himself over the years led to the atrocities that more recently took place of Islamists in Libyan prisons. Hopefully human rights will improve, but that has yet to be seen, and Libya was far from being the only country which has tortured and killed the more extreme Islamists.

Any new government will still have to find ways of dealing with Islamic groups and could end up being equally oppressive.

The Qaddafi regime was oppressive to its enemies, they did however have the highest social indicators in the Third World with better housing, health care and standards of living than in other Middle East and third world countries. As with Iraq these social strengths and the resulting effects on the countries well-being are sure to decline particularly if conflict continues.

Libya was not a country in debt, but it is now, and like us it will have to become beholden to the banks for money borrowed to rebuild the country. Who will own the huge reserves held in foreign banks which were there in part to deal with Libya’s future when the oil stocks have gone?

This has caused considerable indignation on the African continent.

Libya has historically produced 1.5 to 2 million barrels of oil a day. Qaddafi was hated by the west for nationalising Libyan oil and though he has more recently been co-operating with Western firms he has still been directing considerable investment into the economy and saving for its future.

Any new government will, unless clearly Islamic, be beholden to the West, and as such oil is almost certain to be obtained by the West more cheaply; the cost of oil on the markets has already gone down. Libya will also likely have military NATO bases for any future developments in the Middle East.

The poorer Libyans will, I suspect, be those who will be the most badly affected but others will gain and disparities in wealth will increase to the overall detriment of the country. Hopefully human rights will improve, but that has yet to be seen. Qaddafi was supportive of women’s involvement in society and was one of the reasons that he opposed so strongly the more extreme tenants of Islam and its supporters in Libya.

The future for women could go either way, but is certain to cause tension in the new Libya.

Qaddafi was instrumental in setting up the African Union and financially supported African infrastructure projects. The West, unless replaced by Chinese interests, will now have greater control over the African continent. However despite for instance South Africa supporting Resolution 1973 which led to intervention in Libya, their and other African countries attempts through the African Union to set up peace talks were knocked back. This has caused considerable indignation on the African continent.

overall spending on wars leads to fewer resources to be spent on other areas

Due to the way that NATO overstepped the UN resolution, there is now reluctance by many countries to do anything in Syria or the other Middle East countries. Damage has been done to International relations and the workings of the United Nations due to NATO’s actions.

Why have we, and why are we continuing to arm dictatorships in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, etc.  which are oppressive to their people? In fact, why are we arming any country? All armaments have the potential for use both between warring countries and on countries own citizens. Yet selling more arms is a key target of the present UK Government.

The selling of arms does lead to profit and work for those involved and money for Government. However overall spending on wars leads to fewer resources to be spent on other areas and in the United Kingdom, France and the United States it will lead to increased cuts in public services which will affect us all, but in particular the more vulnerable people in our society.

The United Nations was set up to try and stop wars between countries. Libya had not invaded another country.

The intervention was, however, based around the doctrine of  ‘the responsibility to protect’ following The Rwandan genocide. The way NATO has acted by clearly taking sides in Libya has brought this doctrine into disrespect. The press in the UK have in the main been heralding the success of the Libyan intervention, but if you dig deeper this can only be questioned.

The United Nations needs itself to have increased power to stop the manipulation that has clearly taken place around the Libyan conflict.

So what can we do?

  • We can protest. Stop the War and CND are holding an anti-war rally on October 8th to mark 10  years of  military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. The demonstrations against the Iraq war may not have stopped the war but they did shake the establishment and led in part to the downfall of Tony Blair
  • We can support the United Nations associations to help make this a stronger organisation that gets back to its original basis for existing
  • We can protest against our pension funds being invested in the arms trade as is in the case of Aberdeen City Councils pension fund.
  • Campaign Against the Arms Trade ( CAAT  ) will be holding their yearly demonstration on September 13th in London. ‘ Cut the Arms Trade not public services’. Please see:  Stop the War  or CAAT website.

Fighting Wildlife Crime In Aberdeenshire

 Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information  No Responses »
Aug 082011
 

Fighting Wildlife Crime in Aberdeenshire is an on-going struggle.  Grampian Wildlife Crime Officers rely on the public to catch criminals as well as to hopefully prevent crime.  Andy Turner puts Aberdeen Voice readers in the picture.

Grampian Wildlife Officer At Work
3373.  No, these aren’t the latest winning lottery numbers, but it is the total land area of Grampian Police Force coverage in square miles.
This number can present a bit of a problem for Wildlife Crime Officers.

Divided equally among the 12 Wildlife Crime officers in Grampian, each officer would have a beat of around 281 square miles!

That’s an awful lot of ground to cover and can make for problems in terms of detection, investigation and enforcement of Wildlife Crime.

Wildlife Crime continues to blight Scotland’s outstanding natural heritage.  It can impact upon rare and iconic species, often involves cruelty to animals, can destroy specially protected habitats and interfere with legitimate countryside management and recreation.

In fact the term ‘Wildlife Crime’ covers a huge spectrum of criminal activity, and can occur in both the countryside and urban areas.

Wildlife Crime Officers in Grampian have dealt with cases of poaching (deer, fish and game) crimes against badgers, hare coursing, crimes against birds including: poisoning, trapping, shooting, disturbance, nest destruction and egg collecting, disturbance of marine mammals, crimes against bats, the taking/killing of Fresh Water Pearl Mussels, CITES offences in connection with the trade in endangered species, damage to protected sites and crimes against protected plants to name a few.

The huge diversity of wildlife crime calls for a diverse approach to tackle the problem.  To this end the Grampian Police are part of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime Scotland or PAWS.  PAWS has representation from police, government agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage, conservation organisations like RSPB, land management sector and others with the common aim to stamp out wildlife crime through education, awareness raising and enforcement.

Poisoned Eagle Wildlife Crime At Its Ugliest
Like other crimes, Wildlife Crime is committed by a very small minority of people who either knowingly flaunt the law or commit crime through lack of awareness.

Wildlife crime can often be linked to other rural crime, and for this reasons suspects should never be approached by the public.

While the police keep records of each reported Wildlife Crime, it is hard to establish the true extent of Wildlife Crime that occurs in Grampian and Scotland as a whole.

This is due in the main to one of Scotland’s greatest commodities: its vast areas of countryside, countryside where crime is possibly going on undetected or unreported.

In July 2010 Grampian Police employed a Wildlife Crime Education Officer (WCEO), the first post of its kind in the UK.  The aim of the post is prevention of wildlife crime by raising awareness of the problem, education and encouraging improved reporting.  The WCEO will be working with land managers, conservation groups, outdoor access and sports groups, schools and universities for the duration of the 3 year post.

Around 530,000 live in the Grampian Force area.  The population in general is becoming more mobile, and access to the countryside for recreation is more readily available now than ever before, with pursuits such as mountain biking and hill walking on the increase.

While this access needs to be carefully managed, it does present an ideal opportunity to arm those using the countryside with the facts about wildlife crime and the impacts of crime on both wildlife and people. For those working in the countryside this means enabling them to work in an informed and importantly a safe and legal way.  For those accessing the countryside this means reporting any suspected wildlife crime incidents thereby making the Wildlife Crime Officers 281 mile beat a bit more manageable!

Andy Turner With Tragic Evidence Of Wildlife Crime – A Dead Deer
It is important to remember however that for reporting to be effective it must be genuine, timely, accurate and detailed.  If these four conditions are met there is scope for Wildlife Crime officers to focus efforts by responding to real incidents, and reduce time spent scouring the countryside following a poor lead or inaccurate information.

In Grampian Force area alone the Wildlife Crime Unit can receive over 50 calls per month, ranging from hare coursing at Elgin, dolphin disturbance at Aberdeen harbour to salmon poaching on Deeside.

Among the genuine reports are others which can relate to road kill, natural deaths or even miniature penguins at Aberdeen beach – which turned out to be young guillemots.

Legal countryside management practices can sometimes be misconstrued for illegal practices.  In extreme cases legal cage traps, spring traps and snares have been tripped or vandalised, and call birds released by people who misunderstand or disagree with their purpose.  Despite personal views people should never take the law into their own hands.

I do not want to discourage the public from picking up the phone to call the police – in fact it is quite the opposite – but try to have all the information at hand to help the police deal with the call in the best possible way.

By following this simple checklist (below) when reporting a wildlife crime, and hopefully through awareness rising, effective reporting and enforcement it might be possible to establish a true picture of wildlife crime, and to help stamp it out throughout Scotland.

Visit the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime in Scotland (PAWS) for further information on wildlife crime.
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/paw-scotland

If you suspect a wildlife crime is/has taken place:

DO:

  • Report any suspicious activity as soon as possible to your Force Service Centre and ask to speak to a Wildlife Crime Officer
  • Take a note of the date, time and weather conditions.
  • If possible, identify a map reference or ideally a GPS reading of both the incident scene and location from where you witnessed the incident.
  • Note a description of person/s involved including gender, age, height, clothing etc.
  • Write down any vehicle registration numbers, make, model, and colour that may be involved.
  • Identify other witnesses and obtain their name and contact details.
  • If possible, video or photograph the scene, or make a rough sketch.
  • Cover up any suspected poisoned baits or victims to prevent any animal / person coming into contact with them.
  • Do report. Even if you are not sure – report the incident. The evidence of wildlife crime is not always obvious. 

DO NOT:

  • Do not disturb the scene by moving items or walking about unnecessarily.
  • Do not touch dead animals or birds, especially if you suspect that poison may have been used. 
  • Do not interfere with legal countryside practices such as the legal use of traps and snares, hides, high seats and shooting butts.

NEVER:

  • Never approach suspects or intervene if you suspect someone is committing a wildlife crime – you may put yourself in danger.

Tullos Time: What’s Happening On The Hill? – Part 2

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion  No Responses »
Jul 222011
 

Last week in the first of this two part investigation, Suzanne Kelly described how The City Council and its officials were dealing with the Tullos Hill roe deer cull and tree-planting issues. Part 1 also covered the decades of arson on ‘The Gramps’, the excellent quality of Tullos Hill as it is, local community councils’ opposition to the cull, and the considerable public anger at the City’s refusal to even consider modifying its plans.

deer-tall1-pic
The hill itself is a wildlife haven; the very important gorse providing homes to bees and birds.  There are fields of wildflowers (the spectacular Dame’s Violets for instance), and it is a recreation area.

This is why our City Council – as a LibDem election pledge – want to turn it into some gargantuan 40,000-tree profit-making (ie lumber-producing) forest.

We now look at other important aspects of this issue, challenge the government to comment, and propose some actions.

The Gorse is always Greener

‘Kissing is out of fashion when the gorse is not in bloom’ goes an old saying – based on the fact gorse virtually always has blossoms.  This is an extremely useful plant for bees.  If you’ve not been made aware, bee populations around the world are in serious trouble.

As long as we still want our plants to be pollinated so we keep eating, we are well advised to do all we can to encourage bees.  My research leads me to conclude that gorse is far better for bees and several other species than trees are (particularly trees which will be cut down for profit when the Council chooses).

Don’t take my word for the importance of gorse.  Do take Dr. Ian Rotherham’s word:-

“Gorse is an incredibly valuable habitat for wildlife – supporting a diversity of invertebrates and many birds and mammals. It provides dense cover plus abundant nesting sites, invertebrate food associated with the gorse, and of course the blaze of flowers during much of the year. Butterflies, bees, hoverflies, spiders, badgers, whinchats, stonechats, yellowhammers, chaffinches, linnets, greenfinches, meadow pipits and skylarks for example, all thrive in gorse-rich areas.

“As the biomass of gorse builds up it loses vigour and beings to die back. If there is a fire then the gorse is reduced to ground level and will quickly regenerate for the next 30-40 years or so. Clearly fire risk can be a problem but not for the gorse or the associated wildlife (except at the immediate time of a conflagration).

“Cyclical cutting of gorse, grazing, and cutting of fire-breaks are positive ways to reduce risk and damage but to maintain what is a rich but often unappreciated wildlife habitat. The establishment of a friends group to watch over the area would also help reduce risk. The gorse in bloom is also a wonderful landscape feature. A plantation wood does not provide a biodiversity resource or a landscape feature to match this. Trees are often planted at the expense of the wildlife habitats and landscape features because of the misconception that they are inherently better for wildlife – which they are not – and because money is available as grants to do this.”

(  Dr  Rotherham is a Professor of Environmental Geography, Reader in Tourism & Environmental Change, International Research Coordinator, associated with universities around the world. He is editor of several important academic publications including International Journal of Urban Forestry, Journal of Practical Ecology & Conservation, and International Urban Ecology Review )

I would be interested to hear from any City Council officer, ranger or pro -Tullos Hill tree plantation consultant wishing to comment on Dr Rotherham’s statement. 

In the meantime, Ian Talboys, Countryside Ranger for Aberdeen wrote to me on 6 June:-

“The amount of gorse on the site will be substantially reduced to make way for the tree planting
which again reduces the risk of wilful fires”.

Why should a countryside ranger particularly be keen to change an ecosystem such as  Tullos to a profit-making, lumber-producing forest?  Where is the evidence that replacing gorse with saplings and trees will reduce wilful fire risk?

City  Council ‘austerity’ and ‘budget’ cuts

I spoke to a person connected to the countryside services for the Council.  They advised me that like virtually every branch of our local government, they are now expected to find income streams and do all they can to make money.

It is not enough that our environment is under threat from over-development, pollution and loss of biodiversity – our environmental conservation activities are supposed to make money for the City.  Would our rangers’ time be better served in patrolling the fire-prone areas, educating people and engaging in active conservation, or are we asking them to look for grants such as the tree-planting ones and to make money at all costs?

If I get an answer to this question, I will share it with you.  Again, I invite comment from the City.

I still await a reply as to how this timber business is going to be set up, and for a copy of the business plan.  Should any of this information ever be forthcoming from our elected officials, I will share it with you.  Again, should any City proponents of the scheme like to come forward and (finally) explain how the timber business will work, I invite them to do so.

It has just been announced that despite negotiations with Unions being incomplete, the City has signed an agreement with external consultants to make £120 million worth of budget savings over a five-year period (cost of these consultants has been estimated at between £500k to £600k).  Perhaps they will have their own opinion as to the viability of a timber business venture on an arson hotspot which has already resulted in the City returning £43,800 to the Forestry Commission…

Failed Tree Planting, Failed Open Government, Failed Freedom of Information Requests

In a ten-point complaint I clearly asked for clarification of a £44,000 debt for a failed tree plantation which I had heard of.  The City’s Chief Executive Valerie Watts wrote in early June to deny any money was owed.

Proof that this payment was made was given to me almost immediately  after Watts’ denial – but as of 21 July,Wattshas not explained the failure to disclose the repayment.

The proof is a letter the Forestry Commission sent to the City earlier this year which was copied to Ian Talboys.  The question is whether Watts knew of the letter when she wrote to me or not.  Until she explains her answer, the whole planting programme should be put on hold.  It is not just returning money for the past failure (we had to pay interest) but the implications for this new planting that need to be considered, which could be significant for the cash-strapped council’s taxpayers.

Watts was made aware of this repayment by me, and possibly earlier by others.  What is beyond the pale is that Freedom of information Officers continued for some weeks afterward to advise that no debt was owed.  All of the requests I have seen referenced the £44k figure; mine specifically asked for clarification of the matter.

If the City tries to use the excuse that since the debt was paid in March and the questions arrived in June, then that would be the most disingenuous logic coming from Town Hall in memory.  I am sure it is beyond the Council’s lowest standard to try and make pretence of using such a childish defence.  When we will get the truth is crucial – they must not be allowed to stall this matter until cull season opens.  If anyone trying to prevent the cull could ask their elected officials to have these issues addressed and investigated fully as an urgent matter, it will help.  I have asked the FOI office to explain whether or not it discovered this letter in its search to answer my question.  I have asked it to advise whether or not it made a deliberate decision to not disclose this letter.  I await the outcome of the investigation.

Yet another Freedom of Information anomaly exists regarding Grampian Fire.

Fire power

The previous article covered the problems of arson.  Confusion emerges as to the number of fires.  There was a FOI request response from Grampian Fire which shows a nominal number of deliberate fires.  At the time of writing I await permission to share or reproduce these figures, as they are apparently ‘copyright’.  I have officially applied to print them, but cannot do so until Grampian Fire’s officials approve my written request.

However I came across an internet document which shows a rather different, substantially higher number of fires than the FOI request revealed, entitled  ‘Grampian Fire and Rescue Service Category 2 – Advancing Community and Citizen Well-being’ .  This document states there were over 70 fires for 2006, and claims the figures were going down; it had partial 2008 figures and said only 11 fires started that year.  It is worth mentioning that there have been at least half a dozen fires in the Gramps since May of this year.  In any event, the paper’s numbers are not the same as the recently supplied figures, which are lower.

I will try to discover an explanation for the discrepancy, and will cover whatever explanation Grampian Fire sends in another article. Both email addresses for the FOI officer and the above paper’s writer are at the address ‘@grampianfrs.org.uk’, which leads me to conclude the same organisation might be responsible for distributing contradictory figures.

I add this to the ever growing list of things I am trying to discover, and yet all the while a cull remains the City’s goal, and the clock is ticking.

SNH – Natural Heritage as long as it’s not inconvenient

Scottish Natural History have been taking great pains to gain media coverage recently (BBC and local press), saying in effect that deer are great, but to stop them being killed in road accidents and over-populating, they have to be ‘managed.’  They launched a consultation, which many animal groups felt had a strong bias towards hunting and culling red deer and roe deer equally.  First, what kind of animal are we talking about exactly?

What are roe deer?

Recognition: Small deer, reddish brown in summer, grey in winter. Males have short antlers, erect with no more than three points.

Height: Average height at shoulder 60-75cm (that is less than 3 foot tall). Males slightly larger than females.

Weight: Adults 10-25kg

Lifespan: The maximum age recorded for wild roe is 16 years, but most die before 7 years.

Diet: Their diet is varied and includes buds and leaves of deciduous trees and shrubs, bramble, rose, ivy, herbs, conifers, ferns, heather and grasses.

By permission, the Mammal Society,
http://www.mammal.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&id=228

So in short these tiny creatures, of which we seemingly have 30 on Tullos Hill alone jeopardise a 40,00 tree plantation.  (The Council has made absolutely no mention of how they will tackle the weed problem cited by the Forestry Commission as a partial reason for the previous expensive failure – again, I have asked for this information with no reply).

Glasgow has made a strong statement against these types of culls which can be found at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/291204/0089678.pdf  and the relevant section starts on page 5.”

Here are some relevant extracts:-

“….collaborative deer management is not necessary for Roe deer in urban environments as there is no scientific justification for this.

2.4 There is no mention of the positive role of wild deer on natural habitats. Large herbivores help to create and retain glades and rides within woodlands, which provide habitat for a range of other species.

2.5 This section of the Bill has the potential to perpetuate and reinforce the perception of deer as pest species. Whilst this will promote the interests of a minority who have a vested interest in deer management principally through culling, it goes against the reason for the inclusion of native wild deer on the Scottish Biodiversity List, Le. the appreciation of these animals by the general public who wish to see them left unharmed.

2.6 Glasgow City Council believes that this section in its present form promotes an unbalanced view of the rationale behind deer management, whilst acknowledging that there is scientific justification for the management of red deer in parts of the Highlands.

Deer in Scotland – General Comments.

2.7 GCC object to the blanket statement that ‘Deer therefore need to be managed … ‘ for the following reasons:

• The terms manage/managed/management are not defined but appear to relate to culling deer, which is not the usual definition of management. This needs to be clarified.

• If the above is the case, then deer do not always require to be culled because in some areas an increase in population size could be beneficial.

•Red Deer and Roe Deer are quite different animals not only in size but also in habits etc. Why are they covered by one piece of legislation and why do they both have to be managed?”

The various animal charities I’ve communicated with all remain against this cull and have their own experts who explain the flaws in the entire premise.

Can we have some urban trees please?

A personal observation.  The section of Aberdeen I live in, Torry, has fewer trees on its main streets than any other part of the world I’ve lived in, city or suburb.  The streets are however covered with cars and trucks 24/7, and the exhaust fumes have air quality implications.

A few trees would do a good deal to clean the air.  It would be costly and difficult to plant and protect them.  But it would not be impossible.  We know from the Council’s websites that parts of Aberdeen (Wellington Road in particular) have serious air pollution issues.  We also know trees help reduce vehicular pollution.  In the course of my research I learned that the indigenous fir trees for the Grampian area have been greatly depleted over time – yet there is no plan to replace these native species.

Conclusion:  Stop this destructive, unwanted plan now and cancel any deer cull.  Plant fewer trees.  Plant in other locations

Unanswered questions
  • Regarding the business plan for the proposed forest.  How much will it make?  How disruptive would this plantation be to the area residents and businesses? 
  • Why does the City insist only a ‘minority’ of people are against this cull when elected bodies have objected on behalf of their communities?   If the Community Councils are lining up against this scheme – which started life as a Liberal Democrat election pledge – is it not just time to dump it?
  • Why didn’t the City disclose the £43,800 failure when asked to clarify whether a £44,000 debt existed?  
  • As the failure was due to deer and weeds – what are we doing about the weeds?  What kinds of pesticides will be used?  What are the risks and implications?
  • If the scheme is ‘cost neutral’ – who exactly pays the (low-seeming) estimate of some £2,500 per year for ten years to shoot the deer?
  • Have council employees been discouraged from expressing opinions against the cull? (My sources tell me this is the case).
  • Why take the scheme up at all if it must be done at the lowest cost – which is shooting the deer?  Who is hold a gun to the City’s head and forcing it to change Tullos Hill into something it is not?  What is the reluctance to just stop this scheme now?  Has the City made any effort at all to get sponsors to pay for the non-lethal options?  (Note: BAA and Wood Group have contributed for the phase 1 scheme – neither seem keen to be associated with this deer-culling phase 2.  Concerned people may wish to contact these and other companies to state opposition to phase 2).
  • What are the real arson risks once a forest is established on this windy hill (if indeed it is not too windy for trees to be established in great number)?   Is it possible the situation could be as severe a problem as the forest fires that plague the US and Europe?  What are the correct figures for the arson attacks?
A final summary

Last week a media contact asked me to supply the statement below, which sums up my conclusions and reflects the opinions of the vast majority of the people I have spoken with:-

The public have in no way given up on stopping the deer cull on Tullos Hill. Tullos is an important and beautiful ecosystem as it is, and the deer population has been stable for many years.   

Putting up signs to warn motorists that deer are in the area is sensible; putting 40,000 trees on this arson hotspot is not sensible.  Four Community Councils have told the Council they do not want the trees if it means a cull – these elected councils represent thousands of people. 

The City had to repay £43,800 for a planting on Tullos that failed due to deer browsing AND weeds.  The City initially omitted this when I asked for clarification- and I patiently await sensible answers to this and other questions. The tree planting was a Liberal Democrat election promise – it is amusing that it is this unpopular promise they are so stubborn about keeping. 

Finally, Peter Leonard has written to say that the Community Councils don’t understand the issues and they only know what they got from the media.  I find his remarks unbelievably patronising and insulting, particularly when it was down to the Council to communicate the details of its scheme in the first place. 

The Council kept the deer cull out of the phase 2 public consultation and is now claiming people don’t have the facts.  This is wholly unacceptable, and I am pleased that my sources tell me there is a great deal of unrest, with an official calling the situation ‘a hot potato’. 

Unfortunately the lack of timely, sensible answers looks to many people as if the City is stalling and hopes to get away with a cull.  There will be no cull without repercussions at the ballot box in May.

I am creating a presentation to give to any community council that wants it, particularly aimed at those councils which will have the City’s experts present their side.  Direct action is being considered by some animal rights/concern groups.

If you have any feelings one way or the other, then I urge you to contact your elected representatives (you may also wish to contact Scottish Representatives Roseanna Cunningham and Stewart Stevenson who are backing the proposal). 

Good luck to the roe deer and the wishes of the people of Aberdeen in the face of our government.

 Image Credit: Roe Deer Standing Still © Catalin Pobega | Dreamstime.com

Old Susannah No. 45 – Consultants, Cuts And Civic Cars

 Articles, Opinion, Satire and Humour  No Responses »
Jul 212011
 

Old Susannah looks back at the week that was and wonders who’s up to what and why.  By Suzanne Kelly.

dictionary
The Belmont Cinema’s screening the documentary ‘Just Do It’on Friday 12 August, and has asked me to come along for a discussion. It’s a film about people taking direct action against an unlistening, unmovable government and wealthy, powerful private entities, so it won’t be of much interest to the people of Aberdeen.

I guess they want someone to come along and stick up for the City and its rich business interests, and the Belmont thought of me. If you can make it, it will be at 6.30. Further details to follow.

The dodgy doings in Aberdeen are slightly outshone this week by the continuing twists and turns in the News Corp / News of the World saga.  One initial whistle-blower Sean Hoare was mysteriously found dead (‘nothing suspicious’ the police advised almost immediately. A Post Mortem will no doubt confirm this assessment).  

People are walking around Parliament with shaving-cream pies unchallenged by our crack security forces, Rupert knows nothing about anything, and Rebekah Brooks deserves an Oscar.

While I commend Private Eye Magazine for its coverage (only going back to 1969 or so) of Murdoch and his bid for world dominance at any cost, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that it has chosen to criticise our fair city in the same issue. 

The Eye implies that something was wrong with the City Garden Monitoring Group’s  ‘redacting’ (that’s blacking bits out to you and me) its minutes and reports.  Undoubtedly,  this was only done after careful thought and for reasons of national security.  I therefore hope no one is planning to buy Private Eye No. 1293 (on newsstands now, £1.50, subscription deals available).

I certainly hope no one will be reading its ‘Nooks and Corners’ feature (page 17) where our city’s elected officials are criticised.  There is also a piece in this issue entitled ‘Orwellian Nightmare’ – but as it happens, this is not about Aberdeen after all.

Not only are the redacted minutes mentioned in The Eye, but also Mike Shepherd’s open letter to the City regarding Union Terrace Gardens is covered.  Mike  if you’re out there:– just because the City doesn’t know what’s going to go in the Gardens, or how much it will cost, or what the environmental impact will be, or where the money will come from, or what the external design people are going to do does not necessarily mean the City doesn’t know what it’s doing.

Let’s hope Private Eye stops peering into our City – how else are they getting their information?

fantastic news that we’ve decided to hire some external consultants to figure out our City’s small financial problems  

It’s not as if anyone here would be so bold as to contact the Eye (strobes@private-eye.co.uk) and give information – particularly now that the Council has sent letters warning staff not to tell anyone anything about anything ever in any form.  I would hate to think of any secrets getting out.  Not that there are any secrets of course.

This week I wanted to take another look at how much our City is spending on essentials (like portraits, parties, clothing allowances, consultants, expenses and so on).  My curiosity sprang from the fantastic news that we’ve decided to hire some external consultants to figure out our City’s small financial problems.

The vote to hire these consultants may have been taken without any meaningful consultation, and these consultants will cost some £500,000 or more (that’s about £2 quid from each of us).  But I somehow feel we’re breaking new ground here by using outside consultants (although I seem to remember when Kate Dean was in charge, and she had absolutely no idea how many millions were spent on consultants).

It will be great having experts on hand – obviously we don’t have any in the City given the small salaries we pay our top people.  I’m sure the unions  will come around to the City’s way of thinking about consultants and cuts, even if a few jobs may wind up axed.   As a reminder, the City collected hundreds of suggestions from its own staff as to  how to save money some time ago.

The City will be sharing these suggestions with the consultants (you can refer to them as ‘con men’ for short), and I’ll bet that staff whose ideas are taken up will be financially compensated as well as credited for their ideas.  It’s not as if consultants would do anything lazy like take the good ideas on board and pass them off as their own ideas – that’s never going to happen.

I guess this will be a really tough assignment for the consultants – let’s wish them luck and not be surprised if they go a wee bit over budget. Expect some vibrant and dynamic bills to pay for these as-yet unnamed consultants who (I bet) will tell us to outsource services.  “What do you mean by  ‘outsourcing’?” I hear you say.

Outsource:

(verb, mod English – to move services from public sector control to the private sector).

So Aberdeen’s voted to bring in private consultants who will evaluate if services should be made private.  It will all be fine.  There is just one funny coincidence when cities outsource services at consultant’s recommendations – the consultants usually pick up more business for helping to  implement the outsourcing.  It is almost as if the consultants have some kind of incentive to recommend outsourcing.

In the health sector for instance, lots of dosh can be saved

Unkind people think consultants are self-interested greedy unaccountable entities, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  Remember, the City is  there to make money, not to waste tax money on good services and keeping our environment healthy.

We know from experience in the UK that outsourcing services such as healthcare is always a money-saving way to get better services in the end.  Local governments stop directly running services with its own staff, and then private service providers and subcontractors take over the service in question using the cheapest labour available.

Even though private companies exist to make a profit and the taxpayer still has to pay for the services (which almost always cost more when the private sector runs things), then at least the services are off the local authority’s books.  Which is a good thing.

In the health sector for instance, lots of dosh can be saved.  So what if our hospitals have crumbled, corners have been cut to make money at every turn, infections run rampant, and good nurses are leaving the profession in droves.  The private consultants still make money.   It’s not as if there have been any scandals, tales of incompetence or abuse of vulnerable people when the private sector takes over.

Usually a local authority puts one or two of its best people on the board of service providers and health boards to ensure perfection is achieved.  Grampian Health has Kate Dean for instance.  Southern Cross is a shining example of what we can expect in the ‘Deen should we keep outsourcing.

Civic Car

(noun peculiar to Aberdeen – a ride for dignitaries which has been well and truly ‘pimped,’ just in case royalty should come to town for a day or two ever).

I am getting far too excited by the prospect of the unveiling of the Lord Provost’s portrait.  I started to wonder how the Lord and his Lady (and the security guard) get around town.  I had hoped it was in a pumpkin-shaped horse-drawn coach.

At one point the horrific suggestion was made that the Civic Car should be a second-hand affair! 

Do they get around of their own accord?  Perhaps by a Honda Accord?  No, not an Accord, but a Civic.  No, not a Honda Civic – but The Civic Car.   (By the way our LP was spotted in Kingswells yesterday morning in some sort of football mum’s 4×4 near a grass verge with 3 other men – but a man like him needs more bling than that).

The existence of the Civic Car explains another excellent use of our Common Good Fund, and I for one could not be happier.

How much does a Civic Car take per year from our collective  Common Good fund?

Well, in 2009/10, here are the published figures for the upkeep of said Civic:-

Upkeep of Civic Car: budget £ 51,332; at 31 March 2010 £44,749 ‘estimated out turn’ £53,122
(Figures from Aberdeen City Council)

Clearly the salary isn’t enough to attract anyone to the Lord Provost role; it’s only £28k per year.  However, cruising in the Civic car for the Lord Provost alone cost… £23k.  In these days of economising, I’m glad to see standards haven’t fallen.  At one point the horrific suggestion was made that the Civic Car should be a second-hand affair!

Thankfully, there was no way they could find a second-hand car grand enough for the job, as you would rightly expect. Here’s why this symbol of Aberdeen’s status is more important than your local school, hospital, or service:-

“The level of baseline specification for the Civic Car has to give full consideration to the Lord Provost’s role as Lord-Lieutenant. The Lord Provost is Her Majesty’s representative when in Aberdeen. The official ‘Guide to the Role of Lord-Lieutenants’ says that “it is his first and foremost duty to uphold the dignity of the Crown”. The Civic Car is used during Royal Visits and has been used in the past to transport members of the Royal Family as part of these visits to Aberdeen.

“Other duties of the Lord-Lieutenant are to meet visiting Heads of State within Aberdeen, to represent The Queen or a member of the Royal Family at a funeral or memorial service when requested, to make nominations for invitations to Royal Garden Parties, to offer congratulations of 100th birthdays and significant wedding anniversaries, make nominations for honours and awards, presentation of awards and to support and participate in citizenship ceremonies. During the course of discharging some of these responsibilities, use of the Civic Car by the Lord-Lieutenant or his representative will be necessary”.

I confess:  I once allowed myself to imagine what it would be like to be Lord Provost.  You’d get the necklace.  You’d get the clothing allowance.  You’d even get trips to Edinburgh sometimes.  But having read the above job description, I realise no ordinary person could do all of that, and I now have the respect for this office that it truly deserves.  I hope all you council clerks and office staff realise now how comparatively easy you have it; in fact you might ask yourselves whether you are being overpaid.

And why am I so interested in all the City’s necessary expenditures like parties, flash cars, portraits, statutes, travel abroad and so on?  Because John Stewart is so concerned about such things.  Stewart’s so worried that in a recent vote concerning the future of Union Terrace  Gardens, he put up a motion to ‘change’ the gardens.   Part of his motion reads:-

“…that should the competition fail to produce a design acceptable to the Council, officers prepare a report for members detailing the costs of maintaining and enhancing the existing gardens”.

 Before we have our very own Lord Provost going about in a second-hand  ‘Beamer,’ it would be far smarter to see what those pesky gardens are costing us in petunias and rose bushes.

And quite right.  Before we have our very own Lord Provost going about in a second-hand ‘Beamer,’ it would be far smarter to see what those pesky gardens are costing us in petunias and rose bushes.  (from the looks of things, we have more than enough free fertiliser in the area).  As John famously said, there’s not much in the gardens but grass.

Who’s footing the bill for all this grass?  Why isn’t it turning a profit?  What can we do to stop this wasteful expense so we can have more to spend on consultants, pictures and parties?  Is there a consultant in the house?

In some 9 months you will be asked to vote for councillors; some of whom think they stand a good chance of getting re-elected.  These self-sacrificing souls will be happy to hear that Old Susannah will be creating a little matrix of how they’ve voted and what they’ve done (ie kerb-crawling,  misappropriation of public funds, and pub slap-ups).

For openers, here are the names of those who agree with John Stewart that we should get a report on the massive costs of keeping UTG going and all that grass growing:

For the amendment by Councillor John Stewart (23) – Lord Provost Peter Stephen (note – it’s great that our Civic Car man and artist’s model wants to save money by cutting out the gardens!) ; Depute Provost Dunbar; and Councillors Corall, Cormack, Cormie, Dean, Donnelly, Fletcher, Jaffrey, Kiddie, Leslie, McCaig, McDonald, Malone, May, Milne, Noble, Robertson, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart, John West, Wisely and Yuill.

I’m going to have to leave it there for now.  Between thinking about deer, Union Terrace Gardens, consultants, portraits and civic cars I’m starting to feel a little nauseous again (I was sick the past 4  days with a nasty stomach bug which I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies. Would I?).

Coming soon:  A look at our local government and quango Boards, and hopefully overdue news on my Freedom of Information Requests.

Tullos Time: What’s Happening On The Hill? – Part 1

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion  No Responses »
Jul 152011
 

In the first of two parts, Suzanne Kelly offers an update into what is and is not happening on the hill.

deer-tall1-pic
There may have not been much about the controversial Tullos Hill Roe Deer Cull in the media of late; therefore it’s time for an update.

The relative quiet in the media is not for lack of investigation, protest and anger on the community’s part.

As for the City and its LibDem councillors and officials, they are either spreading incorrect information (denying the past failure and £44k debt which resulted), or not answering questions at all (I eagerly await overdue answers on a number of fronts).

The question is:  are they trying to stall a proper investigation until they start shooting in September?  It looks as if stalling might indeed be their strategy.

There are so many outstanding issues, questions and problems with the Tullos Hill deer cull that this article needs to be split into two parts.  This part will look at the location chosen for the trees, Community Council’s stances and the small matter of arson.

Next week will cover issues including the SNH, the unanswered Freedom of Information requests and formal complaints, the importance of the gorse-covered hill as it exists (an expert writes), and the curious case of the £43,800 Forestry Commission ‘repayment.’  This repayment  Ms Watts either forgot about or didn’t know about when last she wrote to me.

Interestingly, Freedom of Information requests on this point are still being answered that no such debt exists. 

Either the council is being very very accurate (the debt was repaid late this March, but it most definitely existed), or someone was keen to keep the repayment quiet.  If so, they failed just as they failed in their bid to keep the cull quiet).

Before we get into the details, a small ray of hope: unnamed sources confirm that there is unease within the corridors of power over this ridiculous plan, with officials calling the situation ‘a hot potato’ and a ‘can of worms’.  Take heart from that, but please continue reading this article.

If at the end of it you decide you don’t want the cull, then write to your elected officials and Aberdeen City Chief Executive Valerie Watts, making it clear you will vote against anyone in May who has voted for this cull.

See: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1

Roe Deer
Deer have lived in relative security (bar the arsonists and Aileen Malone) on Tullos Hill for many decades; they delight the residents of Torry and Kincorth as well as people visiting from further afield. 

The hill is a wildlife haven as it is with the very important gorse providing homes to bees and birds, fields of wildflowers (the spectacular Dame’s Violets for instance).

It has bronze age cairns set dramatically on its summit (currently un-obscured by trees), and it is a recreation area.  This is why our City Council – as a LibDem election pledge – want to turn it into some gargantuan 40,000-tree profit-making (i.e. lumber-producing) forest.

Of all the Liberal Democrat promises, killing the deer and planting the trees is about the only one in the UK they are adamant about sticking to.

They told the community councils and the public at large what a great thing this forest would be – but as previously demonstrated, they and SNH deliberately sought to keep a cull of the Tullos Hill roe deer secret.  Without a cull, there is no money for planting all these trees (although we could have had experts advising us – for free – how to plant trees without culling deer:  it just would have cost money).  Why then we are insisting on a forest of this size or a forest at all, and why on Tullos Hill?

Location, Location, Location

If we accept without question that trees must be planted because we can get grants for doing so as long as they reach growth targets, then where to put them? 

The easily-accessible Loirston Loch greenbelt area has several young trees on it – all in tree protector sleeves (the same sleeves which the SNH November letter tells us are rejected because they have ‘visual impact’ among other reasons – someone at ACC took this decision to reject tree protectors for us all with no recourse to the public or local councils).  There was a splendidly suitable area for these trees – but we are putting a football / community stadium on this piece of ground now.

This virtually flat land is easily reached by car (Tullos at present has no parking and is mainly reached by several footpaths), is not on a windswept hill, and is not as remote as Tullos – therefore less desirable to arsonists.  It is a largely open field with grasses and some vegetation in very moist, nearly marshy ground.

Loirston was not the only option either.  But this is Aberdeen:   Tullos Hill is apparently the only choice we have, according to our Council.  They are happy to sacrifice greenbelt at Loirston and elsewhere for stadiums, offices and housing – but are adamant that an existing, stable ecosystem must become a forest:  and they will not answer us why.

Fire on the Mountain

For all the City rangers’ and Grampian Fire’s attempts to be ‘down with the kids’, the arson issue remains the burning question:  why put 40,000  young trees on a windswept hill with access issues which is next to settlements and industry when we can’t keep the arsonists out?

Ranger Ian Talboys is at pains to play down the arson issue.   In an email to myself, 6 June 2011 he states:

“As the trees to be planted are mainly broadleaved species which do not readily burn in the way gorse does the risk of fire is reduced.   The conifers in the scheme will be mixed in with the broadleaved species again reducing the risk of large scale fire damage….. The recent statistics have shown a substantial reduction in wilful fire raising on the site, despite the recent incidents.

“It is however encouraging that the Police have charged a number of youths in connection with these fires as a result of intelligence gained from the local community and following the work we have been doing with the local schools over the last 5 years.  In the last couple of years there have been very few fires on Tullos Hill, a total of some 11 fires were reported for 2010 on Kincorth Hill and Tullos Hill combined….”

Mr Talboys also talks about getting rid of the gorse, which:

“reduces the risk of wilful fires”

Gorse is a vital part of the ecosystem, particularly on Tullos Hill which we will look at later.  However it is disappointing that the attitude is to get rid of a natural feature which supports wildlife because it is more flammable (allegedly) than trees – rather than to simply stop the arsonists.

Who are the arsonists, and is Talboys right that the fires are decreasing?  So far this year there have been at least a dozen fires.  Two men aged 27 and 23 are being charged with starting fires on 3 July:  so much for the idea of stopping the schoolchildren starting fires, which is the strategy Talboys promotes.

American studies identify half a dozen types of arsonists; these two would fit into the ‘excitement-motivated’ arson category, often men between 18-30.  Blaming children was the favourite option; it is now discredited.  The Council may wish to do more research on this one.

You may be interested to know that Talboy’s figures are slightly at odds with figures supplied by Grampian Fire.  Then again, media reports would seem to say there have been more fires than either of these sources.  I would love to tell you what Grampian Fire had to say:  but they have qualified that their statistics are subject to copyright and are for personal use and not publication!  I await clarification and will report once they explain themselves.

At least someone in power loves Tullos.  When the fires were blazing in May of this year, Fraser Burr of Grampian Fire (Risk Reduction) told the BBC:

“It would be a shame to see such a beautiful area of the city, enjoyed by hundreds throughout the year, ruined by wilful fire raising”. – (BBC News 22 May 2011)

I spoke to a New York-based former fire department captain; he seriously disputes Talboy’s contention that young or mature trees are relatively safe from fire. California for one example habitually fights forest fires that are vast in area; the size of the trees makes the fire considerably more dangerous than a few burning gorse bushes.  Wind makes the problem far worse.

Fact:  Tullos Hill is extremely windy at times.  People often need to be evacuated from their homes when the fires rage (also seen in Europe) – who will promise this will not happen here with 40,000 trees virtually on top of residential and industrial areas as Tullos is?  My fire-fighter source said ‘there is no magic plant that doesn’t burn’.

He also posed a hypothetical question and asked me why these people are so fixed on planting these trees in this location.  I have asked, but I have no answer.  He then jokingly said ‘who’s getting kickback?’  We both laughed.

Your Community Councils at work

When the truth came out about the secret cull plans, community councils and citizens (in their thousands) condemned the plan and the way the City handled the public ‘phase 2’ consultation.  How did your local community council react?

I am writing this piece on the 13th of July.  The Minute of the Housing & Environment Committee meeting of May 10 is still not available on the Council’s website a mere 2 months after the fact.  It was at this meeting that Andy Finlayson and I had both put in delegations to speak about the deer cull and Tullos Hill, for all the reasons that had emerged since the cull was first brought up.

It was because there was no written report on the deer – only a verbal one which had been requested by Malone – that we were not automatically allowed to speak.  Abuse of process springs to mind.  In the event, the matter of our delegations was put to a vote and only a handful of councillors supported letting the truth be heard.

I have been waiting to check the accuracy of these Minutes; for one thing I admit I got confused as to whether Andy Finlayson was from Nigg or rather from Cove (which I now understand to be the truth).  Finlayson was the other would-be speaker.  Maybe after another two months have passed, the Minutes will be published and I can double-check this point.

But take note:  in another two months it will be the season for the cull:  could our City be deliberately stalling us until it is too late for the deer?

Community Councils are your elected local representatives.  The City has a duty to consult with them on local issues – something sadly lacking on this issue, let alone the massive Loirston AFC football ground which will fragment the greenbelt.  Nigg CC is very busy with this important issue.

The City is not consulting, and it is certainly not listening.  Here are what the Councils are saying – how did yours react?

Kincorth (population 8,300) –  ‘Abhorrence’

Kincorth Community Council resolved at its May 2011 meeting:

“Item 10.1 The City Council has agreed to the killing of the deer on Tullos Hill but have stated it will be done as humanely as possible. The Chair asked the Secretary to write indication our abhorrence at this decision”.

Kincorth spokesperson Graham Bennett, quoted in the Press & Journal, 13 May:

“We are all united.  We deplore the willingness of the City Council to cull the deer.  We all agreed we didn’t want a tree planted for every citizen.  These are defenceless animals.  We would rather do without the trees and have the deer.”

I spoke to a member of Kincorth CC; they are all outraged and want the hill to remain as it is, with the deer continuing to live there.  My contact cites the fact that the ‘phase 2 consultation’ said nothing about the deer cull, yet mentioned rabbit fencing.

This is one of the strongest points of contention – the public and community councils were deliberately kept in the dark about the deer cull.  This is proved clearly in the 25 November letter the SNH sent to the City Council, stating the need to ‘manage’ the public over the cull.

It seems SNH are fully aware that culling these animals in general is an issue – but to kill animals in order to protect non-existent trees is ‘abhorrent’.  (More about the SNH and its recent deer consultation next week).  The word ‘abhorrent’ is also how the Scottish Society for the Protection of Animals and Kincorth Community Council describe this LibDem plan.

Torry  (population c 9,400) –  Unanimous condemnation of the cull

Torry Community Council allowed me to speak at its meeting in May on the cull; they had been informed about the trees in some detail – minus the crucial detail of the deer cull.  

The 14 members present voted unanimously to condemn the cull and to write to the City to protest the cull and the lack of consultation.  Talboys specifically communicated with Torry about the trees, without ever mentioning a deer cull.

To put it mildly, the Council and the residents of Torry are Not Happy.

Cove & Altens (population 7,100) –  Chairman gagged by Malone

On 10th May Cove’s Chairman Andy Finlayson attempted to address the Housing & Environment Committee over the cull and all the issues which had arisen (lack of consultation with CCs, no reference made in the public consultation documents, etc.).

Aileen Malone initially referred to him as the ‘gentleman from Cove Community Centre’ as opposed to his status as duly-elected Council member.  On the technicality of there being no written report on the deer – only a verbal one – Cove’s representative was unable to raise the many points which the Council had kept out of the public domain which were relevant to the tree scheme.

“We are totally against it, basically… the community council is unanimous and everyone in the area we speak to is against it…the message is, stuff the trees – we would rather have the deer.” – Andy Finlayson, Chair, Cove & Altens CC, Press & Journal 13 May 2011

Nigg  (population 8,200)  – a history of concern for animal welfare

“I think the majority of the Community Council are against it (the cull)” – James Brownhill, Nigg CC – Press & Journal, 13 May 2011

Nigg is committed to preserving its greenbelt land as its actions and its website attest.  It is doing all it can to stop the ridiculous AFC stadium plans which will see a 21,000 seat stadium plunked in the middle of the greenbelt to its permanent injury.  A year ago, the Nigg Community Council April Minutes had this entry:

“Lochinch Visitors Centre Deer-  thanks to activity of Cllr Cooney, Nigg CC, Jenny Gall and Vivienne McCulloch, deer had been saved from culling and will live out their lives in their current (but reduced) enclosure.”

Before the furore broke out over Tullos Hill, Councillor Neil Cooney and others from Nigg were already going to bat against needless slaughter of our indigenous animals when tame deer were earmarked for needless slaughter.

One year later at its 14 April 2011 meeting, Nigg CC resolved:

“Proposed Deer Cull Tullos Hill – Majority against proposal. Lack of deer management policy holding up planting of trees under ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme.”

Nigg’s Council met again on 12 May 2011 after the Housing Committee’s undemocratic debacle over the deer and would-be speakers.  Nigg’s minutes read:

“Proposed Deer Cull Tullos Hill. Decision to cull deer city-wide approved by ACC Councillors. SNH recommended cull to save deer from starvation. Nigg CC still not happy with this decision”.

I disagree with the comment about starvation, and wonder if SNH have actually said the deer at Tullos will starve – they are in no present danger of that as things stand.  But this is a very minor point concerning the minutes.  When it comes to accuracy in Minute taking, Cults has managed to create an interesting document indeed.

Cults:  (population 10,824)  – An important debate with Cllr Aileen Malone

I spoke to Cults Bieldside Milltimber Community Council on 26 May where Aileen Malone and I finally had the debate she had so far resisted (again, she would not let me speak to the Housing committee which she convenes; and she was too busy one Sunday morning in May to spare 20 minutes to debate the issue with me on Northsound).

In my initial request to speak to Cults, I sent them newspaper cuttings that Torry, Kincorth, Nigg and Cove & Altens Community Councils were opposed to the scheme, as well as the Scottish SPCA.  I sent them articles on the SNH letter which shows the City wanted to keep the cull quiet.  In these circumstances I was asking Cults CC to let me address its May meeting and specifically to follow suit.

The community council meeting that ensued was interesting (and heated) on several points.  Mike Shepherd of Friends of Union Terrace Gardens was there to discuss the future of the gardens, and Aileen Malone stated that there would definitely be a public vote on whether to go ahead with any scheme for Union Terrace Gardens.

At my request she repeated this was the truth, and that the only question unresolved was whether residents in the shire as well as the city would get a vote.

I wrote an article on this Cults BM CC meeting.  I wrote it that night and the next day with my own shorthand notes taken on the night (amongst other things, I have been a secretary minuting meetings for some 25 years, and like to think I have some skill and experience in this area).

My notes reflect that Cults BM CC was going to write to Aberdeen City Council to express a position opposed to the Tullos Cull; I asked the secretary on the night if I could have a copy of any letter they sent; the secretary agreed.
See: you’re-shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-cults-cc-tells-malone

This is what came out in the Cults BM CC Minutes for that meeting:

“Tullos Hill Deer Cull (Peter Reiss)

The Community Council had been made aware of resentment in parts of the city towards the plans to cull some of the local roe deer, seemingly triggered by the need to limit damage to new trees to be planted on Tullos Hill. Suzanne Kelly a Torry resident had written to CBMCC to ask if the CC would take a position on this matter.

In discussion the following points were made:

– The tree planting drive is an election commitment of the current LibDem administration

– Funding from EU and other sources requires best practice and best value for money.

– Due to problems with earlier plantings, City will not get any more funding for tree planting unless a robust roe deer management programme is in place,

– Deer have no natural predators in Scotland. Aberdeenshire, Moray and private estates have a deer cull policy in place. Aberdeen City has management programmes for several other wild animals – e.g., rabbits – but not one for deer.

– A management programme that includes an annual deer cull of about 30 animals has been agreed recently by the City’s Environment Committee. This is a city wide programme but will help to reduce damage to new plantings in Tullos  where some 10 to 15 deer will be culled.

– Objectors say that there has been insufficient consultation on this programme. They would prefer fencing or other positive tree protection rather than killing deer. They are extremely unhappy about the Committee’s request to them to raise £225 000 for 10 years deer fencing as there is no council money to pay for that alternative.

The CC resolved that the deer culling policy appears to be a separate issue not just related to the planting of trees.

Post –meeting note: City tree specialists have been invited to speak in the next community council meeting.”

(Cults Bieldside Milltimber Community Council Minute 26 May 2011)

I have added italics to the excerpt above where the minutes have gone back to repeating verbatim the City Council’s double-speak, sweeping statements about deer culls in general.  Readers of previous stories or Council documents will find a familiar ring to the Cults minutes.

General tree planting issues aside, the Tullos Hill deer have survived in the existing ecosystem – an ecosystem enjoyed by the public as well which the neighbouring Community Councils have clearly said they want kept as is.

I have  also italicised the ‘post meeting note’ wherein someone has invited tree specialists to speak at the June meeting (I would have gone to that had I been informed or had I seen these May minutes in time).  So, without any counterpoint some ‘tree experts’ were called in to explain the City’s perspective on killing deer and planting trees.  Again, who was there to explain all of the issues specific to Tullos?

I will look at those minutes when they are issued.   

It now transpires that Peter Leonard, council officer, is deploying council tree experts to speak to the community councils.  This is what Leonard has to say (I have put the particularly objectionable phrases in bold) in a Freedom of Information Request answer:

“The Community Councils who have objected have not been in possession of the full picture of the project, some who have no planting areas within their areas will have had no information about the project from the team delivering the project as there was no requirement to consult on a project that was not within their area.

“Officers from Housing and Environment have offered to attend the community councils who have written in opposing the cull (Kincorth & Leggart and Cults Bieldside and Milltimber, Cove and Altens Community Councils) to present the full picture about The Tree for Every Citizen Project including the deer management proposals so they can make an informed decision.

“To date any decision they will have made will have been based on the information published in the media which has not given the full and balanced picture. Officers will be prepared to undertake similar presentations to other community councils covering areas where there are sites proposed for tree planting if invited.”

Personally, I find his comments about the community councils’ decision-making process extremely patronising: how does he know where these elected groups got information from and why does he assume it is only from the media? If people are not in full possession of all the facts this is the Council’s fault – they launched the ‘phase 2 consultation’ over six months ago, and it was a very flawed document. I certainly have been asking for information since then, largely without any real answer.

There is currently no plantation of young trees on Tullos requiring a cull.  The whole point is that there do not need to be this number of trees there, and the local community councils representing some 25,000 people said they do not want the trees.

Attention city officials and councillors:

These two reasons alone should be enough to stop your plans.  But if this is not enough for you, then we will examine your past planting failure and your cavalier attitude towards facts as well as other issues next week. 

Do feel free to weigh in – remember, Aberdeen Voice wants articles from all points of view.  Nothing is stopping you from making your point.

 

Old Susannah’s Journal No.38 – Special Deer Email Supplement

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour  No Responses »
Jun 032011
 

Voice’s Old Susannah shares with readers an recent email exchange with a prominent Aberdeen City councillor which has raised many more questions than answers.

dictionary
A long, long time ago people learned about reasoned debate, how to structure logical arguments, and what the difference was between the rational and irrational.

Then again, some of us must have skipped school that day.

Let me share a recent chain of emails between me and Councillor Neil Fletcher with you. It started as a correspondence on the subject of the Tullos Hill Roe deer, and turned into something else.

First let’s just review how our elder statesmen – our experienced, mature elected officials – have handled the whole deer cull and tree issue. At first, we were happy: a tree for every citizen was an election pledge of the Liberal Democrats.

There were no worries, no costs, no deer cull – just trees. The tree planting phase 2 consultation passed with barely a word; after all, the consultation only said we might have to move some rabbits – deer didn’t get a look in.

Then March arrived and Cllr. Aileen Malone’s Housing & Environment Committee comes up with a new promise: give us £225,000 by 10 May or we promise to start shooting deer. No one knew about a cull before then; animal charities and sensible people were outraged, and most of us pledged not to give in to this blackmail. Protests and petitions were launched, but nothing would sway the Lib Dems. Democratic debate was stifled – at least until 26 May when the Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council let the issue be discussed.
See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/05/you’re-shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-cults-cc-tells-malone/

Coming out of these discussions we learnt directly from the horse’s mouth (as it were) that unless the trees all reach a certain height in 2 years, the City has to pay back the grant money!

So there it is at the end of May – the most important factor in whether or not to plant trees on an arson target.

I wonder whether someone should have mentioned this just a wee bit earlier? Then we could have all laughed away any thought of Tullos Hill being suitable for the trees. The Council and its ‘experts’ don’t seem concerned about arson – the deer might nibble the trees, making them shorter – and you and I would have to stump up for the tree stumps. Tree planting – best to leaf it out, I think. But the Lib Dems are now out on a limb, as they are now saying in effect ‘well, we did ask for quarter of a million, but we have to shoot the deer anyway’.

What kind of people can come up with such disorganised, illogical, constantly shifting set of priorities? Old Susannah is on hand to answer that question.

I think Ms. Malone has shown us the kind of person she is: trustworthy, open, sensible and not at all stubborn. But what of our other guiding lights on the Council? How are they handling the pressure to stick to their moral high ground faced with ‘people like me?’

Let’s look at some correspondence between me and Mr Cool, aka Cllr. Neil Fletcher. I’d been copying him on email and occasionally writing directly to him. I’m not so sure he kens the difference.

Here are three emails:-

1. Neil Fletcher’s response to an email from myself (he is only on my email as a ‘CC’ not as addressee:

Dear Ms Kelly
I’m afraid we will simply not agree on this issue.
I see the culling of deer as a necessary, if unpleasant, measure to control a
species of animal in a non-natural environment, which has no natural predators. (I)
I believe that a cull is preferable to allowing the deer numbers in any area to
control themselves by starvation.
Culls happen all the time in Scotland, including Aberdeen, and I’m disappointed
that on this occasion, what is a widely accepted measure of animal control, is
being used to oppose the largest re-forrestation project the City has ever seen.

Additionally, this project is at practically no cost to the tax-payer. (II)
As you are not a constituent of mine, I do not intend to continue any further
correspondence with you on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Neil Fletcher

2. My reply to the above, sent on the morning of Sunday 29 May:

Good morning Mr Fletcher

Firstly the email was merely copied to you; you were not an addressee. I was doing so merely as a courtesy – and in the slim hope that as a Liberal Democrat you will realise that, in the words of the Cults Community Council leader ‘you do not have the people with you’ over this Tullos Hill affair.

Still thank you for your reply. It is regrettable that you are either unwilling or unable to separate the general, wide-ranging of culling from the specific Tullos Hill situation – a stable population of deer are to be decimated to turn their ecosystem into a forest – in an arson hotspot. Whether or not culling is required on a larger picture, a whole host of animal charities, no less the Scottish SPCA are condemning the plan to kill the Tullos Hill deer to transform Tullos Hill into a forest from an open, windswept meadow.

You still seem able to grasp that in terms of transparency, democratic process and duplicity, the handling of this situation is unacceptable.

I do have one unrelated question for you Councillor – is your Register of Interests up-to-date and correct? I only ask as a. you had absolutely no hospitality entries for the whole of 2010, and b. someone had told me – obviously they must be wrong – that you might have been involved in some way in a business which was doing some work for the City Council.

You list no directorships under ‘Section 3 Contracts’ (which for some reason has sub points numbered from 4.15). I am happy to accept that you had no hospitality in 2010 and have absolutely no connection whatsoever to a business or consultancy which is/was doing any business with the Council if you confirm this is true. Again, if the Register is completely correct on these two points, then I thank you in advance for clarifying that for me.

Yours sincerely

Suzanne Kelly

3.  And then – Cllr. Fletcher to me this past Sunday evening:-

Dear Ms Kelly

My register of interests is correct.

I admire your logic. He doesn’t agree with me, so he must be corrupt and I’ll
get him. (III)

I now avoid anything that I can that would require registering an interest.
Precisely because of emails like yours. (IV)

I used to go to various events to represent the Council, and when these were
registered, people like you pointed fingers. (V)

The Lord Provost now has trouble getting Councillors to go to such things, but
as I’d rather be in the pub or community centre with my mates than attend a
stuffy evening with a bunch of strangers, its a great excuse not to go. (VI)
As regards your allegations about me not registering a previous business
interest, I haven’t spoke to that gentleman for over 2 years, so it’s unlikely
I’d have anything to declare now. (VII)

Interestingly, Cllr Willie Young, who publicised my perfectly legitimate
interest in the hope that folk like you would jump to certain conclusions,
recently sold Oakbank School to that property developer at a price significantly
lower than it is worth with the housing that will be build there. He is also a
property developer himself. (VIII)

However, the Labour Group, whilst initially supporting the need for a cull, have
done a few somersaults to appear to be backing you now. So I doubt you’d be
interested raising doubts about his honesty. (IX)

Neil Fletcher

For the record, I have omitted nothing. I was being polite, but it looks as if I have hit a nerve or opened an old wound which I truly didn’t know existed – until just recently that is.

When I asked about a consultancy, I was referring to some new piece of information a source had suggested might be true. It is time to look into some of his wilder statements. In the emails above I have added Roman numerals in places, and would comment as follows:-

(I) Cllr. Fletcher keeps going to the general statement ‘culls are needed / culls happen’.

This has nothing to do with killing the Tullos Hill deer to turn their ecosystem into a forest. I have been to the Hill; I have no idea what Fletcher means when he says the deer live in an ‘unnatural’ environment. The laws of physics apply on Tullos Hill, and plants were growing. It seemed to be an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. No, the deer have no natural predators on the hill (except arsonists). Fact: Roe Deer bucks rarely exceed 5 years, does 6 to 7 years.

(II) Cllr. Fletcher says this tree-planting is at ‘practically no cost to the taxpayer.

If the trees reach a certain height that is true. If you don’t count the cost of a minimum £2,000 annually to kill 8 or 9 of the 30 deer (Council quote – other quotes are higher) for at least 3-5 years. And if the arsonists burn enough trees – we return all the grant money. Money of course does not grow on trees (however you protect them). The grant money is coming from the public purse. Hands up who knows how the money gets into the public purse in the first place.

(III) Cllr Fletcher is annoyed. The Register of Interests is a mandatory document all councillors have to keep accurate, up-to-date, and public (have a look – his is here – http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=150&T=6 )

I don’t know where to start as to the accuracy of the document and its contents. Its first page says it was updated in January 2011. On the last few pages there is an unsigned space for signature for Jan MacEachran (democratic services) and Neil – the dates for their non-existent signatures are 2007. Cllr. Fletcherl’s record shows he attended not a single solitary event in 2010 for the council or as hospitality. He did get to dozens of events in 2009 – I was merely wondering if the absence of 2010 was another error in the document.

The numbering is interesting. Item No. 3 – concerning Contracts – is sub-numbered starting with no. 4.15. Not how we do it where I work. Hmm.

(IV) Cllr. Fletcher says he is avoiding going to events.

Well, he did avoid going to any events he’d have to register in 2010. He’s lost this reluctance now – the document was prepared (apparently) in January 2011. The last two hospitality entries are for January 2011 – a cruise on a ship, and an evening at an arts centre. I do note that barely a single event – even those where the ticket price would have been printed on the ticket – is shown.  If the average price of a ticket at AECC is £20, and he is getting at least two tickets or more a time, he is a lucky man.

(V) ‘People like me’ Cllr. Fletcher writes.

I would quite like to have a description of ‘people like me’ from Mr Fletcher. I doubt he would like to be stereotyped.

(VI) Ah, yes: pity the poor councillor who’d rather be in the pub with his mates.

Instead, he was forced in 2009 to represent his constituents at approximately 20 events – mainly concerts at the AECC. Official regulations say that councillors should not accept a large number of invites/tickets from one source (like the AECC), These dull events included Eddie Izzard, Neil Young, Britain’s Got Talent, Gladys Knight, Kasabian, Proclaimers, Simple Minds….. the sound you can hear is my heart going out to him.

(VII) ‘That gentleman’ – What gentleman? I wondered what on earth he was talking about – it wasn’t the story I was trying to follow up on.

So –it was time for a bit of research. It seems that some time ago, shortly after being elected, Cllr. Fletcher set up a company and did a wee bit of consultancy work (for about £7,000) for Carlton Rock. There was talk of this not being declared during a potentially related council vote. Nothing came of it – but it made headlines. But this story came out of left field for me. If I thought that was out of the blue, there was more to come.

(VIII) Well. The last thing I expected in my dealings with Neil Fletcher was for him to bring up Cllr. Willie Young. It was something of a shock I must say. What I did to raise Cllr. Young is beyond me.

(IX) It looks as if Neil Fletcher is implying that Labour councillors are wrong to have changed their minds over the tree situation.

I can’t find a single record of Labour councillors saying ‘we need to kill the Tullos Deer’ – it looked as if they were trying to find an alternative, even when the blackmail money was first mooted. If Labour is going back on the idea of the tree planting – it may be for two reasons. One – the overwhelming evidence now out in the open that the plan is deeply, deeply flawed – and that relevant material was not made public until after the consultation closed.

The other reason is they may be sensitive to the thousands who have signed petitions and sent letters begging for the cull to be averted and humane deer control methods to be used – and expressing the view that Tullos Hill is not the best location for tree planting. If Labour have indeed ‘done somersaults’ and are on the side of the people – I fail to see what’s wrong with that.

Sorry to have been so long-winded – but this is information Aberdeen voters and citizens should be made party to.

When the results of my complaint about Councillor Fletcher’s email are made known – I will write on this subject again.

“You’re Shooting Yourself In The Foot” – Cults CC Tells Malone

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Breaking, Featured, Opinion  No Responses »
May 272011
 

Voice’s Suzanne Kelly reports from a dramatic meeting ( 26.05.11 ) of  Cults, Bieldside & Milltimber Community Council she was kindly invited to attend as a guest, and took the opportunity to discuss the roe deer cull  in person with Cllr. Aileen Malone, Convener of the Housing and Environment Committee responsible for the decision.

Protestors Deliver A Petition Of Nearly 2,500 Signatures To Cllr Aileen Malone

Lib Dem Councillor Aileen Malone avoided debating with me the Tullos Hill Roe Deer cull she supports  on Northsound 2 a fortnight ago.

She ‘had a prior engagement’ and could not spare 20 minutes over the phone on a Sunday morning to give Aberdeen her reasons for wanting the deer shot.

Cllr. Malone successfully silenced me and the Nigg Community Council representative when we wanted to debate the cull issue at the 10 May Housing & Environment Committee meeting.  We weren’t allowed to speak to the Committee because there was no written report on the cull  – just a verbal report.  It didn’t matter to the Committee (except for four members) that new information had come to light, and the Community Councils wanted to be heard.

After the Housing Committee voted to get on with killing the deer to plant ‘a tree for every citizen,’ Malone told the media she hoped that would be an end to the controversy.  With thousands of petitioners, four protesting community councils, and various animal charities against the cull, this was wishful thinking taken to a new level.
See: Tullos Hill Picnic

I was not alone in making complaints about the handling of the deer cull and tree planting issues to Aberdeen City Council.  It is hoped that any cull will be halted until a proper investigation and a democratic, fully informed debate can be held.  The 10 point report I prepared as a basis for my complaint is attached at the end of this article.  ( click here )

It had been circulated to the members of the Housing Committee and to  Cults, Bieldside & Milltimber Community Council, where Ms Malone is an elected City Councillor.   I told them I would like to attend their next meeting as a guest on this issue, and they kindly invited me along.

Having served as a Community Council member myself, I was not surprised to hear they have some of the same issues I remembered from my days on Torry’s Council – litter, tree pruning, and so on.

I was surprised to find Mike Shepherd, Chair of the Friends of  Union Terrace Gardens at this meeting.  He gave a presentation on the state of play of the design competition, and what funding might be used for any scheme.  To his surprise and mine, Councillor Aileen Malone made a promise that was both dramatic and new to Mike and me.

Cllr. Malone categorically stated  and repeated this promise:  after a final design for the gardens is chosen, the people will have a vote on whether to go with the design – or to leave Union Terrace Gardens undeveloped (which could include some improvements and amenities)

She was not sure whether or not this would be only for the people of Aberdeen – perhaps the Shire would be voting as well:  but she was adamant this was the case.  So Friends of Union Terrace Gardens – do not despair just yet.  She also confirmed twice that “not a penny” of City Council money would be used to develop the gardens.  No doubt Mike Shepherd will have more to say on these matters.

Back to the deer...

The Cults, Bieldside & Milltimber Community Council Chairman, Peter Reiss opened the deer debate by saying he attended a recent Civic Forum meeting – and was struck that on the subject of the deer cull, there was virtual agreement across the ages and across the boards against the cull.  “For outsiders looking in, this looks like a no-brainer:  let’s put the trees elsewhere” he said.

Cllr. Aileen Malone
Ms Malone tried to use arguments which had already been dismissed in the press – not least in the Aberdeen Voice.  She said that expert advice had been given.  I countered, and explained to the Councillors that someone had briefed the SNH against the non-lethal measures (as shown in a letter of 25 November from SNH to the council), and offers from experts – who had knowledge and experience of ways to plant trees without killing deer – was refused.

I told the Council that the SNH letter proves someone had said tree guards were out because ‘they had visual impact.’  This did not sit well with the Cults Council at all.  I explained that the phase 2 consultation documents made no mention of any deer cull – again, the councillors sided with me.

By now an increasingly desperate Ms Malone explained that the tree  planting was ‘A Liberal Democrat manifesto promise’ – as if that were justification of some sort.

Other council attendees had comments for her position such as:

“Aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot,”

“other forms of deer control should be paramount”,

“think about the reaction you have had here tonight – it looks like a stupid thing to do:  you have not won the argument.”

Amazingly Ms Malone tried two further tactics.  One was to make general sweeping comments that deer culls are necessary, and her earlier, discredited ploy that only a handful of people initially objected to her in writing, and most were animal activists.

I reminded her that the full story had not come out immediately – the phase 2 consultation made no mention of the cull for Tullos Hill, and it had been subsequently proved that I was one of those who had written to her with my address opposing the cull.  She had gone to the Press and Journal at first, saying ‘only about one’ person from Aberdeen had objected to the cull. She later made private apologies – but none through the Press & Journal, leaving readers of it with the wrong impression.

Animal lovers and activists might be interested in two further statements Councillor Malone made at the meeting.

  • Firstly, there has been permission in place to kill the Tullos Hill Roe Deer since March.  The Council still are not answering questions about when the shooters will be sent in – I have asked – and if anyone else cares to ask the Council, it may help.
  • Secondly, Malone alludes to plans to kill the deer at Bridge of Don.

Some Councillors were all in favour of culls of animals – where the animals are in danger of starvation or over population.  They were reminded that 30 deer live on Tullos Hill.  Malone seemed to say that 9 to 12 of these would be shot now, and the shooting would go on.

She had no real answer why the £225,000 for ten years of fencing / protection was demanded up front.  One person present said:

“no one in their right mind would put their hands in their pockets” for protection in the circumstances – i.e. not knowing exactly what they were paying for or for how long.

I reminded those present that there were  plenty of ways to have deer and trees together.  One councillor suggested having less trees planted. I reminded everyone of the Scottish SPCA position on the matter – the Tullos Hill deer would be killed not because it was for their safety/health – but to plant trees .  “Abhorrent and absurd” were how the Scottish SPCA put it.

At the end of the day the Council decided to draft a letter to the City.  The debate was closed with Peter Reiss saying to Ms Malone “you have not taken the public with you, and people are saying “this is ridiculous”.  It was suggested this might even damage Ms Malone’s political career.

And that is where we leave it for now.

But one thing is certain, the opposition to the cull has not gone away by a very long shot.   If nothing else, the Cults, Bieldside & Milltimber Community Council gave me the democratic forum for debate that I could find nowhere else:  I am extremely grateful to them.

Suzanne Kelly’s 10 point report – Click here. – Please consider writing to Aberdeen City Council’s Housing and Environment Committee in support of this formal complaint.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries