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.

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.

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.

May 112011
 

By Suzanne Kelly.

·    Housing & Environment Committee refuse to hear Kelly and representative from Nigg Community Council

·    Deer Cull to go ahead

Two Thousand And Four Hundred area residents signed a petition asking for the Tullos Hill Roe Deer cull to be scrapped.  Two Thousand people from around the world likewise signed petitions.
Torry Community Council were kept in the dark about a cull; Nigg Community Council wished to speak on the subject today.  The initial consultation for the public to comment on said nothing about a cull.

In the 21st century in an allegedly democratic society, the above facts should have ensured that the proposed deer cull – designed to allow 40,000 trees to be planted – would have been debated and properly examined.  You might even think that local people would have had a say in the destruction of a generations-old population of perfectly harmless deer.

You might even have thought that those pushing for a cull would stop for a moment and wonder if they were possibly making a mistake.  And if you were really really an optimist, you might think that these same people bent on the destruction of the deer would have allowed people to talk about it – maybe even let Councillors have a vote on the matter.

You would be wrong.

I first got involved after Jeanette Wiseman wrote an article for the Aberdeen Voice.  In writing my follow-up, I was struck by how secretive the deer cull had been kept by those in power, seemingly favouring trees over deer (see ‘Shhh! – Don’t Mention the Pre-planned Deer Cull, Aberdeen Voice).  I was happy to help the animal organisations such as Animal Concern and Aberdeen Animal Action with further publicity and research.  I did my best as a spokesperson.

This Monday a small delegation presented Aileen Malone with a paper petition signed by 2,400 people – mostly people who live within Aberdeen.  Lush – who have been outstanding in their support and energy towards stopping the cull – came along, as did Jeanette, and Fred Wilkinson of the Voice.  We met the Press, presented the signatures, and hoped this would have some impact on Malone.

Yesterday, Tuesday 10th May I might have had a chance to address the Housing & Environment Committee.  Not only had Malone sent me an email saying they would vote on the cull, but the extraordinary lack of consultation with Torry Community Council had – or rather should have – been grounds for speaking.

Anne Begg is on record as saying ‘I see this (demand for money) as an appalling attempt to fudge their responsibility.’

If as has been shown, the Community and the people had been kept in the dark about the cull  – then how could the Committee continue as if nothing wrong had been done?   Surely all of the elected members would want to know how extremely badly the pro-cull Councillors and City officials had acted.

If the Nigg Community Council (which probably should have been consulted, too) had seen fit to send a delegate to this Committee meeting, surely the Councillors would want to know what the people of Nigg wanted to say?  Certainly  not.

First, Malone addressed the Nigg Delegate as being from ‘Nigg Community Centre’.  “Nigg  Community Council” several people shouted.  She corrected herself.  Tut, tut:  Nigg had MISSED THE DEADLINE TO ASK TO SPEAK.  Malone made a move to have his deputation request rejected.  Someone else suggested that my request and the Nigg request should be jointly put to a vote.

( See Suzanne Kelly’s intended  Speech – https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/05/a-plea-for-the-deer-a-speech-unspoken/ )

It was on an incredible technicality that Aileen Malone suggested we should not be allowed to speak.  No physical, paper report had been attached to todays Housing & Environment Committee Meeting’s papers.  The previous meeting’s minutes reported that ‘a report would be made’ concerning the deer cull.

Some of the Councillors – Neil Cooney and Yvonne Allan – said that a report should have been attached, and that the deputations should be allowed.  Malone decreed that the report was always going to have been a verbal one, and our requests for deputations were not valid.

A vote was held which went against us speaking.  I wrote down the names of those who were trying to save the deer by allowing the speeches, and can report that they included; Neil Cooney,  Jim Hunter,  Norman Collie, Yvonne Allan, Muriel Jaffrey, and Jackie Dunbar.  The Convener Aileen Malone, Vice Convener, and Councillors  Yuill, Noble, Cormie and Robertson were among those who voted to kill our deer.

They had seemingly deliberately made a mockery of the public’s not stumping up the ransom money – they had one Mr Reilly, ( derisively I thought) announce that a total of 2 donors pledged a total of £51.00 for fencing.  As every Councillor knew – the animal groups were not going to submit to the demand for £225,000 for deer protection.

I hope every anti-cull person out there will contact all of their elected representatives and the Housing & Environment Committee

The word blackmail was used by many individuals and groups to sum up how they felt about the Council’s demand for the money.  Anne Begg is on record as saying ‘I see this (demand for money) as an appalling attempt to fudge their responsibility.’

I waited a few minutes before I left.

Even though I was not surprised by the decision, the concept that the absence of a written report was sufficient to derail any debate was a  bit of a shock.

When I did leave, I was quickly followed by virtually all of the Media present – BBC, STV, P&J, Northsound, Evening Express.

I gave a fairly lengthy, comprehensive account of past and present developments and issues.  And then I raced home to brief the legal team ( yes, legal avenues to save our deer are being actively pursued ) – and to thrash out this swift article.  I will also publish my rough draft speech notes.  Who knows?  Someone on the Committee might actually want to read these.

I have to say that some of the Councillors – Cooney and Allan in particular – did all they could today.  The rest seem to have either been sleepwalking – or voting the LibDem line.  I hope they realise this is a beginning and not an end to the story.

What now?

If the feelings of the thousands of people and dozens of animal organisations can be swept away, our willingness to take action cannot be so easily stopped.  Many groups are planning to ‘take to the hills’ to stop the slaughter.   I hope every anti-cull person out there will contact all of their elected representatives and the Housing & Environment Committee (feel free to copy to me) to demand a full enquiry into the tree initiative be held before the £2,500 (yes that’s a correct figure) is spent on the first round of deer slaughter.

You can certainly send in some Freedom of Information Requests to Aberdeen City Council; the email address is: foienquiries@aberdeencity.gov.uk

why not ask the Council:

– who wrote the phase 2 consultation?

– who decided to leave the deer cull out of the consultation?

– does the city already owe £44K or so for previous failed tree planting?

– who decided not to tell Torry Community Council about the cull?

– who decided to tell SNH that the non-lethal options would not work – and that ‘tree guards have visual impact?’

And tell them we demand warning in advance of any cull.

 

Aberdeen Voice will do its best to publish updates relevant to this story.  Personally, nothing would make me happier than  having the opportunity  to write that this whole sorry cull has been stopped.

May 112011
 

Suzanne Kelly presents her speech which she was prevented from delivering at the crucial Housing and Environment Committee meeting yesterday due to an ‘incredible technicality’.

The committee voted down the opportunity to consider input from Ms. Kelly and a representative of Nigg Community Council, thereby ruling out further debate ahead of pressing ahead with the cull, in spite of the receipt of a 2400 strong petition, and 82 letters in opposition to the cull on Monday.

Councillors, thank you for allowing me to address your Committee today.

I am here to echo the sentiments of thousands of Aberdonians as well as national and international people, and ask you to stop any plan for a cull of deer on Tullos Hill.

I would like to propose you adopt one of two positions:

  • Halt the cull, and then plant trees once non-lethal measures can be put in place or …
  • re-launch the extremely flawed phase 2 consultation to the public – this time telling them that the tree planting will involve a deer cull.

There are some of you who insist that:

‘deer must be culled’,
‘we have taken advice from Scottish Natural Heritage’,
‘animal lovers should pay £225,000 for deer protectors’.

Let us examine those positions in a moment.

Firstly, let us consider how extraordinarily un-democratically – how against established good governmental practice the entire issue has been handled.

Irrespective of a Councillor’s personal views on animal culling, I hope we are all in agreement that there are established procedures for consulting with the public and consulting with Community Councils which have been wholly ignored.  If you are upholding the law and the rights of your electorate, you must now stop this cull – at least until a proper consultation is launched.

The phase 2 public consultation for ‘a tree for every citizen’ closed at the end of January.

I read this document on the Council’s website; so did countless other people.  The document tells me that there are rabbits in the area, and have been considered.

Who drafted this consultation and why did they omit the cull which was already being planned?  We know the cull was being planned by the date of the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage, which I will come to presently.  Who exactly decided to keep this cull from the public?  Was it just an accidental oversight?  Why were rabbits mentioned but not deer – the effect this had on me personally was to make me reach the conclusion that animals had been taken into consideration when the scheme was planned.

someone at the council or in the ranger service has decided to bypass normal democratic procedure

I can assure you that had a cull been mentioned, I would have most definitely objected to the plan while the consultation was open.  And so would many other citizens of Aberdeen.  I feel as if we have been robbed of our right to be properly consulted.  In view of this point alone, the cull should not go ahead.

Another gross breach of protocol and established practice was the complete disregard shown to Torry Community Council.  The City should by now have received a letter from Torry Community Council; as reported in the Evening Express, the Council voted unanimously at its April meeting to condemn this cull, and to complain that it was not consulted.

The Torry Community Council also confirmed that at no point was it alerted that a cull was part of the tree-planting scheme.  Who, I would like to know, will take responsibility for this breach of established procedure?  The City Council is already widely criticised for its failure to consult the Nigg Community Council concerning development plans for Loirston Loch.  It is incumbent on this Housing Committee to stop any cull plans until it has addressed this procedural failure.

But now we come to the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage to ranger  _________________.  I contacted the ranger to whom the letter is addressed, and he referred me to Ian Tallboys, head ranger, for clarification.

Reading this letter – someone at the council or in the ranger service has decided to bypass normal democratic procedure.

Someone has told the SNH that fencing is a bad idea.  Someone has even more incredibly told the SNH that tree protectors should not be used on Tullos Hill as they have ‘visual impact.’  ‘Visual Impact.’  On a coastal hill.  Tree protectors are in use far and wide throughout this city in areas that have a great deal more traffic than Tullos Hill.

How can anyone for that matter decide for this Committee, for Torry Community Council, and for the citizens who should have properly been consulted that a subjective observation as to ‘visual impact’ condemn a small herd of deer to death?
Obviously this Committee will now realise that the SNH were led, by a person or persons yet to come forward, to decide that the lethal option was the only solution.
There are many, many non-lethal solutions to this issue of deer eating trees – this Committee acknowledges that the deer do not have to die.

Otherwise it would not have issued its highly controversial demand for money.  The demand for money for fencing and tree protectors itself is a declaration that these are suitable options for deer control.  It is of course a demand that is seen as nothing short of blackmail by myself, by animal charities, and the electorate.

This is one reason the avenue was not pursued:  the City should be responsible for finding money, not citizens.  The City has resources at its disposal – I note your new Robert the Bruce statue in front of the £60 million pound Marischal building, soon to be fitted with brand new furniture.

Are we really to understand that this city, with its vast real estate portfolio – which sells land at less than market value to property developers has no means of finding £225,000?

This city which hopes to borrow nearly £100 million pounds to fill in Union Terrace Gardens?

The suggestion the city has no money and cannot raise money is unacceptable.  This Committee were offered the free services of a deer management expert:  this was turned down.  Some of the non-lethal methods which would work include:  tree guards, fencing, using one of some 3 dozen types of trees which deer do not eat, planting crops nearby which deer will eat, planting the trees elsewhere, planting once the money can be found for these measures, using chemical deterrents on the young trees.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals calls your proposed cull ‘abhorrent and absurd’ – a sentiment echoed by thousands of people.  The cull is not a suitable response:  other deer will move into the area, as per the various animal charities I have consulted – many of which have made this plain to the Committee already.

We seem to be talking about a herd size of 30 animals.  This is not over population.

As an aside, it would be nice to see the Council put up roadside ‘deer crossing’ signs in the area to warn motorists deer do live in Aberdeen.

I just mentioned the herd size.  This was one of a half dozen relevant questions I asked as long ago as 28 February,  Most of my questions were not answered at all.  Some were answered only recently, and some were answered with the phrase that has become a mantra for pro cull councillors:  we have taken advice –  a cull is the only answer.

Well, you have not taken advice.  You briefed SNH as to why you did not want the non-lethal options, and then presented their response to this briefing as being their unbiased professional opinion.  The animal charities all give you non-lethal options, and some of you inexplicably reject them.

Back to these questions of mine.

some person or persons initially said that the tree planting scheme would be completely cost neutral

I asked a number of questions which would have provided material for me to start hunting for an appropriate grant for saving the Tullos Hill Roe Deer.  The timescale was very tight indeed – but the lack of forthcoming answers made it completely impossible for me to try and find any kind of grant or fund.

Again, everything is being slanted towards a wholly unnecessary cull.  The silence of the persons responsible for the ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme has blocked this avenue.

As an aside, in some of the documentation I read phrases such as ‘in a few years the trees will begin to pay for themselves.’  Is this tree scheme meant to be a source of income for the City?  Am I wrong and no such plan to make money from the Tullos Hill plan exists?  Where is there any consultation on this matter?

I will be pleased to hear that no plans for commercial wood exploitation exist, and will report back to the media and Torry Community Council.  It is serious enough that the consultation was slanted, that the SNH were briefed to favour a cull, and that Torry Community was excluded from what should have been a simple scheme.  But to have some form of commercial enterprise in mind that would forever change Torry certainly cannot be going on behind the scenes, and thank you for confirming this is not the case in advance.

To sum up the history of this whole irregular affair, some person or persons initially said that the tree planting scheme would be completely cost neutral.  Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of finance would have realised that planting over 200 thousand trees would indeed be expensive.

It would also seem that the responsible person or persons will not be putting up their hand and admitting their mistake – and instead are pulling out all the stops so that £2,500 is spent on the cull rather than the more expensive, humane, ethical non-lethal options which most definitely exist.

Someone or other briefed SNH that the non-lethal options would mysteriously not work on Tullos Hill.

Someone or other created a public consultation that was by omission of the cull misleading.

Someone or other decided to ignore protocol and kept Torry Community Council’s elected members in the dark.

This same person or persons came up with a scheme to ask the public to come up with a quarter of a million pounds before today.

Someone or other sadly forgot to tell the corporate sponsors that a cull was involved.

Someone or other has a good deal to answer for.

What a pity that person or persons did not think to seek funding for fencing themselves as soon as it became apparent there were cost implications they had not previously recognised.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever your personal feelings are on deer – although Mr Fletcher has made it plain that they are no different to rats or pigeons – you must acknowledge that in these circumstances you must vote against any cull.

If a vote goes ahead in favour of a cull, please rest assured that every aspect of the tree scheme and any cull will be put under a microscope not just by me, but by established animal welfare organisations and legal minds.

The mechanisms for such actions are, I can promise this Committee, most definitely being readied.  The deer are not overpopulated; other deer will move in, and you will have someone killing these animals for some 5 years.

Perhaps you think the animal instantly drops down dead when shot?  This is hardly the usual case.  In many instances, the terrified, shocked animal will try to wander around in agony as it begins to internally drown in its own blood.

Trackers will be needed to follow the blood stains from the wound or from its breathing out of blood droplets  (sometimes very hard to find) and finish the creature off.  There are various types of hits an animal will sustain, this is not by any means the worst case scenario – some animals if not quickly found die an agonising, slow death that takes days.

On behalf of myself, the thousands of Aberdonians who signed the petitions, do not plant a tree for us if you are having a cull to do so.

May 062011
 

With Thanks To Alan Robertson.

Aberdeen City Council are going to receive a petition signed by over 2,200 Aberdonians calling for the Council to abandon plans to kill 30 deer on Tullos Hill on the outskirts of the city. The wild roe deer are to be killed as part of a council project to create a new woodland and wildlife habitat. Local and national campaigners have condemned the planned cull as cruel, wasteful and unnecessary.

A small delegation of campaigners will deliver the petition to the council at The Town House, Broad Street at 3.30pm on Monday.

Aberdeen City Council Housing and Environment Committee gave pro deer campaigners until May 10th to come up with £225,000 to pay for tree protectors and deer fencing. As campaigners have not attempted to raise this “blood money” it is expected that the Council Housing and Environment Committee will, at their meeting on May 10th, confirm that the deer cull will go ahead.

Campaigner Jeanette Wiseman states:

“We hope that the Housing and Environment Committee will listen to the thousands of Aberdeen voters who have asked them to stop this needless slaughter. There is still time for an eleventh hour reprieve for the deer on Tullos Hill. Aberdeen City Council can stop this shameful act.”

The public consultation that was launched by Aberdeen City Council on 29th October 2010 ( closed on 28th January 2011)  made no mention of the proposed deer cull at Tullos Hill, despite the fact that a delegation from Scottish National Heritage had visited Tullos Hill on 15th November to assess the option of a deer cull at the request of the Council, and wrote to the Council on 25th November.

The letter from SNH makes it clear that, while the public consultation was still active, someone at the City had briefed SNH to steer the decision making towards a deer cull, despite the fact that there are other options. The briefing by the Council to SNH was therefore biased, the consultation was flawed and the handling of both these matters by the Council requires investigation.

See: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Consultations/ArchiveConsultations/cst_tree_every_citizen.asp

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is completely against the proposed cull, as are other animal welfare organisations, thousands of Aberdonians, and many concerned people living further away. Scottish SPCA Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn said:

“We firmly believe culls should only take place to protect the public or for animal welfare reasons”. He went on to say that: “It is absurd and abhorrent to undertake a cull because it would be too costly to protect trees which have not even been planted. We would suggest these trees should either be planted elsewhere or not at all. Trees should certainly not be planted at the expense of the lives of animals.”

Lush Aberdeen and Lush Edinburgh are actively involved in trying to save the roe deer ; the Edinburgh Lush team cycled to the Aberdeen store to raise awareness and funds. and Lush were actively involved in circulating petitions against the proposed cull.

A Facebook site to Save the Tullos Hill Roe Deer has been highlighting the main issues and over 2100 people have signed up to the site.

The fact is, that the Council are not using the normal city-wide procedure for tree planting at Tullos Hill and that is the reason the deer are to be culled. Elsewhere in the City, tree protectors are being used – even in areas where there are no roe deer, and will require maintenance that will cost money; these facts are being kept from the public to make it appear that Tullos Hill is too costly, when in fact it needs to be considered in the bigger context – as part of the Tree for Every Citizen initiative.

The precedent of how tree planting has been handled at Kincorth Hill and other areas of the City, where no deer were culled shows this to be be true.

Aberdeen City Council Housing and Environment Committee at their meeting on 1 March 2011 resolved:

”to extend an invitation to the individuals and organisations who have objected to these deer control measures to raise the sums necessary to provide and maintain alternative measures, including fencing and rehousing of deer, by no later than 10th May, 2011.”

With only days before the decision is taken, anyone who feels strongly about the proposed cull should contact members of the Housing and Environment Committee to forward their concerns.

Apr 292011
 

Voice’s Old Susannah casts her eye over recent events, stories, and terms and phrases familiar as well as freshly ‘spun’, which will be forever etched in the consciousness of the people of Aberdeen and the Northeast.

It was yet another event-packed week in Aberdeen. Some of us hunted for Easter eggs while the SNP, Greens and Labour were outside Marks & Spencers on Union Street Saturday, hunting for votes.

The public square outside of M&S served as an ‘exciting, vibrant hub in the heart of the City’ where people could come together – and it didn’t even cost £140 million to create. Not quite enough concrete there, though.

Anyway, the Friends of UTG and the anti-deer cull lobby spoke to the assembled politicians and passers-by and generated a great deal of interest.

On the other hand, the (not very) Liberal (not really) Democrats were conspicuous by their total absence on the day.  Whatever party you can from, whatever cause you support – everyone was in agreement that Councillor West of the SNP was the life and soul of the party. Who could forget his warm smile, beard, black suit and friendly banter as he offered all comers a bright yellow SNP balloon?

The SNP balloon is filled with hot air, and is likely to burst sometime in the near future, probably on 5 May. Perhaps the LibDems were right to stay away – their popularity might have caused a riot.  However, at the time of writing on Monday 25th April, there is no sign in the Press & Journal that such lively debate, lobbying and protesting ever took place concerning UTG and the deer.

The night before I stayed up all night to watch the skies for a meteor shower (not much joy really,- just wound up very tired Saturday), caused by Comet Thatcher. If I understand the science correctly, the frozen, lifeless Thatcher left a massive trail of debris which we will all still experience for generations to come. I’m sure there is some kind of metaphor in this somewhere but I can’t think what it might be.

Just one last thing – I owe a sincere apology to XXXXXXXXXXXX about my having XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. I am truly sorry; it was very very much out of character, honestly don’t know what possessed me, and I obviously promise never to XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX again. I have taken out a super injunction against myself, and will never mention XXXXXXXXXXXXXX again. Mea maxima culpa.  I will have one fewer BrewDog this coming weekend than last. Well, maybe not – it’s down to London to see some old friends; apparently there is some big wedding on as well.

Now that that is all cleared up, onwards with a few more terms to define.

Innocent:

(adj – Great Britain) freedom from guilt or blame, not culpable.
(adj – USA) – suspicious, dangerous; a state of being which deserves incarceration without trial, redress, or contact with the outside world – which would normally be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I mean, without Guantanamo, how else would we have found all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction?

After over seven years of detention in Guantanamo Bay for hundreds, it seems the United States, land of the free and home of the brave, might just have to admit to keeping innocent people locked up in Guantanamo. Files have surfaced which seem to show that about 220 of the enemy combatants’ (or ‘people’ to you and me) were classed as dangerous terrorists but some 150 were innocent.

The rest of the world recognised this from day one of the camp’s creation and the American refusal to allow legal representtaives in but the US was deaf to international pleas for mercy, basic human rights and the rule of law to prevail.

Dear George ‘Dubya’ Bush was largely behind the camp’s existence and he and his aides came up with the strategy of calling the Guantanamo captives ‘enemy combatants;’ this was unique for two reasons: Firstly,  such a preposterous legal concept had never before been used. Secondly, no one thought Bush could manage a phrase with that many syllables.

Old Susannah might have tried to define a few tricky terms in the past but I’m not touching ‘enemy combatant’ with a bargepole.  I don’t have a bargepole.

Guantanamo did manage to release some of the blatantly blame-free over the years and with their emergence emerged tales of degradation, abuse, suicide attempts, physical and mental torture.  But if you’re innocent, you’ve got to accept this kind of thing.  Most of the inmates were guilty of being in Afghanistan or Pakistan at some time or other, so there you go.

Let us not forget:  if you want to preserve Democracy and Freedom, you’ve got to lock up a few ‘folk’ and torture them now and then.  I mean, without Guantanamo, how else would we have found all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction?  Remember, it’s not torture when the ‘good guys’ are doing it – it’s ‘persuasion’. Of course, it could never happen here (we just let the US use our airspace when moving these people around on the way to be ‘persuaded’).

Bats:

(noun) protected species of rodent with flight capabilities; habitats of which are under threat.
(adj) slang for slightly crazy or unbalanced.

Scottish Natural Heritage sent me a letter ages ago, when plans for building in Union Terrace Gardens were first brought up, mentioning the presence of important birds and bats.

these guards sadly have ‘visual impact’ per our city experts, who  apparently prefer the visual impact of a suffering or dead animal

I understand from ‘moles’ in Union Terrace Gardens that the bats have been seen on recent evenings within the park.  It would be an awful shame if the presence of an EU-protected species of animal put any brakes on plans to build (another) shopping area in Aberdeen. Still, bats haven’t managed to stall plans for Loirston becoming home to a giant, glowing football stadium.

Other old bats can be found hanging around other city-centre buildings, particularly around the Marischal and St Nicholas areas. Many of these are of the blood-sucking variety, and should be avoided at all costs. Some are undoubtedly rabid.

‘Humane Cull’:

(noun) a way of killing something – such as a deer – whereby you need not feel too badly about it, particularly when the killing is wholly avoidable; the use of ‘experts’ to remove life in a sharing, caring, ‘humane’ kind of way. The feel-good factor in destruction.

We are soon to have a cull (unless someone wants their political career to continue) of an unspecified number of the Tullos Hill Roe Deer, over an unspecified number of years. Cheaper than the tree guards which are successfully in use in Loirston Loch and Kincorth Hill – but these guards sadly have ‘visual impact’ per our city experts, who  apparently prefer the visual impact of a suffering or dead animal.

But don’t lose any sleep, councillors – it is going to be a ‘humane cull.’  Ms Malone and others might want you to think some sharpshooters pull a trigger and an animal will die within seconds. I would hate to burst anyone’s balloon (except Malone’s and West’s), but this is what will happen to at least some of the deer…

I quote from a website called ‘bluestar hunting – www.bluestar-hunting.com/bloodinmotion.html
Sensitive souls may wish to look away now.  Here are some quotes:-

* ” Pay attention to the reaction of the animal when it is shot… I have had many hunters tell me that they knocked the animal down, only to watch it suddenly jump up and run off, leaving lots of blood.  This is the one that I hate to hear the most.  First of all, body shots that do not impact the neck or spine rarely make an animal drop, and if the neck or spine is hit, the animal is usually disabled and cannot get up..”

*  “The falling down likely means the leg was broken; lots of blood usually indicates a muscle hit.  Muscle damage leaves lots of blood in the first 100 yards… if it was a lung hit, it can take time for the body cavity to fill and blood to be forced out.  Animals may run in the beginning… this will cause blood trains to be harder to see…

*  “A liver shot is always fatal… but it will most likely take until the next day or later for the deer to die…. the double lung shot is the best percentage shot to take, as it will cause massive internal bleeding and drowning, causing death within about 150 yards… the pattern will start out with little blood, but it will increase as the  animal starts blowing blood out the mouth and nose…”

And my personal favourite:

*  “Give the animal time to bleed out before  you start tracking…. I have found animals within 40 or 50 yards of the stand, where they died after having run 250 to 300 yards in a long arcing circle, trying to get back to the spot they were safe in before the shot.”

(This could be why I prefer taking pictures of wildlife rather than blasting it to a slow death).

All the while, the wounded animal is in total shock, indescribable pain,and complete and utter terror as it dies, either a fairly quick ‘humane’ death or the slow one.  It is safe to assume that at least some of the deer – some of which are pregnant – will get this latter, long, terrifying, agonising death.

No wonder Scottish Natural Heritage wanted the city to manage the news of the cull carefully.  Not everyone is down with this  ‘humane cull’ reality.  Someone send a copy of ‘Bambi’ to Ms Malone, thanks.

NB – the Deer now have about 11 days – and Councillor Malone has about 3 to call it off.

______________________________________________________________

PS – Strictly confidential:

Grate a strong smelling soap around your plant beds. Some people will also tie soap bars to trees and bushes to keep deer away from a specific plant.

Sprinkle a mixture of red and black pepper, garlic and curry powder on and around plants deer like to eat to keep them away from your garden. Since this mixture will disappear when it rains, be sure to spread it out again after rain storms or after heavy watering sessions.

Try mixing a beaten egg with water and spraying on plants and around flower beds to keep deer away from your garden. Again, this will have to be reapplied after rains or heavy watering.

Use a commercial deer-repellent such as Deer-Off or Deer-Away. You can also try drops of animal urine such as coyote in your gardening beds. Some people report that human urine can work as well.

Plant plants deer won’t eat such as Lady’s Mantle, Butterfly Weed, Foxglove, St. John’s Wort, Lavender, Daffodil, Poppy and most pungent herbs.

Sprinkle human hair around your planting beds. Ask your hairdresser or a barber to save you a large bag next time you go in for your haircut.

Put a fence around your property to keep deer out. Some people have luck with tying white plastic shopping bags on the fence every couple of feet. The noise and movement of the plastic bags seems to scare deer and keep them away. A variation on the fence is to try a deer protection net. These nets are less obvious than a fence and may be more aesthetically pleasing to your garden.

______________________________________________________________

Next week – more definitions, outcome of the deer situation, and previously-promised news on Freedom of Information

Apr 222011
 

Voice’s Suzanne Kelly has over the past 10 weeks campaigned tirelessly in her efforts to oppose Aberdeen City Council’s proposed cull of roe deer on Tullos Hill, writing letters and liasing with groups and individuals on both sides of the debate. Suzanne wishes to share with Aberdeen Voice readers her latest letter to Cllr. Aileen Malone and the Housing and Environment Committee in the hope that others might be encouraged to add their own voice to this controversial issue.

20 April 2011
Councillor Aileen Malone
Convener, Housing Committee
Aberdeen City Council

Dear Ms Malone

Re:  Tullos Hill Roe Deer

I am writing this open letter to you in your role as Convener of the Housing & Environment Committee and leading proponent of the ‘A Tree for Every Citizen’ Scheme.

I am sending this letter to you in this format for two reasons.  Firstly, you ‘accidentally’ deleted  an email I sent you (with my street address) in which I protested against the Tullos Hill Roe Deer Cull, which is being planned as a result of the tree scheme, and I would hate for you to similarly lose this letter.

Secondly, I want to enlist the help of as many Aberdeen citizens and others opposed to this senseless cull as possible:  if anyone reading this letter agrees with it, kindly add your name and address, and send it to Ms Malone.

Your committee came up with the ultimatum to citizens:  give us £225,000 before 10 May – or we will kill the deer.  ‘Blackmail’ is the word that springs to mind.  I would never have believed a City would consider blackmailing its citizens.  To do so after what seems like deliberately concealing the planned cull from the ‘Phase 2’ consultation which closed in January is inexcusable.

It has been demonstrated that before this consultation was launched, someone involved in the ‘Tree’ scheme had been briefing Scottish Natural Heritage and deliberately steering them away from the many humane alternatives to a cull that exist.  I thought it was very clever to leave out the deer from the consultation but to mention rabbits – it certainly fooled me (and no doubt many others) into thinking that all animals had been duly considered, and that only rabbits were worth mentioning.  Some might call that sneaky.

If the public consultation ending in January mentioned a deer cull or the need to raise money for tree protection, there are hundreds of people who would have objected.  The opportunity was lost to them because the consultation was so very flawed.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is completely against the cull, as are many other animal welfare organisations, and thousands of Aberdonians  as well as concerned  people living further away.

I recall how you went to the Press & Journal and said something to the effect that ‘only about one’ local resident had contacted you protesting the cull.

You later made private apologies to me and others who indeed had contacted you – you ‘accidentally’ deleted my email.  (I waited and must have missed it, but I never did see an apology in the Press & Journal for your error. It is almost as if you did not want to set the record straight).

There are dozens of ways in which the deer can be saved (tree guards – which someone told the SNH ‘had visual impact’ are being used elsewhere in the city such as Forrit Brae; dozens of types of trees are deer resistant, fencing could be used, trees could be planted elsewhere…).  I can only hope that someone with sense within the C ouncil is striving to find a solution other than this cull.

But here, Ms Malone, is my counter-offer to your ‘blackmail’ demand for £225,000.

Call off the cull and plant the trees after suitable alternatives have been found to protect the deer, and make a public announcement to that effect by 3 May 2011, or:-

  • I will lodge a formal complaint against you with the Standards Commission for Scotland with a view to its censuring you (I do have rather an impressive list of complaints on your handling of this issue it must be said)
  • I will start a campaign calling for both internal and external auditing and inquiries into the entire ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ campaign focussing on who briefed SNH towards a cull and how the public was treated
  • I will start a campaign calling for your immediate resignation from the Council
  • I will call on your political party to censure you
  • I will call on as many people in and outside of Aberdeen to join me in these aims as possible

I expect your reply by 3 May, after which date if there is no halt to the cull, I will begin to take these actions against you and seek legal advice as well on preventing the cull.

Maybe my one letter won’t carry much weight with you; maybe no one will join me.  But even if no one else signs this letter and sends it to you, I will continue to fight you on this very sad state of affairs until I have prevailed.

As a reminder, here are the questions I asked you and others by email on 8 March of this year (my comments in red)

When was the cull first planned? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Can the proposed trees not go elsewhere? –  NO ANSWER GIVEN
What will be the cost of the cull?   – NO ANSWER GIVEN
What is the cost of the alternatives? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Are we proposing to create a habitat for squirrels and deer as your email suggests – by first culling deer? – (APPARENTLY YES)
What is the cost of fire damage to the ‘Gramps’? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
When exactly were the voters of Aberdeen asked if they would prefer to have saplings than deer? – (NEVER HAPPENED)
Was a deer struck and killed by a vehicle during the recent ‘capping’ exercise? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
You refer to the area as ‘Urban’ – patently it is not an urban area at all – but is an area in danger of being destroyed by urban sprawl -comment please. – NO ANSWER GIVEN
How many deer precisely are on Tullos Hill? – NO ONE ANSWER GIVEN – RANGES FROM ‘A FEW’ TO ‘ABOUT 30’ HAVE BEEN SENT OR SEEN IN THE PRESS
Are all of the rangers and environmental experts convinced culling is the only way forward? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Which department/arm of the council is charged with preventing further urban sprawl? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
What other deer populations are there in the coastal Aberdeenshire area? – NO ANSWER GIVEN
Have the local community councils been consulted, and if so, do they agree with the cull? – NO ANSWER GIVEN

Scottish Natural Heritage in its 26 November letter suggests that the public might not be in favour of a cull and need careful handling.  They offer to help you with a robust communication plan.  So, Ms Malone:  how is that working out for you?

Yours,
Suzanne Kelly

Also signed by ________________________________________________________________________

Name and Address

 

(if anyone wishes to sign and send Ms Malone this letter as well, please keep me informed and send a copy if possible to sgvk27@aol.com.  Thank you)

* Aberdeen voice is grateful to Ian Britton and Mark Aert for photographs.

 

Apr 192011
 

With thanks to Alan Brown of Lush, Edinburgh

Four members of staff from Lush Cosmetics in Edinburgh embarked on Monday upon a three-day cycle from their Princes Street shop to the Lush shop in Aberdeen.
They will be wearing t-shirts bearing an image of one of the roe deer inhabiting Tullos Hill and emblazoned with the campaign’s slogan, Too Deer A Price To Pay.

They will be travelling with letters opposing the slaughter, which they will hand deliver to Aberdeen City Council.

This cycle marks Lush Edinburgh’s protest against the proposed slaughter of the roe deer that inhabit Tullos Hill in Aberdeen. Aberdeen City Council are proposing to plant trees on Tullos Hill as part of their Tree For Every Citizen scheme, but in order to protect the trees, they plan to slaughter the roe deer who have lived on the hill for generations. This is not only cruel and unnecessary, but would be ineffective as a method of tree protection.

Aberdeen City Council have responded to the numerous communications from the public opposing this cruel slaughter with an ultimatum – if the public cannot donate £225,000 to pay for tree sleeves and fencing to protect the saplings by 10th May 2011, then the slaughter will go ahead and the deer will die.

Lush Edinburgh refuse to play victim to this threat and simply wish to say to the council that they should put the Tree For Every Citizen scheme on hold until they have the means necessary to put tree protection implements into place. While they believe that planting trees is positive action, killing these animals in order to do so is completely senseless and the planting should not even be considered until humane tree protection can be put in place, so that both the trees and deer can exist.

Alan Brown, from Lush Edinburgh said:

“We applaud the council for wanting to plant trees in our community, but surely this can be done without slaughtering a herd of innocent animals. We feel that as the plans currently stand, it’s too dear a price to pay”.

From Monday 18th April until Wednesday 20th April, Lush Edinburgh and Lush Aberdeen will be donating all proceeds (minus VAT) from their popular hand and body lotion, Charity Pot, to the animal rights groups in Aberdeen.

These groups have been working incredibly hard to protest against this cull and using their own funds to pay for publicity materials for their campaign. This is applicable to both the full-size and sample-size version of the product.

Date: 20th April 2011, with cyclists arriving in Aberdeen at 1 pm.
Location: Lush Aberdeen, 81 Union St, Aberdeen

Please come along and welcome the cyclists on their arrival, and show your support for the campaign.

You can keep up to date with the cycle and the great work that they are doing to help this campaign here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lush-Edinburgh/116815671689234

Lush Cosmetics, established 15 years ago, has been driven by innovation and its ethics. Creators of pioneering beauty products such as the fizzing bath ballistic, shower jellies and butter creams and solid shampoo bars, Lush places emphasis on fresh ingredients like organic fruits and vegetables.

Lush operates a strict policy against animal testing and supports Fair Trade and Community Trade initiatives. Lush leads the cosmetics industry in combating over-packaging by running public awareness campaigns and developing products that can be sold ‘naked’ to the consumer without any packaging. Lush has been awarded the RSPCA Good Business Award for 2006 and 2007 and the PETA Trailblazer Award for Animal Welfare.

More info –  www.lush.co.uk

Apr 142011
 

By Deborah Cowan.

Lush stores in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen are hoping to raise awareness for the ‘Save the Tullos Deer’ campaign by having an Edinburgh to Aberdeen cycle ride.
Team members from Lush Edinburgh are giving up part of their annual leave, to cycle to Aberdeen beginning on Monday 18th of April with an estimated arrival in Aberdeen on the morning of Wednesday 20th April.

They will be wearing T-Shirts with the logo ‘TOO DEER A PRICE TO PAY’ and hope to raise awareness of the campaign along the way.

The Aberdeen City Council intend to plant saplings on Tullos Hill as part of the ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ project. It is feared that the deer that currently residing on the hill, will eat these saplings, and so a cull of the deer is planned go ahead on the 10th of May 2011, unless the citizens of Aberdeenshire can raise £225,000 by this date to prevent the cull. This money would go towards deer proof fencing, tree guards and other deer proofing measures that the council is unwilling to provide and instead have chosen to go with the cheaper alternative of culling the deer.

However, Lush and other concerned citizens feel the onus should not fall on the public to raise the cash or that if the public are to fundraise to save the deer, then the time frame provided for this is too short and unrealistic.

Opponents of the deer cull are not saying that the ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ project is not a creditable initiative and many applaud the scheme for planting more trees around Aberdeen. However Lush feel the culling of the deer is unnecessary and cannot support the needless destruction of wildlife when there are better alternatives that could provide a deer proof environment for the new saplings and an improved habitat for the deer, who are some of the primary inhabitants of Tullos Hill.

Lush also points out that culling the deer in the Tullos Hill area will not prevent other deer from moving in and grazing on the unprotected saplings anyway, with a net result of destruction of the saplings and the needless loss of a unique local deer population.

Lush are encouraging all concerned members of the public to show their support by signing the in-store petition at Lush Aberdeen on 81 Union Street.

Also, all proceeds made from purchases of Lush Charity Pot (hand and body lotion) on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the ‘Save the Tullos Deer Big Cycle’ will go towards helping the local Aberdeen groups campaigning against the deer cull and pressuring the Aberdeen Council into looking at the viable alternatives to wholesale wanton destruction of local wildlife.

 

Apr 082011
 

Chris Gough, of Kennoway in Fife was moved to comment on the recent Aberdeen Voice article about the proposed deer cull on Tullos Hill and the revelation that the cull had been planned in advance of the public consultation regarding Phase 2 of the ‘Tree for every citizen scheme’.

What an excellently presented article by Suzanne Kelly. She has hit the nail on the head so many times and it has sad echoes of our fight to save the deer at the Diageo plant in Fife a year ago.

These deer had been part of the local wildlife scene for more than twenty years and were loved equally by the general public and the staff at the Diageo plant.

Indeed they were fed by members of the staff of DCL (an earlier occupier of the site) for many years and the company had a vet carry out visual checks on the condition of the deer. Photographs of the deer were even displayed on the boardroom wall.

All this came to nothing when the present company, Diageo, decided to extend their plant. The Deer Commission for Scotland ( DCS) was consulted and came up with the “only humane solution” of a cull to remove the deer that had now become an embarrassment.

Untruths about the health and condition of the deer were published through the local media to justify the decision for a cull on “animal welfare” grounds. Advice and assertions that there were alternatives to a cull were rejected, so sadly our beloved Diageo deer were not saved in spite of valiant efforts by so many agencies.

At least the Tullos deer are still with us and so they should remain. The SNH hide their true colours behind their name- Scottish Natural Heritage – which implies to the general public that they CARE for all things natural when in truth they are in league (indeed they are now merged under one flag) with the Deer Commission for Scotland.

They in turn are in league with the land owners who want their land “managed” to suit their own purposes e.g. grouse moors, deer forests etc.

The SNH seem obsessed with the idea that there are far too many deer in Scotland and that for their own good they must be culled. As someone who has holidayed in rural Highland Scotland for the past 35 years I ask one question – Where are all the deer?

the deer should be left to come and go and the trees protected with biodegradable tubing as happens in many places around us in Fife

I regard myself as lucky and privileged if I see more than half a dozen wild deer – Red or Roe in a summer.

The SNH would have us believe that every rural community is over run by deer and heaven forbid they are now invading city centre parks as well.

The very fact that they use behind closed door meetings to discuss their strategies is an indication of how aware they must be that their actions are at odds with the public’s perception of what should be happening. Aberdeen City Council clearly must also be aware of this in their complicity. ACC are now going to take the line that they have taken advice from the ‘experts’ and have made their decisions on the basis of this information.

The easiest, although not an ecologically sound solution, is without doubt a deer cull but this will not be a “one off”, but a repeated exercise over the next three to five years to allow the trees to become established. I also concede that deer are determined creatures of habit and will not be easily kept out of what has become a customary feeding ground. Roe deer are particularly good at lifting fences to gain access, so fencing the area is probably not a viable option. Unless the cull could then be justified on the grounds that the deer are causing damage to the fencing as well as eating the trees!

The truth of the matter is that the deer should be left to come and go and the trees protected with biodegradable tubing as happens in many places around us in Fife.

Biodegradable means no litter problem. The tubes just disintegrate and disappear. As for the damage by vandalism I think this is a very large red herring.

In my experience  vandals have much more entertaining targets than some trees planted on a hillside in Aberdeenshire.

As long as the Tullos Deer are alive there is hope. The one point which ACC would take well to note is the irreparable damage the destruction of these deer will cause to their (apparently) already tarnished reputation.

The public will not easily forget – just ask Diageo!
The world is watching.

 

Apr 072011
 

Voice’s Old Susannah casts her eye over the events of the last 6 months and the stories, and terms and phrases familiar as well as freshly ‘spun’, which will be forever etched in the consciousness of the people of Aberdeen and the Northeast.

As there are so few interesting local, national or international developments in the news lately, (earthquakes, wars, radiation, armed robberies, Aberdeen Council wheeling and dealing notwithstanding), this looks like a good time to look back at some of the terms and issues covered in Old Susannah’s Dictionary Corner over the last six months.
The column looked at Change Managers, Continuous Improvement, Climate Change and Dangerous dog owners and dogfights.  What has happened to the heroes, villains, good, bad and the ugly?  Well, let’s see…

Animal Crackers

Let’s Go Clubbing:
Cast your mind back – do you remember Donald Forbes, golfer and fox batterer extraordinaire?  What’s become of him?  First he told us he had clubbed the fox (which was later found in such a horrible state it had to be put down, to the disgust of 99.95% of the members of Forbes’ golf club).

Then Forbes said he was in ‘mortal danger’ from the fox and therefore swung his club near the fox, but did not hit it.  How this tame, well-known fox was going to harm Forbes other than stealing a sandwich from him remains unclear. How the fox was injured fatally also remains a mystery, as Forbes says he did not do it.

Sources tell me Forbes will soon have his day in Court – keep your eyes on the Aberdeen court circular during the month of April.  Truth will out.  Maybe.

Licensed to maim:
Like-minded animal lover, top oilman, and gunslinger Mr Mervyn New, you will remember, took his gun to work and quite rightly shot some horrid gull chicks that had the nerve to be in a nest near him.  One bird was dead outright, the other suffered in agony until the SSPCA could have it put down.

Maybe we should all bring guns to work?  On the plus side I bet Mr New looks quite macho with a gun.  It would be cruel to suggest he might have a complex against his parents for naming him ‘Mervin’ so I shall say nothing on that subject.  My emails to his local and head office have gone unanswered or have been returned marked ‘delivery failure’.  It is almost as if Marine Subsea UK do not want to set the record straight or answer any questions on their guns-at-work policy.  Maybe some of you readers can get an answer out of them.  I will try again when I have made progress on…

…The Tullos Hill Roe Deer:
In a style that would make Highwayman robber Dick Turpin blush, the City have told animal lovers to pay up £225k by 10 May, or the deer get shot. It was all most democratic; they voted on it, except they did not bother to mention the cull to the citizens. Scottish Natural Heritage point out unwillingly  (see articles elsewhere in the Voice) that alternatives to gunning the deer down do exist.  During this ongoing saga

It is heartbreaking to see these dumb animals going about their usual routines, visiting their favourite drinking holes, unaware of the doom awaiting them

Cllr Aileen Malone proved she could not count; she announced that ‘about one’ person in Aberdeen wrote to her against the cull.  She later apologised for this understandable mathematical error – but I do not believe her apology was as public as her P&J statement about there only being ‘about one’ objector.  I can however say that at least 500 people have signed various petitions and that is a conservative figure (like me).

It is heartbreaking to see these dumb animals going about their usual routines, visiting their favourite drinking holes, unaware of the doom awaiting them.  Nevertheless, at the next possible election, there will most definitely be a cull of Councillors.

The Council had handled the proposed tree planting in its time-honoured way; it held a consultation.

Democracy Inaction

Consultation:
That’s right – the City asked us mere citizen taxpayers what we thought of the tree planting on its lovely website, and gave us until the end of this past January to comment.  Just because the City forgot to mention the cull is no reason for the consultation not to be valid, after all, without consultation we would not have our design competition coming up for…

…Union Terrace Gardens:
Back at the time how exciting it was – ACSEF were visiting shopping malls and businesses, giving   presentations on a wonderful new way of re-imaging the gardens – turning them into a concrete slab with underground parking.   Despite producing a brochure (costing about £300k of our money), which showed exactly that type of outcome – large squares of concrete, one or two tiny trees in planters, and happy people walking around in nice weather, the public vote was against it.

Who would have guessed that the public simply did not understand how important this was to Ian Wood’s future, sorry – to our economic prosperity. So, we will get a design competition instead. Someone already got money earmarked for the rival, earlier, clearer, subtler Peacock plan – money which was intended to be used by Peacock.

I was concerned just last week about the coalition as they are fighting at the National level. However, Councillor Irene Cormack wrote to me to say that this is perfectly normal at elections

No one knows anything about how the money was approved for expenditure; no one knows what goes on inside ACSEF (the online minutes do not give any history or details on this saga worth having).  And the worst part is, people have actually organised to protest against having shops and parking.

How else will Stewart Milne’s lovely plans for Triple Kirks work?  Answers on a postcard please.

The Press & Journal on 6th April continued a welcome new trend – they are questioning the handling of the UTG situation in an excellent editorial well worth reading.

Public Image:
In a past Old Susannah Dictionary Corner, I was heartened to hear that Kate was going to get an image and publicity makeover by the LibDem team who gave the world Nick Clegg.  Here we are about three months later, and I think the results speak for themselves. What do you think of the new Kate?  I think the results of Nick’s influence speak for themselves.

Kate’s complaint at the time was that people always complain when things are going bad, but they never compliment the City Council when things are going well.  I asked readers for examples of things that went well, but have received not so much as a line.

Coalition:
You might remember some months back when I was worried about our local LibDem / SNP Coalition arguing about how many Council jobs to cut.  Nine hundred with no consultation?  Six Hundred?  Ask for ideas?  Cut nothing and then keep quiet?  Those must have been exciting times for the staff at St Nick’s.  I was concerned just last week about the coalition as they are fighting at the National level. However, Councillor Irene Cormack wrote to me to say that this is perfectly normal at elections. I hope nothing will interfere with how things are working here. In fact, soon all will be perfect, once everyone moves into…

…Marischal  College:

In fact, she is known to have sent out e-mails claiming victory, because no one has complained/objected to the stadium lately (hint hint!) But it is not over yet, watch this space

Charities are short of funding, schools are closing, and elderly and vulnerable people are at risk from a host of problems. No matter:  we saved Marischal College. The Council told us that they will not  disclose what the alternatives were or what they would have cost – it is copyrighted so they claim.  We saved Marischal by gutting it entirely, throwing Victorian books into a skip (I have a source who confirms this), and we’re putting in brand new furniture.  £60 to 80 million well spent I say.

Loirston Loch – a nice place for a game of football:
Despite lack of consultation with the relevant local Councils, little support from Football fans, and opposition from local residents, follically-challenged Stewart Milne (of ACSEF and AFC fame) got the green light to build a red-light stadium in the Greenbelt land of Loirston.

Scottish Natural Heritage weren’t bothered (despite SAC land status, protected species and RSPB objection); Brian Adam MSP was ecstatic, and Richard Baker MSP was ignored.

Kate Dean was the impartial convener of a marathon hearing on the matter, which was always going to end favourably.  In fact, she is known to have sent out e-mails claiming victory, because no one has complained/objected to the stadium lately (hint hint!) But it is not over yet, watch this space.  If there has not been too much dialogue at present, it is because of the massive legal points being researched prior to the battle royale.

Conclusion – A Brighter Outlook:
The most important thing to remember when considering the recent past is that we now all have A Brighter Outlook.  I know this, because the City Council put it in their literature.  It is an ACSEF slogan, it is how the City does business, it is all brighter.  After all, how much darker can things possibly get?

Next week:
Since ACSEF benefited so much from its new logo and ‘A Brighter Outlook’ slogan, Old Susannah is getting a makeover.  I do not know exactly what to expect and what the Voice editors have in mind, I just hope I will come out looking as cool, modern and with it as ACSEF does.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for the very nice/interesting/excellent e-mails and comments.