Young people and street drinkers seemed to be getting on fine at yesterday evening’s impromptu pop concert. But then, alcohol does break down barriers. And from all the tins and bottles strewn everywhere, vast quantities had been consumed.
Blaring out from giant loudspeakers, the music could be heard all over the Moor. Power for the loudspeakers was provided by a petrol driven generator.
Two students came up to us and asked why we were taking photographs. When we told them, they said that they felt ashamed to be students. They added that if the people responsible were given hefty fines, it would soon put a stop to the problem.
On Thursday the 21st May, there was a letter from H Johnson pointing out that the council’s refusal to enforce the barbeque ban is undermining the hard work of the Moor’s gardener, John Egan MBE. Then on the 23rd May, Barbara Tyldesley from Cookridge wrote that allowing barbeques on the Moor doesn’t help the council’s environmental credentials. On the 25th May, there were letters from Ian Falkingham of Woodhouse, and Chris Webb of Headingley Hill. Ian feels that our only importance to the council, is as a source of council tax. Chris asks how long the council is going to allow this situation to carry on, and if it would be allowed on green space owned by the universities. Tony Green from North Hyde Park had a letter in on the 27th May asking if the council can’t properly manage the Moor, are they fit to be managing the rest of the city. On the 28th May, Ann Massa from North Hyde Park said that our councillors are letting us down, just as our MPs have let us down. And then today, Friday the 29th May, Richard Hellawell from Little Woodhouse accused the Lib Dem councillors of riding roughshod over voters.
I came back from The Moor last night; it’s surreal!
There I found two park wardens on motor bikes in LCC livery (see attached image) by the most popular BBQ patch accepting complaints from an Ice Cream van that other vans were trespassing on his patch! When I asked them whether he was illegal in driving round the park in his van they said no- he pays LCC a rent to do so! Can you believe it! When I pointed out that some students were BBQ’ing in front of them in direct violation of the byelaws they said they had instructions not to do anything; there were hundreds of byelaws and it was nothing to do with them! They had a TV unit on one bike and they said they took pictures of all that was happening and their manager would decide whether to take any action; the assumption is that he would not. When I pointed out the litter one group were leaving they said staff would clear this up in the morning; they would not intervene. Think what all this costs; two bikes two riders at 8.30pm one TV unit, staff to clear the mess and still no-one puts a stop or does anything to intervene or even say what the byelaws are!
Have I gone mad! Even the riders admitted their presence was completely futile.
At the INWAC meeting on the 2nd July 2008, in connection with our request that councillors enforce the byelaw banning barbeques, Councillor Jamie Matthews said “If some people had their way, they’d stop everyone having fun”. Well these pictures show what the Moor looked like after just one afternoon and evening of people having fun. Councillor Matthews’ and his colleagues’ refusal to enforce the byelaws means that the surface of the Moor is being permanently degraded. Broken glass is being ground into the earth making the grass unsafe for everyone, but especially so for children. These councillors have much in common with the people who are causing the damage. They’re not from here, they don’t live here, and they don’t care about here. They should be made to pay for the damage they’re causing to the Moor out of their own pockets. And the bills for the “consultation” and fire brigade call outs should be sent to them too.
The above photos showing barbeques and public urination were taken at 4pm this afternoon. Even though it’s against the law to have barbeques and to urinate in public, the police officers present did nothing about it. Just after I took these photos, I counted six men simultaneously urinating beside the hedge that borders the allotments. The fact they can’t be bothered walking to the nearby toilets shows their lack of respect for the park and the sensibilities of local people, a trait they share with our councillors and the police. The photo of the fire engine was taken at 10pm. It had been called out to extinguish one of the many fires that are caused by barbeques. There were about six firemen, and one of them was heard to say that they’d probably be out to the Moor again tonight. The average cost of calling out a fire engine is £2,200.
Once again, local residents have been furiously setting pen to paper to express their opinion on the proposal to establish barbeque areas on Woodhouse Moor. And no wonder, given the way so many have been disenfranchised by councillors who’ve gone out of their way to ensure that people not on the electoral register have a say in whether or not barbeques are legalised.
On Tuesday, there were letters from Bernard Atha, Jonathan Eyre, Albert Slingsby, and Christopher Todd. On Wednesday, there were letters from Colin and Marian Smith, Janet Sherwin, and Kathleen Mason. And on Friday, there were letters from Darrell Goodliffe, Louise Coombes, and Carol Millard.
All of the letters were against the proposal except the one from Lib Dem activist Darrell Goodliffe, who also had a letter published last Thursday.
In his recent letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post (Readers’ Letters 15.5.09), Darrell Goodliffe claims that the existing byelaws restrict the “legitimate freedom” of people without gardens to have barbeques on Woodhouse Moor. For this reason, he supports the council’s proposal to allow barbeques on the Moor. Mr Goodliffe says that the damage caused by barbeques will be limited by restricting them to designated areas. But to those who point out that drifting smoke would interfere with other park users’ right to breathe unpolluted air, he has no answer. Instead, he suggests that if drifting smoke is a problem, then the opponents of the barbeque proposal should also be calling for barbeques in private gardens to be banned. In effect, he’s saying that having to breathe barbeque smoke in a park is no different to having to breathe it in your garden. But to compare barbeques in public parks with barbeques in private gardens is not comparing like with like. If the smoke from my neighbour’s barbeque is causing a nuisance, I can ask him to put it out. If he ignores my request, I have the remedy at law of taking out an injunction to prevent him having barbeques in the future. But if barbeques are legalised on Woodhouse Moor, if I asked someone having a barbeque there to extinguish it, they would be within their rights to tell me to go to one of the other Leeds parks where barbeques are still banned. And for the same reason, I would have no remedy at law.
Recently, on the Yorkshire Evening Post website, a lady from Ottawa commented that she lives close by to what used to be a lovely park. Then her local authority legalised barbeques. As a result, the only people who now visit the park, are those who go there to have a barbeque. The residents of Hyde Park, Woodhouse and Headingley are fighting this proposal so that everyone can continue to enjoy Woodhouse Moor, not just a selfish minority.
The above photograph was taken on the 12th May 2009 and shows the smoke pollution from just one barbeque. Multiply this by 40 to get an idea of the level of pollution that Leeds City Council considers acceptable on a park which when it was purchased in 1857 was known as “the lungs of Leeds”.
It’s customary when writing to a newspaper, to supply an address. Many editors will refuse to publish your letter if you don’t. It’s about establishing your credentials as a real person, rather like the purpose of the electoral register. So it was highly significant that in his recent letter to the YEP, Darrell Goodliffe signed off as “Local Resident” rather than supplying an address (Readers’ Letters 7.5.09). Clearly for Mr Goodliffe, establishing in readers’ minds that here was a local resident who actually supports the barbeque proposal, was far more important than minor details like where he actually lives.
What’s not customary when writing to a newspaper is to state your political allegiance, unless of course you’re an active party member writing about an issue your party is deeply involved with. Under those circumstances, to deny your readers the benefit of that knowledge, might seem to some like a deception. I can understand though why someone would be tempted to do it. By stating your political allegiance, you run the risk that people might say “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he”. Which is precisely what people have been saying since learning that Darrel Goodliffe is a Lib Dem activist.
There were lots of letters in this week’s Yorkshire Evening Post on the subject of the barbeque proposal. The first was published on Tuesday and was from Phil Graham asking why he should pay council tax when the council won’t uphold the byelaws. Of course it’s a rhetorical question because Phil knows very well that if he didn’t pay council tax, they’d come and lock him up. If the people who have illegal barbeques knew that the same fate awaited them, there wouldn’t be a barbeque problem. The second letter appeared on Wednesday and was from Councillor Martin Hamilton who says that if the police had to deal with anti-social behaviour on the Moor, they wouldn’t be able to deal with more serious crime elsewhere. Councillor Hamilton, a former chair of INWAC, fails to mention that INWAC can make council funds available to the police to pay for additional policing. He also fails to mention that the assignment of park wardens to the park would improve park security without affecting policing elsewhere in the area and that last July, a deputation of local residents asked the council for two park wardens to be assigned to Woodhouse Moor, and were refused. The next letter also appeared on Wednesday and was from L E Slack who feels that the barbeques are inappropriate in parks, and that the consultation process is unethical. On Thursday, there were letters from Darrell Goodliffe and Tony Green. Mr Goodliffe says that opponents of the barbeque proposal “suffer from a basic refusal to deal with reality” and wear “blinkers”. Tony Green in his letter reports on the recent public meeting and the resounding “No” it gave to the barbeque proposal. On Friday, Cherril Cliff who lives in Armley, but works in Woodhouse, voiced her opposition to the proposal. Also in Friday’s paper was a letter from Howard and Christine Eaglestone asking how likely it is that people will keep to the proposed barbeque areas. Then in today’ paper, in a relatively short letter, former Headingley councillor David Morton makes a number of highly relevant points about the proposal itself, the consultation, the ASB that’s allowed on the park, and the neglect.
