This page, the newest on the site, is taking shape. Scrolling down the page a short distance gives access to some graphic images. 'Shambolic Sheffield' is a project rather than a single page. There's more on the Home Page, where links give access to the material. Other pages of the site provide supplementary information and more detailed information.
Sheffield University: Koen Lamberts, President, Vice-Chancellor and fire risks: Carry on Camping.
Sheffield University: Communications with academics on the disadvantages of the student encampment
Robin Sykes, Chief Operating Officer
Sheffield
University UCU: multiple failures
An email to Campus Safety and Security
In brief: a video on cruelty in Gaza
Chief Inspector Jane Bullimore of Sheffield Allotment Office: fly-tipping and inspections
South Yorkshire Police Unprofessional Standards Department: 'Lauren'
Oliver Coppard, South Yorkshire Mayor: Feebly-Functioning Figurehead?
Alan Billings, former South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and apologist for slavery
Tapton School, Sheffield: David Bowes, 'Reservoir of Hope?' Nope
Sheffield University (and Sheffield Hallam University): further comment
Sheffield Dales is a page with many images and no criticism (except for a very brief mention). It has material on other places in S. Yorkshire.
Below, photograph at top left not taken by me. All other photographs were taken by me and show conditions at the Student Encampment at Sheffield University. The serious fire risk was ignored by the camp organizers and the university authorities. The Camp gives more detailed information and many more images.
'The objectives set out in the brief have been addressed through the design development of the scheme:
A design that is uncluttered and provides a flexible space, for a variety of users and functions that occur through the University’s academic year
Create an important civic space within the campus where people want to stay and socialise, that will provide an animated space during the day and at night
Create spaces that respond to user’s requirements – social, learning and quiet activities
Compliant and have a relationship with the Masterplan public realm
A design that respond [sic] to the buildings and functions around the Concourse
A lighting scheme that promotes use of the space, through the feeling of safety and security, whilst providing a dynamic night time streetscape
A scheme that focused on sustainability of materials'
The Concourse is uncluttered no longer. The degree of clutter varies. When left over food and many other things are left on tables, when objects are piled up on the floor, the clutter is very noticeable.
A large part of the area is now unavailable for social use - except for the socializing of the Campus campers and people who come to the site to see them - twice this week, I've seen in the area the member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, certainly not a student, who took part in the chaotic attempt to take away my camera, someone who on three occasions has prevented me from walking freely. He prevented me from walking freely in the Concourse yet again, on Wednesday 15 May, but of course, students, staff and members of the public like myself are prevented from making fuller use of the Concourse because the tents and the clutter make that impossible.
The area is no longer an 'important civic space' for a wide range of activities. A large part of the area is now unavailable for other activities, such as quiet activities.
Security on the site is now severely compromised, I believe. Instead of clear sight-lines, a space which can easily be viewed to prevent and detect security risks, we have a space which is now obstructive in large part, making impossible the clear views which were once provided, providing now multiple opportunities for concealment, at night as well as in the day. Anyone who wants to occupy an empty tent at night would be able to do just that without any difficulty. People walking through the area at night are potentially at risk.
CCTV is essential to maximize the safety and security of users of the area but now, a large area can't be viewed adequately and a substantial part can't be viewed at all.
An additional hazard: there will be food waste in the area now. Not all of it will be cleared promptly. Some may be left for quite a time. This food waste may well attract urban rats.
Fire precautions in the camping area seem to be not so much inadequate as non-existent. Fire safety should be just as good as at a commercial camp site. An example of fire precautions at a commercial site:
' ... clear space between pitches [each
tent is within a pitch] should be at least
three metres and no pitch ... should be more
than 90 metres from a fire point. At each
fire point there should be two 10-litre
water extinguishers (complying with British
Standard 5423) and there should be a method
of raising the alarm. There should also be a
notice explaining the steps to take in the
event of a fire: raise the alarm, evacuate
the area, call the fire brigade, suppress
the fire using the provided equipment.'
' ... clear space between pitches [each
tent is within a pitch] should be at least
three metres and no pitch ... should be more
than 90 metres from a fire point. At each
fire point there should be two 10-litre
water extinguishers (complying with British
Standard 5423) and there should be a method
of raising the alarm. There should also be a
notice explaining the steps to take in the
event of a fire: raise the alarm, evacuate
the area, call the fire brigade, suppress
the fire using the provided equipment.
My view is that Sheffield Campus Coalition
for Palestine,' and Sheffield University,
have been risking disaster. A student
trapped inside a tent inferno in the middle
of the night, the flames spreading swiftly
to neighbouring tents - which are spaced
very, very closely in the concourse, in
ignorance of the risks, the whole
campsite quickly aflame - this is the kind
of scenario risked by ignoring, or in
ignorance of, the fire risks.
Aesthetically, the area has suffered. Crude graffiti are visible, not the work of vandals but of believers in the cause. 'Palestine Camp,' Bulletin - Issue 1, published by the Campus Campers, includes this, 'We want to ... cover every surface we can with chalk and banners demanding liberation.' This objective is explicitly stated, part of a supposed strategy 'for how to build power and target the university.'
Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign and similar organizations take the view that when they protest, rights and freedoms guaranteed by law are no longer to be observed if they think they are in conflict with their 'demands.' I have found this to be the case in various places, at various times. My freedom of action has been restricted.
'Campaigners' have prevented me from walking in one direction or in any direction but the way back, in an attempt to prevent me from exercising a similar freedom, the freedom to take photographs or film footage of protesters.
Until recently, the interference was only temporary, for the duration of a protest which lasted a few hours.
At the Sheffield encampment, the interference has been far more lasting. In the encampment site, the same tactics were used by two different people, one a student, the other not a student: standing very close to me, in my path, preventing me from walking forwards. If I've moved to the side, these people have moved to the side, so that I continued to be blocked. This area is a public highway and wilfully stopping free movement is, to me, a case of obstruction, which has legal penalties if the person is found guilty of the offence. The Councourse is a public highway. In law, obstruction does not have to take the form of obstruction to the whole width of the highway. The prevention of movement in one part of the highway constitutes obstruction as well.
There is absolutely no reason why Sheffield University should provide facilities for a very vocal, very demanding minority with an insatiable appetite for making demands, people who take one particular view of a single set of issues. The issues are very important ones but there are very different views of the issues - views, in my experience, far more likely to be accompanied by argument and evidence.
There is surely no reason why Sheffield University should disadvantage other users of the Concourse. The Campus Campers have many, many other ways of promoting their views and publicizing their views. Sheffield University is under no obligation whatsoever to give them these facilities for promoting their cause. To grant these people these facilities and privileges is surely misguided, unfair.
My view is that the Camp has been damaging and the longer it continues, the more damage it will cause. The best outcome by far would be for the Sheffield Campus Coalition for Palestine to take the decision to close the camp and to dismantle it. If not, my view is that Sheffield University should take action to close the camp, which would probably need preliminary legal action.
If both Sheffield Campus Coalition and Sheffield University decide not to take this step, my view is that circumstances and future developments will lead to the closure of the camp for certain in the longer term, but that Sheffield Campus Coalition and Sheffield University will be left with impaired reputations. My view is that Sheffield Campus Coalition has no reputation worthy of the name but that Sheffield University is in a very different category, flawed, deeply flawed in some respects, but with immense strengths which very much outweigh the weaknesses.
Best Wishes,
Paul Hurt
Sheffield
Rob Sykes 'provides strategic and operational leadership to a wide range of services' at Sheffield University.' This is an extract from an email I sent him on 24 May 2024. I sent a coy to the Vice Chancellor. Rob Sykes had emailed me, with some 'improvements' made to fire safety at the encampment. I wasn't impressed.
Above, UCU member Umberto Albarella of Sheffield University. There's extended material on only two UCU members for the time being: a profile of Professor Albarella and comments on Dr Lisa Stampnitzky. In the profile of Professor Albarella, I include my reasons for blocking his head in the photograph.
For the time being, the list of Sheffield UCU members in this section is very short. Other members will be added, including academics at Sheffield Hallam University.
UCU members from the Sheffield Universities signed a letter opposing the ban on Palestine Action. The list of signatories includes some people listed in this section.
Craig Brandist, Anthony Powis and Umberto Albarella are amongst the names on the List of Signers, the List of Shame.. I intend to add a profile of UCU's Craig Brandist to this section as well as comments on Robyn Ortifelli, of the School of English, not a signer of The List. She was the Sheffield UCU Branch President at the time of the Student Encampment. She's now the Senior Vice President. I've already added a short profile of Umberto Albarella to this section:
Craig Brandist is a Professor in the School of Languages, Arts and Societies. I find that he has a strong interest in the work of Mikhail Bakhtin and the Bakhtin Circle. I've an interest in the work of Bakhtin. A quotation from his 'Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics' appears in a section in the lower reaches of the Home Page. For many years, it was in a very prominent position, at the top of the Home Page. It now appears towards the end of the long Home Page. I provide a copy of the material at the end of this section, as 'supplementary material.'
Liam Stanley appears in the list of profiles on another page of the site, Academics against armaments. Naive views are often not very harmful but the naive views of the academic signers criticized on the page are of a different order: living and thinking in a world of illusion and delusion, divorced from reality. I think that his views constitute a severe disadvantage for someone who is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Sheffield University.
The short profile of Liam Stanley was written quite a long time ago. I've now searched for fresh information on this part-academic part-dilettante (I don't speculate about the proportions here), using that well-known, very useful tool Google. I used the search term "Liam Stanley" Sheffield University academics armaments - and found that this Website is listed in 1st and 3rd place. I used the search term "Liam Stanley" Sheffield University UCU and found that this site is listed in 2nd place.
I don't write with the intention of securing high ranking in Google, but very often, I find that the site does have high rankings. It will take time before the material now being added to the site, including the material in this section, is examined by Google. Perhaps individuals listed here will appear on the first page of Google listing for some search terms, or perhaps not. My writing isn't guided by considerations of this kind. All I do is do what I can.
The photograph at the beginning of this section shows Professor Albarella of Sheffield Green Party making the clenched fist salute whilst taking the knee - not in this case in homage to 'Black Lives Matter,' probably. Homage to anarchist comrades? Homage to Sheffield Green Party? Solidarity with Sheffield Green Party comrades? For naive and confused reasons not fully formed, reasons he can't be bothered with, since the show is what counts for him, not, I think, any form of reasoning? I'm sure he takes much more care in his academic work, which seems to be of high quality. It includes the study of animal bones.
For further comment on this rather peculiar personage - in my opinion, that is - just read on. But don't let reading about him take up much of your time. I don't think he would be worth it. In my experience, there's no shortage of peculiar people who are members of the Green Party. Some of them are 'funny peculiar,' comical rather than disturbing, but there's no shortage of fanatics. I'd say that Green Party Councillor councillor Alexi Dimond, discussed below, is a prime example. His fanaticism is tempered with cluelessness but I regard him as a very harmful influence in Sheffield politics. My page on Israel includes material on genocide and civilian casualties in war. It should make clear the abysmal ignorance of the man, the abysmal ignorance of Professor Albarella, the abysmal ignorance of the UCU.
A selection of Professor Albarella's writing, none of it in extended form - just slogan after slogan after slogan - none of it providing argument and evidence, none of his grotesque generalizations allowing exceptions, appears on his page
https://www.sotwe.com/UAlbarella?lang=tr
After 'We will ALWAYS support freedom of movement [freedom of movement includes freedom for ISIS supporters and terrorists to enter this country, does it?] there's a picture of a white poppy and the familiar slogan 'STOP THE GENOCIDE), a list: 'archaeologist, green-anarchist, pacifist ... ' and then this: 'national borders are a crime against humanity.' In his deluded state he might believe it's actually possible for the countries of the world to abolish their borders and allow freedom of movement but in practice, as a matter of strict fact, these things are no more possible than allowing anyone who wants to become a student at Sheffield University to become a student at Sheffield University. Such considerations as gross overcrowding in lecture theatres and gross overcrowding in student accommodation are relevant.
I would hope that the Department of Archaelogy encourages - requires -
undergraduate and graduate students to have a respect for evidence, the
responsible use of evidence, the avoidance of wild generalization, the
use of responsible language, to be ready to have views challenged - but
only, it seems, in the field of archaeology. Are these virtues to be
disregarded when it comes to the wider world, the supremely important
world which includes ethical choice, ethical dilemmas, the avoidance of
war, the conduct of war?
I can't, of course. demand that he enters into debate,
I can't demand that he should defend his views on Israel, on war, those
wider issues.
On the Sheffield Green Party page
https://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/sgp-officer-elections-job-descriptions-candidate-statements/umberto-albarella/
there's a picture of Professor Albarella making the clenched fist
salute. The image in this section is a smaller version, modified so as
not to infringe copyright. A block conceals his face. The
images of Alexi Dimond below are modified in the same way, for the
same reason. I did contact the Sheffield Green Party, requesting
that if they had any objection to my use of modified photographs on
my Website, they should contact me. If they had objected, I wouldn't
have made use of these photographs. As they didn't contact me to
raise any objections, I have used them.
A dictionary definition of 'blockhead' is 'stupid
person.' Professor Albarella and Alexi Dimond are stupid but much more than that - harmful, I'd contend.
The clenched fist salute represents some political ideologies,
including communism and anarchism, and supposedly expresses strength and
resistance. Making a tough guy gesture is one thing, showing that
he's tough is quite another. I think it's likely, overwhelmingly likely,
that he'll prefer not to make a fuss over the criticisms here, that
he'll complacently choose the path of least resistance, that his
ideology isn't robust but fragile and weak. In the picture, he's posing.
My view is that when he meets real resistance to his idiotic views, he gives
up, or simply shouts more slogans.
An academic in the field of
archaeology who flagrantly disregards evidence or distorts evidence
which concerns the wider matters montioned (my
view of things in the case of Professor Albarella) is someone who
doesn't enhance the reputation of archaeology as a subject which
prospective undergraduates can choose or a subject which deserves to be
part of the curriculum of Sheffield University.
He has
used
the slogan 'cultural vandalism' in response to Sheffield University's
intention to remove archaeology from the curriculum. There are arguments against archaeology
as part of this university's curriculum. Any arguments for archaeology
aren't helped in the least by the hideous ignorance of this man.
I take into account the fact that the academics in the Department of
Archaeology will have very varied views, including views very unlike the ones held by Professor Albarella.
As I see it, based on the evidence I obtained at the time of the Sheffield Encampment in 2024, it was Dr Lisa Stampnitzky who was the most prominent - the most visible - supporter of the camp. Unsurprisingly, Dr Stampnitzky, who is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Sheffield University. signed the declaration concerning Palestine Action.
This is a section I wrote whilst the camp was still in existence. It includes comment on the attitudes of students at the encampment. I've good reason for thinking that these attitudes are representative, not uncommon. I draw attention to the ignorance of these students and the ignorance of Dr Stampniztsky.
I don't include in the section quoted below comment on the fire risk but I do give now
a challenge to Dr Stampnitzky. What's your reaction to the material I've included on this page and on the Home Page of the site on the fire risk at the encampment? Does knowledge of the fire risk change your attitude to the encampment? Are you really to confirm your view that the camp was an undertaking which was well worth while - or do you agree with my view that disregard for the serious fire risks was culpable, can't possibly be defended?
Extract from my page on the camp:
I was given a double sided information sheet (or propaganda sheet), 'Palestine Camp,' Bulletin - Issue 1: 06/05/24. It may be that Issue 1 was the one and only issue. It included this:
Students and staff: join the camp!
The propaganda sheet makes this claim:
'We are part of a national and international student movement, sweeping the country and the globe. Sixteen British universities are in revolt; by next week there will be twenty-five.'
'We want to be visible so more people can join us. We want to show the uni that from here we can only get stronger. We are guided by our compassion and love.'
One striking and significant fact. In all the time I've spent at the camp so far, I've only seen one member of the public, or anyone else, such as staff or student, come up to one or more students and enquire. There are plenty of passers by but they don't appear to take any interest in the displays. If they do look, it's only momentarily. On the evidence I have, it seems clear that they're failing to have an impact. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the naive and ridiculous objectives mentioned in their leaflet, 'Palestine Camp.' There's not a trace of ever-increasing power and impact, of an unstoppable force. Claims to the contrary are just words, empty verbiage.
I asked students who belonged to the encampment for their views on the horrific events of October7, the Hamas attack on Israel, I asked for their views on the treatment of homosexuals in Gaza, where homosexuality is subject to punishment for up to ten years, I asked for their views on Iran, the supporter of Hamas. I mentioned sentences of stoning to death for adultery in Iran. I mentioned a wide range of abuses - and got nowhere. They were indifferent - - 'Can't be bothered.'
The propaganda sheet also makes this claim:
'This university is covered in blood. It has received over £72 million from arms companies since 2012. Staff at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) have won awards for their work developing the F-35 fighter jet, used by the Israeli army in their genocidal murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians. [I discuss the issue of genocide at length in my page on Israel and the issue of the killing of civilians in war is discussed in the short summary of issues below.] We are demanding the university cuts ties with arms companies, joins in with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) of Israel, and shows accountability by meeting staff and students at our camp.'
The 'demands' of SCCP include this: 'We hold the University of Sheffield accountable for their complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people.'
This is followed by this amazing (amazingly stupid) claim. It really does deserve some emphasis:
'We will remain camping indefinitely until our demands are met.'
Are they quite sure of that? This confident statement is doomed to disappointment. [As I point out on the Home Page of the site, the camp was closed without any of their demands being met.]
'This university belongs to all of us, not our parasitic student management. If we come together in strength and solidarity there is no demand we cannot win.' [Again, this is an empty claim, which shows an ignorance of the limits to action.]
When complying with demands entails very severe consequences, when the demands are demands for impossible objectives, when the people who are making the demands have far less power, then it's the people making the demands who lose.
To issue the demand, 'Stop the assault on Gaza' will have no more effect on events in the real world than any other plea in time of war which is powerless to make the demand effective.
'We demand an immediate ceasefire ... ' What? An immediate ceasefire? NOW? This minute? Surely, out of the question. Or do these people regard themselves as miracle workers? 'NOW' is often used instead of 'now' because it's wrongly supposed that the use of capital letters gives even greater urgency and makes achievement more likely.
After my second visit to the encampment, I began to rethink a policy which I've made clear to students there on both my visits. I said that one of my reasons for visiting was to take photographs for documentary purposes. The law allows the taking of photographs in these circumstances. The law allows the taking of photographs of children, of police officers and of the faces of students but I have self-imposed limitations. I don't take photographs in any of those cases. I didn't take photographs of any of the students taking part.
Now, I see the need to modify the rules I've set for myself. From now on, I'll take photographs of students taking part and I'll take film footage too. This applies to any future visits I make to the encampment and once the encampment is no more, as will probably happen fairly soon, I'll take photographs and take film footage of students taking part in any future pro-Palestinian events which may take place at the university, when I'm able to attend. If Dr Stampnitzky ever visits the encampment when I'm there, I'll waste no time at all in taking a photograph for use on this page.
Dr Stampnitzky, 'staff representative on
SCCP and Politics Lecturer:'
'I am proud to see our students taking a stand and
joining this worldwide movement against the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Our university needs to confirm its commitment to be an ethical
institution and divest itself of ties to the development of weapons used
to perpetrate atrocities.'
In fact, she has encouraged students to enter a complex and hazardous field, without, it seems, any awareness of the risks, which are potentially considerable. (There are other disadvantages, such as the simple wasting of time, expending time and effort on initiative which are surely doomed to failure.)
Universities have no statutory duty of care for their students. In recent years, the discussion has been centred on a very, very important aspect, the mental health of students, but there are obviously wider implications. Academics who provide care for their students which meets the basic legal requirements but no more should be ashamed, I believe.
In the case of the encampment, do the words and actions of Dr Stampnitzky satisfy basic levels of care? Do they fail other tests? My own view is that she has acted recklessly, with insufficient thought given to the consequences of her words and actions. This academic, and the students taking part in the encampment, should realize that there are possible consequences, including unintended consequences.
It's clear that Dr Stampnitzky, like the unknown author or authors of what I call 'the propaganda sheet,' have a view of armaments as evil, or harmful to an extreme degree - of course, they choose to neglect Palestinian and Iranian use of armaments, such as the rockets and drones which have rained down on Israel at intervals.
My extensive page Academics against Armaments discusses the subject. Since the page was published, there have been developments which make clear what should have been completely clear before that: armaments are ambiguous, they can be used to destroy liberties and to restore liberties, for outright repression and for liberation from oppression. Examples include the aggressive use of armaments by the Nazis and the liberation of countries from Nazi rule, which would have been impossible without the use of armaments. And, also, of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and resistance to Russian invasion, again, impossible without the use of armaments.
The aircraft whose construction is furthered by the work of AMRC are for constructive ends. Without access to armaments, Israel obviously cannot defend itself and cannot defeat potential invaders of this whole area, including terrorist invaders.
Not only is Dr Stampnitzky unable to see the force of these arguments, the same applies to some other academics in the Department of Politics and International Relations. One example, Dr Joanna Tidy, who signed the grotesque document mentioned in my page 'Academics against Armaments.'
Supplementary material, from the Home Page:
This section is only a preliminary contribution to a very big subject - the failings of the UCU. The material here will need to be revised and extended to give an adequate account of the multiple failings of this particular UCU group. I've good reasons to think think that other University UCU groups share their failings but in most cases, they will have been spared the shame of failing to react to the specific issue of the dangerous fire risk at the student encampment of 2024.
Sheffield UCU group has an interest in protecting its members. Does the Sheffield UCU group also have an interest in the welfare of students? Whoever was the Health and Safety Officer at the time of the student encampment was an abject failure - or failed to detect anything to worry about at the student encampment. The records of the UCU at the time clearly show that the main worry seems to have been to do with the university's failure to give less than wholehearted support to the doomed and ridiculous venture, which hadn't the least prospect of having the least impact on events in the Middle East.
If Robyn Orfitelli of the Sheffield University UCU group - or any other members of the group - could give me any thoughts they may have on the Health and Safety issues arising from the Student Encampment - in particular the very serious fire risks arising from the large number of tents in very close proximity - then I'd be glad to receive them but it seems overwhelmingly likely there will be 'No comment.'
I could have expressed this much more vigorously and directly - I challenge you to give reasons why you think that I'm mistaken and you're not mistaken, if your view is that there were no particular problems here. A direct challenge would have been just as unlikely to produce results. Outside their specialisms (which include Samoan language in the case of Dr Orfitelli) many academics can be surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) incommunicative, unable to contribute to the discussion. They are dilettantes as well as specialists.
I doubt if many, or any Sheffiuld UCU members have carried out the work of finding out much, much more about the wide ranging history of genocide, about the realities, techniques, tactics and strategies of war. They are unlikely to have opened Clausewitz 'On War' and so many other standard works.
No matter what may be the academic strengths of UCU members in their specialist fields, on the subject of Israel and Palestinian issues, the UCU is a bunch of slogan shouters and slogan writers, completely unable to defend their views in any detail. In this role, they are indoctrinators, not educators. The pro-Palestinian student encampment at Sheffield University was an indoctrination camp. My page on the camp gives far more detail.
We are committed to the safety of our University, proactively offering a reassuring and visible security service.
Email sent to 'Campus safety and security.' The email address used was this one, the email address of the 'dedicated' South Yorkshire Police team attached to the Campus safety and security team:
syp_sheffield_uni_officers@southyorks.pnn.police.uk
From a Campus safety and security Web page:
Making our university safer
In 2018, we welcomed two dedicated South Yorkshire Police (SYP) Officers to the team. They support our campus safety and security team to ensure the safety and security of the University community, its buildings and visitors.
An extract from the email I sent to these dedicated officers, 8 June 2024. By this time, long before this time, documenting the Student Encampment had become a frankly hazardous occupation. In the scale of hazardous occupations, it would rank very low, but three protestors had already launched an attack on me, to stop me filming and taking photographs, not on this public land in the university area but on public land adjoining Sheffield City Hall. This was in advance of a very short visit to the University Concourse to film and take photographs. If an attack were to be made during this planned visit, then I was completely willing to fight back, no problems there. But there would be problems after this response to aggression. I was completely willing to take the risk of filming and taking photographs but not willing to take the risk that accounts of an incident could be twisted and manipulated to make it appear that I was the aggressor. I'd no desire to become mired in time-wasting controversy. What I needed was the presence of a South Yorkshire Police PC for about 15 minutes, to witness events and prevent any attempts to stop me filming and taking photographs. Extract from the email sent:
I've supplied to Security Services information, with evidence, about multiple incidents involving intimidation and aggression directed at me when I've been photographing or filming at the encampment. I've pointed out to students at the encampment that the law allows me to photograph and to film freely ...
As I see it, the best protection would be a visible presence from the police or security services staff in the short period when I'll be in the Concourse. I regret the need to take up their time but the decision is theirs ... One person only would need to attend. The person could summon help if needed, of course. If there's no person present from South Yorkshire Police or the University Security Services then the decision to stay away is one they are free to make, but if an incident does occur - minor or serious - then I have the freedom to publish an account and to take what steps are realistic to publicize the issues ... If an incident does occur when I visit the encampment this morning, I may be able to gain video evidence.
... I have no connections with Sheffield University but the protection of visitors to the Concourse as well as the protection of staff and students in the Concourse is a responsibility of the university ... so far, the protection given to me has been, I'd claim, not even minimal.
The dedicated police officers never replied. I found that I found that the campus police don't work at weekends, and this was a Saturday. I never saw a single uniformed PC at the Concourse.
An extract from an email, sent 16 May 2024.
I phoned Sheffield University Security yesterday, 15 May, to report some concerns of mine after I'd attended the pro-Palestinian event at the 'encampment' in the Concourse. It was suggested that I could put the information in written form, in an email, and I'm glad to do that now. I do include some wider considerations, ones which are important, as I see it.
I'll begin with an earlier incident (23 March, 2024) which is relevant background information for my experiences yesterday. The earlier incident was followed by an approach to South Yorkshire Police. In the earlier incident, my camera was damaged, although later, I was able to get it working again. South Yorkshire Police was helpful and a detailed search of CCTV footage in Barker's Pool, where the incident took place, was carried out, but no relevant footage was found. I did have film footage, supplied to the police with photographic evidence.
The footage is very short because one of the protesters grabbed hold of my camera by the lens before I could record any more. The audio recording provided shows this protester, or perhaps another protester in the group, shouting out 'You can't take my picture.' This is repeated. I can be heard shouting, 'Get off my camera.' I repeated that, but the word 'camera' can't be heard this time. I managed to get the protester to release his hold on the camera but found it had been damaged and had stopped recording. Later, I did manage to get the camera working again.
This earlier incident, like the incident yesterday, offers, in my view, some important insights into the world of Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign, SPSC, the organizers of the earlier protest, and of Sheffield Campus Coalition for Palestine, SCCP, which organized yesterday's event in conjunction with SCCP. For me, as a pro-Israeli campaigner, these and similar organizations have vulnerabilities. They aren't nearly so powerful as they claim. I've reason for thinking that an extreme sensitivity to being photographed or filmed is a very significant vulnerability. I've good reason for thinking it can deter protestors from continuing to protest, it can bring protests to an end earlier than would otherwise be the case, for reasons which I don't give here but which seem clear enough.
Here, I obviously take the
view that it's very desirable for
these protests to be curtailed and
ended, again for reasons which I
don't give here. These particular
protests seem to me to be harmful,
very harmful, for a variety of
reasons. Obviously, not all protests
belong to this category.
That same sensitivity was
obvious yesterday. I mentioned my
right in law to take photographs and
to film and the response was to deny
that I had any such right, or that I
couldn't exercise my right. A very
curious event: an individual quickly
appeared and forcefully stated that
I had no right to take photographs
or to film, or that I had to have
permission from the person being
photographed or filmed. I
stated that I didn't have to ask for
permission to photograph or film at
all. He became quite agitated and
then, surprisingly, gave the
information that he was as member of
staff. I assumed for some reason,
that he was an academic but I was
later told that he was a member of
staff in the Union building.
Not long after that, a
student came up, someone I'd seen at
various times in visits to the
encampment. He informed that he had
been sent 'to keep a watch on me.'
Another student was obviously
dismayed by this, the fact that
someone should be keeping watch on
me, and suggested that she and I
should go to a different area to
have a discussion. I agreed. We went
to a quiet area, sat down and had a
long and wide-ranging discussion
about various aspects of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a
discussion of a kind which I would
like to have had with
pro-Palestinian supporters but which
has never been possible before, a
completely courteous interchange of
views - but the discussion was
interrupted at intervals by the
arrival of the student who had the
job of 'keeping a watch on me.' The
student I was talking to was visibly
irritated by this and made it clear
that the intrusions weren't
'helpful.'
Eventually, I decided that it
was time to rejoin the throng some
distance away - and to take some
more photographs. When I mentioned
the fact that I would like to take
more photographs, the response was
panic. She said that I had to have
permission to take photographs.
When I said that that wasn't so, no
permission was needed - the law
allowed me to take a photograph of
her, for that matter, although I had
no intention of doing that - she ran
off. I was left with the rather sad
realization that a discussion which
seemed such a constructive one may
well have been an attempt to
keep me away from the other people
and to stop me from taking
photographs.
One of the people in the group which turned on me at the event in Barker's Pool, although not the person who actually grabbed my camera and temporarily damaged it, was present at yesterday's event at the Councourse, as well as an earlier event, a protest held outside a supermarket, which was accused of being complicit in genocide for selling Israeli dates. He was one of the people I complained about to South Yorkshire Police and I supplied photographic evidence for identification.
On each of the
three occasions where I have seen
him, he has attempted to block my
path, to prevent me from going where
I wanted. In each case, he has
succeeded. He has stood in front of
me, very close, within a few inches,
so that if I did walk forward I
would have to make contact - and he
would then have accused me of
harassment or something similar.
Yesterday, then, as on the previous
occasions, such a simple thing as
walking where I wanted to has been
impossible. For a time, the
Councourse, if not a 'no-go area,'
was an area where my freedom to walk
where I wanted wasn't allowed.
Eventually, he did walk away.
... My view of things takes into account not just the argument and evidence in favour of Israel but wider considerations, such as the importance of the rule of law, the preservation of our freedoms, resisting erosion of our freedoms, the massive importance of security - security against external aggression, such as threats posed by Russia, and internal security, the security provided by the police against such dangers as terrorist action and monitoring and if necessary controlling protest of a kind which takes no account of realities and which can undermine national security. I also include, of course, the protection provided by university security organizations.
A graphic illustration of the importance of security is provided by events yesterday in Govan, Scotland, at a protest against the electronics contractor Thales. In the course of the anti-Israeli protest, six police officers were injured, one of them bitten in the arm.
SPSC and SCCP materials make it completely clear that opposition to Sheffield University's Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) is one of their main objectives. In fact, AMRC is deeply impressive, a magnificent achievement, with immense benefits for our national security, for the apprentices and others who work there. The opposition is reductionist, ignoring practically everything but the single issue, an ideology which takes no account of argument and evidence.
I mentioned vulnerabilities in SPSC and SCCP but I won't supply very much of the evidence in this email. I'll simply mention the fact - or my view of the facts - that again and again, they carry out their protests in ways which seem to me to be incompetent. The Website of SPSC carries the message 'not secure.' I would have thought that this was an elementary mistake which could and should have been put right. It seems to me that to announce to the person being watched that a watch is in place is poor tactics for any 'campaigning' organization.
In the hours I've spent at the encampment over the past four days, hardly any of my time has been spent taking photographs and practically no time filming. What I have done to a far greater extent is to simply sit and observe. In all that time, I've only seen one person approach the students to ask questions and to have questions answered. There has been a steady stream of people going towards the Union building and away from the Union building but if they've looked at the posters and the rest, it has only been momentarily. The overwhelming impression seems to me to have been indifference to the encampment. If I'm right, this suggests that all the claims made for steadily growing mobilization of people, of an unstoppable mass movement, are false. SCCP has declared that the camp will continue until their 'demands' are met. In my view, these demands are so unrealistic that they are impossible to meet. This is simply comment from me, not part of the summary of events which I agreed to provide.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/dec/12/cattle-abuse-gaza-video
In 2025, I received a very short phone call from a doctor at the medical
centre which I use, mentioning 'Howden House,' a department of Sheffield
City Council. Their responsibilities include safeguarding, mental health and
wellbeing, information I only acquired recently. I was perplexed. I've never had any dealings with Howden House until the events described
below. Evidently, Howden House had contacted him but the doctor provided no
further information. Almost certainly, the doctor assumed that I was already
aware of the situation and felt that there was no need to give further
information.
Not very long after, a note was left for me at my house - I was out at the
time - giving me a number to ring. I phoned and found that the woman who had
called was from Howden House. She informed me that South Yorkshire Police
had contacted Howden House and asked them to contact my doctor. The reason,
the very surprising reason: a
request to view my medical records.
The police, and Howden House, should
know that there are a limited number of reasons for requesting access to
patient records and none of them were applicable in this case. If they were
not aware of this at the time, a little research would have shown them that
if a doctor releases confidential information then the doctor risks criminal
charges and
disciplinary action. The doctor rightly refused to
allow access to my records. This was not all. I was also told that South Yorkshire Police had made two
bizarre allegations - that there was 'clutter' in my house, and that I was
a 'hoarder.' These were the words used.
A few weeks later, the lady made an anannounced visit to my house and we
talked in the same front room where I'd talked to two SYP constables a few
weeks before. The allegations must have come from one of the two PC's who
visited me then. The lady from Howden House found no signs of clutter and no
signs of hoarding. The only items present in large numbers in that room
were, and are, books. I've almost a thousand books, all arranged neatly on
bookshelves lining most of the walls. Amongst other things, I'm an
independent scholar, carrying out study and research in a number of fields.
General reading is a strong interest of mine, in many different subjects,
including legal matters.
A few weeks after that, another member of staff at Howden House contacted me and
gave further information. She informed me that South Yorkshire Police had
made the allegation to one or more persons at Howden House that I was
'mentally ill.' It would seem that South Yorkshire Police takes a very broad
- and surely deeply disturbing - view of its responsibilities, encompassing
the policing of supposed clutter, supposed 'hoarding' and dabbling in issues
to do with psychiatry - in an amateurish, uninformed way.
This is why the two PC's came to my house. They were here for about an hour.
I had called at the Headquarters of a charity, the Church Army. The
headquarters are here in Sheffield. I'd received a letter from the Church
Army, taking issue with the fact that I had sent some of their trustees a
copy of a letter setting out some concerns of mine about the running of the
Church Army (my stance happens to be a sceptical, critical one. I'm not a
Christian.) I'd received a letter from an individual at the Church Army
stating that a complaint had been made to the police and threatening further
complaints to the police.
The Church Army staff on duty (they did not include the member of staff I wanted to talk to, since, I was informed, she was at a meeting) became more and more hostile and I was asked to leave the premises. I did leave but not long after I had got back to my house, a police patrol car drew up and the two PC's knocked at the door. This response time was very, very quick - much quicker than the time it generally takes to respond to non-emergency visits, if, that is, the police do call. The police were calling on me for reasons which had nothing to do with central aspects of policing or peripheral aspects of policing, for no good reason whatsoever.
I admitted them and talked to them but they failed to give me any reason for their visit. It was obviously to do with my very recent visit to the Church Army headquarters but they didn't supply any supporting information. It would seem that this was an instinctive, hasty, reckless response to a groundless and reckless complaint by the Church Army.
The inspection carried out by 'Chief Inspector Jane Bullimore' is inspection of allotments, of course, with no resemblance to the work of Inspector Nik Dodsworth of South Yorkshire Police. From the Home Page of the site, referring to inspections in 2024:
This section has two purposes: (1) to show that Jane Bullimore's decision to take away my two allotments was grossly unfair. (2) to form a record, with many illustrative images, of some of the work I've carried out at the allotments in 2025. A great deal of this most recent work has linkages with work in previous years. I'll be explaining the reasons below.
I can easily show that Jane Bullimore's decisions (in 2024) were based on multiple errors, some of them serious ones. I'll be presenting the evidence here. The decisions were eventually reversed, but the events form part of a wider pattern, taking up a very great deal of my time, requiring a very great deal of work which has taken me away from other work. The apparent simplicity of the situation - allegedly overgrown and uncultivated land, the enforcement of reasonable sanctions - was nothing of the kind. The background is wide-ranging and disturbing and I have the evidence, including emails from me to Jane Bulimore about weed control, allotment law and many other issues.
Just one aspect of the problem, the demand to remove my possessions from the two allotments, involved enormous complications and difficulties for me. Again, it had an impact on my other work. If my appeal hadn't been successful, the impact would have been very far-reaching. I make clear why this is so. This is a clear-cut case of badly mistaken judgment on the part of Jane Bullimore. There was negligible evidence of weed growth. I was facing substantial challenges in the early months of 2024. By the time of the first inspection, I'd pruned the fruit trees but hadn't dug over what was, and remains, by far the largest growing area on the two allotments. I have a rotavator but didn't use it. After the first inspection, I dug over the whole of this very large area, which is visible from the road lower down. She didn't notice the obvious fact that it had been cultivated or chose to ignore the fact.
Inspection of the allotments in Sheffield has one obvious flaw, a major flaw, which renders the inspection system ridiculously unfair in so many cases. Despite the mention of the maximum height for hedges in the allotment regulations and the allotment handbook, this is ignored again and again. There are many, many allotments with such high hedges that it's impossible to see anything of the allotment interiors. There are many, many allotments with some of the interior visible, but large areas which are impossible to see. Perhaps the Allotment Office could consider buying a drone to make possible an aerial view into these allotments? My own top allotment has partial, very limited views, for very good reasons, to do with security. Below, I'll give much more detailed information about the facts and the implications.
My dealings with South Yorkshire Professional Standards Department have been limited. It would have been better if they had been non-existent. I've nothing whatsoever to report in their favour. My experiences have only been very, very disillusioning. Other people may have been more fortunate or more lucky. I'll simply provide here an email from someone called 'Lauren' who works in the department, or did work there, with an email from me to 'Lauren' and an email to the Department concerning 'Lauren.'
Email from 'Lauren' to me, 17 April, 2025:
Good morning Mr Hurt,
I can confirm receipt of your complaint regarding PC Woods.
In regard to your complaint I note that the allegation raised was as follows:
The complainant is unhappy that Sgt Hannah Woods has authorised for PC Ben Howell to attend his address on the 10th December 2024 in relation to matters involving Lu Skerratt-Love.
In relation to this complaint, I can confirm I have reviewed police systems, and located investigation 14/207485/24 which relates to a report of Harassment and you are recorded as the Suspect.
I can see that Lu Skerrat-Love is the victim in the case, and as such you were contacted to discuss the matter. As a duty of care, when a report is made to Police Forces they must carry out reasonable and proportionate enquiries in order to establish the circumstances of the reported incident. If officers didn’t follow this up, this would be a neglect of duty. Whilst I appreciate your frustrations, I can confirm that procedure was followed, and there is no further action to be taken in respect of your complaint.
Kind Regards
Lauren
Complaint Resolution Officer
Professional Standards Department
South Yorkshire Police
Extract from email from me to 'Lauren,' 15 May, 2025:
First of all, I would be grateful if you would provide by email your full name. In your email to me of 17 April, 2025, you only provide your first name, 'Lauren.' I need your full name because I have documented developments in the long running history of South Yorkshire Police's dealings with me.
...
You are mistaken in believing that I made a formal complaint against Sergeant Hannah Woods in connection with her decision to send PC [name withheld here] l to my house. I merely mentioned it as an intention, a possibility, but events quickly made me decide that this would not be productive. Since the visit of PC [name withheld] l, South Yorkshire Police continued to take action, action I consider fruitless but also very damaging. I decided that a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct was the best way of proceeding. The complaint would be principally concerned with the actions of Sergeant Hannah Woods and PC Sarah Forsythe, one of the two PC's who came to my house on 4 March of this year but more recent events, which I find deeply disturbing, will now be included in the complaint. I can readily make a case for including your email in the complaint. I also intend to make a case for events which took place longer thana year ago. Less recent and more recent events belong to a pattern of behaviour on the part of South Yorkshire Police. Such matters can be presented, at the discretion of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I see it as not just desirable but essential that the repeated actions of South Yorkshire Police in connection with the complaints of Lu Skerratt-Love and the Church Army should be examined in their totality.
I made known my wish to speak to Sergeant Woods about a
variety of significant matters in connection with the visit of [name
withheld]
and later developments - to ascertain, for example, if it
was
Sergeant Woods or some other
person who authorized the visit to my house on 4 March. Sergeant Woods
did provide me with the information that she was the person who
authorized the visit of PC [name withheld] to my house.
In fact, Sergeant Woods did phone me on my landline on 4 March. I was at home but did not get to the phone in time to take the call. She left me a message stating explicitly that she would
phone at intervals until she did manage to contact me. I was gratified by this. I regarded a phone conversation with Sergeant Woods as a matter of importance and it seems that she
thought a phone conversation of some importance too, giving the opportunity to discuss relevant matters. One of the principal pieces of information I wished to present to Sergeant Woods was my decision to make a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I wished to make it clear that I had no desire whatsoever to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department. This is for the reason that my dealings with the Department have left me with no confidence whatsoever in the standards of the department. I confine my criticism to the department's dealings with me, which have had multiple deficiencies.
Sergeant Woods broke her promise to phone me. In the period of almost three weeks which followed Sergeant Woods' recorded message, I had cause to phone the 101 service a number of times. I made it completely clear to members of staff of the 101 Service that I was concerned about Sergeant Woods failure to contact me. I repeated my request that Sergeant Woods should phone me. After almost three weeks, a 101 staff member informed me that he had spoken to Hannah Woods in person and that she had informed him that she would definitely call me the next day. She failed to phone me, however. I phoned the 101 service reiterating my request that Sergeant Woods needed to phone me as a matter of some urgency. On March 24, she did phone me but I was out. Again, she left me a recorded message thanking me 'for my patience' and saying explicitly that she would phone me the next day, and early in the day. I was at my desk the next day and waited for five hours in the room. I regarded it as essential that I should have the opportunity to give Sergeant Woods information, such as the information about my intention to complaint to the Professional Standards Department. There was no phone call from Sergeant Woods later that day and she has not attempted to contact me since 24 March. I have a recording of Sergeant Woods' phone message, clear-cut evidence that she did promise to phone me the next day. Recordings are only kept for 30 days but it is possible to retain recordings for longer, indefinitely, and I have take the action at intervals to retain the recording.
Years ago, it was possible to contact individual members of police teams by email but this is no longer possible. The 101 service can offer only a very limited service in matters of some complexity, in my experience. If I had wanted to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department about these matters concerning the visit of PC Howell and the authorization of Sergeant Woods, you would have available a form completed by me or some other documentary evidence that I wished to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department. Kindly make available the evidence, if you claim to have it. I explicitly stated to PC Howell that I would not be making a complaint against him. He had informed me at the outset that he had the body worn camera facility for recording the visit. If at the time of his visit I did say that I would be complaining, then you will have a record of that, but I soon decided that the best way forward was a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct - I also have the facilities for publicizing the issues available to me by the creation of a very large and, I think I can claim, prominent Website, which now needs to be fully updated to include this year's events, continued police action and my response to the action.
I am horrified by this sentence in your email, 'In relation to this complaint [against Sergeant Woods], I can confirm I have reviewed police systems, and located investigation 14/207485/24 which relates to a report of Harassment and you are recorded as the suspect.' Followed by this: 'I can see that Lu Skerratt-Love is the victim in the case.' I stated to PC [name withheld] that I would not be including on my Website or publicizing in any other way a record of the visit he made to my house and the matters discussed. I assured him that I would treat these matters as confidential, at the same time making it clear that he could use the information as he wished, that he was not bound to preserve confidentiality in the least. In the vast majority of cases, I preserve confidentiality as regards the emails I receive. |I took the view that anyone who contacts me to question, criticize or comment should be able to do so without any repercussions. For many years, I observed this self-imposed rule in all cases, but not so very long ago I decided that in some cases, very rare cases, it would be necessary for me to quote emails in full or in part. Your email to me belongs to that category.
Until your email, nobody had informed me that there had been a report of Harassment against me. A report of Harassment is no proof that Harassment ever took place. I am aware that the police describe the document issued in cases of genuine Harassment (as well as, in many cases, non-existent Harassment) as Police Information Notices, rather than 'Harassment Warnings.' No Police Information Notice has been issued to me following Lu Skerratt-Love's approaches to the police. South Yorkshire Police never approached me to ascertain my views, my comments. No opportunity was given to me to defend myself. In fact, I have a full defence against these accusations, with very detailed documentary evidence. I am sure that Lu Skerratt-Love is unable to produce evidence that I have engaged in Harassment. Can she quote statements made in emails, for example? I have proof that Lu Skerratt-Love has never received a single email from me.
An earlier complaint against me made by Lu Skerratt-Love resulted in a grotesquely unfair action, the issuing of a 'Community Protection Notice: Written Warning.' All the allegations presented in written form in that document were false. I have already presented the evidence in my Website and intend to present the evidence in the wide-ranging initiative I have in preparation. A prominent part of the (false) allegations was the claim that Lu Skerratt-Love had received unwelcome emails from me. That is not so at all. I sent a courteous email largely concerned with security and safety issues at a proposed garden church (she was a Founder-Member of the garden church). The Church Army had blocked all emails from me, and my email records make this completely clear, certain. One single copy of the courteous email was received by another individual at the Church Army. He has an interest in new forms of evangelism and the email was relevant to him.
One aspect which I haven't documented in any detail at all is this. Lu Skerratt-Love is a Trans activist. I have never been accused of being 'transphobic.' I have no idea if Lu Skerratt-Love has claimed that I have shown hostility to her in this capacity. If the claim has been made, then the claim is grossly unfair. I have spent decades in the field of human rights. I am an activist myself for various causes, although not a Trans activist. Although it happens that I am heterosexual, I have actively campaigned for 'homosexual / gay' rights. Lu Skerratt-Love's views of some Trans issues were presented in a sermon of hers preached in Liverpool Cathedral. I have very different views from the views presented in the sermon,, but my own view in this very circumscribed aspect would be very, very widely shared in the population.
This year, as in some previous years, South Yorkshire Police has taken action following complaints made by Lu Skerratt-Love or by the Church Army, which employed Lu Skerratt-Love for a time, action involving denial of rights freely granted to me by the law. I'll mention briefly one bizarre episode. I sent a letter to a Patron of the Church Army and sent a copy of the letter to some members of the Church Army, including some Trustees, for the reason that the matters discussed were relevant to them. The letter was completely courteous. A copy of the letter is provided on my Website as evidence. I received a letter from a Senior Team member of the Church Army noting that some Church Army members had received a copy of the letter, and had complained to South Yorkshire Police. Sending a copy of a letter in these circumstances is freely permitted. To prohibit the sending of the document would be in breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1998.
I called at the Church Army Headquarters in Sheffield and asked politely if I could speak with the person who had sent the letter to me. It was not possible to see her on that day. I left the building. I called the next day and reiterated my request. I was told that the person was at a meeting. Less than two hours after leaving the building, there was a knock at the door and two Police Constables asked to see me. I admitted them and there followed what was to me a deeply disturbing set of allegations from one of the two PC's, Sarah Forsythe, who will be included in the complaint to be submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I consider that her behaviour during the visit to my house was unprofessional. I consider that her conduct was frankly obnoxious. I have no adverse comments to make whatsoever about the conduct of the PC who accompanied PC Forsythe on this visit. I intend to provide the evidence for my adverse view of PC Forsythe's conduct on this occasion.
The subsequent action taken by South Yorkshire Police was completely bizarre. The police contacted Sheffield Social Services to inform them that (on the evidence of the front room where I spoke to them) there was 'clutter' and that I was 'a hoarder.' The only thing in the room which were there in any quantity - books. There are more than 900 books in the room, neatly arranged in bookcases which line all but one of the walls. To suppose that South Yorkshire Police has any right to police the number of books owned by a citizen of South Yorkshire would be nonsensical of course. South Yorkshire Police, in some of its actions at least, seems to show not the least awareness that its reputation could be harmed, that this is inviting ridicule, in effect - the possibility of ridicule at the national level as well as the local level. Any reporting of ridiculous behaviour in this case at the national level would surely come to the attention of the international media. I think that South Yorkshire Police action has been frankly reckless all too often in this series of dismal events.
South Yorkshire Police has certainly been wasting my time. I work in the environmental field amongst others. I design and construct structures, develop new techniques in various fields, in various settings, including farms, gardens and workshops. The Home Page of my Website includes many images which I have been awarded a United States Patent for innovation in farming. There are many, many demands on my time. I have had to spend far too much time defending myself against unsupported allegations, allegations unaccompanied by any evidence, or by evidence which I can easily shown is more than just faulty. South Yorkshire Police has been wasting the time of 101 call handlers. Today, I phoned the 101 service to report the email which you sent to me. I made it clear that the email and the context of the email raised issues of some complexity. I made clear my regret that it was necessary to take up the time of the 101 service on this occasion, as on previous occasions. South Yorkshire Police has also wasted the time of Sheffield Social Services. They handled the matter of the ridiculous claims concerning 'clutter' and 'hoarding' very well, but they had to devote time to the issues. A member of staff came to my house on two occasions in connection with the matter.
This protracted case, with its multifarious episodes - police visits to the house and the rest - is nowhere near its conclusion. My plans to publicize the issues and to defend my reputation will need the expenditure of much more time on the part of South Yorkshire Police. It will also necessitate the attention of the South Yorkshire Mayor. The Combined Mayoral Authority which assumed the responsibilities of the former Police and Crime Commissioner will need to be given much more information about these issues. My view is that there have been serious failures in oversight. I don't in the least confine my criticisms to Sergeant Woods and PC Forsythe. Representatives of South Yorkshire Police have on certain occasions acted in ignorance of the law or with a disregard for the law. They have acted in ways which require a much higher standard of oversight to correct and to prevent in future.
Not once but on various occasions, South Yorkshire Police has shown a complete disregard for rational and sensible priorities in policing. The action taken - a visit to my house by not just one but two PC's - after I simply called at the Church Army building with a request to speak to a member of their staff after a completely unjustified set of complaints concerning the simple sending of a copy of a letter - was not just excessive but deeply concerning. My Website has material on the failure of South Yorkshire Police (and other police forces) to take effective action - to take any action at all - in cases of real crime, not just failure on occasion but failure on many, many occasions.
Your response to this email, if any, is a matter for you to decide. It will be quite some time before I'm able to begin the next phase of my campaign. A great deal of work will be involved. One thing I would welcome very much, which would take up very little of your time, is the forwarding to me of your full name. This will be needed for the documentation in progress and for the complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Complaints to the Office can be made within a year of the events eliciting the complaint, so I do not need to submit the complaint for quite some time. Obviously, if you take the view that some some things in this email are unfair, or that, perhaps, many things are unfair and in need of correction, then obviously, by all means contact me and I will give thorough consideration to the objections.
I have given space to issues and action which have no direct relevance to your email but my view is that your email to me is one episode in a series of disturbing episodes. I regard the context as very important. The issues raised are wide-ranging, but part of a much more wide-ranging set of issues, practices in contemporary policing in this country. I have a strong interest in wider aspects of policing and civil and criminal law.
Paul Hurt
Email from me to PSDcomplaintsresolution.team, 29 October, 2025:
Above, The ridiculous Alexi Dimond, Sheffield Green Party Councillor and Slogan-Shouter, in action outside Sheffield Town Hall. If I ever come across a photo of Councillor Dimond engaging in intelligent and rational political debate, I'll be sure to add it to the page. I haven't found one yet. The red blocks are used because I observe copyright. I contacted the ridiculous Sheffield Green Party to ask if they had any objection to my including the images and they never replied with any objections. I've never contacted Sheffield Green Party to ask if they have any objections to any of these profiles. Obviously, I wouldn't remove any of the material if they did object.
It isn't likely that I'll be including material on other Sheffield Councillors, with the exception of some comments (largely appreciative) on Councillor Tom Hunt, Leader of the Council. The demands on my time are far too many to write them.
The profiles of the councillors here will be revised and extended, when I have the time and the inclination - this will be a tedious chore.
The party she belongs to is a party which contains rabid rabble-rousers such as councillor Dimond and councillor Raouf. An extract from the profile of Councillor Raouf:
What is happening in Palestine is far worse than what is taking place in Ukraine, yet I don’t see you crying tears for Palestine.
The people he was criticizing were Sheffield Councillors. Coun Raouf was critical of a rally where councillors of all parties held Ukrainian flags.
I can only assume that councillor Raouf can't be bothered to keep up to date with the extreme realities of the conflict in Ukraine. As for his illusions about the Palestinian territories, I can't recommend that he take a look at information in the rest of the page because I'm sure he can't be bothered to take a look. The comparison he makes in this brief statement is beneath contempt. I intend making use of this opinion of his in future publicizing of the issues.
In the profile of Green Party councillor Toby Mallinson below, I mention the fact that I was a member of Amnesty International for a long time and so was Toby Mallinson. Angela Argenzio was a member for a long time too and may still be a member, for all I know. Amnesty has changed very much since I was a member and my view of Amnesty has changed very much since then. I now regard it as a discredited organization in certain areas. This is someone I knew quite well.
Angela Argenzio is a naive, a very naive councillor who finds some difficulty in defending her naive views, I would think. There's nothing distinctive about this - all the Green Party councillors are just the same. I'm willing to be proved wrong in this respect, of course.
If she finds nothing wrong, or hardly anything wrong, with the accusations repeated ad nauseam on Green Party publications - this is a representative example
- then she's complicit in the Green Party charade, to use for once a word quite often favoured by the Green Party, 'complicit.' The piece just cited uses it: 'They are complicit in these war crimes and must be held accountable.' 'They' refers to the 'Leadership of the Conservatives and the Labour Party.' And how exactly does the Green Party intend to hold them accountable? This is just another example of Green Party playing at politics - posturing, pretend-politics.
The more I consider the evidence, the more reason I find to criticize in the stance of Angela Argentio. Angela Argenzio is after all a member of the Sheffield Green Party which published this inflammatory piece on a page of its Website
https://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/2023/10/20/
green-councillor-condemns-uk-complicity-in-israeli-war-crimes/
'Green Councillor condemns UK complicity in Israeli war crimes.'
An extract:
'Alexi Dimond spoke at the rally to Stop Genocide in Gaza at Sheffield Town Hall.
'Yesterday, the Al Ahli hospital was bombed in the single most egregious act of barbarism so far in Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza ... Now our media is scrambling to cast doubt on who is responsible, a willing accomplice in covering up for war crimes ...'
Unfortunately for Alex Dimond and Sheffield Green Party, the balance of evidence shows that the damage to the hospital was caused by a malfunctioning rocket fired from Gaza against Israel. The evidence includes the small size of the crater, the lack of shrapnel evidence to show Israeli involvement, the relatively superficial damage to the hospital buildings. The number of deaths claimed was inflated by Hamas, shamelessly so.
My profile of councillor Mersereau is about her decision not to vote for sections of a motion to do with antisemitism. Councillor Argenzio made the same decision. I wonder why?
If anyone joins the Green Party for the quiet life, if anyone gets elected as a Green Party councillor for the quiet life - promoting cycling, recycling, walking, organic growing, composting and the rest - they may find that they're mistaken. It's far more likely that they will condone by ignoring the massive faults of the Green Party. A mass of discarded, fly-tipped rubbish is no more unpleasant than the screaming, screeching toxic beliefs of people like Alexi Dimond - and so many others - in the Green Party. This isn't to minimize the unpleasantness of discarded, fly-tipped rubbish. On this site, I recount my efforts to get an enormous amount of discarded, fly-tipped rubbish removed.
Councillor Dimond's use of the word 'genocide' in the speech he gave outside Sheffield Town Hall amounted to gross misuse of the word. In my page on Israel there are images showing killings carried out by Nazi Einsatzgruppen, followed by this extract, which mentions the first use of the word 'genocide' in a legal context: the Einsatzgruppen Trial. The Green Party should be ashamed of giving publicity to the speech on its Website. The extract:
The Einsatzgruppen were SS mobile death squads, operating behind the front line in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. From 1941 to 1945, they murdered around 2 million people; 1.3 million Jews, up to 250,000 Romani, and around 500,000 so-called "Partisans," people with disabilties, political commissars, Slavs, homosexuals and others. The 24 defendants in this trial were all commanders of these Einsatzgruppen units and faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity ... The trial marked the first use of the term "genocide" in legal context.
Other Green Party rabble-rousers - as well as many more genteel Green Party councillors and supporters misuse the word 'genocide' too, as well as the term 'war crimes.'
A record of the speech delivered by Alexi Dimond to the people of Sheffield - or some of them - outside Sheffield Town Hall.
https://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/2023/10/20/green-councillor-condemns-uk-complicity-in-israeli-war-crimhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKm79_PzTOY&ab_channel=SheffieldGreenParty
My criticism of the article and the speech is not here but in the profile of Christine Gilligan Kubo - for the reason that I consider Alexi Dimond a fanatic and Christine Gilligan Kubo is a 'moderate' and I take the view that moderates in the Green Party should be doing far more to prevent fanatics from damaging the party even more. I also take the view that there are misguided moderates in the Sheffield Green Party and the National Green Party, and more than just a few.
I use the tactic recommended by Comrade Dimond - but not as a result of reading about it in the grotesque Green Party article. I've used it for a long time. I ask specific questions and publicize the Green Party responses. Since they never give responses, all I can do is publicize their failure. There's more about this man's oratory in other profiles.
I can be sure that Alexi Dimond and Toby Mallinson have their own distinctive views but their comments on the flying of the Israeli flag over Sheffield Town Hall are indistinguishable in their ignorance. From the same article in 'The Star' newspaper mentioned, with a link, in the profile of Toby Mallinson:
Yesterday, Green councillor Alexi Dimond posted a picture of the Israel flag on X (formerly Twitter) with the comment: “Sheffield Council is flying the flag of an apartheid regime conducting a genocidal campaign against a captive civilian population ... The Council is supporting war crimes.'
A computer could do as well. Input - words and phrases such as 'apartheid,' 'genocidal,' 'war crimes,' used without any knowledge of its legitimate uses.
As with Toby Mallinson, I don't show the stupidity of Alexi Dimond's views in the profile but by the argument and evidence provided at length in the rest of the page.
The two of them are basically slogan-shouters: Apartheid! Genocide! Genocidal! And the rest. He shows not the least understanding of the terrible implications of the word 'genocide.' I can be sure that he lacks the historical knowledge of genocide, against Jews and others, and that he lacks the military knowledge and ethical background to know what he's talking about when he throws out the words 'war crimes.'
I'm completely ready to have a debate with Alexi Dimond about genocide, apartheid, war crimes and other accusations he may come up with, on this site or any site he would like. I doubt very much if the Green Party will make available a platform for a debate of this kind but I leave the decision to him. Of course, he's not ready to debate the issues and it isn't likely that he'll change soon. He prefers to address his ridiculous oratory to an audience of the converted with a sprinkling of bemused or bewildered passers by
Green Party Policy Pronouncements may sound good - to Green Party activists and other supporters - but again and again collapse in the face of political and economic realities. The policy pronouncements haven't been thought through. An example: the page 'Public Administration and Government.' This emanates from the Green Party at national level, not from Sheffield Green Party.
To isolate just one strand of the argument presented, the model of concerned citizens given access to all the information they need to make informed decisions and given the power to make actual decisions. In practice, if the Green Power Party decides that it doesn't like the decisions and doesn't agree with the majority opinion of the local people, then it will disregard the decisions or do everything in its power to frustrate implementation.
I take this view: Nobody tells me what to think. In practice, the Green Party tells people what to think again and again, but the attempted control is heavily disguised, sometimes by verbiage, sometimes by a complete failure to explain and provide argument and evidence.
'Trans rights' matter a great deal to Green Party councillors, far less so to ordinary citizens. In fact, a large number of ordinary citizens would reject an order of priorities in which trans rights have a very high rating, would reject the notion that trans rights are very, very important, amongst the most important political priorities.
Councillor Holmshaw believes that trans rights are matters of very high priority. It's doubtful if the majority of the people in the Ward he represents take the same view. He was one of the councillors who refused to accept Alison Teal as a Green Party parliamentary election candidate - one of the councillors who in effect denounced Alison Teal.
Another issue - offering sanctuary, offering migrants incentives to come to Sheffield. If the idea sounds noble and good, the realities are messy, intensely difficult and involve some very problematic decisions. To implement the policy in many cases will involve neglecting other issues. The electorate needs an honest appraisal, an honest account of the advantages and the disadvantages, but won't be receiving one if councillor Holmshaw has his way.
A direct question for councillor Holmshaw. Would he support the settling of a large number of refugees from Gaza in Sheffield? If so, could he give a rough idea of the numbers? 100? 500? 1,000? 5,000? 20,000? What would be the consequences for the housing stock of Sheffield? At each level of permitted settlement of migration, would it be realistic or unrealistic to attempt to take in these approximate numbers?
I'll quote now some statistics which have been very widely reported. I don't comment on them myself. I simply give the statistics. I'm sure that councillor holmshaw would interpret the statistics in a way which absolves the people convicted of crime of responsibility for the crime, perhaps by the claim that these people have been the subject of 'racism' or that the Danish police have been acting unfairly. In general, without reference to this particular issue, for every problematic issue there's a Green Party hypothesis which preserves the Green Party claim to a high degree of political and ethical purity. The Green Party is an exception to the realities of failure and bad decision making - the Green Party is the Party that can do no wrong (except for minor oversights.) Academic research on the relationship between immigration and crime has led to very varied conclusions. The evidence is mixed, with positive and negative correlations claimed.
In 1992, Denmark gave 321 rejected Palestinian asylum seekers extraordinary residence permits. These permits were given directly by parliament by a special law. These people have been tracked since that time. Data from the 2019 follow-up:.
270 of the 321 who were given asylum were still residing in Denmark.
Of the 321, 204 (64%) had received a serious fine or jail time for
crime and 71 of them had been sentenced to imprisonment. A large
proportion of them were receiving welfare, in particular
the "early pension" (førtidspension) which is usually given to
people with severe physical or mental issues but also awarded
to immigrants who have little chance of obtaining a job, for
whatever reason.
Douglas Johnson is the Speaker for the Sheffield Green Party. Poor party! Poor speaker, pitifully poor speaker!
But first, a limp, hopeless, not in the least resounding call from this caricature figure, recorded for posterity by 'The Yorkshire Post:'
'The Green Party has called for an immediate end to the violence in Israel and Palestine.'
I think of some animal rights demonstrations I took part in a very long time ago, the moronic chants which made me realize that this was no way to achieve the humane objectives: 'What do we want? Animal liberation! When do we want it? Now!' What, now? This minute? Animal liberation is an unrealizable objective, to secure improvements in animal welfare needs hard work, realism. Gains can be temporary gains. This is no field for naive people, except for naive people who want to be thought of as amounting to something, perhaps even people who would like to be taken seriously - this is yet another unrealizable objective. An easy way for nonentities to be transformed is to shout - or have published in 'The Yorkshire Post' - ridiculous simple minded claims.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is deep seated and to imagine that it can be solvedy by a Green Party call for immediate action is unadulterated garbage-thinking, if it can be called thinking. This is someone with obviously no understanding of harsh realities - with not nearly enough understanding of life and its limits, the barriers to fulfilment.
Douglas Johnson is a reliable person, a very reliable person, someone you can depend on. He can be relied upon to endorse ringing slogans that sound good - to politically tone-deaf people. He can't be relied upon to produce argument and evidence for his views. That would be too much trouble. So, when he was asked, 'Do you agree with the finding of the Government's Sewell Report stating the UK is no longer institutionally racist? The box he ticked - but of course - was the box 'Strongly Disagree.'
Of course, he ignored all the contrary evidence. But what does factual evidence matter to ideologists like him? The mass of legislation which exists to safeguard the interests of racial minorities, the warmth and understanding of ordinary people - not all ordinary people, of course. There are ones with views that could be called toxic. But I'd describe the views of Douglas Johnson on Israeli-Palestinian relations as toxic.
This response of D.J, was recorded on the site,
https://whoismycouncillor.co.uk/
A political party (or branch of a political party) which values its reputation doesn't allow fanatics to ruin its reputation. Moderates in a political party (or branch of a political party) have a responsibility to take effective action to curb the excesses of fanatics and if necessary see that they don't control the party and cause serious damage to the party. Obviously, not all the moderates need to take action but there must be enough of them to ensure that the action is effective. Mainstream parties have leaders who can be replaced if they fail badly in this task. The Green Party has a different view of leadership. They view strong leaders with disfavour. Strong leaders can cause damage if they fail but strong leaders can take effective action in cases like this, whilst the decentralized Green Party has endemic weaknesses. If individual councillors choose not to take any action, in cases where firm action is a necessity, then they can get away with it.
Political parties have competitors, of course, just as businesses have competitors. The political parties which are the competitors of the Green Party can benefit from any Green Party failures.
In Sheffield Green Party, I'd claim that councillor Alexi Dimond is a fanatic who can inflict serious damage on the party and I'd say that Christine Gilligan Kubo is one of the moderates.
Moderation isn't enough. Moderates may have many strengths but if they're ineffectual in matters like these, they lack an essential strength. Moderates are often well-meaning, wishy-washy people who are often fluent speakers but poor when it comes to realistic action. I don't claim that councillor Kubo is well-meaning but wishy-washy.
Is Christine Gilligan Kubo aware that Alexi Dimond is playing with fire? Is she concerned, very concerned, that Alexi Dimond's words and actions can cause massive harm to the Green Party? The same questions could be asked of other 'moderates' in Sheffield Green Party.
I've taken copies of the evidence I make use of here, and other evidence.
The Green Party is very weak in matters of defence. It can't, it won't make an adequate attempt to defend itself. It won't make even a token effort to defend itself, when faced with argument and evidence. It complacently assumes that its stance is ethical, beyond criticism.
I'd make a rough analogy with defence issues at the national level. A political party which wants to govern and has a realistic chance of winning an election may have all kinds of strengths but if its defence policies are weak, then the political party deserves not to win an election. The world is too dangerous a place to risk electing a party which is ineffectual in matters to do with defence. A country too weak to defend itself, a political party too weak to defend itself, unable or afraid to use argument and evidence.
Alexi Dimond's chant:
'Netanyahu, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
Biden, Biden, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
Rishi Sunak, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
Starmer, Starmer, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
To confine attention to Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, to accuse the former Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of genocide is gross misuse of a word which should never be misused, never used casually or thoughtlessly. A party which simply overlooked the inflammatory language of one of its councillors would be negligent enough. To actually publish the misuse of the word 'genocide' on its Website is worse still. To accuse the other politicians of genocide is abject misuse of the word too. Killing of civilians in war is overwhelmingly common. Only some of the killing deserves to be called 'genocide.' I discuss the issues in the column to the right.
People may join the Green Party for reasons to do with wildlife, wild flowers, organic gardening and other reasons which are far removed from these unpleasant issues. But political parties have to address unpleasant issues more often than pleasant issues. Undue specialization is a liability in a party which has aspirations to exercise power. If a political power wants to be regarded as responsible and effective, it has to be far more broadly based than any of those fringe parties, single-issue parties.
He's someone I knew quite well. For about twenty years, I was a very active member of Sheffield Amnesty International and for most of that time, he was an active member too, as was Angela Argenzio, another Green Party councillor.. I've no knowledge of whether the two are still members of this discredited organization, which lost its way a long time ago. I intend to give the evidence in due course.
My view of Toby Mallinson is that he does a great deal of recycling. I'm not referring to the recycling of used materials, to save them from going to landfill, of course, but another form of recycling, very popular in the Green Party. I regard him as a political innocent, a naive and ignorant recycler of commonplace illusions and delusions.
An article in 'The Star' newspaper gives the background to the Israeli Flag episode
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/council/
sheffield-council-leader-calls-out-serious-danger-in-removal-of-town-hall-israel-flag-by-palestine-protesters-video-4368239
An extract from the article,
Coun Toby Mallinson (colleague of Alexi Dimond - his comment is given in his profile) also condemned the Israeli flag decision on X. He said,
'I condemn the appalling, criminal actions of Hamas killing hundreds of
civilians, and the reprisals of the apartheid Israeli regime killing
hundreds more. Decades of breaching international laws and the promotion of
hatred by the regime have led to this catastrophe.
'I am ashamed that Sheffield is flying the flag of the regime. I am very
concerned about the major damage being done to relations with Muslim and
other communities in our city by this act.'
I don't show the complete and utter disregard of realities, the complete and utter disregard of fair-mindedness her by discussing his claims one by one. I do show his stupidity by discussion in the rest of the page. For example, the claim so often made in these circles, and made by Toby Mallinson, that Israel is an 'apartheid state.' This claim is the subject of the section The Goldstone report and 'apartheid Israel on this page.
Other material on this page amounts to a refutation of other claims he makes. He would benefit from a remedial course in history, including branches of military history, and a remedial course in stylistics (the style is the familar fraudulent, standardized agitation, in essentials plagiarism pure and simple).
Councillor Mersereau was one of the councillors who abstained from voting for paragraphs of a 'Substantive Motion' at a Sheffield Council meeting.
https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=19840
These were the paragraphs. I would have thought that they were uncontroversial. What reasoning - or obscure action on impulse - led councillor Mersereau to abstain? I'm puzzled. Perhaps she can explain - or perhaps she'd prefer not to explain. In my own experience, the Green Party finds explanation uncongenial. It prefers evasion.
That this Council:
h) recognises that, in 2005, the EU monitoring centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights) adopted the following working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) notes that the working definition has become the standard definition used around the world; (j) notes that this definition has been adopted by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Dept of State, the US Senate and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; |
|
|
|
|
|
(k) recognises that, in 2016, the British Government also formally adopted this working definition of antisemitism; |
|
|
|
|
|
(l) in view of recent controversy over the precise definition of antisemitism, this city with its proud history of religious tolerance and the first UK City of Sanctuary proclaims its support for the published international definition of antisemitism; and |
|
|
|
|
|
(m) directs Sheffield City Council to formally adopt the official and international recognised working definition of antisemitism for this city. |
Henry Nottage runs a cycle business in Sheffield. I respect him for that. Running a business is demanding. Running a business can give people a healthy sense of realities. Businesses run by naive, unrealistic people tend to go under. But it's possible for people who are very realistic in the running of the business to be naive and unrealistic in other matters, such as matters to do with international relations. International relations in which Israel, Hamas and Iran come to mind. I provide evidence for supporting Israel and condemning Hamas and Iran. The Green Party, including Sheffield Green Party, isn't a big believer in providing evidence or in providing context. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian relations, the context includes studies of civilian casualties in operations of war waged by the armed forces of democracies. I provide a summary of some of the evidence in the column to the right.
I'm not a cyclist now but I used to be one, a very long time ago - in London. Below, I mention an incident which affected me whilst cycling in London. There are difficulties in promoting cycling. The Green Party isn't honest about these difficulties. I see the need to take account of disadvantages as well as advantages. Very often, a course of action is promoted without taking account of the disadvantages. I call this 'alignment,' the pretence that all the advantages lie with the course of action being promoted. The Green Party uses this tactic again and again.
In the case of cycling, it's obviously true that cycling has vastly less impact upon the environment than driving. The industrial processes needed to manufacture bikes cause pollution but cycling causes no pollution. Does this mean that everyone who can realistically cycle rather than drive should buy a bike, if they don't have one already, and cycle rather than drive? There are difficulties here.
If arguments for and arguments against cycling are presented in two columns, for and against, the issue of safety would have to be entered in the column 'against.' First, some data from the UK government, followed by a personal experience of mine. An extract from the site,
Pedal cyclists are one of the vulnerable user groups. They are not protected by a vehicle body in the same way car users are, and tend to be harder for drivers to see on the road. They are, therefore, particularly susceptible to injuries.
It should be noted that it has been long known that a considerable percentage of non-fatal casualties are not reported to the police. Non-fatal casualties for pedal cyclists are amongst the most likely to be under-reported in road casualty data since cyclists have no obligation to inform the police of collisions. This should be borne in mind when analysing and interpreting the data.
Between 2004 and 2021:
fatalities decreased from 134 to 111 (-17%)
serious injuries (adjusted) rose by 27%
pedal cycle traffic grew by 62%
Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:
an average of 2 pedal cyclists died and 84 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road casualties.
An accident on a road I know very well, Rivelin Valley Road, Sheffield, a very scenic road. At the end of September 2023 a cyclist was hit by a car and died on the 22 October.
Another accident, another person: a former BBC presenter, Dan Walker, was knocked off his bike and injured at a roundabout in Sheffield where there have been 40 bike accidents in three years. The accident happened in February, 2023.
In my twenties, a very long time ago, I lived in London for a period of over four years. I bought a bike in Sheffield and used it in London. I was involved in an accident which could very easily have been fatal but which caused me no injury at all. It did make me aware of the dangers of cycling.
I was riding on a wide road, with wide lanes, at a time when there was hardly any traffic. A car overtook me and for some reason the car came so close to me that in a moment, I was knocked off the bike and was lying on my back on the road, completely uninjured. If a car, van, lorry or bus had been following, the chances of being killed would have been high. I got to my feet and found that the driver had stopped. He was very agitated. I didn't get angry with him. I went on my way and he went on his.
I didn't report the incident to the police. This is one of those many, many cycling accidents which go unreported. I can well believe that there are many, many cycling injuries which never appear in the official statistics. Cycling is much more dangerous than it would seem from reading the statistics. I'm very safety conscious. I've devised a very simple means of protecting users against some dangers involved in working with sheet metal. I take the view that young children should be protected from riding a bike on busy roads - protected by allowing them to ride only when they're older. I take the view that adults should consider the dangers very seriously before transporting young children on bikes which they are riding.
Not long afterwards, my bike was stolen. I did inform the police about the theft and a policeman came to see me. He was very helpful but of course couldn't do anything to help me to get my bike back. I'm glad that I never did get it back. I was forty years old before I learned to drive and bought a vehicle. Until then, I was a pedestrian and a user of public transport. The white van I drive now is absolutely essential for my work in construction, for the transportation of bulky materials, for instance. I haven't used it for driving long distances for a long time.
For so many modern activities, big business is essential. If someone takes the bus to work or cycles to work rather than driving to work, the buses, the cycles, the lorries which deliver organic vegetables and other organic products to specialist shops have been constructed with steel. The conversion of iron ore to steel by advanced modern methods can't be achieved using small scale methods. Much larger economic entities are needed - big business, in fact. Modern economies, the ones which provide Green Party councillors and the people who vote for them with the necessities of life and the other things they need, and provide them so reliably and efficiently, need large-scale methods.
Big businesses are essential, and can co-exist with very small enterprises, but small enterprises have necessary limitations. The country could never be fed by a system of small plots, including allotments. Economies of scale are essential. The bread needed by the many millions of people in the country could never be produced from small plots where the wheat is harvested with a hand tool. Massive combine harvesters are necessary.
It's necessary to put no unnecessary obstacles in the way of people who want to start a small business. I have a great interest in independent business and support them whenever I possibly can. I've a page Big business and small businesses where I make the case for small businesses. I also point out some difficulties.
Henry Nottage is a Sheffield councillor but like all the Green Party councillors he seems to have little or no awareness of the importance to Sheffield of the steel industry. The determination of the Sheffield Green Party to support steel making in the 'Steel City' is nowhere apparent. As with the other Green Party councillors, his view seems to be a limited one.
He's one of the Green Party councillors who could have a reputation for moderation. He's one of the Green Party councillors who aren't extremists, fanatics, of the councillor Dimond kind. But the non-extremist, non-fanatical Green Party councillors seem to have done nothing to oppose the fanatics. In private, they may have made it clear that they don't share these fanatical views but they've done nothing to make a difference. All those Green Party claims to be making a 'real difference to communities' but Green Party councillors of the more moderate kind seem to be incapable of making even the slightest difference when it comes to curbing the extremism of Green Party councillors. Some of the profiles on the page will make it completely clear what I'm referring to.
The failure of these moderates has severe repercussions.
The Green Party's Alison Teal has fallen foul of Gender Ideology enforcers such as Martin Phipps, Alexi Dimond, Brian Holmshaw and Angela Argenzio. I'm referring in particular to the 'Trans' issue.
Alison Teal has made a case. She has claimed that 'gender ideology' has a “frightening impact” on children and has called it “regressive”. She was heavily criticised after making use of an article which repeatedly referred to the comedian Eddie Izzard as a ‘man’ and a ‘he’ and opposed his use of women’s toilets. She went so far as to condemn the placing of male sex offenders in women's prisons.
It isn't that often that I agree with a Green Party figure, but in this case I side with Alison Teal.
The indignation, the horror of the would be enforcers would be fitting in the case of Iranian cruelties but not at all in this case.
This will be the shortest profile of all, a short quotation from councillor
Raouf, a short comment, with a not so short link giving the source of the
information.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/ukraine-russia-sheffield-politician-claims-some-councillors-more-eager-to-support-ukrainian-children-because-of-blue-eyes-and-blonde-hair-as-opposed-to-those-in-yemen-and-syria-3596399
Councillor Raouf, quoted in this article in the newspaper:
What is happening in Palestine is far worse than what is taking place in
Ukraine, yet I don’t see you crying tears for Palestine.
The people he was criticizing were Sheffield Councillors. From the article: Coun Raouf was critical of the rally where councillors of all parties held Ukrainian flags.
I can only assume that councillor Raouf can't be bothered to keep up to date with the extreme realities of the conflict in Ukraine. As for his illusions about the Palestinian territories, I can't recommend that he take a look at information in the rest of the page because I'm sure he can't be bothered to take a look. The comparison he makes in this brief statement is beneath contempt. I intend making use of this opinion of his in future publicizing of the issues.
Councillor Paul Turpin has his own page on the Sheffield Green Party Website. An extract:
We can make a big difference to people’s lives right here in Gleadless Valley, and across the city.
I see change coming from the ground up rather than the top down. By changing the way we do things here, we can change things in the city, in the country, in the world. That’s real Green politics.
Naive, simple-minded views often sound much more attractive than realistic views, views which take account of the constraints of action, the frustrations of action. To achieve changes, there's generally the need to take determined, sustained action, often with no quick results at all, often with
Councillor Turpin's claims make it sound quite easy - even change in regions far distant from the Gleadless Valley in Sheffield. His claims are largely empty ones, expressing empty hope rather than anything likely to be of benefit to many people in Gleadless. Act local, transform this nation and nations in Europe, Asia Australasia, North and South America? He's living in a world of illusion. I don't claim that he's living in a world of total illusion, of course. What he calls 'real Green politics' is full of misconceptions and falsifications.
In his article, Councillor Turpin makes this claim, this criticism, the claim that Sheffield council has 'a relentless desire to accommodate big business at the expense of Sheffielders.'
But Sheffield, like so many other places, needs big business. Big business can generate useless or almost useless products but it also generates a very wide range of useful products. If big business which manufactures and makes available useful products moves to a town or city it can provide employment for large numbers of people. If Sheffield fails to attract big business due to the undue influence of views like the views of councillor Turpin, then Sheffielders will be disadvantaged, including, it may well be, people in the ward represented by this councillor.
I'll give just one example to show some particular obstacles, unrecognized by Green Party paid-up believers. Councillor Turpin may or may not have an interest in growing things but the lesson can be applied to other areas and other issues. It shows the gulf between Green Party theory and action in the real world.
Anyone who gardens or farms will inevitably face the problem of weeds. When food crops are grown, weeds can reduce the yield so that it becomes next to nothing. If the weeds competing with food crops reduce the yield of many food crops over very large areas, then people would go short of food and eventually starved, if no action is taken to control the weeds effectively.
I face the weed problem in the land I rent, of course. In the decades that I've been cultivating the land, I've hardly ever used the weedkiller glyphosate but I've had to put in much more work and to spend far more time on weed control than I would have if I'd used glyphosate more often.
For a long time, I used organic methods, but now I use non-organic methods as well when necessary.
I have a powerful flame weeder, which kills the top growth of weeds but leaves their roots undamaged. It's not an effective solution to bring weed infested land into cultivation.
The organic method (as advocated by the organization Garden Organic, the successor to the Henry Doubleday Research Institute, the organic organization which I used to belong to) recommends digging out the roots of weeds. This is not just impractical but impossible. A person determined to use this method to eliminate weeds would need to neglect all other responsibilities and use all available spare time and still not succeed.
There are weeds which are comparatively harmless, although controlling them can still take up so much time. There are weeds with stubborn roots such as ground elder, creeping buttercup and couch grass which really do need a weedkiller which kills the roots and eliminates the weeds in very little time. The best known example in glyphosate. There are problems involved in using glyphosate, but they are largely exaggerated. Its toxicity is low. In a survey of the hazards of everyday life, the hazards of gardening and farming, the hazards of glyphosate are almost non-existent.
Very near to the land I rent, just across the road, in fact, there was a mass of Japanese knot-weed. Sheffield Council didn't send workers out equipped with trowels and spades to dig out the roots of the plant, prepared to spend months - years - in a futile attempt to control the weed using organic methods. It's impossible to control it in this way. The knotweed was sprayed with glyphosate and the problem wasn't solved. The knotweed hasn't come back.
Weed-control fabric can be laid down (and weighted down, to lessen the chance of wind moving it or damaging it) and this is acceptable according to organic standards. There's an element of hypocrisy here. Weed -control is a sythetic material derived from oil.
I regard his views - but not all his views - as damaging, He's failed to consider the disadvantages of his views. They're an example of the 'real Green politics' which is based on unreal thinking.
This section is in preparation.
There's a great deal of material on this site concerned with Alan Billings, all of it very critical. The Hub Page on Alan Billings gives links to other pages on the man.
The material is at Capability.
