New anti-social behaviour rules begin in Guildford
Using vehicles, including bicycles, skateboards, scooters and wheeled toys, in a dangerous way in pedestrian parts of Guildford town centre has been banned under new rules to tackle anti-social behaviour.The public space protection order (PSPO) came into force on Tuesday and will last until 31 March 2028.The restrictions also include drinking alcohol in public after receiving a verbal warning from an authorised person, and behaving or encouraging others to behave in a rowdy and inconsiderate way.Councillor Merel Rehorst-Smith said: "Our goal is to strike a careful balance between protecting individual freedoms and ensuring our town centre feels safe and welcoming for everyone."
Some of the original proposals for the regulations were changed after being opposed by University of Surrey students, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.Officers made amendments to the text, for example, to clarify that bicycles are not being singled out, after there were concerns that residents would be discouraged from using sustainable transport methods. The PSPO is an extension of a scheme which was introduced in Guildford in April 2022.The town centre, Stoke Park and some neighbouring residential roads and the Mount area, including Black Cat Alley, near the bottom of Farnham Road, where there have been reports of anti-social behaviour, are areas included in the scheme.Insp Blaine Rafferty, Guildford Borough Commander, said Surrey Police were working with the council to "make Guildford a safer place to live and work"."We hope that the Public Space Protection Order will help accomplish that, and we believe that a coordinated approach can make a significant difference in preventing anti-social behaviour and improving residents' quality of life," he said.
With additional reporting from local democracy reporter Emily Dalton.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
16 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Mr Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief. In one back-and-forth, Mr Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer when Representative Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Mr Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. Representative Mike Turner asked: 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' As Mr Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Mr Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Mr Hegseth responded. Time and again, officials pressed Mr Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. 'You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead,' Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US, said on Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Mr Hegseth danced around the direct question from Mr Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Mr Smith said. Mr Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with representatives. He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Mr Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed. That became a quick trap, as Mr Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Mr Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Mr Hegseth responded. A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. Mr Moulton then asked Mr Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Mr Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president'.
South Wales Guardian
16 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work
The project has been described as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster'. Peers heard a member of parliamentary staff had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. It also emerged that the price tag of the project spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said it was 'completely unacceptable' to have a door that did not work properly, and she shared the frustrations, upset 'and every other adjective' members wished to use. There was also a question over whether it would ever be fully operational, she suggested. The bill for what has been described at Westminster as 'one of the most expensive front doors in the world' was made public after peers raised concerns that their requests for the cost of the scheme had been repeatedly stonewalled by the authorities on security grounds. They also said they had warned from the start that the design would not work. Members of the Lords vented their annoyance as they heard plans for commercial procurement in Parliament to be transferred into a new joint department of both Houses. While welcoming the administrative changes, Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pressed Lady Smith, who sits on the House of Lords Commission, over the cost of the new front door at the Peers' Entrance. He said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. 'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. 'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. 'The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.' The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.' Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.' Lady Smith said: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. 'It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.' On the cost she said there was 'wildly exaggerated and incorrect information', adding: 'It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. 'The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. 'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.' She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. 'That is a huge frustration to everybody. 'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs. 'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. 'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. 'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.' Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.'
South Wales Guardian
16 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ex-police officer spared jail after passing information to criminal associates
Adam Davies, 30, who was an officer with Surrey Police, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment suspended for two years at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday after admitting four counts of misconduct in a public office. Davies wept as His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner read out the suspended sentence. While searching a missing elderly man's house on October 10 2020, Davies could be heard on a video 'mocking and praising' the man for owning pornographic DVDs, Judge Baumgartner said. The judge added: 'There was no policing purpose for you to film in the vulnerable man's home as you did.' The video was discovered after an associate of Davies, Kai Portlock, was arrested and his phone was seized after a large quantity of cocaine was found in Portlock's vehicle. Judge Baumgartner said Davies was then 'fishing for information' about Portlock's arrest, which formed another charge. A message exchange was discovered on Portlock's phone on October 10 2020 in which, the court heard, Davies stated: 'We should go into business, all the seized stock I take'. Prosecutor Szilvia Booker said it was accepted that Davies, of Farnham, was 'joking' in the message. Davies was asked to investigate Hone Gym in Surrey for being open during lockdown on November 6 2020. In a crime report, Davies said he had told the gym of Covid guidelines, when in reality he had 'made it clear he had no intention of closing the gym down' and tried to warn them that police would be attending, Ms Booker said. Davies also admitted disclosing to his partner's brother that a prisoner had just been released in March 2020. Judge Baumgartner said it was an 'exceptional case' with an 'absence of profit, corruption, or actual harm' in most of the offending by the 'immature' defendant. Sentencing Davies, Judge Baumgartner said: 'Your immaturity and naivety led you to act in such a stupid and unprofessional way. 'It was not out of corruption or out of malice.' Addressing Davies, the judge added: 'You associated with people involved in crime when you were a police officer including people who were concerned in the supply of controlled drugs. 'You provided police information to those criminal associates and wilfully neglected your police duties. 'You appeared to think that impressing your criminal associates was more important than your public office as a police officer. 'You appeared to revel in the position of being able to find out information that most people did not have access to and then share it with your criminal associates. 'You did so for kudos. It was an inappropriate and stupid thing to do. There is no evidence that you obtained any financial or other benefit as a result.' The judge added that Davies' actions had 'real potential to significantly undermine police investigations and public confidence in the police generally'. Mitigating for Davies, Kevin Baumber said he had shown a 'significant degree of naivety, immaturity and in particular poor professional judgment', but 'no element of profit', adding that the ex-officer was 'extremely sorry'. Discussing his employment since leaving the police, Mr Baumber said: 'He has pursued a similar line of work in loss prevention but with the utmost integrity, skill and practical results.' The lawyer added that Davies was a 'remarkably talented gymnast' and had a son. Davies, who joined Surrey Police in May 2017, was ordered to undertake 180 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 10 days. Independent Office for Police Conduct director Emily Barry said: 'Adam Davies's actions were corrupt and criminal. We expect the police to clamp down on criminal activity, not assist criminals. 'He abused his position of power in a complete betrayal of the public's trust and such behaviour has no place in policing. 'The outcome sends a clear message to any officer who conducts themselves in such a way – they face serious consequences and will be held to account.'
