Gloucester city centre cycle path work labelled 'a disgrace'
Concerns have been raised about the impact the construction of a new cycle lane is having on Gloucester city centre.Work has begun to install the new lane on Northgate Street, with railings, paving stones and benches being removed as part of the process..City councillors claim they did not get a say on the project, which falls under the control of Gloucestershire County Council.County councillor Joe Harris, Cabinet Member for Highways Maintenance & Communications said he was "sorry to hear" there were concerns but added residents had been consulted before work began.
The cycle lane will form part of the county's cycle spine connecting Bishop's Cleeve with Stroud via Cheltenham and Gloucester.
'It's a disgrace'
Liberal Democrat city councillor Rebecca Trimnell said she hoped the cycle lane would look better than it currently does when it is finished, but was not confident."I cannot see it is in keeping with the historic nature of the centre. I have had many people tell me they liked sitting on the benches outside St John's Church on Northgate Street, but now they've been taken out and the railings too," she said."At present it is a disgrace and quite frankly a total and utter mess and is simply not good enough."
Councillor Harris said that he was sorry for the disruption."We really value what the community and local groups think. That's why we held a public consultation and spoke directly with key people like the city council before starting the work."We listened to the feedback and made changes where we could", he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK court upholds Cayman Islands law legalising same-sex partnerships
A court in London has upheld a Cayman Islands law legalising same-sex civil partnerships, in a move that campaigners say could turn the tide for other British overseas territories battling for LGBTQ+ rights. On Monday, the privy council, the final court of appeal for the British overseas territory, rejected an appeal that had argued the Caribbean island's governor had no right to enact the bill, after lawmakers had rejected similar legislation. Leonardo Raznovich, acting president for the LGBTQ+ human rights organisation, Colours Caribbean, described the outcome of the long-running legal battle a 'victory for all'. The change in the law came in 2020 following a landmark court case brought by a lesbian couple – Caymanian lawyer Chantelle Day and her partner Vickie Bodden Bush, a nurse – after they were refused permission to marry. Day said the decision was a 'big relief'. 'It's an absolute relief that us and other couples in the Caymans now have the certainty that the legal framework that we all relied on for recognition of our relationships won't be pulled from underneath us and that the constitution works the way it's intended to,' she said. When the couple made their original case, the Cayman Islands' courts ultimately ruled that the right to marry extended only to opposite-sex couples, but that same-sex couples were entitled to legal protection 'which is functionally equivalent to marriage'. A bill was brought to parliament to put that protection into law, but lawmakers rejected it in July 2020 by nine votes to eight. Two months later, the then-governor, Martyn Roper, enacted the Civil Partnership Law, allowing same-sex civil partnerships, saying the action had to be taken to uphold human rights. Kattina Anglin, a lawyer based in the Cayman Islands, argued that Roper did not have the power to introduce the law under the Cayman Islands' constitution. But her case was rejected by the islands' courts and her final appeal was dismissed by the privy council. Raznovich said the decision could have implications for ongoing litigation in other British overseas territories, such as Turks and Caicos, and the British Virgin Islands. But he was less confident about the impact on cases involving independent Caribbean countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, which still have colonial era laws that criminalise consensual anal sex and where same-sex marriages and civil partnerships are prohibited. In 2018, a high court judgment repealed Trinidad and Tobago's so-called 'buggery law', but in April the country's supreme court upheld a government appeal against the ruling and recriminalised the act, forcing campaigners to take their case to the privy council. Controversial 'savings clauses', which typically were created when countries gained their independence, and were designed to preserve colonial laws unless they are changed by parliament, complicates the situation in Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean countries. Anglin told the Guardian she would provide a response to the decision on Thursday when she has had the time to fully review the judgment and meet with her legal team. Reuters contributed reporting
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs back Government bid to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals
MPs have backed a Home Office bid to close a 'loophole', to stop alleged extremists stripped of their British citizenship from re-entering the country even after a successful first appeal. Security minister Dan Jarvis described 'keeping our country safe' as an 'awesome task' as he called on MPs to support the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill. If the proposal clears Parliament, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. Mr Jarvis told the Commons: 'Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe. 'It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. 'For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld.' The minister later said: 'This Bill will protect the UK from people who pose a threat to our national security by preventing those who've been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals have been determined.' He added that where the Home Office is pursuing a person through the appeals process, the alleged extremist would be unable to renounce any other nationalities they might have until the Government runs out of road. Under existing laws, a person who wins an appeal could be released from immigration detention or returned to the UK while the Home Office considers further action. Mr Jarvis warned alleged extremists can renounce other nationalities and put 'themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless', limiting the UK Government's powers. He has received support from the Conservative frontbench, when Katie Lam said from the despatch box: 'Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. 'This is not a power exercised lightly by any government, and the idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exploiting procedure is frightening.' But Conservative former Home Office minister Kit Malthouse warned that the Bill appeared to 'breach a fundamental tenet', by turning the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head. Mr Malthouse said: 'If I'm accused of a crime and I am found innocent, and the prosecutors decide to appeal my conviction, I remain innocent – until that appeal is heard and decided against me. 'And if it's appealed beyond that, I remain innocent then still.' Turning to the wider deprivation of citizenship orders, which saw an average of 12 people a year lose their rights to a British passport on the grounds it was 'conducive to the public good' between 2018 and 2023, Mr Malthouse told MPs the system had 'created two classes of citizen in this country'. Shamima Begum, who travelled aged 15 from Bethnal Green, London, to territory held by the so-called Islamic State group a decade ago, is a well known example of the state's use of its powers. She was 'married off' to an IS fighter and was stripped of her British citizenship in February 2019. Mr Malthouse said he was a 'freeborn Englishman of two English parents going back I don't know how many years' with 'no claim on any other citizenship anywhere else'. He continued: 'It is my absolute, undeniable, unequivocal right to have citizenship in this country and it cannot be removed from me by any means whatsoever. 'That is not true of my children – I'm married to a Canadian citizen. They have a claim on Canadian citizenship. If the Home Secretary so decides, they can have their citizenship removed. 'That is true of every Jewish citizen of the United Kingdom who has a right to citizenship in Israel. There will be millions of British people of south Asian origin who feel that they have a second-class citizenship. 'This law only applies to certain of our citizens.' Bell Ribeiro-Addy said: 'I do not believe that citizenship is a privilege. I actually believe that it's a right.' The Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I want to understand why if somebody was such a huge threat to this country, we could not deal with them under other pieces of legislation.' She warned of a 'sense of nervousness amongst many communities when any legislation that touches and concerns citizenship is brought to this House', and said orders 'disproportionately' affect 'people of colour, or British-born or long-settled individuals whose heritage or ancestral links are outside of Europe'. Backing the Bill, Labour MP for Makerfield Josh Simons said that 'high streets full of vape shops, dog muck and smashed glass matter so much' as a 'visible and constant reminder that others seem not to feel they belong'. He described citizenship as 'belonging on a bigger scale – a larger us' and called for 'a modern citizenship regime – reform the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and judicial review, establish digital ID or, for that matter, radically reform the British state'. Having backed the Bill at second reading, MPs will further scrutinise it in the Commons at a later date. The Bill does not change the reasons why a person could be deprived of their British status, nor their rights to an appeal.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
As Sir Keir Starmer's welfare U-turn falls flat... Rebel MPs are set to humiliate the Prime Minister
Sir Keir Starmer will be hit by the biggest rebellion of his premiership on Tuesday. His attempts to win over welfare Bill rebels fell flat yesterday in a major blow to his authority just days before the anniversary of his landslide election victory. Dozens of his MPs are expected to abstain or vote against his plans to restrict disability benefits. He faces the backlash even though he tried to stave off the rebellion by offering concessions that will halve the planned savings from £5billion to £2.5billion by the end of the decade. Despite the PM's climbdown, in the Commons several Labour MPs still urged his Government to withdraw the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill rather than allow a vote today. Many rebels felt a Commons statement by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, in which she set out the concessions, had made matters worse, with a string of Labour MPs clashing with her over the timing of the reforms. Estimates by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that the latest proposals would still push 150,000 extra people into poverty by 2030 angered many, even though it was lower than the 250,000 envisaged in the original plans. On Monday night, the Tories confirmed they would vote against the Bill, despite supporting a welfare spending crackdown. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'The welfare budget is out of control. Spending on health and disability benefits was £40billion just before Covid. It is projected to be £100billion by 2030. 'What Labour is doing is not serious welfare reform. Last week, we challenged them to cut the welfare budget, to bring in measures that would get people back into work, and to assure us there wouldn't be new taxes to fill the gap. 'Keir Starmer has not met those challenges. In fact, he's watered down the small savings Labour were making. We have a Government incapable of governing. For that reason, we will be voting against the Bill.' Under the Government's original proposals, daily living assessments were to be tightened for millions with physical or mental health conditions who claim Personal Independence Payment (PIP). But ministers were forced to dilute the proposals after 126 Labour MPs threatened to vote them down. Ms Kendall told Parliament on Monday that the new eligibility criteria to be introduced in November 2026 will only apply to new claimants rather than those already receiving PIP. In addition, the health-related part of Universal Credit will now increase in line with inflation rather than being frozen. She insisted the new proposals would 'ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty'. But MPs feared a two-tier system, with those already on PIP better cared for than future claimants. But Ms Kendall said: 'Our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support, and it's often hard for people to adjust.' Labour backbenchers also criticised the timing of the reforms, as a review of the PIP system by DWP minister Sir Stephen Timms will be published too late to affect the new regime. Ms Kendall said: 'The review will conclude by autumn 2026 and we will then implement any changes... as quickly as possible.' However, Labour MPs queued up to attack the Bill. Leading rebel Rachael Maskell said: 'I cannot countenance sick and disabled people being denied support to enable them to be independent, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. It is a matter of conscience.' On Monday, The Guardian revealed that Ms Maskell had tabled a new 'reasoned amendment' designed to bring down the Bill, which had been signed by 35 Labour MPs. But 83 Labour MPs would be needed to overturn the Government's majority. Left-winger Andy McDonald called on Ms Kendall to withdraw the Bill, saying: 'A two-tier system will generate hardship for many and create divisions.' Labour's Nadia Whittome said: 'After months of the Government ignoring disabled people, the only way meaningful co-production can take place is by pulling this Bill and going back to the drawing board.' Fellow backbencher Ian Byrne added: 'These so-called concessions go nowhere near far enough, and I will be voting against these cruel cuts.' More than a dozen Labour MPs said publicly they will not support the Bill. It has been estimated as many as 50 will vote against or abstain. But party whips do not believe the rebels have the numbers to bring it down. Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, tipped as a future Labour leadership contender, said: 'What's been announced is half a U-turn, a 50 per cent U-turn. I'd hope MPs vote against the whole Bill.'
