DIARY
ALEXANDER CHANCELLOR Ithink the time has come for the Gov- ernment to stop giving any health advice at all, for nobody believes, or even under- stands, what it has to say. It is always in dis- agreement with the 'experts'; and although few people trust experts, they tend to trust them more in their fields of expertise than they trust, say, Mr John Major or Mr Stephen Dorrell. The Government says we should eat beef; the experts, or at least some of them, say we may die if we do. Whom should we believe? The latest guid- ance on 'safe drinking' is even more confus- ing. The Government thinks it is now 'safe' for us to drink three and a half more pints of beer a week than it used to think was safe for us. The British Medical Associa- tion thinks that is wrong. It doesn't even like to see the word 'safe' associated with any level of alcohol consumption. It advo- cates the description low-risk', and even wants that applied only to the Govern- ment's previous 'safe limit'. But, says the Government, it is now proven that moder- ate drinking can fend off heart attacks and strokes. Maybe, says the BMA, but we shouldn't advertise the fact because drink- ing can have all kinds of other harmful effects as well. Quite right, say the royal colleges of physicians and psychiatrists and general practitioners, for we must not for- get that drinking is linked to 60 per cent of suicide attempts, 40 per cent of domestic violence, 26 per cent of drownings, and 15 per cent of road deaths (though how can they know?). Okay, says Mr Dorrell, but you must realise that health advice will only be effective if it is credible and not regard- ed as unrealistic. Oh, shut up, all of you, say the rest of us.
Ihave still barely recovered from my anger over the felling last year of a large sycamore tree which straddled the border between our garden and that of some neighbours in Hammersmith. It was a fine old tree which blotted out a depressing view of the back of a housing terrace and gave the garden a sheltered, almost seclud- ed atmosphere. The neighbours, however, wanted more light in their own garden and applied to the Council to have it cut down. The tree looked in tip-top condition to me, but apparently the Council agreed it was dangerous in some way and gave permis- sion for it to be felled. The execution was carried out while we were away on holiday, and we returned to find the tree gone. We had not been consulted, nor even informed. A tree which we had known and loved for ten years had simply disappeared. Now one of our daughters has bought a house in a street nearby. In the garden next to hers there are three healthy sycamore trees, pro- tecting her view. They belong to a house to which its owners, the Notting Hill Housing Trust, have applied to make alterations, and she has been notified of this, as the law requires. There was no mention of trees in the application, but, bearing in mind her parents' experience, she telephoned the Council just to make sure that the sycamores were not under any kind of threat. It was just as well that she did. The Notting Hill Housing Trust had, indeed, applied to the Council for the felling of two of the three trees, and the six-week period during which the Council might raise objec- tions was due to expire within a few days. Fortunately, the Council has now raised an objection because the trees are visible from the street and therefore judged to be of some value to the public at large. But our daughter's views would have carried no weight. Whereas the Council is obliged to consult neighbours whenever a building application is made, it has no such obliga- tion in respect of trees. It is for the Council, and the Council alone, to decide whether trees are cut down. This seems very odd to me. If somebody wants to build a small extension on to the back of his house, why should this be of more concern to neigh- bours than the removal of an enormous tree? A friendly officer of Hammersmith & Fulham Council explained that the Council simply would not have the resources to consult the public about every application to fell a tree. There had, for example, been six such applications in Hammersmith last Monday alone, and there were only ten officers in the department to investigate every application made. One can see their 'Take that down.' point. On the other hand, people have never minded so much about trees as they do today; and, in any case, should not peo- ple directly affected by the removal of a tree at least have the right to be informed of the calamity in advance, if only to enable them to seek counselling? A partial answer to the problem might be to double the six- week time limit within which objections may be raised.
Acouple of years ago, a headmaster in Brooklyn, New York, was killed in crossfire between rival teenage gangs outside his school. Like Philip Lawrence, the headmas- ter stabbed to death in London last week, he was an exemplary teacher who had raised standards and imposed discipline under the most testing circumstances. He was, like Mr Lawrence, much loved and admired, and his school has now been renamed after him. What both cases tragi- cally illustrate is that, while a good and tough headmaster can make a school safe for its students, he can do nothing to improve the conditions outside. Many schools in New York used to be far worse than what even Mr Lawrence had to con- tend with. The gangs to which some stu- dents belonged had guns, rather than knives, and students who didn't belong to gangs were so frightened of those who did that they, too, acquired guns in order to protect themselves. In most New York schools there is now much less violence than there used to be. Students are screened for firearms by metal detectors, entrances to the schools are guarded, and iron discipline is imposed within. There have also been major efforts to make school surroundings safer. Since the impo- sition of 'drug-free zones' by the police, drug dealers are no longer able to set up shop outside school gates but have to move down the road; and there is also a law which prescribes heavier sentences for crimes committed within the vicinity of a school than for crimes carried out else- where. The effect of all these measures had been to make schools the safest places in deprived New York neighbourhoods. Sur- veys show that children and teenagers are in much less danger at school than they are at home, where they are often victims of domestic violence. This is the kind of situa- tion towards which Mr Lawrence appears to have been working. It is a worthwhile objective, for if schools were to be seen as havens of peace and safety amid the inner- city turmoil, they could only become more popular with both children and parents. In the meantime, let us rename St George's school in Maida Vale after Philip Lawrence. I am sure St George wouldn't mind.
Previous page
