Trouble in the football stand: police now use the concept of joint enterprise to prosecute everyone involved in a crime. Photograph: Mick Walker/Action Images

This article was written by Diane Abbott, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 29th July 2010 07.59 Europe/London

The centuries-old legal doctrine of “joint enterprise” has been taken up with enthusiasm by modern policemen and prosecutors. It provides one remedy for the increasingly intractable problem of how you prosecute urban gangs. However, its increased use also raises very real issues of fairness, as has been voiced by campaigners for reform, who were disappointed this week when permission to appeal was dismissed in the controversial case of Jordan Cunliffe , a partially blind teenager convicted of murder because he was present at the attack and did nothing to prevent it.

The concept of joint enterprise is not new. In the eighteenth century, if someone was killed as the result of a duel, the concept gave the authorities far-reaching powers to prosecute. They could convict not just the men taking part in the duel but also their supporters, those holding their coats and even doctors standing ready to attend to the wounded.

The most famous modern use of joint enterprise was in convicting Derek Bentley of shooting a police officer in 1952. The actual murder was committed by his accomplice, Christopher Craig. But, because Craig was only 16 at the time, he escaped hanging. Bentley was heard to utter the words “Let him have it”, so he was convicted of murder under the principle of joint enterprise and hanged in 1953.

But the police appear to have stepped up the use of the doctrine in recent years to deal with the specific problem of urban gangs. Gangs are a big issue in the inner city. And this goes beyond the tabloid headlines. People feel menaced by them. Many of the most unpleasant phenomena of modern youth culture take place in gangs, notably gang rape.

In a gang, an under-educated young man finds friendship, family, possibilities for entrepreneurial activity and the bravado to commit horrific acts. Gangs are bad for the communities that they flourish in and bad for the young men involved. In certain communities, young men trying to keep their head down and pass their exams often find themselves on the fringes of criminal gangs because to do otherwise is to risk social ostracism.

But prosecuting gangs has proved an increasingly intractable task for the authorities. The gulf in culture, class and race between many gangs in modern urban Britain and the authorities trying to bring them to book makes it harder than ever to expect a penitent gang member to “crack” and tell the police all they know. On the contrary, I have had a number of instances in my own constituency where a whole gang sees someone murdered or raped, but nobody will admit to seeing anything.

This is where the joint enterprise concept starts to look attractive. The authorities are going out of their way to let young people know of its existence. In a police video presentation for young people, the policeman says: “If you are involved in a murder in any way, shape or form we will come to you. We will find you. We will come at a time when you don’t expect us and we will enter your life. We will invade your home. Invariably your front door will be removed. We will enter. This will be in front of your parents and your family, possibly your friends, and we will change your life.”

But, increasingly, concerns are being expressed about the use of joint enterprise against gang activity and whether it is fair. The (then) Lord Chief Justice Lord Philips set out his reservations in his Essex University/Clifford Chance lecture on reforming the law of homicide in 2008. The Law Commission has echoed these doubts.

As a strong supporter of civil liberties, but also as someone who has first-hand experience of the problems posed by gang culture in urban Britain, I can see both sides of the argument on the use of “joint enterprise”. There can be no doubt that the law warrants review.

Diane Abbott is MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Newspapers are often accused – sometimes rightly – of ignoring complexities and printing instead simplistic narratives that present all issues as binary conflicts. Such conflicts, it is said, are the hack’s stock in trade – and if that is true, the situation this newspaper finds itself in is nothing short of journalistic gold dust. “It’s the Council vs the Hackney Citizen,” the headlines might read. Hackney Council has threatened the Citizen with legal action following our publication of a recording in which a council employee wrongly informed the caller that there was no Conservative candidate on the mayoral ballot in the recent election.

Exposing the Council’s blunder was clearly a matter of public interest, yet in their first letter to us the Council demanded that we remove the recording “and any transcripts” from our website. Interestingly, the Town Hall claimed our recording breached data protection rules and infringed the rights of the Council employee who had been recorded – even though said employee is unidentifiable in the recording and had given the misinformation in a public-facing role and professional capacity on behalf of the Council, after going off to consult with staff in the Electoral Services department.

This is not the first time the Town Hall has come into conflict with this newspaper. Earlier this year it was reported by other local media that Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe had waved a copy of the Citizen aloft in a full council meeting, asserting that our paper was “a lying little rag.” Neither at the time nor since has Mr Pipe advanced any evidence to back up this assertion.

If the Council can threaten to sue the Citizen for publishing evidence of its election blunder, perhaps the Citizen is entitled to sue the Council for defamation.

We believe the Town Hall and Mr Pipe have let both the public and themselves down in these two cases. They have acted against their own interests; they have exacerbated the negative publicity that has come their way by adopting a confrontational stance.

Politicians – or anyone else – are perfectly entitled to disagree with what a newspaper prints. But they are surely obliged to explain why they disagree with it. Hurling threats or unsubstantiated accusations is not the way to win an argument.

Related stories:

The improper and disgraceful conduct of Hackney Council (Jack of Kent blog)

Hackney Citizen launches fighting fund for legal battle with Council

Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street

This was Hackney Council’s first meeting since the elections on Thursday 6 May; in the chair for this momentous and good humoured occasion was Cllr Sally Mulready, the Council’s newly-elected speaker.

Hackney Council’s now 50-strong Labour councillors were understandably in euphoric mood; the Liberal Democrats gave a good-natured and spirited performance, whilst the depleted Conservatives stayed serious and sombre.

Mayor Jules Pipe thanked everyone for coming, including Diane Abbott MP, saying he had recently read in the Daily Mail that she might be his party’s next leader (to applause and hoots of laughter).

Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Ian Sharer said whilst he would be very pleased to see Diane Abbott MP as leader of the Labour party (laughter), he cautioned that “you can’t believe everything you read in the Daily Mail” (more laughter).

Mayor Pipe congratulated all 57 elected councillors, with particular congratulations going to the 50 Labour ones.

And not for the first time, the Mayor went on to claim credit for a number of achievements, including a recent fall in crime rates and improvements in the borough’s secondary school exam results, despite the fact that policing and education (run by the Learning Trust) are not under his or the Council’s direct control.

Commenting on the new coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at national level, Councillor Sharer, joked about the unexpected political proximity in which his party now found itself to the Hackney Conservative group along the bench from him.

“I think there possibly could be a letter on its way from Cowley Street ( Liberal Democrat party national headquarters) with instructions for me saying ‘Join the [Conservative councillor] Maureen Middleton Fan Club,” he said. (Laughter and applause.)

On the local election results, he thanked the Mayor for “not rubbing our noses in it too much this evening”.

Curiously, Cllr Sharer also thanked the Council and its staff for “a well-run election”, when only two weeks ago the Hackney Liberal Democrats’ election agent had sent a stiffly-worded letter to the electoral returning officer (and the Electoral Commission) lambasting the Council for a long list of failings during election day and the count that followed.

The Mayor thanked both the opposition leaders for their warm words and congratulated Cllr Michael Levy on his elevation to leader of the Conservative group, and the atmosphere remained lighthearted and informal.

So much so that Mayor Pipe neglected in the first part to appoint his Deputy Mayor, Cllr Karen Alcock, and the other Cabinet members; fortunately he then remembered, and did so.

There was just one cloud that appeared to blight the happy proceedings.

Conservative councillor Maureen Middleton said she regretted to have to rise to speak, but the Mayor had disappointed her.

She complained that in this fest of gratitude and goodwill, The Mayor had failed to see fit to congratulate Eric Ollerenshaw, (a former Hackney Conservative councillor of 17 years standing) on his election to Parliament.

“He worked very hard with you in the early days when you were elected and you’ve forgotten it,” she chided.

Ten years ago, Jules Pipe and Eric Ollerenshaw, Labour and Tory leaders respectively, worked together to try to improve the borough. According to the Guardian, Mr Pipe said at the time, “The real message Eric and I want to drive home is that while we disagree politically, there are things that need sorting out – getting street cleaning, and refuse collection right, for instance – that need not be a political football.”

The Mayor offered his belated congratulations but also commiserations, given that Mr Ollerenshaw MP hadn’t managed to bag a peerage which, it was said, he would have preferred (Laughter and applause).

The meeting closed with little further ado; there will be plenty over the next four years.

Related stories:

Labour triumphs in Hackney mayoral and local elections

Mayor speaks out over Hackney nursery cuts

Local residents are protesting over plans for a Tesco on Lower Clapton Road Photo: © Hackney Citizen

Dear Hackney Citizen

The current upset caused by the arrival of a Tesco on the Lower Clapton Road is really misplaced and a knee-jerk reaction to Brand Tesco. The already established local shops have a faithful clientele and their survival cannot be dependent on the arrival of one rival. Those who seek to remain loyal customers can do so and can turn their backs on any new retail outlet coming to the area.

There are hundreds of new flats that have already been built, or are in the process of being built in the Moorfields Park area. A new mini supermarket is, as we understand, also being built on the Lea Bridge Road next to the old Ship Aground public house to serve this development. Are we aghast at this new mini supermarket opening or do we conveniently save up all our antagonism for Tesco? Are Tesco solely responsible for the decline of the individual High Street shop?

Tell us where it is possible to buy decent meat on Lower Clapton Road, is there a good butcher? Clapton’s residents should be applauding Tesco for making a brave move into their area and should be campaigning for Tesco to make its home here.

As to the question of delivery trucks and the disruption they may cause, well it is a main road and that’s what roads are for.

Presumably the residents noticed the road when they made their decision whether or not to live there, not only that but probably saw it as a local amenity. Lorries and roads are there for delivering the goods which we consume in our droves. If people don’t like roads, then perhaps they shouldn’t live on them, then also perhaps they should do away with their congestion-causing, oil guzzling, polluting cars and hold our politicians to account for engaging in illegal wars and mass murder in order to keep the oil price a few pence lower.

Or would the people prefer the extra couple of pence in their pockets so they can spend it on Tesco cava, Tesco taramasalata and Tesco Kettle Chips for sunny Saturday afternoons in London Fields, while the real victims of capitalism and the poverty gap continue to shoot one another, upsetting their bourgeois picnic hampers?

If this is a genuine concern then those who will be directly affected should try and reach an agreement with the retail outlet over delivery times and noise pollution. A new, city sized Tesco will provide steady jobs and training opportunities and bring convenience and increased normality to the Lower Clapton Road.

As an arts organization Decima are well aware of the anti- Tesco bandwagon promulgated by certain anonymous and fashionable artists. We ask with all due respect if shops such as Waitrose, who genuinely offer fresh fish and meat counters and extensive quality wines, have not put far more small specialist food shops out of business up and down the country than Tesco ever have; but then the people who support this ‘agitational’ type of art, and purchase it for their Notting Hill Gate apartments are far more likely to shop at a Waitrose anyway and therefore never raise a fuss about one coming to their area.

Decima will be holding a celebration of the new Tesco opening, mounting a celebratory art show featuring Derrick Welsh and Simon Ould on the day the new Tesco opens, bringing joy and expanded choice to the people of Clapton, those who do not want to come can go and see the anti-Tesco art on the Essex Road,

Tesco is not the cause of hypocrisy and breakdown within our society, it’s a symptom, and if there wasn’t the market for it in Clapton they would not build it. The very same people who are up in arms will almost certainly be going there along with us for cheaper milk, fresher eggs, a greater selection of biscuits and choppier chops.

If these simple offerings are beyond the local shops’ abilities, then we must really ask ourselves which one is putting profit before the customer, as I suspect sourcing ever cheaper and dodgier suppliers in order to sell at a greater profit is near the top of the list of priorities for the local shops.

If people really want to halt the increased homogenisation of our high streets and increased dependence on corporate capitalism then perhaps they should look into changing their attitude and approach towards life in general, instead of this token anti-tesco nonsense. Let them build Tesco and then exercise your vote with your feet – not just in Clapton, but on every high street. And not just in the high street, but in your choice of phone provider, washing powder, methods of transport, community cohesion and even down to the choice of art for your middle-class walls.

David C. West
Alex Chappel
Larry Mcginity
Mark Reeves

Decima Gallery, Old Street

Related story: Clapton residents slam Tesco plans

London Fields yesterday, the day after the shooting took place

China Mieville’s 2009 novel, The City and the City, focuses on two cities that inhabit the same physical space yet have little-to-no interaction with each other, ‘unseeing’ each other as they pass each other in the street and prevented by myriad and intricate laws to stop them from ‘breaching’.

I mention this for a two reasons. The first being that Mieville, a London writer, has obviously modelled at least part of this conceit on his hometown. The second being that he will be in attendance at the Stoke Newington Literary Festival in early June, the first in the area, and a definite sign of the rise and rise of certain parts of Hackney as interesting, ‘cool’, bohemian hang-outs.

Last Saturday (22 May 2010), in London Fields, on one of the hottest days of the summer a sunbather was shot after getting caught in a flare-up of gang violence. A perfect, if sad, example of the two co-existing worlds that occupy the same spaces in the borough meeting with tragic consequences.

A recent article [a comment piece by a local resident] in the Hackney Citizen has claimed:

“So the ‘kidz’ decided to remind us THEY ARE HERE! And who can blame them. Their parents are being defeated by generation upon generation of poverty, escaping from war zones, beaten by the system, drowning in smack, crack, alcohol, junk food and trash tv.  But their children have still got the anger of untapped potential burning in their hearts.  They protect what they do have, and what they have is territory. Where are the pubs, clubs, cafés, gyms and park equivalents for them?

“We expect them to stay hidden, keep their ugly poverty away from out rose-tinted Ray Bans.  It’s time we woke up, heard their cries for attention, listened to their anger and gave them something of their own.  Hackney is taking a deep breath.  This could be one long, hot summer, folks.”

It is very hard, as the writer seems to de doing, to defend any sort of gang activity and I would deeply question his assertion that whoever was responsible for this had any sort of agenda beyond whatever gang-squabble started the incident in the first place. It was not a cry of rage at the perceived gentrification of the area, but something that has a tragic, fatalistic inevitability to it. Follow the logic of what has happening socially in Hackney, and indeed across London, and something like his has to happen.

I have no interest in adopting a holier-than-thou, ‘I’m more working class than you’ attitude that criticises vocally the ‘trendies’, the gentrification and the coffee shops(but of course these are all the things that make places like London Fields and Stoke Newington appealing). I will vocally criticise Broadway Market, but that’s because it is too expensive and clearly aimed at a certain demographic that does exclude a massive amount of people who live nearby. This is an unfortunate fact, but even that does not make it ‘wrong’ (whatever that may mean).

As someone who works with a number of disadvantaged young men and boys in the area – and I have worked on the estates around London Fields – the obvious gap between rich and poor becomes very apparent, and it would be easy to indulge in some anti middle-class posturing, which I must admit I have been guilty of in the past. But this is too simple an answer. Nobody in their right mind is going to say that the improvements and facilities that are now a part of London Fields are a bad thing, and in theory they are there for everyone and anyone to use. Yet it is true that a lot of local young people can’t go there precisely because of gang activity – if it is perceived as ‘their turf’ then they fight over it.

It all comes to down to a question of attitude, and perspective. Gang violence is something I will never condone, but from the experiences I have had working with some young men in the area I do have a (limited) understanding of the issue, and have been able to put a human face on it. The social and cultural conditions that create these things are really not that hard to understand – poor housing, lack of education, a feeling of exclusion from mainstream society. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could work that out. It doesn’t excuse any of it, but there is a reason for it, and it’s a reason that we have to get to grips with and understand. Not to fear, but to know. The gangs are real, but don’t believe what the papers tell you either. Maybe find out for yourself?

The problem with the middle-class makeover of Hackney is one of ‘unseeing’. I do believe that to maintain a certain lifestyle in areas of London such as this one, where so many different social groups and people from different social levels live side by side (and I literally mean side by side), then to accept the failings of where you live, and your own implication in that, will destroy the image of the life you want to live. If you try and buy a lifestyle, you better put on blinkers, look straight ahead and ignore the contradictory information flickering in the corners of your eyes.

Again, I am not criticising aspects of these lifestyles; I love living in Stoke Newington precisely because of some of the very same things that I find unpalatable – as a vegan, places like the Whole Foods Market are a godsend. But then I am aware that I’m a single man who has the luxury of choice. The place is too expensive. That is a simple fact. I’m excited by the upcoming Stoke Newington Literature Festival. Will there be some complete wankers there? Yes, of course. It doesn’t invalidate the thing itself.

So here we come to the issue of attitude and perspective. It’s possible – and I know this, because it’s how I and many friends live our lives – to enjoy all of the great things the area has to offer, without ignoring everything that is wrong with the place. You can’t buy an aspirational lifestyle and live here without ignoring those who don’t fit into that lifestyle. I believe that to be a fact. However, you can reconcile these issues within yourself and stop ignoring what’s happening. In fact, once that happens, you’ll most likely become part of a force that changes things for the better, for everyone. Naïve and idealistic, possibly, but it’s what I think.

And there are a lot of real problems, that a cup of overpriced coffee won’t solve. But then neither will my vegan pesto.

Note: the views expressed in comment pieces are not necessarily those of  Hackney Citizen.

Related stories:

Mayor criticised over response to London Fields shooting

The shooting at London Fields: the ‘kidz’ are here!

The ‘culture clash’ at east London Fields (BBC news London, Saturday 29 May 2010)

London Fields shooting likened to Los Angeles gang wars (Guardian, Friday 28 May 2010)

Letter: There is no ghetto of the rich in Hackney (Guardian, Tuesday 1 June 2010)

London Fields yesterday, the day after the shooting took place

As the East End becomes gentrified and ‘trendified’, the parks are cleaner, the shops more ‘boutiquey’ and the people younger. London Fields, affectionately known to locals as the catwalk, is a particular weekend treat.  Every sunny weekend BBQs, bikes with baskets of flowers, babies and beer flourish in the green and tree lined spaces.  Complemented by the lido and Broadway Market, London Fields has fast established itself as the place to be.

The families, the fashionistas and the fun that create the festival atmosphere in London Fields was ripped apart when a gang of teenagers chose to shoot each other at half past three on a blistering hot Saturday afternoon.

Hackney is home to some of the worst housing in the country.  Slums.  Families squashed into tiny houses, damp riddled, stacked up like criminals in estates full of drugs, intimidation and fear.  The women try to keep clean, the fathers try to stay clean and the kids run around like toy soldiers marking their small bits of territory with drugs, guns and violence.  They put the edge in Hackney.

And there we all are: the gentrified middle classes with our picnics, summer hats, beer and buggies.  On display, flashing our comfortable, easy-going weekend lifestyles for all to see.

So the ‘kidz’ decided to remind us THEY ARE HERE!  And who can blame them. Their parents are being defeated by generation upon generation of poverty, escaping from war zones, beaten by the system, drowning in smack, crack, alcohol, junk food and trash tv.  But their children have still got the anger of untapped potential burning in their hearts.  They protect what they do have, and what they have is territory. Where are the pubs, clubs, cafés, gyms and park equivalents for them?

We expect them to stay hidden, keep their ugly poverty away from out rose-tinted Ray Bans.  It’s time we woke up, heard their cries for attention, listened to their anger and gave them something of their own.  Hackney is taking a deep breath.  This could be one long, hot summer, folks.

Note: the views expressed in comment pieces are not necessarily those of  Hackney Citizen.

Related stories:

Somebody got shot: thoughts on the London Fields shooting

Mayor criticised over response to London Fields shooting

The ‘culture clash’ at east London Fields (BBC news London, Saturday 29 May 2010)

London Fields shooting likened to Los Angeles gang wars (Guardian, Friday 28 May 2010)

Letter: There is no ghetto of the rich in Hackney (Guardian, Tuesday 1 June 2010)

Diane Abbott MP

As former Hackney residents and [current] coordinators of the End Child Detention Now campaign, we wholeheartedly agree with Diane Abbott that Yarl’s Wood detention centre should be closed before further damage is caused to children and to the UK’s reputation (Hackney MPs clash over child detention at Yarl’s Wood, Wednesday 24 March).

Locking up innocent children in conditions known to harm their mental health can never be justified, yet Meg Hillier [MP] continues to argue that children should be taken from their homes and imprisoned in order to fulfil Home Office removal targets.

Hillier’s latest unfounded and scaremongering claim is that if the Home Office stopped detaining children, child trafficking would increase, because asylum seekers would buy children in order to escape detention!

We urge your readers to join Diane Abbott in calling for an immediate end to child detention by supporting our [No Child Detention] petition.

If you are a doctor or medic you can help by signing the Medical Justice petition.

Esmé Madill and Dr Simon Parker
End Child Detention Now
York

–

Related story: Hackney MPs clash over child detention at Yarl’s Wood

Dogs consultant Louise Glazebrook

I’ve recently been told tales of a man wandering in Clissold Park, trying to get rid of his Rottweiler that he no longer wanted, willing to give it up to anyone who wanted it.

We are struggling through a recession, and everyone’s budgets have been cut, but since when did a living animal, a member of the family, become disposable?

Longevity isn’t exactly the buzzword of the ‘noughties’, and it’s most evident with pets – the Rottweiler owner in north London sadly being a representative of a lot of dog owners.

Despite increasing numbers of micro-chipped pets, many dogs are not tagged, making it very hard for the owners to be traced.

One of the most important things I think we could learn from last year, is that with Battersea Dogs Home reporting a 20 per cent increase in the dogs they are taking in and with 5,000 dogs last year being found on the streets of London and taken in by local authorities, it’s evident that something somewhere isn’t working.

We call ourselves a nation of pet lovers, but statistics seem to show otherwise. In the last week of January 2010, one London local authority picked up 16 stray or abandoned dogs. These dogs ranged from Staff crosses to pedigree dogs of differing ages and sizes.

The problem is no longer just a random smattering of dogs being dumped, its become a weekly even daily issue, resulting in pets being dumped, tied up on the street and left or just turned out of the family home and left to fend for themselves.

Visit Battersea Dogs Home, The Dogs Trust and The Blue Cross to see exactly how many unwanted dogs there are out there.

Without being preachy, those who take on a dog must be responsible for it, and irresponsibility mustn’t seem such an enticing and easy option.

We need to be looking to help individuals and families choose the right puppy or dog for their circumstances, all too often people are choosing a breed for all the wrong reasons, to later find out that it doesn’t quite fit in with their lifestyle, or that having a dog is a bit more hard work than they bargained for.

There are ways around it. For example, The Cookery butchers on Stoke Newington High Street offers cheap cuts of meat which are perfect for dogs.

In fact, most butchers readily advise you on what cuts to feed your dog and for the most cost effective way to do it. Last week, I bought a huge (and I mean huge!) ox’s heart for about £4. I still have some of it left in the fridge, the dog and kitten await it with baited breath!

If you want more money-saving ideas for you and your dog, want to discuss rescue dogs or just talk dogs, contact me: louise@thedarlingdogcompany.co.uk.

Many suggestions and objections from both users and the Park User Group have been accepted by the Council and its design consultants over the months of public consultation on the plans.

Options for the new play area were modelled and refined over a number of open sessions. Most recently, the new upper café outdoor seating area was enlarged; the wheel park relocated further away from Queen Elizabeth’s Walk and the paddling pool kept open during the works; all direct results of active consultation between users and council.

Total funding for the scheme is £8.9, not £20 million –half from Lottery funds and half from the council. But all of it will be spent on facilities accessible to park users of every social and economic group.

The plans were designed by professionals who live locally and use the park regularly and who have worked within the contemporary as well as the historical context of Clissold Park. Unlike two previous attempts, they have received the enthusiastic and continued approval of the Lottery Fund board.

The bleak and under-used redgra area will provide for a very popular and innovative extension of the play area, which will still have a five-a-side pitch.

The house will be transformed and opened up for all of the community to use, for the first time in its history. Concessionary hire rates are under consideration.

Most of the park will remain open during the 18 months of the planned works, with plenty of space for Stoke Newington School and other users to enjoy.

Contractors will provide their own accommodation to their own specification. The only temporary buildings provided from the scheme’s budget will be for the café, tennis club, ranger’s office and temporary public toilets.

The User Group tries to reflect all those views that it receives from park users and when necessary pursue them with park management. Its volunteer representatives have often taken issue vigorously with the council when necessary, but do not oppose just for opposition’s sake. Recent and past representations can be found on our website.

I do hope that I have been able to banish Mr Duncan’s ghosts of Clissold Past and Clissold Present, and that together we can all look forward happily to a Clissold Yet to Come.

John Hudson
on behalf of the Clissold Park Users Group

Read Alastair Duncan’s letter here.

The proposed wind turbines, to be installed on East Marsh, have divided Hackney residents, with some seeing the turbines as ugly and intrusive brutes, whilst others consider them elegant and beguiling structures that fit in perfectly with the Wick’s industrial aesthetic.

However, whilst this new skyscape may not be to everyone’s taste, nobody should be in doubt of the significance of this decision in our quest for a clean, green future. As well as the marshes, Hackney boasts some of London’s best parks and must be prepared to sacrifice small parts of these green spaces for green electricity.

To ask why these turbines are so important is like asking why it is important to dodge a number 38 bus travelling at full speed – it really is now or never in our quest for a clean, safe and affordable future for Hackney’s children. Climate change is our greatest threat, and the costs of tackling it will only increase the longer we leave it.

Hackney has an opportunity to make a difficult but progressive decision; voicing its support for the new wind turbines would make Hackney one of London’s greenest boroughs, bringing a substantial cut in carbon emissions. As well being forward-looking, the wind turbines prove a sound financial investment, with the council announcing that it would receive £50,000 a year in rent from the scheme.

Perhaps most importantly, this consultation represents a fantastic opportunity to for Hackney residents to engage in the decision-making process and should be seen as a celebration of democratic debate. The council still has important questions to answer before giving the project the green light, so be sure to raise them at http://www.hackney.gov.uk/ before 14 December.

Let’s show that it is not only our climate, but our marshes and our Olympics.

Paul Myles
Lower Clapton