Peterborough parents fight to save school lollipop patrols
Almost 500 people have signed a petition calling for crossing patrols near schools to be saved from a council's budget cuts.Peterborough City Council announced cuts to crossing patrols at primary schools in Eye, Old Fletton, Newark Hill and Werrington to save money, leaving lollipop men and women redundant.The authority said it was "one of a number of difficult decisions" that needed to be made in order to balance the budget.The petition has called for the decision to be reviewed as parents fear a child could be injured or killed if no action was taken.
Kerri Deboo, a parent of a pupil at Werrington Primary School, said: "We're really worried about something happening to a child and feel there's been no robust decision making around it."Lisa Bryan had been helping children cross the road outside Eye Church of England Primary School in Peterborough for more than 26 years. She is one of four workers losing their jobs.Katie Berry, another parent, said: "[An accident] is really now a matter of time. I know it sounds dramatic, but it is a 'when', not an 'if' now."
'Massive impact'
Ms Bryan said the loss of the crossing patrols will have a "massive impact"."The traffic doesn't stop for me so what makes them think it will stop for parents, whether there is a zebra crossing or not. In the mornings, it's a fighting battle every day," she said.City councillors previously used their community funds to keep Ms Bryan's job until the next academic year, but nothing has been put in place yet for September.Angus Ellis, a Labour councillor and cabinet member for environment and transport at Peterborough City Council, said: "A proposal to remove the school crossing patrol service at four schools in Peterborough was agreed as part of the council's budget for 2024/25."Crossings and or speed restrictions such as at 20mph zones are in place at each of the schools and we are also providing road safety education for pupils."The petition will close on 11 June and will then be submitted to a cabinet meeting.If it reaches 500 signatures before the deadline, it will also be eligible for submission to a full council meeting.Last month parents held a protest outside the Eye Primary School calling for the decision to be reviewed.
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ban on Palestine Action as ‘terrorists' is shameful
I am a former chief constable, and once attempted to become a Labour police and crime commissioner. I'm not therefore someone easily categorised as a supporter of terrorism or criminal activity. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group is beyond satire (Report, 20 June). I suspect that embarrassment over hilarious security failures at an RAF base may be clouding judgment and good sense. Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace. It is nearly as disgraceful as the continued UK support for the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Israeli state. If the home secretary is so keen to proscribe an organisation, why not proscribe the terror group known as the Israel Defense Forces? They kill innocent people daily, and yet my voted-for government does absolutely nothing. Words mean nothing. Israel's leadership ignores them, yet our government persists in arming it. The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law – one here being used to suppress support for Palestinians. The home secretary appears to have left reason Hughes Bradwell, Derbyshire The plan to proscribe Palestine Action represents a failure of this government to engage in meaningful discussion with all those who deplore Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and our government's support of those actions. The protest group has made it clear that their reason for using spray paint on two planes was to draw public attention towards RAF logistical support for Israeli actions. That logistical support has taken many forms, and the public is only aware of some. At the same time, the government has often condemned Israel's genocidal policies. It should not be surprised when its support for Israel leads to alarming reactions. I recently joined a large, friendly and peaceful march in London in support of the Palestinian cause. I dearly hope the home secretary will consider the British history of tolerance of protest in her future BarberUttoxeter, Staffordshire The government responds to a few people spraying paint and breaking windows by declaring them 'terrorists'. If that is terrorism, then the word loses all meaning. Banning them – and their supporters – could be justified if they have carried out, or advocate, a campaign of murder and/or bodily harm. But unless the government can provide evidence of the latter, then proscribing a group that is protesting against a war is ludicrous, and sets a very dangerous precedent. Are the anti-frackers terrorists? Hunt saboteurs? Even last year's rioters weren't called terrorists, yet they caused mayhem in many towns and cities. No one is safe if proscription becomes the Loschi Chadderton, Greater Manchester So now you're a terrorist if you protest against the government supporting genocidal acts on innocent people? A small act of vandalism is hardly blowing people up, but this government is supporting murderous behaviour in Gaza in all our names, no matter how many times we take to the streets or write to our MPs. The suffragettes would have been branded terrorists if we used this criterion. I'm not a member of Palestine Action, but they sound just like my kind of people. Mary Gildea Charlton, London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Diversity policies improve the civil service
As a retired civil servant, I read your article with interest (Civil service is 'too remote' from people's lives across UK, says minister, 14 June). I am in favour of moving roles out of London, but simply moving locations is not enough without culture change. Civil servants come from a range of communities. Most are passionate about public service. But the hierarchy means that only those who are able and willing to play by unwritten rules (created by white, middle-class, non-disabled men for their own benefit) can climb the ladder; civil servants are encouraged to focus more on what will please senior leaders than on what will benefit communities; and the civil service often values grade and seniority over knowledge, experience and expertise. To provide the best public services the civil service needs to reflect, at all levels, the communities it serves. At present it doesn't, and diversity diminishes with seniority. The 'back-office function' of experienced equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) specialists is essential: to identify barriers to under-represented groups; to ensure a working environment where everyone can thrive; and to rewrite the hidden rules so that they work for everyone. Senior leaders (including ministers) need to value the experience and expertise of specialists at more junior grades. In 2008 I joined the Crown Prosecution Service as an equality, diversity and community engagement manager. As well as EDI issues, my role involved engaging with local communities to understand their needs and build confidence in the criminal justice system. Engaging with communities improves the service provided and encourages those from under-represented groups to consider joining the civil service. In this country, we have always referred to EDI. Those who advocate doing away with 'DEI' betray their slavish Trump AirsNewcastle upon Tyne Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Herald Scotland
15 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
John Swinnney: 'This situation is a threat to us all'
He said he agreed with the UN Secretary General on the need for an end to the conflict through diplomacy. Mr Swinney said: 'The conflict in the Middle East has escalated to an intensely more dangerous and alarming level as a result of the US intervention overnight, which risks spiralling into disaster for the region and the wider world. 'The world finds itself at a profoundly dangerous moment and must pull itself back from the brink.' READ MORE: He added: 'I agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that we need to see immediate de-escalation and an end to the conflict through diplomacy. It is vital that the UK Government takes any and all steps it can through diplomatic channels to insist upon that. We also call on Iran to return to negotiations. 'And while the danger is clearly greatest for those in the region, make no mistake that this situation is a threat to us all. The consequences for international peace and security could be severe and it is vital that all nations work through the United Nations to de-escalate this conflict and bring about peace.' United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said earlier on Sunday he was "gravely alarmed by the use of force" by the United States against Iran. 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security," he said. President Donald Trump in the White House on Saturday 21 June (Image: AP) He added that there is a 'growing risk' that this conflict could 'rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world'. Mr Guterres called on member states to 'de-escalate' and 'uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law'. He said: 'At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.' The First Minister's response to the developments in the Middle East came after Sir Keir Starmer urged Iran to return to negotiations. US President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that three key nuclear sites in Iran were 'completely and fully obliterated' in the military strikes. The US is thought to have used B-2 stealth bombers to drop bunker-busting munitions on the sites – including the deeply-buried Fordo facility – as well as 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines. The US-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is not thought to have been used in the operation. The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there are no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. The strikes came just days after President Trump said a decision on whether to join Israeli attacks on Iran would be delayed as international leaders, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, urged restraint. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday the US president was still hopeful of reaching a negotiated solution with Tehran and would decide on military action within two weeks. But speaking after the strikes on Iran early on Sunday, President Trump said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.' Trade policy minister Mr Alexander, who is the MP for Lothian East and a former international development minister, spoke to the BBC's Sunday Show. He said: 'I understand that people have woken up this morning to the news that was breaking overnight with a real sense of concern. 'I want to assure your viewers that the British Government has been putting contingencies in place. 'There have been a whole series of meetings, I and other have been attending Cobra meetings in the course of the week.' He said plans are being put in place to move UK nationals in affected countries to safety, stressing the UK 'took no part in this military action'. The Prime Minister had earlier said Iran should 'return to the negotiating table', noting the region remains 'volatile'. Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf was critical of the Prime Minister's response. He posted on social media: 'An awful statement from the PM, which ignores our collective responsibility to uphold international law. 'Supporting illegal military action in Iran, and gas-lighting us about an imminent nuclear threat, is hauntingly reminiscent of the lies told in the run up to the Iraq war.' During a protest march in London, Mr Yousaf had earlier accused the UK Government of 'abusing' anti-terror laws against the Palestine Action group, which vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Meanwhile, business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said today it would be 'naive' to think the risk of Iranian-backed terrorism in the UK will not increase as a result of the US strikes on Irainian nuclear sites. Speaking to Sky News this morning Mr Reynolds said the UK was not involved in the strikes against Iran but was informed in advance by the US. He said "no request was made" was made to the UK by the US for support. He told Sky News: "We were not and have not been involved in these attacks." But asked about the potential risk to the UK, he added: 'This is not hypothetical. There is not a week goes by without some sort of Iranian cyber attack on a key part of UK critical national infrastructure. 'There is Iranian activity on the streets of the UK, which is wholly unacceptable.' He added: 'It's already at a significant level. I think it would be naive to say that that wouldn't potentially increase. The Iranian ambassador to the UK branded the US military strikes on Iran as a violation of a United Nations charter.
