I WRITE on the subject of issuing possible banning orders being used to stop the homeless from sleeping rough in the City Centre. 
I think people should be aware of the bigger picture. PSPOs specify an area where activities are taking place that are or may likely be detrimental to the local community’s quality of life. 
This should only be done after substantial feedback from the local community. 
However, Newport City Council are abusing this power, because there is no evidence to prove rough sleepers light fires or cause significant problems to the community. 
There are no police logs numbers at hand from the council, no NCC public complaints on this issue, and no minutes from the joint strategy meeting held with the police on the July 8 (that is shocking). 
The Lib Dems have asked for all this info. 
Hence, what do the council do? 
They have little/no hard evidence to warrant issuing a PSPO. 
So, they run a biased public consultation loaded with leading questions, to get the response they want and the authority they need. 
It is obviously right to highlight the affects on the homeless, should such a banning order be implemented. 
It’s two stories in one... cause and affect. 
I can understand why the media are avoiding the more boring issue of what constitutes issuing a PSPO, rather than concentrating on what it will do. 
I think Paul Halliday has done a marvellous job on opposing the consultation and plans. 
There is currently a petition in circulation opposing the council’s ideas. 
However, what happens when more people sign this petition that the total number who filled out the public consultation itself? 
This story is going to develop further.
 
Michael Enea
Buttermere Way
St. Julians
Newport