Search results

There has been a widespread move in England’s city centres to a business crime reduction partnership (BCRP) model that welcomes businesses from all commercial sectors and that operate during day time and night time trading hours, and that seeks to tackle a broad range of crimes and associated behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether this new holistic approach offers benefits that narrower models do not.

This study draws upon data from a multi-year examination of the Gloucester City Safe BCRP, including quantitative analysis of 4,523 offences recorded by the partnership and qualitative analysis of 149 interviews with its members.

In Gloucester there was a small minority of offenders who commit offences against more than one type of business, who offend during both the day time and night time trading hours and who commit more than one type of offence. There is value, therefore, in partnerships bringing together businesses from different commercial sectors and that operate in the day and night time economies to coordinate their efforts to tackle such activity.

Sharing information among partnership members via e-mail and secure web-based platforms helps raise awareness concerning offenders and the offences that they commit which in turn can be used to prevent offences from occurring.

This inclusive holistic BCRP model can lead to an increased sense of community cohesion for its members arising from the collective effort of multiple types of businesses.

The authors are not aware of other studies that have considered these issues.

The prayer against the Poultry (Hygiene) Regulations which we briefly mentioned in the editorial of our last issue, was lodged as a result of activity by the Environmental Health Officers' Association. Incidentally it is the first occasion as far as we can recall that a prayer has been lodged against any of the rash of food regulations of recent years, and reflects the strong feelings of the public health inspectorate.

Every seaport with foreign‐going shiping trade has always had its “foreign” quarters; every large city hat had its Oriental traders and services, eg., Chinese laundries, Indian restaurants, Italian restaurants, greengrocers, ice cream and biscuit manufacturers; all of which has meant that foreign foods were not unknown to food inspectors and the general public in its discerning quest for exotic food dishes. It was then largely a matter of stores specially stocking these foods for their few users. Now it is no longer the coming and going of the foreign seaman, the isolated laundry, restaurant, but large tightly knit communities of what have come to be known as the “ethnic minorities”, from the large scale immigration of coloured peoples from the old Empire countries, who have brought their families, industry and above all their food and eating habits with them. Feeding the ethnic minorities has become a large and expanding area within the food industry. There are cities in which large areas have been virtually taken over by the immigrant.

The Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1970, when they first appeared, seem to have attracted more notice in the daily press than in the specialist journals, although, while re‐enacting much that was in the 1960 regulations, which they repeal, the new measures break new and important ground, as well as introducing a number of amending provisions, which experience has shown were needed. We tend to associate hygiene needs of food and drink with the thronging streets of the city and town, the hidden backrooms of restaurants, the bustling market and the mobile food van, which, in this motorized age, has ousted the bawling backstreet hucksterer.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

The experimental parliamentary subsidy on knights' fees and freehold incomes from lands and rents of 1431 was the only English direct lay tax of the Middle Ages which broke down. As such, this subsidy has a clear historiographical significance, yet previous scholars have tended to overlook it on the grounds that parliament's annulment act of 1432 mandated the destruction of all fiscal administrative evidence. Many county assessments from 1431–1432 do, however, survive and are examined for the first time in this article as part of a detailed assessment of the fiscal and administrative context of the knights' fees and incomes tax. This impost constituted a royal response to excess expenditures associated with Henry VI's “Coronation Expedition” of 1429–1431, the scale of which marked a decisive break from the fiscal-military strategy of the 1420s. Widespread confusion regarding whether taxpayers ought to pay the feudal or the non-feudal component of the 1431 subsidy characterized its botched administration. Industrial scale under-assessment, moreover, emerged as a serious problem. Officials' attempts to provide a measure of fiscal compensation by unlawfully double-assessing many taxpayers served to increase administrative confusion and resulted in parliament's annulment act of 1432. This had serious consequences for the crown's finances, since the regime was saddled with budgetary and debt problems which would ultimately undermine the solvency of the Lancastrian state.