This paper considers the history and context of the control of public spaces, how this is regulated currently and how it relates to the politics of homelessness and community governance with a specific focus on the regulation of public space in the contemporary city of Manchester.

This paper details the findings of a two year empirical study, funded by the Daphne III Programme of the European Commission, which investigated the issue of women’s rough sleeping in four EU countries. The objectives of the research were to increase the knowledge base relating specifically to women rough sleepers who had suffered domestic abuse and to enhance knowledge and expertise in this field, thus informing future pan European policy. The research revealed specific findings about the context and nature of women’s homelessness, including the fact that many of the current issues that prevail in relation to this social problem have common themes across Europe.

In a previous paper, Moss and Pease outlined that although Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was arguably the most radical section, this did not appear to have been recognised. Specifically, fieldwork suggested that police requests for crime prevention measures, made on the basis of Section 17, were not consistently being accommodated, particularly where they conflicted with what planning officers wanted. It was argued that Section 17 should have a greater visible impact upon the agencies that it would necessarily affect. Contested planning applications since this time suggest that whilst many police forces and local councils, including planning departments, have been working hard to implement the requirements of Section 17, this is being undermined by decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. They maintain that in the absence of case law, Section 17 does not constitute a material consideration in terms of planning. Some examples, which have been contested on this basis, are discussed. It is suggested that the Planning Inspectorate should interpret Section 17 as a material consideration, in line with the guidelines laid down in Home Office Circular 5/94 'Planning Out Crime'3 and give greater primacy to the views held by the public in Crime Audits.

Reviews the historical development of clinical understanding about the concept, causes, and management of severe (psychopathic) personality disorder. Considers the legal implications of a diagnosis of psychopathic disorder, including where a patient is deemed to be untreatable. (Legal Journals Index)

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 charges responsible authorities with devising and implementing strategies for community safety. Responsible authorities comprise police and local authorities, working as partnerships. Criteria for the permissible exchange of relevant data are to be found in the Act. In practice, partnerships have experienced difficulties in reaching agreement about datasharing. This paper looks at the legal background to data-sharing, its limitations, best practice, and the potential consequences of lowering barriers to information exchange.

Criteria for the permissible exchange of relevant data within crime and disorder partnerships are to be found in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Partnerships have experienced difficulties in reaching agreement about data-sharing. This paper proposes an approach which minimises formal data-sharing while maximising relevance to crime reduction. It should be read as a radical alternative to the approach advocated by Brookes et al (2003) and is based on the excellent work undertaken in the Government Office, East Midlands.