THE war against cannabis growers continues with 11 more criminals put behind bars and suspended sentences hanging over the heads of four others.
This sends out an uncompromising message that those who seek to profit from other people’s misery will find no sympathy when they land before the judges, as they inevitably will do.
Much of the crime committed in South Yorkshire is committed to feed drug habits, which more often than not are triggered by casual use of cannabis.
This shows a clear connection between this drug and the misery felt not only by addicts but also by ordinary men and women whose homes are plundered and whose children are robbed.
We applaud the judges in South Yorkshire who are robustly dealing with dealers and producers of cannabis.
For too many this drug is the start of a long and lingering descent into misery and we hope the message that it will not be tolerated is beginning to strike home.
We cannot rid life of every threat
WE cannot create a world without risk. It is a part of everyday life. And to try to cater for every danger and eventuality is to leave organisations open to ridicule - and to leave their clients miserable.
That is the outcome of the latest outrageous ruling by housing officials in Sheffield who have written to pensioners threatening to seize their mobility scooters because they are parked in the communal areas of flats in Norton.
Of course they are parked there. That is where the owners feel that they are safe - and they have little option to park them elsewhere. And to suggest that they could be a hazard in the event of a fire is to ignore the fact that people’s lives are not to be wedged into clean- cut systems simply because it makes life easier for bureaucrats.
As we say, there are risks all around us. It is what makes life in a free world special and precious.
It is time the health and safety brigade accepted that they cannot force people to live by such rigid rules.
What has changed?
SOME years ago it was decided to create Sheffield Homes, mostly staffed by existing council staff, to manage the authority’s social housing. Now it looks like that decision will be reversed and management will revert to the city council. So some will be asking whether this highly expensive exercise was worthwhile in the first place? Why could the council not have managed its own homes in the past if it is going to do so in the future? What has changed? And will the public, who funded this process, ever learn the full story?