Dear Nerve,
Tolerance zones for those involved in prostitution seems to be the controversial topic of the moment; at least as far as Liverpool City Council is concerned. However this is not a new idea; not even for the council. I was co-author of a report commissioned by Liverpool City Council as long ago as 1996. In that report we raised the issue of tolerance zones as a means of taking the 'problem' of street prostitution away from residential areas, at the same time as safeguarding the needs of the women. The labour council of the day having commissioned and paid for the report chose to sit on it and do nothing. Since 1996 street prostitution has developed in a number of new areas away from the so-called traditional areas. Much of this has to do with zero tolerance and moving women on. However, it is my belief that it also has a lot to do with the drug dependency of the majority of women working the streets, which is in itself widespread. I can understand residents concerns regarding females being propositioned by strangers in cars, yet can't help but feel that there would be little or no concern for the womens’ wellbeing if they weren't in these new areas. I personally now have grave doubts regarding the success of a tolerance zone in Liverpool. A tolerance zone can only work if it is policed with an understanding of the womens’ needs. A lot of the womens’ needs are drug related, and therefore illegal. Whilst many of the women reject the suggestion that they are pimped, many of them have a 'partner' who is also addicted. Women who work the streets have always been at great risk of routine violence, and even death. The worst case scenario would be a concentration of women in a tolerance zone at the mercy of those who prey on vulnerability. This would inevitably happen without sympathetic policing. Moreover it would seem that a lot of the women do not want a tolerance zone.
The issue is of prostitution is a complex one. In my opinion a tolerance zone, in a dark corner of the city, will only add to that complexity.
Yours sincerely, Sheila Coleman.

Dear Nerve,
Well done for a top mag, however, I felt I must reply to your heroin piece from issue 4. You suggest that heroin being an illegal drug creates the social problems associated with heroin use, and that by legalising heroin, and giving it out free, via the NHS would solve the problem. Quite frankly, I think that's a load of bollocks! Heroin by itself is a relatively inert substance - it sits around in its plastic wrapper doing nothing: it doesn't mug, burgle or thieve, and it doesn't sell itself either. The problem with heroin is the people who take it. Everybody knows what happens with heroin - you end up a loser with hep 'n' HIV, blood running down your too short trouser legs, a mouth full of rotten teeth by the time you're 30, begging in town, and going out on the rob. Nobody believes the old "one hit and your hooked" shite anymore - you have to cultivate your habit, much like you cultivate any other habit.
I'm sick of hearing the tired old "lets give the smackheads free drugs" argument, usually voiced by junkies and ex-junkies who think the world owes them a favour. Get real.
Samantha Allibone

Dear Nerve,
I read with interest the article by Sheila Coleman in the last edition of your magazine. She outlined graphically the hypocrisy of the Sun newspaper in attempting an 'apology' to the people of Merseyside and why the Hillsborough Justice Campaign continues to facilitate a boycott of that paper. It was therefore with a keen enthusiasm that I recently sat down to watch a tv programme on the Sun and Hillsborough, within the context of forgiveness. I was stunned by what I saw but also by what was omitted from the programme. I was surprised to see committee members of the Hillsborough Family Support Group sitting down and negotiating with an editor of the Sun. The offer on the table was that the Sun would help them campaign for justice if they accepted the Sun's apology. I was shouting at the tv pleading with them to realize their mistake and leave. Alas, no. Instead they said that they would put it to their members if the same editor could speak to the collective group! Thank God we heard that the group rejected the offer. If I was a member of that group however I'd be asking serious questions about those supposed to be representing my interests. What the hell were they sitting down with the paper for in the first place? The second reason I was shocked was by the total absence of any reference to the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and the ongoing Sun boycott. How the cameras managed to film in the Anfield area and miss the huge boycott posters is a skill in itself. What a disappointment the programme was, but well done to the Hillsborough Justice Campaign for the principled stand it continues to take. The group is a great example of a grass roots organisation responding to the demands of its members by maintaining a boycott, yet not allowing the Sun issue to side-track them from the fight for justice. How pleased the HJC must have been to be left out of the 'forgiveness' programme. At the same time how sad it must have been for the bereaved families of that group to watch fellow Hillsborough bereaved families and the issue of 96 dead being sandwiched in between a daughter who forgave her mother for stealing her boyfriend, and a middle-aged man who finally confronted his old school teacher for traumatising him by calling him sparrow legs all those years ago. Thank God there's one group who seems to have the Hillsborough issue in perspective.
Yours, Stuart Howley

Dear Nerve,
Nice work with the magazine - plenty of good articles. Funny that the Assistant Chief Constable (corporate what?) should be lecturing you about fundamental rights. Maybe next issue you could remind your readers that Nerve is advert free, a big plus in my book. Maybe you could come up with some kind of subscription for people who can afford to send you a few quid now and again. Keep annoying the sponsors.
Radged

Dear Nerve Magazine,
How come Mark Thatcher is not under house arrest, along with his mother, who is aiding and abetting a known terrorist? Why are the American Government reluctant to let him back into the US? Why are the Tory Party in England so reluctant to 'big up' their former Fuehrer in her hour of direst need?
So please all Nerve magazine readers, please, send in your suggestions as to what you would do with the boy. He may be a clown/clone but he is a dangerous clown/clone.
It's good to see that the 67 African mercenaries have been released, and that Simon Mann and his fellow-gangsters are still enjoying the hospitality of the Equatorial Guinean government. Isn't it time that we saw the Thatchers, in their Gucchi tags, unable to contact their brokers via mobile phone or internet, prevented from after-dinner speaking engagements, by evening curfews and reduced to a diet of day-time tv.
Andy C.