A nationwide clampdown on the sale of “poppers”, a widely available aphrodisiac, is being launched by the Government amid concerns that the illegal substance is harmful. As reported in The Independent last month, bottles of amyl nitrite and similar drugs face a ban following a successful court case to outlaw their sale. Earlier this month, the law was changed to make poppers, which can be used to treat angina, only available on prescription.
But the Department of Health yesterday announced that its inspectors, local authority’s trading standards officer, and the police, are to target shops selling poppers, particularly in red-light districts. They are also keen to stop American manufacturers from supplying British outlets.

The move follows a campaign by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society which argues that the chemicals in poppers can kill and may be linked to a type of cancer – Kaposi’s sarcoma – that people with HIV sometimes develop.The drug, which costs about pounds 4 for a small bottle contains the chemicals amyl, butyl or isobutyl nitrite. The effects of inhaling it include a euphoric rush and enhanced orgasm.The drug is particularly popular among gay men and is available from sex shops, clubs and mail order.. There is no legal right to hold peaceful, non-obstructive demonstrations on the highway, and the police are entitled to use new public-order powers to stop them, two senior judges declared yesterday in a far-reaching test case. The case, which contradicts what many people have always viewed as a “right”, arose out of the clearing of the first two people charged with “trespassory assembly” under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, and was the first test of whether the police could use their new powers to clamp down on peaceful protests.
Giving backing to the new offence, the judges ruled that “any” assembly of at least 20 people would fall foul of it, however peaceable and non- obstructive and whether or not it threatened public order.Margaret Jones, a lecturer in literature studies at the University of the West of England, and Richard Lloyd, a housing assistant, had taken part in a peaceful roadside demonstration alongside the Stonehenge perimeter fence while an order under the Act, banning an assembly of 20 or more people, was in force.They were found guilty by Salisbury magistrates last year, but the convictions were overturned on appeal to the Crown Court, which said the assembly was lawful because it was peaceful and did not obstruct the highway.That view was decisively rejected by Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins, who upheld an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and invited the Crown to pursue the charges again before a differently constituted Crown Court.Emphasising the impact of the 1994 Act, on which the Labour Party abstained, Lord Justice McCowan said the lower court’s judgment “leaves out of account the existence of the order.”Mr Justice Collins said the holding of peaceable meetings, demonstrations or vigils on the highway might be “tolerated” if they did not cause obstructions, “but there is no legal right to pursue them.” While this dispute concerned Stonehenge, people could be at risk of prosecution if – without obstructing other members of the public – 20 or more of them congregated outside a fur shop, a school where parents were protesting over discipline, or the offices of a council contemplating building on the green belt. All the police would need to do would be to seek an order under the Act from the local council.Dr Jones said: “This ruling supports something which is illiberal, undemocratic and wrong.

Peaceful protest, protests of all kinds, whether to prevent the closing of a hospital wing or in a trades-union context, are all affected.”Liberty, the civil-rights pressure group, called for a Bill of Rights to defend the freedom to demonstrate. John Wadham, the director, said: “A peaceful, non-obstructive gathering is a reasonable use of a public highway. To say that it is a form of trespass seems extraordinary.”The case is likely to reach the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Justice Collins yesterday rejected an argument that the ruling would breach Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom of peaceful assembly.He insisted that there was still an “ability” to hold a peaceful assembly. But the ruling means that this “ability” will always be in the gift of the police.. Portraits of Victorian composers will sit alongside large exhibition prints such as that of Benjamin Britten by Karsh and modern studies such as Annie Leibovitz’s 1970 picture of John Lennon in a new exhibition celebrating 150 years of photographs of British composers, writes David Lister.

The show, “Variations On A Theme”, opens at the National Portrait Gallery in London today. Many of the exhibits come from the gallery’s archives and are rarely on view. A series of concerts in the gallery will feature music by composers from the exhibition. The exhibition has a large sepia bromide of Sir Edward Elgar by the amateur Dr Grindrod, and a group of snapshots by Elsie Gordon in the early Twenties including Sir Arnold Bax, Percy Grainger and a rare glimpse of Maurice Ravel. Emily Andersen’s Judith Weir, taken this month, is the most recent offering.. The former professional footballer John Fashanu was in constant contact with a man accused of representing a Far Eastern syndicate betting on fixed football matches and shared a common interest in the game but was more concerned with business, a court was told yesterday. Glynn Mason, an employee of Mr Fashanu, told Winchester Crown Court that the presenter of television’s Gladiators concentrated most on his growing media and business career and had negotiated a contract with his club, Wimbledon, in which he did not have to train and received a fee for turning up at matches.
Mr Mason said Mr Fashanu and fellow defendant Heng Lim, known as Richard, often discussed football, adding: “Mr Fashanu isn’t the best person to ask.