ON Saturday night I met a friend for a drink in Gloucester and was appalled by how badly the seagull problem had escalated in that city in the past year. I fear Worcester will soon be just as bad.

Gulls have always been a nuisance in Gloucester but, as we sat outside at the Quays on Saturday, the birds were a legitimate health hazar. Twice I saw gulls swoop on a table to steal food and knock over drinks which shattered and sprayed glass. While I lost count of the number of times the birds dive-bombed people and pooed on tables and chairs. My friend, who lives in Gloucester, said the gulls increased in number and became more aggressive each year. It's the same in Worcester.

The gull issue has once again been debated in Worcester in recent days, after Councillor Alan Amos advocated a cull.

While most people agree that we have to do something, many are opposed to anything they view as inhumane to the birds.

There are humane systems out there: small speakers that emit a repelling high frequency sound tuned to only be heard by gulls have proved effective elsewhere, but they are costly (£69 per device) and we'd need them across the city to drive the gulls away entirely.

The question, then, is whether the city council is willing to spend big money on an effective and humane method of driving gulls away.