This should be interesting

The BBC report that:

'Councils in England should publish annual parking-charge accounts if they want to prove they are not being used as a "cash cow", MPs have said.

The Transport Committee warned it was "neither acceptable nor legal" to use fines to increase revenue.

Councils made a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds each year, it added.

The MPs urged ministers to freeze charges, currently capped at £130 in London and £70 outside. Councils said money raised went back into services.

Committee chairman, Labour MP Louise Ellman, said: "There is a deep-rooted public perception that parking enforcement is used as a cash cow, so it's essential that local authorities apply stringent transparency."'

If any accounts are published, then I doubt that they will be transparent. Many local councils use parking fines as a form of transgression tax that doesn't show up as an increase in local taxation.

Why bother to vote in local elections?

Why indeed, when so much of the areas that local councils are meant to control or manage are in fact controlled by the EU.

'This video aims to highlight a sample of just 8 local issues upon which the EU Parliament has usurped the control of central and local government in the UK - often to disastrous effect. Some appear scandalous, others farcical, but all illustrate that the EU is the hidden local issue. www.hiddenlocalissue.co.uk

This film was produced by the Europe of Freedom & Democracy Group in the European Parliament. It incorporates EU-critics, eurosceptics and eurorealists. The main goals of the Group are to reject the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe and to oppose all forms of centralisation.
www.efdgroup.eu'

Europe, and by that I mean the EU, is not a marginal issue; it is the main issue in the UK as it affects so many aspects of our lives. So you have a choice in the upcoming local elections: vote for a pro-EU Labour party, vote for the mostly fanatically pro-EU Lib Dems, vote for a Conservative party with many EU-realists in the party but lead by pro-EU people or vote for a truly EU-realist party UKIP.

Thursday afternoon catch-up

The usual story, too mnay open Firefox tabs and not enough time:

1. Christopher Booker in The Telegraph had a fascinating piece about how local councils may be holding their rates level but they are raising money from elsewhere:

'There was a time, 40 years ago, when the most obvious source of council revenue was the rates, topped up by grants from central government – in return for which we could expect all the services that councils provided. But, largely below the radar, councils have discovered all sorts of ways in which they can take money off us, by levying charges, fees and penalties – some of which are actually illegal – for countless things that used to be free, or at least very much cheaper.

We have become familiar, for instance, with the practice whereby we must now pay for planning applications, anything from £150 for a garden shed to £250,000 for a large housing estate. We all know about the cost of parking fees and penalties, which earn councils £2 billion a year. And businesses must now pay billions to have their waste collected.

What most of us are less familiar with is the proliferation of new licensing charges for everything from pet shops to car boot sales, from riding establishments to “sex establishments” (up to £9,935, plus a yearly renewal fee of £5,000). Pubs that used to pay a yearly £10 to the local magistrates for their licence must now pay up to £1,905 to the council (plus £23.50 to notify the town hall if the landlord dies). Big pop festivals must pay £64,000 for a licence, even before they pay hundreds of thousands more to hire the police to provide security.

In 2007, the Lyons report on local government found that more than a quarter of councils were already earning more from such charges than they were from council tax. This has now risen to the point where “sales, fees, charges” and “other income” now yield some £25 billion a year, much the same as council tax.'

2. Is it just me or is there a word seeming to be missing from this article about 'Many thousands of children across England ... being sexually exploited by gangs, the Office of the Children's Commissioner suggests.'


3. CNS News report that:

'There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.
This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”'

Anything on the BBC about this?


4.  The Telegraph reports that:

'At least 200 potential terrorists are actively planning suicide attacks while living freely in Britain, intelligence chiefs have warned ministers.

A senior intelligence source has revealed that the figure is a "conservative" estimate of the threat facing the country from UK-based Islamist suicide bombers.

The would-be killers are among 2,000 extremists who the security services have said are based in Britain and actively planning terrorist activity of some kind. '

Oh marvelous and these people are left free to plot the deats of hundreds of Britains because ... How mnay more innocent people have to die before the fanatics are locked up or...?


5. USA Today have an article that you should read only if you are sitting down with a stiff drink. Investing may never be the same again.


6. YNet explains that Barack Obama is advocating the ghettoisation of Jews in Israel. My only question is - why is anyone surprised by the actions in this regard of Barack Hussein Obama?


7. The Telegraph reports that:

'Facebook has admitted that it has been watching the web pages its members visit – even when they have logged out.

In its latest privacy blunder, the social networking site was forced to confirm that it has been constantly tracking its 750million users, even when they are using other sites.'

Facebook, like Google before them, are saying it was a mistake...

USA

Ken Livingstone and Lutfur Rahman

Andrew Gilligan in The Telegraph reports on Andrew Neil's putting of Ken Livingstone on the spot, here's a brief extract:

'“Andrew Neil: Why should Labour people go out and campaign for you when you campaigned for Labour’s opponent in the Tower Hamlets mayoral election?

Ken: No, no, I made it quite clear, I called for a vote for the Labour candidate. But this is one of these Alternative Vote things. What I said was, you must use your second vote for the person that the local Labour people selected.

Neil (laughing): You said the Labour candidate wasn’t credible or competent. That’s hardly campaigning for him! You said people should vote for a candidate that isn’t credible or competent?

...

Ken: I would have been quite happy to go down with the local Labour candidate, but he didn’t want me around, because he’s been one of my opponents for a long time.

Neil: You were attacking Phil Woolas, though, for smears and so on. But here are you, backing a man who distributed 90,000 copies of a Bangladeshi freesheet which carried smears [on] the Labour candidate, the man you’re supposed to be supporting, calling him “the wife-beating candidate” and a racist!

Ken (smiling): It’s very dirty politics down in Tower Hamlets. No-one denies that.

Neil: Much worse than anything Phil Woolas said. And you’re backing this guy!

Ken: I mean, I don’t believe Lutfur Rahman put that [out]. A lot of dirty stuff was circulated, always has been, and one of the reasons I wanted a directly-elected mayor in Tower Hamlets is so you move away from that very sectional politics to someone who has to appeal very widely. And Lutfur Rahman’s been subject to a long smear campaign by Andrew Gilligan. Well, that immediately suggests that he can’t be all bad.”'

 Andre Gilligan comments:

'The fact that Lutfur is opposed by me appears to have become the main argument used by his supporters – see also here and, even more comically, here. Given the actual charge-sheet against Lutfur, I think you’ll need to do better than that, lads.'

If as seems clear Ken Livingstone campaigned against the labour candidate in Tower Hamlets, whey is he still in the Labour party contrary to party rules? Is Ken bigger than the party? He's certainly better known than Ed Miliband. Is it in fact possible that if Ed Milibnad was run over by that pesky theoretical bus that the leadership battle of a more left-wing Labour party could include uncuddly Ken?

What has happened to this country?

Please read the always excellent Anna Raccoon's piece about Sheila Martin and despair at what England has become. Here's an extract:

'Today, Sheila is once more fragile; she is 70 years old and was widowed 30 years ago. She tells me she has survived five heart attacks; she suffers from asthma, angina and high blood pressure. She only smokes the occasional cigarette these days, partly for health reasons, partly because her minimal state pension doesn’t stretch to any more.

...

In common with other ‘Smokers’ who may not like the new laws prohibiting them from smoking where others may be offended by the practice, she respected the law of the land, and complied. She is no campaigner against such laws.

Thus it was that she found herself standing at a bus stop, waiting for the bus which would take her home, and taking the opportunity to smoke a cigarette in the open air – there was no bus shelter.

...


She only smoked half the cigarette; as the time drew close for the bus to arrive, she ‘nibbed’ the cigarette, letting the lit end fall to the ground, and thriftily stowing the other half of the cigarette in her handbag for a later occasion. It was her last cigarette until pension day.

Two of Sandwell’s famed ‘enforcement wardens’ approached her – a man and a woman. They told her that they were issuing a ‘Fixed Penalty Fine’ of £75 under Section 87 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This mouthful of gobblygook was lost on Sheila; she had no idea what she had done wrong and put the piece of paper in her pocket.

...

On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.'

Do read the whole of Anna Raccoon's piece and get angry and then be reassured by the news that Sheila Martin's legal defence is being taken care of. But then take a read of The Metropolitan Borough council of Sandwell's Wardens Enforcement Policy document. 15 pages of 'Good Enforcement Practice', reference to The Human Rights Act, Equal Opportunities,
Service Standards' and the rest of the usual language of the town hall apparatchik. Here's a few excerpts from this document, so you can get a flavour of the bollocks that local government officers promulgate and speak with such ease as they persecute the easy prey whilst letting real criminals get away with much worse:

'The Council has adopted the Cabinet Office’s “Enforcement Concordat” which offers best practice guidance and promotes good standards of enforcement.'

'The policy is a generic policy intended to apply to all service areas, but it must be recognised that there will be service specific requirements which apply to specific enforcement activity relevant only to that service area, e.g. health and safety, trading standards. This policy deals with the Sandwell Warden scheme.'

'Enforcement action, by the use of fixed penalty notices, penalty notices for disorder, but including prosecution where appropriate, will be taken against those who deliberately or recklessly flout the law.' - Was Sheila Martin reckless or deliberately flouting the law?

'2.5.4
This policy should be read in conjunction with the Wardens Standard Operating Procedures, which provides details of the way in which the Warden Service will operate.
2.5.5
Due regard will also be taken of the following advice and guidance:
o The Code for Crown Prosecutors
o Home Office Police Operational Guidance for issuing Penalty Notices for Disorder to persons 18yrs and over
o The use of Penalty Notices for Disorder for offences committed by Young People aged 16 and 17yrs.
o The use of Penalty Notices for Disorder for offences committed by Young People aged 10 – 15 yrs.
o Home Office guidance on the issue of Fixed Penalty notices
o Supplementary Operational Guidance for Accredited Persons
o DEFRA Guidance on Issuing Fixed Penalty Notices
o DEFRA Guidance on Issuing Fixed Penalty Notices to Juveniles'

'2.5.9
Prosecution is the last resort, but the Authority is committed to making a difference and will be robust in targeting those areas, and those people who continually flout the law, adversely affecting the lives of people and businesses in our community.' Was Sheila Martin adversely affecting the lives of anyone?

But it is the section on Enforcement that has really irked me, read the policy and see if you can see why on earth poor Sheila Martin was issued a penalty notice, if not to raise money or maybe bully an old woman who would not fight back. How much easier to issue a penalty notice to a frail old woman than a 'youf'!

'3 Enforcement
3.1.1
Enforcement is not simply focused on prosecution, and officers are trained to assess and decide on which course of action is the most appropriate for any given set of circumstances. Consistency and fairness are critical to ensure that public support and confidence in the scheme are maintained.
3.1.2
In making their decisions, enforcement officers will consider:
o The nature and seriousness of the offence
o Any explanation offered by the defendant
o The age of the defendant
o The known history of the defendant
o The likely impact of enforcement action being taken there and then
o The likelihood of a statutory defence
o Witnesses and their willingness to make a statement
o The advice contained in the CPS Guidance
o The advice contained in the Guidance for Young People

3.1.3
Having considered the relevant issues and applied them to the circumstances of the incident being dealt with, the following options are available for consideration:
No action
Informal action
Formal Action'

I wonder if the staff of the Metropolitan Borough council of Sandwell are happy with the way their council operates against the old and frail? I wonder if the people responsible for prosecuting Sheila Martin and for framing the policies that lead to her prosecution are proud of their contributions to the well-being of Sandwell? I wonder if the two ‘enforcement wardens’ are happy with their actions?

I despair of this country, I really do.

If you want to make your feelings known to Sandwell Council then you will find relevant contact information here including their telephone number of 0845 358 2200 and complaints email address of contact@sandwell.gov.uk

Local council officials that don't know the law or recognise a classic car

Autotrader (not a news source I think I have ever quoted before) report a sad story:

"Imagine the expression on music producer Mendoza Stewart's face when he found out his prized Bristol 411 – a rare classic – had been towed by the London Borough of Lambeth, despite being legally parked in a council car park.

Council workers at the car pound apparently used a mechanical grab to move the car, leaving it 'utterly wrecked'.

Mr Stewart said: "The council said my car was not taxed but as a 1972 classic car it is road tax-free."

A spokesperson for Lambeth Council said: "We have accepted breach of duty and apologise to Mr Stewart. We are working hard to resolve this case as soon as possible.""

In case you do not know what a Bristol 411 looks like, here's a picture of one...

Lovely cars, I would love to own one but couldn't afford the petrol!

It's not about the environment, it's about control

It's not about the environment, it's about control. I know that I have blogged along these lines before, but the news that

"Tons of recycled household rubbish goes missing each year as council bosses admitted they had no idea what happens to the refuse after it has been collected."

does not surprise me. First local councils instituted schemes to force their residents to carefully separate out their rubbish for recycling. Then local councils brought in systems to fine residents for not complying exactly with the myriad of rules that enforce recycling. Then local councils started using children to spy on parents and neighbours to ensure that no infraction goes un-fined. Meanwhile much of the carefully sorted rubbish is put into landfill or exported to China or Russia.

What a waste of our time and energy, but at least it has employed even more people in local authorities and generated some income in fines for local government.

The fine is the important thing

Yet again I read of a local council in full revenue collecting mode. This time it is Harringey council who fined a Muswell Hill shop owner £75 a bag for four bags of rubbish left out in black (residential) rather than grey (trade) bags. Apparently the fashion boutique manager said that officials burst into the shop in front of customers and accused her of committing a crime. The news that the council has backed down and dropped the fine does not really reassure me, we are living in times where the rule of law is diminishing across this Country but local councils are happy to concentrate on fining people for minor waste disposal infringements and parking fines, whilst the Police issue crime numbers for burglaries as they are only interested in speeding motorists.

"Mayor of London Ken Livingstone 'squandered millions of pounds' "

I did think of just putting this story forward under my regular "No shit, Sherlock" category but I think this story is too important for that. Londoners will not be surprised to learn findings of Boris Johnson's forensic audit panel. The panel are reported to have found that:

1. "Ken Livingstone squandered tens of millions of taxpayers money on pet projects that he set up on a whim while mayor of London"

2. "the London Development Agency, responsible for jobs and business in the Capital, was used as the mayor's personal "cheque book".

Projects were set up on the whim of Mr Livingstone and his advisors, with cash pouring in to favoured groups and communities rather than those which had the most need."

3. "Patience Wheatcroft, the former editor of The Sunday Telegraph who led the audit, said: "Our investigations have left us in no doubt that money was misspent on a massive scale."

4. Patience Wheatcroft, the former editor of The Sunday Telegraph who led the audit, said: "What the mayor wanted, the mayor could get, and that was the overall thinking of the LDA."

5. "Mrs Wheatcroft said that the panel had uncovered waste, disorganisation and mismanagement rather than fraud or corruption."

6. "Two former members of LDA staff, Yvonne Thompson and Tony Winterbottom, who stood down from their posts after attracting criticism, continued to be paid for months and even years after their resignation to act a "consultant" and "ambassador," although neither appeared to carry out any tangible work.

The LDA became infamous after its head, Lee Jasper, was forced to quit earlier this year amid a welter of allegations about his private life and financial dealings. Police are investigating a number of projects which received funds from the LDA."

I will predict that Ken Livingstone, Lee Jasper and the rest of Ken's "team" will not be charged with anything and so will have "got away with it".

I further predict that unless, as I have previously advised, Boris Johnson gets rid of all of Ken Livingstone's appointees from his office, City Hall and the LDA that he will never be free of the left-wingers embedded in much of the UK's local authorities.

Council bans woman from epileptic son's taxi

The headline is not a joke, Wales Online is reporting that:

"THE mother of a disabled and severely epileptic teenager has been banned from travelling to school with him – because she hasn’t been police checked.

Jayne Jones, of Aberfan, had previously been riding in the council-provided taxi with her 14-year-old son Alex on mornings she feared he was prone to having fits.

But now officials have told her she can only travel with her son once she has undergone a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check.

Mrs Jones, a mother of two, yesterday hit out at the bureaucracy which, she says, has left her son travelling to school with no-one trained to administer specialist life-saving treatment in the event of an epileptic attack.

“I have to be CRB checked before I can ride in a taxi with my own son,” she said. “And now they’ve said if I pass the check and am allowed to ride with him I can go to the school but then have to make my own way back to my home in Aberfan.

“I have to be checked to go in a taxi with him, but if I was able to take him in my own car they wouldn’t care and even offered to pay me expenses.

“I don’t want money – I need him to get back and fore to school.”

Alex suffers from cerebral palsy as well as severe intractable epilepsy, and can suffer fits before school. On particularly bad mornings Mrs Jones would accompany him to Greenfield School, Pentrebach, near Merthyr Tydfil, in case she needed to give him his specialised treatment during a fit.

However, when officials at Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council discovered she was travelling with her son they told her to stop. A few days later a request for a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check landed on her doorstep.

Mrs Jones, a full-time carer to Alex, is reluctantly in the process of having the check done, for which the council has waived the fee.

Alex, who was born with his condition, takes a combination of 32 anticonvulsant tablets each day, and the drop-attacks he suffers could one day kill him.

He currently travels to school with Victoria Taxis.

“The taxi company is great and they carry Alex’s medication but they won’t use it. And they’d know how to put him in the recovery position if needs be,” she said.

On Boxing Day last year, Alex was taken to hospital for a six-hour surgery which saw him fitted with a special lifesaving device called a VNS (Vagus Nerve Stimulation) therapy system.

The VNS is fitted under the skin in the chest and works like a pacemaker to help control electrical signals which can malfunction and cause him to seize.

However, Mrs Jones and her husband Malcolm, 42, are the only people trained to use the VNS therapy. His taxi escort is not trained and Mr Jones has to work, so no-one in the taxi could help Alex should he need it.

Mrs Jones, who also has an eight-year-old son, Lucas, said the VNS was “the best Christmas present” anyone could give them as it has improved Alex’s quality of life immensely.

Council officials last night said they could not comment on individual cases but defended its police-checking policy.

But one day she could need to administer the lifesaving jolts and may not be there as the council have refused to let her ride with him.

A spokesman for Merthyr Council said: “We cannot comment on particular cases but can confirm that CRB checking is a requirement of our transport provisions in relation to adults travelling on home-to-school transport in the capacity of an escort.“This is a standard requirement and has been for several years. Any adult acting as an escort will, in the public gaze, be viewed as acting with the full acquiescence of the council and hence with its implied authority.

“For the protection of the council and all vulnerable persons in its care it’s essential all those endowed with an authority, implicit or explicit, should meet the security requirements within the transport contract provisions.”"

I think that the spokesman for Merthyr Council deserves some sort of prize for that statement. For sheer playing it by the book at all costs, health and safety jobsworthery, that statement really takes the prize:

"“We cannot comment on particular cases but can confirm that CRB checking is a requirement of our transport provisions in relation to adults travelling on home-to-school transport in the capacity of an escort.“This is a standard requirement and has been for several years. Any adult acting as an escort will, in the public gaze, be viewed as acting with the full acquiescence of the council and hence with its implied authority."

Look you jobsworth, it is his mother that will travel with the child, nobody else and there will be no other child in the car, just him. You are stopping a mother travelling with her own child because your own rules
don't cater for that eventuality.

"“For the protection of the council and all vulnerable persons in its care it’s essential all those endowed with an authority, implicit or explicit, should meet the security requirements within the transport contract provisions.”"

The vulnerable person might die if not accompanied by his MOTHER.

If the child does die from a epileptic fit whilst travelling unaccompanied in the taxi, I presume that the Council will be happy so long as their rules were followed and the correct boxes were ticked. Fuck me this Country has gone a long way down the
path to madness.