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.

The role of the British police

Three relevant cases have come to my attention in the past few days. The best known is probably that of Michael Thompson who whilst driving his car in Grimsby noticed a mobile speed camera and that many oncoming cars seemed to be speeding. He decided to flash those cars to warn them to slow down. As a result he found himself in court and found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties.Now this strikes me as rather peculiar. Did any of the drivers flashed by Michael Thompson slow down? If they did then surely the road was safer as a result and thus Michael Thompson was providing a public good. So what offence did Michael Thompson actually commit? I cannot see how Michael Thompson stopped the speed trap from working or interfered with the work of the Police. Was the role of the police officers on that day to measure the speed of passing vehicles and to fine any that were driving faster than the legal speed limit? If so then Michael Thompson did not obstruct their work.If this was not their assigned role, then what was it?


If Michael Thompson was simply warning others to adjust their, then, future behaviour so as to reduce their exposure to criminal liability then how is this wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of their duties? Surely the signs outside every office that Smoking is not permitted within this building is also preventing a crime from being committed, is not a sign in a town centre advertising that CCTV is in operation is also designed to prevent a crime from being committed. Why are some crimes worthy of being prevented but motoring offences must be captured and the drivers prosecuted or fined?

I believe that the Crown Prosecution Service's case explanation included the note that The Highway Code informs drivers to

'Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.'

It would seem that Michael Thompson clearly breached this part of The Highway Code; however a breach of the Highway Code is not necessarily a criminal offence and that was not what Michael Thompson was charged with.

So why has Michael Thompson now got a criminal record? Is it simply because he encouraged others to stay within the law and upset a police officer by so doing?
Is this what the 21st century British police think their role is?


In another story, The Mail reports that:

'A police officer escorted an expectant mother to hospital just minutes before she gave birth - then slapped her husband with a ticket for speeding.

John Coughlin was handed the penalty for driving 102mph in a 55mph zone as he rushed wife Angela to the delivery room of the Catholic Medical Centre in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The trooper waited outside as the couple’s baby boy Kyle was born, six minutes after their arrival at the hospital, then pounced on the excited new father as he emerged to call relatives.'

That story is from the United States but I wonder if you doubt it could happen in the UK. The cases of jobsworth police issuing tickets to people they know will pay the fine, rather than looking to catch burglars, muggers and vandals are legion.


Finally Kable reports that:

'Millions of people who reported crimes have had their details stored on police databases

The revelation has emerged from information provided in response to a freedom of information request from the Press Association. It shows that police forces in England and Wales have kept data about people who call 999 or non-emergency numbers to report their concerns or pass on information.

The study discovered that West Midlands Police has more than a million records on people who have reported offences over the past 12 years.

Other forces, including Lancashire, Cleveland, Avon and Somerset, Gloucestershire, West Mercia and North Wales, hold more than 150,000 each.

The Press Association said that senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation. However, they insisted gathering the data was necessary to fight crime, protect the vulnerable and ensure concerns were dealt with properly.'

To the modern British police and their political masters, every member of the public is likely to be guilty of something and so should be watched. The number of crimes on the statute book increases year after year so that the State could choose when to arrest any one of us, after all we are all likely to have infringed one law or other at some time.


Over two years ago I blogged that:

'These transgression taxes are easy to collect if middle-class, law-abiding people are the transgressors and that is why it is them rather than the violent or dangerous that are targeted. A 'street warden' will be more likely to issue a fine to a 50 year-old householder whose bin is overfull because they had a party or who has managed to include a piece of plastic wrapping in the paper recycling bin, than he/she would be to try and fine six youths who are throwing empty beer cans at a bin on the High Street, and missing. The householder is easier to identify, more likely to pay and much less likely to give the "street warden" a good kicking.

If Michael Thompson had heeded my words and stayed cowed rather than protesting when pulled over by the police maybe he would not have been charged, fined and found himself the owner of a criminal record.

'A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them (“Medieval Warm Period” and “Medieval Climate Anomaly“)

Those warmists have been at it agian trying to fit facts to their world view and thus ensure their income stream. Watts Up With That has the details of this mostly unreported gahering in Portugal.

Here are some extracts from the meeting's abstracts, Watts Up With That has many more:

'The trajectories of these two concepts (“Medieval Warm Period” and “Medieval Climate Anomaly “) will be traced. A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia.
...
...there is little utility in picking over definitions of the geographic and temporal extent of putative epochs, especially in the Late Holocene. The pressing questions concern the dynamics of the climate system, and the relative roles of free and forced variations, whether the forcings are anthropogenic or not.'

And then there is this comment from MBH98 co-author Malcolm K. Hughes on the MCA/MWP:

'A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia.'

The warmists are going nowhere they have an industry to fund and a world view to spread. And until such time as the warmists are proved wrong and ridiculed, governments will seize on their research as a basis for raising consumption taxes.

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

Fined for blowing your nose - the war on motorists contines apace

The Mail reports that:

"When motorist Michael Mancini found himself stuck in a queue of traffic with a runny nose, he instinctively reached for his hankie.

However, the simple act of pulling out a tissue and blowing his nose earned the astonished businessman a £60 on-the-spot fine after a police officer decided he was 'not in control of his vehicle'.

Police constable Stuart Gray handed out the fixed penalty notice even though Mr Mancini was stopped in stationary traffic with his handbrake on."

Police priorities? Controlling the public? Raising money from transgression taxes/fines?

Transgression Taxes - an update

The Telegraph reports that:

"Fines for minor middle class crimes such as speeding, dropping litter and putting bins out on the wrong day are netting the police and town halls more than £400 million a year, new figures suggest.

...

Parking offences have helped rake in more than £330 million, while speeding fines have topped £100 million and on the spot fines for minor offences such as overfilling a dustbin has pulled in almost £12 million. "

Over a year ago I blogged that:

"These trangression taxes are easy to collect if middle-class, law-abiding peope are the transgressors and that is why it is them rather than the violent or dangerous that are targetted. A "street warden" will be more likely to issue a fine to a 50 year-old householder whose bin is overfull because they had a party or who has managed to include a piece of plastic wrapping in the paper recycling bin, that he/she would be to try and fine six youths who are throwing empty beer cans at a bin on the High Street, and missing. The householder is easier to identify, more likely to pay and much less likely to give the "street warden" a good kicking.

A side benefit of fining the law-abiding for minor transgressions is that it keeps them cowed and not inclined to protest in case they transgress some other law and end up in the Police Station. The consequences for a middle-class "criminal" are serious whilst for the aforementioned youths, it is just "an occupational liability". "

Yet another Labour stealth tax

I see that this Labour government are introducing yet another stealth tax and this time it's a stealth tax on a transgression tax. This delightful Labour government are to levy a charge of £15 on all motorists fined for minor offences under a government scheme to "compensate victims of crime". This stealth tax is justified by our delightful Labour government on the grounds that the offences that could be targeted "are not victimless crimes".

Let's be honest, what we have here is a 25% levy on already exorbitant transgression taxes. This is a levy being charged because the fools that make up this Labour government have blown all of our money on pish and piffle. Of course this being a Labour government the money is not even really going to the "victims of crime" but to victim support agencies; presumably these 'agencies' are happily staffed by Labour supporting and voting types. Hey Labour gotta shore up the vote in time for the election.

The con that is recycling as a way of fighting "Global Warming"

I did chuckle when I read today that Stephen Jones, a "key government advisor on waste management, has said that

"It might be that the global warming impact of putting material through an incinerator five miles down the road is actually less than recycling it 3,000 miles away"

When will people realise that the mania for recycling and indeed much of the environmentalist agenda is not about saving the planet; our puny efforts will have little affect anyway. It is all about control and the upcoming imposition of more transgression taxes.