The following is taken from http://faulkstalks.blogspot.com/. It is a continuation from Anna Raccoon's blog Fighting them on the Sandwell
You can read the letter below or click on the link An Open Letter To Sandwell Council to go to the blog.
To Whom It May Concern
I understand from the press and legions of political bloggers that I read that once again you have excelled yourselves in your zeal for keeping a tidy district. I am sure that you are proud of your efforts to achieve this. I use the term 'once again,' because I understand that on various occasions you taken decisive action against people who have by their behaviour - knowingly or otherwise - transgressed your precise (or might I say 'exacting'?) standards, and who have been victimised accordingly.
Your action against a widow - whose 'offense' was to pinch out a cigarette she was smoking at a bus stop, thus dropping the lighted end on your immaculate street - has proved that you are a council that leads the way in mercilessness and malice. It is abundantly clear for all to see that you hold these qualities to the highest degree.
Permit me to courteously remind you of a few facts:
First of all, as a council, you are the servants of the area. You are not their lords/masters/despots/satraps/kings. This may not be how you would like it to be, but that is how it is. Please consider this - as painful as it may be to you.
Secondly, your local populace earns money which, through their hard work or investment, goes to pay for your wages. In other words, you are beholden to those whose living subsidises your way of life - and, doubtless the sumptuous premises in which you work and from where you issue your diktats and generate the various trendy 'diversity' projects upon which you lavish taxpayer's hard-earned cash.
Thirdly, this is still nominally a free country. It is not a Soviet Socialist republic or a fascist dictatorship - yet. I realise that as a Labour council, there are people in your ranks who have qualified as Common Purpose 'graduates,' and who have enthusiastically imbibed the anti-democratic values and practices that it is intended to subvert. That this country has not yet fully circumvented the vaguely democratic values that has under-girded it may not be to your liking, but again - that's how it is. Deal with it. This is still a free country. There are still regular, law-abiding people who pay your substantial wages who abhor the petty vindictiveness which you have displayed to the lady in question along with others who have also fallen foul of your nastiness. There are doubtless those in your very district who fought in the Second World War to oppose the very principles which you have so enthusiastically applied - authoritarian fascism. You have betrayed them - and all the others of the same generation who endured bereavement and a myriad of hardships and made sacrifices to fight oppression and tyranny for the sake of you and I. I hope you are pleased with yourselves.
Finally, let me remind you that until this country becomes a repressed third-world, third-rate vassal state of an emerging totalitarian socialist Utopia, there will continue to be people like this present writer who will vehemently oppose you and your despotic ways and will take every opportunity to publicly register their undying contempt for the supercilious attitude and inhuman ways in which you operate. And until we are silenced by some secret police force, we will continue to do so.
Now the above letter is about a specific incident at a specific council, but don't you think it could be about almost any council in the country?
Showing posts with label Stasi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stasi. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Monday, 23 August 2010
Someone needing everyones support
I have just read Anna Raccoon's Blog entry called Fighting ‘them’ on the Sandwell. After reading it I had to spread the word.
It involves a council who is taking an old lady to court over some litter. The litter in question is some burnt ash from a cigarette.
Read the whole story below;
70 years ago this week, Winston Churchill made his famous speech immortalising the words ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’ He did so to rally every man and woman in these Isles to support the war effort: “because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.”
Sheila Martin was a fragile babe in arms when her Mother heard those words. Too young to understand the menace behind the Messerschmitts and Heinkels screaming overhead and disturbing her slumber. She was the intended beneficiary of Churchill’s words, one of the generation of children that depended on the bravery of British men such as her Father, away in France fighting for the freedom, tolerance and variety that was Britain’s hallmark.
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.
70 years after Churchill’s speech was made, she has retired from a lifetime of hard work.
She was part of that unsung army of hard working, clean living, decent individuals, who cheerfully got up every morning and trudged off to put in a decent days work for a paltry wage as a ‘Mrs Mop’, raised her family, nurtured her marriage, made ends meet, saved little, but asked little in return, save the freedom, and tolerance that her older relatives had fought to provide. She is not a politically aware lady, nor insolent, nor ambitious for financial rewards.
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 could no longer smoke a cigarette on the top deck of the bus. She had not been able to smoke a cigarette with the cup of tea she shared with her daughter in town. Now she must stand in the road to enjoy the ‘freedom, tolerance and variety’ of the British Isles.
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.
Once home, friends and neighbours clustered round to read this piece of officialdom. Sheila still had the ‘end’ of the cigarette, with its precious inch or so of un-smoked tobacco in her handbag, so how could she be accused of littering the street – it had to be the cigarette ash they were talking about?
I have spoken to Sandwell Council, they tell me that they do not issue fixed penalty notices for cigarette ‘ash’ – I am sure they don’t. I am equally sure that Mrs Martin is telling the truth when she tells me that the half cigarette with its ‘butt’ was still safely in her handbag when she returned home. So we are left with the quandary of whether the ‘lit’ end of a cigarette, which will become cigarette ‘ash’ within seconds, constitutes parliament’s intention when they defined litter as including:
In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A)“Litter” includes—
(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and
(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.”
If a court holds that it does, then every smoker is liable for a £75 fine every time they smoke a cigarette in the street. I do not believe that to be parliament’s intention.
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.
Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)
Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.
We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.
There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.
70 years ago we were prepared to ‘fight them on the beaches’ – how appropriate that today we prepare to f’ight them on the Sandwell……’
UPDATE:
CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to raise funds to help an elderly widow who has been threatened with a £2,500 fine for dropping cigarette ash on the pavement.
Sheila Martin, 70, was smoking at a bus stop when a Sandwell Council warden pounced and handed her the £75 fixed penalty for littering.
The frail granny, from Oldbury, has refused to pay – and now faces a £2,500 penalty or even prison.
But on-line campaigners who freed a pub landlord from jail for a similar offence earlier this year have now come forward to lend their support.
Nick Hogan, former landlord of The Swan and Barristers in Bolton, was jailed for six months for failing to pay fines and costs totalling £10,136 after being guilty of allowing customers to light up.
But he walked free after an internet campaign raised £10,000 to secure his early release in just 10 days.
Web blogger Anna Raccoon was instrumental in securing his freedom and has now vowed to help Mrs Martin.
She said: “As a result of articles I wrote, the generosity of my readers and with the co-operation of other bloggers, we managed to raise the money in 10 days and get Nick released from jail.
“Now we are prepared to turn our efforts to helping Sheila Martin. If she does not pay the fine, she could be sent to jail just as Nick Hogan was.
“That is oppressive persecution and we should not stand by and watch an elderly widow treated like this.
“My readers are happy to support Sheila in any way we can, to enable her to fight this penalty.”
Last night Mrs Martin said: “I am so touched by all the support people have been giving me all week.
“I thought I was all alone and now I realise I am not. It has made me feel so much better.”
Simon Clarke, Director of Pro-smoking Group FOREST, also offered his support. He said: “What is happening to her is just another example of the bully state.
“Smokers are easy targets and while we do not condone littering, this case is just a complete overreaction by Sandwell Council.
“We will not allow this frail old lady to be bullied and we will do everything we can to help her.”
I am so angry right now, How can this council take a frail old lady to court over something as trivial as burnt ash.
Spread the word and if you want go to Anna Raccoon's Blog and show your support.
It involves a council who is taking an old lady to court over some litter. The litter in question is some burnt ash from a cigarette.
Read the whole story below;
70 years ago this week, Winston Churchill made his famous speech immortalising the words ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’ He did so to rally every man and woman in these Isles to support the war effort: “because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.”
Sheila Martin was a fragile babe in arms when her Mother heard those words. Too young to understand the menace behind the Messerschmitts and Heinkels screaming overhead and disturbing her slumber. She was the intended beneficiary of Churchill’s words, one of the generation of children that depended on the bravery of British men such as her Father, away in France fighting for the freedom, tolerance and variety that was Britain’s hallmark.
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.
70 years after Churchill’s speech was made, she has retired from a lifetime of hard work.
She was part of that unsung army of hard working, clean living, decent individuals, who cheerfully got up every morning and trudged off to put in a decent days work for a paltry wage as a ‘Mrs Mop’, raised her family, nurtured her marriage, made ends meet, saved little, but asked little in return, save the freedom, and tolerance that her older relatives had fought to provide. She is not a politically aware lady, nor insolent, nor ambitious for financial rewards.
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 could no longer smoke a cigarette on the top deck of the bus. She had not been able to smoke a cigarette with the cup of tea she shared with her daughter in town. Now she must stand in the road to enjoy the ‘freedom, tolerance and variety’ of the British Isles.
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.
Once home, friends and neighbours clustered round to read this piece of officialdom. Sheila still had the ‘end’ of the cigarette, with its precious inch or so of un-smoked tobacco in her handbag, so how could she be accused of littering the street – it had to be the cigarette ash they were talking about?
I have spoken to Sandwell Council, they tell me that they do not issue fixed penalty notices for cigarette ‘ash’ – I am sure they don’t. I am equally sure that Mrs Martin is telling the truth when she tells me that the half cigarette with its ‘butt’ was still safely in her handbag when she returned home. So we are left with the quandary of whether the ‘lit’ end of a cigarette, which will become cigarette ‘ash’ within seconds, constitutes parliament’s intention when they defined litter as including:
In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A)“Litter” includes—
(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and
(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.”
If a court holds that it does, then every smoker is liable for a £75 fine every time they smoke a cigarette in the street. I do not believe that to be parliament’s intention.
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.
Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)
Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.
We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.
There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.
70 years ago we were prepared to ‘fight them on the beaches’ – how appropriate that today we prepare to f’ight them on the Sandwell……’
UPDATE:
CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to raise funds to help an elderly widow who has been threatened with a £2,500 fine for dropping cigarette ash on the pavement.
Sheila Martin, 70, was smoking at a bus stop when a Sandwell Council warden pounced and handed her the £75 fixed penalty for littering.
The frail granny, from Oldbury, has refused to pay – and now faces a £2,500 penalty or even prison.
But on-line campaigners who freed a pub landlord from jail for a similar offence earlier this year have now come forward to lend their support.
Nick Hogan, former landlord of The Swan and Barristers in Bolton, was jailed for six months for failing to pay fines and costs totalling £10,136 after being guilty of allowing customers to light up.
But he walked free after an internet campaign raised £10,000 to secure his early release in just 10 days.
Web blogger Anna Raccoon was instrumental in securing his freedom and has now vowed to help Mrs Martin.
She said: “As a result of articles I wrote, the generosity of my readers and with the co-operation of other bloggers, we managed to raise the money in 10 days and get Nick released from jail.
“Now we are prepared to turn our efforts to helping Sheila Martin. If she does not pay the fine, she could be sent to jail just as Nick Hogan was.
“That is oppressive persecution and we should not stand by and watch an elderly widow treated like this.
“My readers are happy to support Sheila in any way we can, to enable her to fight this penalty.”
Last night Mrs Martin said: “I am so touched by all the support people have been giving me all week.
“I thought I was all alone and now I realise I am not. It has made me feel so much better.”
Simon Clarke, Director of Pro-smoking Group FOREST, also offered his support. He said: “What is happening to her is just another example of the bully state.
“Smokers are easy targets and while we do not condone littering, this case is just a complete overreaction by Sandwell Council.
“We will not allow this frail old lady to be bullied and we will do everything we can to help her.”
I am so angry right now, How can this council take a frail old lady to court over something as trivial as burnt ash.
Spread the word and if you want go to Anna Raccoon's Blog and show your support.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
How long till this happens in Llandudno
I have just read this article at Big Brother Watch.
Another bird-feeding 'criminal' gets collared
Last year, Big Brother Watch covered the story of Vanessa Kelly - a young mum who had taken her toddler to the park and been issued with a £75 fine for throwing bread to the ducks. We fought a successful campaign in the media that led to Sandwell Council overturning the fine and admitting their error.
Today we have been dismayed to learn of another bird-feeding incident that has led to an elderly woman being slapped with an £80 on-the-spot fine (from SWNS):
A woman was fined £80 for littering after wardens caught her throwing bread crumbs – to the birds. Heartless rubbish spies spotted the frail woman sprinkling bread over her garden railings onto the pavement for starlings.
Voluntary group St Peter’s Neighbourhood Monitoring started the campaign to catch litter louts last year.
Spies record residents who litter then post the footage onto You tube. Neighbours are then encouraged to name and shame those dropping litter.
Footage of people who litter is passed to the local authority who are then able to use it as evidence to issue fines.
There are any number of authoritarian crimes here - from Neighbourhood Monitoring groups dishing out justice; to spying on residents and illegal covert camera recording - but once again the real tragedy is the victim: a law-abiding elderly woman who has been fined most of her weekly pension for feeding the birds.
Big Brother Watch intends to help this woman if possible - if anyone has any information about this incident please do contact us.
By Dylan Sharpe
With the town and county council running short of money will they start fining people for feeding birds on the West Shore?
Not forgetting the increase in council tax that is coming next year. I wonder how much that will be?
We already have council (SS) officers who have the right to enter your home without a warrant or a police presence.
How long before we have more council (SS) officers giving out fines so the council can get the money to pay for theirwages and pensions essential services.
Another bird-feeding 'criminal' gets collared
Last year, Big Brother Watch covered the story of Vanessa Kelly - a young mum who had taken her toddler to the park and been issued with a £75 fine for throwing bread to the ducks. We fought a successful campaign in the media that led to Sandwell Council overturning the fine and admitting their error.
Today we have been dismayed to learn of another bird-feeding incident that has led to an elderly woman being slapped with an £80 on-the-spot fine (from SWNS):
A woman was fined £80 for littering after wardens caught her throwing bread crumbs – to the birds. Heartless rubbish spies spotted the frail woman sprinkling bread over her garden railings onto the pavement for starlings.
Voluntary group St Peter’s Neighbourhood Monitoring started the campaign to catch litter louts last year.
Spies record residents who litter then post the footage onto You tube. Neighbours are then encouraged to name and shame those dropping litter.
Footage of people who litter is passed to the local authority who are then able to use it as evidence to issue fines.
There are any number of authoritarian crimes here - from Neighbourhood Monitoring groups dishing out justice; to spying on residents and illegal covert camera recording - but once again the real tragedy is the victim: a law-abiding elderly woman who has been fined most of her weekly pension for feeding the birds.
Big Brother Watch intends to help this woman if possible - if anyone has any information about this incident please do contact us.
By Dylan Sharpe
With the town and county council running short of money will they start fining people for feeding birds on the West Shore?
Not forgetting the increase in council tax that is coming next year. I wonder how much that will be?
We already have council (SS) officers who have the right to enter your home without a warrant or a police presence.
How long before we have more council (SS) officers giving out fines so the council can get the money to pay for their
Friday, 26 March 2010
When did the UK become the Soviet Union?
Budget 2010: HMRC officers to get powers to open people's post without asking permission
Tax inspectors are to get wide-ranging powers to open people’s post without their permission for the first time, it can disclosed.
That is the headline to this article.
An Extract;
Officers will be allowed to intercept any suspicious mail anywhere in the country and open it before it is delivered, under plans being drawn up by the Government to amend the Postal Services Act.
The measure is billed as a bid to crack down on tobacco smuggling. However, a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers could be applied much more widely
I don't think tobacco smugglers will post their smuggled goods that much because it will cost too much and it will take weeks to get to the address.
The customs have said 'the powers could be applied much more widely.' I ask how wide will the powers go?
An Extract;
Civil liberties campaigners were appalled about the increased powers. Alex Deane, a spokesman for Big Brother Watch, said: “This is a dreadful development. The post has always been regarded as near-sacrosanct in law.
“The last time our mail was opened by the authorities without notice, our country was fighting a World War. I hardly think that the situation produced by the government’s tobacco tax compares.
“Once the principle of opening our mail has been accepted, what else will the Government use as an excuse to pry into our post?”
HM Revenue and Customs are growing increasingly aggressive in their battle with tax evaders. Earlier this year it announced plans for a crack down on middle class professionals who do not pay their fair share of tax.
The old Soviet Union was a government controlled state where mail was opened to check on the population.
Do you see any similarities with what the Soviet Union did and what this government is doing?
We are losing our freedom.
How many of our countrymen died in WW1 and WW2 for our freedom, only for the freedom they fought for to be taken away by this government and the EU.
The government is listening on our phone calls and emails, they are now going to be checking on our mail, the council can enter our homes with out a warrant or police presence.
What other freedoms are we going to lose in the future?
Tax inspectors are to get wide-ranging powers to open people’s post without their permission for the first time, it can disclosed.
That is the headline to this article.
An Extract;
Officers will be allowed to intercept any suspicious mail anywhere in the country and open it before it is delivered, under plans being drawn up by the Government to amend the Postal Services Act.
The measure is billed as a bid to crack down on tobacco smuggling. However, a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers could be applied much more widely
I don't think tobacco smugglers will post their smuggled goods that much because it will cost too much and it will take weeks to get to the address.
The customs have said 'the powers could be applied much more widely.' I ask how wide will the powers go?
An Extract;
Civil liberties campaigners were appalled about the increased powers. Alex Deane, a spokesman for Big Brother Watch, said: “This is a dreadful development. The post has always been regarded as near-sacrosanct in law.
“The last time our mail was opened by the authorities without notice, our country was fighting a World War. I hardly think that the situation produced by the government’s tobacco tax compares.
“Once the principle of opening our mail has been accepted, what else will the Government use as an excuse to pry into our post?”
HM Revenue and Customs are growing increasingly aggressive in their battle with tax evaders. Earlier this year it announced plans for a crack down on middle class professionals who do not pay their fair share of tax.
The old Soviet Union was a government controlled state where mail was opened to check on the population.
Do you see any similarities with what the Soviet Union did and what this government is doing?
We are losing our freedom.
How many of our countrymen died in WW1 and WW2 for our freedom, only for the freedom they fought for to be taken away by this government and the EU.
The government is listening on our phone calls and emails, they are now going to be checking on our mail, the council can enter our homes with out a warrant or police presence.
What other freedoms are we going to lose in the future?
Monday, 28 December 2009
Council Snoopers
I have just been reading this article about how councils have the authority to go into our PRIVATE homes without police presence or a warrant.
Here is a quote from the article;
The average local authority has 47 employees authorised to enter private homes, although some councils have hundreds of such inspectors.
The Home Office recently admitted that 1,043 different laws permit state inspectors to enter people’s homes and premises.
Although many of the laws are necessary to ensure public order and safety, there are growing concerns that proper vetting and supervision may not be in place for those authorised to enter private homes.
Why do you need 1,043 different laws just to enter someones home. What happened to the legal way of if there was suspicion of certain activities, criminal or otherwise, you go to a court and get a warrant?
The old way was for the police, or other organisations, go in front of a judge and asked for a warrant to search a premises. The judge would ask what evidence there was, the police told them and the judge would either sign the warrant or dismiss it due to lack of evidence.
Now it looks like a council worker can just enter our homes for practically any reason.
For all that's holy, that just isn't right.
As the old saying goes 'A man's home is his castle'.
I'd like to see a council officer try to step into my home without a policeman and a warrant.
This information comes from a report by 'Big Brother Watch' .
I had a read of the report and i was wondering how many council workers have the' authority' to enter (or at least try) our homes in the Conwy county.
Below is the answer;
Clackmannanshire Council 39
Colchester Borough Council 8
Coleraine Borough Council 25
Conwy County Borough Council 361
Cookstown 16
Corby Borough Council 21
Coventry City Council Denied -cost
Craigavon Council 7
Now i am wondering, why does Conwy county council need 361 officers, when the average is 47, who have the 'authority' to enter our homes with out a warrant, when other councils have so many less?
The laws were introduced under the anti terrorist law, but councils have been using it for ridiculous reasons, like checking if parents lied to get their child in a good school and checking if we are recycling properly.
Now if i ever saw an abuse of power this is it. It has to stop before this COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY falls into a pit that we will never get out of.
In previous blogs i wrote about this country becoming like the old Soviet block Stasi controlled states. Well i have changed my opinion. We are living, right now, in a stasi controlled state.
We have to change this before it is too late.
Here is a quote from the article;
The average local authority has 47 employees authorised to enter private homes, although some councils have hundreds of such inspectors.
The Home Office recently admitted that 1,043 different laws permit state inspectors to enter people’s homes and premises.
Although many of the laws are necessary to ensure public order and safety, there are growing concerns that proper vetting and supervision may not be in place for those authorised to enter private homes.
Why do you need 1,043 different laws just to enter someones home. What happened to the legal way of if there was suspicion of certain activities, criminal or otherwise, you go to a court and get a warrant?
The old way was for the police, or other organisations, go in front of a judge and asked for a warrant to search a premises. The judge would ask what evidence there was, the police told them and the judge would either sign the warrant or dismiss it due to lack of evidence.
Now it looks like a council worker can just enter our homes for practically any reason.
For all that's holy, that just isn't right.
As the old saying goes 'A man's home is his castle'.
I'd like to see a council officer try to step into my home without a policeman and a warrant.
This information comes from a report by 'Big Brother Watch' .
I had a read of the report and i was wondering how many council workers have the' authority' to enter (or at least try) our homes in the Conwy county.
Below is the answer;
Clackmannanshire Council 39
Colchester Borough Council 8
Coleraine Borough Council 25
Conwy County Borough Council 361
Cookstown 16
Corby Borough Council 21
Coventry City Council Denied -cost
Craigavon Council 7
Now i am wondering, why does Conwy county council need 361 officers, when the average is 47, who have the 'authority' to enter our homes with out a warrant, when other councils have so many less?
The laws were introduced under the anti terrorist law, but councils have been using it for ridiculous reasons, like checking if parents lied to get their child in a good school and checking if we are recycling properly.
Now if i ever saw an abuse of power this is it. It has to stop before this COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY falls into a pit that we will never get out of.
In previous blogs i wrote about this country becoming like the old Soviet block Stasi controlled states. Well i have changed my opinion. We are living, right now, in a stasi controlled state.
We have to change this before it is too late.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Where has all our Freedom Gone?
The headline below is in the Daily Telegraph today.
(See Link)
'Every phone call, email and internet click stored by 'state spying' databases'
In the week where we Remember the Honoured Dead who gave their lives in both World Wars, and the conflicts since, to give us freedom from dictatorships and to go about our business freely we find out the government is introducing this.
Here is part of the article;
Despite widespread opposition over Britain's growing surveillance society, 653 public bodies will be given access to the confidential information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the Ambulance Service, fire authorities and even prison governors.
They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to access the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.
Now I realise there has to be a certain amount of security for the safety of the nation, but to let this information available to any department head in a local council is beyond a joke.
Now people will say if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Yes, but people should be able to email, chat on the phone, sell things on Ebay, buy things at an internet shopping site etc, without worrying about if the information is being checked by the department head of refuge in your local council.
We already have local councils using anti terror legislation to check if people are living in catchment areas for schools, no we have this.
What did all those people die for, in both World Wars, just to see the freedom that they died for be taken away by what is fast becoming like the old East German stasi government, where you say one wrong word and you were never seen again.
If all this information was just available to the security services, like MI5, and maybe high national government i wouldn't be that worried about it, but to give just about anyone in government, national and local, permission to look at the data with out a court order is very, very worrying.
I fear for My Country. I fear what else is coming we don't know about yet.
We have to wait and see.
(See Link)
'Every phone call, email and internet click stored by 'state spying' databases'
In the week where we Remember the Honoured Dead who gave their lives in both World Wars, and the conflicts since, to give us freedom from dictatorships and to go about our business freely we find out the government is introducing this.
Here is part of the article;
Despite widespread opposition over Britain's growing surveillance society, 653 public bodies will be given access to the confidential information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the Ambulance Service, fire authorities and even prison governors.
They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to access the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.
Now I realise there has to be a certain amount of security for the safety of the nation, but to let this information available to any department head in a local council is beyond a joke.
Now people will say if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Yes, but people should be able to email, chat on the phone, sell things on Ebay, buy things at an internet shopping site etc, without worrying about if the information is being checked by the department head of refuge in your local council.
We already have local councils using anti terror legislation to check if people are living in catchment areas for schools, no we have this.
What did all those people die for, in both World Wars, just to see the freedom that they died for be taken away by what is fast becoming like the old East German stasi government, where you say one wrong word and you were never seen again.
If all this information was just available to the security services, like MI5, and maybe high national government i wouldn't be that worried about it, but to give just about anyone in government, national and local, permission to look at the data with out a court order is very, very worrying.
I fear for My Country. I fear what else is coming we don't know about yet.
We have to wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)