Big Brother Watch

To arms!

You probably haven't seen this story before, but you've seen a dozen like it - overzealous, over-the-top prosecution of law-abiding person by authorities which chase politically correct agendas rather than target criminals.

Jim Railton is an auctioneer. He was given a lot to sell - a little wooden cabinet with some 19th century eggs in it. It was valued at £30. He put it up for sale.

He was arrested and treated like a criminal - he is now charged with two offences relating to the sale of bird eggs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (an Act some 90 years younger than the eggs...). As Jim says,

"in retrospect, we should have just smashed the eggs. They are antique birds eggs, and all of common species, and had old paper copperplate hand-written labels on them.  It was a little oak chest, which we judged to be circa 1900.

We sell butterflies, shells, taxidermy – in fact just the type of things that come from people’s attics.  To be arrested for offering to sell this little chest seems absurd, and a complete waste of police time.  They have interviewed me twice, taken my fingerprints, swabbed me for DNA, had RSPB specialist inspectors visit Berwick to look at the eggs..."

Name and shame time - ridiculous attitude from the RSPB, who aggressively pursued this and caused the prosecution to come about. Even worse from Northumbria Police, who really ought to know better. Let's presume for a moment that they were right that this is an issue (which, of course, it's not, but play along...) - consider all the steps they could have taken before getting to this stage: (a) a friendly telephone call pointing out he'd unintentionally breached this rule; (b) a letter setting out a warning; (c) an in-person visit from a constable (we're already in OTT territory); (d) forbidding the sale; (e) summoning him for interview. But no; our masters really want to get this guy - because he's a law-abiding normal person who has strayed over a line - i.e. the favourite target for the authorities in modern Britain.

In the circumstances, Jim is understandably having a think about what to do next - get it all over with, or fight these ridiculous charges. Big Brother Watch has talked with him about assisting him in this unpleasantness which is of course disrupting his business and personal life; we begin by letting you know about it and calling for your help. For starters, you might like to visit their website and, if in the neighbourhood, support the business...

We are proud to support Jim in this ridiculous case. We have had some success with cases in the past and this is a prime example of the kind of overbearing, politically correct absurdity we were created to fight.

By Alex Deane

Smoking ban has its first martyr (and umpteenth victim)

Nick Hogan, a former pub landlord, has become the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban. He was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed under the legislation.

As the Daily Mail reports it, he openly flouted the law and then refused to pay his fines and I accept of course that that's the ultimate recourse for people who refuse to pay fines. But it's a question of proportion.

During my time in the criminal justice system I regularly saw people with several or many previous convictions who, on being convicted of a further violent offence (or offences), were given shorter sentences than this (or, frequently, non-custodial sentences). This chap will find himself in prison alongside hardened criminals, for allowing grown adults to do as they wish, something which in some cases they have been doing for most of their lives, something which in most contexts is perfectly legal and, until recently, was perfectly legal in this context too.

Particularly at a time when so many pubs are closing, and prisons are rammed, is a six month sentence really appropriate, and/or a good use of custodial space?

By Alex Deane

Coda 1: If you want to support Mr Hogan, go here.

Coda 2: for many people who have been smokers for decades, as a part of their relaxation after a hard day's work, whether it be in pubs, in bingo halls or in working men's clubs, smoking is an innate part of their social life - the complete banning of this activity seems peculiarly cruel and thoughtless in relation to such people, don't you think? You might wish to visit here or here if so.

School illegally fines parents for smoking students

A headteacher has bizarrely used the smoking ban to send fines to the parents of pupils caught smoking in the school playground.

As reported today by the Evening Standard:

Margaret Peacock, head of Elliot School in Putney, wrongly claimed powers under the 2007 smoking ban to issue the £50 penalties.

Ms Peacock sent letters to the parents demanding the £50 and warned them that if they did not pay, the school's governors would face a £2,500 fine. In the letter, she wrote: “The law, which came into force on 1 July 2007, prohibits smoking on public property.

“Your child was part of a group of girls seen on CCTV who were involved in smoking on the school site and therefore a fixed penalty fine of £50 has been imposed.”

In what should be considered a victory for commonsense, Wandsworth local education authority has admitted the school was wrong and has demanded it refund the fines.

The children are damaging their health and shouldn't be smoking on school property, but equally the school had no right to start dishing out fines to their parents.

The school might need more money, but this is not the way to do it.

By Dylan Sharpe

Schoolgirl punished for scratched Oyster card

As reported in the Evening Standard, an 11 year-old girl has had her free tube travel pass withdrawn after an inspector noted that the photo had been 'scratched'.

According to the Standard:

Elliz McKenzie, of East Dulwich, had her card confiscated by a TfL ticket inspector who noticed that her photo card, which entitles 11 to 15-year-olds to free travel to school and is worth up to £360, had been scratched and was therefore “in breach of the Oyster card behaviour code”.

The card had been accidentally damaged by the schoolgirl's baby cousin.

TfL said the card would be returned if Elliz carried out six hours of volunteer work, which could include cleaning graffiti or picking up litter. 

This is yet another massive overreaction by London Underground (having bizarrely banned an album poster earlier this week) that is set to unfairly punish a young girl. 

The 'Oyster card behaviour code' is intended to ensure good behaviour by the under-16's on buses and tube trains, rather than give free license for officious inspectors to vicitimise young travellers.

Big Brother Watch intends to contact Elliz and Mrs McKenzie and offer our support in getting this ridiculous decision overturned.

By Dylan Sharpe

Australia in landmark ruling on file-sharing

As Britain moves perilously towards a new culture of regulating the previously unregulated world of the internet, a landmark ruling was made yesterday by our antipodean counterparts. 

An Australian court ruled that the country's third-largest broadband operator cannot be held responsible for the actions of illegal file-sharers.

As reported over at the Guardian:

iiNet was being sued by more than 30 film and TV studios, including Village Roadshow, Universal, Sony and Warner Bros, for allowing its users to download copyrighted material. Sydney's federal court, however, ruled that the company cannot be held liable for the downloading habits of its customers. If iiNet had lost the case it would essentially have been required to police its users on behalf of copyright holders.

The politics of the internet is never going to be simple, but creating criminals out of people who are merely using the technology available to them is a massive infringement of liberty. Touching upon this, Michael Malone, iiNet's co-founder, said

"we've probably wasted a year. When iiNet, the internet industry and the rights holders could have been working together to find better models.” 

While this ruling will not directly impact upon British law, it will be encouraging news for UK based Internet Service Provider’s such as TalkTalk, who have publically opposed impending legalisation that will require ISP’s to not only police their customers - but to disconnect those suspected of ‘illegal’ filesharing. 

This is, I believe, a positive step towards recognising our right to privacy. Let’s hope the British courts follow Australia’s lead.

By Edward Hockings

Lord Chief Justice questions on-the-spot fines

On-the-spot fines have played an enormous part in creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding British people.

Vanessa Kelly - the young mum issued with a fixed penalty notice for littering when she threw bread to the ducks in a park - and Michael Mancini - the businessman fighting Ayr Council over an FPN received when he blew his nose in his car while stopped at traffic lights - are two examples we have covered, but there are many more who have silently paid-up having been fined for pointless and pernicious non-crimes.

It is therefore with some cheer that we see that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has today in the Telegraph admitted that he is "troubled" by the increased use of on-the-spot fines, saying:

"I welcome the review launched by the Lord Chancellor and I hope that it will lead to material changes in the way fixed penalty notices, cautions and conditional cautions are used."

This change can't come soon enough. As the Magistrates' Association recently warned, police cannot be trusted to hand out summary justice and will act as "judge and jury" if given powers to issue more on-the-spot fines.

We will follow the results of Jack Straw's review with interest.

By Dylan Sharpe

Alex Deane: How the march of officialdom is destroying cherished ways of life

A man in Ayr is facing a criminal trial after he was "caught" blowing his nose behind the wheel of his car.

Michael Mancini was given a £60 fixed penalty notice after a policeman decided he was "not in control of his vehicle" when he wiped his nose with a tissue. Mancini maintains that he was in stationary traffic and had put his handbrake on. He refused to pay the fine, and will now face a trial later this year.

This isn't a one-off, by any means (indeed, the policeman who gave Mancini his ticket was PC Stuart Gray – who recently issued a £50 fixed penalty to a man who accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street). It's symptomatic of life in this country today, which is fast becoming so illiberal that it's almost as if normal life is unlawful. From councils conducting covert surveillance of residents to check their catchment area to bureaucrats fining families for the contents of their bins, this culture of overbearing bossiness is changing our national life, with a "chilling effect" on social interaction – it's destroying traditional, harmless activities, and driving down outgoing natures, volunteerism, clubbable spirit – things we ought to cherish.

You may remember that in November, a young woman in Sandwell named Vanessa Kelly was stopped by a warden and given a £75 fixed penalty notice for throwing bread to the ducks in her local park. The fine was for "littering".

She refused to pay, she told her local press. Big Brother Watch leant a hand lining up media appearances, and – like most bullies when confronted – the council backed down. Not because they admitted they were in the wrong –but because they didn't want the fight.

I draw from this a lesson that you probably appreciate already – media criticism is all our masters care about. Well, I accept their terms. Using those tools, we can and must turn that fear around – so that in a few years' time, when the jobsworth is on the verge of handing out that illiberal fine, he feels the chilling effect himself.

Donning the uniform of office doesn't – or shouldn't – entail unlimited power to exact petty bureaucracy. It ought to come with discretion, with common sense. Failing that, let's try to bully them back.

By Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch

Reproduced from today's Independent

BBC radio presenter sacked for criticising council fine...on facebook

I understand that the BBC has to be impartial, but this story is taking it far too far:

Gareth Evans was sacked after allegedly threatening to criticise his local council on air over a minor parking ticket row involving his heavily pregnant wife.

Evans, 39, a popular DJ at BBC Radio Sheffield, detailed the dispute on Facebook, revealing how his wife Joanna was given a £25 ticket for parking badly in an 'empty' town centre car park during a shopping trip.

When parking her Land Rover, she slightly straddled another bay to ensure she had sufficient room to get out. She returned later to find a fixed penalty notice on her windscreen.

Mr Evans wrote on Facebook about his family's 'war' with the council and their failed attempt to have the fine overturned.

But a senior official at Bassetlaw Council in Nottinghamshire was so concerned about comments that he wrote to BBC management.

It is hard to know who has acted more irresponsibly in this case: Bassetlaw Council for issuing a ridiculous fine to a pregnant woman, or the BBC in Sheffield for sacking someone for such a minor and inoffensive comment.

What is certain, is that the person who has been made to suffer most – Gareth Evans – doesn’t deserve this treatment whatsoever.

It makes for a telling picture of Britain today: a council desperate to rake in money by fining people who are not breaking any law, and a state broadcaster too scared to defend its own staff.

By Dylan Sharpe

Is there NOTHING for which they won't fine you?

Over at the Daily Record, a remarkable story - a man is facing a criminal trial after he was "caught" blowing his nose behind the wheel of his car.

Michael Mancini was given a £60 fixed penalty notice after a policeman decided he was "not in control of his vehicle" when he wiped his nose with a tissue.

The policeman who handed out the ticket was [name and shame of the day] PC Stuart Gray - the same berk who issued a £50 fixed penalty to a man who accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street.

Mancini said that he had "made sure it was safe" to blow his nose before taking his hands off the wheel - he was in stationary traffic and had put his handbrake on when he committed the alleged offence in October last year. He refused to pay the fine and now faces a trial later this year.

 

As I've said elsewhere, British society is becoming so illiberal it's as if normal life is becoming unlawful.

 

By Alex Deane

ANPR cameras are being used to target innocent motorists

Much of what Big Brother Watch does surrounds our observation that increasingly the law-abiding citizen is being targeted for punitive and spurious reasons by local councils, the police and our national government.

Sometimes we are presented with newsworthy examples of this behaviour (see here and here) but rarely do we find concrete evidence that uncovers those in authority deliberately abusing their position.

As reported in a sensational piece in the Independent on Sunday:

Police are using controversial car-surveillance technology aimed at catching criminals and terrorists to target members of the public in order to meet government performance targets and raise revenue.

Police whistleblowers claim that intelligence stored on the national Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) database is "at least 30 per cent inaccurate", which has led to the wrongful arrest of innocent motorists and the seizure of their cars.

Big Brother Watch has already written about the worrying rise of ANPR cameras - surveillance cameras that cross-reference your number plate with police intelligence and data from the DVLA as you drive past. It seems our fears were justified:

Internal documents seen by the IoS suggest zealous use of the ANPR system by some officers in Hertfordshire Police, the lead force for developing ANPR strategies, led to a disturbing culture among its road policing teams.

The target culture has allegedly led to unethical practices during roadside stops, according to concerned police sources. Some officers, they say, trawl through drivers' personal data on police databases to find any reason to arrest. Alternatively, they "wind up" motorists who, in their frustration, become abusive and are then arrested for a public-order offence.

"In short, officers do not have a complete understanding of the law, use flawed databases to justify immediate seizures, fail to adequately research and evidence the basis of their belief and almost certainly knowingly seize vehicles just to satisfy service and personal performance targets," one said.

Whistleblowers also expressed concern that managers are "engineering" arrests to meet targets. Officers have been sent to re-arrest drivers fined for driving without insurance. Before cars can be released from the pound the driver has to apply for insurance. "[Officers were] checking with insurers if Mr Smith had declared his recent penalty," said one officer. "If the answer was 'no' they arrested him for obtaining insurance fraudulently."

These 'internal documents' seen by the IoS are simply incredible and deserve far wider recognition and full investigation. Having objected to ANPR previously on the grounds that it was yet another surveillance system in the UK, this report shows that not only is it intrusive - it is leading to false arrests and frankly unacceptable policing. 

In an election year we are very grateful for this timely piece of evidence and will be calling for a commitment to scrap ANPR cameras at the first opportunity from all the parties.

By Dylan Sharpe