Bad Boy of the Week: Brum councillor Martin Mullaney

Authorities in Birmingham have barely been out of the papers this year, such is their enthusiasm for public surveillance. This month is no exception.

No sooner had it been confirmed that the city’s disastrous spy camera scheme would finally be scrapped after months of public outcry, it was announced that audio sensors had been installed to monitor the city’s mean streets.  Birmingham also featured prominently in a Big Brother Watch Report last month into council spending on CCTV. The report named and shamed the city council for spending a whopping £10.5m of public money on cameras in the last three years alone - more than any other local authority in Europe.

With barely a pause, yet another CCTV scheme has been proposed, in Moseley Village, a leafy suburb in south Birmingham. The man behind the scheme was local councillor Martin Mullaney, a longstanding and vocal advocate of CCTV cameras, and the council’s Cabinet Member for Leisure, Sport and Culture. Armed with the support of several local traders and having “persuaded” the Safer Birmingham Partnership to part with £100,000 to finance his scheme, it was nearly a done deal. Indeed the Birmingham Mail announced that “several cameras will be installed along the High Street.”

There was just one small thing: a public consultation of some sort would be needed. After all, the council’s failure to consult communities over the ill-fated spycam scheme earlier this year was universally condemned: angry residents felt that the surveillance had been done to them rather than for them. So, keen to avoid a repeat of the fiasco, councillors astutely agreed to ask people before installing the cameras: a novel idea that had by and large, not been deemed necessary in the past.

Things got off to an inauspicious start at a council ward committee meeting when, as the Birmingham Mail reports, “a stream of people attacked the Moseley plan.” So a ‘Question Time’ public meeting was called to discuss the scheme further. It was very clear that a lot of people did not want the cameras, questioning their effectiveness and necessity. Faced with such opposition, Cllr Mullaney sprung into action. Rather than debate and promote the issue of CCTV, he set about attacking those who rejected the scheme, branding them “the anti-cctv lobby,” and dismissing their views as unrepresentative of what he imagined to be the majority of residents:

“The public consultation on whether the residents of Moseley wanted cctv or not, was an opportunity to find out what the general Moseley community thought on this issue. At the steering group meeting it was made clear that we wanted residents to make there [sic] own minds up and participate in this consultation freely. I want to understand what the residents really think about cctv in Moseley Village. The anti-cctv lobby have made their views very loud and clear, but I now want to listen to what everyone else thinks and not have that view distorted by dishonest campaigning by the anti-cctv lobby.”

For the Councillor, some views are more valid than others. Those in favour of CCTV are the voices he wants to hear, while those against constitute an unwelcome irritation and should be discounted or vilified. Some people had been "lobbying" and "campaigning" (i.e. going around talking to people), which is somehow ‘dishonest’, he complains. After all, it’s not something a politician would do. What he is really objecting to is informed debate on an important issue that he would prefer to see rubber-stamped by council officials like himself.

Cllr Mullaney then made a radical suggestion: surveys deposited in the box provided at a local pub, a known hangout of  “the anti-cctv lobby,” should be disregarded or ‘adjusted’ in favour of a pro-cctv outcome!

"It was suggested [by Cllr Mullaney] that those doing the count might discard some of the ballots in the POW [Prince of Wales] box and attach additional weightings to some ballot responses, based on levels of impact of the CCTV cameras on people responding.  It was suggested [by Cllr Mullaney] that the ballot in the POW had been ‘stuffed,’” (minutes of the Moseley Forum meeting reveal).

Yes, that’s right: not content with accusing some locals of cheating (despite the forms containing verifiable contact details of the people filling them in) Cllr Mullaney appears to be perfectly willing to fix the results of his own survey if it didn’t go his way – which, in anybody’s book, is cheating. Those “anti-cctv” views should be removed, so that only ‘typical’ responses remained (it’s well known that when asked if they support cctv to reduce crime and improve safety most people will say yes).

Fortunately, and to their credit, other individuals involved in the democratic process seemed alarmed at this suggestion and made their objections clear:

“Moseley forum strongly objected to discarding any properly completed ballot forms and to any new condition being applied such as the weighting of certain ballot responses. It was very strongly expressed that BCC [Birmingham City Council] and the consultation steering group must act with complete transparency and without bias. To do otherwise would jeopardise the whole consultation process and risk another fiasco like the ANPR [Project Champion]. BCC should be taking greater care than ever before not to alienate its residents, but rather to embrace their views as part of the Big Society - even if residents disagreed with the local authority.”

Undeterred, Cllr Mullaney’s fervent pro-cctv stance continued, descending into a farcical series of ludicrous claims. A cctv scheme should not necessarily be viewed as an attempt to solve an identified problem, he argued, but more a general enhancement to any community, which may attract businesses to the area – including some Michelin starred restaurants! The extent of Mr Mullaney’s blind faith is evidenced in an article from BBW pals No CCTV: ‘BrumiLeaks, CCTV and the attempted murder of democracy’.

Nothing, it seems, will dampen the enthusiasm of council officials hell bent on pushing their surveillance agenda. Neither is Cllr Mullaney put off by the practically non-existent support of the local police inspector, who said that "the police are not behind the proposal for the cameras… it’s Colin over there.” (at 3 min 35 secs).

When I rang ‘Colin’, the Safer Birmingham Partnership’s “Public Reassurance Officer (CCTV)” [note the Orwellian job title] for a copy of the Business Case, he informed me that this consisted of no more than a personal request from a local councillor: one Mr Mullaney!

It is interesting to note that neither the police nor the Safer Birmingham Partnership could offer any evidence of CCTV’s impact on crime and confirmed that the effectiveness of existing schemes is not evaluated, citing ‘reassurance’ as the main reason that cameras are installed, as many people say they feel safer under CCTV’s gaze.

So despite lukewarm (if any) support from local police, outright opposition from within the community, no business case, very low crime in the area, no evidence of its effectiveness and no apparent justification for installing the cameras, Mr Mullaney pushed on, convinced he was right. His enthusiasm for public surveillance and contempt for democracy is quite disturbing. It may be worth noting at this point that Cllr Mullaney was elected as a ‘Liberal Democrat’ candidate.

Unfortunately Cllr Mullaney’s dream was shattered when the results of the survey came in. More than half of respondents said they didn’t want the cameras. Over 90% said they felt perfectly safe in Moseley village during the day and 70% felt safe at night too. 58% said they would not feel safer in the village if cctv were installed and 56% said they did not believe cctv would help reduce crime. The assumed ‘public support’ had evaporated.

You would think at this point that he would graciously admit defeat, but not a bit of it. The furious councillor maintains that the consultation had been ‘skewed’ by people with ‘anti-cctv views’ and was not an accurate reflection of the cctv-loving general public. The outcome, he asserts, is a travesty and the whole exercise should be done again – in order to get the ‘right’ result.

”If we had enough time, we would have run the consultation again and try to ensure the consultation was not hijacked by the anti-cctv lobby.”

Still dwelling on his accusations that cheating had occurred, and showing his utter disdain for the local democratic process, he added that, “Politicians can either re-run the consultation or completely ignore the outcome of the consultation.”

Despite the clear lack of public support, local councillors are now pressing ahead with what they are calling a ‘compromise’, by installing half the original number of proposed cameras in Moseley Village car park, which being council-owned, does not need community support, they point out. Whether this is a face-saving exercise or part of a phased introduction of their unpopular plan is open to speculation, but communities saying ‘no, thanks’ to CCTV will still get it if councillors have their way. After all, they know best. By hook or by crook, they’ll put those cameras up somewhere, somehow – whether you like it or not.

You might be interested to know that Cllr Mullaney, who complained about a video of the public cctv meeting being filmed and posted on YouTube (the age of transparency, eh!?), was suspended in February last year for snooping around with a camera on someone's private property without their permission and then posting his footage on YouTube. In a High Court ruling, the judge commented that Cllr Mullaney had behaved in a “high-handed and one-sided manner.” Rejecting the judge’s verdict, Cllr Mullaney responded: “My only regret is stating on the video that I was a councillor. In future, if I do anything contentious, I will make it clear I am a private citizen, so that I am not inhibited by the members code of conduct.” So this is his attitude towards privacy, writ large.

Whether Cllr Mullaney’s behaviour over this cctv consultation was inhibited by any code of conduct at all is debateable, but it shows this: the surveillance infrastructure being constructed all around us owes less, perhaps, to central government strategy than to the single-minded intervention of council zealots like Mr Mullaney. Keen to get their hands on some of the millions of pounds of funding sloshing around for CCTV (it’s always ringfenced, so can never be used for any other more useful purpose) vote-hungry councillors all over the country are falling over themselves to offer these ‘improvements’ and won’t let the fact that they are unwanted stand in their way.

So if you’ve ever wondered how Britain came to be watched by more CCTV cameras than any other nation on the planet, you need perhaps look no further than my home city of Birmingham for explanation.

By Steve Jolly

Alex Deane says... "we've got to tell you - thisis a pretty good candidate for Bad Boy of the Year..."

If you would be interesting in writing a guest post, please e-mail info@bigbrotherwatch.org.uk.

Comments

[Martin Mullaney]

Written by Steve Jolly who has banned me from his Facebook group (yes, Steve Jolly, alleged champion of freedom) because he doesn't like me disagreeing with his claims.

[Alex Deane]

On the other hand, Mr Mullaney, you are more than welcome to set out your stand here... is this a fair reflection of what's happened?

[David C]

Come on Cllr Mullaney, is this a fair reflection or not?

[Peterloo]

Silence is golden la la la la la .......

[Nigel Burke]

Now there's an offer you surely can't refuse Cllr Mullaney.
The opportunity to put right wrongs doesn't always present itself so easily, in my own experience. I expect you'll jump at the chance to set your stall out here.
I have this discussion marked, and await with interest your refutation.

[Mr Jolly]

I expect he's working on his 'killer response'. Drumroll please...

[Themanwithmanychins.wordpress.com]

Assuming that this is an accurate depiction of the story, I think that the behaviour of this Councillor is deplorable, yet not uncommon in LA governance.
Mr Mullany should create a new political party called the Illiberable Undemocrats. Alternatively he is a prime candidate for the European Commission who also keep asking the same question until they get the answer they want.

[Markle]

As a resident I don't know where he gets the idea of very low crime in the area.

[Mr Jolly]

From the local crime statistics given out during the consultation period.

[Martin Mullaney]

I can't read the entire article, since it is so poorly written and is just paranoid nonsense.

Can I point out the following:

During the consultation I had a number of residents complain to me about the conduct of the anti-cctv group which involved the following:
1) Steve Jolly caught by myself stuffing the consultation box in the Prince of Wales pub consultation box with already filled in consultation forms. There are additional claims that one of the members of the anti-cctv group was seen rummaging through the
consultation box. An examination of
this box in the end showed 27 against cctv and 3 for cctv.
2) one of the anti-cctv group filming, without permission, a female resident
at a Moseley Forum public meeting who was explaining why she supported cctv
and felt frightened walking about Moseley at night. The video was put on
YouTube and the resident ridiculed for her views.
3) telling local residents that the trees in the centre of Moseley would be
cut down if the cctv cameras were installed.

Mindful of these claims, my two Lib Dem Ward Councillors and myself enquired
about the possiblity of extending the consultation or even re-running it. It
was made clear to us by the Safer Birmingham Partnership that the consultation could not be extended or re-run and they needed a decision on 15th December.

Based on the consultation results we had in front of us, we decided that we did not have a mandate to go forward with a cctv system in Moseley in the public domain. However, mindful of evidence put forward by the Moseley Society and the local traders of regular anti-social behaviour and crime in
Moseley car park, we decided to support the idea of a cctv system in Moseley car park.

Since that decision numberous libellous claims about me have been put on
various blogs run by the anti-cctv group. I have corrected these claims, which has resulted in a row between myself, Steve Jolly and another anti-cctv person called Barnard Hobbit.

Steve Jolly yesterday banned me from his 'CCTV - No Thanks' Facebook group,
since I do not agree with his version of events during the consultation.

Steve Jolly is now running a vilification campaign against me, since I don't agree with his stance against cctv.

[Alex Deane]

Martin - I appreciate that you couldn't bring yourself to read the whole of Steve's post, so perhaps it's unfair to focus on yours - but can I just clarify one thing - you're maintaining that someone who wants the taxpayer to pay for constant surveillance of people on the street, without permission, was somehow hard done-by when video'd whilst voluntarily standing up and proclaiming those views at a public meeting..?

[Martin Mullaney]

I would agree with your view if cctv coverage in the public domain was put on YouTube, focusing on a particular member of the public along with derogatory comments.

We don't do that, and have data protection laws to protect anyone filmed on cctv in the public domain.

What the person did in filming the local resident and ridiculing her views on YouTube was bullying.

[Mr Jolly]

@ Martin Mullaney:
I wonder if other readers consider the article "poorly written" or "paranoid nonsense"?

We’ve been through all this before, ad infinitum, but here it is again for the benefit of BBW readers:

1. I'm afraid that, far from "a number of residents", as you claim, the only person I’ve heard complaining is you, Mr Mullaney. The Landlord, staff and customers of the pub were well aware that myself and another gentleman were canvassing people's views in the pub during the consultation period, as it was one of the places you chose to furnish with survey forms and a box in which to deposit them. Perhaps I went too far in providing them with a pen? In all, thirty people filled in the survey and about five of them - reluctant to make the epic 30-foot journey to the box placed on the bar - handed their forms back to me. I duly posted these in the box provided - in full view of you, bar staff and customers (for “stuffing” read ‘posting’). You claim that this is somehow cheating; yet the forms contain the contact details of the people who filled them in. In fact those people were sitting mere feet away and you could have simply asked them yourself. I suggest you are simply ‘trying it on’.

The results reflect the views of the freethinking counter-culture clientele of this independent and vibrant pub in ‘bohemian’ Moseley. Had you placed the box in an old people's home I'm sure you would have got a similarly strong result the other way (i.e. in favour of cctv). I’m surprised you didn’t think of doing just that.

Your radical suggestion of ‘adjusting’ the results in favour of your desired outcome, and your perceived justification for doing so, were fiercely rejected by the Moseley Forum in no uncertain terms. So you chose another tack, alluding to "additional claims that one of the members of the anti-cctv group was seen rummaging through the consultation box." I wonder whom it might be making these (entirely spurious) claims?

Incidentally, the online survey also showed a similar lack of public support for the scheme. Are you going to suggest that I somehow interfered with that too? By your own admission the survey results showed that, “we did not have a mandate to go forward with a cctv system in Moseley.”

2. The public meeting (about cctv surveillance of public spaces) was, quite appropriately, filmed - with the permission of the Chair of Moseley Forum and the people present, as you well know. You have been told this in writing, yet perversely pursue this line. The clip in question can be seen here (skip to 12min 38sec): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1b7Mt_mDA8
The speaker, “a friend” of yours and a fellow council officer it seems, asserted that “Moseley is a frightening place at night,” only to be greeted with uproarious laughter from the room. I will leave it for readers to draw their own conclusions. When this clip was posted in isolation as a ‘trailer’ for the full video it was quickly withdrawn after complaints (from you - not the lady in the video).

3. Several of your constituents did raise concerns that the proposed camera locations might necessitate the cutting down or pollarding of trees that clearly impeded the sight lines of cameras on the High Street. I’m told this has happened before in adjacent areas and some people were genuinely concerned about it. Personally I don’t believe that even Birmingam City Council would be that stupid, so and I poo-pooed the idea, as you know. However, your constituents should be free to voice their concerns and it is up to your constituents to decide whether they should listen to them or concur.

Sue me if I am mistaken, but the only libellous claims that have been made sadly all originate from you, Mr Mullaney. I am merely refuting them publicly, as one might expect. You have been banned from a web forum and a facebook group for your repeated mudslinging only after ample discussion and opportunity for comment. I understand you are disappointed that your surveillance dream was not realised in your patch, but actually it’s our patch: you are merely our representative. I only hope that you will take a less dictatorial line in future and listen to your constituents when they are trying to tell you what they want for their community.

[Naeem]

I was present at the meeting at which the video was made. Prior to the start of the meeting permission was sought for filming and given by those present at the meeting. Members of the audience who did not want to be filmed were asked to indicate they did not want to filmed. None did. Everybody knew the meeting was filmed. The comments the person made about how unsafe she felt in Moseley, which most of those at the meeting found hilarious as Moseley is perhaps one of the safest place to be at night in Birmingham.

[Martin Mullaney]

@Naeem. The lady who was filmed came in late and did not give her permission to be filmed.

[Martin Mullaney]

@Steve. How many times do I have go over this, without you repeatedly making libellous claims.

The objective of the consultation was to find out what the residents and traders of Moseley thought of a possible cctv system.

It was only right, that once I witnessed (and confronted) you with the stuffing of the consultation box in the Prince of Wales pub, plus the allegation by another person that you had actually opened the consultation box and rummaged through the forms inside, that we analyse that box separately.

If the analysis had suggested the residents voting one way for or against cctv and the results in the Prince of Wales pub completely changing that result, it was only reasonable to taken that into account in the final decision.

In the end, with or without the results of the Prince of Wales pub consultation box, the results of the consultation was 50:50 for and against cctv.

We did not see this as a mandate to go ahead with the cctv system in the public domain. Ideally, we would have liked to have either extended the public consultation or re-run it.....but we didn't have time.

It would be great now, if you could accept the result and stop running this vilification campaign against me. Plus inundating the local and national press with this nonsense about me fixing the result of the consultation.

[Alex Deane]

@Martin re the public domain: you would prefer that people filmed others at public meetings but kept the footage for... their own private purposes, rather than for dissemination on platforms like YouTube..?! Well, why not... *if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear..!*

Perhaps the lady concerned didn't like to be recorded. Which is a problem others have, too... but you think it's OK as long as the state does it?

[Martin Mullaney]

@Alex. The key point here is context. The footage of the lady speaking was singled out and uploaded onto YouTube along with derogatory remarks. That is wrong.

It is a completely different situation to have the entire meeting uploaded up onto YouTube, so no one is singled out and there are no derogatory remarks.

When the anti-cctv members have wanted to film meetings run by the local Lib Dem Councillors, we have always made it clear that only the Councillors are filmed - we are after all public representatives. We have insisted that the audience is not filmed.

In the case of cctv in the public domain, no one is singled out, nothing is put on YouTube along with derogatory remarks. So you are not comparing like-with-like.

[Mr Jolly]

Martin, when you're in a hole... stop digging!

PS: For the record, there were no 'derogatory' remarks. The clip was simply entitled, 'Moseley Village is Frightening!!!' and put up without comment.

[Martin Mullaney]

@Steve. The implication of the title was that the lady was saying something stupid, thus derogatory.

Steve, while you continue to spread lies about me, I will continue to rebutt them.

You have claimed that I attempted to fix the consultation. Did I? I said that I would analyse the Prince of Wales pub consultation box - I been very open about admitting that - so that we could take into account any allegations of tampering with the results.

We analysed the consultation papers in the Prince of Wales pub box and included them in the final result.

What's the problem with that?

You got the result you wanted - not sure if that's the result the residents of Moseley wanted; it definitely isn't what the shopkeepers wanted - so please stop you vilification campaign against me. It's beginning to start to enter the domain of harassment.

[Naeem]

You therefore took it upon yourself to ignore the result of the consultation and gave the residents of Moseley and the shopkeepers what you thought they wanted. A wonderful concept of democracy, in my opinion. This is the stuff dictatorships are made of.

[Martin Mullaney]

The consultation showed half the residents wanted cctv, the other half didn't.

We asked Steve Jolly at the Ward Comittee if he was happy with us installing cctv cameras in the car park and he gave no indication that he wasn't unhappy. Indeed, he said that the one area where it has been found that cctv cameras are most effective is in car parks.

Indeed, I think you were the only person unhappy at the public meeting about the cctv cameras going in the car park. However when we asked where you lived, it became quickly clear you lived no where near Moseley.

[Naeem]

It is not about Steve Jolly, you or me. It is the result of the consultation that clearly showed 70% felt safe in Moseley at all times, atleast 56% did not feel the need for the cameras in Moseley.

It is also not about where I live or not live. As it happens I live near enough to Moseley to treat Moseley pubs as my local. The only other pub I go to locally is perhaps the MAC. I at least visit Moseley High Street several times in the week.

The consultation formally included those who did not live in Moseley but used Moseley on a regular basis. I was not told I am only going to be allowed to be part of the consultation as a silent observer.

56% and 43% do not make half and half. 70% feeling safe at all times is no where near half and half.

I have no problem with you saying that you decided to go against the findings of the consultation. However, do not say the results of the consultation was half/half which it clearly was not.

Anyway I do not see the point you are trying to make about my residence. If you think it was a mistake to allow those who do not live in Moseley to take part in the consultation than say so.

[Martin Mullaney]

@Naeem. What are we arguing about.

358 people responded to the consultation. Of those 64% live in Moseley - it is these people whose views I am most interested in, especially since they live in the Ward I represent.

Of the 358 people, 96% feel safe during the day, BUT 47% supported cctv in Moseley.

Let's rephrase that: nearly all of those who filled in the consultation form felt safe during the day, but of those, half of them supported cctv.

Anyway, why don't stop this constant arguing and agree to disagree and move on.

[NeverSurrender]

What about all of the innocent people who are unable to live their normal, lawful lives because of the intimidating surveillance of CCTV? Those promoting CCTV never mention or consider the harm being done to the countless people whose lives are being ruined by this ghastly surveillance. Is it not a crime to harm innocent people unjustly in such a way?