Big Brother Watch

Leaks reveal misinformation from University of Nottingham concerning student detained for ‘terrorist activities’

In May 2008, University of Nottingham student Rizwaan Sabir and staff member Hicham Yezza were arrested by counter-terrorism officers causing huge controversy. Sabir had downloaded an al-Qaida training manual as research for a dissertation he was producing, and asked Yezza, editor of a political magazine called Ceasefire, for his help in drafting a PhD proposal. University officials alerted the police and the men were held in police custody for six days.

Documents have recently been released on the Unileaks website which give a fresh insight into those events of 2008. They reveal that the university officials who initially contacted the police had never read the manual concerned, despite declaring it to be “illegal” and “toxic waste”. When he was released without any charge, instead of receiving an apology Sabir was told by officials that he could still be fined or suspended by the university due to his actions.

After the case was dropped, the security officials claimed that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had “reluctantly accepted a decision not to charge Sabir as a terrorist. However, the leaked documents reveal in a letter from the CPS that they believed there was “insufficient evidence” to carry on with the case.

As recently as last month a lecturer at the university, Dr Rod Thornton, was suspended after he wrote an article criticising the actions of the university with relation to the two men. He has now had nine disciplinary hearings, after the last one he claimed:

"It's about academic freedom, but also the wider issue of the way Muslim students are treated. Suspicions are being raised when they should not be."

A group has been formed, Support the Whistleblower At Nottingham (SWAN), to campaign for the re-instatement of Dr Thornton. Their spokesman explained the significance of the leaks:

"These leaks show how everything can, and does, go wrong when a brand-conscious university is left to deal with security issues such as terrorism. What's more, this case highlights how a leading British university can act with impunity on such a sensitive issue."

This entire situation seems to be an exercise in the University of Nottingham attempting to cover their tracks after making a mistake. It is clear from the evidence that these two men had no plans involving terrorism, and were simply the victims of overzealous security officials. Even now they still have not apologised for their actions. A recent statement from a university spokesman said:

“Senior staff evaluated the information that was available and made the correct decision – to pass those concerns to the police as the appropriate body to investigate in the interests of public safety. This was a very difficult situation that was handled appropriately and properly. The university acted in good faith.”

The government must lift the ban on using intercept evidence

Regular visitors to the Big Brother Watch blog will be aware that BBW has long campaigned for a change in existing laws to allow intercept evidence to be used in terrorist trials.

Big Brother Watch Director Daniel Hamilton has today outlined the case for the ban to be lifted in an article for the Total Politics magazine's 'The Idea' feature:

"As long as the ban on the admissibility of intercept evidence remains in place, so do the many strange anomalies connected to it. While British courts cannot hear domestic intercept evidence, they frequently secure convictions based on overseas intercepts. Similarly, British intercepts can be used in prosecutions taking place overseas. While a conversation recorded on a hidden bug is admissible in court, a recorded phone call or intercepted email is not.

"To date, the government has opted to set aside fundamental privacy concerns in order to pursue the IMP. Such a programme, the British public has been told, will “make us safer”.

"Given that the majority of terrorist offences are committed by small groups of individuals, often operating outside the confines of mainstream society, it’s difficult to see how the IMP could possibly be successful in achieving that objective. Pinpointing terrorist activity among a database of billions of unique communications is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack. All the IMP achieves is the creation of the most invasive and intrusive database in history."

You can view the extended piece here.

Kingston CCTV car snapped on double yellow line

In this week's Kingston Guardian there's an amusing story about a CCTV car which was captured parking on double yellow lines outside a Police station.   Residents rightly feel aggrieved that these expensive vehicles have the right to snoop on us at will also feel free to disobey the rules the rest of us must follow, for fear of being hit with extortionate fines.

A Kingston Council spokesman said: “Stopping on the double yellow line is permitted while undertaking enforcement. The CCTV vehicle was enforcing an appropriate restriction, where loading/unloading is not permitted on Kingston Hall Road.”

That's us told!  It's one rule for them, one for the rest of us...

Bailiffs deploying ANPR cameras to catch out Southwark residents

According to a report in the South London Press, baliffs are increasingly turning to automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in their efforts to track down motorists who have failed to pay their parking fines. 

A spokesman for Southwark Borough Council confirmed that "it is something they have been doing very actively in the last six months". The SLP's report goes on to say:

"The number plate scanners are set up in main roads and sound an alarm when a wanted number plate is read from the roadside.

"Bailiffs are then able to locate the car and follow it to find out where the driver lives.

"A warrant of execution to recover property, such as the car that sparked the ANPR alarm, can then be issued"

It’s outrageous to think that bailiffs are using ANPR cameras to snoop on all motorists going in and out of the Borough. This technology should be used only sparingly by trained professionals, not by glorified bounty hunters who are then able to follow people to their private homes.   Through the new Freedom Bill, which will toughen up the regulation of CCTV cameras and their use by local councils, the Government should take urgent steps to prevent bailiffs from abusing ANPR technology in this way.

Click here for the full story.

Trust your 14 year old child? Watch out...

The latest installment in an occasional series, "Stories you Wished Weren' t True but Predictably and Woefully Are": over at The Daily Express Vanessa Feltz writes:

WHAT’S that weird noise? It’s the sound of jaws dropping nationwide as we attempt to digest the news that a married mother in her 40s has been suspended from work because she now has a criminal record after being cautioned by police for leaving her 14-year-old son in charge of his three-year-old brother while she nipped to the shops for 30 minutes. No disaster occurred. Yet the woman’s valuable work as a healthcare assistant is indefinitely in abeyance and the rest of us are sitting slumped in stupefied shock.

Read the whole thing, but let's try to do the Naming and the Shaming... BBW will be looking into which Constabulary thought it proper to prosecute this absurdity, and would love to hear from you if you know...

By Alex Deane

The European Arrest Warrant

Nick De Bois MP speaks on the European Arrest Warrant

 

 

By Alex Deane

Roadsigns with an unclear meaning = opportunity to raise revenue

Most legitimate authorities, faced with a situation in which they have erected public instructions which are unclear, would correct the signs.

But not here:

  

The solution here is to park some CCTV cars at the scene and make a bundle from the confusion you've created!

By Alex Deane

Fixed penalty notices: Redbridge Council is out of control

Many thanks to the guys over at the Random Blowe blog for drawing our attention to Redbridge Borough Council's obsession with issuing Fixed Penalty Notices for alleged flyposting.

According to the blog:

"In 2008-09, the London Borough of Redbridge issued more than any other local authority and its 206 FPNs accounted for 16% of all those around the country. The year before, it again topped the list and was even more enthusiastic about threatening legal action: it issued 25% of all the FPNs recorded by Defra.

"What is really surprising, however, is that in the year to March 2009, a staggering 49% of Redbridge’s FPNs for alleged flyposting were subsequently cancelled"

Among the penalty notices that were issued by Redbridge Borough Council include three sent to a gentleman whose "crime" was to put up posters supporting a community initiative to protect green spaces from overdevelopment.  

The blog post is well worth a look.

By Daniel Hamilton

Check-in security and common sense

Over the last few years, we've all watched with exasperation as airline check-in procedures have become increasingly time-consuming and invasive.

The Evening Standard carries a concerning story about the 78 year old peer Lord Nigel Lawson's treatment at the hands of airport security busybodies at London Gatwick Airport.

Faced with demands to take off his shoes, the former Chancellor explained that as a result of surgery he has had to his legs, he is unable to bend down and therefore needs to sit on a chair to remove his footwear.  After much grumbling, a chair was provided with what Lord Lawson's son Dominic describes as "spectacular gracelessness".

Following, this a more senior security officer demanded Lawson hand over his passport.  He refused.  Following this, the officer 'phoned ahead to the airline's passenger gate and ordered EasyJet to deny the peer access to the fight for "not having passed through security".

No elderly - or indeed any - traveller should expect to be insulted by security staff for their medical condition or have to contend with Stasi-style demands to view their documentation.

Should there not be an element of common sense when it comes to check-in security procedures?  Did Lord Lawson really pose a "threat" that had to be dealt with in such a heavy-handed manner?

By Daniel Hamilton

Pigs can fly: an apology from West Midlands Police

It's always deeply unfortunate when one hears of an individual being accused of a crime they did not commit. Imagine, however, the true horror of your image being printed in your town's largest newspaper to alongside a story entitled 'Masked Robbers Preyed on Women'.

That's exactly what happeend in Birmingham when the West Midlands Police force sent the image of an innocent man to the Birmingham Post to accompany a story about the conviction of a man for robbing and assaulting prostitutes.

In a short statement, West Midlands Police said:

"We apologise sincerely to the person shown in the photo for any embarrassment or distress caused to him or his family. West Midlands Police will be writing directly to the person to reiterate this apology"

An apology is the very least they could do.

From "ciggy busters to "eco detectives"

Schools are always keen to be seen as integral parts of their local community; rightly encouraging young people to get involved in volunteering in order to improve the area in which they live.

A new scheme operating in North London, however, goes one step too far.

Rather than simply encouraging a considerate approach to the environment, school children are being actively encouraged to sign up as "eco detectives" in order to identify and personally harrass individuals who have failed to clean up their dog's mess, dropped litter or such like.

Enfield Borough Council's website explains:

"120 children... aged between eight and eleven are helping the Council to improve their local area by reporting environmental problems. By 2010 all Enfield primary schools will be invited to join Eco Detectives to help improve their environment. We hope that the scheme will then extend to secondary schools"

The Council's website further goes on to show pictures of children dispensing "graffiti removal kits to would-be offenders" and discussing drawings they made made "depicting the environmental problems they encountered" while 'on patrol'. 

It doesn't stop there. 

Eight year old Michael tells us, in no uncertain terms, that "flytipping can happen anytime, anywhere, is illegal and if you get caught the fines are huge".  Super sleuth school-kid Dimitri remarks that "graffiti can be drawings, pictures or tags sprayed, painted or etched onto surfaces, usually fences or walls".  You learn something new every day.  Finally, Alisa lands the knock-out blow when she informs us that "dogs' mess is smelly, not nice if you tread in it and it’s against the law for owners not to pick it up".

Enfield's scheme follows on from the comically-inspired "ciggy busters" scheme operated by a Medway school in which teams of school-kid vigilantes patrolled the streets whipping cigarettes out of the mouths of smokers.

Schools: why not focus on education, not the never-ending pursuit of "right on", politically-correct initiatives?

By Daniel Hamilton.

Book launch this evening: ‘Fight Terror, Defend Freedom’ by Dominic Raab MP

This evening will see the launch of civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch’s new publication, ‘Fight Terror, Defend Freedom’ by Dominic Raab MP.
 
The launch of the book will take place between 5:00pm and 6:00pm today in the Thatcher Room in Portcullis House, Houses of Parliament.  
 
Mr Raab, who was an international lawyer prior to his election to Parliament, will introduce his publication, followed by a panel discussion including former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis MP, Centre for Technology Policy Research Jerry Fishenden and Big Brother Watch Director Alex Deane.   
 
Commenting on the launch of the publication Raab said:

“Today’s publication of the National Security Strategy, highlights the flaws in the last government’s approach to counter-terrorism. Too much time, money and effort was wasted on ‘sound byte’ security. Too many of Labour’s measures, like ID cards and prolonged detention without charge, were unnecessary or irrelevant to our security. 

 “The government has a golden opportunity to break with this flawed approach. We should be defending our freedoms, like free speech and the presumption of innocence. At the same time, the justice system is an underused weapon in the fight against terrorism. We should be strengthening our capacity to prosecute terrorists – not least by lifting the ban on using intercept as evidence.” 

Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch said: 

“The case for action is now irresistible.  Dominic Raab’s publication shows the injustices being done every day in this country.  Stop and search and control orders are being reviewed – why?  Why review something when you know it’s wrong?“ 

Click here to download a copy of the booklet.

A review of the current playing field for civil liberties

I have written an extended piece for the website Critical Reaction reviewing the various outstanding civil liberties issues under the Coalition. Part 1 is here - Part 2 is here.

By Alex Deane

Volunteering: in the dock

The Daily Mail carries news today of the story of a former scout awarded £7,322 damages by a Birmingham court after incurring an injury during a game of 'objects in the dark'.  The scout is said to have suffered shoulder damage after scoutmasters failed to "take reasonable care" to ensure the safety of children under their control.

The specifics of this case aside, such a ruling risks setting a regrettable precedent in which volunteers such as those involved in scouting feel unable to organise activities for young people without the permanent risk of incurring costly and personally embarassing litigation.

The ruling is currently being appealed at the High Court with the Lord Justices set to hand down their opinion at the end of the month.

While guaranteeing the safety of children is paramount, it can surely only be right that our legal system affords adequate protections to volunteers like scoutmasters who are so generously giving of their time to help young people?

An effort was made to address this issue back in 2006 in the form of the Promotion of Volunteering Bill championed by backbench MP Julian Brazier. The bill, which sought to "reduce the effect of litigation to organisations and others engaged in "desirable acts"" such as organising school trips and scouting visits, failed to progress beyond a second reading.

By Daniel Hamilton

Taking the biscuit

The Big Brother Watch team is well used to receiving reports of odd and extraordinary rulings from education-establishment busybodies but this one, quite literally, takes the biscuit.

Kathleen Lavery, a married mother of three, has been forced to quit her job as a primary school dinner lady in the Northern Ireland town of Enniskillen following the stress of an internal disciplinary procedure instigated after she gave a young child a biscuit.

Mrs Lavery was informed by the school that “her actions could be interpreted by some as grooming a child for sexual purposes”, a preposterous allegation which has led to rumours and innuendo about her personal life.  

The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Education committee Mervyn Storey commented the investigation was "political correctness gone too far".  He’s right.

Read the full story, c/o of the Telegraph, here.

Update: A BBW supporter has informed us that common sense has now prevailed and Mrs Lavery has been reinstated to her post.

By Daniel Hamilton

When surveillance goes wrong

Big Brother Watch's attention has been drawn to the unfortunate story of a young Egyptian-American student under close surveillance by the FBI for his suspected involvement in terrorist activities:

"A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online. The post prompted wide speculation about whether the device was real, whether the young Arab-American was being targeted in a terrorism investigation and what the authorities would do.

"It took just 48 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted their expensive device back. The answer came when half-a-dozen FBI agents and police officers appeared at Yasir Afifi’s apartment complex in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday demanding he return the device"

While the young man in question has proved beyond all doubt that he is entirely innocent of the crimes suspected of, such ineptitude on the part on the FBI has the potential to significantly undermine the global war against terror - not to mention the ridicule it has brought upon the agency.

What if Afifi had been a terrorist?  What if he had been guilty?  Such a discovery could only have given him time to warn accomplices and hasted his departure from the United States - and the radar screens of the intelligence services. 

Read the full story here

By Daniel Hamilton

Binning leaves draws £1000 fine

It is hard to think of a more pointless and pathetic set of rules than those implemented by local councils around what not to put in your bins.

Today the Daily Mail reports on the latest case of law-abiding people being threatened for ridiculous bin-based non-crimes:

Community-minded residents have had a ticking off for sweeping up leaves from outside their homes - because it is against council rules.

The rules outlined in Street Pride documents state leaves off the highway should not be put into brown bins because of 'contamination'.

Persistent offenders who break waste collection rules, including placing the ‘wrong’ materials in bins, could potentially face a fine of up to £1,000.

There isn't much more that needs to be said about the stupidity of this action from Walsall Council, but perhaps of more interest is the statement from Council leader, Mike Bird:

'Anyone who has made comments to people about sweeping up leaves is taking the rules to the extreme. We are trying to encourage more pride in the community and this is the perfect example of a lady doing that and she should be praised.'

The very same Mike Bird that won our inaugural 'Bad Boy of the Week' award back in May for praising his council's ridiculously high usage of RIPA.

Not yet forgiven Mike, but a welcome and unexpected slice of commonsense nonetheless.

By Dylan Sharpe

The absurdity of border control questions

Something controversial to start the day: I do not find Dad's Army particularly funny.

But does that make me un-British? According to UK Border Control, it does:

From the Independent:

Mohamed Nur, 26, was stopped at Heathrow airport in June after returning from a holiday in Dubai. He was held for nine hours and forced to give DNA samples and fingerprints. During the questioning, one of the police officers asked about his British credentials. "He asked me 'Do you consider yourself to be English?' I said I consider myself to be British, rather than just English," Mr Nur said.

"He said 'How do you consider yourself to be British when you have no historical links with Britain? It's like me going to Somalia and living there and people still not considering me to be Somali because of the way I look.'

"I said 'I've lived most of my life in Britain so that's why I'm British'. Then he asked me about Dad's Army, and whether I watched it or not. I said 'Yes'. He said 'Do you find it funny?' and I said 'Yes'. Then he said 'I consider you British'."

I find myself torn by profiling at airports. On the one hand it makes sense to target those whose background makes them most likely to pose a threat, but equally, any sort of unsusbstantiated and obviously bias racial profiling is an unjustifiable intrusion on privacy and freedom.

I recommend reading the entire Independent article, it poses a number of very serious questions on liberty and how far border control is going to stop anyone from 'slipping through the net'.

By Dylan Sharpe

Operation Crackdown

On Saturday the Daily Mail ran details of a bizarre operation being run by Sussex Police called 'Operation Crackdown'.

The basic premise of OC is that local people are encouraged to submit reports of 'anti-social driving' online.

Which might seem fair enough, except that all the numberplates are held on a central database, cross-referenced with the ANPR database and after two reports the owner of the vehicle starts getting threatening letters.

To quote the promotional leaflet produced in conjunction with the scheme:

Under the section headed, If you See Someone Driving Antisocially, it says; 'Pull over safely at the side of the road, or ask a passenger to write down details.

'Record the make, model, colour and number plate of the vehicle.

'To help pin-point where you saw the incident..use house numbers, road names or shop names. Write down what you saw as soon as you can, so it's fresh in your mind.

It goes on: 'All reports remain live for a period of two months and a vehicle is automatically 'flagged up' if it is reported more than once.

I really don't need to spell it out, but can anyone see how this ludicrous scheme might be abused by nosy neighbours, grudge-bearing colleagues and general miscreants?

Take a look at the website and see the full horror for yourself.

This is the latest step towards recruiting the citizenry into the state spying machine.

By Dylan Sharpe

Some common sense at last

As we have written before, alongside the egregious harassing of amateur photographers on trumped-up terror charges, there is an equally sinister streak of those in authority confronting the part-time snapper when they are taking photos of events that include children.

It was therefore with some relief that we read the following in the Metro:

Schools have been asked not to stop parents from taking pictures at sports days.

David Smith from the Information Commissioner’s Office said the Data Protection Act ‘in no way stops parents taking photos’.

‘A common sense approach should be taken to photos at school events. Photos for personal use, such as family albums, are not covered by the act,’ he added.

‘Schools that cite the act to prevent parents from taking pictures are wrong.’

This is the second year in a row that the ICO has had to step in and remind paedo-paranoid, officious teachers that they have no right to embarrass, intimidate and expel family members trying to take pictures of their children.    

Now if the ICO could give the police a crash-course on the difference between scoping out a terror hit and sightseeing we might get somewhere!

By Dylan Sharpe

What's that Scooby? A fine?

Word of advice: keep comedy cartoon characters off your car or face the wrath of the state - as the Express and Star explains:

A motorist has been taken to court and fined – for having a Scooby Doo logo on his number plate.

Tom Edwards was ordered to pay £240 in fines and costs after he was reported by a policeman who spotted the three-inch image.

Edwards, from Princes Gardens, Codsall, was given two weeks to correct the plates and provide proof that the work had been carried out but he failed to do so.

Edwards said later at his family home: “I only owned the car for a few months. The Scooby logo was three inches by two inches. It was on when I bought it and the signs did not obscure the registration number.”

Yes, he could have changed his plates in the two week window (if not before), and perhaps having stickers on a numberplate is a bad idea, but is Mr Edwards really a criminal? If it isn't obscuring the numbers, should someone really be sent to court for a 3 inch Scooby sticker on their car?

I think most will agree that the answer is no. So you've got to wonder why the bobby bothered?

By Dylan Sharpe

Pensioner issued with £20k fine threat for pruning trees

If you think my title might be over-egged, the story - from Monday's Express and Star - is actually even more shocking:

After pruning a couple of branches from a hawthorn tree overhanging his garden in Woodside Way, Short Heath, 70-year-old pensioner Bryan Wiseman has been stunned by the threat of a court fine of up to £20,000.

The letter from Walsall Council is even harder to swallow for Mr Wiseman, as he has spent years tending to Rough Wood at the back of his home as a member of a committee looking after the beauty spot.

The retired engineer is accused of removing the branches of a tree protected by a tree preservation order without proper permission.

A letter from regeneration officer Cameron Gibson said no more action would be taken in this instance, but warned the grandfather-of-two officers would be keeping an eye on him in the future, adding: “The council will periodically visit the site to monitor the situation and you are advised that no further pruning or felling works should be undertaken.”

Now, the rules state that a tree subject to this preservation order should not be touched without prior consent and the council have not yet actually fined Mr Wiseman, but the point remains that even sending the threatening letter is heinous when Bryan clearly means no harm and is actually responsible for the area.

This episode is perhaps better used as an example of how councils prefer to threaten and intimidate than engage in any sort of consensual dialogue. They're now even going to send officers round to his house to monitor him! This man is not a criminal, yet he has been treated like one for no obvious reason.

By Dylan Sharpe

Man saves fish - is fined £1000

Sometimes you can't help thinking it would be difficult to make these stories up:

From the Daily Mail:

A voluntary hospital worker who rescued 60 goldfish from their ornamental pond when it was being drained is facing prosecution and a £1,000 fine - because he didn't have a licence to move them.

Clive Roberts, 58, saved the fish in an act of mercy by scooping them into a bucket and preparing to move them to his own garden pond.

But officials at the Environment Agency were tipped off and told him he needed to go through red tape to get a formal licence to move the goldfish.

Once again Ladies and Gentlemen, common sense has officially left the building.

The Environment Agency say it is illegal to remove fish from their habitat without permission; but surely even the EA can see that if the fish are about to snuff it, their transportation becomes imperative?!

A good Samaritan is fined by an overbearing Government agency - the story of Britain in 2010. But it doesn't even end there...Mr Roberts donated the fish to the hospital in the first place!

As I said, it's difficult to make these stories up.

By Dylan Sharpe

Hauled into court over a cardboard box

The following tale is as classic a Big Brother Watch story as you are likely to find; as The Sun reports:

A grandmother was dragged to court - after carefully leaving a cardboard box next to a council recycling bin.

Lynne had taken the box which held her new washing machine to the recycling point at a Somerfield supermarket near her home in Wickford, Essex, in October.

It was too big to fit in the slot and the bin was nearly full. Lynne, 59, was filmed wedging it between two bins to stop it blowing away. Days later she got a card from Basildon Council asking her to call about "an incident".

An environmental officer later turned up at the fancy dress shop she runs and handed her a £300 fine. She threw it in a bin and ordered him out. On March 22 she received a letter charging her with "depositing controlled waste" and summoning her before JPs.

That's right people - just for putting a cardboard box in-between two bins which were too small to take the full box, Lynne Doyle was fined £300. Many would have been bullied by the council into paying up.

Luckily, Lynne did not...so she was ordered before a court. However on the advice of a lawyer she requested trial by jury. What do you think happened...?

She has now received a letter, without apology or explanation, saying the council was dropping the case.

So Lynne gets threatened with a fine and then trial; but when she pushes back the council retreats. It shouldn't end there - if you are outraged by this action by Basildon, the contact details for their refuse and recycling team are here. Why not ask them why they subjected a 59 year-old women to this ordeal?

By Dylan Sharpe

Surveillance is the best money-spinner

It won't escaped many reading this (and thanks to all those who emailed Big Brother Watch with this story) that a few days ago the news was awash with stories about a new type of speed camera being tested in Britain, which combines number plate reading technology with a global positioning satellite receiver.

This 'SpeedSpike' camera - which can track drivers for several miles using GPS and calculate their average speed - was revealed as being tested by the Home Office at two sites; one in Southwark, London, and the other along the A374 in Cornwall.

When asked to comment I bemoaned an increase in surveillance and the escalation in driver-tracking from ANPR to GPS; but I also questioned why the Home Office was refusing to comment on the trials. If - as the defenders of this new system claim - it was about cutting speed and saving lives, why keep the scheme a secret?

A story in the Evening Standard today might provide an answer to that question:

CCTV cameras have overtaken traffic wardens as the most profitable way of punishing illegal parkers and TfL is using “stealth” to raise money, campaigners say.

Figures released by London Mayor and TfL boss Boris Johnson show that while staff have ticketed 950,000 times in the last five years, CCTV has overtaken them and broken through the million barrier.

TfL is now responsible for one of the country's largest CCTV networks, since taking over enforcement on red routes from police in November 2004. These 700 cameras monitor a third of all the capital's traffic.

They will say it's all about cutting speed and clamping down on illegal parking, but £80 million in five years tells a very different story.

By Dylan Sharpe

The judges are revolting

As reported in the Daily Mail this morning, a senior judge has spoken out after becoming exasperated by the number of motorists coming through his court on low-level offences distracting him from dealing with more serious crimes.

Judge Richard O'Rorke hit out after being told a hearing to confiscate the assets of a convicted fraudster would have to be postponed.

He was told Lincolnshire police did not have the manpower to value a catalogue of items worth hundreds of thousands of pounds seized from Tina Crowson.

Judge O'Rorke, sitting at Lincoln Crown Court, said: 'If they spent more time dealing with matters like this rather than pulling over people for traffic offences the work might be done.'

'It is a fact of life. Motorists are being pulled up for very minor offences. Things like this are then left waiting on the back burner for lack of the allocation of resources.'

We know that the number of law-abiding people being pulled into courtrooms is on the rise. This, however, is the first time that a senior judge has felt the need to publicly reprimand a police force for diverting their attention and resources away from the more serious crimes.

By Dylan Sharpe

An expensive cock-up

I now bring you a story in the Evening Gazette to provide a brief comical interlude from the General Election...

A curiosity shop owner and councillor has had his stone willy seized by police after complaints it was obscene.

Jason Hadlow, chairman of Yarm Town Council and owner of the Simply Dutch store in Leeming Bar, North Yorkshire, was left gobsmacked at the confiscation.

“It’s absolute madness they’ve taken this willy - it was right there in the shop window next to a statue of Venus and a replica of Michelangelo’s David,” said the entrepreneur, who lives in Yarm.

Mr Hadlow was given 24 hours to remove the stone penis. Now he faces an £80 fine to get his 4ft high masonry manhood back.

You may be wondering what jerked the police into removing the offending phallus?

Well apparently they had received a complaint from a member of the public. According to the report Mr Hadlow was issued with a penalty notice for disorder for committing a public order offence. But it is the £80 fine he received that most people will find really offensive.

Given that they left Michelangelo's David on show, one can only assume that in this event it really is the size that matters (stop tittering ladies). In which case the Cerne Abbas Giant may soon find himself on the receiving end of the strong arm of the law.

By Dylan Sharpe

A new crime a day since 1997

The number of new laws created under Labour has been the subject of many a newspaper report/book/study in recent years. Nevertheless, Kevin Dowling's brilliant article on this "legislative diarrhoea" (copyright: Chris Huhne) from yesterday's Sunday Times has some terrific new examples that I will share with you below:

Under laws introduced by Labour, if you have failed to nominate a keyholder who can switch off your alarm you are guilty of an offence. You could be liable for a fine of £1,000 and could have to appear in front of a magistrate if you fail to pay a fixed penalty on time.

This is just one of 4,300 offences created by the Labour government since 1997 — an avalanche of legislation. It equates to an average of 28 offences every month since Labour came to power and it is getting worse. Under Gordon Brown, the Liberal Democrats say, the creation of offences has risen to 33 a month.

The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act of 1998 illustrates Labour’s approach. Even before MPs and civil servants spent hundreds of hours drafting and passing the law, common sense would have told most people that it was not a good idea to set off a nuclear bomb.

So far, so amusing. To quote Chris Huhne (again) "most crimes that people care about have been illegal for years. Cutting crime should be about catching and reforming criminals, not creating law.” But there is a much more corrosive element to all this law-making:

Some laws can have drastic side-effects as in the recent case of Philip Bowles, a 60-year-old businessman with no previous convictions who was charged with Vat offences.

Bowles protested that he was unable to mount a proper defence because his money had been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and his tax records had been taken by administrators.

He was refused legal aid to hire a forensic accountant to examine his confiscated records. He was found guilty of switching a Vat liability between two companies and jailed for 3½ years.

The sad case of Mr Bowles is just one of many examples over the past 12 years of the state creating a criminal from an otherwise law-abiding man. This explosion in "non-crimes" represents a massive intrusion into our liberty and is one of the major reasons behind Big Brother Watch's establishment.

At an event we hosted last month, Dominic Grieve - the Shadow Minister for Justice - said he was committed to introducing a Repeal Act in the first 100 days of a Conservative government; and you can tell from the choice quotes above that Chris Huhne, Lib Dem Home Affairs Spokesman, is similarly opposed to the government's approach. So one has to ask why our current leaders cannot see the gaping flaw in their catch-all approach to legislating?

By Dylan Sharpe 

A small victory for common sense

Last July Paul Winston pulled into a bus lane to open his window and free a bumble bee that was in danger of stinging him.

The local authority in charge of the route - Camden Council in North London - observed Mr Winston in the bus lane and issued him with a £60 fine.

Today, as reported by the Daily Telegraph:

After months of fighting Camden Council has now agreed to withdraw the ticket after independent adjudicators at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) ruled in his favour.

He said: "I only stopped there for 57 seconds and I was just trying to get a bee out of my car. He added: "I had to go through the whole appeals process which took eight months just to get this ticket cancelled."

Not only was this case a complete waste of time and money on the Council's part, they also brought a law-abiding man into court on spurious reasons and labeled him a criminal.

Sadly this case happened before Big Brother Watch was created, so we weren't able to help Paul Winston in the same way we have given our support to Vanessa Kelly and Michael Mancini. But if you know of any similar cases of absurd council behaviour - please do get in touch.

By Dylan Sharpe

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

Man arrested under terrorism act for Twitter joke

Last week a 26 year-old man, upon hearing that his local airport was closed due to snow and with a planned trip to Ireland just 8 days away, wrote the following 'tweet' to his followers on social-networking site Twitter:

"Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

While perhaps a little close to the mark under the current atmosphere of fear surrounding airport security (one that has, of course, prompted our dear leader into installing intrusive body scanners up and down the country), what happened next could only be described as a massive overreaction.

As reported in the Independent:

A week after posting the message on Twitter, Paul Chambers was arrested under the Terrorism Act and questioned for almost seven hours by detectives who interpreted his post as a security threat.

After he was released on bail, he was suspended from work pending an internal investigation, and has, he says, been banned from the Doncaster airport for life.

"I would never have thought, in a thousand years, that any of this would have happened because of a Twitter post," said Mr Chambers, 26. "I'm the most mild-mannered guy you could imagine."

Now, Big Brother Watch fully supports the use of intelligence and data to track-down those who would try and commit terrorism (as opposed to random stop and searches and invasive scanners etc). 

However it is pretty clear that a mid-20's, East Midlands-born man with no previous convictions, who posts an empty threat on a social networking site, is not announcing his next target so much as being slightly injudicious with his choice of words.

It is in times of hightened stress that our freedom and liberties are most sorely tested. In this case, it is fair to say that the police failed the test.

By Dylan Sharpe