"No excuses Blair. No reflection...we demand our say."
Press Release
The People's No Campaign
Monday 30th May 2005
"Don't You Dare Mr. Blair...We Demand Our Referendum!"
Following the predicted rejection of the European Constitution by the French, The People's No Campaign demands that Tony Blair does not shirk away from his party's manifesto pledge.
We demand that we get our referendum.
The Dutch will vote No on Wednesday in their referendum and Blair will be desperate to avoid the debate in this country.
We demand that he goes to the European Council meeting on 16th June in Brussels and fight for the ratification process to continue so that the British people are able to express their opinion on the European Constitution.
He must fulfil his party's promise to the electorate.
The question which must be asked of Blair and his Government is,
"Why did you sign the Constitution document on behalf of the British people if you are now telling us that there are serious doubts?
He should be saying we are going ahead.
The inquest should only begin after the whole process has been completed.
There is no need for 'a period of reflection.'
The situation is quite clear and we want our say.
Blair himself has said that the EU is unworkable without a constitution so where are we going?
Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "For once The People's No Campaign is in agreement with the European Commission and that is that we must not leave the situation like this. It is important that every country is allowed to give its opinion on the Constitution and it would be an outrage if the British people were denied this right. The Prime Minister signed along with Jack Straw on our behalf but without our consent. We demand that the Prime Minister defend our right to have our referendum at the forthcoming European Council meeting on 16th June, as he promised.However, what is becoming apparent to all is that this is really now about the elites and the people. To seek retrospective approval for something which has never come from the people but which has been proposed by an arrogant, out of touch political elite was always going to be the bridge too far for the European Project.We will accept nothing less than a full debate on Britain's current position with the European Union. "
ENDS
Contact:Campaign Director
Neil Herron07776 202045
0845 147 2006
Notes for Editors:
1. The People's No Campaign is a cross/non-party grassroots coalition which launched on 25th May 2005. Funded by public donation the campaign team are drawn from across thye country and from all walks of life. Recent successes include the North East referendum.
2. Analysis of the French result can be seen on our website http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
3. Campaign Details at http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/
4. EU Constitution picture and media opportunity in advance of the Dutch referendum decision. Location London. To be advised 10am Wednesday 1st June.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
If and when France says No
"Then begins the Battle for Britain...but first the first skirmish will be to ensure that the slippery PM is not allowed to wriggle away from his obligation."
The U.K government must honour their manifesto commitment to the people to carry out a referendum to ratify the E.U. constitution.
The government do not have the power to cancel the E.U. Constitution. However, events in Brussels may bring about, through the European Council meeting on 12th June, an attempt to prevent any further ratification in countries still to do so, including U.K.
Mr Blair will of course be attending any such meeting.
The Question
Will Mr Blair, on behalf of the people of the U.K., insist on our referendum going ahead at any such meeting?
He must be made aware by people, press and media that cancellation of the referendum is not an option.
It is usually the case that the issue put is agreed by concensus unless one or more member state objects. If there were a formal vote it would be agreed by a majority, but it is unlikely that they will wish to be seen to be divided.The Council has no power or formal authority.
However, it is usually the case that the first communiqué is that they are all agreed…then we will only have the accounts from the politicians themselves.
So, Mr. Blair, we expect you to demand that the British people be allowed their referendum regardless of the vote in France and regardless of the result in Holland.
If you do not then the wrath of the British people will be too great for you to hide from.
The U.K government must honour their manifesto commitment to the people to carry out a referendum to ratify the E.U. constitution.
The government do not have the power to cancel the E.U. Constitution. However, events in Brussels may bring about, through the European Council meeting on 12th June, an attempt to prevent any further ratification in countries still to do so, including U.K.
Mr Blair will of course be attending any such meeting.
The Question
Will Mr Blair, on behalf of the people of the U.K., insist on our referendum going ahead at any such meeting?
He must be made aware by people, press and media that cancellation of the referendum is not an option.
It is usually the case that the issue put is agreed by concensus unless one or more member state objects. If there were a formal vote it would be agreed by a majority, but it is unlikely that they will wish to be seen to be divided.The Council has no power or formal authority.
However, it is usually the case that the first communiqué is that they are all agreed…then we will only have the accounts from the politicians themselves.
So, Mr. Blair, we expect you to demand that the British people be allowed their referendum regardless of the vote in France and regardless of the result in Holland.
If you do not then the wrath of the British people will be too great for you to hide from.
It happened in London...Report by The People's No Campaign
The People's No Campaign Launch...The Gathering of the Clans
Wednesday 25th May 2005
Abingdon House,
Little College Street,
Westminster
The first floor conference room in Abingdon House at 2pm yesterday witnessed the first high profile 'Gathering of the Clans.'
Many groups, organisations and individuals were represented.The meeting commenced at 2pm precisely and the room was bursting beyond capacity with many forced to stand outside in the hallway. Late arrivals were refused entry by security because the event was over capacity and had to wait outside.
The meeting opened up with room sponsor, Independent Labour Peer Lord Stoddart, delivering a passionate introduction.
This was followed with a rousing address by Maastricht rebel and Chairman of the Freedom Association, Christopher Gill.
Sky TV and German Television were present and the room was littered with copies of the European Constitution, kindly provided free of charge by the European Parliament building in London that very morning.
The media made the most of the shot of a pile of them sticking out of a House of Lords 'Recycle Your Rubbish' bin.
Neil Herron in his usual style delivered the background to what the campaign was about, where it had come from and where the fight was to be taken. Rousing applause again...and a few laughs.
Colin Moran, former Strategy Director of the North East No Campaign then detailed 'What If?' in relation to the French situation.
Dr. Richard North, the backroom research specialist for the campaign, 'blinked as he was allowed out in daylight.' He detailed the electronic networks and how they would work in what was to be the first internet driven referendum.
Questions came from the press and the media and from the floor. The atmosphere was absolutely electric...people knew this was 'the happening.'
Sky News had been running the launch since the breakfast programme where Neil Herron was interviewed live from the studio. Clips from the London office were also run in the preamble and played throughout the day.The meeting was a huge success and people went away enthused. We are busy collating the offers of support and preparing to link the various groups that wish to work with us.
Over 500 individuals have already registered as campaign supporters in the space of 24 hours.
Wednesday 25th May 2005
Abingdon House,
Little College Street,
Westminster
The first floor conference room in Abingdon House at 2pm yesterday witnessed the first high profile 'Gathering of the Clans.'
Many groups, organisations and individuals were represented.The meeting commenced at 2pm precisely and the room was bursting beyond capacity with many forced to stand outside in the hallway. Late arrivals were refused entry by security because the event was over capacity and had to wait outside.
The meeting opened up with room sponsor, Independent Labour Peer Lord Stoddart, delivering a passionate introduction.
This was followed with a rousing address by Maastricht rebel and Chairman of the Freedom Association, Christopher Gill.
Sky TV and German Television were present and the room was littered with copies of the European Constitution, kindly provided free of charge by the European Parliament building in London that very morning.
The media made the most of the shot of a pile of them sticking out of a House of Lords 'Recycle Your Rubbish' bin.
Neil Herron in his usual style delivered the background to what the campaign was about, where it had come from and where the fight was to be taken. Rousing applause again...and a few laughs.
Colin Moran, former Strategy Director of the North East No Campaign then detailed 'What If?' in relation to the French situation.
Dr. Richard North, the backroom research specialist for the campaign, 'blinked as he was allowed out in daylight.' He detailed the electronic networks and how they would work in what was to be the first internet driven referendum.
Questions came from the press and the media and from the floor. The atmosphere was absolutely electric...people knew this was 'the happening.'
Sky News had been running the launch since the breakfast programme where Neil Herron was interviewed live from the studio. Clips from the London office were also run in the preamble and played throughout the day.The meeting was a huge success and people went away enthused. We are busy collating the offers of support and preparing to link the various groups that wish to work with us.
Over 500 individuals have already registered as campaign supporters in the space of 24 hours.
Herron seeks poll promise
May 25 2005
By Zoe Hughes Political Editor, The Journal
A North-East campaigner last night demanded a referendum on the European constitution, even if other EU nations say no to the plans.
Neil Herron of Sunderland is preparing to launch his own People's No campaign today but says Cabinet ministers must keep their promise to hold a vote on the treaty amid growing speculation that it could be ditched.
Polls for the vote in France indicate that the no campaign could win on Sunday, with fears mounting that the constitution would be left dead in the water without the participation of one of its founding member states.
Unveiling legislation which will pave the way for the Government's own referendum, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said there would be a vote as long as there was something to vote on.
But Mr Herron has demanded a firm commitment from ministers. "Regardless of the result in France, this debate has to be held," he said.
"We want a serious grown-up debate that is free from party politics - our campaign will obviously deliver the people's perspective."
He is set to launch the a grassroots No campaign in London today, adding: "Quite simply, our argument is that we are not prepared to surrender further powers to the European Union."
Durham North West MP and Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong who said it was important to have a Europe that "recognises and respects the nation state but also brings together people to avoid wars in the future."
France is expected to say no to the plans on Sunday. The Netherlands, which is expected to say yes, will vote on June 1.
By Zoe Hughes Political Editor, The Journal
A North-East campaigner last night demanded a referendum on the European constitution, even if other EU nations say no to the plans.
Neil Herron of Sunderland is preparing to launch his own People's No campaign today but says Cabinet ministers must keep their promise to hold a vote on the treaty amid growing speculation that it could be ditched.
Polls for the vote in France indicate that the no campaign could win on Sunday, with fears mounting that the constitution would be left dead in the water without the participation of one of its founding member states.
Unveiling legislation which will pave the way for the Government's own referendum, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said there would be a vote as long as there was something to vote on.
But Mr Herron has demanded a firm commitment from ministers. "Regardless of the result in France, this debate has to be held," he said.
"We want a serious grown-up debate that is free from party politics - our campaign will obviously deliver the people's perspective."
He is set to launch the a grassroots No campaign in London today, adding: "Quite simply, our argument is that we are not prepared to surrender further powers to the European Union."
Durham North West MP and Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong who said it was important to have a Europe that "recognises and respects the nation state but also brings together people to avoid wars in the future."
France is expected to say no to the plans on Sunday. The Netherlands, which is expected to say yes, will vote on June 1.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Neil Herron on the Jeremy Vine Programme
Neil Herron on the Jeremy Vine Programme regarding the metrication issue.
to listen again go to the Links at the side.
to listen again go to the Links at the side.
Monday, May 23, 2005
EU Constitution must have support of majority
The Daily Telegraph
Saturday 21st May 2005
SIR-We, the undersigned, believe that unless at least 50 per cent of those eligible to vote Yes to the question in the forthcoming referendum on the European Constitution, the Government should not proceed with the treaty (report, May 18)
To have a government elected by as little as 21-5 per cent of the electorate is one thing, but to change the whole basis of our nation’s constitutional settlement on less than a clear majority of all those eligible to vote is quite another.
Proceeding to adopt an alien constitution without an unequivocal mandate is totally unacceptable and can only, in the long run, lead to entirely avoidable trouble and strife.
For more than 300 years, the British have enjoyed the benefits of a peaceful and settled society. To abandon that happy state without a clear indication that it is the will of the majority of those on the electoral register would be wholly irresponsible and reckless in the extreme.
Christopher Gill
Hon Chairman
The Freedom Association
Neil Herron
People’s No Campaign
Ruth Lea
Centre for Policy Studies
Ian Milne
Global Britain
Robert Oulds
Bruges Group
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Campaign for an Independent Britain
Saturday 21st May 2005
SIR-We, the undersigned, believe that unless at least 50 per cent of those eligible to vote Yes to the question in the forthcoming referendum on the European Constitution, the Government should not proceed with the treaty (report, May 18)
To have a government elected by as little as 21-5 per cent of the electorate is one thing, but to change the whole basis of our nation’s constitutional settlement on less than a clear majority of all those eligible to vote is quite another.
Proceeding to adopt an alien constitution without an unequivocal mandate is totally unacceptable and can only, in the long run, lead to entirely avoidable trouble and strife.
For more than 300 years, the British have enjoyed the benefits of a peaceful and settled society. To abandon that happy state without a clear indication that it is the will of the majority of those on the electoral register would be wholly irresponsible and reckless in the extreme.
Christopher Gill
Hon Chairman
The Freedom Association
Neil Herron
People’s No Campaign
Ruth Lea
Centre for Policy Studies
Ian Milne
Global Britain
Robert Oulds
Bruges Group
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Campaign for an Independent Britain
Traffic Orders...an explanation
Traffic Orders, Consolidated and Controlled Zones
1 Traffic Orders
These are made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in accordance with regulations SI. 1996/2489.
Traffic Orders can restrict waiting, loading, traffic routing, parking bays, speed limits etc.
They also can revoke previous Traffic Orders either wholly or in part.
They are ‘stand alone’ orders. After several years many of the early orders may have had most of their content revoked.
Checking out what is in currently in force can become extremely confusing.
2 Consolidated Orders
This is a means of tidying up of orders going back years which can be placed into a single order, thereby removing all of the previously revoked enactments.
Many of the earlier orders had similar preambles, such that now they can be combined into a few single orders with common preambles, the various waiting, loading, parking, traffic routing restrictions etc., being arranged in separate schedules as to their common requirement i.e (No Waiting Monday – Saturday 8am -6pm) all streets having a common restriction are listed and include the length of a particular street affected.
Consolidated orders can be made up from 2 or more previous orders, it is not necessary to include all previous orders. Once a consolidation order is made the previous ‘stand alone’ orders within the new order are revoked. As no new changes to the law are made they cannot be objected to. However when the consolidation is made all the traffic signs required by all of the enactments contained within the order must be in place before the order can come into force (in fact any traffic order of any description cannot come into force until traffic signs are lawfully displayed SI 1996/2489 regulation 18(1)(a) in accordance with regulation 21(3))
[Note- the legal requirement that all legal signs and road markings must be in position before the order can come into force.However afterwards, once in force, only a particular item within the order becomes unenforceable if a traffic sign/road marking is missing or not conforming to the statutory requirements, but not the remaining items within the order]
Sunderland previously had a Consolidated Order made in 1983 (shortly before leaving Tyne and Wear).
The present Consolidated Order (waiting and loading) 2003 was made on January 15th 2003 and allegedly came into force on 31st January 2003 (traffic signs/road markings for about 90% of the highways all over Sunderland were incorrect and still are). The order is in several Parts covering different areas of Sunderland.
A second consolidated Order was made in July 2003 covering ‘prescribed routes’ (no entries, left turns, buslanes etc.)
Both of these orders consolidated all previous orders up to 2001, those made after 2001 are still ‘stand alone’, some of which have already modified items within the new consolidated orders.
The ‘stand alone’ orders that existed prior to 2001 in the Central Area including the Consolidated Order 1983 referred to individual streets and the differing restrictions in those streets, some of these streets were outside of the alleged ‘Central Zone’ CPZ but all were included in the 2003 Consolidated Order but as independent items and their inclusion cannot imply that a CPZ order now exists or ever existed. Once a consolidated order is made ALL the previous orders containing the restrictions (now included in the new order) are REVOKED
[What happened between 1988 -2003 ?, when Northumbria Police were responsible for enforcement, there was no Controlled Parking Zone order, just the individual traffic regulation orders, which required proper signage. It is obvious the Police wilfully enforced traffic regulation orders that never had signs in accordance with RTRA 1984.( how many millions went to the treasury). I believe the citizens of Sunderland have been subject of a major conspiracy between the Police and the Council]
2. Controlled Parking Zone Orders
a) There are titled as ‘Controlled Parking’, ‘Meter Zone’, ‘Disc’ etc
Zones.
b) They are signed at all the entry points as appropriate using signs #663/ #663.1
incorporating details, in the prescribed manner, as outlined in the CPZ order. The entry sign
must be placed exactly and incorporate the information in the exact manner as prescribed.
c) CPZ orders enable a local authority to dispense with the need (and cost) to place 1 or more
upright signs on each highway where the restriction is common with that displayed on the
‘entry sign’, restrictions other than those displayed on the entry sign must be separately
signed as prescribed
d) CPZ orders differ from normal traffic orders.
Normal traffic order compositions start from the premise that a highway has NO
restrictions other than those previously made. New restrictions are then added to the order
and any remaining part of a highway not so restricted is assumed unrestricted (there is no legal requirement to state that a length of highway is unrestricted except in a CPZ order)
A CPZ traffic order composition starts from the premise that all streets are restricted under a ‘blanket restriction’ this being a single restriction of a particular nature (this is displayed on the entry sign). However many streets may have some or all of their lengths subject to restrictions different from those in the ‘blanket restriction’ these differences are then included separately as ‘exceptions’ (these must even include lengths of highway where no restrictions are to apply), any individual restriction must then be clearly stated, nature, length of highway, duration etc. (these exceptions must be separately signed where applicable see (c) above)
A CPZ order must also delete any item(s) contained in a previous order (or can revoke the whole order) that relates to an item(s) in the CPZ order (this also includes those items in a consolidated order).
A CPZ order can make completely new restrictions on a highway either within the ‘blanket restriction’ or in the ‘exceptions’(a ‘consolidated order’cannot make changes)
(There is a CPZ order in existence, ‘Park Lane Shopping Village’. This CPZ order, made in 2002, has numerous defects and can easily be challenged, nevertheless the order has been made (but unenforceable), the words “Controlled Zone” being included in the title. It is not included in the Consolidation Order 2003 as it was after the cut-off point of 2001)
Whilst a CPZ order may be included in a Consolidated Order, all the streets affected must be in an entirely separate Part and must include all the restrictions separately, in fact it is far more cumbersome than it would have been not to include it. They are best left as a ‘stand alone order’
Capt. D.W.Green
21.05.05
1 Traffic Orders
These are made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in accordance with regulations SI. 1996/2489.
Traffic Orders can restrict waiting, loading, traffic routing, parking bays, speed limits etc.
They also can revoke previous Traffic Orders either wholly or in part.
They are ‘stand alone’ orders. After several years many of the early orders may have had most of their content revoked.
Checking out what is in currently in force can become extremely confusing.
2 Consolidated Orders
This is a means of tidying up of orders going back years which can be placed into a single order, thereby removing all of the previously revoked enactments.
Many of the earlier orders had similar preambles, such that now they can be combined into a few single orders with common preambles, the various waiting, loading, parking, traffic routing restrictions etc., being arranged in separate schedules as to their common requirement i.e (No Waiting Monday – Saturday 8am -6pm) all streets having a common restriction are listed and include the length of a particular street affected.
Consolidated orders can be made up from 2 or more previous orders, it is not necessary to include all previous orders. Once a consolidation order is made the previous ‘stand alone’ orders within the new order are revoked. As no new changes to the law are made they cannot be objected to. However when the consolidation is made all the traffic signs required by all of the enactments contained within the order must be in place before the order can come into force (in fact any traffic order of any description cannot come into force until traffic signs are lawfully displayed SI 1996/2489 regulation 18(1)(a) in accordance with regulation 21(3))
[Note- the legal requirement that all legal signs and road markings must be in position before the order can come into force.However afterwards, once in force, only a particular item within the order becomes unenforceable if a traffic sign/road marking is missing or not conforming to the statutory requirements, but not the remaining items within the order]
Sunderland previously had a Consolidated Order made in 1983 (shortly before leaving Tyne and Wear).
The present Consolidated Order (waiting and loading) 2003 was made on January 15th 2003 and allegedly came into force on 31st January 2003 (traffic signs/road markings for about 90% of the highways all over Sunderland were incorrect and still are). The order is in several Parts covering different areas of Sunderland.
A second consolidated Order was made in July 2003 covering ‘prescribed routes’ (no entries, left turns, buslanes etc.)
Both of these orders consolidated all previous orders up to 2001, those made after 2001 are still ‘stand alone’, some of which have already modified items within the new consolidated orders.
The ‘stand alone’ orders that existed prior to 2001 in the Central Area including the Consolidated Order 1983 referred to individual streets and the differing restrictions in those streets, some of these streets were outside of the alleged ‘Central Zone’ CPZ but all were included in the 2003 Consolidated Order but as independent items and their inclusion cannot imply that a CPZ order now exists or ever existed. Once a consolidated order is made ALL the previous orders containing the restrictions (now included in the new order) are REVOKED
[What happened between 1988 -2003 ?, when Northumbria Police were responsible for enforcement, there was no Controlled Parking Zone order, just the individual traffic regulation orders, which required proper signage. It is obvious the Police wilfully enforced traffic regulation orders that never had signs in accordance with RTRA 1984.( how many millions went to the treasury). I believe the citizens of Sunderland have been subject of a major conspiracy between the Police and the Council]
2. Controlled Parking Zone Orders
a) There are titled as ‘Controlled Parking’, ‘Meter Zone’, ‘Disc’ etc
Zones.
b) They are signed at all the entry points as appropriate using signs #663/ #663.1
incorporating details, in the prescribed manner, as outlined in the CPZ order. The entry sign
must be placed exactly and incorporate the information in the exact manner as prescribed.
c) CPZ orders enable a local authority to dispense with the need (and cost) to place 1 or more
upright signs on each highway where the restriction is common with that displayed on the
‘entry sign’, restrictions other than those displayed on the entry sign must be separately
signed as prescribed
d) CPZ orders differ from normal traffic orders.
Normal traffic order compositions start from the premise that a highway has NO
restrictions other than those previously made. New restrictions are then added to the order
and any remaining part of a highway not so restricted is assumed unrestricted (there is no legal requirement to state that a length of highway is unrestricted except in a CPZ order)
A CPZ traffic order composition starts from the premise that all streets are restricted under a ‘blanket restriction’ this being a single restriction of a particular nature (this is displayed on the entry sign). However many streets may have some or all of their lengths subject to restrictions different from those in the ‘blanket restriction’ these differences are then included separately as ‘exceptions’ (these must even include lengths of highway where no restrictions are to apply), any individual restriction must then be clearly stated, nature, length of highway, duration etc. (these exceptions must be separately signed where applicable see (c) above)
A CPZ order must also delete any item(s) contained in a previous order (or can revoke the whole order) that relates to an item(s) in the CPZ order (this also includes those items in a consolidated order).
A CPZ order can make completely new restrictions on a highway either within the ‘blanket restriction’ or in the ‘exceptions’(a ‘consolidated order’cannot make changes)
(There is a CPZ order in existence, ‘Park Lane Shopping Village’. This CPZ order, made in 2002, has numerous defects and can easily be challenged, nevertheless the order has been made (but unenforceable), the words “Controlled Zone” being included in the title. It is not included in the Consolidation Order 2003 as it was after the cut-off point of 2001)
Whilst a CPZ order may be included in a Consolidated Order, all the streets affected must be in an entirely separate Part and must include all the restrictions separately, in fact it is far more cumbersome than it would have been not to include it. They are best left as a ‘stand alone order’
Capt. D.W.Green
21.05.05
Friday, May 20, 2005
Letter to Stephen Hughes MEP. Objection to 48 hour week
This is only one of many letters that are demanding that Stephen Hughes explain his reasoning and explain where and when he has consulted business.
If anyone wishes to comment in the press you can write to the Journal jnl.letters@ncjmedia.co.uk or the Northern Echo echo@nne.co.uk
Stephen Hughes MEP
Room 38/4
County Hall
Durham
DH1 5UR
Room 38/4
County Hall
Durham
DH1 5UR
19th May 2005
Dear Stephen,
It greatly concerns me that you have not only voted to end our opt out on the 48 Hour Working Time Directive, but as Leader of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament you were instrumental in this action.
It greatly concerns me that you have not only voted to end our opt out on the 48 Hour Working Time Directive, but as Leader of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament you were instrumental in this action.
It beggars belief that this was not supported in the Labour Party Manifesto, and therefore the Government elected should have no mandate to even implement this.
You have no right to dictate to me or anyone else how many hours I wish to work and I will decide that, not you or your colleagues in the European Parliament. I choose to work the hours I work. I am not forced to do anything.
I can foresee massive public opposition to this as it dawns on the British public what you have done.
Because of the potential impact this legislation will have on the North East workforce I would be grateful for details of all consultations you have conducted with North East businesses and all the reports you have prepared.
I demand that you, as my elected representative, hold a series of public meetings in order to explain the reason by your decision. Perhaps then you will find that your view is not a majority one, and nor are you speaking on behalf of the people.
I understand that the European Parliament has designated this week, “Yellow Week”, where British MEP’s deal with concerns of their constituents. I am very disappointed despite numerous requests, that you have avoided the opportunity to personally accept mine and others written concerns.
However, I look forward to a response by return as to where and when you will be holding your series of public meetings.
Yours sincerely
Neil Herron
Click Here... to view Northern Echo Article
"Delegation opposing 48-hour working rule"
NO Campaign to be unveiled
The Journal
NO Campaign to be unveiled
The battle to secure a No vote in the European constitution referendum will be kick-started by North-East metric martyr Neil Herron next week, The Journal has learned.
Mr Herron will unveil his People’s No campaign in London next Wednesday in a bid to trigger early debate on the issue and get a head start on ensuring British voters say no.
Mr Herron says his “grassroots” network has the support of the ordinary man on the street, and a number of high-profile organisations.
Labour’s former Europe minister Denis MacShane has already called for a massive information campaign to boost public understanding of the EU ahead of the referendum promised next year, with France set to vote on the constitution on May 29.
If France reject the proposals it would be a hammer-blow to the constitution, with polls showing the Yes and No camps neck and neck.
A referendum has already been promised by Tony Blair, irrespective of the French vote, but Mr Macshane said earlier this week that the treaty would be “dead” in the water if they said no.
NO Campaign to be unveiled
The battle to secure a No vote in the European constitution referendum will be kick-started by North-East metric martyr Neil Herron next week, The Journal has learned.
Mr Herron will unveil his People’s No campaign in London next Wednesday in a bid to trigger early debate on the issue and get a head start on ensuring British voters say no.
Mr Herron says his “grassroots” network has the support of the ordinary man on the street, and a number of high-profile organisations.
Labour’s former Europe minister Denis MacShane has already called for a massive information campaign to boost public understanding of the EU ahead of the referendum promised next year, with France set to vote on the constitution on May 29.
If France reject the proposals it would be a hammer-blow to the constitution, with polls showing the Yes and No camps neck and neck.
A referendum has already been promised by Tony Blair, irrespective of the French vote, but Mr Macshane said earlier this week that the treaty would be “dead” in the water if they said no.
Metric Martyrs Judge in the news again
Judge Bruce Morgan quite enjoyed his time in Sunderland, and the press and media interest that came with the Metric Martyrs' trial. On one occasion however, he was a tad absent-minded when he forgot to turn up to court...he had written the wrong date in his diary. Perhaps this time he may have just got 'not guilty' mixed up with 'guilty.'
During the case he was very apologetic to Steven Thoburn, even inviting him to leave the court at any time to look after his business. Steven promptly did...to deliver potatoes!
He was found guilty of the crime of selling bananas by the pound...hardly a grave threat to the public at large.
It therefore seems rather anomalous that a different principle seems to have been applied here.
Judge in 159mph Fury
The Sun
By ANDREW PARKER
THE judge who cleared 159mph traffic cop Mark Milton is the man who found Metric Martyr Steve Thoburn guilty of selling bananas by the pound.
District Judge Bruce Morgan was blasted by safety groups for clearing the 38-year-old patrol officer of dangerous driving and speeding.
In 2001 The Sun launched a Save Our Scales campaign when Steve was conditionally discharged for six months.
Tragically, Sunderland market trader Steve died last year, aged just 39.
His pal Neil Herron said last night: How someone driving at 159mph is less of a threat than a man selling bananas is beyond me.
PC Milton was back on duty in Telford, Shropshire, yesterday behind a desk.
He has asked to be taken off fast response duties after the case.
Motoring groups including the RAC said his let-off showed there was one rule for the police and one for the rest.
Hundreds of Sun readers have now pledged to fight their speeding fines.
Dee Saunders, clocked at 41 in a 30mph zone in the area where PC Milton works, said:If its good enough for him it should be good enough for me.
During the case he was very apologetic to Steven Thoburn, even inviting him to leave the court at any time to look after his business. Steven promptly did...to deliver potatoes!
He was found guilty of the crime of selling bananas by the pound...hardly a grave threat to the public at large.
It therefore seems rather anomalous that a different principle seems to have been applied here.
Judge in 159mph Fury
The Sun
By ANDREW PARKER
THE judge who cleared 159mph traffic cop Mark Milton is the man who found Metric Martyr Steve Thoburn guilty of selling bananas by the pound.
District Judge Bruce Morgan was blasted by safety groups for clearing the 38-year-old patrol officer of dangerous driving and speeding.
In 2001 The Sun launched a Save Our Scales campaign when Steve was conditionally discharged for six months.
Tragically, Sunderland market trader Steve died last year, aged just 39.
His pal Neil Herron said last night: How someone driving at 159mph is less of a threat than a man selling bananas is beyond me.
He has asked to be taken off fast response duties after the case.
Motoring groups including the RAC said his let-off showed there was one rule for the police and one for the rest.
Hundreds of Sun readers have now pledged to fight their speeding fines.
Dee Saunders, clocked at 41 in a 30mph zone in the area where PC Milton works, said:If its good enough for him it should be good enough for me.
Delegation opposing 48-hour working rule
The Northern Echo
20th May 2005
A DELEGATION yesterday handed a letter to a North-East MEP protesting at the proposed 48-hour limit to the working week.
The protestors, led by former Metric Martyr Neil Herron, delivered the letter to Stephen Hughes - one of the region's three members of the European Parliament - at his offices in Durham.
Members of the European Parliament have voted to end Britain's opt-out of the Working Time Directive -the legislation that restricts employees to a maximum 48-hour week.
Mr Herron said: "We do not need a European politician operating outside our democracy telling me how many hours I can work.
"We have just had a General Election where the Labour Party stood on a platform to continue the opt-out, and it is going to be overruled by people outside the boundaries of our elected Government."
Mr Hughes said the change, if it was passed, would protect the nine per cent of the UK workforce currently working more than 48 hours a week from exploitation.
He said: "This is about the wellbeing of the individual, getting the balance between work and family life right.
"Firstly, it is wrong in principle to have an opt-out of health and safety legislation.
"Secondly, you have to ask whether we top the league of marital breakdown and teenage pregnancy because mothers and fathers are working every hour that God sends.
"Thirdly, if employers can simply work a body to death, then they won't invest more in productivity. There is a lot of misunderstanding about it and a lot of deliberate peddling of misunderstanding.
"People have said this is an infringement of individual choice, but in society we do interfere in individuals' choices.
"We do not have a choice to drive after seven pints of beer or work on a building site without a hard hat."
20th May 2005
A DELEGATION yesterday handed a letter to a North-East MEP protesting at the proposed 48-hour limit to the working week.
The protestors, led by former Metric Martyr Neil Herron, delivered the letter to Stephen Hughes - one of the region's three members of the European Parliament - at his offices in Durham.
Members of the European Parliament have voted to end Britain's opt-out of the Working Time Directive -the legislation that restricts employees to a maximum 48-hour week.
Mr Herron said: "We do not need a European politician operating outside our democracy telling me how many hours I can work.
"We have just had a General Election where the Labour Party stood on a platform to continue the opt-out, and it is going to be overruled by people outside the boundaries of our elected Government."
Mr Hughes said the change, if it was passed, would protect the nine per cent of the UK workforce currently working more than 48 hours a week from exploitation.
He said: "This is about the wellbeing of the individual, getting the balance between work and family life right.
"Firstly, it is wrong in principle to have an opt-out of health and safety legislation.
"Secondly, you have to ask whether we top the league of marital breakdown and teenage pregnancy because mothers and fathers are working every hour that God sends.
"Thirdly, if employers can simply work a body to death, then they won't invest more in productivity. There is a lot of misunderstanding about it and a lot of deliberate peddling of misunderstanding.
"People have said this is an infringement of individual choice, but in society we do interfere in individuals' choices.
"We do not have a choice to drive after seven pints of beer or work on a building site without a hard hat."
Euro-MP defiant on 48-hour working
The Journal, May 19th 2005
The North-East Euro-MP at the centre of moves to prevent employees working more than 48 hours a week has defended his actions, despite calls for him to meet with regional business leaders.
Stephen Hughes will today face protests about his decision to vote against Britain's opt-out of European employment legislation which would see the majority of employees restricted to a 48-hour week - even if they wanted to work longer.
Sunderland solicitor and anti-Europe campaigner Neil Herron is challenging Mr Hughes to meet with business chiefs in the North-East today, saying they had not been consulted by the Labour MEP.
However Mr Hughes told The Journal it was vital to protect work-life balance saying: "Far too many people are forced to work far too many hours."
Britain is the only country to use wholesale opt-out of the Working Time Directive, claiming a flexible labour market is crucial to continued economic survival.
But Mr Hughes says only 9pc of British workers would be affected by the rules - and only those with employment contracts.
He added: "The Government has been dragging its feet on this issue, and when they came into power they knew that sooner or later they would have to comply.
"We really do need to bring about a proper balance of work and family life in Britain, there is a lot of talk about it but not enough done."
The European Parliament is calling on Britain to impose a maximum 48-hour working week averaged over a 12-month period. Self-employed people would be exempt, but Mr Hughes said it would be wrong to allow employers to force lorry drivers and factory workers to work even longer hours.
"Some people say they can see the arguments to restrict the hours of a lorry driver but what about the factory worker who does a double shift and is suffering fatigue. People should be allowed to balance their family and work lives."
Mr Herron said: "There has been a lot of protest about this and a public meeting would be one way for Mr Hughes to explain his decisions."
The North-East Euro-MP at the centre of moves to prevent employees working more than 48 hours a week has defended his actions, despite calls for him to meet with regional business leaders.
Stephen Hughes will today face protests about his decision to vote against Britain's opt-out of European employment legislation which would see the majority of employees restricted to a 48-hour week - even if they wanted to work longer.
Sunderland solicitor and anti-Europe campaigner Neil Herron is challenging Mr Hughes to meet with business chiefs in the North-East today, saying they had not been consulted by the Labour MEP.
However Mr Hughes told The Journal it was vital to protect work-life balance saying: "Far too many people are forced to work far too many hours."
Britain is the only country to use wholesale opt-out of the Working Time Directive, claiming a flexible labour market is crucial to continued economic survival.
But Mr Hughes says only 9pc of British workers would be affected by the rules - and only those with employment contracts.
He added: "The Government has been dragging its feet on this issue, and when they came into power they knew that sooner or later they would have to comply.
"We really do need to bring about a proper balance of work and family life in Britain, there is a lot of talk about it but not enough done."
The European Parliament is calling on Britain to impose a maximum 48-hour working week averaged over a 12-month period. Self-employed people would be exempt, but Mr Hughes said it would be wrong to allow employers to force lorry drivers and factory workers to work even longer hours.
"Some people say they can see the arguments to restrict the hours of a lorry driver but what about the factory worker who does a double shift and is suffering fatigue. People should be allowed to balance their family and work lives."
Mr Herron said: "There has been a lot of protest about this and a public meeting would be one way for Mr Hughes to explain his decisions."
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
No Campaign against the European Constitution launches
The People's No Campaign:
Press Release...15th May 2005
"No Campaign against European Constitution Announces Official Launch "
The official launch of The People's No Campaign (against the European Constitution) is to take place at:
Location :
Conference Room
Abingdon House
13 Little College Street
Westminster
LondonSW1P 3SH.
Time: 2pm Wednesday 25th May
The No Campaign has been created as a genuine non / cross-partygrassroots coalition to help deliver an overwhelming and emphatic rejection of the European Constitution.
Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, " It is essential that a genuine grassroots campaign helps to deliver the reasons for saying 'NO' in a plain, no nonsense style, free from party politics. We are creating the broadest coalition from across the socio-political spectrum and intend to replicate the achievement of the North East No Campaign which rejected the Government's and John Prescott's proposals in the recent Regional Assembly Referendum by the biggest margin in modern political history. The Constitution represents further surrender of power to Brussels and this is quite simply unacceptable. The debate preceding the referendum will be the first opportunity for the British public to examine the true nature of the whole 'European Project.' A full examination of the consequences of political and economic integration. A debate that we have been denied for over thirty years."
Dr Richard North, Research Director states, " This is a genuine,important and fundamental move by the people of Britain to reclaim theirown destiny."
The timing of the launch is to show solidarity with the French 'No'Campaign, and to send a message to our domestic politicians that theywill not be in for an easy ride. If the French vote 'oui' on 29th May then it is 'game on' for our domestic Constitution referendum battle.
Details of the growing alliance will be posted on the website shortly where we have a full analysis of news and events as they unfold. More statements to follow.
Contact:
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Office 0191 56517143
Mobile 07776 202045
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.blogspot.com
Information Line...0845 147 2006
Registered Office:
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Press Release...15th May 2005
"No Campaign against European Constitution Announces Official Launch "
The official launch of The People's No Campaign (against the European Constitution) is to take place at:
Location :
Conference Room
Abingdon House
13 Little College Street
Westminster
LondonSW1P 3SH.
Time: 2pm Wednesday 25th May
The No Campaign has been created as a genuine non / cross-partygrassroots coalition to help deliver an overwhelming and emphatic rejection of the European Constitution.
Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, " It is essential that a genuine grassroots campaign helps to deliver the reasons for saying 'NO' in a plain, no nonsense style, free from party politics. We are creating the broadest coalition from across the socio-political spectrum and intend to replicate the achievement of the North East No Campaign which rejected the Government's and John Prescott's proposals in the recent Regional Assembly Referendum by the biggest margin in modern political history. The Constitution represents further surrender of power to Brussels and this is quite simply unacceptable. The debate preceding the referendum will be the first opportunity for the British public to examine the true nature of the whole 'European Project.' A full examination of the consequences of political and economic integration. A debate that we have been denied for over thirty years."
Dr Richard North, Research Director states, " This is a genuine,important and fundamental move by the people of Britain to reclaim theirown destiny."
The timing of the launch is to show solidarity with the French 'No'Campaign, and to send a message to our domestic politicians that theywill not be in for an easy ride. If the French vote 'oui' on 29th May then it is 'game on' for our domestic Constitution referendum battle.
Details of the growing alliance will be posted on the website shortly where we have a full analysis of news and events as they unfold. More statements to follow.
Contact:
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Office 0191 56517143
Mobile 07776 202045
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.blogspot.com
Information Line...0845 147 2006
Registered Office:
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Friday, May 13, 2005
South Staffs By Election
Just thought I had better issue confirmation that I will not, and have never even considered, standing in the South Staffs by election.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Is Sunderland Councils parking Regime unlawful? ...Clock ticking
Christine Heslop
City Solicitor's Office
Sunderland City Council
Sunderland Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Dear Mrs. Heslop,
Further to our telephone conversation of Tuesday 3rd May 2005 I would be grateful for answers to the following questions:
1. Can you confirm that Sunderland City Council is operating a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the City Centre?
2. Can you confirm your statement that a CPZ Order is not in place?
3. I understand from Earl Belshaw that a 'twenty year old' CPZ Order is contained in the Consolidation Order. Can you confirm whether that this is or is not the case and provide me a copy of the relevant Consolidation Order along with the CPZ Order clearly marked?
4. Can you confirm that a CPZ Order is negated if any of the signs detailing the zone are correct?
5. Information provided by the Department for Transport in their leaflet, "How Parking is Managed" under the 'Penalties and Payments' Section it states "Local Authorities have six months to collect unpaid parking penalties."
Can you confirm that this is correct?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
City Solicitor's Office
Sunderland City Council
Sunderland Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Dear Mrs. Heslop,
Further to our telephone conversation of Tuesday 3rd May 2005 I would be grateful for answers to the following questions:
1. Can you confirm that Sunderland City Council is operating a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the City Centre?
2. Can you confirm your statement that a CPZ Order is not in place?
3. I understand from Earl Belshaw that a 'twenty year old' CPZ Order is contained in the Consolidation Order. Can you confirm whether that this is or is not the case and provide me a copy of the relevant Consolidation Order along with the CPZ Order clearly marked?
4. Can you confirm that a CPZ Order is negated if any of the signs detailing the zone are correct?
5. Information provided by the Department for Transport in their leaflet, "How Parking is Managed" under the 'Penalties and Payments' Section it states "Local Authorities have six months to collect unpaid parking penalties."
Can you confirm that this is correct?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
Sunderland's Unlawful Parking Regime...Millions of Pounds of tickets invalid? Government Office Obfuscates.
It appears that there is an attempt at obfuscation. The request is quite simple and quite clear. The responses of Mr. Gibson of GONE Transport team are in red. Once you have read it then the e-mail from Christine Heslop ( Sunderland Council's Legal Department) "There is no City Centre 'Controlled Zone' Prohibition of Waiting Order, the waiting restrictions being contained in the Consolidation and other orders," will be clear.
Does a Consolidated Order allow the City Council to operate a Controlled Parking Zone without a CPZ Order?
If the answer is no then every ticket has been issued unlawfully in Sunderland...hence the lack of clarity from GONE.
5th May 2005
Andrew Johnson
Head of Transport Team
Government Office for the North East
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Further to my telephone conversation with your colleague, Neil Raper, 12.15pm 5th May 2005, I am seeking clarification of the legislative background and a number of queries relating to Sunderland City Council's CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) either from yourself or from the Department for Transport Headquarters.
Thank you for your email of 5 May 2005, I work with Andrew Johnson and Neil Raper and have discussed my response with them. Can I just start by saying that it isn’t the role of the Government Office to adjudicate in disputes between members of the public and highway authorities in respect of traffic signs. Our understanding is that it is up to the courts to decide whether the road user could reasonably have understood the intention / terms of the TRO as a result of the signing and road markings that existed at the time whilst also taking into account the requirements of the TSRGD. However, notwithstanding the above I can make the following comments:
1. I understand that every CPZ requires an act, order regulation, bylaw or notice (the effect of a statutory provision) to put in place the parking controls and give legal backing to the signs, (TSRGD 2002 page 414 Direction 7).
Can you confirm that Sunderland City Council does not have such a CPZ Order in place?
Every CPZ does require an act, order regulation, bylaw or notice [“the effect of a statutory provision”] to put in place parking controls and give legal backing to the relevant signs. After discussions with City of Sunderland officials resulting from previous similar enquiries, it is our understanding that they have implemented a “Consolidation Order” [a consolidation order revokes existing orders and re-enacts them without any change of substance]. But, we cannot say whether this Consolidation Order is correct / valid for the CPZ’s in Sunderland, that would be for the courts to decide in the event of a dispute.
2. Can you clarify whether a Consolidation Order can be used in place of a CPZ Order? If so, can you direct me to the relevant section within the legislation that permits this?
As mentioned above, our understanding is that a “Consolidation Order” revokes existing orders and re-enacts them without any change of substance.
3. Sunderland City Council appears to be claiming that a 20 year old CPZ Order is incorporated into the Consolidation Order thereby making the current CPZ valid without a separate order. Is this a correct and lawful method of implementation?
If one CPZ can encompass another, then it would have simply required a new CPZ to encompass the Consolidation Order as an historic CPZ will not be the same as the new CPZ by virtue of the changes to the traffic layout over that period?
See answer to 1 above, Again, this would be for the courts to decide in the event of a dispute. Changes to the traffic layout in Sunderland does not necessary mean that the City Council need to change the relevant Traffic Regulation Order’s for the CPZ’s, it would depend on to what extent traffic layout had been changed and if the existing orders and signing still covered the new layout.
4.Is it unlawful for City of Sunderland Council to be using a Consolidation Order in place of a CPZ Order?
See 2
5. Does any CPZ cease to be valid if it is incorrectly signed. If not, can you please direct me to the relevant section of the legislation that allows this?
I would refer you to regulation 4 of the TSRGD that defines a “Controlled Parking Zone” as either
a] an area –
I. in which, except where parking places have been provided, every road has been marked with one or more of the road markings shown in diagrams 1017, 1018.1, 1019 and 1020.1; and
ii. into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1; or
b] an area –
I. at least one of the signs shown in diagram 640.2A has been placed on each side of every road ; and
ii. into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 665;
Nevertheless as indicated in my opening paragraph, it would be for the courts to decide whether a motorist is guilty of an offence
I am sorry that I have not been able to provide you with the clarification that you were probably looking for.
Yours sincerely
Martin Gibson
Transport
Government Office for the North East
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Martin Gibson, GONE Transport Team
cc. City of Sunderland Legal Services (Christine Heslop / Bob Rayner)
Does a Consolidated Order allow the City Council to operate a Controlled Parking Zone without a CPZ Order?
If the answer is no then every ticket has been issued unlawfully in Sunderland...hence the lack of clarity from GONE.
5th May 2005
Andrew Johnson
Head of Transport Team
Government Office for the North East
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Further to my telephone conversation with your colleague, Neil Raper, 12.15pm 5th May 2005, I am seeking clarification of the legislative background and a number of queries relating to Sunderland City Council's CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) either from yourself or from the Department for Transport Headquarters.
Thank you for your email of 5 May 2005, I work with Andrew Johnson and Neil Raper and have discussed my response with them. Can I just start by saying that it isn’t the role of the Government Office to adjudicate in disputes between members of the public and highway authorities in respect of traffic signs. Our understanding is that it is up to the courts to decide whether the road user could reasonably have understood the intention / terms of the TRO as a result of the signing and road markings that existed at the time whilst also taking into account the requirements of the TSRGD. However, notwithstanding the above I can make the following comments:
1. I understand that every CPZ requires an act, order regulation, bylaw or notice (the effect of a statutory provision) to put in place the parking controls and give legal backing to the signs, (TSRGD 2002 page 414 Direction 7).
Can you confirm that Sunderland City Council does not have such a CPZ Order in place?
Every CPZ does require an act, order regulation, bylaw or notice [“the effect of a statutory provision”] to put in place parking controls and give legal backing to the relevant signs. After discussions with City of Sunderland officials resulting from previous similar enquiries, it is our understanding that they have implemented a “Consolidation Order” [a consolidation order revokes existing orders and re-enacts them without any change of substance]. But, we cannot say whether this Consolidation Order is correct / valid for the CPZ’s in Sunderland, that would be for the courts to decide in the event of a dispute.
2. Can you clarify whether a Consolidation Order can be used in place of a CPZ Order? If so, can you direct me to the relevant section within the legislation that permits this?
As mentioned above, our understanding is that a “Consolidation Order” revokes existing orders and re-enacts them without any change of substance.
3. Sunderland City Council appears to be claiming that a 20 year old CPZ Order is incorporated into the Consolidation Order thereby making the current CPZ valid without a separate order. Is this a correct and lawful method of implementation?
If one CPZ can encompass another, then it would have simply required a new CPZ to encompass the Consolidation Order as an historic CPZ will not be the same as the new CPZ by virtue of the changes to the traffic layout over that period?
See answer to 1 above, Again, this would be for the courts to decide in the event of a dispute. Changes to the traffic layout in Sunderland does not necessary mean that the City Council need to change the relevant Traffic Regulation Order’s for the CPZ’s, it would depend on to what extent traffic layout had been changed and if the existing orders and signing still covered the new layout.
4.Is it unlawful for City of Sunderland Council to be using a Consolidation Order in place of a CPZ Order?
See 2
5. Does any CPZ cease to be valid if it is incorrectly signed. If not, can you please direct me to the relevant section of the legislation that allows this?
I would refer you to regulation 4 of the TSRGD that defines a “Controlled Parking Zone” as either
a] an area –
I. in which, except where parking places have been provided, every road has been marked with one or more of the road markings shown in diagrams 1017, 1018.1, 1019 and 1020.1; and
ii. into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1; or
b] an area –
I. at least one of the signs shown in diagram 640.2A has been placed on each side of every road ; and
ii. into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 665;
Nevertheless as indicated in my opening paragraph, it would be for the courts to decide whether a motorist is guilty of an offence
I am sorry that I have not been able to provide you with the clarification that you were probably looking for.
Yours sincerely
Martin Gibson
Transport
Government Office for the North East
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Martin Gibson, GONE Transport Team
cc. City of Sunderland Legal Services (Christine Heslop / Bob Rayner)
Metric Martyrs Judgment could affect the Child Support Agency
In a new twist to the Parking Ticket challenge using the Bill of Rights and the Metric Martyrs Judgment the Child Support Agency could be thrown into chaos.
As we pointed out, the Metric Martyrs Judgment created a new legal precedent developing the concept of 'hierarchical' or 'constitutional' statutes which could only be repealed with express wording.
The Bill of Rights 1689 states, "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
We said that this would lead to problems for all fines issued by administrative bodies. Not just local authorities implementing decriminalised parking regimes but also the Inland Revenue, Companies House with their late payment penalties and the DVLA with their SORN notices.
Now it appears as though the Child Support Agency are about to be thrust into the arena. The Child Support Act 1991 makes no reference to the Bill of Rights 1689 and therefore does not repeal the relevant section with 'express wording.' It will therefore only be a matter of time before someone challenges the legitimacy of any Child Support Agency decision, made without reference to a court of law.
If the figures of 700,000 are correct and the average decision by the CSA equates to £10,000 then it looks like someone is going to have a potential £7 billion headache on their hands.
Or were the Metric Martyrs wrongly convicted?
As we pointed out, the Metric Martyrs Judgment created a new legal precedent developing the concept of 'hierarchical' or 'constitutional' statutes which could only be repealed with express wording.
The Bill of Rights 1689 states, "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
We said that this would lead to problems for all fines issued by administrative bodies. Not just local authorities implementing decriminalised parking regimes but also the Inland Revenue, Companies House with their late payment penalties and the DVLA with their SORN notices.
Now it appears as though the Child Support Agency are about to be thrust into the arena. The Child Support Act 1991 makes no reference to the Bill of Rights 1689 and therefore does not repeal the relevant section with 'express wording.' It will therefore only be a matter of time before someone challenges the legitimacy of any Child Support Agency decision, made without reference to a court of law.
If the figures of 700,000 are correct and the average decision by the CSA equates to £10,000 then it looks like someone is going to have a potential £7 billion headache on their hands.
Or were the Metric Martyrs wrongly convicted?
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Lib Dem holds hands up.
Katy Waring in the Brussel's Office of Liberal Democrat, Fiona Hall, has now confirmed that it is not possible to supply an MEP's voting record.
The European Parliament will also not take responsibility for publishing the full record.
Conservative Central Office agreed that it was not unreasonable for a constituent to want to know. Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan has so far failed to respond to any request.
Labour MEP, Stephen Hughes says that he is accountable to the North East electorate and it is his constituents' position to hold him to account. This seemingly does not extend to his voting record which he could not provide and suggests if we are not happy then the European Parliament should take the responsibility of providing it.
Accountability and transparency are fundamental in a democracy.
Put your MEP under pressure and ask the question. With such a generous secretarial allowance there is no excuse for not taking the initiative and creating a full record.
The European Parliament will also not take responsibility for publishing the full record.
Conservative Central Office agreed that it was not unreasonable for a constituent to want to know. Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan has so far failed to respond to any request.
Labour MEP, Stephen Hughes says that he is accountable to the North East electorate and it is his constituents' position to hold him to account. This seemingly does not extend to his voting record which he could not provide and suggests if we are not happy then the European Parliament should take the responsibility of providing it.
Accountability and transparency are fundamental in a democracy.
Put your MEP under pressure and ask the question. With such a generous secretarial allowance there is no excuse for not taking the initiative and creating a full record.
Priceless Quote from Bill Etherington MP, Sunderland North
At a hustings debate at Monkwearmouth School on Tuesday 3rd May Labour MP, Bill Etherington was challenged over his voting record. He is recorded as being present for 46% of the votes in Parliament.
However, recently returned from Strasbourg, Bill Etherington stated,
" I have a one hundred percent voting record when I am there."
He has been re-elected.
However, recently returned from Strasbourg, Bill Etherington stated,
" I have a one hundred percent voting record when I am there."
He has been re-elected.
MEP's now in the bunker
We have been pursuing for some time the voting records of Members of the European Parliament.
Some have ignored communications. Some have obfuscated. Not one has yet put their hands up and said it is not possible to comply with such a simple request from a member of the public.
It is not unreasonable to ask what an MEP has voted for and what they have voted against and have an open and transparent personal record.
It is not acceptable to be directed to an incomprehensible European Parliament website, which only has partial records.
The more we ask the more it is apparent that it is like knocking on the politburo's door.
Remember, they are passing legislation which takes primacy over our elected Parliament. You have the ability to bring this to an end and create the pressure on your own MEP and expose it in your local press. A pro-forma letter is available here.
Some have ignored communications. Some have obfuscated. Not one has yet put their hands up and said it is not possible to comply with such a simple request from a member of the public.
It is not unreasonable to ask what an MEP has voted for and what they have voted against and have an open and transparent personal record.
It is not acceptable to be directed to an incomprehensible European Parliament website, which only has partial records.
The more we ask the more it is apparent that it is like knocking on the politburo's door.
Remember, they are passing legislation which takes primacy over our elected Parliament. You have the ability to bring this to an end and create the pressure on your own MEP and expose it in your local press. A pro-forma letter is available here.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Sunderland Elections Illegal?
John Sills
Head of Electoral Policy Division
Dept. Constitutional Affairs
Dear Sir,
I live in the county of Tyne and Wear, in Sunderland. I am represented in the parliamentary constituency of Sunderland(South).
Sunderland has three constituencies with a fourth shared with Gateshead. In all there are 13 constituencies in Tyne and Wear
Sunderland
1. a) Statutory Election Notices are only displayed on the internal walls of the Civic
Centre (this is situated in the Sunderland (South) constituency). There are no
statutory notices displayed in the other constituencies.
b) These notices are not visible from the public highway, and are only displayed to
those who have reason to be in the Civic Centre
c) These notices are not therefore displayed as required by the Elections Act
2. a) The Parliamentary Constituency boundaries were established in 1995 and
came into force in 1997 ( The Parliamentary Constituencies(England) Order
1995)
b) In Tyne and Wear, the boundaries were established by enclosing several
Local Government Wards ( these being in existence in 1994)
d) In June 2004 the wards of 1994 were ABOLISHED, this included their previous
boundaries
e) There appears to be no expressed legislation that allows the previous boundaries
to be used for any purpose after the wards were abolished and as such the present
Parliamentary Constituency boundaries (based upon the old wards) have ceased
to exist.
3. a) All the electors of Sunderland (including all of Tyne and Wear) have been
registered in new wards, which have entirely new boundaries. Given new
registration numbers and allocated to new polling areas within the new wards
b) These new wards are entirely different from those expressed in the 1995 Order
4 The Boundary Commission is due to report in 2006/7 with the new Constituency
boundaries coming into force after the next General Election following.
5 In Sunderland(South) we had 8 wards assigned in the 1995 Order. Now we have
11 wards, nine of which are shared with adjacent constituencies i.e. four with Sunderland(North) and five with Houghton and Washington
6. None of the 11 wards in Sunderland (South) correspond with those clearly
expressed in the 1995 Order
I would like the Electoral Commission to be instructed to investigate the above forthwith, with a view to how is it possible to vote in un-established constituencies, and a total lack of statutory notification
Yours faithfully
Name and Address Withheld
Electoral Register Number Withheld
Head of Electoral Policy Division
Dept. Constitutional Affairs
Dear Sir,
I live in the county of Tyne and Wear, in Sunderland. I am represented in the parliamentary constituency of Sunderland(South).
Sunderland has three constituencies with a fourth shared with Gateshead. In all there are 13 constituencies in Tyne and Wear
Sunderland
1. a) Statutory Election Notices are only displayed on the internal walls of the Civic
Centre (this is situated in the Sunderland (South) constituency). There are no
statutory notices displayed in the other constituencies.
b) These notices are not visible from the public highway, and are only displayed to
those who have reason to be in the Civic Centre
c) These notices are not therefore displayed as required by the Elections Act
2. a) The Parliamentary Constituency boundaries were established in 1995 and
came into force in 1997 ( The Parliamentary Constituencies(England) Order
1995)
b) In Tyne and Wear, the boundaries were established by enclosing several
Local Government Wards ( these being in existence in 1994)
d) In June 2004 the wards of 1994 were ABOLISHED, this included their previous
boundaries
e) There appears to be no expressed legislation that allows the previous boundaries
to be used for any purpose after the wards were abolished and as such the present
Parliamentary Constituency boundaries (based upon the old wards) have ceased
to exist.
3. a) All the electors of Sunderland (including all of Tyne and Wear) have been
registered in new wards, which have entirely new boundaries. Given new
registration numbers and allocated to new polling areas within the new wards
b) These new wards are entirely different from those expressed in the 1995 Order
4 The Boundary Commission is due to report in 2006/7 with the new Constituency
boundaries coming into force after the next General Election following.
5 In Sunderland(South) we had 8 wards assigned in the 1995 Order. Now we have
11 wards, nine of which are shared with adjacent constituencies i.e. four with Sunderland(North) and five with Houghton and Washington
6. None of the 11 wards in Sunderland (South) correspond with those clearly
expressed in the 1995 Order
I would like the Electoral Commission to be instructed to investigate the above forthwith, with a view to how is it possible to vote in un-established constituencies, and a total lack of statutory notification
Yours faithfully
Name and Address Withheld
Electoral Register Number Withheld
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Evidence mounts of postal vote rigging
Evidence mounts of postal vote rigging
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
A LABOUR supporter in Birmingham has admitted receiving multiple postal votes after applying for ballots on behalf of neighbours and friends.
It is one of a number of cases that highlight the problems caused by the widespread use of postal voting for the first time in a general election.
Yesterday, when asked why nine votes were sent to his terraced home in the Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency, Mohammed Akram claimed he was helping four of his neighbours. “They can’t read or write English,” he said. “I’ll take it round and help them. I put my address there (on the application form) by mistake.”
However, two of the people whose votes have been sent to Akram’s address said they had no idea this had happened.
Zaida Khan, who speaks good English, said: “I’m not aware of that (that her vote had been redirected).” Maqsood Begum said she had planned to vote in person. She will now be barred from doing so.
Akram may have broken election rules by handling other people’s ballot papers. His case is further evidence of a failure to ensure that votes go to the right people.
The Sunday Times has collected evidence and allegations of a number of problems:
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
A LABOUR supporter in Birmingham has admitted receiving multiple postal votes after applying for ballots on behalf of neighbours and friends.
It is one of a number of cases that highlight the problems caused by the widespread use of postal voting for the first time in a general election.
Yesterday, when asked why nine votes were sent to his terraced home in the Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency, Mohammed Akram claimed he was helping four of his neighbours. “They can’t read or write English,” he said. “I’ll take it round and help them. I put my address there (on the application form) by mistake.”
However, two of the people whose votes have been sent to Akram’s address said they had no idea this had happened.
Zaida Khan, who speaks good English, said: “I’m not aware of that (that her vote had been redirected).” Maqsood Begum said she had planned to vote in person. She will now be barred from doing so.
Akram may have broken election rules by handling other people’s ballot papers. His case is further evidence of a failure to ensure that votes go to the right people.
The Sunday Times has collected evidence and allegations of a number of problems:
- In the Labour marginal seat of Finchley and Golders Green, London, voters have been sent two postal votes within days.
- In Glasgow, multiple postal votes have been sent to people not living at the addresses listed. It is alleged they were collected by party supporters.
- In Blackburn, the marginal constituency of Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, Labour party members have been accused of collecting postal ballots from a derelict property.
- In Bethnal Green and Bow, London, people claimed they had been sent postal ballots without requesting them.
Yesterday, Liam Fox, the Conservative party co-chairman, accused Labour of trading away the integrity of the electoral system in pursuit of victory. “Their casual acceptance of the corruption of Britain’s electoral practices stands as a monument to the new Labour project,” he said.
Over the past month, political parties have rushed to sign up supporters to vote by post and more than 6.5m people have received postal ballots. However, checks are negligible and yesterday election monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe began scrutinising the voting system — the first time for a British general election.
In Birmingham, where several Labour councillors were recently convicted of electoral fraud, Ardem Yusuf, a charity worker, said: “You will have a household where the man of the house will vote for everyone.”
In Blackburn, Straw’s Liberal Democrat rival, Tony Melia, has made a formal complaint. “I’ve already had two people complaining to me about certain Labour people asking them to hand over postal votes. Postal vote rigging is happening here,” he said.
There is likely to be an unprecedented number of legal actions challenging the results of Thursday’s election with losing candidates alleging impropriety and fraud.
Yesterday one voter in Charles Clarke’s constituency in Norwich claimed that he had been sent 14 ballot papers — three each for him and his wife at their current address, two each at their previous address, and four for the previous residents of their home. Kevin Kyle, a mortgage adviser, said: “The system is a farce.”
Additional reporting: Abul Taher, Sarah Keenlyside, Chris Whyatt and Holly Watt
Postal vote fraud fears rise
Postal vote fraud fears rise
By Ross Lydall and Sam Lyon,
Evening Standard 3 May 2005
Fears of electoral vote fraud escalated today after an astonishing leap in the number of Londoners apparently voting by post.
A record one in five London electors have applied for postal votes, according to an Evening Standard survey.
The number is three times bigger than in 2001 — and includes an incredible 40-times increase in one of the capital’s inner-city boroughs.
The findings, which will fuel suspicions of organised fraud, come a week after an Evening Standard investigation disclosed how easy it is to obtain other people’s ballot papers by cheating.
Half a million Londoners are due to cast a postal vote, according to the survey of the 33 boroughs.
Hackney tops the league table of increases, with the council having issued 37,285 postal votes for its two constituencies — up 4,000 per cent. The borough has seen demand soar as a result of its 2002 council elections being conducted exclusively by postal voting in a government pilot scheme.
Barnet is second highest with 32,501. The average number of postal votes per borough is 16,862.
The figures emerged a week after the Standard revealed how the election is open to vote-rigging. A number of postal ballots for constituencies across London were obtained by a reporter without any apparent checks for fraud.
Last year’s local elections in Birmingham led to the sacking of six Labour councillors for postal fraud. The elections commissioner said the system “would disgrace a banana republic”.
Hackney South and Shoreditch, a safe Labour seat, will have the highest umber of postal votes in the capital, with 19,456 issued.
Hackney North is second with 17,829. Third is the Lib-Dem marginal seat of Richmond Park.
Elsewhere, 6,600 postal votes have been issued in Bethnal Green and Bow, which is being contested by Oona King and George Galloway. There were about 3,500 postal votes issued in Brent East, where Lib-Dem Sarah
Teather beat Labour in a 2003 by-election. A Hackney council spokeswoman said all postal votes were being hand-delivered by council staff and attention was paid to any instances where large numbers of votes were supplied to a single address, to counter possible fraud.
Across Britain, about six million people have asked for a postal vote following a rule change that removed the need to explain the reason for such a request.
International observers from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have been called in, although they cannot enter polling stations.
The Electoral Commission, a watchdog set up by Parliament, and the Electoral Reform Society have concerns about the lack of safeguards
They believe people applying to be registered on the electoral roll should supply their signature and date of birth to check against subsequent applications for postal votes.
Alex Folkes, of the Electoral Reform Society, said: “Any time you take ballot papers out of the direct control of the returning officer there is an increased risk of fraud. It could be they get stolen or fall into the wrong hands. It could be that somebody is pressurised into voting a certain way, or it could be there are fictitious electors that never existed in the first place.
“We don’t think postal voting is a bad thing. We just need to put measures in place to ensure fraud doesn’t happen.”
Lord Greaves, a Lib-Dem peer, said: “It is essential the international observers are able to get into the polling stations, the election officials’ offices, the counts and have access to the politicians, to provide a rigorous check on the integrity of the electoral process.”
Many London councils attribute the dramatic increase in postal voting applications to a drive last summer to get people to register to vote in the general election. Insurers for local authorities, which are responsible for running elections fairly, fear they could be landed with huge bills for costs if ballots have to be re-run because of fraud.
By Ross Lydall and Sam Lyon,
Evening Standard 3 May 2005
Fears of electoral vote fraud escalated today after an astonishing leap in the number of Londoners apparently voting by post.
A record one in five London electors have applied for postal votes, according to an Evening Standard survey.
The number is three times bigger than in 2001 — and includes an incredible 40-times increase in one of the capital’s inner-city boroughs.
The findings, which will fuel suspicions of organised fraud, come a week after an Evening Standard investigation disclosed how easy it is to obtain other people’s ballot papers by cheating.
Half a million Londoners are due to cast a postal vote, according to the survey of the 33 boroughs.
Hackney tops the league table of increases, with the council having issued 37,285 postal votes for its two constituencies — up 4,000 per cent. The borough has seen demand soar as a result of its 2002 council elections being conducted exclusively by postal voting in a government pilot scheme.
Barnet is second highest with 32,501. The average number of postal votes per borough is 16,862.
The figures emerged a week after the Standard revealed how the election is open to vote-rigging. A number of postal ballots for constituencies across London were obtained by a reporter without any apparent checks for fraud.
Last year’s local elections in Birmingham led to the sacking of six Labour councillors for postal fraud. The elections commissioner said the system “would disgrace a banana republic”.
Hackney South and Shoreditch, a safe Labour seat, will have the highest umber of postal votes in the capital, with 19,456 issued.
Hackney North is second with 17,829. Third is the Lib-Dem marginal seat of Richmond Park.
Elsewhere, 6,600 postal votes have been issued in Bethnal Green and Bow, which is being contested by Oona King and George Galloway. There were about 3,500 postal votes issued in Brent East, where Lib-Dem Sarah
Teather beat Labour in a 2003 by-election. A Hackney council spokeswoman said all postal votes were being hand-delivered by council staff and attention was paid to any instances where large numbers of votes were supplied to a single address, to counter possible fraud.
Across Britain, about six million people have asked for a postal vote following a rule change that removed the need to explain the reason for such a request.
International observers from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have been called in, although they cannot enter polling stations.
The Electoral Commission, a watchdog set up by Parliament, and the Electoral Reform Society have concerns about the lack of safeguards
They believe people applying to be registered on the electoral roll should supply their signature and date of birth to check against subsequent applications for postal votes.
Alex Folkes, of the Electoral Reform Society, said: “Any time you take ballot papers out of the direct control of the returning officer there is an increased risk of fraud. It could be they get stolen or fall into the wrong hands. It could be that somebody is pressurised into voting a certain way, or it could be there are fictitious electors that never existed in the first place.
“We don’t think postal voting is a bad thing. We just need to put measures in place to ensure fraud doesn’t happen.”
Lord Greaves, a Lib-Dem peer, said: “It is essential the international observers are able to get into the polling stations, the election officials’ offices, the counts and have access to the politicians, to provide a rigorous check on the integrity of the electoral process.”
Many London councils attribute the dramatic increase in postal voting applications to a drive last summer to get people to register to vote in the general election. Insurers for local authorities, which are responsible for running elections fairly, fear they could be landed with huge bills for costs if ballots have to be re-run because of fraud.
Council tax payers 'facing £2.5m bill for rent of offices'
Council tax payers 'facing £2.5m bill for rent of offices'
by Mark Summers
A RESIDENTS' group says that council tax payers will have to pay out £2.5m for the rental of an eco-friendly building that could have been the home of the North-East regional assembly.
Durham County Council is looking to rent part of a £5m offices and conference centre at Aykley Heads, a site near County Hall in Durham City, to ease an accommodation shortage for its staff.
The council had been looking at the Rivergreen development, designed to have a minimum impact on the environment, to house an elected assembly - but last year's referendum resulted in a no vote.
Last year, the council denied the assembly would be located in the 48,000sq ft building and said offices at County Hall had been selected.
But Brian Clouston, treasurer of the Durham-based Taxpayers' Alliance, which fielded candidates at the last county council elections, said he was told by a county official that use of the building by the assembly had been an option. Now the council is looking to lease 20,000sq ft for seven years to house its own employees.
Mr Clouston said the council would be paying £18 in rent and service charges per square foot, making a total bill of £2.5m.
He said the council - the cabinet will shortly make a decision on the issue - could find cheaper accommodation elsewhere.
"There are plenty of obsolete call centre buildings that would be suitable for council staff," he said.
A spokesman for the Labour-run authority said there was an acute shortage of office space at County Hall, made worse by the need to vacate part of the annexe building and recent storm damage.
"As a result, we are having to take immediate action to resolve the problem, including converting the former staff recreation block into offices and moving some employees into alternative "satellite" accommodation elsewhere in the county. Notwithstanding that, there is still a pressing need for additional space, and so we are to consider the long-standing option we have to lease office accommodation at the Rivergreen development."
He said the council's possible use of the development was nothing new and that it could have been a temporary headquarters for the assembly - although the assembly may have opted for another location.
by Mark Summers
A RESIDENTS' group says that council tax payers will have to pay out £2.5m for the rental of an eco-friendly building that could have been the home of the North-East regional assembly.
Durham County Council is looking to rent part of a £5m offices and conference centre at Aykley Heads, a site near County Hall in Durham City, to ease an accommodation shortage for its staff.
The council had been looking at the Rivergreen development, designed to have a minimum impact on the environment, to house an elected assembly - but last year's referendum resulted in a no vote.
Last year, the council denied the assembly would be located in the 48,000sq ft building and said offices at County Hall had been selected.
But Brian Clouston, treasurer of the Durham-based Taxpayers' Alliance, which fielded candidates at the last county council elections, said he was told by a county official that use of the building by the assembly had been an option. Now the council is looking to lease 20,000sq ft for seven years to house its own employees.
Mr Clouston said the council would be paying £18 in rent and service charges per square foot, making a total bill of £2.5m.
He said the council - the cabinet will shortly make a decision on the issue - could find cheaper accommodation elsewhere.
"There are plenty of obsolete call centre buildings that would be suitable for council staff," he said.
A spokesman for the Labour-run authority said there was an acute shortage of office space at County Hall, made worse by the need to vacate part of the annexe building and recent storm damage.
"As a result, we are having to take immediate action to resolve the problem, including converting the former staff recreation block into offices and moving some employees into alternative "satellite" accommodation elsewhere in the county. Notwithstanding that, there is still a pressing need for additional space, and so we are to consider the long-standing option we have to lease office accommodation at the Rivergreen development."
He said the council's possible use of the development was nothing new and that it could have been a temporary headquarters for the assembly - although the assembly may have opted for another location.
The ugly side of UK poll
The electorate and observers are accusing the nation of perverting democracy in the run-up to the elections.
Whatever the outcome of the forthcoming British general election on May 5 – and the latest polls all indicate another thumping Labour Party majority – this is likely to be one of the most perverted and dishonest democratic experiences in British political history.
The UK prides itself as the cradle of democracy and takes credit for spreading this gospel across the English speaking world. Yet the media, the electorate and outside observers are all united in accusing it of perverting democracy in the most hideous of ways.
The rot was evident a year ago in the city of Birmingham where the misuse of postal ballots in local council elections led to the sacking of six Labour councillors.
The election commissioner described the existing system as “inviting fraud”, adding that vote rigging in Birmingham was so widespread it “would disgrace a banana republic”. In some city wards the vote went up by an astonishing and impossible 650 per cent, with all the votes going to the same six men, all of Asian origin and all Labour Party councillors.
Safe seats
Bizarrely, this fraud took place in safe seats where the leading candidates did not need to cheat in order to win. Yet they couldn’t resist the temptation of manipulating the results by manipulating the postal voting system immediately after it was introduced for the first time throughout the UK.
The comments of the election commissioner and the subsequent sentencing of the fraudsters has been hugely embarrassing for the Blair government, which acknowledges the limitations of postal voting. But rather than reforming the system, or doing away with it altogether, Mr Blair's advisers have decided to tackle the issue only after this coming week’s election. Their reluctance to take action means then system will be open to fraud in key constituencies where 40 to 50 per cent of voters are expected to use the postal ballot. Why are so many people applying for the postal vote? The reason is local party officials who prey upon the elderly, the unemployed and the vulnerable by offering them inducements to apply for the relevant voting form that is then filled in on their behalf. There is no verifiable proof that the signature at the bottom is valid.
Prime Minister Blair ensures that he does not come face to face with the electorate or the politicians. He achieves this by refusing to advertise in advance where he will be campaigning on any given day. Like all great dictators he hides behind the excuse that his security is the issue, and that he is not trying to avoid questions from hostile voters or acerbic members of the Press.
Loyal backers
Whatever the outcome of the forthcoming British general election on May 5 – and the latest polls all indicate another thumping Labour Party majority – this is likely to be one of the most perverted and dishonest democratic experiences in British political history.
The UK prides itself as the cradle of democracy and takes credit for spreading this gospel across the English speaking world. Yet the media, the electorate and outside observers are all united in accusing it of perverting democracy in the most hideous of ways.
The rot was evident a year ago in the city of Birmingham where the misuse of postal ballots in local council elections led to the sacking of six Labour councillors.
The election commissioner described the existing system as “inviting fraud”, adding that vote rigging in Birmingham was so widespread it “would disgrace a banana republic”. In some city wards the vote went up by an astonishing and impossible 650 per cent, with all the votes going to the same six men, all of Asian origin and all Labour Party councillors.
Safe seats
Bizarrely, this fraud took place in safe seats where the leading candidates did not need to cheat in order to win. Yet they couldn’t resist the temptation of manipulating the results by manipulating the postal voting system immediately after it was introduced for the first time throughout the UK.
The comments of the election commissioner and the subsequent sentencing of the fraudsters has been hugely embarrassing for the Blair government, which acknowledges the limitations of postal voting. But rather than reforming the system, or doing away with it altogether, Mr Blair's advisers have decided to tackle the issue only after this coming week’s election. Their reluctance to take action means then system will be open to fraud in key constituencies where 40 to 50 per cent of voters are expected to use the postal ballot. Why are so many people applying for the postal vote? The reason is local party officials who prey upon the elderly, the unemployed and the vulnerable by offering them inducements to apply for the relevant voting form that is then filled in on their behalf. There is no verifiable proof that the signature at the bottom is valid.
Prime Minister Blair ensures that he does not come face to face with the electorate or the politicians. He achieves this by refusing to advertise in advance where he will be campaigning on any given day. Like all great dictators he hides behind the excuse that his security is the issue, and that he is not trying to avoid questions from hostile voters or acerbic members of the Press.
Loyal backers
When Mr Blair turns up at some pre-arranged meeting place, the party makes sure that the crowd consists exclusively of loyal supporters who have been bussed in specially. For the most part they consist of canvassers in a particular constituency who are told not to bother putting leaflets through doors, but to turn up at the local town hall for a special event. From there they are taken to where Mr Blair will be present.
Labour's successful pre-election tactics are now being copied by Conservative opposition leader Michael Howard. What neither Mr Blair nor Mr Howard want is for their appearance at a school or a factory to be hijacked by the Press asking uncomfortable questions about the issue of the day.
Poll strategy
Analysts believe Mr Blair's tactics are modelled on those of US President George Bush whose own pre-election strategy was to avoid any possible ambush by hostile voters. Each audience before whom he appeared was allowed to be filmed, but no reporters were allowed to ask questions.
In the UK some journalists alerted by friends within the Labour Party have managed to get to a few key locations where Mr Blair is likely to be present. But they are faced with the same rent-a-crowd of loyalists who form a human shield between the Prime Minister and the Press. Sometimes there are literally 12 lines of people blocking direct access.
Labour also have what are called orchestrators. If a journalist from behind the room asks what is deemed an embarrassing question, Mr Blair pretends not to hear it and the orchestrator gets the crowd to start shouting “Tony Blair, four more years”.
The technique is incredibly sophisticated. This tactic has again been inspired by America. For ordinary voters denied the opportunity to debate real issues face to face with their rulers, the May 5 election has become the most flaccid, boring, non event in their country's political history. It is likely to result in the lowest ever turnout on polling day – less than 50 per cent – with Mr Blair and his party elected by only a few million voters. Years from now historians will conclude that this was the election in which ideas and principles were killed off by politicians who did not have the guts to stand up and defend what they believe.
Shyam Bhatia
in London
Evidence mounts of postal vote rigging
Evidence mounts of postal vote rigging
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
A LABOUR supporter in Birmingham has admitted receiving multiple postal votes after applying for ballots on behalf of neighbours and friends.
It is one of a number of cases that highlight the problems caused by the widespread use of postal voting for the first time in a general election.
Yesterday, when asked why nine votes were sent to his terraced home in the Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency, Mohammed Akram claimed he was helping four of his neighbours. “They can’t read or write English,” he said. “I’ll take it round and help them. I put my address there (on the application form) by mistake.”
However, two of the people whose votes have been sent to Akram’s address said they had no idea this had happened.
Zaida Khan, who speaks good English, said: “I’m not aware of that (that her vote had been redirected).” Maqsood Begum said she had planned to vote in person. She will now be barred from doing so.
Akram may have broken election rules by handling other people’s ballot papers. His case is further evidence of a failure to ensure that votes go to the right people.
The Sunday Times has collected evidence and allegations of a number of problems:
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
A LABOUR supporter in Birmingham has admitted receiving multiple postal votes after applying for ballots on behalf of neighbours and friends.
It is one of a number of cases that highlight the problems caused by the widespread use of postal voting for the first time in a general election.
Yesterday, when asked why nine votes were sent to his terraced home in the Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency, Mohammed Akram claimed he was helping four of his neighbours. “They can’t read or write English,” he said. “I’ll take it round and help them. I put my address there (on the application form) by mistake.”
However, two of the people whose votes have been sent to Akram’s address said they had no idea this had happened.
Zaida Khan, who speaks good English, said: “I’m not aware of that (that her vote had been redirected).” Maqsood Begum said she had planned to vote in person. She will now be barred from doing so.
Akram may have broken election rules by handling other people’s ballot papers. His case is further evidence of a failure to ensure that votes go to the right people.
The Sunday Times has collected evidence and allegations of a number of problems:
- In the Labour marginal seat of Finchley and Golders Green, London, voters have been sent two postal votes within days.
- In Glasgow, multiple postal votes have been sent to people not living at the addresses listed. It is alleged they were collected by party supporters.
- In Blackburn, the marginal constituency of Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, Labour party members have been accused of collecting postal ballots from a derelict property.
- In Bethnal Green and Bow, London, people claimed they had been sent postal ballots without requesting them.
Yesterday, Liam Fox, the Conservative party co-chairman, accused Labour of trading away the integrity of the electoral system in pursuit of victory. “Their casual acceptance of the corruption of Britain’s electoral practices stands as a monument to the new Labour project,” he said.
Over the past month, political parties have rushed to sign up supporters to vote by post and more than 6.5m people have received postal ballots. However, checks are negligible and yesterday election monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe began scrutinising the voting system — the first time for a British general election.
In Birmingham, where several Labour councillors were recently convicted of electoral fraud, Ardem Yusuf, a charity worker, said: “You will have a household where the man of the house will vote for everyone.”
In Blackburn, Straw’s Liberal Democrat rival, Tony Melia, has made a formal complaint. “I’ve already had two people complaining to me about certain Labour people asking them to hand over postal votes. Postal vote rigging is happening here,” he said.
There is likely to be an unprecedented number of legal actions challenging the results of Thursday’s election with losing candidates alleging impropriety and fraud.
Yesterday one voter in Charles Clarke’s constituency in Norwich claimed that he had been sent 14 ballot papers — three each for him and his wife at their current address, two each at their previous address, and four for the previous residents of their home. Kevin Kyle, a mortgage adviser, said: “The system is a farce.”
Additional reporting: Abul Taher, Sarah Keenlyside, Chris Whyatt and Holly Watt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
