Transport Committee
Dr John Patterson
Clerk of the Committee
Transport Committee
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1P 3JA
mail to: transcom@parliament.uk
Submission by Neil Herron on behalf of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
30th September 2005
Transport Committee
Current effectiveness of Parking Provision & Enforcement Policy
I wish to make the following submission to the Committee but I also wish to make a formal request that further, more substantive evidence, either written or oral, may be submitted after the date October 3rd 2005.
The reason it will be necessary to do so as there are allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance and possibly more serious offences involving decriminalized parking enforcement in a number of local authority areas currently in the process of being uncovered. There are also serious concerns and possible legal action involving the National Parking Adjudication Service. The outcome of both of these will have fundamental and serious implications for the future of decriminalized parking enforcement across the country.
There is currently a serious internal and external investigation being conducted into the legitimacy of Sunderland City Council’s D.P.E. There has already been an admission by the City Council that over 20,000 pounds has been collected unlawfully from motorists with more to follow;.
1.Accrington Council have also been forced to repay monies to motorists who have received unlawful PCN's
2.More evidence is being uncovered in other local authorities arising from incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders or misinterpreting or misunderstanding the legislative requirements with regard to DPE.
The implications of legal action being taken in areas across the country must be fundamental to the Transport Committee’s understanding of the serious concerns that are being raised with regard to DPE and the perception by the motorist of DPE´s legitimacy.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 vs Road Traffic Act 1991
The first series of problems arises because of the inequitous situation across the country whereby parking restrictions are enforced under two different pieces of legislation. The motorist does not generally become aware of this inequity until he has received a ticket...ie. after having committed an ‘offence’ (under the 1984 RTRA ) or a ‘contravention’ (under the 1991 RTA).
Surely this is fundamental principle. The consequences of this do not appear to have been addressed.
For laws to be accepted and understood by society at large, they need to be seen as clear, fair and just. However, with the case of parking offences, it is the case that access to justice for an alleged offender is potentially totally different in two neighbouring local authority areas. This is purely dependent on which parking enforcement regime a Local Authority is operating.
One enforcement regime, operating under the RTRA 1984, results in an appeal process which allows access to a magistrates court. The other, operating under the RTA 1991, does not allow access to a court of law but to an 'independent' tribunal.
Under the 1984 Act it is the driver who is responsible for the offence.
Under the 1991 Act it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the contravention. Hardly fair, just, transparent or acceptable and not apparent to the motorist until he receives a ticket.
We have actual cases ready to cite as examples of injustice.
Therefore, surely the best legislative provision would be to have one national parking law to ensure fairness, transparency and acceptance rather than the situation at present, where under the RTA 1984 the system has the necessary common law checks and balances yet the system operating under the 1991 RTA simply perceived by the public as a ‘revenue raiser’ with Local Authority’s simply incentivised by profit and no access to justice for the motorist.
A simple question to ask is… “As the number of PCN’s has exponentially increased have the towns and cities become clearer of traffic?”
If the DPE enforcement system works then the number of contraventions should decrease as funded alternatives increase.
This is not the case and there appears to be no evidence to support this, but the revenue raised from a more draconian enforcement regime seems to be the main driver, not the necessity to create a fairer parking enforcement regime for local businesses, customers and residents.
Legitimacy of DPE / Bill of Rights 1689
For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice ( 04 / 2005 – 06, 9 August 2005 ) refers to ‘parking fines’.
There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an ‘excess charge’ or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.
Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following...
As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’
There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states;
“ That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void.”
This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the the case Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):
62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...
63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002.
I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.
It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.
The Sunderland City Council Investigation
A specific case which has ‘implications’ for all other DPE’s across the country. The submission or application to the Department for Transport for approval by the Secretary of State to create the Special Parking Area to allow Sunderland City Council to create a DPE simply gave ‘reassurances’ that all necessary signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders would be in place when the DPE was to commence. If it is proved not to be the case and that the Secretary of State was misled into granting an SPA creating a DPE then there are very serious implications indeed as over 60,000 PCNs will have been issued unlawfully.
The investigation is ongoing but there has already been an admission to unlawfully receiving over £20,000 from PCN’s issued under non-existant TRO’s and the allegation is that none of the TRO’s are ‘in force’ thereby meaning every PCN issued has been done so unlawfully.
There appears to have been no checks by either the DfT or the Secretary of State regarding the substance of claims made by any applicant to have valid and accurate signage and TROs.
Evidence is coming to light of many other similar situations by other Local Authorities. It is in light of this that I stress the need for further, more detailed submissions to the Committee involving citing specific cases in detail.
NPAS (National Parking Adjudication Service)
Again, there is an ongoing investigation in relation to this body. It involves complaints to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Law Society.
NPAS is representing itself as a ‘ Court of Law ‘ on its website yet when questioned in writing it confirms it is not a court of law, but a tribunal.
However, the main concern is that NPAS is not ‘independent’ as it is scrutinised by a Joint Committee (comprising appointed members from participating LA’s ) and is funded solely by 60p per PCN issued.
There is no right of appeal except on a point of law.
If NPAS is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights
In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, paragraph 23, and the case-law there cited, and Case C-516/99 Schmid [2002] ECR I-4573, paragraph 34).
Under the Court’s case-law, an arbitration tribunal is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ Deutsche Hochseefischerei [1982] ECR 1095, paragraphs 10 to 12, and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss [1999] ECR I-3055, paragraph 34).
Therefore because of the rights of the individual are being removed in the name of parking ‘efficiency’ then the resistance to DPE will grow and as more and more motorists realise the illegitimacy of the whole operation and begin to challenge and clog the system then it will collapse under its own bureaucratic burden.
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Friday, September 30, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Department of Constitutional Affairs......Nothing to do with us Guv
Department of Constitutional Affairs....Nothing to do with us Guv
What needs to be bourne in mind is that Paul Stockton appears to be one of the Government Tribunal Policy Makers!!
To: paul.stockton@dca.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS)
Dear Mr. Stockton,
Please find below a copy of an e-mail sent to the Law Society.
My concerns are that the National Parking Adjudication Service is misrepresenting its position which is obviously a very serious matter. The video clip referred to can be viewed here
I would be grateful if you could clarify a number of points in the first instance:
1. Is NPAS a Court of Law?
2. Would the Department of Constitutional Affairs consider NPAS to be independent in light of the fact that it is solely funded at the rate of 60p per ticket issued by participating Local Authorities?
3. Can you clarify who was responsible for creating NPAS?
4. Can you clarify which body is responsible for monitoring and regulating the behaviour of NPAS?
5. Can you please provide me with DCA's clarification of what is meant by the terms 'Court of Law' and 'Tribunal' and define the roles, powers, jurisdiction and responsibilities of each?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Tel. 0191 565 7143
By e-mail
mailto:enquiries@lawsociety.org.uk
enquiries@lawsociety.org.uk
The Law Society
13 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1PL
Dear Sir / Madam,
Following on from my telephone calls today with Christopher Dehame and
Mandy Verdee of the Law Society helpline, who were both very helpful, I would like to initiate a formal complaint against the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) which I believe will require investigation by the Law Society. I believe that NPAS are misrepresenting their position and misleading the public. Concerns were first raised following my complaint as to the legality of Sunderland City Council's parking regime operated under the 1991 Road Traffic Act. I was told that there was a 'right of appeal' to an 'independent' parking adjudicator. To keep the complaint brief:
1. NPAS claim to be independent yet are funded by participating Local Authorities at the rate of 60p per ticket. They receive no other funding.
It is misleading therefore to claim to be independent.
2. In the <http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/welcomeEN.asp video clip the woman states, " My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator...I am a solicitor and I am completely independent...I have no connection whatsoever with the Local Authority."
Calls to the Law Society showed Christopher Dehame could find no record of a solicitor by this name. However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs confirms that Sian Cole was admitted on 1st 0ctober 1987. Can you now confirm that this is the case?
There is an obvious connection between the Local Authority and the adjudicator because of the funding aspect as mentioned in 1 and therefore serious doubts as to whether the tribunal can call itself independent.
3. Again in the video clip (viewed on this <http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/welcomeEN.asp> link) she also claims that the hearing is a 'court of law.' She states, "This is in fact a Court of Law and as such I expect you to tell the truth..."
They are very clearly not a court of law. Can you confirm if it is an offence to make such a claim? I have evidence from NPAS which confirms that they are not a court of law but merely a tribunal.
I have a great deal more documentary evidence which can be made available including NPAS sharing advice and opinion with Local Authorities.
I would be grateful therefore if you could confirm that the Law Society will investigate this complaint and keep me fully informed as to your findings.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Reply from Paul Stockton
Dear Mr Herron
1. There is no fixed definition of what constitutes a "court of law"
2. It's not for us to say. NPAS has been established under an Act of Parliament. As part of the governemtn's tribunal reform programme there will be a review of local authority-based tribunals but the timescale for that review has not yet been established.
3. Sorry but we don't know enough about NPAS to be able to answer this.
4. NPAS is subject to the oversight of the Council on Tribunals.
5. There is no standard definition of either "court of law" or "tribunal". There is some overlap between the two concepts - eg some tribunals are by statute courts of record. Roles, powers etc are defined by statute for both courts and tribunals.
Yours sincerely
Paul Stockton
paul.stockton@dca.gsi.gov.uk
What needs to be bourne in mind is that Paul Stockton appears to be one of the Government Tribunal Policy Makers!!
To: paul.stockton@dca.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS)
Dear Mr. Stockton,
Please find below a copy of an e-mail sent to the Law Society.
My concerns are that the National Parking Adjudication Service is misrepresenting its position which is obviously a very serious matter. The video clip referred to can be viewed here
I would be grateful if you could clarify a number of points in the first instance:
1. Is NPAS a Court of Law?
2. Would the Department of Constitutional Affairs consider NPAS to be independent in light of the fact that it is solely funded at the rate of 60p per ticket issued by participating Local Authorities?
3. Can you clarify who was responsible for creating NPAS?
4. Can you clarify which body is responsible for monitoring and regulating the behaviour of NPAS?
5. Can you please provide me with DCA's clarification of what is meant by the terms 'Court of Law' and 'Tribunal' and define the roles, powers, jurisdiction and responsibilities of each?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Tel. 0191 565 7143
By e-mail
mailto:enquiries@lawsociety.org.uk
enquiries@lawsociety.org.uk
The Law Society
13 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1PL
Dear Sir / Madam,
Following on from my telephone calls today with Christopher Dehame and
Mandy Verdee of the Law Society helpline, who were both very helpful, I would like to initiate a formal complaint against the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) which I believe will require investigation by the Law Society. I believe that NPAS are misrepresenting their position and misleading the public. Concerns were first raised following my complaint as to the legality of Sunderland City Council's parking regime operated under the 1991 Road Traffic Act. I was told that there was a 'right of appeal' to an 'independent' parking adjudicator. To keep the complaint brief:
1. NPAS claim to be independent yet are funded by participating Local Authorities at the rate of 60p per ticket. They receive no other funding.
It is misleading therefore to claim to be independent.
2. In the <http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/welcomeEN.asp video clip the woman states, " My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator...I am a solicitor and I am completely independent...I have no connection whatsoever with the Local Authority."
Calls to the Law Society showed Christopher Dehame could find no record of a solicitor by this name. However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs confirms that Sian Cole was admitted on 1st 0ctober 1987. Can you now confirm that this is the case?
There is an obvious connection between the Local Authority and the adjudicator because of the funding aspect as mentioned in 1 and therefore serious doubts as to whether the tribunal can call itself independent.
3. Again in the video clip (viewed on this <http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/welcomeEN.asp> link) she also claims that the hearing is a 'court of law.' She states, "This is in fact a Court of Law and as such I expect you to tell the truth..."
They are very clearly not a court of law. Can you confirm if it is an offence to make such a claim? I have evidence from NPAS which confirms that they are not a court of law but merely a tribunal.
I have a great deal more documentary evidence which can be made available including NPAS sharing advice and opinion with Local Authorities.
I would be grateful therefore if you could confirm that the Law Society will investigate this complaint and keep me fully informed as to your findings.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Reply from Paul Stockton
Dear Mr Herron
1. There is no fixed definition of what constitutes a "court of law"
2. It's not for us to say. NPAS has been established under an Act of Parliament. As part of the governemtn's tribunal reform programme there will be a review of local authority-based tribunals but the timescale for that review has not yet been established.
3. Sorry but we don't know enough about NPAS to be able to answer this.
4. NPAS is subject to the oversight of the Council on Tribunals.
5. There is no standard definition of either "court of law" or "tribunal". There is some overlap between the two concepts - eg some tribunals are by statute courts of record. Roles, powers etc are defined by statute for both courts and tribunals.
Yours sincerely
Paul Stockton
paul.stockton@dca.gsi.gov.uk
Saturday, September 24, 2005
EU Flag? ...Not here...Second Front Page of the Day
Northern Echo
Saturday 24th September 2005
Fly the European flag? EU can't do that...
by Dan King
A COUNCIL has been forced to take down a flag outside its headquarters - after learning that it was illegal.
And now councillors in Wear Valley face the embarrassment of meeting to decide whether they can grant permission for the European Union flag to be returned.
The council has had the flag on display for several years at its Crook Civic Centre base in County Durham, but yesterday replaced it with a St George's cross after the error was flagged up.
Local crusader Jim Tague made a request under the Freedom of Information Act as to whether the council had the correct permission.
Government rules state that, although national flags can be displayed, flags for political projects can not, due to laws on spending taxpayers' money to promote one side of a debate above another.
Mr Tague said: "My question was, prove to me that the EU is a nation state, or produce the planning documents. They could do neither.
"They will have to very careful about putting it back up.
"I don't think you'll find one Englishman in this country who wants the EU flag to be flown ahead of our own."
Anti-European campaigner Neil Herron, from Sunderland, said it was a victory for campaigners opposed to European constitution and said it would set a precedent.
He said: "It isn't a flag of a nation state - it is the flag of a political project. I object to the flying of an advertisement for an unaccountable, corrupt body."
A spokesman for Wear Valley District Council said: "We are looking to get it put back up again - with the appropriate permission."
Saturday 24th September 2005
Fly the European flag? EU can't do that...
by Dan King
A COUNCIL has been forced to take down a flag outside its headquarters - after learning that it was illegal.
And now councillors in Wear Valley face the embarrassment of meeting to decide whether they can grant permission for the European Union flag to be returned.
The council has had the flag on display for several years at its Crook Civic Centre base in County Durham, but yesterday replaced it with a St George's cross after the error was flagged up.
Local crusader Jim Tague made a request under the Freedom of Information Act as to whether the council had the correct permission.
Government rules state that, although national flags can be displayed, flags for political projects can not, due to laws on spending taxpayers' money to promote one side of a debate above another.
Mr Tague said: "My question was, prove to me that the EU is a nation state, or produce the planning documents. They could do neither.
"They will have to very careful about putting it back up.
"I don't think you'll find one Englishman in this country who wants the EU flag to be flown ahead of our own."
Anti-European campaigner Neil Herron, from Sunderland, said it was a victory for campaigners opposed to European constitution and said it would set a precedent.
He said: "It isn't a flag of a nation state - it is the flag of a political project. I object to the flying of an advertisement for an unaccountable, corrupt body."
A spokesman for Wear Valley District Council said: "We are looking to get it put back up again - with the appropriate permission."
Another Parking Ticket Victory...Another Front Page
Lancashire Evening Telegraph
Saturday 24th September
Parking tickets blunder
DOZENS of motorists have been illegally issued with tickets after council bosses failed to update old parking laws.
Blackburn with Darwen council chiefs are facing the prospect of having to repay £3,180 in fines which have been issued incorrectly since last October.
The authority only realised it was breaching a ruling made by the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) in April 2003 after being informed by the Lancashire Evening Telegraph.
It has now admitted that 53 Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) issued to motorists for parking in Hackney Carriage bays in the last year were illegal.
Now an opposition councillor has demanded that the council repays the £60 fines and reviews all its Traffic Regulation Orders to ensure no other parking fines have been collected illegally.
Decriminalised parking enforcement, which was introduced in the borough in October 2004, is administered in Blackburn and Darwen by Capita, the private firm which runs dozens of the council's administrative services.
However, the council continued to use a Traffic Regulation Order under the Local Government Act 1976 instead of re-issuing it under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
Campaigner Neil Herron, who successfully got thousands of parking fines overturned when he discovered a legal blunder in Sunderland's parking bylaws, said the cases may be the tip of the iceberg across the UK.
But the council today said it was confident that all its other parking regulations were correctly issued.
Mr Herron said: "This throws into question the whole legality of Blackburn with Darwen's council's parking regime.
"They have taken £3,180 that they shouldn't have and this is not the way for a council to be running the borough.
"They are displaying an utter arrogance and must realise that they have a duty to give that money back.
"That money is an item of unlawful income and if it has entered their accounts, they could be guilty of false accounting.
"How many more motorists would have received illegally issued tickets had the Lancashire Evening Telegraph not highlighted this issue?
"What has been unleashed across the country with private companies running parking regimes for profit is just resentment from city traders, businesses and members of the public."
Earlier this month MPs on the Commons Transport Committee announced that they would be looking into the "legitimacy" of parking schemes this autumn.
A third of all councils operate decriminalised parking schemes and the total sum raised from parking fines in 2004 was over £1billion.
Coun Andy Kay, executive member for regeneration, said: "As soon as we were aware of the NPAS ruling we stopped enforcing on Hackney Carriage bays.
"In the meantime, whilst we are now in the process of changing the traffic orders to allow us to enforce in future we will take into account the NPAS ruling should we receive an appeal from anyone penalised under this code."
Conservative councillor for Wensley Fold, Paul McGurty, said: "It comes as no surprise that we yet again see this council making a complete hash of the parking scheme.
"It beggars belief that Coun Kay refuses to go over records in order to return money taken from drivers illegally -- even though he knows that 53 have been issued and therefore must know the details of the drivers.
"It is simply not good enough to say if someone appeals we will refund their money and we must review the whole system to ensure this does not happen again."
o The National Parking Adjudication Service is an independent tribunal which considers appeals by motorists whose vehicles have been issued with council Penalty Charge Notices. It ruled against Thanet District Council over a ticket given to a motorist on a taxi stand.
Saturday 24th September
Parking tickets blunder
DOZENS of motorists have been illegally issued with tickets after council bosses failed to update old parking laws.
Blackburn with Darwen council chiefs are facing the prospect of having to repay £3,180 in fines which have been issued incorrectly since last October.
The authority only realised it was breaching a ruling made by the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) in April 2003 after being informed by the Lancashire Evening Telegraph.
It has now admitted that 53 Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) issued to motorists for parking in Hackney Carriage bays in the last year were illegal.
Now an opposition councillor has demanded that the council repays the £60 fines and reviews all its Traffic Regulation Orders to ensure no other parking fines have been collected illegally.
Decriminalised parking enforcement, which was introduced in the borough in October 2004, is administered in Blackburn and Darwen by Capita, the private firm which runs dozens of the council's administrative services.
However, the council continued to use a Traffic Regulation Order under the Local Government Act 1976 instead of re-issuing it under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
Campaigner Neil Herron, who successfully got thousands of parking fines overturned when he discovered a legal blunder in Sunderland's parking bylaws, said the cases may be the tip of the iceberg across the UK.
But the council today said it was confident that all its other parking regulations were correctly issued.
Mr Herron said: "This throws into question the whole legality of Blackburn with Darwen's council's parking regime.
"They have taken £3,180 that they shouldn't have and this is not the way for a council to be running the borough.
"They are displaying an utter arrogance and must realise that they have a duty to give that money back.
"That money is an item of unlawful income and if it has entered their accounts, they could be guilty of false accounting.
"How many more motorists would have received illegally issued tickets had the Lancashire Evening Telegraph not highlighted this issue?
"What has been unleashed across the country with private companies running parking regimes for profit is just resentment from city traders, businesses and members of the public."
Earlier this month MPs on the Commons Transport Committee announced that they would be looking into the "legitimacy" of parking schemes this autumn.
A third of all councils operate decriminalised parking schemes and the total sum raised from parking fines in 2004 was over £1billion.
Coun Andy Kay, executive member for regeneration, said: "As soon as we were aware of the NPAS ruling we stopped enforcing on Hackney Carriage bays.
"In the meantime, whilst we are now in the process of changing the traffic orders to allow us to enforce in future we will take into account the NPAS ruling should we receive an appeal from anyone penalised under this code."
Conservative councillor for Wensley Fold, Paul McGurty, said: "It comes as no surprise that we yet again see this council making a complete hash of the parking scheme.
"It beggars belief that Coun Kay refuses to go over records in order to return money taken from drivers illegally -- even though he knows that 53 have been issued and therefore must know the details of the drivers.
"It is simply not good enough to say if someone appeals we will refund their money and we must review the whole system to ensure this does not happen again."
o The National Parking Adjudication Service is an independent tribunal which considers appeals by motorists whose vehicles have been issued with council Penalty Charge Notices. It ruled against Thanet District Council over a ticket given to a motorist on a taxi stand.
Friday, September 23, 2005
First the Ashes...Now EU Beaten...Another Victory for England
Press ReleaseThe People's No Campaign
23rd September 2005
First the Ashes...now another Victory for England
(Campaigners force Council to remove EU Flag)
Wear Valley District Council has been long flying the EU flag outside its council offices. Its Leader, Olive Brown is a representative on the EU's Committee of the Regions. Neil Herron and Bishop Auckland and Wear Valley District Council resident resident, Jim Tague, decided action needed to be taken against this blatant attempt to promote the EU.
The Regulations for the flying of flags is controlled by the Department of Culture Media and Sport. The flying of flags other than the Union flag is regulated by the Town and Country Planning Act 1992 Regulations on the display of Advertisements.
As the European Union is a political project a Local Authority will also be in contravention of Section 19 of the Local Authority Guidelines on Publicity...ie. you cannot use public money to attempt to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a political matter.
So, any Local Authority flying an EU flag must be asked politiely to remove it as they will not have planning permission and are in breach of the Section 19 guidelines.
The request for an explanation as to whether WVDC had planning permission to fly the EU flag was made by Jim a couple of weeks ago and yesterday WVDC confirmed that they had no authority or permission to fly the flag.
This morning the Cross of St. George had been hoist on the flagpole in place of the EU flag.
Neil Herron states: "It is not acceptable for any Local Authority to be promoting the EU... a corrupt, undemocratic, unaccountable, profligate bureaucracy. The EU is a political project and cannot be promoted using taxpayers money. Flying a flag amounts to blatant propaganda. Within twelve months we will ensure that no EU flag will be flying from any public building in this country.Well done to Jim Tague for bringing the matter to a speedy conclusion."
We now expect every other Council across the country to start obeying the law and remove any EU flags from public buildings.
ENDS
Contact:
Neil Herron
Office: 0191 565 7143
Mobile: 07776 202045
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Eleanor Sharpston QC...You be the Judge
Quel surprise!
The Government has nominated Ms Eleanor Sharpston QC to replace Advocate General Francis Jacobs, who will retire at the end of December from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Ms Sharpston’s nomination, which follows an open competition for the post, is the UK's first female nomination to the European Court of Justice. Ms Sharpston's nomination requires the approval by common accord of the Governments of all the Member States.
If approved, it is expected that Ms Sharpston would take up her duties in January 2006.
Ms. Sharpston QC is well remembered for being prosecuting Counsel in the Metric Martyr's case. It is quite clear now why she was chosen.
All was not perfect however, as she forgot to apply for costs for Sunderland City Council in the first hearing at Sunderland Magistrates Court and waited to do so in the Court of Appeal. Her request was denied by Lord Justice Laws who stated that she should have been aware that the order should have been made in the court below. The costs were £65,000 + vat...paid for by the unsuspecting ratepayers of Sunderland!
Despite that however, LJ Laws was not that compassionate with the costs from the administrative court. He stated that yes, the case was of public interest, and yes, the men were of limited means...then hit them with an order for costs of over £100,000.
More recently, the same Ms. Sharpston has provided another legal opinion for Sunderland City Council which stands the verdict and logic of Justice Laws in the Metric case SHE WON on its head...stating that the Road Traffic Act 1991 was express in its intent (LJ Laws said any ordinary Act must 'expressly repeal' the Bill of Rights...not the same. The 1985 Weights and Measures Act was express in its intent...but did not expressly repeal the relevant section of the 1972 European Communities Act, described by Laws as a 'constitutional statute.')
The opinion by Sharpston is that upon which Sunderland Council justifies the continued use of its decriminalised parking regime and its unlawful issuing of parking fines.
It appears as though Ms Sharpston is prepared to give such assistance to Sunderland City Council in a desperate attempt to avoid the conflict which would arise from the 'Metric Martyrs' Judgment being declared unsafe.
The Government has nominated Ms Eleanor Sharpston QC to replace Advocate General Francis Jacobs, who will retire at the end of December from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Ms Sharpston’s nomination, which follows an open competition for the post, is the UK's first female nomination to the European Court of Justice. Ms Sharpston's nomination requires the approval by common accord of the Governments of all the Member States.
If approved, it is expected that Ms Sharpston would take up her duties in January 2006.
Ms. Sharpston QC is well remembered for being prosecuting Counsel in the Metric Martyr's case. It is quite clear now why she was chosen.
All was not perfect however, as she forgot to apply for costs for Sunderland City Council in the first hearing at Sunderland Magistrates Court and waited to do so in the Court of Appeal. Her request was denied by Lord Justice Laws who stated that she should have been aware that the order should have been made in the court below. The costs were £65,000 + vat...paid for by the unsuspecting ratepayers of Sunderland!
Despite that however, LJ Laws was not that compassionate with the costs from the administrative court. He stated that yes, the case was of public interest, and yes, the men were of limited means...then hit them with an order for costs of over £100,000.
More recently, the same Ms. Sharpston has provided another legal opinion for Sunderland City Council which stands the verdict and logic of Justice Laws in the Metric case SHE WON on its head...stating that the Road Traffic Act 1991 was express in its intent (LJ Laws said any ordinary Act must 'expressly repeal' the Bill of Rights...not the same. The 1985 Weights and Measures Act was express in its intent...but did not expressly repeal the relevant section of the 1972 European Communities Act, described by Laws as a 'constitutional statute.')
The opinion by Sharpston is that upon which Sunderland Council justifies the continued use of its decriminalised parking regime and its unlawful issuing of parking fines.
It appears as though Ms Sharpston is prepared to give such assistance to Sunderland City Council in a desperate attempt to avoid the conflict which would arise from the 'Metric Martyrs' Judgment being declared unsafe.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Lib Dems agree with Herron
Press Release
North East No Campaign
Tuesday 20th September 2005
Sunderland Campaigner supports Newcastle Leader..."Lead the Way Peter."
Today's Newcastle Journal (page 8) reports that Newcastle City Council Leader has branded the North East Assembly, "boring, invisible and a waste of money."
The No Campaign welcomes this statement as it confirms what we said before the referendum and confirms now the politicians are waking up to the fact that it wasn't just the public that were duped.
For once it appears that Sunderland and Newcastle are in harmony with Sunderland campaigner Neil Herron supporting the Liberal Democrat Leader of Newcastle City Council's statement.
However, rhetoric needs to be followed by action.
Neil Herron states, "Following statements by Newcastle City Council Leader, Peter Arnold that the North East Assembly is a 'waste of time and money,' we expect him now to terminate Newcastle City Council's membership of this organisation forthwith to avoid him being labelled a hypocrite. Not a penny more of ratepayers money must be paid to this unwanted, unelected Assembly.
The Assembly has limped along trying to justify its existence after suffering the emphatic rejection last November...but now the game's up. We expect Newcastle Council to also terminate the North East Assembly's lease (which is on 'very favourable terms') on their HQ, the Guildhall Building situated on the Newcastle Quayside and get a fair market rent for a building in such a prestigious location. So, come on Mr. Arnold, take the first step in restoring the public's faith in politicians by converting your rhetoric into action."
"However, the serious implications for all the councillors from all the local authorities who have sat on the North East Assembly is that, because it is an 'unincorporated association' and not a public body, it is the members who will be 'jointly and severally liable' for fulfilling the contracts (including those of the employed staff) which have been entered into.
This whole ill thought out and ill conceived plan by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is sinking beneath the waves...but who else will go down with the ship?"
Contact:
Neil Herron Campaign Director (North East No Campaign)
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
http://www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk/
North East No Campaign
Tuesday 20th September 2005
Sunderland Campaigner supports Newcastle Leader..."Lead the Way Peter."
Today's Newcastle Journal (page 8) reports that Newcastle City Council Leader has branded the North East Assembly, "boring, invisible and a waste of money."
The No Campaign welcomes this statement as it confirms what we said before the referendum and confirms now the politicians are waking up to the fact that it wasn't just the public that were duped.
For once it appears that Sunderland and Newcastle are in harmony with Sunderland campaigner Neil Herron supporting the Liberal Democrat Leader of Newcastle City Council's statement.
However, rhetoric needs to be followed by action.
Neil Herron states, "Following statements by Newcastle City Council Leader, Peter Arnold that the North East Assembly is a 'waste of time and money,' we expect him now to terminate Newcastle City Council's membership of this organisation forthwith to avoid him being labelled a hypocrite. Not a penny more of ratepayers money must be paid to this unwanted, unelected Assembly.
The Assembly has limped along trying to justify its existence after suffering the emphatic rejection last November...but now the game's up. We expect Newcastle Council to also terminate the North East Assembly's lease (which is on 'very favourable terms') on their HQ, the Guildhall Building situated on the Newcastle Quayside and get a fair market rent for a building in such a prestigious location. So, come on Mr. Arnold, take the first step in restoring the public's faith in politicians by converting your rhetoric into action."
"However, the serious implications for all the councillors from all the local authorities who have sat on the North East Assembly is that, because it is an 'unincorporated association' and not a public body, it is the members who will be 'jointly and severally liable' for fulfilling the contracts (including those of the employed staff) which have been entered into.
This whole ill thought out and ill conceived plan by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is sinking beneath the waves...but who else will go down with the ship?"
Contact:
Neil Herron Campaign Director (North East No Campaign)
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
http://www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk/
NPAS wriggles and squirms
Read the questions put to NPAS here
And read their response here. However, one statement which must be held while you do so is the statement from Paul Griffiths, Service Development Officer, in correspondence dated 14th June 2005. "the National Parking Adjudication Service is not a Court of Law but an Independent Tribunal"
Read the letter from NPAS here
And read their response here. However, one statement which must be held while you do so is the statement from Paul Griffiths, Service Development Officer, in correspondence dated 14th June 2005. "the National Parking Adjudication Service is not a Court of Law but an Independent Tribunal"
Read the letter from NPAS here
Monday, September 19, 2005
NPAS under more pressure
NPAS under more pressure from Motoring Organisation
Dear Neil,
Just a quick note to let you know in the lights of the NPAS ruling on the bill of rights and their impartiality'
I have sent a letter to the body that is supposed to oversee them, The Council on Tribunals, and conduct investigations into their conduct I have redone the letter below for you. http://www.council-on-tribunals.gov.uk
Whether they actually do anything is another matter all together
Motorists Against Persecution www.map.gbol.org
September 19, 2005
The Council on Tribunals
81 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1BQ
Dear Sir or Madam:
I wish to make a complaint/inquiry regarding the conduct/status of theNational Parking Adjudication Service.
The points are as follows;
1. On there website they make the astonishing claim that they are acourt of law. I do not believe this to be true. In this respect they are grossly misleadign the public
2. They also claim to be an independent body and say that they are not connected with any local authorities. However they are funded by the local authorities and receive money from parking tickets issued. Also they are to report to the joint committee, this committee is made up of representatives from the local councils in its area. Upon investigation they do not receive any other form of funding from any government body at all and rely entirely on money raised from the number of tickets issued, therefore I would submit that they have a vested interest in seeing decriminalised parking schemes work and not be undermined.
3. NPAS made a decision on the Bill of Rights Act 1689. How did they manage to do this? The Bill of Rights is a constitutional act that provides rights between the people and the state. I hold the opinion that only a senior High Court Judge/Law Lord should make the ruling in such a case. I believe that, when faced with a challenge of this gravity, the adjudicator should have adjourned the hearing and told the appellant to seek clarification from the High Court on the matter. For reference the case number for NPAS is SF272.
We do have a lot more evidence on this matter and would be happy to submitit if required.
Sincerely,
Mr X XXX
Dear Neil,
Just a quick note to let you know in the lights of the NPAS ruling on the bill of rights and their impartiality'
I have sent a letter to the body that is supposed to oversee them, The Council on Tribunals, and conduct investigations into their conduct I have redone the letter below for you. http://www.council-on-tribunals.gov.uk
Whether they actually do anything is another matter all together
Motorists Against Persecution www.map.gbol.org
September 19, 2005
The Council on Tribunals
81 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1BQ
Dear Sir or Madam:
I wish to make a complaint/inquiry regarding the conduct/status of theNational Parking Adjudication Service.
The points are as follows;
1. On there website they make the astonishing claim that they are acourt of law. I do not believe this to be true. In this respect they are grossly misleadign the public
2. They also claim to be an independent body and say that they are not connected with any local authorities. However they are funded by the local authorities and receive money from parking tickets issued. Also they are to report to the joint committee, this committee is made up of representatives from the local councils in its area. Upon investigation they do not receive any other form of funding from any government body at all and rely entirely on money raised from the number of tickets issued, therefore I would submit that they have a vested interest in seeing decriminalised parking schemes work and not be undermined.
3. NPAS made a decision on the Bill of Rights Act 1689. How did they manage to do this? The Bill of Rights is a constitutional act that provides rights between the people and the state. I hold the opinion that only a senior High Court Judge/Law Lord should make the ruling in such a case. I believe that, when faced with a challenge of this gravity, the adjudicator should have adjourned the hearing and told the appellant to seek clarification from the High Court on the matter. For reference the case number for NPAS is SF272.
We do have a lot more evidence on this matter and would be happy to submitit if required.
Sincerely,
Mr X XXX
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Constitutional Storm Clouds Gather over Sunderland
Christopher Booker's Notebook
Sunday Telegraph
18th September 2005
Labour assault on constitution
Ministers are said to be so alarmed by the latest twist in the row over the legality of automatic penalties - the billions of pounds raised each year by parking fines, penalties for late tax returns and so forth - that they are considering emergency legislation.
This extraordinary story began with a ruling by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case that certain Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights Act 1689, are "constitutional statutes" which cannot be overridden by subsequent legislation, unless this is made "expressly clear". It was on this point that the judge decided that the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steve Thoburn, should be found guilty.
But a central provision of the Bill of Rights is that no one can be fined except by the judgment of a court. For more than a year therefore, Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaign director, has been questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. Their only appeal is to the National Parking Adjudication Service, which is run on behalf of and financed by the councils involved, and which is anyway on record denying that it is a court of law.
Sunderland city council -which originally seized Mr Thoburn's scales - had so many motorists using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of these automatic penalties that it sought legal advice. Eleanor Sharpston QC said that, since it was the intention of the 1991 Act that the Bill of Rights should be set aside, the penalties are legal.
Here, however, Miss Sharpston is impaled on a hook, because it was she who represented Sunderland in the metric case, which she only won because of Laws's ruling; and Laws was unequivocal in saying that the Bill of Rights can only be overridden where Parliament makes this "expressly clear".
The 1991 Act does nothing of the kind. The only way Miss Sharpston can defend her latest opinion is by rejecting the very ruling that won her the case. If she is right, the Metric Martyrs' case should be quashed.
So many people are using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of automatic penalties - HM Customs has backed down more than once over refusal to pay surcharges for late VAT returns - that, according to Birmingham city council last week, Government lawyers are considering emergency legislation to override the Bill of Rights.
But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo.
When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.
Sunday Telegraph
18th September 2005
Labour assault on constitution
Ministers are said to be so alarmed by the latest twist in the row over the legality of automatic penalties - the billions of pounds raised each year by parking fines, penalties for late tax returns and so forth - that they are considering emergency legislation.
This extraordinary story began with a ruling by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case that certain Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights Act 1689, are "constitutional statutes" which cannot be overridden by subsequent legislation, unless this is made "expressly clear". It was on this point that the judge decided that the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steve Thoburn, should be found guilty.
But a central provision of the Bill of Rights is that no one can be fined except by the judgment of a court. For more than a year therefore, Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaign director, has been questioning the legality of the automatic parking fines imposed by the 142 councils that operate "decriminalised" parking schemes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, since motorists penalised under these schemes have no recourse to a court. Their only appeal is to the National Parking Adjudication Service, which is run on behalf of and financed by the councils involved, and which is anyway on record denying that it is a court of law.
Sunderland city council -which originally seized Mr Thoburn's scales - had so many motorists using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of these automatic penalties that it sought legal advice. Eleanor Sharpston QC said that, since it was the intention of the 1991 Act that the Bill of Rights should be set aside, the penalties are legal.
Here, however, Miss Sharpston is impaled on a hook, because it was she who represented Sunderland in the metric case, which she only won because of Laws's ruling; and Laws was unequivocal in saying that the Bill of Rights can only be overridden where Parliament makes this "expressly clear".
The 1991 Act does nothing of the kind. The only way Miss Sharpston can defend her latest opinion is by rejecting the very ruling that won her the case. If she is right, the Metric Martyrs' case should be quashed.
So many people are using the "Bill of Rights defence" to justify non-payment of automatic penalties - HM Customs has backed down more than once over refusal to pay surcharges for late VAT returns - that, according to Birmingham city council last week, Government lawyers are considering emergency legislation to override the Bill of Rights.
But, as Mr Herron points out, the Bill of Rights itself only enshrines the Declaration of Rights, which was a solemn contract between Sovereign and People, and which Parliament has no power to undo.
When those Sunderland officials seized Mr Thoburn's scales in 2000, they can little have guessed what a constitutional can of worms they were about to open.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Complaint to Law Society about NPAS
By e-mail enquiries@lawsociety.org.uk
The Law Society
13 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1PL
Dear Sir / Madam,
Following on from my telephone calls today with Christopher Dehame and Mandy Verdee of the Law Society helpline, who were both very helpful, I would like to initiate a formal complaint against the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) which I believe will require investigation by the Law Society.
I believe that NPAS are misrepresenting their position and misleading the public.
Concerns were first raised following my complaint as to the legality of Sunderland City Council's parking regime operated under the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
I was told that there was a 'right of appeal' to an 'independent' parking adjudicator.
To keep the complaint brief:
1. NPAS claim to be independent yet are funded by participating Local Authorities at the rate of 60p per ticket. They receive no other funding.
It is misleading therefore to claim to be independent.
2. In the video clip the woman states, " My name is Shan Cole and I am an adjudicator...I am a solicitor and I am completely independent...I have no connection whatsoever with the Local Authority."
Calls to the Law Society showed Christopher Dehame could find no record of a solicitor by this name. However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs confirms that Shan Cole was admitted on 1st 0ctober 1987. Can you now confirm that this is the case?
There is an obvious connection between the Local Authority and the adjudicator because of the funding aspect as mentioned in 1 and therefore serious doubts as to whether the tribunal can call itself independent.
2. Again in the video clip (viewed on this link) she also claims that the hearing is a 'court of law.'
She states, "This is in fact a Court of Law and as such I expect you to tell the truth..."
They are very clearly not a court of law. Can you confirm if it is an offence to make such a claim? I have evidence from NPAS which confirms that they are not a court of law but merely a tribunal.
I have a great deal more documentary evidence which can be made available including NPAS sharing advice and opinion with Local Authorities.
I would be grateful therefore if you could confirm that the Law Society will investigate this complaint and keep me fully informed as to your findings.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
cc.
The Office of the Independent Commissioner
The Law SocietyVictoria Court
8 Dormer Place
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 5AE
Tel. 0845 147 2006
The Law Society
13 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1PL
Dear Sir / Madam,
Following on from my telephone calls today with Christopher Dehame and Mandy Verdee of the Law Society helpline, who were both very helpful, I would like to initiate a formal complaint against the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) which I believe will require investigation by the Law Society.
I believe that NPAS are misrepresenting their position and misleading the public.
Concerns were first raised following my complaint as to the legality of Sunderland City Council's parking regime operated under the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
I was told that there was a 'right of appeal' to an 'independent' parking adjudicator.
To keep the complaint brief:
1. NPAS claim to be independent yet are funded by participating Local Authorities at the rate of 60p per ticket. They receive no other funding.
It is misleading therefore to claim to be independent.
2. In the video clip the woman states, " My name is Shan Cole and I am an adjudicator...I am a solicitor and I am completely independent...I have no connection whatsoever with the Local Authority."
Calls to the Law Society showed Christopher Dehame could find no record of a solicitor by this name. However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs confirms that Shan Cole was admitted on 1st 0ctober 1987. Can you now confirm that this is the case?
There is an obvious connection between the Local Authority and the adjudicator because of the funding aspect as mentioned in 1 and therefore serious doubts as to whether the tribunal can call itself independent.
2. Again in the video clip (viewed on this link) she also claims that the hearing is a 'court of law.'
She states, "This is in fact a Court of Law and as such I expect you to tell the truth..."
They are very clearly not a court of law. Can you confirm if it is an offence to make such a claim? I have evidence from NPAS which confirms that they are not a court of law but merely a tribunal.
I have a great deal more documentary evidence which can be made available including NPAS sharing advice and opinion with Local Authorities.
I would be grateful therefore if you could confirm that the Law Society will investigate this complaint and keep me fully informed as to your findings.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
cc.
The Office of the Independent Commissioner
The Law SocietyVictoria Court
8 Dormer Place
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 5AE
Tel. 0845 147 2006
Will the Aussies now have their tape measures out?
Metric muddle catches out the cricketers of Balmoral
Shirley English
The Times
September 16 2005
ALL summer the ageing bowlers at Crathie Cricket Club struggled to find their length during home games and were eventually relegated.
The amateur team, who play at Balmoral Castle and whose patron is Prince Philip, thought that they had suffered a mysterious and calamatous loss of form after decades in the top divisions of the Aberdeenshire Cricket Association league.
Much to the frustration of the batsmen, they only managed to win two home games all season and when they played away, they invariably overpitched when bowling.
However it has emerged that bad bowling was not solely to blame for their fall from grace. Their disastrous season was instead the result of a metric muddle by the Queen’s groundsmen, which meant the team unknowingly played all summer on a wicket almost 7ft too long.
It was not until they faced a relegation battle at home against Methlick last month that the mix-up was discovered. An experienced Crathie bowler who had been away all season returned to play for the crucial game and after bowling a few bad balls, declared that the pitch was too long.
Renwick Elder, the Crathie captain, said: “He bowled a few, not very well, then told me, ‘This pitch is too long’. I had put it down to bad bowling but our vice-captain got out a measuring tape during tea break and he was right. It was very embarrassing as no one had noticed before.”
Metropolitan Police officers, on duty at Balmoral to guard the Queen during her summer visit, offered to act as independent adjudicators and confirmed fears that the wicket was indeed 22 metres instead of 22 yards.
Bob McAra, 55, club secretary and a medium-pace bowler, said he could not remember such a bad season in 31 years of play. “The staff at Balmoral always make up the pitch for us and we just turn up and play,” he said. “I didn’t realise what was wrong, I don’t think anyone did until that day, not even away teams. We’d had no complaints.”
It is still to be ascertained how the error occurred. “We think groundstaff did one of two things. They either measured 22 metres instead of 22 yards, or perhaps measured 22 yards from the batting crease,” Mr McAra said, adding sportingly: “But we are as much to blame as we never realised the pitch was too long.”
The Methlick players were told and the game continued with Crathie snatching one of only two home wins of the season. Methlick were relegated to grade three of the league.
But it was not enough to save Crathie who also went down to grade three for the first time in their 57-year history after losing their final game to grade two champions Inverurie two weeks ago.
Mr McAra said Prince Philip was amused when he was told the story after a friendly game at Balmoral last weekend. He was sharing a cup of tea with players in the rustic heather-thatched club hut, whose facilities stretch to a cramped changing room and a lavatory, and asked politely if the team were happy with the ground and the pitch.
Mr Renwick said: “I said, ‘No! Haven’t you heard about the 22-metre pitch?’ He thought it was hilarious.”
Shirley English
The Times
September 16 2005
ALL summer the ageing bowlers at Crathie Cricket Club struggled to find their length during home games and were eventually relegated.
The amateur team, who play at Balmoral Castle and whose patron is Prince Philip, thought that they had suffered a mysterious and calamatous loss of form after decades in the top divisions of the Aberdeenshire Cricket Association league.
Much to the frustration of the batsmen, they only managed to win two home games all season and when they played away, they invariably overpitched when bowling.
However it has emerged that bad bowling was not solely to blame for their fall from grace. Their disastrous season was instead the result of a metric muddle by the Queen’s groundsmen, which meant the team unknowingly played all summer on a wicket almost 7ft too long.
It was not until they faced a relegation battle at home against Methlick last month that the mix-up was discovered. An experienced Crathie bowler who had been away all season returned to play for the crucial game and after bowling a few bad balls, declared that the pitch was too long.
Renwick Elder, the Crathie captain, said: “He bowled a few, not very well, then told me, ‘This pitch is too long’. I had put it down to bad bowling but our vice-captain got out a measuring tape during tea break and he was right. It was very embarrassing as no one had noticed before.”
Metropolitan Police officers, on duty at Balmoral to guard the Queen during her summer visit, offered to act as independent adjudicators and confirmed fears that the wicket was indeed 22 metres instead of 22 yards.
Bob McAra, 55, club secretary and a medium-pace bowler, said he could not remember such a bad season in 31 years of play. “The staff at Balmoral always make up the pitch for us and we just turn up and play,” he said. “I didn’t realise what was wrong, I don’t think anyone did until that day, not even away teams. We’d had no complaints.”
It is still to be ascertained how the error occurred. “We think groundstaff did one of two things. They either measured 22 metres instead of 22 yards, or perhaps measured 22 yards from the batting crease,” Mr McAra said, adding sportingly: “But we are as much to blame as we never realised the pitch was too long.”
The Methlick players were told and the game continued with Crathie snatching one of only two home wins of the season. Methlick were relegated to grade three of the league.
But it was not enough to save Crathie who also went down to grade three for the first time in their 57-year history after losing their final game to grade two champions Inverurie two weeks ago.
Mr McAra said Prince Philip was amused when he was told the story after a friendly game at Balmoral last weekend. He was sharing a cup of tea with players in the rustic heather-thatched club hut, whose facilities stretch to a cramped changing room and a lavatory, and asked politely if the team were happy with the ground and the pitch.
Mr Renwick said: “I said, ‘No! Haven’t you heard about the 22-metre pitch?’ He thought it was hilarious.”
Call to scrap parking panel
Call to scrap parking panel
Sunderland Echo
15th September 2005
A PARKING fines appeal panel should be disbanded, says a Sunderland campaigner, after it was revealed it is funded by cash from tickets dished out to motorists.
Political crusader Neil Herron says the body responsible for settling disputes between drivers and councils cannot be truly independent because it receives the money collected from parking fines.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) was set up in 1999 to replace the courts and independently adjudicate on parking ticket appeals.
But it has been revealed that the NPAS receives 60p from every parking ticket issued by councils.
Mr Herron says the service is completely funded by cash from tickets issued by local authorities – and is therefore wholly dependent on them.
He says the service can't claim to be independent or impartial.
Sunderland was one of about 80 local authorities which signed up to the "decriminalised" scheme, which was set up so motorists could appeal to a panel rather then face going to court.
Mr Herron said: "NPAS is neither independent nor a court of law, but some members of the public believe this is the case. I don't think motorists can feel as though they can be treated in a fair and impartial manner."
He has called for an end to the system, which he claims offers "no independence, no scrutiny and no recourse for motorists".
He said the situation was further complicated in Sunderland because 700 tickets had been issued unlawfully by the council since 2003 to people parking on a taxi rank.Sunderland City Council is refunding £21,000 in parking fines.
Mr Herron is asking if these motorists will lose their 60p given to NPAS from these illegal tickets.
An NPAS spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the Road Traffic Act 1991 required councils to fund parking adjudication at a cost of 60p per fine.
But she said this lifted the burden from the taxpayer and the people on the tribunals remained impartial.
She said: "Appeals are decided by adjudicators who are lawyers, appointed through the normal judicial appointment process. Every adjudicator considers and decides each case on its own merits."
She said 67 percent of appeals were successful.
Yesterday the council declined to comment, saying further arrangements were decided by the Government.
Sunderland Echo
15th September 2005
A PARKING fines appeal panel should be disbanded, says a Sunderland campaigner, after it was revealed it is funded by cash from tickets dished out to motorists.
Political crusader Neil Herron says the body responsible for settling disputes between drivers and councils cannot be truly independent because it receives the money collected from parking fines.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) was set up in 1999 to replace the courts and independently adjudicate on parking ticket appeals.
But it has been revealed that the NPAS receives 60p from every parking ticket issued by councils.
Mr Herron says the service is completely funded by cash from tickets issued by local authorities – and is therefore wholly dependent on them.
He says the service can't claim to be independent or impartial.
Sunderland was one of about 80 local authorities which signed up to the "decriminalised" scheme, which was set up so motorists could appeal to a panel rather then face going to court.
Mr Herron said: "NPAS is neither independent nor a court of law, but some members of the public believe this is the case. I don't think motorists can feel as though they can be treated in a fair and impartial manner."
He has called for an end to the system, which he claims offers "no independence, no scrutiny and no recourse for motorists".
He said the situation was further complicated in Sunderland because 700 tickets had been issued unlawfully by the council since 2003 to people parking on a taxi rank.Sunderland City Council is refunding £21,000 in parking fines.
Mr Herron is asking if these motorists will lose their 60p given to NPAS from these illegal tickets.
An NPAS spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the Road Traffic Act 1991 required councils to fund parking adjudication at a cost of 60p per fine.
But she said this lifted the burden from the taxpayer and the people on the tribunals remained impartial.
She said: "Appeals are decided by adjudicators who are lawyers, appointed through the normal judicial appointment process. Every adjudicator considers and decides each case on its own merits."
She said 67 percent of appeals were successful.
Yesterday the council declined to comment, saying further arrangements were decided by the Government.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
NPAS on shaky ground
Bill of Rights Circular sent to all Local Authorities
We have just been forwarded a circular sent (August 05) by NPAS (National Parking Adjudication Service) to all participating Local Authorities. It refers to the case of Higgins v Sefton Borough Council (case no. SF 272)
NPAS CIRCULAR 05/05
ISSUED AUGUST 2005
Higgins v Sefton Borough Council (Case NO SF 272)
This circular informs you about a recent decision on an issue which has already attracted press coverage in the national press and is potentially relevant to all DPE councils.
In this case the main ground of appeal relied upon by Mr Higgins was that the PCN issued by Sefton Borough Council and the whole of the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991 is illegal because it is in breach of the Bill of Rights Act 1689. Mr Higgins argued that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is still in force and makes it illegal for a Penalty Charge to be imposed before the recipient has been convicted in a court of law. The particular provision relied on is that "all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void." The argument was made against a PCN issued by Sefton Borough Council, but could be raised by any appellant against any DPE council in any case as it concerns the underlying legality of decriminalised parking enforcement and PCNs.
The Adjudicator rejected this argument and dismissed the appeal. His decision is attached in full. However, we have summarised the key points made by the Adjudicator in arriving at this decision.
We have just been forwarded a circular sent (August 05) by NPAS (National Parking Adjudication Service) to all participating Local Authorities. It refers to the case of Higgins v Sefton Borough Council (case no. SF 272)
NPAS CIRCULAR 05/05
ISSUED AUGUST 2005
Higgins v Sefton Borough Council (Case NO SF 272)
This circular informs you about a recent decision on an issue which has already attracted press coverage in the national press and is potentially relevant to all DPE councils.
In this case the main ground of appeal relied upon by Mr Higgins was that the PCN issued by Sefton Borough Council and the whole of the decriminalised parking enforcement scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991 is illegal because it is in breach of the Bill of Rights Act 1689. Mr Higgins argued that the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is still in force and makes it illegal for a Penalty Charge to be imposed before the recipient has been convicted in a court of law. The particular provision relied on is that "all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void." The argument was made against a PCN issued by Sefton Borough Council, but could be raised by any appellant against any DPE council in any case as it concerns the underlying legality of decriminalised parking enforcement and PCNs.
The Adjudicator rejected this argument and dismissed the appeal. His decision is attached in full. However, we have summarised the key points made by the Adjudicator in arriving at this decision.
- The 1689 Act is relevant, but there is no conflict between it and the decriminalised parking scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991.
- The intention of the 1689 Act was to ensure a person has a right of challenge to any financial penalty imposed on him or her.
- When a PCN is issued the Road Traffic Act 1991 imposes a statutory duty on DPE councils to consider and respond to representations against the issue of a Notice to Owner which must be issued before a Penalty Charge can be enforced, and a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against the issue of the PCN if the council rejects those representations.
- The Road Traffic Act 1991 does, therefore, provide a right of challenge to the imposition of a Penalty Charge and is consistent with the 1689 Act.
- The High Court has considered the Road Traffic Act 1991, and the powers of Parking Adjudicators and did not raise any issue in relation to the 1689 Act.
We anticipate that, in light of the national press coverage about this issue being raised by other individuals in relation to other DPE councils, we will see further cases where this argument is pursued. If you are in any doubt as to how this issue may affect your council you should consult your legal department. In any event you may want to provide a copy of this circular and the Higgins decision to your legal department.
Andrew Barfoot
Tribunal Manager
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Gallows being prepared in Sunderland
News From the Front Line...Gallows being prepared in Sunderland...but is NPAS' name also on the Ticket?
If you have ever had a Parking Ticket and wondered whether you would be dealt with fairly and impartially by an independent body...think again! They removed your right to be dealt with by a court and replaced it with NPAS.
Read how NPAS is misleading the public:
Press Release: National Parking Adjudicator Misleads the Public
and see the Newcastle Journal's press report as they desperately attempt to maintain they are independent
Driven to complain
and see the questions which NPAS Tribunal Manager, Andrew Barfoot now has to deal with
Further Questions as National Parking Adjudicator (NPAS) Crisis Deepens
and this after his monumental gaffe of leaving his telephone connected and calling Herron 'mad' (there may be some truth in that!). Story repeated here
......................................................................
The Gallows are being prepared in Sunderland City Council...who is to be the Patsy?
Sunderland Echo break the news of the investigation:
Probe into parking tickets blunder
Will the whole Council be forced to pay back the £2m with the councillors being surcharged? Who is the investigator?
Read it here:
Investigation into Sunderland City Council / National Car Parks (NCP) unlawful activities
Who Misled the Secretary of State in relation to Sunderland City Council's application to allow them to unleash the Draconian NCP regime on the City? Government Officials bury their heads:
Government Office plays Pontius Pilate
The massive implications of what is being uncovered. Read the staggering statements by an NPAS adjudicator:
Constitutional Confrontation drawing closer...Common Law Repealed
Christopher Booker reports on NPAS' 'independence' in the Sunday Telegraph
No justice in parking 'court'
Why is Sunderland intent on suffering death by a thousand cuts? Read below how now it is Disabled Motorists who appear to have been unlawfully targeted:
The Clock is Ticking Sunderland...why so long?
....................................................................
Read how the Bill of Rights defence has got someone off a VAT charge:
Victory...HM Customs and Excise back down after Bill of Rights threat
You can contact us at:
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com or call 0845 147 2006
If you have ever had a Parking Ticket and wondered whether you would be dealt with fairly and impartially by an independent body...think again! They removed your right to be dealt with by a court and replaced it with NPAS.
Read how NPAS is misleading the public:
Press Release: National Parking Adjudicator Misleads the Public
and see the Newcastle Journal's press report as they desperately attempt to maintain they are independent
Driven to complain
and see the questions which NPAS Tribunal Manager, Andrew Barfoot now has to deal with
Further Questions as National Parking Adjudicator (NPAS) Crisis Deepens
and this after his monumental gaffe of leaving his telephone connected and calling Herron 'mad' (there may be some truth in that!). Story repeated here
......................................................................
The Gallows are being prepared in Sunderland City Council...who is to be the Patsy?
Sunderland Echo break the news of the investigation:
Probe into parking tickets blunder
Will the whole Council be forced to pay back the £2m with the councillors being surcharged? Who is the investigator?
Read it here:
Investigation into Sunderland City Council / National Car Parks (NCP) unlawful activities
Who Misled the Secretary of State in relation to Sunderland City Council's application to allow them to unleash the Draconian NCP regime on the City? Government Officials bury their heads:
Government Office plays Pontius Pilate
The massive implications of what is being uncovered. Read the staggering statements by an NPAS adjudicator:
Constitutional Confrontation drawing closer...Common Law Repealed
Christopher Booker reports on NPAS' 'independence' in the Sunday Telegraph
No justice in parking 'court'
Why is Sunderland intent on suffering death by a thousand cuts? Read below how now it is Disabled Motorists who appear to have been unlawfully targeted:
The Clock is Ticking Sunderland...why so long?
....................................................................
Read how the Bill of Rights defence has got someone off a VAT charge:
Victory...HM Customs and Excise back down after Bill of Rights threat
You can contact us at:
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com or call 0845 147 2006
Press Release: National Parking Adjudicator Misleads the Public
Press Release
12th September 2005
'Independent' National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Misleads the Motoring Public
The British motoring public is being deceived by the body which has supposedly been set up to adjudicate on decriminalised parking tickets.
Many Local Authorities have signed up to the 'decriminalised' scheme which is seen as a useful revenue raiser but is nothing more than a 'back-door' tax on the motorist.
The 'independent' adjudication body, NPAS, has been forced to reveal that it get paid 60p from each ticket issued by the participating Local Authority, yet calls to their helpline reveal that they claim to be independent of both parties involved in the dispute (Motorist vs Local Authority). They receive no other monies from any other source and are entirely dependent for their existence on tickets being issued and therefore have a beneficial interest in a local authorities parking regime.
Further investigation has revealed that they are further misleading the motoring public by deliberately misrepresenting their legal status.
I have attached a link here to a video clip from the NPAS website.
It begins, "My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator."
Ms Cole then proceeds to make a statement,
" This is in fact a Court of Law."
NPAS Tribunal Manager, Andrew Barfoot, however, confirms that NPAS are a tribunal and not a Court of Law.
Neil Herron states, " NPAS is neither independent nor a Court of Law but has misled the public into believing that this is the case. The motorist can no longer feel as though he can be treated in a fair and impartial manner. We call for an immediate investigation into this body."
A further complication arises because NPAS have also been funded by Local Authorities that have been unlawfully issuing tickets. Sunderland City Council has admitted that it unlawfully issued over 700 tickets (with more to come), and therefore the sums paid over to NPAS have been made unlawfully.
The deliberate bypassing of the court process for parking offences is growing with more and more local authorities changing from criminalised to decriminalised regimes...not because it is more efficient at maintaining traffic flow but simply as it presents an easy opportunity to raise revenue. These new 'regimes' are handed over to ruthless private companies with profit as the only incentive with the beleagured motorist and local businesses the ones who suffer.
ENDS
Contact:
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143 (office) 07776202045 (mobile)
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
www.neilherron.blogspot.com
INFORMATION
NPAS Website :http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk
Further revelations NPAS Call Campaigner 'mad' and Sunderland Council may have to Repay £2m in parking fines.
and further questions for NPAS here
12th September 2005
'Independent' National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Misleads the Motoring Public
The British motoring public is being deceived by the body which has supposedly been set up to adjudicate on decriminalised parking tickets.
Many Local Authorities have signed up to the 'decriminalised' scheme which is seen as a useful revenue raiser but is nothing more than a 'back-door' tax on the motorist.
The 'independent' adjudication body, NPAS, has been forced to reveal that it get paid 60p from each ticket issued by the participating Local Authority, yet calls to their helpline reveal that they claim to be independent of both parties involved in the dispute (Motorist vs Local Authority). They receive no other monies from any other source and are entirely dependent for their existence on tickets being issued and therefore have a beneficial interest in a local authorities parking regime.
Further investigation has revealed that they are further misleading the motoring public by deliberately misrepresenting their legal status.
I have attached a link here to a video clip from the NPAS website.
It begins, "My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator."
Ms Cole then proceeds to make a statement,
" This is in fact a Court of Law."
NPAS Tribunal Manager, Andrew Barfoot, however, confirms that NPAS are a tribunal and not a Court of Law.
Neil Herron states, " NPAS is neither independent nor a Court of Law but has misled the public into believing that this is the case. The motorist can no longer feel as though he can be treated in a fair and impartial manner. We call for an immediate investigation into this body."
A further complication arises because NPAS have also been funded by Local Authorities that have been unlawfully issuing tickets. Sunderland City Council has admitted that it unlawfully issued over 700 tickets (with more to come), and therefore the sums paid over to NPAS have been made unlawfully.
The deliberate bypassing of the court process for parking offences is growing with more and more local authorities changing from criminalised to decriminalised regimes...not because it is more efficient at maintaining traffic flow but simply as it presents an easy opportunity to raise revenue. These new 'regimes' are handed over to ruthless private companies with profit as the only incentive with the beleagured motorist and local businesses the ones who suffer.
ENDS
Contact:
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143 (office) 07776202045 (mobile)
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
www.neilherron.blogspot.com
INFORMATION
NPAS Website :http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk
Further revelations NPAS Call Campaigner 'mad' and Sunderland Council may have to Repay £2m in parking fines.
and further questions for NPAS here
Investigation into Sunderland City Council / National Car Parks (NCP) unlawful activities
14th September 2005
Councillor Richard David Tate
25 Ennerdale Street
Hetton le Hole
DH5 0DT
Dear Councillor Tate,
Re: Investigation into Sunderland City Council / National Car Parks (NCP) unlawful activities
From press reports (Sunderland Echo 13th September 2005) I am led to believe that you are to undertake an internal investigation into Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Regime initiated under Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002.
I would like to make available to either the committee or yourself the substantive evidence that I have regarding the malpractice and unlawful implementation of Sunderland City Council's Parking Regime including evidence of obtaining money / money orders by deception, false accounting and other such matters which may be construed as offences under the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.
Also, evidence of the lack of scrutiny and control over the contracting agent, NCP, and inefficiencies and maladministration by Parking Services is available in order for you to have a full understanding of the background to the investigation that you will be conducting.
I understand that the Sunderland City Council DPE (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement) application simply gave the Secretary of State 'reassurances' that the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders and signs "were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date."
The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would "be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994."
I have substantial evidence that this was not the case with regard to the TROs and time dated photographic evidence of the incorrect signage.
I have also evidence that Sunderland City Council was made aware of this on numerous occasions.
It appears therefore that not only the motorists, residents, ratepayers and businesses have been misled, but also the Secretary of State.
I would be grateful therefore if you would confirm by return that you are to be responsible for the investigation and what the procedures and parameters, including timescale, of that investigation will be. I wish you also to detail what courses of action are available should the investigation reveal evidence of malpractice (misfeasance and malfeasance) and other criminal offences.
Will you be in the first instance asking Northumbria Police and the District Auditor to conduct a separate parallel investigation or will it be dependent on the outcome of your investigation?
I would be grateful if you would please confirm that you are agreeable to meeting either formally or informally in the first instance with a view to presenting or discussing evidence, or even giving you an overview of the situation, to either yourself or the investigating committee.
If this is not acceptable then I would require a full explanation as to why not?
Could you please also provide me with details of protocols and procedures required to surcharge the city's councillors and the necessary legislative authority to do so, as obviously none of the costs of correcting such unlawful actions should be borne by the city's ratepayers?
If you can also confirm whether it will be the full council that would be responsible in such an instance, surcharging, or whether it would simply be those councillors that approved the DPE scheme and failed to scrutinise and observe that the correct procedures had been adhered to resulting in such substantial sums being taken unlawfully from the city's motorists?
If it is the full council then can you confirm that as a councillor you may have a personal, prejudicial, pecuniary or preferential interest in the outcome or result of your own investigation should a surcharge be necessary and could therefore not, nor could any other councillor from Sunderland City Council, form part of any investigative committee?
Can you please confirm that the City's Legal Department is also under investigation and therefore will not be in a position to advise you on this matter and you will have to take outside, independent legal advice?
To date the District Auditor has been kept fully informed and Northumbria Police's Economic Crime Unit has been made aware of the situation that is developing. National and local press and media are keeping the residents and ratepayers of Sunderland informed.
I am sure that you appreciate the very serious nature of the position that Sunderland City Council finds itself in and will ensure that a full and thorough independent investigation is conducted with absolute transparency. On that note I believe it is necessary to keep as many interested parties fully informed and they have been copied into this communication. I have also copied in Member Services in order for them to make this letter available to all Sunderland City Councillors who may now need to take independent legal advice.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Member Services, Sunderland City Council
cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive
cc. Bob Symonds, Leader of the Council
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Councillor Peter Wood, Leader of the Opposition
cc. Councillor Lee Martin, Barnes Ward
cc. Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
cc. Ross Smith, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. Jeremy Wicking, Sunderland Echo
cc. Tiffany Royce, Tyne Tees Television
cc. Rob Young, BBC Radio Newcastle
cc. Julie Howe, Sun FM
cc. Rik Martin, Century Radio
cc. Erica Moss, Public Finance Mgazine
cc. Ray Massey, Daily Mail
cc. Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph
cc. Richard Littlejohn, The Sun
Councillor Richard David Tate
25 Ennerdale Street
Hetton le Hole
DH5 0DT
Dear Councillor Tate,
Re: Investigation into Sunderland City Council / National Car Parks (NCP) unlawful activities
From press reports (Sunderland Echo 13th September 2005) I am led to believe that you are to undertake an internal investigation into Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Regime initiated under Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002.
I would like to make available to either the committee or yourself the substantive evidence that I have regarding the malpractice and unlawful implementation of Sunderland City Council's Parking Regime including evidence of obtaining money / money orders by deception, false accounting and other such matters which may be construed as offences under the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.
Also, evidence of the lack of scrutiny and control over the contracting agent, NCP, and inefficiencies and maladministration by Parking Services is available in order for you to have a full understanding of the background to the investigation that you will be conducting.
I understand that the Sunderland City Council DPE (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement) application simply gave the Secretary of State 'reassurances' that the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders and signs "were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date."
The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would "be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994."
I have substantial evidence that this was not the case with regard to the TROs and time dated photographic evidence of the incorrect signage.
I have also evidence that Sunderland City Council was made aware of this on numerous occasions.
It appears therefore that not only the motorists, residents, ratepayers and businesses have been misled, but also the Secretary of State.
I would be grateful therefore if you would confirm by return that you are to be responsible for the investigation and what the procedures and parameters, including timescale, of that investigation will be. I wish you also to detail what courses of action are available should the investigation reveal evidence of malpractice (misfeasance and malfeasance) and other criminal offences.
Will you be in the first instance asking Northumbria Police and the District Auditor to conduct a separate parallel investigation or will it be dependent on the outcome of your investigation?
I would be grateful if you would please confirm that you are agreeable to meeting either formally or informally in the first instance with a view to presenting or discussing evidence, or even giving you an overview of the situation, to either yourself or the investigating committee.
If this is not acceptable then I would require a full explanation as to why not?
Could you please also provide me with details of protocols and procedures required to surcharge the city's councillors and the necessary legislative authority to do so, as obviously none of the costs of correcting such unlawful actions should be borne by the city's ratepayers?
If you can also confirm whether it will be the full council that would be responsible in such an instance, surcharging, or whether it would simply be those councillors that approved the DPE scheme and failed to scrutinise and observe that the correct procedures had been adhered to resulting in such substantial sums being taken unlawfully from the city's motorists?
If it is the full council then can you confirm that as a councillor you may have a personal, prejudicial, pecuniary or preferential interest in the outcome or result of your own investigation should a surcharge be necessary and could therefore not, nor could any other councillor from Sunderland City Council, form part of any investigative committee?
Can you please confirm that the City's Legal Department is also under investigation and therefore will not be in a position to advise you on this matter and you will have to take outside, independent legal advice?
To date the District Auditor has been kept fully informed and Northumbria Police's Economic Crime Unit has been made aware of the situation that is developing. National and local press and media are keeping the residents and ratepayers of Sunderland informed.
I am sure that you appreciate the very serious nature of the position that Sunderland City Council finds itself in and will ensure that a full and thorough independent investigation is conducted with absolute transparency. On that note I believe it is necessary to keep as many interested parties fully informed and they have been copied into this communication. I have also copied in Member Services in order for them to make this letter available to all Sunderland City Councillors who may now need to take independent legal advice.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Member Services, Sunderland City Council
cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive
cc. Bob Symonds, Leader of the Council
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Councillor Peter Wood, Leader of the Opposition
cc. Councillor Lee Martin, Barnes Ward
cc. Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
cc. Ross Smith, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. Jeremy Wicking, Sunderland Echo
cc. Tiffany Royce, Tyne Tees Television
cc. Rob Young, BBC Radio Newcastle
cc. Julie Howe, Sun FM
cc. Rik Martin, Century Radio
cc. Erica Moss, Public Finance Mgazine
cc. Ray Massey, Daily Mail
cc. Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph
cc. Richard Littlejohn, The Sun
Driven to complain
Parking fines pay appeal panel's costs
by Chloe Griffiths
The Journal
14th September 2005
A National appeals tribunal which rules on parking disputes between motorists and councils should be disbanded, a North-East campaigner says.
Political crusader Neil Herron believes the body which assesses parking fine appeals cannot be truly independent - because it is funded by parking fines.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) was set up in 1999 to replace the courts and independently adjudicate on parking ticket appeals.
But it has been revealed that the NPAS receives 60p from every parking ticket that ouncils issue.
Mr Herron says that the service is completely funded by local authorities from the tickets they issue - and therefore wholly dependent upon them. Mr Herron, of Sunderland, says the service cannot claim to be either independent or impartial.
Sunderland was one of about 80 local authorities which signed up to the 'decriminalised' scheme.
Mr Herron said: "NPAS is neither independent, nor a court of law, but has misled the public into believing this is the case. The motorist can no longer feel as though he can be treated in a fair and impartial manner."
He has called for an end to the system, which he says offers "no independence, no scrutiny and no recourse for motorists."
An NPAS spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the Road Traffic Act 1991 required councils to fund parking adjuducation at a cost of 60p per fine.
But she said this lifted the burden from the taxpayer and the people on the tribunals remained impartial.
She said: "Appeals are decided by adjudicators who are lawyers, appointed through the normal judicial appointment process. Every adjudicator considers and decides each case on its own merits."
She said 67% of appeals were successful.
Mr Herron said the situation was further complicated within Sunderland because 700 tickets had been issued unlawfully by the council to people parking on a taxi rank since 2003.
Sunderland City Council is refunding £21,000 in parking fines.
Mr Herron is asking if cheated motorists will lose their 60p given to NPAS from these illegal tickets.
yesterday the council declined to comment, saying the funding arrangement was decided by government.
by Chloe Griffiths
The Journal
14th September 2005
A National appeals tribunal which rules on parking disputes between motorists and councils should be disbanded, a North-East campaigner says.
Political crusader Neil Herron believes the body which assesses parking fine appeals cannot be truly independent - because it is funded by parking fines.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) was set up in 1999 to replace the courts and independently adjudicate on parking ticket appeals.
But it has been revealed that the NPAS receives 60p from every parking ticket that ouncils issue.
Mr Herron says that the service is completely funded by local authorities from the tickets they issue - and therefore wholly dependent upon them. Mr Herron, of Sunderland, says the service cannot claim to be either independent or impartial.
Sunderland was one of about 80 local authorities which signed up to the 'decriminalised' scheme.
Mr Herron said: "NPAS is neither independent, nor a court of law, but has misled the public into believing this is the case. The motorist can no longer feel as though he can be treated in a fair and impartial manner."
He has called for an end to the system, which he says offers "no independence, no scrutiny and no recourse for motorists."
An NPAS spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the Road Traffic Act 1991 required councils to fund parking adjuducation at a cost of 60p per fine.
But she said this lifted the burden from the taxpayer and the people on the tribunals remained impartial.
She said: "Appeals are decided by adjudicators who are lawyers, appointed through the normal judicial appointment process. Every adjudicator considers and decides each case on its own merits."
She said 67% of appeals were successful.
Mr Herron said the situation was further complicated within Sunderland because 700 tickets had been issued unlawfully by the council to people parking on a taxi rank since 2003.
Sunderland City Council is refunding £21,000 in parking fines.
Mr Herron is asking if cheated motorists will lose their 60p given to NPAS from these illegal tickets.
yesterday the council declined to comment, saying the funding arrangement was decided by government.
Probe into parking tickets blunder
Sunderland Echo
Tuesday 13th September 2005
AN INVESTIGATION has been ordered by council bosses into the blunder that saw them refund hundreds of parking tickets issued illegally.
Sunderland City Council has admitted that about 700 tickets were wrongly put on cars parked in taxi ranks in the city.
Traffic wardens slapped the tickets on cars parked in the city's 14 taxi ranks – but they did not have legal powers to do so.
An internal investigation is now under way at the civic centre into how the mess came about. It followed the decriminalisation of parking in the city two-and-a-half years ago, which took the issue out of police hands. The investigation's findings are to be reported to the city's environment scrutiny committee. Its chairman, Coun David Tate, said today: "The refund is a big issue and we want to know how we got into this in the first place.
"It is not just highways officers but also legal officers at the council that will be part of this scrutiny.
"It is not known how many of the 700 tickets were paid for at the £30 rate or at a higher rate but the total sum has been estimated at no less than £21,000. The council has urged anyone who paid to contact staff.
"The problem came to light as part of a dispute over parking charges in the city mounted by motorists and campaigner Neil Herron. They have claimed proper legal orders on parking were not written up by the council.Mr Herron said: "It is not just a simple matter of putting the traffic orders in place, but when the council wrote to the Government that all traffic orders were in place they clearly misled the Secretary of State.
"Mr Herron claimed some people were finding it difficult to get refunds from the council and said it had signed off its accounts when they weren't proper and correct. He added: "There a lot of unanswered questions over Sunderland Council's parking regime."
13 September 2005
Next »
Page 1 of
Tuesday 13th September 2005
AN INVESTIGATION has been ordered by council bosses into the blunder that saw them refund hundreds of parking tickets issued illegally.
Sunderland City Council has admitted that about 700 tickets were wrongly put on cars parked in taxi ranks in the city.
Traffic wardens slapped the tickets on cars parked in the city's 14 taxi ranks – but they did not have legal powers to do so.
An internal investigation is now under way at the civic centre into how the mess came about. It followed the decriminalisation of parking in the city two-and-a-half years ago, which took the issue out of police hands. The investigation's findings are to be reported to the city's environment scrutiny committee. Its chairman, Coun David Tate, said today: "The refund is a big issue and we want to know how we got into this in the first place.
"It is not just highways officers but also legal officers at the council that will be part of this scrutiny.
"It is not known how many of the 700 tickets were paid for at the £30 rate or at a higher rate but the total sum has been estimated at no less than £21,000. The council has urged anyone who paid to contact staff.
"The problem came to light as part of a dispute over parking charges in the city mounted by motorists and campaigner Neil Herron. They have claimed proper legal orders on parking were not written up by the council.Mr Herron said: "It is not just a simple matter of putting the traffic orders in place, but when the council wrote to the Government that all traffic orders were in place they clearly misled the Secretary of State.
"Mr Herron claimed some people were finding it difficult to get refunds from the council and said it had signed off its accounts when they weren't proper and correct. He added: "There a lot of unanswered questions over Sunderland Council's parking regime."
13 September 2005
Next »
Page 1 of
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Government Office plays Pontius Pilate
It is staggering that the Government Office of the North East is choosing to wash its hands of this whole affair. As the investigation broadens questions will have to be asked as to why the Secretary of State merely relied on the 'reassurances' of Sunderland City Councils.
There were no checks as to the legality of the TROs or signage in the City before NCP were unleashed on the businesses, ratepayers and motorists of the city with their Draconian 'for profit' parking regime.
The GONE and the Secretary of State will be attached to any criminal proceedings as they have clearly not demonstrated any duty of care whatsoever.
How many other such instances exist over the rest of the country?
The big question is 'who knowingly misled the Secretary of State and which councillors should have scrutinised the application?'
From: "Martin GIBSON" Martin.GIBSON@gone.gsi.gov.uk
To: Capt. Green
Subject: Re: Sunderland Parking>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:52:
Mr xxxxxxxx
Thanks for your email of 26 August 2005 regarding the above.
I have consulted on January is with colleagues in DfT.
I should begin by saying that the Sunderland Permitted Parking Area / Special Parking Area Statutory Instrument [SI] Order of 2002 was not implemented as a result of the 1996 TRO procedure regulations, it was made under paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
It is this Act that allows local authorities like City of Sunderland Council to apply to the Secretary of State for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers.
Our colleagues in DfT have checked the Sunderland Decriminalised Parking Enforcement [DPE] application and are satisfied that there were no errors in processing of their DPE application.
Therefore, the SI order went ahead as normal and there does not appear to be any doubt as to the legality of DPE in Sunderland.
What appears to be the issue here are the Traffic Regulation Orders [TROs] for DPE in Sunderland.
These are matters for the City of Sunderland Council, not DfT or Government Office for the North East.
I understand that City of Sunderland said in their DPE application that their TROs were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date.
Mr Herron asked if the Secretary of State was told if the TRO's were all in force and properly signed. The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994.
It is normal practice to get this sort of confirmation from the relevant Highways Authority before the Minister signs the DPE order.
I hope this answers your questions.
Original Letter to:
26/08/2005 14:03:35 >>>>>Martin Gibson>>>Dear Sir,>>Please find attached letter as requested>">Martin Gibson
Dear Sir,
Please find attached letter as requested
1. I would draw your attention to the reserve powers of the Secretary of State under Schedule 9 RTRA 84 paragraph 2 (b)
2. Prior to the making of the Consolidated Order on 13th January 2003, coming into force 15th Jan 2003 , there was ample evidence that many of the previous orders were not signed in accordance with the 1994 regulations.
Consequently the Consolidated Order has never been in force
3. We (Neil Herron and myself) have chosen to concentrate on the non-CPZ order as this is proof that many of the traffic orders in the alleged consolidated order were not properly signed. Without resorting to numerous contemporary photographs
4. The Secretary of State prior to making a 'Special Parking Area' was told in writing that the Traffic Orders for Sunderland were all in force (i.e.properly signed)
This was a complete fabrication resulting in the fraudulent collection of monies, well in excess of £2MILLON pounds
Yours faithfully
Capt D.W.Green
There were no checks as to the legality of the TROs or signage in the City before NCP were unleashed on the businesses, ratepayers and motorists of the city with their Draconian 'for profit' parking regime.
The GONE and the Secretary of State will be attached to any criminal proceedings as they have clearly not demonstrated any duty of care whatsoever.
How many other such instances exist over the rest of the country?
The big question is 'who knowingly misled the Secretary of State and which councillors should have scrutinised the application?'
From: "Martin GIBSON" Martin.GIBSON@gone.gsi.gov.uk
To: Capt. Green
Subject: Re: Sunderland Parking>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:52:
Mr xxxxxxxx
Thanks for your email of 26 August 2005 regarding the above.
I have consulted on January is with colleagues in DfT.
I should begin by saying that the Sunderland Permitted Parking Area / Special Parking Area Statutory Instrument [SI] Order of 2002 was not implemented as a result of the 1996 TRO procedure regulations, it was made under paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
It is this Act that allows local authorities like City of Sunderland Council to apply to the Secretary of State for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers.
Our colleagues in DfT have checked the Sunderland Decriminalised Parking Enforcement [DPE] application and are satisfied that there were no errors in processing of their DPE application.
Therefore, the SI order went ahead as normal and there does not appear to be any doubt as to the legality of DPE in Sunderland.
What appears to be the issue here are the Traffic Regulation Orders [TROs] for DPE in Sunderland.
These are matters for the City of Sunderland Council, not DfT or Government Office for the North East.
I understand that City of Sunderland said in their DPE application that their TROs were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date.
Mr Herron asked if the Secretary of State was told if the TRO's were all in force and properly signed. The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994.
It is normal practice to get this sort of confirmation from the relevant Highways Authority before the Minister signs the DPE order.
I hope this answers your questions.
Original Letter to:
26/08/2005 14:03:35 >>>>>Martin Gibson>>>Dear Sir,>>Please find attached letter as requested>">Martin Gibson
Dear Sir,
Please find attached letter as requested
1. I would draw your attention to the reserve powers of the Secretary of State under Schedule 9 RTRA 84 paragraph 2 (b)
2. Prior to the making of the Consolidated Order on 13th January 2003, coming into force 15th Jan 2003 , there was ample evidence that many of the previous orders were not signed in accordance with the 1994 regulations.
Consequently the Consolidated Order has never been in force
3. We (Neil Herron and myself) have chosen to concentrate on the non-CPZ order as this is proof that many of the traffic orders in the alleged consolidated order were not properly signed. Without resorting to numerous contemporary photographs
4. The Secretary of State prior to making a 'Special Parking Area' was told in writing that the Traffic Orders for Sunderland were all in force (i.e.properly signed)
This was a complete fabrication resulting in the fraudulent collection of monies, well in excess of £2MILLON pounds
Yours faithfully
Capt D.W.Green
Constitutional Confrontation drawing closer...Common Law Repealed
Thanks to Anoneumouse at Anglo Saxon Chronicles for this:
The Common Law Repealed
"However in my view the Act (Bill of Rights 1689) cannot be read literally because to do so would ignore the obvious changes between the legal system in 1689 and the present day"
"The intention of the Act was to provide the citizen with certain rights and to prevent the imposition of any financial penalty without there being a right of challenge, which certainly in areas of criminal law is one purpose of the more modern European Convention on Human Rights".
These are the words of Stephen J. Knap Parking Adjudicator
Well Mr Knap, "Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt".The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood
Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998
A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
The Bill of Rights still has effect, it has not been repealed.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of law.
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament is also illegal under the Bill of Rights.
One only has to apply the principle of Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
Using the principle of Pepper v. Hart, which allows us to refer to what was said in Parliament to determine what the intention of Parliament was, we can determine what the original contract between crown and people is;
"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition's by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
(Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee's which drafted the Bill of Rights).
Confirmatio cartarum [25 Edw. I][29]
"No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."
Note: in the 1354 version, "by the law of the land" was changed to "by due process of law."
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
The National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
The Claim of Rights 1628 amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9 ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with unless with consent of Parliament. (given in judgement by Lord Bingham, House of Lords: Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001) Which in turn means that suspension or dispensing of law can only be made by the express agreement of Parliament.
In other words by Statute, ensuring ‘The Rule Of Law’ as the only Constitutional means of governance.
(Hansard, 21 July 1993 column 352), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
The Common Law Repealed
"However in my view the Act (Bill of Rights 1689) cannot be read literally because to do so would ignore the obvious changes between the legal system in 1689 and the present day"
"The intention of the Act was to provide the citizen with certain rights and to prevent the imposition of any financial penalty without there being a right of challenge, which certainly in areas of criminal law is one purpose of the more modern European Convention on Human Rights".
These are the words of Stephen J. Knap Parking Adjudicator
Well Mr Knap, "Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt".The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood
Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998
A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
The Bill of Rights still has effect, it has not been repealed.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of law.
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament is also illegal under the Bill of Rights.
One only has to apply the principle of Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
Using the principle of Pepper v. Hart, which allows us to refer to what was said in Parliament to determine what the intention of Parliament was, we can determine what the original contract between crown and people is;
"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition's by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
(Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee's which drafted the Bill of Rights).
Confirmatio cartarum [25 Edw. I][29]
"No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."
Note: in the 1354 version, "by the law of the land" was changed to "by due process of law."
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
The National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
The Claim of Rights 1628 amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9 ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with unless with consent of Parliament. (given in judgement by Lord Bingham, House of Lords: Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001) Which in turn means that suspension or dispensing of law can only be made by the express agreement of Parliament.
In other words by Statute, ensuring ‘The Rule Of Law’ as the only Constitutional means of governance.
(Hansard, 21 July 1993 column 352), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
Monday, September 12, 2005
Further Questions as National Parking Adjudicator (NPAS) Crisis Deepens
For the attention of:
Andrew Barfoot
Tribunal Manager
National Parking Adjudication Service
6th FloorBarlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
M1 3DZ
Dear Mr. Barfoot,
Further to our telephone call of 10.15am Monday 12th September 2005 I would like clarification of the legal status of NPAS.
You advise that NPAS is a tribunal and not a court of law.
I have attached a link here to a video clip from the NPAS website.
It begins, "My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator."
Ms Cole then proceeds to make a statement,
" This is in fact a Court of Law."
1. Can you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the statement on your website misrepresents NPAS' legal status and will be removed immediately?
2. Can you advise as to how many hits the NPAS website has had since its creation and if there is a record of the number of times the misleading video clip has been accessed? Can you also detail how you intend to clarify the NPAS position for those who have been misled
3. Can you clarify the precise legal status of NPAS?
4. Can you please define NPAS' definition of 'independent?' I was advised by your enquiry handler that NPAS is completely independent of both parties involved in arbitration.
5. Can you please confirm how NPAS is funded and advise as to where this is clearly displayed on the NPAS website?
6. Can you please advise where to access NPAS accounts and financial records and a breakdown of contributions to NPAS by Local Authority member?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Andrew Barfoot
Tribunal Manager
National Parking Adjudication Service
6th FloorBarlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
M1 3DZ
Dear Mr. Barfoot,
Further to our telephone call of 10.15am Monday 12th September 2005 I would like clarification of the legal status of NPAS.
You advise that NPAS is a tribunal and not a court of law.
I have attached a link here to a video clip from the NPAS website.
It begins, "My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator."
Ms Cole then proceeds to make a statement,
" This is in fact a Court of Law."
1. Can you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the statement on your website misrepresents NPAS' legal status and will be removed immediately?
2. Can you advise as to how many hits the NPAS website has had since its creation and if there is a record of the number of times the misleading video clip has been accessed? Can you also detail how you intend to clarify the NPAS position for those who have been misled
3. Can you clarify the precise legal status of NPAS?
4. Can you please define NPAS' definition of 'independent?' I was advised by your enquiry handler that NPAS is completely independent of both parties involved in arbitration.
5. Can you please confirm how NPAS is funded and advise as to where this is clearly displayed on the NPAS website?
6. Can you please advise where to access NPAS accounts and financial records and a breakdown of contributions to NPAS by Local Authority member?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
No justice in parking 'court'
Christopher Booker's notebook
Sunday Telegraph (Filed: 11/09/2005)
No justice in parking 'court'
No justice in parking 'court'
Neil Herron is the campaigner who has shown that councils are illegally raising millions of pounds from motorists by failing to follow the correct procedures in setting up "decriminalised" parking regimes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act. When his own council, Sunderland, grudgingly admitted that it had continued to impose fines even after being formally told these were illegal, Mr Herron sought action.
Who better to ensure that the law was being observed, he thought, than the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS). But when he telephoned them he was puzzled to find that he was getting nowhere (not least when, thanks to an NPAS official failing to close off his mobile phone, Mr Herron overheard himself being described as "mad" - for which he later received an apology).
Mr Herron therefore investigated NPAS further. Although it presents itself as a wholly "independent" body, it turns out to be financed by 60p on every parking ticket issued by councils operating "decriminalised" regimes.
On its website, the NPAS sternly instructs the public to tell the truth because it is a "court of law". When challenged as to why it seems to act as judge and jury in its own interest, however, it cheerfully insists that it is "not a court of law" after all.
Thus, when local authorities are found to be in breach of the law on parking penalties, the public's only recourse is to a "court of law" which is not a court of law; which represents the very people who are breaking the law in the first place; and which is funded by money some of which itself has been raised illegally.
Sunday Telegraph (Filed: 11/09/2005)
No justice in parking 'court'
No justice in parking 'court'
Neil Herron is the campaigner who has shown that councils are illegally raising millions of pounds from motorists by failing to follow the correct procedures in setting up "decriminalised" parking regimes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act. When his own council, Sunderland, grudgingly admitted that it had continued to impose fines even after being formally told these were illegal, Mr Herron sought action.
Who better to ensure that the law was being observed, he thought, than the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS). But when he telephoned them he was puzzled to find that he was getting nowhere (not least when, thanks to an NPAS official failing to close off his mobile phone, Mr Herron overheard himself being described as "mad" - for which he later received an apology).
Mr Herron therefore investigated NPAS further. Although it presents itself as a wholly "independent" body, it turns out to be financed by 60p on every parking ticket issued by councils operating "decriminalised" regimes.
On its website, the NPAS sternly instructs the public to tell the truth because it is a "court of law". When challenged as to why it seems to act as judge and jury in its own interest, however, it cheerfully insists that it is "not a court of law" after all.
Thus, when local authorities are found to be in breach of the law on parking penalties, the public's only recourse is to a "court of law" which is not a court of law; which represents the very people who are breaking the law in the first place; and which is funded by money some of which itself has been raised illegally.
The Clock is Ticking Sunderland...why so long?
It is now over ten days since the following press request went in to Sunderland City Council
Questions:
1. Can the Council confirm that on or around November 2003 Parking Services / NCP / Sunderland Council became aware that they had been issuing tickets to Disabled Motorists in Loading Bays unlawfully?
2. How was it brought to your attention?
3. Why did you not immediately make this public and offer to refund the money?
4. Did Sunderland Council issue a notice to NCP to desist from issuing further tickets as they had no lawful authority to do so
If so, who issued the notice and to whom and the date it was issued?
5. Can you confirm the number of tickets that had been unlawfully issued by Parking Attendants (to disabled badge holders in loading bays) prior to you becoming aware that they had been issued unlawfully and the number that have been issued since all parties became aware? Can you also confirm the Offence Code?
Why is it taking so long?
Why is there still no explanation as to why in 2003 was the money unlawfully taken not refunded immediately?
There is a rumour circulating that Sunderland City Council are about to hold their hands up to the whole parking regime being unlawful...we wait with bated breath.
Questions:
1. Can the Council confirm that on or around November 2003 Parking Services / NCP / Sunderland Council became aware that they had been issuing tickets to Disabled Motorists in Loading Bays unlawfully?
2. How was it brought to your attention?
3. Why did you not immediately make this public and offer to refund the money?
4. Did Sunderland Council issue a notice to NCP to desist from issuing further tickets as they had no lawful authority to do so
If so, who issued the notice and to whom and the date it was issued?
5. Can you confirm the number of tickets that had been unlawfully issued by Parking Attendants (to disabled badge holders in loading bays) prior to you becoming aware that they had been issued unlawfully and the number that have been issued since all parties became aware? Can you also confirm the Offence Code?
Why is it taking so long?
Why is there still no explanation as to why in 2003 was the money unlawfully taken not refunded immediately?
There is a rumour circulating that Sunderland City Council are about to hold their hands up to the whole parking regime being unlawful...we wait with bated breath.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Victory...HM Customs and Excise back down after Bill of Rights threat
Looks like the threat of Lord Justice Laws Judgment had forced HM Customs and Excise to drop an action.
We (BWMA) have today received the following email from LeslieHatcher:
"I refer you to our conversation the other evening about my appeal against my VAT surcharge of £445. Two days ago I received a letter from HM Revenue and Customs stating that I had no case to answer and would I withdraw my appeal.
Instead of doing that I wrote another letter restating my case but in even stronger terms quoting Hierarchy of Actsvand no appeals so far etc. "
This morning I have received my seventh letter from them stating that they are now going to withdraw the surcharge.
In other words I have won ... It is all down to you and the extremely clever Mr de Crittenden. I have telephoned Patience Wheatcroft of the Times. I could not speak to her but I did speak to one of the other business editors who was absolutely fascinated and who understood the full significance of this on the spot. I am about to be phoned back by one of her team who want to take this further.I
was ridiculed by my associates here when I set out on this course of action who said that I was being stupid. They are changing their views now I think.
I think that this is significant because it extends your argument beyond parking problems and magnifies the significance of the 1689 Act tremendously. The Inland Revenue would never back down if they were sure of their ground and this is an admission that they are far from sure. I think that this news needs to bespread around and more people should take up the cause ...
I hope that my little effort is of help to you all".
We (BWMA) have today received the following email from LeslieHatcher:
"I refer you to our conversation the other evening about my appeal against my VAT surcharge of £445. Two days ago I received a letter from HM Revenue and Customs stating that I had no case to answer and would I withdraw my appeal.
Instead of doing that I wrote another letter restating my case but in even stronger terms quoting Hierarchy of Actsvand no appeals so far etc. "
This morning I have received my seventh letter from them stating that they are now going to withdraw the surcharge.
In other words I have won ... It is all down to you and the extremely clever Mr de Crittenden. I have telephoned Patience Wheatcroft of the Times. I could not speak to her but I did speak to one of the other business editors who was absolutely fascinated and who understood the full significance of this on the spot. I am about to be phoned back by one of her team who want to take this further.I
was ridiculed by my associates here when I set out on this course of action who said that I was being stupid. They are changing their views now I think.
I think that this is significant because it extends your argument beyond parking problems and magnifies the significance of the 1689 Act tremendously. The Inland Revenue would never back down if they were sure of their ground and this is an admission that they are far from sure. I think that this news needs to bespread around and more people should take up the cause ...
I hope that my little effort is of help to you all".
Friday, September 09, 2005
Robin Rocky De Crittenden dying to get in the ring
this time with Sandwell Council
9th September, 2005
Mr Nigel Summers,
CEO.,
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
by e-mail only:-
nigel_summers@sandwell.gov.uk West Bromwich.
B70 8RU.
Dear Mr Summers,
Re: Penalty Charge Number – SD14085376
I refer to all previous correspondence with you and with your officers; to public statements made during the past 72 hours by Cllr Mahmood Hussain and to a Public Challenge that I have issued to your Council, via BBC West Midlands (the text of which challenge I have copied to you by e-mail).
You will know that in response to my own points of legal argument, Mr Hussain has elected to re-offer the ‘rebuttal’ that the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights are not violated by the provisions of the RTA 1991, because the provisions of the D & B of Rights were and are concerned only with Criminal matters.
This is clearly not the case and it is for this reason that I have issued my challenge to a public debate. Mr Hussain has already demonstrated his personal willingness to issue public statements, and I am suggesting no more than that the public statements of both sides should now be confirmed in a public place, and then debated to the satisfaction of Sandwell taxpayers, who could well be invited to decide whether or not their money is to be spent in entering into a full legal contest with me.
Pending your Council’s decision as to whether or not my challenge should be accepted, there are matters which result from the statements of Cllr Hussain - and which require clarification - before I move on to further steps of my own.
In brief, Cllr Hussain has stated on behalf of your Council, and by public statements which are now firmly on the record, that it is the present intention of your Council to return to Court for an Order that will permit the Council to instruct Bailiffs to proceed against me: I have to confess that I am puzzled by these statements.
Is it correct to say that the Northampton Court has previously declined to register the Charge that Sandwell submitted on a previous occasion – and that Sandwell now has need to present a fresh application to the Northampton Court ?
OR is it true to say that your Council is now intent upon making an approach of some kind to some other Court?
And is it true to say that your present intentions will continue to deprive me of all ability to make formal representations of my own to the Northampton Court, or to some other Court?
Your prompt advice in this matter will be appreciated, so that I can make an accurate judgment as to whether or not I should now join Sandwell as a defendant to the Claim that it is being prepared for the attention of the Administrative Court.
Finally, it may be helpful for me to know why it that Sandwell is only now declaring an intention to return to Court - bearing in mind that full opportunity has existed for many months, all prior to my own public statements of this present week?
I look forward to the benefit of your detailed response, at an early time: In the meantime, I must confirm my earlier advice that you, together with all officials; representatives; servants and agents of the Sandwell Council are denied all and any right of peaceful entry at my home.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
9th September, 2005
Mr Nigel Summers,
CEO.,
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
by e-mail only:-
nigel_summers@sandwell.gov.uk West Bromwich.
B70 8RU.
Dear Mr Summers,
Re: Penalty Charge Number – SD14085376
I refer to all previous correspondence with you and with your officers; to public statements made during the past 72 hours by Cllr Mahmood Hussain and to a Public Challenge that I have issued to your Council, via BBC West Midlands (the text of which challenge I have copied to you by e-mail).
You will know that in response to my own points of legal argument, Mr Hussain has elected to re-offer the ‘rebuttal’ that the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights are not violated by the provisions of the RTA 1991, because the provisions of the D & B of Rights were and are concerned only with Criminal matters.
This is clearly not the case and it is for this reason that I have issued my challenge to a public debate. Mr Hussain has already demonstrated his personal willingness to issue public statements, and I am suggesting no more than that the public statements of both sides should now be confirmed in a public place, and then debated to the satisfaction of Sandwell taxpayers, who could well be invited to decide whether or not their money is to be spent in entering into a full legal contest with me.
Pending your Council’s decision as to whether or not my challenge should be accepted, there are matters which result from the statements of Cllr Hussain - and which require clarification - before I move on to further steps of my own.
In brief, Cllr Hussain has stated on behalf of your Council, and by public statements which are now firmly on the record, that it is the present intention of your Council to return to Court for an Order that will permit the Council to instruct Bailiffs to proceed against me: I have to confess that I am puzzled by these statements.
Is it correct to say that the Northampton Court has previously declined to register the Charge that Sandwell submitted on a previous occasion – and that Sandwell now has need to present a fresh application to the Northampton Court ?
OR is it true to say that your Council is now intent upon making an approach of some kind to some other Court?
And is it true to say that your present intentions will continue to deprive me of all ability to make formal representations of my own to the Northampton Court, or to some other Court?
Your prompt advice in this matter will be appreciated, so that I can make an accurate judgment as to whether or not I should now join Sandwell as a defendant to the Claim that it is being prepared for the attention of the Administrative Court.
Finally, it may be helpful for me to know why it that Sandwell is only now declaring an intention to return to Court - bearing in mind that full opportunity has existed for many months, all prior to my own public statements of this present week?
I look forward to the benefit of your detailed response, at an early time: In the meantime, I must confirm my earlier advice that you, together with all officials; representatives; servants and agents of the Sandwell Council are denied all and any right of peaceful entry at my home.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Rocky De Crittenden throws down the gauntlet
Playing on the hour every hour is the following challenge...to the background music of Survivor's 'Eye of the Tiger' from the Rocky films... this challenge is being read by Robin 'Rocky' De Crittenden
RADIO CHALLENGE TO SANDWELL MBC.
9th September, 2005
Via BBC Radio Midlands (Adrian Goldberge Breakfast Show)
___________________________________________________
STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:
"Because I am quite sure that the parking-ticket policy of Sandwell breaches Our Most
Basic Law, as provided by the Declaration & Bill of Rights –
And because I can see for myself that the Sandwell Councillors & Officers know little or nothing about the Declaration & Bill of Rights -
And because I would like the People of Sandwell to be protected against the financial costs that will be ordered against their Council – and therefore against them - when the Sandwell Parking Policy is finally sent to the House of Lords for a full legal resolution –
I WISH TO CHALLENGE THE SANDWELL COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS
TO A FULL AND PUBLIC DEBATE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF
SANDWELL –
AND AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE THAT MAY BE CHOSEN BY THE SANDWELL
COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS FOR THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE –
FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF MAKING A FULL ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SANDWELL COUNCIL AND MYSELF –
AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE PEOPLE OF SANDWELL WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BEING LAWFULLY & REASONABLY SERVED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING THEIR MONEY AND CLAIMING TO ACT IN THEIR NAME –"
Robin de Crittenden.
RADIO CHALLENGE TO SANDWELL MBC.
9th September, 2005
Via BBC Radio Midlands (Adrian Goldberge Breakfast Show)
___________________________________________________
STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:
"Because I am quite sure that the parking-ticket policy of Sandwell breaches Our Most
Basic Law, as provided by the Declaration & Bill of Rights –
And because I can see for myself that the Sandwell Councillors & Officers know little or nothing about the Declaration & Bill of Rights -
And because I would like the People of Sandwell to be protected against the financial costs that will be ordered against their Council – and therefore against them - when the Sandwell Parking Policy is finally sent to the House of Lords for a full legal resolution –
I WISH TO CHALLENGE THE SANDWELL COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS
TO A FULL AND PUBLIC DEBATE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF
SANDWELL –
AND AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE THAT MAY BE CHOSEN BY THE SANDWELL
COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS FOR THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE –
FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF MAKING A FULL ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SANDWELL COUNCIL AND MYSELF –
AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE PEOPLE OF SANDWELL WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BEING LAWFULLY & REASONABLY SERVED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING THEIR MONEY AND CLAIMING TO ACT IN THEIR NAME –"
Robin de Crittenden.
Give 'em a pint and they'll take a kilometre
Give 'em a pint and they'll take a kilometre
The Sun, Friday September 2, 2005
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
NOT content with hounding greengrocer Steve Thoburn in to an earlygrave for the heinous offence of selling fruit and veg in weights his customers could understand, the Metric Mafia are stepping up their campaign to force Britain to abandon imperial measures for ever.
Brussels is renewing its pressure on the Government to set a date for the abolition of miles, yards, feet, inches and pints.
Ministers are already going public with "over my dead body" bravado. Don't be fooled. They'll give in eventually. They always do.
Even if they don't, the Men In Wigs will over-rule them.
The plain fact is that, with the exception of miles and pints, most of our historic units of measurement have already gone the way of all flesh.
Every once in a while, someone makes a stand. But as in the case of the unfortunate Steve Thoburn they get ground down.
I seem to remember around the time Mr Thoburn was prosecuted for selling bananas in pounds and ounces, Tesco made a great song and dance about never submitting to the Brussels bullies and pledging to sell their produce in pounds and ounces for as long as their customers wanted.
That lasted about five minutes. Having secured acres of free publicity, Tesco quietly let it drop.
Try buying a pound of mince at your local Tesco these days. It's all kilograms or percentages thereof.
Maybe they figured that having had their 400 grams of flesh it wasn't worth the aggravation to keep it going, even though a company the size of Tesco could well have afforded a few hundred quid in fines every month.
That's what the Metric Mafia rely on. They know they can smash the Steve Thoburns of this world while the giant corporations will go along with anything provided the profits keep flowing.
What the hell does Tesco care which units of measurement it uses, just so long as the margin's right?
I can understand why manufacturing companies which trade internationally might favour a standardised system. They don't want to be pitching for a contract in fractions of an inch if the customer's plans have been drawn up in Centigrade, or whatever.
Fair enough.
But what if, as in the case of Steve Thoburn, the customers are largely ladies who have been brought up using pounds and ounces?
Why should they be expected to deal in a system with which they are unfamiliar?
The whole point of weights and measures legislation is to ensure that the customer doesn't get short-changed.
The history of metrication mirrors that of decimalisation. The customer always gets ripped off. A few grams get shaved off here, a few pence added there.
That's what's happened across Europe in the case of the euro. And it's one of the main reasons the Italians want their lira back. Prices have gone through the roof since the changeover.
The purpose of measurement is to clarify, to stop anyone being cheated, not to confuse. But that isn't how the bureaucratic mind works.
Everything must comply, whether or not it is to the advantage of the consumer.
It may well be that in the fullness of time, the universal adoption of the metric system is inevitable -although the USA, the most successful trading nation on earth, manages to rub along quite nicely using imperial measurements.
One of the many joys for an old fart like me visiting America is knowing how much everything weighs and how hot it is.
I get pounds and ounces. I understand Fahrenheit. And there are millions like me.
So why can't the two systems operate side by side until there's no one left who still thinks in old money?
Isn't that the whole point of consumer choice? Why the hell should using measurements which people can understand be a criminal offence?
A criminal offence, for goodness sake, to be punished to the fullest extent of the law?
You never get a Steve Thoburn being given the benefit of the doubt, or being threatened with an Asbo.
All resistance must be crushed. You wouldn't know it, but the official measurement of distance in Britain is still miles, yards and feet.
That doesn't stop local councils sticking up signposts in metres. Technically, the last time I looked, they were in breach of the law. But the Town Hall Metric Mafia are hardly going to prosecute themselves, are they?
Oh, no, they reserve their wrath for recalcitrant greengrocers selling their "potatoe's" and "apple's" in "pound's" and "ounce's"(copyright: K Waterhouse).
None of this is really about standardisation or "bringing us into line with Europe". As if they really give a damn.
Like so much else in Blair's Britain, from speed cameras to nicking radio hams for alleged anti-Muslim sentiment, it's about showing us who's boss.
Throwing their metric weight around enables them to indulge their punishment fantasies while at the same time posing as modern, reasonable and progressive.
What could be more agreeable than using a superior Continental system of measurement?
Only a Little Englander could possibly object. How long before opposition to compulsory metrication is officially declared a racist hate crime?
In their zeal to crush all trace of this country's historic system of measurements, the bureaucrats are aided and abetted by the biggest bureaucracy of all -the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC gives the impression of taking its editorial line direct from Brussels.
While even Channel 4 gives Test match viewers a choice of Fahrenheit/Centigrade when forecasting the weather for that day's play, the Beeb sticks resolutely to new money.
If you don't instantly understand what 18C is -tough. Work it out for yourself and don't forget to carry an umbrella.
Watch any news bulletin and you'll see BBC reporters banging on about, for instance, how many metres away something happened.
Even on documentaries they convert nautical miles and knots into metric.
Perhaps the most ludicrous example came this week as Hurricane Katrina approached America's Gulf coast.
As the US authorities and the national hurricane centre spoke about how many miles an hour Katrina was travelling, the BBC insisted on telling us that she was expected to hit land at speeds of "up to 280 kilometres an hour".
I believe it's known as a Mission To Explain.
How long before they start sending out the licence fee in euros?
The Sun, Friday September 2, 2005
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
NOT content with hounding greengrocer Steve Thoburn in to an earlygrave for the heinous offence of selling fruit and veg in weights his customers could understand, the Metric Mafia are stepping up their campaign to force Britain to abandon imperial measures for ever.
Brussels is renewing its pressure on the Government to set a date for the abolition of miles, yards, feet, inches and pints.
Ministers are already going public with "over my dead body" bravado. Don't be fooled. They'll give in eventually. They always do.
Even if they don't, the Men In Wigs will over-rule them.
The plain fact is that, with the exception of miles and pints, most of our historic units of measurement have already gone the way of all flesh.
Every once in a while, someone makes a stand. But as in the case of the unfortunate Steve Thoburn they get ground down.
I seem to remember around the time Mr Thoburn was prosecuted for selling bananas in pounds and ounces, Tesco made a great song and dance about never submitting to the Brussels bullies and pledging to sell their produce in pounds and ounces for as long as their customers wanted.
That lasted about five minutes. Having secured acres of free publicity, Tesco quietly let it drop.
Try buying a pound of mince at your local Tesco these days. It's all kilograms or percentages thereof.
Maybe they figured that having had their 400 grams of flesh it wasn't worth the aggravation to keep it going, even though a company the size of Tesco could well have afforded a few hundred quid in fines every month.
That's what the Metric Mafia rely on. They know they can smash the Steve Thoburns of this world while the giant corporations will go along with anything provided the profits keep flowing.
What the hell does Tesco care which units of measurement it uses, just so long as the margin's right?
I can understand why manufacturing companies which trade internationally might favour a standardised system. They don't want to be pitching for a contract in fractions of an inch if the customer's plans have been drawn up in Centigrade, or whatever.
Fair enough.
But what if, as in the case of Steve Thoburn, the customers are largely ladies who have been brought up using pounds and ounces?
Why should they be expected to deal in a system with which they are unfamiliar?
The whole point of weights and measures legislation is to ensure that the customer doesn't get short-changed.
The history of metrication mirrors that of decimalisation. The customer always gets ripped off. A few grams get shaved off here, a few pence added there.
That's what's happened across Europe in the case of the euro. And it's one of the main reasons the Italians want their lira back. Prices have gone through the roof since the changeover.
The purpose of measurement is to clarify, to stop anyone being cheated, not to confuse. But that isn't how the bureaucratic mind works.
Everything must comply, whether or not it is to the advantage of the consumer.
It may well be that in the fullness of time, the universal adoption of the metric system is inevitable -although the USA, the most successful trading nation on earth, manages to rub along quite nicely using imperial measurements.
One of the many joys for an old fart like me visiting America is knowing how much everything weighs and how hot it is.
I get pounds and ounces. I understand Fahrenheit. And there are millions like me.
So why can't the two systems operate side by side until there's no one left who still thinks in old money?
Isn't that the whole point of consumer choice? Why the hell should using measurements which people can understand be a criminal offence?
A criminal offence, for goodness sake, to be punished to the fullest extent of the law?
You never get a Steve Thoburn being given the benefit of the doubt, or being threatened with an Asbo.
All resistance must be crushed. You wouldn't know it, but the official measurement of distance in Britain is still miles, yards and feet.
That doesn't stop local councils sticking up signposts in metres. Technically, the last time I looked, they were in breach of the law. But the Town Hall Metric Mafia are hardly going to prosecute themselves, are they?
Oh, no, they reserve their wrath for recalcitrant greengrocers selling their "potatoe's" and "apple's" in "pound's" and "ounce's"(copyright: K Waterhouse).
None of this is really about standardisation or "bringing us into line with Europe". As if they really give a damn.
Like so much else in Blair's Britain, from speed cameras to nicking radio hams for alleged anti-Muslim sentiment, it's about showing us who's boss.
Throwing their metric weight around enables them to indulge their punishment fantasies while at the same time posing as modern, reasonable and progressive.
What could be more agreeable than using a superior Continental system of measurement?
Only a Little Englander could possibly object. How long before opposition to compulsory metrication is officially declared a racist hate crime?
In their zeal to crush all trace of this country's historic system of measurements, the bureaucrats are aided and abetted by the biggest bureaucracy of all -the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC gives the impression of taking its editorial line direct from Brussels.
While even Channel 4 gives Test match viewers a choice of Fahrenheit/Centigrade when forecasting the weather for that day's play, the Beeb sticks resolutely to new money.
If you don't instantly understand what 18C is -tough. Work it out for yourself and don't forget to carry an umbrella.
Watch any news bulletin and you'll see BBC reporters banging on about, for instance, how many metres away something happened.
Even on documentaries they convert nautical miles and knots into metric.
Perhaps the most ludicrous example came this week as Hurricane Katrina approached America's Gulf coast.
As the US authorities and the national hurricane centre spoke about how many miles an hour Katrina was travelling, the BBC insisted on telling us that she was expected to hit land at speeds of "up to 280 kilometres an hour".
I believe it's known as a Mission To Explain.
How long before they start sending out the licence fee in euros?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
