Can this really be the end for the St George flag?

Outrage over Euro Banner
by David Pilditch and Mark Blacklock
Daily Express
Saturday November 26, 2005

A fresh attack was launched by the Government yesterday on the Union Flag.
It wants to give the European Flag the same status as our treasured national symbol, the Daily Express can reveal.
The contraversial move could spell the end of the four flags for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

The European symbol could soon replace our national flags flying outside public buildings.

And yesterday one council moved to take down the flag of St George and replace it with the blue EU banner with its ring of yellow stars.

Critics bitterly condemned the Government move as a disgrace.

The news comes after the Express revealed yesterday that Eurocrats are trying to force Britain's merchant navy fleet to fly the European flag.
Critivs say that this could relegate the traditional Red Ensign - under which the merchant ships have sailed to war - to history. Under British law all non-national flags are classified as "outdoor advertisements". The EU's uninspiring flag can only bt flown above public buildings with planning permission from local councils.
Two authorities and a police force in England have been forced to take the flags down from their buildings after complaints from campaigners.
At one stage the European Commission's London office was ordered to remove the banner.
Last month Wear Valley District Council in County Durham was forced to take down the EU banner from its headquarters after being told that it was flying illegally.
After the error was pointed out the standard was replaced with the flag of St George.
At a cost of £265 the council then applied to its own planning committee for permission to restore the EU flag.
This week the planning committee approved a revised application to fly the flag applying for "advertisement consent".
Despite 19 objections put forward all 14 councillors on the committee supported the application.
Yesterday Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's office admitted it is introducing rules next year which will raise the status of the Euro flag.
Angry anti-Europe campaigner Neil Herron said: "It is illegal to fly the European flag without planning permission. At present the European flag has the same status as the Jolly Roger. But at least the people who flew that flag were honest about their intentions.
"The Government's proposal will give the European flag the status of our national flags. In the case of local authorities this is a contentious issue because the EU flag is not the symbol of a nation state but of a political project.
"It falls foull of local government guidelines which state you cannot use public money to promote a political issue.
"This is a disgrace. It's being done through the back door."
Tory Peer Lord Waddington condemned the proposal, saying the EU flag had "the same status as the skull and crossbones - which some might think appropriate".

The end of parking fines may be in sight

The end of parking fines could be in sight after the outcome of two legal challenges are known.

The cases, one brought by a Bosham man and the other by a man in Worcester, are using ancient laws to challenge the legality of parking fines and local authorities’ ability to impose them.

Those behind the cases believe if they succeed the revenue from car parking fines in Britain - estimated to be worth £1bn - will be dramatically reduced.

Lt Col Tex Pemberton, the West Sussex County Council transport chief, has called the challenges ‘potential showstoppers’.

The basis of the challenges is that in law, councils operating decriminalised parking schemes do not have the power to issue ‘fines’ - only courts have the power to do so.

If successful, it could have major implications in this area because West Sussex County Council is due to begin decriminalised car parking on January 23.

Former Chichester parliamentary candidate, Douglas Denny, of Sunnyway, Bosham, who is challenging his case over a parking ticket he received in Portsmouth, said: “The law has been ignored for years and (the authorities) have got away with it. Now it is being tested.”

Mr Denny’s case has progressed only as far as Portsmouth City Council’s head lawyer, who has said he regards it as being ‘interesting’.

But in Worcester last Friday Robin De Crittenden, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, took Worcester City Council to a tribunal hearing.

He and Mr Denny are both arguing their cases using the 1689 Bill of Rights which says parking ‘fines’ can only be imposed by a court of law.

Part of the Bill they refer to says: “All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”

Mr De Crittenden said at the tribunal that Britain was drifting towards a police state and said: “The public are faced with a vast money-making machine that is a disgrace to each of the local authorities.”

A decision from the tribunal is not expected for weeks as the National Parking Adjudication Service reserved judgement and said it will announce its decision by the end of November. (note - decision made known this weekend - appeal allowed - by default as Worcester City Council failed to appear to put their case )

Mr Denny began his case, which is identical in most ways to Mr De Crittenden’s after receiving a parking ticket in Auckland Road East, Southsea, on October 29.

He paid the £30 fine to the council but appealed at the same time that was unlawful.

Portsmouth City Council’s Head of Common Law, Gordon Barratt, said in a letter to Mr Denny: “I must say the issues you have raised certainly do appear interesting from a lawyer’s perspective.

“If Portsmouth City Council was ordered by the courts or legislative amendment to reimburse any parking charges levied then, subject to appeal, it would of course comply with such a requirement.”

Nothing is likely to happen in Mr Denny’s case until the tribunal in Worcester is resolved.

Mr Denny said: “The levying of fines without recourse to a court of law is illegal under the Bill of Rights Act.

“There is no question about it - it is illegal.

“To put it simply, the law has been ignored for years and they have got away with it. Now it is being tested.

“What is interesting is how the authorities are going to get out of it - as try they will – because there are millions of pounds of revenue at stake per annum.

“They are already trying to make out that the fines are not really fines after all but are parking charges.

“The trouble for them is they have tacitly been called fines from day one and are still called fines at all levels of local authority government.

“If it looks like a fine, acts like a fine and smells like a fine - it must be a fine.”

County council cabinet member for transport Lt Col Pemberton said: “This is a potential showstopper.

“We hope it is not a showstopper but we will have to wait and see what happens in Worcester before we react. It may well be that we have to change all the wording to ‘charges’ instead of fines.

“But as far as I’m concerned I am telling all my people to carry on work as normal because we have to put a stop to illegal parking in West Sussex.”

Transport Committee puts its hands in its ears and whistles. Herron refused opportunity to give evidence.

It seems that the Transport Committee is desperate to keep the information that we have from the official report.
Evidence is being given from all the usual suspects.The establishment is closing ranks to protect itself.

TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London
SW1P 3JA

Enquiries 020 7219 6263 Fax 020 7219 0909 E-mail transcom@parliament.uk
http://www.parliament.uk/transcom
Committee Office Information Line for recorded information about Committee meetings: 020 7219 2033

PRESS NOTICE
EVIDENCE SESSIONS
FINDING A SPACE FOR PARKING POLICY
The Transport Committee previously announced its intention to inquire into the current effectiveness and quality of parking policy and enforcement. Oral evidence sessions will be held for this inquiry on 7 December and 14 December 2005, and the witnesses will be as follows:

Wednesday 7 December 2005
2.45pm British Parking Association
National Car Parks Ltd
3.30pm Association of London Government
Westminster Council
Local Government Association
Manchester City Council
Winchester City Council
4.30pm Institution of Highways and Transportation
Technical Advisers Group
Living Streets

Wednesday 14 December 2005
2.45pm RAC Foundation
AA Motoring Trust
Freight Transport Association
Brewery Logistics Group
3.30pm National Parking Adjudication Service
Chief Parking Adjudicator for London
4.15pm Ms Karen Buck MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport

The evidence sessions will take place in public, unless otherwise decided by the Committee. Because the meetings may be moved from the Palace of Westminster to Portcullis House, those wishing to attend the meetings should check the venue by contacting the Committee Office Information Line on 020 7219 2033 on the day before the hearings.

Press Notice 16/2005-06
28 November 2005
John Patterson
Clerk of the Committee

More news and press reports in brief

Council flies flag in Europe row read..
BBC News Manchester (metric martyr, Neil Herron)
25/11
09:00
A council has given itself planning permission to fly the European Union flag from its County Durham offices....fly the flag applying for "advertisement consent". Anti-EU campaignerNeil Herron, who made the complaint, said he was determined to pursuehis...
Report from agent de Crittenden (2 matches) Period: 25/11 08:30 - 28/11 08:30

Parking Rebel Fights On read..
Sky News (de Crittenden)
27/11 08:12 A motorist who successfully appealed against his parking ticket hopes to set a legal precedent that could see such fines declared illegal. If he does, the court ruling could save motorists hundreds of millions of pounds every year....motorists hundreds of millions of pounds every year. Robin de Crittendenwon his appeal to the National Parking Adjudication Service against...

Battle over unpaid parking fines read..
Express & Star (De Crittenden)
25/11 16:48 A serial parking offender from Willenhall has invoked the 1689 Bill of Rights in his battle against Worcester City Council over a £60 ticket. Pensioner Robin De Crittenden has also raised the ancient law against Sandwell and Sunderland councils....Worcester City Council over a £60 ticket. Pensioner Robin De Crittendenhas also raised the ancient law against Sandwell and Sunderland councils.

EU commissioner critical of British accounting read..
Irish Examiner (metric system)
25/11 14:24
EU Budget Commissioner Dalia Grybauskaite slammed Britain's defence of its EU rebate today, saying London was using "creative accounting" in its arguments to keep the multi-billion-euro payback.driving on the left side of the road and refusing to adopt the metricsystem. The former Lithuanian finance minister also was critical ofBritain's...

Eu flag remains down

Northern Echo
Saturday 26th November 2005

EU flag remains down
The flags were flying proudly over a North East civic centre last night - but not the European Union flag that has caused so much fuss.

Wear Valley District Council faced criticism for spending £265 to fund a planning application so it can fly its council flag and the European Union flag over the Civic Centre, in Crook, County Durham.

The authority was forced to take down the EU Ring of Stars after complaints from the People's NO Campaign Group, which said it was illegal to fly a political symbol.

We'll keep the Blue Flag Flying

Olive Brown can be contacted at
o.brown@wearvalley.gov.uk

You can post a comment at the Wear Valley DC Forum here

It appears as though my Freedom of Information request with regard to the EU flag issue 'went missing' and was only found after the planning committee meeting.
However, the EU Flag still needs permission from full council and this is a policy decision the debate for which takes place on 14th December.
We will be publishing a full list of all the councillors involved in the Committee as they will need to be lobbied.

Sunday Telegraph
Christopher Booker's notebook
(Filed: 27/11/2005)

'We'll keep the blue flag flying
Olive Brown, the Europhile former leader of a Co Durham council, hopes to replace the flag of St George currently flying outside her council offices with that of the EU. To the chagrin of Ms Brown, a member of the EU's Committee of the Regions, Wear Valley council had to haul down the "ring of stars" on one of its three flagpoles, when it was pointed out that this was illegal without planning permission. On Thursday the council voted unanimously to give itself permission to fly the EU flag, although 19 members of the public had lodged objections, with none in favour.

Press Release: Robin de Crittenden wins Appeal...now the High Court

Press Release: Immediate

The People's No Campaign

"Notice of Announcement of High Court Appeal following Robin de Crittenden's Bill of Rights Parking Ticket Victory"
...Government and Local Authorities facing a loss of £1 billion a year in parking fine revenue


Photo Opportunity: Robin de Crittenden and People's No Campaign Directors Neil Herron and Colin Moran with Court papers
Location: Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London.
Time:11.00 am Monday 28th 2005

Verdict: Appeal Upheld.

Robin de Crittenden beats Worcester Council

The case of:
Robin Decrittenden v Worcester City Council

was heard at the Fownes Hotel in Worcester on Friday 18th November 2005 by Mr. Prickett of the National Parking Adjudication Service, the 'Independent' Tribunal that receive 60p from every Penalty Charge Notice issued.

The hearing in Worcester was the first public airing of the use of the Bill of Rights Defence against a Penalty Charge Notice issued, in this instance, under Worcester City Council's decriminalised parking enforcement regime.
Two hundred members of the public packed the venue.
The potential of the case is that it could expose the fact that the Government, and Local Authorities operating decriminalised parking enforcement regimes, are acting unlawfully. The consequence could be that they have no legal authority to impose 'fines' thereby threatening a massive source of revenue which is now approaching £1,000,000,000 per annum!
The Tribunal heard evidence that the Bill of Rights 1689 is a constitutional statute that has not been 'expressly' repealed by the 'ordinary' statute, the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
This requirement for ordinary Acts of Parliament was confirmed in the judgment of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council heard in the High Court in February 2002 and commonly referred to as 'The Metric Martyrs Judgment.'
Fundamental to the case against Decriminalised Parking Fines was that the Bill of Rights states:
"that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement does not allow access to a Court of Law.

The Tribunal heard evidence of many instances of failures by the NPAS to request evidence from Local Authorities and failing to inspect evidence, yet still they still against many motorists.
Evidence also was cited, which included cases in Sunderland where £35,000 has had to be repaid to motorists with another £2.5m pending. Rochdale Council has issued over 28,000 Penalty Charge Notices with unlawful wording and the sum which will have to be paid back is over £660,000. In many instances NPAS had wrongly adjudicated.

Evidence was submitted to the Tribunal which exposed the Chief Adjudicator making prejudicial remarks about the Bill of Rights defence exposing a bias against ANY appellant.

The Tribunal also heard of manipulation and altering of NPAS and Government websites to remove the word 'fine' and replace it with 'charge' and it appears that Mr. Prickett, when making reference to the Bill of Rights, conveniently omits the 'and forfeitures' in a further attempt at obfuscation (if a PCN is not a fine then it is most certainly a forfeiture).

Mr. Prickett allowed the appeal but on a technicality...that Worcester Council had conveniently failed to supply any evidence of a Traffic Regulation Order. If that was the case then the hearing should have taken two minutes and not four hours.

It is therefore the intention to appeal the successful appeal to the High Court on a point of law in order to expose the fact that ALL decriminalised parking fines are unlawful and ALL motorists are being unlawfully persecuted by local authorities operating decriminalised parking schemes.

Robin Decrittenden states,"They are running away because they know the law is bigger than they are hence the situation in Worcester where the Adjudicator admitted that he had failed to inspect Council documentation in the past but is now saying that Councils have the job of proving their case."
People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "This is the first head on conflict exposing the highly suspect Metric Martyrs Judgment. If the Judgment is correct then decriminalised parking fines cannot be levied. Alternatively, the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted. It is our intention to put an end to the unacceptable and unaccountable governance and this decriminalised parking is simply an unlawful stealth tax on the motorist."
ENDS

Contact:

Neil Herron
tel. 0191 565 7143
mob. 07776 202045

Colin Moran
mob. 07802 448 635
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com

Robin Decrittenden 01902 417 045

More information to be posted at:
www.neilherron.blogspot.com and www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk

NOTES TO EDITORS:

Press Release from Worcester Hearing of 18th November here

Full text of the National Parking Adjudication Service decision here

Press Statement from Robin de Crittenden for 28th November 2005 here

The People's No Campaign has grown out of the Metric Martyrs Campaign which successfully halted the Government's persecution of traders for using imperial measures.
The campaign team ran the successful No Campaign in the North East referendum defeating John Prescott's proposals for an elected regional assembly.
The campaign has grown to oppose the European Constitution and has recently forced local authorities to remove the EU Flag from public buildings.

Decittenden v Worcester...Decision to be announced

We will be announcing the decision from the Decrittenden v Worcester Parking Appeal case at a Press Conference at 11am outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London.

The press release is being prepared (will be circulated at 6pm tomorrow) and the implications of the decision by Adjudicator, Mr. Prickett, will have a knock-on effect for all Decriminalised Parking Enforcement local authorities as well as the National Parking Adjudication Service.

Needless to say, the decision is precisely what was expected...more to follow.

Herron on TalkSport...Parking Fine Mess

Neil Herron is on the Mike Dickin Show on TalkSport this Sunday evening 11pm - 2am (1053 - 1089 mw).
The subject...Parking Fines and out of control local authorities...a stealth tax on the motorist.

We will be exposing the illegality of decriminalised parking enforcement.

We will be exposing local authorities acting illegally.

We will be exposing rogue companies exploiting the sytem without any checks and balances.

The last time the show ran the subject the switchboard lit up like a Christmas Tree.

Should you wish to call the programme the number is 08704 202020

Opponents pole-axed in flag row

The Journal
Friday, November 25, 2005

A council which was forced to stop flying the European Union flag after complaints from a protest group, last night granted itself the go-ahead to resurrect it.

County Durham's Wear Valley District Council pulled down the EU Ring of Stars after complaints from two members of The People's No Campaign group. North-East 'metric martyrs' Neil Herron and Jim Tague argued it was unlawful for a local authority to fly the political symbol in front of its public buildings.

But last night, Wear Valley's development control committee unanimously voted to give the authority permission to re-erect it at the Civic Centrem in Crook.

The decision came despite a raft of objections from campaigners, including a drive to replace it with England's national flag, the Cross of St George.

They also criticised the council's use of public money to fund the application for a flag.

One complaint said: "If the council has surplus money the following flags should be displayed as a priority: Union Jack, Flag of St George, Flag of Scotland and Flag of Wales."

Another added: "I strongly object that you wish to use taxpayers' money to unlawfully promote a political project."

In a statement before the application was passed, Mr Herron said: "The issue of our membership of the EU is politically contentious and one for national Government and not for promotion by local authorities.
"Their limited resources would be better spent on issues which are important to the local community, not for political grandstanding."

The group added that even if the council pass the application, they believe it will still be unlawful.

But last night Wear Valley District Council development control committee member Ron Grogan said he objected to the matter being debated at all.
"They are complaining about the council paying £265 but I have asked our planing officer to calculate how much this has cost in terms of officers' time.
"Many of the political points they raised were not relevant to the committee meeting."

Eurocrats ban our Red Ensign

Shameful insult to our brave merchant sailors
Daily Express
Friday 25 November, 2005
By David Pilditch and John Ingham






They insist British ships fly the EU flag instead

Brussels bureaucrats are tryins to force Britain's merchant fleet to fly the European flag instead of the historic Red Ensign.

The proposal was condemned last night by politicians and war veterans.

EU officials want ships from member states to fly the blue European flag with its ring of yellow stars, claiming it will improve the image of the fleet.

But veterans insist there is no greater emblem of excellence than the Red Ensign, which has been the official flag of the Merchant Navy since 1864. Before then, the flag, affectionately nicknamed the Red Duster, was flown by Royal Navy warships as far back as 1627.

The timing of the proposal - after Britain proudly celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar - was seen as a calculated insult.

Former Royal Navy commander Eddie Grenfell, who survived the sinking of a merchant ship in the Arctic in May 1942, said: "The Red Ensign should never be changed. In every war the Merchant Navy play a prominent part. They are tremendous, loyal people who never give up. they have lost thousands of men all around the world and the Red Ensign is a flag they are proud of."

Merchant Navy Association chairman Captain John Sail said: "It is terrible that they should try to alter such a symbol of British success.
"The EU has nothing to do with our history of extreme bravery during conflict."

Today the Red Ensign is flown by nearly 600 ships registered in the UK. During the war the Merchant Navy had a higher ratio of casualities than any of the Armed Services.

Nearly 32,000 men and women helping to transport vital supplies of ammunition, food and fuel were killed. And nine merchant seamen died in the Falklands War when the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk.

Merchant Navy Association national secretary Tim Brant said: "If it hadn't been for the merchant service in the Second World War we wouldn't have the freedom we enjoy today. Every one of the merchant seamen who lost their lives signed up tp serve under the Red Ensign." The plan to scrap it comes two years after Eurocrats were forced to abandon a separate attempt to tamper with the flag.

The idea then was to replace the Union Flag in the corner of the ensign with a European Union emblem. Now the European Commission is accused of trying to resurrect the idea through the back door.

It says the move would help recognition at sea of vessels meeting the strictest European safety standards. The plan has been put forward for EU transport ministers to consider. But Shadow Transport Minister Julian Brazier said: "This is a silly proposal. The Commission should drop it." And British MEPs vowed to fight the proposal.

Tory Geoffrey Van Orden said: "We want our ships to fly our national flag. The idea of flying an EU flag is offensive and defies common sense and centuries of tradition."

Numast, the Merchant Navy officers' union, insisted any attempt at establishing a European fleet would be resisted. Spokesman Andrew Linnington said: "There are very powerful reasons for retaining a national merchant fleet. During the Falklands War we had more than 50 merchant ships that supported the Royal Navy. I can't imagine a European fleet would have sailed there."

The Department for Transport said: "We are not going to get rid of the Red Ensign. We see neither need nor advantage in a European flag."





"It is so terrible to alter a symbol of British success"

Wear Valley District Council...Unanimous decision to betray England

Last night 14 Wear Valley District Councillors voted unanimously to approve planning consent to fly the EU Flag.
The People's No Campaign had previously forced them to remove it as they were not legally entitled to do so.
Since it was removed the Cross of St. George has been proudly flying. Now the Council intends to remove the English Flag and replace it with the 'Ring of Stars.'

The arrogance of these elected individuals is staggering...
'Our aim - to be the best District Council in England'

Read the BBC coverage here

It is important that this betrayal of England and the flag in favour of the corrupt, unaccountable and undemocratic EU is spread as far and wide as possible

Leave your comments here on the Wear Valley website:

The letters page for the Newcastle Journal is jnl.letters@ncjmedia.co.uk and the Northern Echo is echo@nne.co.uk and it is important that public revulsion is articulated.

We will continue to pursue the Council as it still has to make a policy decision...to use public money to promote a political project...and this falls foul of the Section 19 of the Local Authority Guidelines on publicity.

Rights to fight parking ticket

Rights to fight parking ticket
The Times
November 19, 2005

A pensioner aims to use the 1689 Bill of Rights to overturn a parking ticket. Robin de Crittenden, 67, from Willenhall, Wolverhampton, is fighting a £60 fine issued by Worcester City Council and has taken his case to the National Parking Adjudication Service. He believes that fines issued before conviction by a court are illegal under the Bill of Rights. The NPAS adjudicator reserved judgment on the case and is expected to notify the parties of his findings this month.

Press Release:- Wear Valley Council and that EU Flag

Wear Valley District Council would like comments on their forum. Tell them what you think here

Press Release
The People's No Campaign
Thursday 24th November 2005

"Wear Valley District Council desperate to remove the English 'Cross of St. George' Flag
...and replace it with the European Union 'Ring of Stars."

Wear Valley District Council is tonight attempting to seek planning permission to fly the EU Flag after previously being forced to remove it by People's No Campaigners, Jim Tague and Neil Herron.

The planning application, using £265 of public money appears to be a desperate attempt to legitimise the flying of the EU's 'Ring of Stars' after being embarassingly caught out flying it illegally.

However, it is still not lawful to fly the flag because it is not the flag of a nation state but of a political project and thus they would fall foul of Section 19 of the Local Authority Guidelines on Publicity..." you cannot use public money to attempt to persuade the public on a question of policy."

Neil Herron states, "The issue of our membership of the European Union is politically contentious and one for national Government and not for promotion by Local Authorities. Their limited resources would be better spent on issues, which are important to the local community and not for political ‘grandstanding’ on behalf of elected members who are in favour of the ‘European Project,' including former leader Olive Brown who is the North East alternate member on the EU's Committee of the Regions.
Quite why WVDC Council, the Council which states on its website, 'our aim – is to become the best District Council in England’ wishes to have the English flag removed therefore is quite beyond me."

Jim Tague states, " In light of the Council's wish to become the best District Council in England I trust they will be consulting the whole of the District on their preference of which particular flag they would like see flying...the Cross of St. George or the EU's Ring of Stars. Surely a council with such aspirations would not fear the outcome of full public consultation. After all, as servants of the people I am sure that they would not wish to be seen as acting as our masters."

It is expected that this issue will have implications for all other Local Authorities who are also unlawfully flying the EU Flag and I am sure that our pro EU Government will be watching events very closely.

G K Chesterton in his poem 'Secret People' states:
"For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."

If Wear Valley District Council and other Local Authorities continue with their arrogant affront to England and the English people then they will find that the people who haven't yet spoken are ones to be feared when they do find their voice.

Ends:

Contact;
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/
Jim Tague
07704 664 223




Notes to Editors:

Committee Meeting takes place at 6pm 4th Floor Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Crook, County Durham, DL15 9ES.

This Campaign is part of The People's No Campaign initiative to force the removal of the EU Flag from all public buildings.
The successes have previously been reported in the Christopher Booker Column in the Sunday Telegraph but this is the first instance where an authority is actually spending money to effectively remove the English flag in favour of the EU 'Ring of Stars.'
Booker Report of 2nd October when the EU Flag was removed here


The full submission to Wear Valley District Council Development Control Committee 24th November 2005
By Neil Herron
can be viewed here

Wear Valley Council desperate to fly the EU flag

However, their incompetence knows no bounds and on a technical point, their application is about as legal as the flag that they are attempting to get permission to fly!
You would think that they would be grateful that we won a No vote in last year's referendum 'cos if we hadn't they would have been abolished in the Local Government shake-up...

Submission to Wear Valley District Council Development Control Committee 24th November 2005
By Neil Herron

Introduction

Firstly I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to present evidence against the application for the proposals by Wear Valley District Council to fly the European Union flag.

I wish to have it placed on the record that I have no objections to the flying of the Wear Valley District Council flag nor the flags of any nation state, and it has been particularly heartening to see the English flag, the Cross of St. George, flying especially at a time when our national teams appear to be doing so well.

The objection is that the EU Flag is not the flag of a nation state but of a political project, and a highly contentious one at that. I object to the fact that by flying the flag, Wear Valley DC is promoting and giving credence to that political project and using public money to do so, which is a breach of Section 19 of the Local Authority Guidelines on Publicity.

Our issue of our membership of the European Union is one for national Government and not one for promotion by Local Authorities whose limited resources would be better spent on issues, which are important to the local community and not for political ‘grandstanding’ on behalf of elected members who are in favour of the ‘European Project.’

Why WVDC Council, the Council which states on its website, “our aim – is to become the best District Council in England’ wishes to have the English flag removed therefore is quite beyond me.

As I am aware that there is a time constraint I would like to introduce the following written evidence to the Committee.

I also would like to thank the elected members who have offered their congratulations to the campaign that achieved the historic ‘No’ vote in last year’s elected regional assembly referendum and who have acknowledged that if it hadn’t been for the No Campaign Wear Valley District Council and the elected members’ days would most certainly have been numbered.

Neil Herron



The Submission

A request was made on 12th September 2005 by Mr. Jim Tague asking for sight of WVDC planning permission to fly the EU Flag, and on 22nd September 2005 it was acknowledged in a written response 1. that there was no permission or consent.
WVDC submitted an application on 26th September 2005. 3.

The Objection:
Advertisement Application WVDC ref. 3/2005/0850
" I am aware that WVDC has attempted to fly the EU Flag for several years without prior consent....
I am now aware that you wish to use taxpayer’s money to fly the EU Flag.
As a Wear Valley ratepayer I strongly object to the fact that you wish to, and have already used taxpayers money unlawfully in an attempt to promote a political project." 2.

However, there are also some procedural problems with regard to the planning application, which will require a maladministration complaint for not following the correct guidelines if the application is not withdrawn:

The wording of the application (3/05/850) 3.states:

Type of Application
"Flying the EU Flag, other Nations Flags and Wear Valley Council Flag."

Objections to this application were invited and a number were received.
I received a response on 14th October 2005 to the Proposal "Flying the EU Flag, other Nations Flags and Wear Valley Council Flag," thanking me for my letter of objection of 11th October 2005.4. (all objectors do not appear to have received this information).
However, the proposal that is being put before the Committee is an application, which has been amended:

This proposal and the application for consideration by the Committee differs substantially from the original application.
This amended proposal states:
"Flying the EU Flag and Wear Valley District Council Flag"

The correspondence of the 16th November 2005 5. was a perfect opportunity to inform ALL objectors as to any amendments to the original proposal.
Therefore, this greatly affects the application as the initial proposal has been substantially altered.

David Townsend, Head of Development and Building Control confirmed that the application would be amended (Ref DKT/CF/REG1 on 24th October 2005) 6. and yet confirms by e-mail (21st November 2005) 7. that no amended plans have been received but the objectors have not been informed of this amendment.
Does this mean that someone has altered the original application without going through the correct procedures, which would inform all of the objectors.

It is my view that a new, correctly worded application should be submitted.

As anyone who has submitted a planning application to Wear Valley District Council will confirm, they do insist on the correct procedures being followed. However, what is sauce for the goose does not appear to be sauce for the gander.

Sometimes this Council's incompetence does come back and bite them as in the case of Derek Jervis where WVDC were forced to pay £15,000 in compensation. The case was reported in the Northern Echo 8th November 2004. 8.

I also wish to raise the point to the Committee that to date my Freedom of Information request (11th October 2005) 2a. with regard to copies of all the internal communications regarding the flying of the EU Flag and copies of all costs incurred to date in relation to the flying of the EU Flag have not yet received a response.

ENCLOSURES:

1. Written response WVDC to Jim Tague 5th October 2005
2. Objection by Neil Herron 11th October 2005
2a. Freedom of Information request
3. The WVDC Application
4. Response from WVDC to Objection 14th October 2005
5. WVDC written response 15th November 2005
6. David Townsend letter to Jim Tague 24th October 2005
7. E-mail Townsend to Tague 21st November 2005
8. Northern Echo Article 8th November 2004

Zoe Hughes Column: Transport Committee...Dunwoody v Herron

Zoe Hughes Column
The Journal
Wednesday November 16, 2005

Mention his name and it will send a shudder down the spine of any Sunderland City Council official. However Neil Herron seems to be having the same impact on clerks in the House of Commons - after they secretly changed details of a transport enquiry into parking penalties. Mr Herron is renowned across the North-East folowing his battle in Sunderland over its decriminalised parking enforcement system and wanted to share his indepth knowledge with the Transport Select Committee due to investigate the issue later this year.

They had after all invited submissions from interested parties amid fears that public perception could be damaged unless action was taken to "promote the legitimacy of parking control".

However it has now emerged the committee quietly amended its original press release inviting submissions, which had stated that £1bn was raised from parking "fines" changing it to say simply that money was raised from parking "charges" instead.

A tiny but telling change, but for Mr Herron it was a blatant attempt to get councils off the legal hook.

Mr Herron has now made a formal complaint to the committee, demanding they release internal communications over the drafting of the press release.

We can't wait for Mr Herron to come face to face with the committee's chairman - none other than Labour firebrand Gwyneth Dunwoody

Road problems? You should have voted for the regional assembly

Oh Mr. Prescott, what contempt you have for democracy. The crash when you fall will be a mighty one...

Deputy PMs jibe provokes fury
The Journal
Saturday, November 19, 2005
by Guy Basnett

Deputy Prime Minister John Precott laughed off the North-East's road problems yesterday, quipping: "You should have voted for a regional assembly."

Speaking at a lavish corporate champagne opening, he joked with onlookers that the region needed a water bus - "to avoid the congestion on your roads".

He then scoffed: "Perhaps if you had an elected regional assembly you might have done better."

The comments provoked fury from business leaders who estimate a freeze on developments by the Highways Agency has cost the region 10,000 jobs.

The North-East Chamber of Commerce also believes it has lost the region £1bn.

Chamber chief executive George Cowcher said: "It's a very serious problem and a very serious issue. It's worrying when ministers treat it lightly."

Hexham Conservative MP Peter Atkinson said: "It's usual foot-in-mouth stuff from Prescott. He should think about what he's saying before he opens his mouth."

Robin Decrittenden v Worcester City Council...Questions to be raised to the Lord Chancellor

Request from Robin Decrittenden for a line of questions for the Lord Chancellor from members of the public:

1. Why did the Adjudicator prevent the recording of the proceedings -

WHEN THE LITERATURE & SERVICE CHARTER OF NPAS CLEARLY STATE THAT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE RECORDED!
WHAT CAN IT BE THAT NPAS & ITS ADJUDICATORS WISH TO HIDE FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC - & WHAT DEFENCE CAN THE LORD CHANCELLOR OFFER TO THE VERY SERIOUS PUBLIC ALLEGATION THAT IS FOLLOWING ON FROM THE EVENTS
OF 18th NOVEMBER - ie. THAT IT MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF THAT IS TRYING TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM RECEIVING THE INFORMATION THAT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO HAVE!

2. Can the Lord Chancellor explain why it is that a Senior Official of NPAS failed to attend and give evidence to a tribunal hearing, in response to the evidence offered to the tribunal which confirmed that the official concerned had made wilful attempts to prejudice the conduct & result of the tribunal -

BEARING IN MIND THAT THE ADJUDICATOR APPOINTED BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR WAS OPENLY & PUBLICLY ASKED TO ISSUE A WITNESS ORDER REQUIRING THE ATTENDANCE OF THE OFFENDING OFFICIAL -AND REFUSED TO ISSUE THE REQUIRED ORDER!

Are NPAS Officials and Adjudicators now conspiring together to prevent the proper administration of justice &/or to pervert the course of justice -

AND WILL THE LORD CHANCELLOR NOW DIRECT THAT FULL RECORDING FACILITIES BE ALLOWED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT ALL NPAS TRIBUNAL HEARINGS, FROM THIS TIME FORWARD?

3. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that a full investigation into the disgraceful conduct of Caroline Sheppard, NPAS Chief Adjudicator & Andrew Barfoot, NPAS Tribunal Manager, will now take place - as a result of the evidence of misconduct that is now entered into the proceedings of an NPAS tribunal -
and in accordance with the formal request that was made to the adjudicator, by the appellant, during this tribunal hearing ?

and will the Lord Chancellor give instructions that this investigation be conducted in public?
(Bearing in mind that the Adjudicator has been asked to refer the entirety of the evidence received by him to HM Judges - for all purposes of arriving at a resolution of the Constitutional Issues now brought into question).

4. Evidence now entered before an NPAS tribunal that serves to confirm that fines in excess of £3 million have been taken from members of the public unlawfully - and that bailiff action has been taken unlawfully in more than 2000 cases -

All of this within a relatively small area of the country!

Can the Lord Chancellor explain why it is that adjudication proceedings undertaken by NPAS adjudicators have failed to uncover these unlawful activities?
and why it is that members of the public have been forced to investigate the unlawful conduct of the offending councils?

Can the Lord Chancellor explain what is being done to ensure that controls on the conduct of local authorities are more rigourously enforced by all processes of adjudication for the future?

Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that offending Councils will be obliged to return to the members of the public all of those fines that have been unlawfully imposed/collected - and that compensation will be paid to those members of the public who have been unlawfully subjected to the activity of bailiffs?

6. Can the Lord Chancellor now confirm that all appeals heard by NPAS adjudicators - from the inception of decriminalised parking in 1991, and to this present date will now be subjected to a complete audit of records, by an official body that is completely independent of NPAS - and responsible only to parliament itself - with a view to establishing all Local Authority & Adjudication Error throughout England & Wales, including London ?

7. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that NPAS will now be subjected to a most rigourous overhaul of its funding arrangements; objectives; organization and conduct - with a view to ensuring that the public is provided with a truly
independent service that is capable of performing its functions in a manner
that is both efficient and acceptable to the people?

8. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that all Councils now operating decriminalised
parking regimes will be required to attend; make their case and be subjected
to cross-examination on the evidence that these Councils provide to the tribunals responsible for hearing the appeals made by members of the public - as is normal process in the lower courts of HM System of Courts?

In the case of the tribunal at Worcester, the local authority failed to attend the
hearing after providing the appellant with an assurance that there would be
attendance - and as a result of this failure, it proved impossible for the appellant
to cross-examine the representative of the Council on the evidence provided by
that Council -

The adjudicator at this tribunal freely admitted to the Appellant that he (the adjud-
icator) had not asked to see the TrafficRegulation Orders that were applicable to all
of the previous cases of appeal that he (the adjudicator) had heard in Worcester -

and ss a consequence of this admitted failure in the adjudication service, there
iremains the risk that appellants in Worcester may well have found their appeeals
dismissed - in spite of failures by the Worcester City Council to establish any
lawful reason for the appellant/s to pay the relevant Penalty Charge/s.

Can the Lord Chancellor now confirm that evidence relating to the Traffic Regulation
Order that is applicable in any case of appeal will be inspected for error by the
adjudicator who is made responsible for the hearing of any appeal - and that this
inspection process will be made mandatory for all parts of England & Wales,
including London.l

9. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that all adjudicators appointed to the panel of independent adjudicators maintained by NPAS will, for the future, be required
to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown - with a further Judicial Oath - before
hearing any cases of appeal - with both oaths being taken after a sensible period
of training in the relevant forms of judicial process?

10. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that the process of Judicial Review will be most carefully described to the general public by NPAS and NPAS adjudicators - both of which are currently advising the public that there is no process of appeal from the decisions made by NPAS tribunals and adjudicators?

The arrangements made for the proper administration of the Queen's Justice may not
be regulated or in any way hidden from the subjects of the Queen by any independent
adjudication service!

I hope that these questions are clear enough for use - and these side-results from 18th November hearing can be very useful ammunition in their own right -

Please do everything possible to turn these side-results into matters of public interest -

because within these questions may lie the seeds that will destroy the corrupt NPAS & PATAS
Organization!s!

God Bless - talk soon, I'm sure!

Robin.

NPAS Adjudicator Andrew Prickett to be given 'assistance' with his determination

The NPAS Adjudicator in the case Decrittenden v Worcester City Council is to be given 'assistance' in his determination of the Tribunal Hearing.
Sources connected to a Senior High Court Judge have revealed that Mr. Prickett, who is believed to have been a Prosecutor for the South Wales Constabulary, would be given 'assitance' with his deliberations and would be expected to seek opinion.

The opinion, the Judge goes on, will have to take into consideration the constitutional significance as it well set a precedent...despite the fact that a 'precedent' (the Sefton Decision) has already been circulated to all DPE authorities.

*One point to note here is that NPAS Adjudicator, Mr. Prickett did not know what a 'DPE Authority' was during the Tribunal hearing. It was pointed out to him that a DPE Authoity was a Council that was operating Decriminalised Parking Enforcement under the terms prescribed in the 1991 Road Traffic Act...the legislation which allowed him to do what he was doing!

The question which must be asked of Mr. Prickett when he arrives at his decision will be 'have you had any assistance in arriving at your determination?'

One point which is of significance is that the legislative authority for Worcester City Council to issue the Penalty Charge Notice at the location it did was missing. There was no TRO in the evidence bundle supplied by the Council.
Mr. Prickett did state that he has failed to ask for this evidence on previous ocassions.

Seems like a pretty basic position to begin...check to see whether the Penalty Charge Notice is valid ( the Adjudicator missed this in 57 Rochdale cases before it was picked up and immediately altered) and to check whetehr the Traffic Regulation Order was valid and eforceable under DPE powers.

What a shambles!

The death knell has sounded for the 1991 Road Traffic Act and the casualties of all of this will not just be decriminalised parking but also the Congestion Charge.

Evidence Submission by Neil Herron to the Worcester Hearing

NPAS Pre-Tribunal Review...18th November 2005,
Fownes Hotel Worcester.

Robin Decrittenden vs Worcester City Council

EVIDENCE: TO BE SUBMITTED BY NEIL HERRON

I. Thoburn vs City of Sunderland 18th February 2002

Commonly known as the 'Metric Martyrs' Judgment...reaffirmed the 'constitutional' status of certain Acts of Parliament including the Bill of Rights Act 1689. (Sections 62 and 63).
ENCLOSURES:
1. Thoburn v City of Sunderland 18th February 2002

II. National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS)

A. NPAS officials dismissing and 'pre-judging' the Bill of Rights
On 23rd August 2005 a telephone call was received by Neil Herron from Andrew Barfoot, NPAS Tribunal Manager. Neil Herron had offered to supply substantive evidence detailing malpractice by Sunderland City Council. This was declined by Mr. Barfoot.
Mr. Barfoot, who had made the official call from a mobile telephone, had failed to terminate the call and his conversation was overheard and recorded.
Mr. Barfoot was overheard in conversation with Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard and the content of the conversation was offensive and appeared to be pre-judging the Bill of Rights issue. Mr. Barfoot is overheard calling Neil Herron 'mad.'
ENCLOSURES:
1. Letter from Neil Herron to Andrew Barfoot 24th August 2005
2. Letter from Neil Herron to Caroline Sheppard 24th August 2005
3. Letter from Neil Herron to the NPAS Joint Committee24th August 2005
4. Response from Andrew Barfoot to Neil Herron 30th August 2005
5. Response from Caroline Sheppard to Neil Herron 30th August 2005
6. Response from Bob Tinsley to Neil Herron 30th August 2005

B.NPAS Misrepresenting Its Legal Status and its independence
In a telephone call to NPAS their operative advised that 'they were a Court of Law' and the adjudicators had 'the status of High Court judges.'
The NPAS website states (flash video presentation by Sian Cole) that 'this is a court of law.' However, a written response from NPAS states that they are not a court of law.
She also states 'I am a solicitor and completely independent' yet evidence confirms that NPAS receive 60p per PCN issued and therefore there is a direct link between the local authority and the adjudicator.
ENCLOSURES
1. Letter to NPAS from Neil Herron (13th June 2005) questioning statements made in the telephone conversation with Paul Griffiths.
2. Response from Paul Griffiths NPAS (14th June 2005)
3. Letter from Neil Herron to NPAS (12th September 2005) querying the misrepresented legal status.
4. Response from Bob Tinsley, Service Director 15th September 2005 in response to legal status challenge.

C. Rochdale Case
Evidence of a major flaw in evidence which was not picked up by NPAS.
In the case of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council this local authority began Decriminalised Parking Enforcement on 4th July 2004. Between this date and 1st August 2005 they issued 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices (income derived £660,052).
All of these PCNs issued during that period contravened the legislative requirements contained in Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
The wording which was incorrect was that the PCN stated 'To the Driver' and not 'To the Owner' or 'To the Registered Keeper.'
RMBC changed the wording of the PCN on 2nd August 2005.
It was NPAS who had brought the issue of the PCN to their attention in case RE58 on 27th July (* this will be required to be submitted as evidence)
The competence of NPAS must be called into question now as they had deliberated on previous cases involving PCNs with the same wording (confirmed by Kevin Mayor, Head of Parking Services, RMBC that PCNs had been supplied in the evidence bundles) yet NPAS had deliberated and found in favour of the council in 18 cases.
What was it in this case that prompted NPAS to inform Rochdale and for Rochdale to immediately change the wording?
ENCLOSURES
1. Questions submitted to Kevin Mayor, Head of Parking Services, Rochdale Council by Neil Herron on14th October 2005.
2. Kevin Mayor's response of 11th November 2005, which was a response to the supplementary question, in which he stated all the PCNs were submitted in the evidence bundles to NPAS.
3. Full response from Kevin Mayor 15th November 2005 (response to 1)
4. Evidence of Penalty Charge Notice...altered 2nd August 2005.

D. The Sunderland Case
In this specific case (SX23) heard on 13/10/03 by adjudicator Mark Hinchcliffe the appeal was not allowed and NPAS found in favour of Sunderland Council yet the Traffic Regulation Order supplied and relied on by the authority was pre DPE and contained no DPE powers.
The general overview and evidence of the Sunderland DPE and the local authorities unlawful practices was offered to Andrew Barfoot NPAS on Monday 22nd August 2005. In the telephone call of 23rd August he stated NPAS did not want to get involved.
An internal and external investigation is being conducting with substantive evidence of malpractice regarding Traffic Orders and signs in Sunderland. This evidence will be introduced in a separate bundle if required.
ENCLOSURES:
1. NPAS case history including decision.

III. Bill of Rights Act and Parkwise
To be submitted with details of the case by Alan Waring using the Bill of Rights Act defence in Chorley. Parkwise (the DPE enforcement authority) confirms that the Bill of Rights Act is correct and fines can only be imposed by a court. They then go on to state that a Penalty Charge Notice is not a fine. Substantive evidence, including Chorley's own website, exposes this as nonsense. Evidence is to be submitted by others that NPAS have altered their own website and removed references to parking fines since the Bill of Rights Act defence became an issue.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Chorley and Parkwise communications with Alan Waring.

III. Further Evidence
Will make available further sample evidence of NPAS not being a competent or independent body to adjudicate fairly.

IV. Further Legal Points
Evidence to be made available regarding case law of secondary legislation conflicting with primary legislation...would mean that only the London authorities detailed in the RTA 1991 are valid. All the other Special Parking Areas have been created by secondary legislation.
Case of Haw v Westminster Council.