Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Tow away zone...

New rules are now in force to attempt to force uninsured drivers off the road...

The DVLA have installed a new computer system to check the insurance database against the Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) database. It is now illegal to keep a vehicle on your drive or in a field without a SORN.

The computer will automatically issue warning letters, £100 penalties and can even tell the local plod to immobilise the vehicle, tow it away or even crush it. So, if you are motorist who hasn't taxed or insured his vehicle and hasn't filled in a SORN, then be afraid. Be very afraid.

In fact, if you own a vehicle at all, then be afraid!

Why?

Well, because in my long experience of working on computer systems for the government, they are completely incapable of writing a specification or controlling a contractor to write the software properly. Expect fines to be issued to innocent people, expect vehicles to be towed away that are properly taxed and insured, and expect guilty people to be totally missed and get away scot free. Trail by computer is an inherently bad idea.

In any case, people who break the law will continue to break the law. I remember once meeting a minicab driver who was given a twelve month ban for drunk driving. He was still driving his minicab. When I asked him why, he simply said that he needed to earn a living and that the vehicle didn't drive any differently just because he didn't have a piece of paper.

The idea is a step in the right, but even in the unlikely event that they get the system to work properly, it ain't gonna work.

Remember, you heard it here frst...

Tow away zone...

New rules are now in force to attempt to force uninsured drivers off the road...

The DVLA have installed a new computer system to check the insurance database against the Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) database. It is now illegal to keep a vehicle on your drive or in a field without a SORN.

The computer will automatically issue warning letters, £100 penalties and can even tell the local plod to immobilise the vehicle, tow it away or even crush it. So, if you are motorist who hasn't taxed or insured his vehicle and hasn't filled in a SORN, then be afraid. Be very afraid.

In fact, if you own a vehicle at all, then be afraid!

Why?

Well, because in my long experience of working on computer systems for the government, they are completely incapable of writing a specification or controlling a contractor to write the software properly. Expect fines to be issued to innocent people, expect vehicles to be towed away that are properly taxed and insured, and expect guilty people to be totally missed and get away scot free. Trail by computer is an inherently bad idea.

In any case, people who break the law will continue to break the law. I remember once meeting a minicab driver who was given a twelve month ban for drunk driving. He was still driving his minicab. When I asked him why, he simply said that he needed to earn a living and that the vehicle didn't drive any differently just because he didn't have a piece of paper.

The idea is a step in the right, but even in the unlikely event that they get the system to work properly, it ain't gonna work.

Remember, you heard it here frst...

Endangered cyclists

I was interested to hear recently that the EU is considering legislation to force HGV owners to have new technology fitted to all their vehicles to warn them when cyclists are in the blind spots on the near side of their vehicles.

Now, I'm not against this per say, and I'm not suggesting that cyclists should all go to the lengths this guy has gone to to ensure they get noticed, but I was concerned at the quote that these devices cost 'a very affordable amount per vehicle." £750 is, in my opinion, not a 'very affordable amount.'

Also, I do think that there is some onus on the cyclist to pay his or her part in basic road safety.

Many times I have watched cyclists go through red traffic lights or go over to the wrong side of the road before making a right turn. This is dangerous practice and, let's be honest, it's illegal.

The problem is that there is no way to penalise a cyclist for bad riding in the same way there is to penalise a driver for bad driving. Cyclists are uninsured and unlicensed - so maybe it is time this was changed.

Road safety for cyclists and motorists is, of course, important but let's share the responsibility equally and not just dump it all on the motorist...

Endangered cyclists

I was interested to hear recently that the EU is considering legislation to force HGV owners to have new technology fitted to all their vehicles to warn them when cyclists are in the blind spots on the near side of their vehicles.

Now, I'm not against this per say, and I'm not suggesting that cyclists should all go to the lengths this guy has gone to to ensure they get noticed, but I was concerned at the quote that these devices cost 'a very affordable amount per vehicle." £750 is, in my opinion, not a 'very affordable amount.'

Also, I do think that there is some onus on the cyclist to pay his or her part in basic road safety.

Many times I have watched cyclists go through red traffic lights or go over to the wrong side of the road before making a right turn. This is dangerous practice and, let's be honest, it's illegal.

The problem is that there is no way to penalise a cyclist for bad riding in the same way there is to penalise a driver for bad driving. Cyclists are uninsured and unlicensed - so maybe it is time this was changed.

Road safety for cyclists and motorists is, of course, important but let's share the responsibility equally and not just dump it all on the motorist...

Clergyman sets hearse speed record

Reverend Ray Biddiss, from Halifax has just set the world speed record for a three wheeled hears at 114mph.

The bike mad minister spent four years developing his motorcycle hearse, which he said was much more than a simple motorbike and sidecar. "I wouldn't be seen dead in a sidecar," he said.

The unusual vehicle consists of a hearse built at the rear of the front end of a Triumph Rocket III and can take a coffin of more than six feet in length. If a larger coffin size is required a hydraulic system can add a few more inches to the available length.


"It is 2,340cc of British engineering, the Rocket. If you're going to infinity and beyond, best you go by Rocket," he quipped


The record is awaiting official confirmation from the Guinness World Book of Records. The category had no previous record to beat athough, surprisingly, the Yanks have been using motorcycle hearses for years!

Clergyman sets hearse speed record

Reverend Ray Biddiss, from Halifax has just set the world speed record for a three wheeled hears at 114mph.

The bike mad minister spent four years developing his motorcycle hearse, which he said was much more than a simple motorbike and sidecar. "I wouldn't be seen dead in a sidecar," he said.

The unusual vehicle consists of a hearse built at the rear of the front end of a Triumph Rocket III and can take a coffin of more than six feet in length. If a larger coffin size is required a hydraulic system can add a few more inches to the available length.


"It is 2,340cc of British engineering, the Rocket. If you're going to infinity and beyond, best you go by Rocket," he quipped


The record is awaiting official confirmation from the Guinness World Book of Records. The category had no previous record to beat athough, surprisingly, the Yanks have been using motorcycle hearses for years!

Rotten Boroughs: Lancashire County Council

Hat tip to the Moose for highlighting the balmy scheme by Lancashire County Council to reduce the speed limit in residential areas from 30 to 20mph across the entire county by 2013.

The response to this hair brained idea is, to say the least, unfavourable. But that doesn't seem to worry the council who intend to implement it anyway at an estimated cost of £9 million - so it is good to know that in these times of 'all in it together' and spending cuts that this quantity of money can be just flushed unnecessarily down the toilet.

Perhaps the honorable councillors of Lancashire should have had a word with Ken Livingston. When mayor of London, Ken had a policy of "encouraging councils to make a wholesale switch from 30mph to 20mph, amid evidence that the slower limits could cut accidents and injuries by half."

But the policy was scotched when Boris Johnson came to power. Boris said he would support 20mph zones in residential areas where local people wanted them. But because of "finite budgets", priority would only go to areas with a high number of accidents - especially those involving vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. The Green Party attacked his decision, claiming it would cost " hundreds" of lives.

Scare mongering it seems runs rife in this idea. In Lancashire, councillor Tim Ashton says he wants speeding in built-up areas to be ‘as taboo as drink driving’ in a bid to halt the thousands of people killed or injured on the region’s roads every year. Only, as the Moose quite rightly points out, 702 deaths in 2009 is hardly thousands and a lot of those weren't caused by speeding.

Then it gets worse. Apparently, LCC wants to appoint vigilante groups of local residents and arm them with speed guns to help enforce the limit. Councillor Ashton says “I think there will be a huge amount of support for what we are doing but if there are critics I will take them head-on."

I suggest he should read his post bag and stop being so bloody arrogant.

It's a daft idea, the ratepayers oppose it and there's no money to pay for it...

Rotten Boroughs: Lancashire County Council

Hat tip to the Moose for highlighting the balmy scheme by Lancashire County Council to reduce the speed limit in residential areas from 30 to 20mph across the entire county by 2013.

The response to this hair brained idea is, to say the least, unfavourable. But that doesn't seem to worry the council who intend to implement it anyway at an estimated cost of £9 million - so it is good to know that in these times of 'all in it together' and spending cuts that this quantity of money can be just flushed unnecessarily down the toilet.

Perhaps the honorable councillors of Lancashire should have had a word with Ken Livingston. When mayor of London, Ken had a policy of "encouraging councils to make a wholesale switch from 30mph to 20mph, amid evidence that the slower limits could cut accidents and injuries by half."

But the policy was scotched when Boris Johnson came to power. Boris said he would support 20mph zones in residential areas where local people wanted them. But because of "finite budgets", priority would only go to areas with a high number of accidents - especially those involving vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. The Green Party attacked his decision, claiming it would cost " hundreds" of lives.

Scare mongering it seems runs rife in this idea. In Lancashire, councillor Tim Ashton says he wants speeding in built-up areas to be ‘as taboo as drink driving’ in a bid to halt the thousands of people killed or injured on the region’s roads every year. Only, as the Moose quite rightly points out, 702 deaths in 2009 is hardly thousands and a lot of those weren't caused by speeding.

Then it gets worse. Apparently, LCC wants to appoint vigilante groups of local residents and arm them with speed guns to help enforce the limit. Councillor Ashton says “I think there will be a huge amount of support for what we are doing but if there are critics I will take them head-on."

I suggest he should read his post bag and stop being so bloody arrogant.

It's a daft idea, the ratepayers oppose it and there's no money to pay for it...

The death of the speed camera

Speed cameras are dying all over the country!

Love 'em or hate 'em? There are camps who claim they are an indisputable aid to road safety; there are camps who claim they are nothing more than revenue raisers. But now they are going. Why?

Well, you can thank Gordon Brown. He saw an opportunity to put the costs of running the system on the local authorities whilst at the same time ensuring that the fines collected went straight to the exchequer. It's the same trick he worked with parking fines.

So now that budgets are being squeezed by the new government, local authorities can no longer afford to maintain the cameras. This is scandalous as nobody wins except speeding motorists.

It is not reasonable to expect council tax payers to subsidise revenue raising 'safety' machinery where there is no benefit to them. Equally, central government will not get any revenue, and so will have a hole in its finances.

It seems the great revenue raiser has become a revenue loser. R.I.P.

The death of the speed camera

Speed cameras are dying all over the country!

Love 'em or hate 'em? There are camps who claim they are an indisputable aid to road safety; there are camps who claim they are nothing more than revenue raisers. But now they are going. Why?

Well, you can thank Gordon Brown. He saw an opportunity to put the costs of running the system on the local authorities whilst at the same time ensuring that the fines collected went straight to the exchequer. It's the same trick he worked with parking fines.

So now that budgets are being squeezed by the new government, local authorities can no longer afford to maintain the cameras. This is scandalous as nobody wins except speeding motorists.

It is not reasonable to expect council tax payers to subsidise revenue raising 'safety' machinery where there is no benefit to them. Equally, central government will not get any revenue, and so will have a hole in its finances.

It seems the great revenue raiser has become a revenue loser. R.I.P.

Bring back the Traffic Wardens

I don't know about where you live, but the parking situation in my town is beyond a joke!

We have two types of traffic enforcement here. Firstly, we have the Parking Attendants who are employed by the Borough Council. They look after the Council operated car parks and the street area designated for residents' parking only.

Secondly, we have the Police. They are responsible for parking on the public highway in restricted waiting areas, on yellow lines and the like.

So what's the problem? Well, the Parking Attendants walk between their designated areas totally unconcerned by all the cars they walk past on the way that are illegally parked. Not their responsibility. Nothing to do with them...

Meanwhile, the police are busy out doing Policey type things - you know, like patrolling their beats or doing community stuff or even, God forbid, catching crooks. So they don't have time to spend issuing parking tickets. Indeed, in my view, nor should they have!

So the result is that people here don't waste money on things like car parks when they know they can park anywhere on a yellow line and have a 99% chance of getting away with it. And if they do get the odd ticket, then it's still cheaper than paying for all those days using the car park.

I know one guy who parked in a one hour restricted parking bay for three months, often without moving his car for a long as three days at a time. Honest. Eventually a Police purge on that area resulted in a ticket. But parking a car for three months for the price of a single ticket still looks to be a good deal...

All this mind numbing nonsense has come about in order to promote yet another of New LieBore's stealth taxes. By criminalising on street parking, they made it the responsibility of the police rather than the council - and by doing this the money raised in parking fines goes to the Exchequer rather than the Council. Nice one Gordon! Drop Joe Public in the crap - it's alright as long as you get the money to squander.

To sort this out, the new Government needs to decriminalise parking, reinstigate Traffic Wardens and let the Council use the parking fines to cover the cost of the wardens. This will also release Police to do what they are supposed to be doing, penalise persistent offenders who are clogging up our towns, and make a contribution to local government funding.

So go on, Cleggeron, add this to your bonfire of LieBore laws at the earliest opportunity.

Bring back the Traffic Wardens

I don't know about where you live, but the parking situation in my town is beyond a joke!

We have two types of traffic enforcement here. Firstly, we have the Parking Attendants who are employed by the Borough Council. They look after the Council operated car parks and the street area designated for residents' parking only.

Secondly, we have the Police. They are responsible for parking on the public highway in restricted waiting areas, on yellow lines and the like.

So what's the problem? Well, the Parking Attendants walk between their designated areas totally unconcerned by all the cars they walk past on the way that are illegally parked. Not their responsibility. Nothing to do with them...

Meanwhile, the police are busy out doing Policey type things - you know, like patrolling their beats or doing community stuff or even, God forbid, catching crooks. So they don't have time to spend issuing parking tickets. Indeed, in my view, nor should they have!

So the result is that people here don't waste money on things like car parks when they know they can park anywhere on a yellow line and have a 99% chance of getting away with it. And if they do get the odd ticket, then it's still cheaper than paying for all those days using the car park.

I know one guy who parked in a one hour restricted parking bay for three months, often without moving his car for a long as three days at a time. Honest. Eventually a Police purge on that area resulted in a ticket. But parking a car for three months for the price of a single ticket still looks to be a good deal...

All this mind numbing nonsense has come about in order to promote yet another of New LieBore's stealth taxes. By criminalising on street parking, they made it the responsibility of the police rather than the council - and by doing this the money raised in parking fines goes to the Exchequer rather than the Council. Nice one Gordon! Drop Joe Public in the crap - it's alright as long as you get the money to squander.

To sort this out, the new Government needs to decriminalise parking, reinstigate Traffic Wardens and let the Council use the parking fines to cover the cost of the wardens. This will also release Police to do what they are supposed to be doing, penalise persistent offenders who are clogging up our towns, and make a contribution to local government funding.

So go on, Cleggeron, add this to your bonfire of LieBore laws at the earliest opportunity.

Pigs can't fly....

..but apparently cars can!

A company in America - where else? - has announced that it hopes to be selling a flying car by the end of 2011.

"It's the next 'wow' vehicle," said the company's vice president. "Anybody can buy a Ferrari, but as we say, Ferraris don't fly."

Now I don't know about you, but the thought of motorways in the sky fills me with fear and trepidation. I don't really fancy sitting in the back garden waiting for some spotty faced teenager to drop out of the sky on my head in his stolen flying Ferrari!

Apparently, the target market is private pilots who want to get round the inconvenience of having to use a car to get to the airport. You just drive up, unfold the wings and off you go! Magic - except that a purchase price of around $194,000 would pay for a hell of a lot of taxis.

And the dropping out of the sky problem? No problem at all! It comes with an optional full vehicle parachute - so provided the driver remembers to sound his horn on the way down, I should have time to duck out of the way just before it flattens my house...

Pigs can't fly....

..but apparently cars can!

A company in America - where else? - has announced that it hopes to be selling a flying car by the end of 2011.

"It's the next 'wow' vehicle," said the company's vice president. "Anybody can buy a Ferrari, but as we say, Ferraris don't fly."

Now I don't know about you, but the thought of motorways in the sky fills me with fear and trepidation. I don't really fancy sitting in the back garden waiting for some spotty faced teenager to drop out of the sky on my head in his stolen flying Ferrari!

Apparently, the target market is private pilots who want to get round the inconvenience of having to use a car to get to the airport. You just drive up, unfold the wings and off you go! Magic - except that a purchase price of around $194,000 would pay for a hell of a lot of taxis.

And the dropping out of the sky problem? No problem at all! It comes with an optional full vehicle parachute - so provided the driver remembers to sound his horn on the way down, I should have time to duck out of the way just before it flattens my house...

Why cutting alcohol limits won't work

At this point I have to admit that I once lost my licence because of drink driving. It's not something I'm proud of and it's not why I am criticising the proposals to lower the drink driving limit from 80 to 50 mg.

Let me explain the circumstances. I was invitied by an old neighbour to a dinner party that I knew perfectly well from past experience it was going to be a boozy affair. I planned accordingly.

First, I asked her whether it would be alright to leave the car at her house and pick it up in the morning. Then I diverted to the supermarket to pick up a bottle of wine and at the same time take some money out of the hole in the wall so I could pay the taxi driver.

So what went wrong?

Simple really - and this the crux of the matter - when you have had a skin full all logic and coherent thought tends to go out the window. At two in the morning, I decided that it was all a load of fuss about nothing and I would drive home. I was nicked, being 2.5 times the legal limit.

I went to court and pleaded guilty. I explained that this would never happen again because having been caught by the catch 22 of logic and drink, next time I would take the taxi both ways. It cost me £600 and a 12 month ban. I deserved it. I was stupid.

The reason I don't think it is necessary to lower the legal drink limit is that when you are pissed, you don't think clearly and you won't be told! You certainly don't worry about the legal limit and whether you are over it.

Yes, it might make people think before they start drinking, but no it certainly won't stop poeple once they've started - and most serious accidents involving drink are caused by people well over the limit.

I don't drink at all now if I am driving, not because next time it's a three year ban but because it's stupid and irresponsible - and that's not something I do twice...

Why cutting alcohol limits won't work

At this point I have to admit that I once lost my licence because of drink driving. It's not something I'm proud of and it's not why I am criticising the proposals to lower the drink driving limit from 80 to 50 mg.

Let me explain the circumstances. I was invitied by an old neighbour to a dinner party that I knew perfectly well from past experience it was going to be a boozy affair. I planned accordingly.

First, I asked her whether it would be alright to leave the car at her house and pick it up in the morning. Then I diverted to the supermarket to pick up a bottle of wine and at the same time take some money out of the hole in the wall so I could pay the taxi driver.

So what went wrong?

Simple really - and this the crux of the matter - when you have had a skin full all logic and coherent thought tends to go out the window. At two in the morning, I decided that it was all a load of fuss about nothing and I would drive home. I was nicked, being 2.5 times the legal limit.

I went to court and pleaded guilty. I explained that this would never happen again because having been caught by the catch 22 of logic and drink, next time I would take the taxi both ways. It cost me £600 and a 12 month ban. I deserved it. I was stupid.

The reason I don't think it is necessary to lower the legal drink limit is that when you are pissed, you don't think clearly and you won't be told! You certainly don't worry about the legal limit and whether you are over it.

Yes, it might make people think before they start drinking, but no it certainly won't stop poeple once they've started - and most serious accidents involving drink are caused by people well over the limit.

I don't drink at all now if I am driving, not because next time it's a three year ban but because it's stupid and irresponsible - and that's not something I do twice...

Does you good to get away...

Does you good to get away...