Scarborough PSPO Denies The Right To Self Defence

Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) previously ignored evidence submitted in my complaint that the SBC Car Cruising PSPO restricts the public right of way over a highway in breach of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – 65 – 1 which confirms:

” A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway.”

Now Lisa Dixon has finally acknowledged the evidence but is claiming that the PSPO is not restricting the public right of way over a highway.

“The PSPO does not restrict the public right of way over the highway, it allows enforcement action to be taken if a person is guilty of an offence under Part 2 of the order.”

I refer everyone to 1.15 of the SBC – Car Cruising PSPO which lists the “prohibited activities”.

  1. causing danger or risk of injury to road users (including pedestrians);
  2. causing damage or risk of damage to property;
  3. speeding or racing;
  4. performing stunts;
  5. sounding horns or playing loud music so as to cause a nuisance;
  6. using foul or abusive language;
  7. using threatening or intimidating behaviour or
  8. causing obstruction (whether moving or stationary).

All eight are restricting the public right of way over the highway. Indeed I refer SBC to a recent case highlighted by Humberside Police.

“We are warning drivers in our area of an incident that was reported to us in the early hours of this morning (Monday 23 September).

A man reported that he was driving a VW Caddy along Old Road in Leconfield when he came across what looked like a road traffic collision.

A motorcyclist was laid in the road with another man looking after him. The driver stopped and opened his window to ask if he could assist at which point one of the men is alleged to have assaulted the driver and the other stole two mobile phones from within the van by opening the passenger door.

The driver drove quickly away from the scene and reported the incident to us. He has been left with a serious wound to his arm which needed hospital treatment.

Detective Inspector Andy Crawforth said, “We have launched investigation into this incident and are obtaining a statement from the victim to establish the full circumstances. I would like to appeal for witnesses to the incident or for anyone who saw anyone acting suspiciously in the area.

“The victim said that the men spoke with Liverpool accents and that he may have injured one as he drove away.”

The gentleman exercised his legal right to self-defence and undertook activities that are restricted by the SBC Car Cruising PSPO.

No PSPO should ever prevent the use of self-defence yet the SBC – Car Cruising PSPO  does just that. The PSPO restricts lawful activities on a public right of way.

I request all SBC Group Leaders to ensure that this unlawful PSPO is revoked as it unlawfully restricts the public right of way over the highway.

Every British citizen has the right to self-defence including on a public right of way. This cannot and must not be prevented.

Posted in PSPO, Scarborough

Driffield CCTV System – No Data Controller

In response to my Freedom of Information request to Driffield Town Council for the contact details of the Driffield CCTV Data Controller they have confirmed:

“There is no data controller at the present time so I am unable to give you their details”

This confirms that, in addition to the failure to display adequate signage, the Driffield CCTV system is gathering Data unlawfully.

I have referred the failure to the Information Commissioners Office.

Posted in CCTV, Driffield

Pocklington NOT Safe Neighbourhood

Humberside Police and East Riding of Yorkshire Council are joining forces to mislead Pocklington residents into believing that Pocklington is a safe neighbourhood with an event next Saturday.

Will Humberside Police and Pocklington Town Council:

  1. Come clean and inform all those who attend that the Pocklington CCTV system has been unlawful for years due to their failures?
  2. Inform residents that this could result in hundreds of convictions being quashed due to the use of inadmissible evidence?
  3. Admit that for the past four months they have scratched their heads attempting to resolve the situation but have failed?

Perhaps this is a more appropriate leaflet.

Posted in CCTV, Humberside Police, Pocklington

Paul Abbott – A Silly Person

Paul Abbott, ERYC Head of Trading Standards, has falsely stated that I publicly called him a fool in the post Paul Abbott – Best Thought A Fool. As can be seen, this is false. The post is merely a spoof.

As Paul raised the issue I decided to seek the opinion of Mr Google:

“a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person”

Paul, who as ERYC Head of Trading Standards believes a restriction is a prohibition. Based on this I think we can safely agree, according to Mr Google, that Paul has acted unwisely or imprudently.

Thus he is a fool or a silly person as stated by Mr Google.

I am happy to use the word silly as Paul clearly has issues with fool although it was good enough for Norman Wisdom…

“I will consider it to be vexatious”

I use the English language correctly to explain the use of the English language incorrectly by Paul and he says “I will consider it to be vexatious”

Mr Google, please define vexatious?

Email From Paul

In the public interest, I reproduce in full the email from Paul.

From: Paul Abbott

Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 9:57 AM

To: Andy Strangeway

Subject: Re: Paul Abbott – Best Thought A Fool

Dear Mr Strangeway

Thank you for your recent email. I note that you have chosen to publicly call me a fool. I do not find this to be constructive and cannot understand how you would believe that you will obtain a positive outcome to any enquiries using this approach.

The Council has a duty to protect its staff from unreasonable, abusive or offensive behaviour, and I consider your web page to be a clear example an unreasonable approach. I must advise you that should you persist in your behaviour I will consider it to be vexatious. If that happens I will issue instructions for staff not to deal with you by telephone, for all communications to be in writing, and for a single point of contact to be provided who will assess all communications received from you and determine if they merit a response.

I hope I do not have to take these steps, and that you will adopt a more constructive method of communications in future. I would request that you remove your last posting as a demonstration that you wish to have better relationships in future.

Yours

Paul Abbott
Head of Housing Transportation and Public Protection
Tel
:   (01482) 396100

Posted in ERYC

Open Letter – Humberside Police Chief Constable

In the public interest, I publish below an email I sent today to Lee Freeman, Chief Constable, Humberside Police in relation to the failure to ensure East Riding CCTV systems are operated lawfully.

Humberside Police Chief Constable Lee Freeman

From: Andy Strangeway

Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 1:54 PM

To: Lee 5568 Freeman

Subject: FOI 1547-19 1515-19 & DP 1516-19

Dear Chief Constable,

After waiting over three months for Humberside Police to address the serious concerns and failings I raised the reply I received is nothing short of a disgrace.

Humberside Police and the Town Councils involved clearly have no idea how to resolve the mess they have collectively walked into due to their incompetence. The result is that the CCTV systems in Driffield, Market Weighton and Pocklington cannot be used to “assist in the prevention and detection of offences and the safety of the public” as any information gathered would be inadmissible in a court of law. As for “enhancing public reassurance” the public are being misled. In essence, the CCTV systems are a shambles and the ultimate responsibility for this rests entirely with you.

The conduct of Humberside Police is typified by their statement:

“The system was set up under a Code of Practice by the Pocklington and Market Weighton Crime Prevention Panel to assist in the prevention and detection of offences and the safety of the public and enhancing public reassurance. We are now reviewing this along with roles and responsibilities and any legal obligations placed upon us.”

I am astounded that Humberside Police are in this position as all “roles and responsibilities and any legal obligations placed upon us” must be established prior to a CCTV system being put into operation. Humberside Police have failed the residents of Driffield, Market Weighton and Pocklington as they have sanctioned CCTV systems that are a criminals best friend as any evidence gathered cannot be used.

The arrogance of Humberside Police attempting to resolve this fiasco is clear to see:

“We do not believe that the footage has been used unlawfully, however would not be able to research all cases were CCTV had been utilised in the last 6 years within the time appropriate time limits as specified in Freedom of Information legislation.”

Has Humberside Police reviewed all cases going back to 2001? Of course they have not. This must be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Hiding behind Freedom of Information legislation given the breach of Data legislation is scandalous.

Humberside Police even blatantly suggest that they breach Data legislation:

“As previously stated we are happy to provide response to your subject access request re CCTV images , if you could confirm your identification and address for response we can get this to  you as soon as possible.”

As Humberside Police are not the Data Controller for the Pocklington CCTV system for them to deal with my subject access request is unlawful.

The following remains unaddressed:

  1. How can both Pocklington Town Council and Humberside Police appear to be “jointly operating” a CCTV system yet, after five days, neither knows who the actual CCTV Operator is?
  2. Why are Humberside Police monitoring a CCTV system that is not operating lawfully?
  3. How many hours per an average month do Humberside Police spend monitoring the Pocklington CCTV system?
  4. Before Humberside Police agree to monitor a CCTV system would it not be sensible and prudent to ensure the system is lawful?
  5. Have there been any convictions over the last 6 years where CCTV footage unlawfully gathered by Humberside Police has been used in the case for the prosecution?
  6. Are any of the UK’s other Police Forces monitoring unlawful CCTV systems like Humberside?
  7. Will you be referring this to the Home Office?
  8. Will you be reporting Humberside Police to the ICO?
  9. Will Humberside Police and/or ICO be taking action against Pocklington Town Council?

This whole affair should have been resolved in days, weeks at best, yet over three months down the line Driffield, Market Weighton and Pocklington have CCTV systems that are still unlawful and at best ornaments.

Given the utter incompetence in how Humberside Police have dealt with this I request a meeting with you at the earliest opportunity. If you choose to decline this request please forward email contact details of the Home Office and Police Complaints Board and I will refer.

Regards,

Andy Strangeway

Posted in CCTV, Humberside Police

York Fixed Penalty Notices Unlawful

As the City of York Council (CYC) confirmed that they had not published their Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) on their website in breach of legislation I submitted a Freedom of Information request.

“Under the FOI Act I have requested for each of the past six years:

  1. How many Fixed Penalty Notices in relation to Public Spaces Protection Orders have the CYC issued in each year?
  2. How much revenue for Fixed Penalty Notices in relation to Public Spaces Protection Orders have the CYC received in each year?”

On Friday CYC responded to my FOI request.

As the Fixed Penalty Notices should not have been issued the CYC must now reimburse the monies received in 2017 and 2019.

With regards to the 2018 case, CYC must ensure that any monies paid are reimbursed and the conviction is quashed.

Posted in PSPO

Paul Abbott – Best Thought A Fool

Paul Abbott, ERYC Head of Trading Standards, who believes that a restriction is a prohibition has decided it is best thought a fool.

After explaining to Paul how insane his belief that A Restriction Is A Prohibition he took wise advice from his Grandmother and informed me:

“I have nothing further to add to my previous response”

A Simply Test For Paul

If Paul is still struggling to understand the difference between a restriction and prohibition perhaps he should consider this:

Would he prefer his breathing to be restricted or prohibited?

A Challenge To Paul

The current signage in many places across the East Riding including Beverley and Bridlington incorrectly states “The consumption of alcohol in this area is restricted by order” but the order states “The consumption of alcohol in the area is prohibited by order”.

As such, no Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) can be enforced.

If Paul disagrees with me he can name the place, date and time and invite me to consume alcohol under any such sign.

The invitation will be accepted so long as the current signs remain.

How does it go Paul? Best thought a fool than…

Posted in ERYC, PSPO

Leeming Bar Truckers PSPO Direct Action

On Thursday evening I undertook my fifth direct action at Leeming Bar to highlight the failure of Hambleton District Council (HDC) Leeming Bar Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).

For the fifth time, I was not issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice.

The issues highlighted at Leeming Bar that lead to officers and Councillors, including North Yorkshire County Council Leader Carl Les, agreeing to spend over £6,800 on a PSPO that was not only unlawful but also impossible to enforce, are easy to resolve.

For example, for the same price, HDC could have installed 20 litter bins.

So why has this not happened?

Could it be that certain persons at HDC are using the “issues” to advance business interests instead of taking the required action?

Truckers Direct Action

It was good to see that truckers have now realised that HDC actions are merely empty words and an attempt to intimidate.

On Thursday evening, I witnessed numerous truckers undertaking the most visual of direct action against the overnight parking ban by parking up overnight next to the signs.

Planned Consultation

HDC has stated that they intend to hold a consultation regards the Leeming Bar issues.

I would suggest to them that this must not be a consultation over the PSPO as no Government body can ever hold a consultation on undertaking unlawful action.

Leaflets Planned

If the PSPO is not revoked and all signage removed I am informed that a significant leaflet drop will take place advising truckers of the true position.

Buy-In

The most important aspect to resolve the current situation is to get buy-in from Truckers. To date, HDC, in true Local Authority style, has failed to even consider this most fundamental aspect.

Posted in Hambleton, PSPO

Councillor Peter Hemmerman Failure To Understand

Councillor Peter Hemmerman, Market Weighton Town Council Mayor, appears to have failed to understand my simple Freedom of Information request.

Councillor Peter Hemmerman

Although I requested “Contact details of the CCTV Data Controller”

Councillor Hemmerman informed me “The data controller for the system is The Pocklington and Market Weighton Crime Prevention Panel.”

How “contact details” becomes “name” is known only to Councillor Hemmerman.

I have requested the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to intervene.

Surely our Peter is not attempting to cover anything up?

Posted in CCTV, Market Weighton

Leeming Bar PSPO Pig’s Ear – £6,800 Wasted

Hambleton District Council (HDC) have accepted the statements that I made to them regards the Leeming Bar Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) as correct.

Correct Statements

  1. Hambleton District Council (HDC) are aware that legislation states that ” A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway.”
  2. As HDC are aware of this fact they should not have introduced the Leeming Bar PSPO.
  3. HDC is not issuing Fixed Penalty Notices to anyone who parks overnight and remains with their vehicle in the area covered by the Leeming Bar PSPO.
  4. The signage for the Leeming Bar PSPO does not reflect the Leeming Bar PSPO.
  5. To be in full knowledge that the Leeming PSPO is unlawful and unenforceable yet not remove associated erroneous signage is misrepresentation.
  6. HDC can not issue a Fixed Penalty Notice against those taking Direct Action in the area covered by the Leeming Bar PSPO.

I am now considering further Direct Action.

Leeming Bar PSPO Pig’s Ear – £6,800 Wasted

I can confirm that a review of the PSPO will commence next week when the consultation opens.

As not one Fixed Penalty Notice has been issued this will mean HDC have wasted at least £6,800 on a pig’s ear of a PSPO that is both unlawful and unenforceable.

I have requested a full copy of the consultation documents.

Posted in Hambleton, PSPO