Market Weighton Mayor – Cemetery Closure Insensitivity

Cllr Peter Hemmerman not only conducts affairs outwith legislation, as was seen by the closing of the Market Weighton Cemetery just before Easter, he also displays gross insensitivity in the process.

On his Cllr Peter Hemmerman Facebook page (click on the link to read) on April 5 he stated:

“I am grateful that I am lucky enough to have the space to breathe.”

Then on April 6 he falsely informed residents that:

“Following restrictions imposed by the Government it has become necessary for the Town Council to close the Cemetery on Holme Road to visitors.”

Despite the closing of the cemetery been in breach of legislation the insensitive posts remain over a month later.

I politely suggest that Cllr Hemmerman revisits his conduct.

Market Weighton Mayor – Cllr Peter Hemmerman

Supporting Information

Government U-Turn Forces Cemeteries To Re-Open (click on the link to read)

Posted in Covid 19, Market Weighton

Driffield CCTV System – Unlawful Shambles Continues

The operation of the Driffield CCTV system continues to be a shambles, despite my attempts to assist Driffield Town Council (DTC) to resolve the situation since June 2019.

Evidence of Crime

The Driffield CCTV system no longer meets Home Office guidance standards as it is a fundamental requirement that a CCTV system cannot be implemented in areas of low or no crime and/or anti-social behaviour. There must be factual evidence of a significant level of crime.

The law and relevant regulations governing the use of CCTV have changed dramatically over the last few years and DTC must ensure that the CCTV system it has implemented fully complies with the law. This must include a robust and thorough review of the CCTV network in respect of crime levels. This assessment would need to be supported by data from Humberside Police.

Upon completion of an assessment, if any cameras are being used in locations where there is little or no crime recorded, they no longer meet the legal requirement for use as set out by the Home Office Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s compliance guidelines. If this is the case, all such cameras must be removed.

The only “evidence” I have been referred to is of “alleged” crime. You can call a cat a dog; you can call an alleged crime a crime; etc…

DTC has failed to provide a copy of the required assessment.

Scheme Controlled By DTC

As no DTC Councillor or Officer has any access whatsoever to the location where the Driffield CCTV system data is stored (Driffield Police Station), it is false to claim that “The scheme is controlled by Driffield Town Council”. Indeed, no DTC Councillor or staff have legal clearance to see the Data or even enter the room.

I do not question the DTC Clerk, who informed me: “… signs, as recommended by the Surveillance Camera Commissioners office, will be erected in the very near future” I question whether the SCCO has been informed that DTC does not have full control of the Driffield CCTV system.

As DTC does not have full control of the Driffield CCTV system the signs and thus the CCTV system is unlawful.

DTC has failed to provide a reason for the incorrect signage.

Data Gathered Not Used

I am informed that no Data gathered by the Driffield CCTV system has been used in a Court of Law since June 2019.

After over 10 months since my intervention, the Driffield CCTV system is still not lawful and, for this reason, Data gathered and stored by it cannot be used in a Court of Law as evidence. One cannot break the law to enforce the law.

In the circumstances, the continued funding by DTC of the Driffield CCTV system is a waste of Driffield residents resources.

I invite any evidence from DTC that contradicts my information.

Forensic Science Regulator

The opinion of the Forensic Science Regulator further confirms that the Driffield CCTV system is a waste of taxpayers resources.

Please read Forensic Science Negates CCTV States Regulator (click on the link)

DTC Must Seek Independent Legal Advice

Despite suggesting for 10 months to Driffield Town Council (DTC) that it seeks independent legal advice with regards to its involvement with the Driffield CCTV system, it is clear that it has failed to do so. My advice to DTC stands – seek independent legal advice.

I invite a response for publication from DTC.

Posted in CCTV, Driffield

Forensic Science Negates CCTV States Regulator

I have been aware, for nearly a year, that CCTV systems in the East Riding and across the UK are fundamentally flawed. My position is now supported by none other than the Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully.

Gillian has stated:

“Innocent people are being wrongly convicted and criminals are escaping justice because of the failure of the forensic science system to meet basic standards.”


“In England and Wales, not one CCTV image analyst met the required standard”


“Evidence from some experts testifying in court was not scientifically justifiable”

Among the areas of concern is CCTV, crucial to many police investigations. The forensics regulator said she could not vouch for the accuracy of analysis meant to show if someone caught on camera was the same person as a suspect.

“I can’t give an assurance about it in any case,” Gillian said. “People are not fully tested according to international standards.”

After almost a year of denial, will Humberside Police, Pocklington Town Council, Driffield Town Council and Market Weighton Town Council now accept that they are wasting taxpayers resources on their CCTV systems which are now confirmed to be a criminal’s best friend?

Posted in CCTV, Driffield, Humberside Police, Market Weighton, Pocklington

Leeming Bar Parking Ban – Dual Investigation

I can confirm that there are dual investigations underway into the Leeming Bar overnight parking ban.

  • Investigation 1 – North Yorkshire Police

There is an investigation into Inspector Sarah Sanderson of North Yorkshire Police for condoning the Leeming Bar Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) banning overnight parking as overnight parking is not defined as anti-social behaviour and thus the PSPO is a misuse of legislation. This is confirmed by both the Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police

The investigation will also look into the involvement of North Yorkshire Police itself in the failure.

North Yorkshire Police currently await my submission to the investigation.

  • Investigation 2 – North Yorkshire County Council

There is an investigation into David Kirkpatrick, North Yorkshire County Council Traffic Engineering Team Leader, for the incorrect statement he submitted to Hambleton District Council (HDC) that resulted in the Cabinet approving to amend the Leeming Bar overnight parking ban in breach of legislation.

Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) and Monitoring Officer, North Yorkshire County Council has confirmed that the Investigating Officer  has the appropriate experience required for the investigation and he “will also make sure that she has access to any legal advice that she needs from my team.”

North Yorkshire County Council currently await my submission to the investigation.

Posted in Hambleton

Pluralism – Neither Positive, Negative or Eejit

Always having the firm belief that the NHS should be paid for by our taxes instead of relying on charity last night I published the following image on my Facebook page as the essence shared my opinion.

A key principle of Sikhism is the importance of pluralism. With no appreciation of pluralism, one of my Facebook “friends” decided to share my post on their Facebook page, with links to myself and wrote

“Another reason not to vote for this eejit ever again – we are all trying to be positive and Andy Strangely is constantly negative (although I believe he enjoyed a holiday in the East and hasn’t told us ‘public’ what his self quarantine measures were).
He is distracting from an amazing guy who served our country and is doing again what he can to serve us – Andy Strangeway, what have you done???”


I loved the irony that they republished the image they objected to. It would not be appropriate to discuss this beyond the “we are positive, you are negative” aspect.

Covid 19 and with it the Government propaganda has created a culture where if you dutifully follow the Government mantra you are positive but if you don’t you are negative.

Perhaps my Facebook “friend”, as a female, believes the Suffragettes were negative to the Government for wanting votes for women. Or as a Stamford Bridge resident perhaps she believes I was negative to East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) in my former role of an Independent ERYC Councillor when I challenged their policy of there being no permanent pump in Stamford Bridge. The lack of a permanent pump resulted in regular flooding of the A166 and local businesses. My negativity to ERYC resulted in a permanent pump and no flooding.

Enough said.

In essence, whether it is votes for women, pumps for Stamford Bridge or funding for the NHS being “positive” by agreeing to the Government position is perhaps not so positive for the greater good. History proves this.

I politely offered my Facebook “friend” the opportunity to apologise. Alas her reply demonstrated a total lack of understanding why I was offering her the opportunity.

You are negative and I am positive is the language of a passive-aggressive.

Pluralism is neither negative, positive or eejit. There is no need to be nasty or rude. It is fine to have a difference of opinion and indeed healthy.

Perhaps many in the UK could learn from the importance Sikhism places on pluralism.

Posted in Covid 19

Government U-Turn Forces Cemeteries To Re-Open

I am delighted to confirm that the Government has finally done a U-turn and forced Cemeteries, including the one closed in Market Weighton, to keep open or re-open.

On Tuesday 7 April, I first publically raised the distasteful issue of Market Weighton Town Council (MWTC) closing its cemetery and requested that it revisit their decision.

Despite full email communication with MWTC’s Mayor Councillor Peter Hemmerman and East Yorkshire MP Greg Knight, the cemetery (and countless others across the country) remained closed for Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

A simple search of “covid 19 closing cemeteries” will reveal the extent to which various councils closed cemeteries. In essence, the standard strapline appears to have been:

“Cemeteries are temporarily closing to the public as a result of the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic. The cemeteries will remain closed until further notice to help limit the risk of exposure.”

Over the following 12 days, I exchanged emails with MWTC’s Mayor Peter Hemmerman and Greg Knight MP in an attempt for common sense to prevail and the law to be respected.

Hiding Behind

As can be seen from the email communication published below, both MWTC and Greg shameful employed the “hiding behind” tactic.

MWTC stated: “We act on the guidance of the Government via NALC and ERNLLCA and are currently following their advice.” 

(NB: For information about NALC and ERNLLCA please click on the links).

The Government is Greg.

Greg stated:

“This is a decision that Market Weighton Town Council has made”


“The decision is one for the council concerned”

and then

“I suggest you contact the council direct.”

That is, go back to MWTC – and so the circle is completed.

Witholding Information

From MWTC, I requested: “I am unaware of any such “guidance” of the Government to close open spaces. Could you please forward me copy?” – I have received nothing.

Greg was asked on three separate occasions:

  1. “I am unaware of any legal authorisation that permits Parish/Town Councils to close cemeteries, even as a decision of Full Council. Of course, I could be wrong. If there is legislation, could you please advise with reference to it?”– I received no reference.
  2. “Are you able to refer me please to the legislation that supports your statement?”– I received no reference.
  3. “Lets cut to the chase. Is there or is there not legislation authorising councils to prohibit the public from entering cemeteries and burial grounds at this moment to undertake their daily exercise and/or tending graves? If so please provide the link to the precise legislation.”– I received no reference.

Greg Knight MP

Incompetence, Insanity or Nastiness?

  • Is this incompetence? MWTC failed to take legal advice or consider the effect of their actions as Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick did yesterday. Greg Knight qualified as a Solicitor in 1973 and has been an MP for East Yorkshire for 19 years but was unaware of the legislation. This sounds like incompetence to me.
  • Is the action insane? The Government informs the public to take one hour exercise while adhering to two metres of social distancing. MWTC close the cemetery the best public place in that area of Market Weighton for social distancing. That sounds insane to me.
  • Is this action nasty? Be it by action or inaction, both MWTC and Greg prevented residents visiting their loved ones’ graves on Good Friday and Easter Sunday and removed the main public space for safe social distancing. That sounds nasty to me.

Unreserved Public Apology

The actions of Greg are a clear demonstration of Common Purpose policy – never apologise and never admit failure.

Both Greg Knight and Councillor Peter Hemmerman must issue an unreserved apology for their distasteful actions/inactions for which they failed to take responsibility, in breach of the Nolan Principles.

If they fail to issue an apology, they have no honour left and must resign.

I offer both Greg and Peter a full right to reply, with or without an apology.  Hopefully, it will be with.

Supporting Information

My motivation throughout has been to ensure that the cemetery remains open to permit the visiting of loved one’s graves and to take safe exercise.

I had no intention of publishing my communication with Greg but sadly in the public interest and as a last resort, I am forced to do this. Hopefully next time this will not be required.

I publish my full email communication for the Court of Public Opinion. Please click on the following:

Posted in Covid 19, Market Weighton

York Settlement Agreements – Paedophile Charter

I can reveal that between 2015 and 2019 City of York Council (CYC) issued 26 Settlement Agreements relating to school-based staff.

Settlement Agreements

Settlement Agreements must not be used in cases that have any safeguarding implications, even if an employee proposes to resign before or during a disciplinary process.

This is because where there may be genuine grounds to believe that an individual is responsible for a breach of safeguarding rules, concluding matters via a settlement agreement would allow that individual to work at another school without any reference to the concern that was raised, which could obviously put others at risk in the future.

A settlement agreement which prevents the school from making a DBS referral when the criteria for doing so are met would likely result in a criminal offence being committed as the school would not be complying with its legal duty to make the referral.

There is no reason to agree to a settlement agreement with school-based staff unless there are safeguarding implications.

Are Children Safe?

In a local context 26 settlement agreements could have shocking consequences.

For example: A teacher who signed a settlement agreement may have breached safeguarding at a York School and could now be working at a Tadcaster School without the school in Tadcaster having any knowledge of the teachers past.

How is it possible for there to be 26 school-based settlement agreements without safeguarding implications?

Ian Floyd – Investigation Requested

I have requested Ian Floyd,  Temporary Chief Executive, CYC to:

  1. Undertake a full investigation into the issuing of the settlement agreements to school-based staff.
  2. Refer all 26 cases to the Police to ensure there is no breach of statutory requirements.
  3. Ensure CYC cease to issue settlement agreements to school-based staff.
Posted in Children

Richard Bradley SBC Director – False Slur

Richard Bradley, Commercial Director, Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) believes it acceptable to make false slurs and then decline the opportunity to apologise.

Richard Bradley, Commercial Director, Scarborough Borough Council

Richard displayed a questionable command of the English language by claiming that my undertaking of one action fell within the definition of unacceptable behaviour under the Council’s Persistent and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy!

When invited to explain how this was possible not only did he decline the invitation and fail to offer an apology he also never had the decency to reply himself. In what appears to typify his conduct and that of SBC it was passed to a faceless Complaints Officer who informed me:

“I refer to your comments below and would state that the  Council now considers the matter to be closed, and therefore has no further comment to make. Kind regards, Complaints Officer”

I do love the irony of “Kind regards”. It gave me a chuckle.

For further information  please read Accused Of Breaching Out Of Date Policy

Seeking Employment

A mutual acquaintance of Richard and I informs me that Richard is now attempting to leave SBC rather hastily by seeking new employment.

I would like to offer Richard my best wishes in his search and politely advise him that in future he does not make false slurs against members of the public that are unfounded and which he cannot substantiate.

I doubt his new employer will have a SBC “turn a blind eye” policy to such conduct of their employees.

Leaving Present

As a leaving present for Richard, I share with him my one lawful action that he claimed fell within the definition of unacceptable behaviour under the Council’s Persistent and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy.

All I did was record a telephone conversation.

Bon voyage Richard.

Posted in Scarborough

Covid 19 Legislation – Fundamentally Flawed

Over the past couple of weeks, I have sat back and observed how the Covid-19 legislation is fundamentally flawed. The wrongful convictions in Newcastle and Tooting demonstrate that Police Forces have no idea how to apply the legislation.

Lee Freeman, Chief Constable, Humberside Police

I am of the firm belief that there should never be a two-tier legal system, yet the Covid-19 legislation is just that. Those who can afford legal representation or understand the basics of law will not be successfully prosecuted, whilst those without such knowledge and finance could be.

Being mindful of this and the wrongful convictions cases I expose the failures in the legislation, I start by stating two simple points:

  • I remain of the opinion that all Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) are unenforceable and that the Government is fully aware of this. My direct action over many years against various Government bodies has confirmed this. I have never received a FPN as a result of my direct action – despite my best endeavours to receive one.
  • Under the Covid-19 legislation, no Police Force will ever be able to achieve a conviction unless the member of the public “self convicts”.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (please click on the link to read) under Offences states:

  • (1) A person (“P”) commits an offence if P— fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a restriction or requirement imposed under regulation.
  • (3) A person who obstructs, without reasonable excuse, any person carrying out a function under these Regulations commits an offence.

Let us consider “reasonable excuse” and “obstructs”.

To prove obstruction, intent must be proven. A typical example of this is a car parking on a footpath that allegedly obstructs the use of the footpath for pedestrians. The key reason this is very rarely prosecuted in the UK, outside of London, is that the intent to obstruct must be demonstrated. This is impossible without a confession.

To discuss “reasonable excuse” let us hypothetically say that it appears I have driven into Pocklington and sat on a bench for 40 minutes.

A Humberside Police Officer, who I will call Bobby, approaches me within two metres and asks what I am doing. At this point the Newcastle case is of relevance:

“Marie Dinou, 41, from York, was arrested at Newcastle Central Station on Saturday after she allegedly failed to tell officers why she needed to travel.”

and my statement above

“Under the Covid 19 legislation, no Police Force will ever be able to achieve a conviction unless the member of the public self convicts.”

Marie did the right thing. She said nothing.

I now go back to Bobby. I cannot obstruct Bobby by not replying without reasonable excuse. The excuse is simple and every court in the land must accept it:

“I did not reply to the officer as I had not spoken to my legal representation.”

But surely the case still stands Strangeway as:

“A person (“P”) commits an offence if P— fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a restriction or requirement imposed under regulation.”

and here you are just sat on a bench for 40 minutes.

I am permitted to take exercise. This does not state physical exercise.

As per the Government guidance, I have taken a maximum 1-hour exercise. This is taken in the form of a maximum 20-minute return drive to Pocklington to sit on the bench to have my view and the drive as the subject matter of my meditation. This is my one hour of mental exercise.

Case dismissed – without even getting into my knowledge as to why all Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) are unenforceable, or my Human Rights.

Of course, as always I am happy to respond to any challenge from the powers that be. In this instance, I challenge any Chief Constable of a UK Police Force to prove me wrong.

Why do the Government continue to pass legislation that those who understand how law works can expose the failings in it before taking breakfast?

Why does the Government never request help from such folk?


Say nowt and enjoy your meditation.

Posted in Covid 19, Humberside Police

Peterborough Height Barrier – TRO Consultation Begins

Having agreed that the height barrier at the entrance to Car Haven Car Park, Peterborough is in breach of legislation due to there being no Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for it the City Council has now confirmed the required process to introduce a TRO will beginning on Thursday.

The City Council confirmed:

“That is was taken up with the network team and the process for introducing a traffic regulation order has commenced.  This involves the order being placed in the local paper commencing at earliest next Thursday for three consecutive weeks and thereafter the order can then be formally made.”

The height barrier must be at the required height, with the height stated on the barrier and warning signage in place on the approach access to the barrier.

As there are significantly fewer vehicles on the network at present due to virus restrictions, not to mention other risks created if the height barrier were to be removed while the order is being made the barrier will remain. I believe this pragmatic approach is appropriate.

I encourage anyone who would like to contribute to the consultation to do so.

Given that the required TRO is now actioned my role as a campaigner in this is now completed.

I have thanked Peterborough City Council for agreeing to ensure that the height barrier is lawful.

Posted in Peterborough