Electronic Big Brother

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the government doesn't understand the internet. Back in 2009 there was an attempt to make Internet Service Providers keep tabs on all their users activities; in 2011 they wanted ISPs to block pornography. Now they want to revive that old 2009 attempt with a thin lick of paint.

The old bogeymen of paedophiles and terrorists are being trotted out to explain why the government wants to be able to see exactly where you visit online, who you talk to etc.and yet exactly the same reasons why this wouldn't work for censorship applies to this 'new' law.

Read More >>

Camera drone panic!

Watching BBC Breakfast this morning you'd think cameras were some new and scary bit of technology. They were talking about camera drones, essentially model helicopters slung with a still or video camera. Imagine these flitting about with someone hovering over your back-garden watching you the law has to be set to deal with this.

Read More >>

The new unemployment rules - classic misdirection

For a while now news has been blaring that the government was set to allow employers to fire employees "at the drop of a hat" or for no cause; this has been widely vilified. Oh but wait Saint Cable to the rescue - no they're not doing that....  instead they're going to reduce the paperwork needed to fire someone oh and make it a lower punishment for unfairly dismissing someone. All in the name of helping the economy.

So they're going to reduce unemployment by making it easier to add to those ranks? Gee makes sense to me.

But hey they could have made it worse so we should be thanking them right?

Nadine Dorries "Kill Cameron" statement - one rule for us, one rule for them.

A 'threat' to "blow up" Robin Hood airport on Twitter resulted in an arrest, charges and conviction (now over-ruled); threats made to Tom Daley on the same medium resulted in an arrest.

However if an MP states that we need a "Kill Cameron strategy" to a new political campaign group called Conservative Voice oddly enough there's no investigation or altered security arrangements at No. 10; because of course she only meant it "metaphorically".

I wonder if anyone else has stated that the only way to have a voice was to "Kill Cameron" they'd be treated in such a lax manner?

Mark Garnier petrol prices

As mentioned last year I've found myself signed up to our MP's email newsletter. Beyond the hypocritical front page where our Conservative MP vows to fight our Conservative County Council on the matter of downgrading Kidderminster Hospital despite his complete lack of say in the matter; I found my eye drawn to the petrol price 'scandal'. Essentially from time-to-time our news fixates on the fact that a chain-store in Wyre Forest is selling petrol at a higher price than outside the district.

Despite explaining things twice, I'll add some hard figures to things. As the Tesco was mentioned I'll deal with them. The Tesco in Kidderminster store and station have a rateable value of £2,080,000. The Tesco in Cradley Heath a rateable value of £2,000,000. At this year's multiplier of 45.8p/£ the Kidderminster branch has to pay an extra £36,640 per year.

As I've said before nation-wide stores are allowed to charge different prices in different places if their running costs are higher.

Okay they're charging 4p/litre more and I agree that's excessive, but there's a lot of implying that something dodgy is going on. The problem isn't with the businesses - they're in competition within the local area; the problem is in the rules that govern how they compete.

The current EU Competition Article 82 is pointless and next to useless it's more concerned with businesses selling goods at different prices between States and only if they're "dominant". Petrol stations in one UK district does not count as a different State from another UK district; if there's more than one such station owned by different companies it's not dominant either.

We need a UK law similiar to the US Robinson-Patman Act to geographic price discrimination an offence. Who can create such a thing - why our government of course of whom our current MP is a member.

More from our Olympic overlords

Where are we up to so far? Military bases established in residential areas (odd that when our enemies do that we deplore their actions) without judicial oversight. Sponsor's rights of display trumping people's rights over what they can wear regardless of Article 11 of the European Charter regarding freedom of expression. Contractors on the arenas being unable to mention they worked on them; now overturned with a shortened delay. Oh and workers for said contractors being initially unable to purchase food from any other than the official sponsors, now relaxed specifically for them. Particularly bagels.

Now we have the British Transport Police rounding up ex-graffiti artists and allegedly questioning them with regard to offences that occurred 20 years ago. What's this got to do with the Olympics? Well they've been bailed under the terms that they a) can't use any form of railway within London; b) can't carry spray cans at any time and, most telling of all c) travel within a mile of any Olympic area. (Unless that latter has become part of standard bail terms and I wouldn't be surprised if they were)

Beyond placing a large chunk of London out of their reach it's worth pointing out that at least one makes a living from making graffiti art for top companies such as Adidas, um you know one of the Olympic sponsors, and as such the bail conditions appear to prevent him from working. I do hope they weren't planning to commission him for a work celebrating the Olympics.

Let's add in that the pre-emptive arrests that occurred prior to the Kate and Wills wedding have been deemed justifiable and it appears we're the subject of Operation Purge. Remove anyone or anything that could possibly (or just maybe) tarnish the Olympics and us in the eyes of the world; and banish them far away until everything's over.

No doubt that the actual hearings won't be held until after the end of the Olympics and it's a good bet all charges will be dropped


Anyway how long until the police are knocking on Boris' door; surely he's the biggest embarrassment still on offer?

The strange case of the miltary installation in the residential area

As some may know as part of the security precautions for the Olympic games the MOD has decided to site missile batteries on tower blocks; for some strange reason the residents of said blocks weren't entirely happy and took them to caught court.

The resulting judgement is slightly surreal and can be read in full here.

The highlights are as follows:

Read More >>

The cost of data roaming

It's a standard tale - someone travels abroad and comes back to a massive phone bill. "But" they complain "I hardly made any phone calls". That's as may be, but in the background your phone was probably polling your email, sending those photos you took to be synced up to the cloud and all other things you take for granted working in the background.

While travelling in Europe may 'only' cost you 40p per minute a single Megabyte of data may cost you £3.

But wait didn't the EU get stroppy about all this, didn't they impose some sort of limit? Yes they did. The first thing to note is that the limit is price based at €50; so how much you actually get is dependent on how much your mobile provider is trying to squeeze out of you. At £3 per Mb that's 13Mb a month. Take 7 pictures that autosync to your cloud and that's your monthly limit gone.

Ah but wait

• Consumers can also select a different cut-off limit if offered by the operator or opt out of this bill shock safeguard entirely.
• Operators are obliged to send users a warning whey they reach 80% of their data-roaming bill limit. The operator will have to cut off the mobile internet connection once the limit has been reached, unless the customer has indicated they want to continue data roaming.

Interpretation of these two rules is what lets mobile operators off the hook. Go on holiday take a few photos and watch your data limit get smashed and they'll send you a little text asking if you if you want to continue. Well of course you do so you say yes. You have now opted out of the limit entirely not just for this period but forever. As you now have no limit they have no proviso to warn you about your data usage. It's up to you to contact them to have the limit put back in place.

At least they operators offer their own cheaper bundles for data. Yeah great except remember that means you have again opted out of the EU data limit. Exceed your bundle allowance they don't have to tell you and you're back on the £3/Mb tariff.

One final note - recall that £3 per Mb? The EU capped prices at €0.50 or 40p per Mb. Que? Well that's wholesale prices; what you as a "consumer" get charged is up to the provider. That £2.60 difference is all gravy.

The joke is that there's a simple solution - make a consumer opt in every €50 worth of data. If they're using a bundle tell them when they exceed that and revert to the €50 opt-in.

Stay in bike lane

A delightful piece from an American who after being fined for straying from a bicycle lane adheres strictly to the law from that point onwards

In the UK this couldn't happen (or at least shouldn't). Rule 62 of the Highway Code states that cyclists should

Keep within the lane when practicable.

Not that there should be that many obstructions given Rule 240 in which it is an offence to stop or park on a cycle lane or track.

But how does rule 62 get enforced? If I see a cyclist heading towards Stourport along the dual-carriageway ignoring the perfectly clear and safe cycle lane could they be stopped by the police and 'told off'?

Votes for prisoners

In a sound-bite age the current kerfuffle over the granting of voting rights to prisoners hasn't been truly expanded within certain parts the media. Checking some outlets we should all be waving a British flag and sticking two fingers up at the European Court who are trying to do away with British law all in the name of 'human rights' as if the scum in prison deserve such.

In reality the ECHR has stated that the current blanket ban is unlawful; that someone serving a 50 year sentence for murder being treated in the same manner as a fine-dodger serving six months is wrong. They're not saying we have to give all prisoners voting rights we just have to set a threshold.

Read More >>

Ban on council prayers still in place?

Coming from the Wyre Forest Agenda where it appears our local council are still including prayers as an official part of the meeting despite the High Court ruling that they can't. Ah but it's okay as Eric Pickles has rode to the rescue by pushing forward the Localism Act 2011 which will restore the right to hold prayers; but does it?

Here's the key point in the Local Governments Act 1972:

Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this section but subject to the provisions of this Act and any other enactment passed before or after this Act, a local authority shall have power to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions.

To parse that down this is a power granted to councils with restrictions. Now to the new Localism Act 2011 that grants the council a general power to do that which an individual can:

If exercise of a pre-commencement power of a local authority is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the general power so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power

where a:

“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—(a)is contained in this Act, or in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which this Act is passed, or(b)is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section 1.

Everyone understand that?  Any restrictions in place to a power contained in a previous Act apply to the general power granted in this Act. Given that the Localism Act 2011 does not rescind the Local Government Act 1972; nor does it specifically amend section 111  then its power with restrictions still apply to the general power granted by this new Act.

In other words a council is still restricted only to those acts that "facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions" which has been decided doesn't include prayer.

TV licencing

Every so often we get a story in the Shuttle about catching TV licence evaders and it seems that every time we get one or more people not understanding how it works. To be fair I'm not surprised.

TV licencing is covered by Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 and doesn't make a legible read and is hardly assisted that the definitions of terms used, including that of what a television receiver actually is, is covered by another piece of legislation the Communications (Television Licencing) Regulations 2004. Add in the proliferation of devices that can now receive television broadcasts and it can get quite confusing.

In reality stripped of all the legalese there's only one simple concept to grasp: the use of a public broadcast.

If you use a public broadcast you need a licence; if you don't then you don't.

So:

If you're watching a programme through your aerial you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through an aerial you were using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme through a satellite dish you're using a public broadcast.

If you're watching a programme that you recorded through a satellite dish you were using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme through a cable connection you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through a cable connection you were using a public broadcast.

However:

If you're watching a programme from a DVD you are not using a public broadcast.
If you're watching security feed footage you are not using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a catch-up programme via iPlayer/Sky Anytime/etc. you are not using a public broadcast.

The key point is not in the possession of equipment that can receive a public broadcast but the using of said broadcast.

SOPA and PIPA

Anyone using Wikipedia today will find themselves forwarded to a new page discussing USA legislation that "could fatally damage the free and open Internet".

What's going on? - They're worried about two pieces of legislation known as SOPA and PIPA.

SOPA? PIPA? - The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act.

Aren't there already anti-piracy laws in place? - Indeed there are.

So why the need for new ones? - Visit the Pirate Bay's legal threats page to see how many US companies threaten a Swedish company with US laws. They're pissed that they have no power over these sites so they've enlisted senators to draft legislation to target foreign sites rather than content.

What's the difference? - If a foreign video service hosted one video out of a million that was deemed to infringe US IP laws the entire site would be removed from US-hosted search engines and blocked by US internet service providers without the need to ever go to trial. [Update - the ISP blocking part has been dropped after it was pointed out that it wouldn't work. Neat trick can we try that tactic with the entirety of the legislation?]

Say what? - The owner of the site may be given a cease and desist order. Upon delivery of such an order rather than upon a verdict the site can then be blocked in the USA in the manner already described.

So the content can be deemed infringing and the entire site blocked without the owner having any opportunity to defend themselves? - Yes. To have the site unblocked it would be up to them to prove otherwise. Oh and of course this would have to be presented in front of a US court (which ironically leaves the owner liable to arrest for IP offences).

But if this only affects foreign sites why are Wikipedia etc. kicking up such a stink? - Because the legislation means that any US company advertising or linking to such a site may become liable themselves. Consider all the external Wikipedia links and Google AdWords that exist and then hold both Wikipedia and Google responsible or ensuring they don't link or appear to 'criminal' sites. There's also concern that this will begin to be applied to domestic sites.

But if this stops piracy isn't a good thing? - Well firstly it's a sledgehammer to crack an egg approach; it's also reminiscent of the Great Firewall of China that prevents citizens from seeing sites deemed 'undesirable' and finally it's unlikely to work as anyone who has tried to remove content from the Internet soon discovers.

If I don't like this what can I do? - If you're a US citizen contact your representatives in the House and Senate and complain. If you're a foreign citizen cross your fingers or write a blog entry in the hopes that US citizens might read it and act. [or visit Stop American Censorship and help point out the hypocrisy of the US State Department condemning internet censorship in other countries but not its own]

Smoking ban in private vehicles

The latest wheeze from the BMA is to call for smoking to be banned in private vehicles. I'd be amused at their naivety that they think Parliament can even do this if it weren't for the way that the previous smoking ban was handled.

The existing legislation wasn't included as part of Health and Safety regulations that businesses have to comply with to operate in this country it was instead tied in to the Health Act 2006. The sting in the tail is comes from sections 4 and 5 whereby:

4   Additional smoke-free places

1. The appropriate national authority may make regulations designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2.
2. The place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed.
3. The appropriate national authority may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the authority's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.
4. The regulations may provide for such places, or places falling within the description, to be smoke-free only—
1. in specified circumstances,
2. at specified times,
3. if specified conditions are satisfied,
4. in specified areas,or any combination of those.

5   Vehicles

1. The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for vehicles to be smoke-free.
2. The regulations may in particular make provision—
1. for the descriptions of vehicle which are to be smoke-free,
2. for the circumstances in which they are to be smoke-free,
3. for them to be smoke-free only in specified areas, or except in specified areas,
4. for exemptions. 

The most important point is that the requirement to do so for any "place" includes the need that there be a significant risk whereas there are no requirements for vehicles at all. So a simple Statutory Instrument that can only be approved or rejected by Parliament, and is traditionally given the nod by the House of Lords, is all that is required to ban smoking in every vehicle in this country with no requirement to justify their inclusion.

Stalking as an offence

The news is that Stalking is to be made a specific offence. As it stands it's not but every newspaper seems to have cribbed the definition from the Crown Prosecution Service as a

long-term pattern of persistent and repeated contact with, or attempts to contact, a particular victim

which should ring alarm bells for the use of the word victim which is prejudicial. So besides that this is a good thing right? Possibly depending on how well the offence is phrased. Consider for instance a debt collection agency trying to obtain money from a 'victim' on behalf of their client - would their "long term pattern of persistent and repeated contact" be classed as stalking under a new law?

Read More >>

Water pipe ownership part 3

I did receive a reply to my reminder regarding the transfer of the water pipes. Sadly though it was that sewerage companies already have rights to protect against building near such pipes.

Well yes building near a sewer requires permission from the owner; which previously was often the same as the owner of the land... not any more.

One small benefit was a link to Ofwat I didn't previously have which gives me the information that this is all being done

under the Water Industry Act 1991

and indeed checking on that and digging up the point about adoption of sewers

102 Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 103, 105 and 146(3) below, a sewerage undertaker may at any time declare that—
(a)any sewer which is situated within its area or which serves the whole or any part of that area;F1...[F2
(aa)any lateral drain which communicates or is to communicate with a public sewer which—
(i)is so situated or serves the whole or any part of that area; and
(ii)is vested in that undertaker; or]
(b)any sewage disposal works which are so situated or which serve the whole or any part of that area,
shall, as from such date as may be specified in the declaration, become vested in the undertaker.

But that just pushes the question back one Act. The government do not own these pipes and therefore under existing legislation have no right to transfer ownership of them or indeed allow anyone else to claim ownership of them.

I now await another reply

Knowing the law

In my entry regarding taking photos Orphi asked

what exactly can members of the public do to avoid being pushed around like this?

I replied that they can stop accepting it by knowing the law; with that in mind here's the basics.

Again first off I Am Not A Lawyer; however the best bit is that no-one needs to be because the basics really are that easy to understand.

The base of law in the UK is that anything and everything is legal unless stated not to be. The law is then split into two main sections - case and statute. Statute law is that enacted by the state, for the UK that would be the Crown via the government; case law is made up of the decisions taken by previous courts.


Both sets of laws can then be dealt with in one of two ways - civil or criminal. Civil is deemed to be between citizens; criminal that between a citizen and the state.

The police can be involved in either types of law, but their powers derive from Statute Law; this defines what they can and cannot do under given circumstances. To take Law A detailing Circumstance A and Law B detailing Circumstance B a police officer cannot use the powers granted by Law A under the circumstances from Law B. In the case of the father taking photos the Prevention of Terrorism Act deals with the circumstances of control orders on specific individuals as this wasn't the case it didn't matter whether the Act gives an officer the power to confiscate property as it did not apply in this instance.

It is also worth remembering that the police are held just as liable under the law as non-police; should the officer in the incident above have taken the phone and/or deleted photos they could be accused of theft and/or criminal damage because they had no right to do so.

Now not everyone can memorise all the laws, however as the police act with powers granted under Statute Law should they wish to exercise such powers a member of the public being confronted with them can ask for the details. The officer is not obliged to provide them, but failing to do so or providing incorrect information could be considered prejudicial to their case

How does this apply to private security? Private security have no additional powers and no additional rights beyond that of the ordinary citizen. They can detain a person if they think they've committed a criminal act, but only temporarily until the police arrive. They can use reasonable force to escort a person from private grounds if they are representing the owner. They can refuse entry to private grounds if they are representing the owner and use reasonable force to prevent such entry. They have no rights to confiscate goods and no rights to search a person or their property.

Quite simple really.

The Dale Farm injunction

With the bailiffs all set to go in a two-part appeal has had one part accepted. In essence the council failed to adequately inform the residents as to what would happen to each of them individually. It may seem this is legal rubbish, but it makes sense given the nature of the site.

If you own land there is nothing stopping you from allowing tents or caravans on it, up to a maximum (five if I recall), without any need for permission. However start building on it and that's a whole other matter.

So in this case consider three hypothetical plots - a caravan; a caravan on hardcore; a chalet. The caravan is, strictly speaking, legal. The one on the tarmac can be moved in order to demolish the tarmac, but the caravan itself is out of bounds. The chalet can be totally demolished.

What this injunction seems to be saying is that the owners of these three hypothetical plots have not been individually informed as to how this action applies to them and as such the removal/demolition cannot start.

The Riots Part 6 - Perverting the course of justice

For those found guilty of rioting, looting, receiving stolen goods etc. there are variable sentences available and are set down by statute. As to which sentences should be given from those available there are set guidelines made available from the Sentencing Council.

So how did two men with no past criminal record get four years for inciting a riot that didn't happen?

Perhaps because the magistrates were being advised by HM Court and Tribunal Services. Except here's the problem - did I mention HMCTS at all during my opening paragraph about sentencing? I did not and this wasn't a lapse on my part; because they don't have a say in the matter.

Don't believe me check out what the Ministry of Justice themselves say. Mention of statute sentencing and the Sentencing Council's guidelines. however note that

When sentencing offenders, courts must follow relevant sentencing guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. So, if a judge or magistrate believes a guideline sentence doesn’t allow the interests of justice to be served, he or she can sentence outside of the guideline. In these cases, the judge or magistrate must always state the reasons for this in their sentencing remarks in open court . 

So if a judge or magistrate themselves believe that they need to step outside the guidelines they can do so provide they state their reasons. Except it seems in case they've been told to do so. By whom?

Well it's not the Sentencing Council who themselves are looking into the harsh sentences; and apparently not the Minster for Justice who's denied all knowledge. This appears to have come from HMCTS itself. So given that they have no jurisdiction over this matter the next question is - why did the magistrates follow such guidance?

Water pipe ownership

By now property owners should have received a letter from their local water company informing them of the change of ownership in water pipes. A frequently asked questions page for Severn Trent Water has been set up here

In essence what they're saying is that a property owner is currently liable for the entire pipe that connects them to the main sewer pipe regardless of whether it is within their property boundary or not. After October 1st everything outside the property boundary becomes the property of the water company.

On the surface this seems fair enough, however there are some niggles. Take this statement for instance with my emphasis:

you will no longer have to worry about paying to resolve problems yourself on any shared pipes or sewers outside your property boundary. However, drainage pipes within your property boundary which serve just your property will remain your responsibility. 

So who owns drainage pipes within your property boundary that are shared? At the moment it's the property owner after 1st October it'll be the water company.

Just to make this clear - the water company are taking ownership of pipework within the boundaries of private property and just to add the cherry they'll be charging us for the privilege.

But hey so what it just means less cost for the property owner should anything go wrong. True, except as the water companies now own that pipework they gain the same rights of access to it as they do with the main sewer pipeline. If they decide they want to replace the pipework they can and there's nothing you can do to stop them. They can dig up your garden, your driveway when they please although they will "try to reinstate as it previously was" afterwards, how reassuring.

Said property owner also faces one other small detail - as they're no longer the owners of the pipework they can't build over it without permission.

Now I'm in favour of this transfer, but looking at closely it just seems a wholesale transfer without any examination of the current legislation covering 'public' pipeways. Extra protections for the property owners have to be put in place.

To counter any possible charges of  whining without doing anything I've emailed my MP Mark Garnier with these queries; let's see how he responds.

[Update - a response time of 5 hours from Julian, not bad, not bad at all. Just a request for more information though; I'll give them time to look things up]

[Update 29/7 - an impressive return from Julian this morning. He's checking on the exact wording what with the holiday and all, but the basic word is that the water company just keeps the same rights they already possess in that they can gain access to fix things that affected the main pipeline. As they do need to give the owner sufficient notice in that instance that will continue once they own the pipework as well.]

[Update 5/8 - Julian posted the full wording, but that's made things worse. It appears that as it stands the local authorities have the right of access to private land and private sewers, but the water companies only have the right of access on private land to public sewers. Therefore, again, it seems they are gaining rights of access they didn't possess before.

Another point - when the companies were privatised did the ownership of the pipelines pass to them? If that's the case by what jurisdiction can the government transfer ownership of private pipes to private hands?]