WALTHAM FOREST: Council defends protester prosecution threats (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

Stalin would have been proud of the junta rulingLBWF. Roll on 6 May.

"The council has a clear duty to take action where there are clear breaches of its by laws" except when it's their own staff or councillors who are breaking the law!!!!!!

If it's a by-law, it's a by-law and no person or group should be exempt from it. The problem, as with many other local issues, appears to have resulted from patchy or inconsistent enforcement, which may lead to the impression that particular groups are being picked on. In fact it's probably quite random and I'm always inclined to believe the ****-up over the conspiracy theory. I would urge people to resist the call to a “day of action” as this will only increase pressure on already overstretched council and police officers. It's now clear what the rules are and we should all abide by them, or seek legitimate democratic means to change them if we don't like them.

newyear wrote:
If it's a by-law, it's a by-law and no person or group should be exempt from it. The problem, as with many other local issues, appears to have resulted from patchy or inconsistent enforcement, which may lead to the impression that particular groups are being picked on. In fact it's probably quite random and I'm always inclined to believe the ****-up over the conspiracy theory. I would urge people to resist the call to a “day of action” as this will only increase pressure on already overstretched council and police officers. It's now clear what the rules are and we should all abide by them, or seek legitimate democratic means to change them if we don't like them.

It may be a bylaw - it's also 100 years old, and now suddenly being applied with overkill.

newyear wrote:
If it's a by-law, it's a by-law and no person or group should be exempt from it. The problem, as with many other local issues, appears to have resulted from patchy or inconsistent enforcement, which may lead to the impression that particular groups are being picked on. In fact it's probably quite random and I'm always inclined to believe the ****-up over the conspiracy theory. I would urge people to resist the call to a “day of action” as this will only increase pressure on already overstretched council and police officers. It's now clear what the rules are and we should all abide by them, or seek legitimate democratic means to change them if we don't like them.

I tend to agree. If the by-law is unfit for modern purposes, it seems people should make proposals for its revision or abolition rather than simply breaking it. People who are concerned should email or write to each of their councillors and ask them where they stand on the issue.

Good advice, Techno2

Morris Hickey wrote:

newyear wrote: If it's a by-law, it's a by-law and no person or group should be exempt from it. The problem, as with many other local issues, appears to have resulted from patchy or inconsistent enforcement, which may lead to the impression that particular groups are being picked on. In fact it's probably quite random and I'm always inclined to believe the ****-up over the conspiracy theory. I would urge people to resist the call to a “day of action” as this will only increase pressure on already overstretched council and police officers. It's now clear what the rules are and we should all abide by them, or seek legitimate democratic means to change them if we don't like them.

It may be a bylaw - it's also 100 years old, and now suddenly being applied with overkill.

Magna Carta is almost 800 years old, Morris Hickey - your point is?

newyear wrote:

Morris Hickey wrote:

newyear wrote: If it's a by-law, it's a by-law and no person or group should be exempt from it. The problem, as with many other local issues, appears to have resulted from patchy or inconsistent enforcement, which may lead to the impression that particular groups are being picked on. In fact it's probably quite random and I'm always inclined to believe the ****-up over the conspiracy theory. I would urge people to resist the call to a “day of action” as this will only increase pressure on already overstretched council and police officers. It's now clear what the rules are and we should all abide by them, or seek legitimate democratic means to change them if we don't like them.

It may be a bylaw - it's also 100 years old, and now suddenly being applied with overkill.

Magna Carta is almost 800 years old, Morris Hickey - your point is?

My point is that it has not worried LBWF until 13 weeks before an election and they are under justifiable fire for their incompetence over the last 195 weeks. It's called gagging the criticism.

I see where you're coming from, Morris Hickey - impending elections do tend to concentrate the political mind!

magna Carta was actually repealed.....but she may have died in vain

In its original form, admittedly, inézc, but as I understand it by the 19th century most of its provisions had been incorporated into English Law, the most important being habeas corpus.

PS: I think rumours fo the death of Magna Carta are much exaggerated but the spirit of habeas corpus has almost been broken in the name of the prevention of terrorism. I think we need to be careful as a society that we don't destroy the very things we value and seek to protect and, in relation to Town Square, the rights of assembly and free speech need to be considered very carefully against the need to uphold public order.

This just strikes me as another example of the council using any means to achieve its own objectives, abusing its power for its own political gain.

The council have removed street wardens (how much money did they waste on that initiative?) to police us with “environmental enforcement officers” who are there to enforce outdated by-laws while we are desperately short of real police officers whom the street wardens supported. What kind of strategy is that?

I know of an environmental crime, which is also a great example of the council’s wastefulness. Across the borough a number of council officers just sit in little cars with cameras on top, often with the engine running and often in restricted places causing disruption, spying on residents. This council needs to start to lead by example, “do as I say not as I do” does not work.

Several interesting and valid points there, amanda27. In relation to street wardens (a tokenistic initiative if ever there was one) I believe some of the money saved from thier abolition was put towards employing two dedicated police constables to patrol High Street and the market. I think that was money well spent. In relation to Town Square I think we either have to have blanket and imartial enforcement or repeal the by-law. The current fudge will only lead to more problems of this kind - especially in the run-up to the local and general elections.

amanda27 wrote:
I know of an environmental crime, which is also a great example of the council’s wastefulness. Across the borough a number of council officers just sit in little cars with cameras on top, often with the engine running and often in restricted places causing disruption, spying on residents. This council needs to start to lead by example, “do as I say not as I do” does not work.

Apart from the environmental double standards of the council on this, all tickets issued are illegal, since being parked with engines running is in breach of the Highway Code.

DickyWilko wrote:

amanda27 wrote: I know of an environmental crime, which is also a great example of the council’s wastefulness. Across the borough a number of council officers just sit in little cars with cameras on top, often with the engine running and often in restricted places causing disruption, spying on residents. This council needs to start to lead by example, “do as I say not as I do” does not work.

Apart from the environmental double standards of the council on this, all tickets issued are illegal, since being parked with engines running is in breach of the Highway Code.

Get real. The Highway Code is not a legal document, and your claim that tickets issued are illegal is nonsense. The CCTV smartcars have their engines turned off. They are there to enforce traffic laws. If drivers didn't break them to such a large extent there would be no need for them to be there.

Many of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements and disobeying these rules constitutes a criminal offence this applies to both the council and residents – or at least in theory.
I have on more that on occasion witnessed the smart car that appears to be resident at the end of Essex Road, by the junction with Lea Bridge Road E10, sit with engine running.
Indeed traffic laws, such as the ones in the Highway Code, do need enforcing but the council should find a more efficient way of achieving this that placing officers in cars with cameras on the top that spend much of their time in one spot, just the camera would be sufficient.

amanda27 wrote:
Many of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements and disobeying these rules constitutes a criminal offence this applies to both the council and residents – or at least in theory. I have on more that on occasion witnessed the smart car that appears to be resident at the end of Essex Road, by the junction with Lea Bridge Road E10, sit with engine running. Indeed traffic laws, such as the ones in the Highway Code, do need enforcing but the council should find a more efficient way of achieving this that placing officers in cars with cameras on the top that spend much of their time in one spot, just the camera would be sufficient.

You are wrong, Amanda.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 says “A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind.”
The Highway Code is only relevant to enforcement where it duplicates matters which are dealt with separately by legislation. As its title indicates it is a CODE, not a set of statutory requirements. The Highway Code can be useful in establishing liability but it is not a legal document.