The Medway Act 2001. discriminates against medway residents.

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Right to privacy

With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records.   This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.

 

The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.

 

The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed.  This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.

Why is this idea important?

With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records.   This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.

 

The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.

 

The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed.  This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.

Remove spy chips hidden in 2.5 MILLION dustbins

The growing threat of a stealth tax on the rubbish we throw away was exposed by startling figures recently.

More than 2.5million homes now have wheelie bins fitted with microchips to weigh their contents.

The bins allow councils to examine household rubbish and sell the information to commercial concerns as well as to impose taxes.

Collection of data from chipped bins could show when households were on holiday, opening the way to abuse by criminals.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255565/Spy-chips-hidden-2-5-million-dustbins-council-snoopers-plan-pay-throw-tax.html#ixzz0tsOv5Zwb

Why is this idea important?

The growing threat of a stealth tax on the rubbish we throw away was exposed by startling figures recently.

More than 2.5million homes now have wheelie bins fitted with microchips to weigh their contents.

The bins allow councils to examine household rubbish and sell the information to commercial concerns as well as to impose taxes.

Collection of data from chipped bins could show when households were on holiday, opening the way to abuse by criminals.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255565/Spy-chips-hidden-2-5-million-dustbins-council-snoopers-plan-pay-throw-tax.html#ixzz0tsOv5Zwb

Get rid of covert surveillance on innocent citizens; Repeal Regulatory Investigatory powers act

This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware.  It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often  without due cause.  At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.

Why is this idea important?

This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware.  It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often  without due cause.  At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

The above Act should be repealed forthwith and replaced with a law that is not so heavily weighted against the citizen and in favour of the State. Particularly offensive is the power the police AND OTHER AUTHORITIES such as local authorities have. to use Human Covert Surveillane. This allows the state to use  employees such as police to form  a relationship (including a sexual one) with a suspect for the purpose of obtaining information from them which they would not otherwise be able to obtain. I

Why is this idea important?

The above Act should be repealed forthwith and replaced with a law that is not so heavily weighted against the citizen and in favour of the State. Particularly offensive is the power the police AND OTHER AUTHORITIES such as local authorities have. to use Human Covert Surveillane. This allows the state to use  employees such as police to form  a relationship (including a sexual one) with a suspect for the purpose of obtaining information from them which they would not otherwise be able to obtain. I

Prevent ISPs spying on their customers

Enact a law to protect the customers of Internet Service Providers from being spied on.

I was appauled to hear what BT did with their secret Phorm spying trials. They tried to sell their customer's private data to a marketing company, and didn't even feel it was necessary  to warn people it was happening.

Now other ISPs, including Virgin Media, are looking into similar systems to generate income through marketing and to spy in the name of detecting copyright infringement on behalf of media companies.

This is unacceptable. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when online, in the same way as they do when speaking on the phone. Imagine the outrage if BT started routine monitoring of all phone calls and began inserting adverts related to the topic of conversation.

Why is this idea important?

Enact a law to protect the customers of Internet Service Providers from being spied on.

I was appauled to hear what BT did with their secret Phorm spying trials. They tried to sell their customer's private data to a marketing company, and didn't even feel it was necessary  to warn people it was happening.

Now other ISPs, including Virgin Media, are looking into similar systems to generate income through marketing and to spy in the name of detecting copyright infringement on behalf of media companies.

This is unacceptable. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when online, in the same way as they do when speaking on the phone. Imagine the outrage if BT started routine monitoring of all phone calls and began inserting adverts related to the topic of conversation.

Get rid of Council Tax Benefit bureaucracy.

There are thousands of bureaucrats in this country whose jobs include dealing with Council Tax Benefit claims. There is a mountain of excessively complicated regulation covering how these claims are to be dealt with. Vast sums of money and considerable manpower resources are lavished each year on assessing people's claims.

The main task for the bureaucrats is to assess people's incomes to see how much "benefit" they are entitled to. (Council Tax Benefit is not really a benefit anyway – it is just a reduction in the amount of Council Tax you have to pay.)

They don't just make a calculation for each year – they make a calculation for every week! If you are self-employed, the council may even insist upon seeing every receipt for your business, down to the last stamp and the last paperclip! I'm not kidding – this actually happens!

A single claim can sometimes involve literally reams of paper and hundreds of man-hours from both the council and the claimant. And if there is any change in circumstances, the council may insist on repeating the entire process. In many cases, the cost of administering the claim greatly exceeds the amount being claimed.

And yet, nearly all of this bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. The vast majority of people claiming Council Tax Benefit will already have had their incomes assessed for the purpose of claiming tax credits. So why not just use the same figures to assess Council Tax Benefit?

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of bureaucrats in this country whose jobs include dealing with Council Tax Benefit claims. There is a mountain of excessively complicated regulation covering how these claims are to be dealt with. Vast sums of money and considerable manpower resources are lavished each year on assessing people's claims.

The main task for the bureaucrats is to assess people's incomes to see how much "benefit" they are entitled to. (Council Tax Benefit is not really a benefit anyway – it is just a reduction in the amount of Council Tax you have to pay.)

They don't just make a calculation for each year – they make a calculation for every week! If you are self-employed, the council may even insist upon seeing every receipt for your business, down to the last stamp and the last paperclip! I'm not kidding – this actually happens!

A single claim can sometimes involve literally reams of paper and hundreds of man-hours from both the council and the claimant. And if there is any change in circumstances, the council may insist on repeating the entire process. In many cases, the cost of administering the claim greatly exceeds the amount being claimed.

And yet, nearly all of this bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. The vast majority of people claiming Council Tax Benefit will already have had their incomes assessed for the purpose of claiming tax credits. So why not just use the same figures to assess Council Tax Benefit?

The purchase of politics

In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments

The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.

We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.

What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too?  It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
 
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.  
 
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost. 
 
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.  
 
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.

Why is this idea important?

In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments

The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.

We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.

What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too?  It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
 
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.  
 
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost. 
 
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.  
 
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.

Prevent foreign software companies monitoring computer programs

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

Why is this idea important?

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

remove the spy cameras that are everywhere

cctv cameras may be of some use in catching criminals but they alienate the good citizens.  cctv does not deter people from being attacked only helps in investigation.  I would not feel happy to know that after being attacked / murdered that they might get caught.  The ways to attend to the crime problems are manyfold and must be tackled at source.

Why is this idea important?

cctv cameras may be of some use in catching criminals but they alienate the good citizens.  cctv does not deter people from being attacked only helps in investigation.  I would not feel happy to know that after being attacked / murdered that they might get caught.  The ways to attend to the crime problems are manyfold and must be tackled at source.

Repeal Big Brother laws

The slow creep towards a totalitarian "Big Brother" state should be reversed.

Do we really want to be the cctv capital of the world with the state spying on our every move whilst at the same time falling over backwards to get hold of our DNA/medical records/ID etc etc?

Whatever happened to "This is a free country"? Fine words, but we need actions that actually back them up rather that turning them in to a sick joke.

Thank God Labour didn't get in otherwise we would have been in deep trouble!!

Why is this idea important?

The slow creep towards a totalitarian "Big Brother" state should be reversed.

Do we really want to be the cctv capital of the world with the state spying on our every move whilst at the same time falling over backwards to get hold of our DNA/medical records/ID etc etc?

Whatever happened to "This is a free country"? Fine words, but we need actions that actually back them up rather that turning them in to a sick joke.

Thank God Labour didn't get in otherwise we would have been in deep trouble!!

Protect people from misuse of “soft evidence.”

So many jobs now require applicants to go through the "disclosure" procedure. It is one thing for someone to be rejected for a job on the basis of a solid criminal conviction, proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, it is appalling that people are routinely refused employment on the grounds of nothing more than unproven and unsubstantiated allegations or rumours. This "soft evidence" should prompt the police to investigate further, but should not be passed on to employers so that they can callously discriminate against innocent people.

To quote from "Here is Wosdom":

"We have changed from a culture where you were considered innocent unless your guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and you had been convicted in a court of law of a specific crime, to one where there are now many degrees of innocence categorised by various levels of unproven suspicion."

Why is this idea important?

So many jobs now require applicants to go through the "disclosure" procedure. It is one thing for someone to be rejected for a job on the basis of a solid criminal conviction, proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, it is appalling that people are routinely refused employment on the grounds of nothing more than unproven and unsubstantiated allegations or rumours. This "soft evidence" should prompt the police to investigate further, but should not be passed on to employers so that they can callously discriminate against innocent people.

To quote from "Here is Wosdom":

"We have changed from a culture where you were considered innocent unless your guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and you had been convicted in a court of law of a specific crime, to one where there are now many degrees of innocence categorised by various levels of unproven suspicion."

Scrap Equality Laws.

If the state wants to have its own equality rules for employment in the public sector, that's fine, but what gives the state the right to impose its morality on private firms and individuals?

Why is this idea important?

If the state wants to have its own equality rules for employment in the public sector, that's fine, but what gives the state the right to impose its morality on private firms and individuals?

Remove information from police records if no charges are made

I believe that the removal of information about a person from police records when no charges have been brought should be mandatory.  We are supposed to live in a country which believes in the system of "innocent until proven guilty".  I speak from personal experience with regards to this matter, having been arrested as part of a huge countrywide operation carried out by the police.  The matter in question related to alleged downloading of child pornography from the web.  Over seven thousand people in this country alone were rounded up by the police in early morning raids to be accused of this heinous act, to be told that they were paedophiles and worse.  Congratulations to the police you might say, however when looked at more closely one begins to realise that all was not as it seemed.  Out of the seven  thousand plus people arrested only a handful were  actually charged.  The rest of us it would seem were actually the victims of credit card fraud and identity theft.  This conclusion was not reached lightly by the police, in fact speaking from personal experience, I was investigated for approx six months.  I had my home invaded and ransacked, my computer was taken away for the six months and extensively searched (apparently they would find find all of these pictures or whatever that I had downloaded or shared, so I should just admit to it and save them the bother of looking!)  Only to be told at the end of the six month period that it was actually a mistake and that my credit card details had been used without my knowledge.  There was absolutely nothing at all found linking me to the crimes I was accused of and I was therefore let go with no further action being taken by the police with nothing more than  a somewhat poorly given apology for the problems it caused me.  The problem now though is that because I was arrested for this it now shows on my police record albeit as an NFA (no further action) but it is still there for the world to see.  It will seriously hinder my chances of getting certain jobs due to CRB checking.  It will also dis-allow me froom volunteering for activities in my childrens school.  In effect it is restricting my whole life and being and all because of a mistake made not by myself but by an over zealous police force.  I am and always have been against people who commit crimes but there is a difference between committing a crime and being accused of it.  this should be taken into account with regards to police record keeping.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the removal of information about a person from police records when no charges have been brought should be mandatory.  We are supposed to live in a country which believes in the system of "innocent until proven guilty".  I speak from personal experience with regards to this matter, having been arrested as part of a huge countrywide operation carried out by the police.  The matter in question related to alleged downloading of child pornography from the web.  Over seven thousand people in this country alone were rounded up by the police in early morning raids to be accused of this heinous act, to be told that they were paedophiles and worse.  Congratulations to the police you might say, however when looked at more closely one begins to realise that all was not as it seemed.  Out of the seven  thousand plus people arrested only a handful were  actually charged.  The rest of us it would seem were actually the victims of credit card fraud and identity theft.  This conclusion was not reached lightly by the police, in fact speaking from personal experience, I was investigated for approx six months.  I had my home invaded and ransacked, my computer was taken away for the six months and extensively searched (apparently they would find find all of these pictures or whatever that I had downloaded or shared, so I should just admit to it and save them the bother of looking!)  Only to be told at the end of the six month period that it was actually a mistake and that my credit card details had been used without my knowledge.  There was absolutely nothing at all found linking me to the crimes I was accused of and I was therefore let go with no further action being taken by the police with nothing more than  a somewhat poorly given apology for the problems it caused me.  The problem now though is that because I was arrested for this it now shows on my police record albeit as an NFA (no further action) but it is still there for the world to see.  It will seriously hinder my chances of getting certain jobs due to CRB checking.  It will also dis-allow me froom volunteering for activities in my childrens school.  In effect it is restricting my whole life and being and all because of a mistake made not by myself but by an over zealous police force.  I am and always have been against people who commit crimes but there is a difference between committing a crime and being accused of it.  this should be taken into account with regards to police record keeping.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

The RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:

  • enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
  • enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
  • enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
  • enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
  • allows certain public bodies to monitor people's internet activities;
  • prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.

Why is this idea important?

The RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:

  • enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
  • enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
  • enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
  • enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
  • allows certain public bodies to monitor people's internet activities;
  • prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.