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The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.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

 

Ban local councils right to snoop

Local Councils should be banned from snooping, it waste's precious time and resource all of which the tax-payer has to foot the bill, without even going into the civil liberties issues. Local councils are there to administer and manage local services only not intrude on people's lives

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils should be banned from snooping, it waste's precious time and resource all of which the tax-payer has to foot the bill, without even going into the civil liberties issues. Local councils are there to administer and manage local services only not intrude on people's lives

Stop Local Councils from Prosecuting Innocent People with Barmy Laws

Local councils are threatening to prosecute and are even prosecuting law abiding people (who are not harming anyone else and in some cases actually trying to improve society) for some of the most bizarre reasons.

If you do not believe me consider the following absolutely true and completely daft cases that have appeared in the national and local press

(i) Wiltshire Council threatened a man with prosecution if he cleaned the grass verge outside his property .

(ii) Copeland Borough Council fined a man because his wheelie bin lid was overfilled by four inches.

(iii) Swansea Council prosecuted a man for accidentally putting the rubbish in the wrong cycling bin and now he has a criminal record. The irony here was this man was a keen recycler who was trying hard to recycle.

(iv) Havering Council prosecutes a law abiding shop owner for a scap of paper 120 yards from his shop. That could happen to anyone, for all we know the paper could have been dropped when the bin men last collected the bins or it could have just blown out of the bin.

(v) Ipswich Council fined a 14 year old £50 for feeding a seagull half a chip.

(vi) Hinckley and Bosworth Council prosecuted a man for putting two pieces of junk mail into a street bin with his address on it. Is it really a criminal offence to put rubbish in a street bin?

I could go on and on…

My proposals are that the government should, at the very least, be minded to:

(1)  reword or even, in some cases repeal, any central government laws which allows such crazy prosecutions (or crazy threats to prosecute). I realise that for local bye-laws it might be difficult for central government to do anything.

(2)  not use the criminal law over such trivial matters. Something as serious as a criminal prosecution is not appropriate for some trivial offence like putting rubbish in the wrong place. In none of these cases has anyone deliberately littered or deliberately refused to recycle. Maybe this could be achieved by primary legislation in parliament.

(3) tell councils very firmly that they must use their powers far more sparingly and far more responsibly.

Why is this idea important?

Local councils are threatening to prosecute and are even prosecuting law abiding people (who are not harming anyone else and in some cases actually trying to improve society) for some of the most bizarre reasons.

If you do not believe me consider the following absolutely true and completely daft cases that have appeared in the national and local press

(i) Wiltshire Council threatened a man with prosecution if he cleaned the grass verge outside his property .

(ii) Copeland Borough Council fined a man because his wheelie bin lid was overfilled by four inches.

(iii) Swansea Council prosecuted a man for accidentally putting the rubbish in the wrong cycling bin and now he has a criminal record. The irony here was this man was a keen recycler who was trying hard to recycle.

(iv) Havering Council prosecutes a law abiding shop owner for a scap of paper 120 yards from his shop. That could happen to anyone, for all we know the paper could have been dropped when the bin men last collected the bins or it could have just blown out of the bin.

(v) Ipswich Council fined a 14 year old £50 for feeding a seagull half a chip.

(vi) Hinckley and Bosworth Council prosecuted a man for putting two pieces of junk mail into a street bin with his address on it. Is it really a criminal offence to put rubbish in a street bin?

I could go on and on…

My proposals are that the government should, at the very least, be minded to:

(1)  reword or even, in some cases repeal, any central government laws which allows such crazy prosecutions (or crazy threats to prosecute). I realise that for local bye-laws it might be difficult for central government to do anything.

(2)  not use the criminal law over such trivial matters. Something as serious as a criminal prosecution is not appropriate for some trivial offence like putting rubbish in the wrong place. In none of these cases has anyone deliberately littered or deliberately refused to recycle. Maybe this could be achieved by primary legislation in parliament.

(3) tell councils very firmly that they must use their powers far more sparingly and far more responsibly.

Stop Local Goverments using Anti-Terrorism Laws to Spy on people

 

 

We need to censure local goverment (I.E local councils) from using anti-terrorism laws in order to spy on people, as they use currently,even for petty things like prosecuting people for overflowing bins etc!

Why is this idea important?

 

 

We need to censure local goverment (I.E local councils) from using anti-terrorism laws in order to spy on people, as they use currently,even for petty things like prosecuting people for overflowing bins etc!

Clarification of data sharing obligations of public bodies

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Why is this idea important?

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Can You Empty Your Dustbin In Peace In The Peoples’ Republic Of China?

Too much petty interference is evident in the UK. Officials can intimidate and harrass you for a whole range of petty offences many of which carry a criminal sanction by them to levied on us. I want this pettiness and the powers to use it removed and presumed illegal in most cases and situations.

Why is this idea important?

Too much petty interference is evident in the UK. Officials can intimidate and harrass you for a whole range of petty offences many of which carry a criminal sanction by them to levied on us. I want this pettiness and the powers to use it removed and presumed illegal in most cases and situations.

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

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000) – SCRAP!

Which Laws Should We scrap?     –  www.yourFreedom.HMG.gov.uk  by Nick Clegg

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) – SCRAP!  

It has created a Police State, Silent Holocaust, a “Witch hunt” industry and a new Barbarism.  It robbed us of our freedom and security, has generated domestic terrorism, dismantled our constitution, common Law and nation.  

Dr. Martin Luther King:  We must be wary of those, who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom.  We must recognize, that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but the price for complete security is inhumanity.

RIPA has created a global programme of torture, murder and persecution creating a mass movement of national and global phenomenon of Organized Gang Stalking with  a vast network of plain-clothed citizens informants which is used for public stalking and the use of Directed Energy Weapons, mind control etc. on targeted individuals.  All core factions of the community are involved, and everyone, from seniors to children, participates in Organized Gang Stalking.

The most targeted are those with physical, emotional and psychological traumas, peace, civil rights activists, whistleblowers, women living on their own, people who live “alternative lifestyles”, who angered the police, spiritually and morally evolved and anyone else the stalkers see as not conforming with their version of “normality”.  

Organized Gang Stalking is a POLICE HARASSMENT campaign of epic proportions.  It is done under the guise of keeping an eye on internal threats to state security and cleaning up neighbourhoods.  This is exactly what the informant networks in East Germany and Russia were told when they were recruited into these state-sponsored programs.  The victims are sabotaged in everyway, loose their livelihoods and literally gang stalked to death.

According to www.nowpublic.com  December 2009 Google hits for Community Gang Stalking 5,160,000, Group Stalking 4,210,000, Case Gang Stalking 4,880,000, Organized Gang Stalking 1,860,000, Terrorist Gang Stalking 713,000, Vigilante Gang Stalking 116,000. Who knows how many at present.

These are essentially global Psychological Warfare operations, done with the support of the civilian population, military, police, intelligence agencies and government funding. This type of operation is a torture and harassment campaign of monumental proportions – it is NOT surveillance.

Some of this may be unauthorized human subject experimentation.  This is prohibited in U.K. law and by the Nuremberg Code, internationally.
 
www.gangstalkingworld.com ;  www.freedomfchs.com

 

Why is this idea important?

Which Laws Should We scrap?     –  www.yourFreedom.HMG.gov.uk  by Nick Clegg

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) – SCRAP!  

It has created a Police State, Silent Holocaust, a “Witch hunt” industry and a new Barbarism.  It robbed us of our freedom and security, has generated domestic terrorism, dismantled our constitution, common Law and nation.  

Dr. Martin Luther King:  We must be wary of those, who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom.  We must recognize, that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but the price for complete security is inhumanity.

RIPA has created a global programme of torture, murder and persecution creating a mass movement of national and global phenomenon of Organized Gang Stalking with  a vast network of plain-clothed citizens informants which is used for public stalking and the use of Directed Energy Weapons, mind control etc. on targeted individuals.  All core factions of the community are involved, and everyone, from seniors to children, participates in Organized Gang Stalking.

The most targeted are those with physical, emotional and psychological traumas, peace, civil rights activists, whistleblowers, women living on their own, people who live “alternative lifestyles”, who angered the police, spiritually and morally evolved and anyone else the stalkers see as not conforming with their version of “normality”.  

Organized Gang Stalking is a POLICE HARASSMENT campaign of epic proportions.  It is done under the guise of keeping an eye on internal threats to state security and cleaning up neighbourhoods.  This is exactly what the informant networks in East Germany and Russia were told when they were recruited into these state-sponsored programs.  The victims are sabotaged in everyway, loose their livelihoods and literally gang stalked to death.

According to www.nowpublic.com  December 2009 Google hits for Community Gang Stalking 5,160,000, Group Stalking 4,210,000, Case Gang Stalking 4,880,000, Organized Gang Stalking 1,860,000, Terrorist Gang Stalking 713,000, Vigilante Gang Stalking 116,000. Who knows how many at present.

These are essentially global Psychological Warfare operations, done with the support of the civilian population, military, police, intelligence agencies and government funding. This type of operation is a torture and harassment campaign of monumental proportions – it is NOT surveillance.

Some of this may be unauthorized human subject experimentation.  This is prohibited in U.K. law and by the Nuremberg Code, internationally.
 
www.gangstalkingworld.com ;  www.freedomfchs.com

 

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act

This is another of those characteristic laws that gives almost unlimited powers to the enforcer with the (not so) comforting explanatory note that it will "never be used".

 – Get rid of the black boxes: privacy is fundamentally more valuable than the comfort of law enforcers.

 – Get rid of the reverse burden of proof: you cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try.

 – Get rid of the gagging order.

 – In fact get rid of the entire act. Try being rational for a change.

Fundamentally, I do not trust you, the politicians. You are beneath even contempt, as recent events have shown.

You have no honour.

And you are far more of a threat than any number of dodgy cyber-criminals, no matter what sort of pictures they look at.

Is that clear enough for you?

Why is this idea important?

This is another of those characteristic laws that gives almost unlimited powers to the enforcer with the (not so) comforting explanatory note that it will "never be used".

 – Get rid of the black boxes: privacy is fundamentally more valuable than the comfort of law enforcers.

 – Get rid of the reverse burden of proof: you cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try.

 – Get rid of the gagging order.

 – In fact get rid of the entire act. Try being rational for a change.

Fundamentally, I do not trust you, the politicians. You are beneath even contempt, as recent events have shown.

You have no honour.

And you are far more of a threat than any number of dodgy cyber-criminals, no matter what sort of pictures they look at.

Is that clear enough for you?

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Prevent local councils from snooping into private bank accounts

It should be made unlawful for local authorities to gain access to an individuals bank account details to access their assets with out due consent from the individual, this would then prevent the possibility of identity freud by anyone working at the local authority. Only individuals and the baks themselves should have this access unless due permission is granted

Why is this idea important?

It should be made unlawful for local authorities to gain access to an individuals bank account details to access their assets with out due consent from the individual, this would then prevent the possibility of identity freud by anyone working at the local authority. Only individuals and the baks themselves should have this access unless due permission is granted

Local Authorities The RIPA Act Telephone Tapping

Local Authorities and Councils should be banned from being able to use the RIPA Act to spy on the people they are supposed to be serving. For example, the local authorities have the power to tap telephones without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the telephone, follow people around using outside private investigation agencies, pay Google fees to promote the names of certain people to the top of the front page of searches.

Why is this idea important?

Local Authorities and Councils should be banned from being able to use the RIPA Act to spy on the people they are supposed to be serving. For example, the local authorities have the power to tap telephones without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the telephone, follow people around using outside private investigation agencies, pay Google fees to promote the names of certain people to the top of the front page of searches.

Reform Council tax

Council tax should be revisited and made fairer! Rather than charging per household, a household should be charged per person living in that household (for instance per adult). I get so frustrated, when I see that my husband and I pay as much as our next door neighbours who live in the same house with 6 adults. It is grossly unfair and I feel there is no equality in the system.

Why is this idea important?

Council tax should be revisited and made fairer! Rather than charging per household, a household should be charged per person living in that household (for instance per adult). I get so frustrated, when I see that my husband and I pay as much as our next door neighbours who live in the same house with 6 adults. It is grossly unfair and I feel there is no equality in the system.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Remove the right for local councils and others to use these powers. Restricting these powers to the Police only and only when there is sufficient judicial oversite into their use (i.e. not just acting as a rubber stamp.)

Why is this idea important?

Remove the right for local councils and others to use these powers. Restricting these powers to the Police only and only when there is sufficient judicial oversite into their use (i.e. not just acting as a rubber stamp.)

Repeal the Investigatory Powers Act 2000

An act brought in to allow powers of investigation in the context of international terrorism is being abused by local authorities and others to investigate intrusively in areas of life that it was never intended this Act should apply to

Why is this idea important?

An act brought in to allow powers of investigation in the context of international terrorism is being abused by local authorities and others to investigate intrusively in areas of life that it was never intended this Act should apply to