Showing posts with label Medway Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medway Council. Show all posts

Monday, 20 September 2010

Another Medway Council Update

On the 6th September I blogged the following in regard to a less than comprehensive response by Medway Council to a complaint:
I'm currently writing a response, I will post it on here when I can.
On reflection I've changed my mind. I've decided to keep my powder dry. Ciggy busters were apparently organising another 'event' this month and so far nothing has happened and Rachael's twitter account has not been updated since I complained. My instinct is that the blogosphere's reaction has prompted an about-turn, despite us being universally fobbed off by the relevant authorities. The school, council and maybe the police have been taken aback by the reaction. Good.

So if no more ciggy busters' activities take place then, for me, it's job done. If however there are more 'demonstrations' - in the same format as before - then a second complaint will go in referencing my first.

Monday, 6 September 2010

Medway Council Update

In the nick of time I've had a reply. Surprise surprise they don't uphold my complaint - of course they don't:
Re: Formal Complaint – Rachael Noxon

I refer to your recent email about the Ciggybusters project.

We have checked with the organisers and all the people who had cigarettes taken off of them, and they were actors or willing participants. At no point did any smokers have their cigarettes taken without their permission.

This project, which looks at the dangers of smoking, was funded through a Community Chest grant by A Better Medway – a health campaign run by Medway Council and NHS Medway. Singling out the Tobacco Control Strategy Co-ordinator specifically as focus for your complaint is therefore inappropriate.

This project was something that was arranged and managed by the people that made the film, but neither Medway Council or NHS Medway would have condoned any activity that could cause offence.

The young people making the film, and the adults overseeing it, carefully stage-managed this to make sure that relevant organisations and participants were aware of the event in advance.

Everyone who took part knew what was happening and were not in any way offended. At no point were members of the public approached without their permission.

For these reasons I do not uphold your complaint.

Yours Sincerely
Naturally I'm being fobbed off. The main thrust of my complaint is that a Medway employee was, by encouraging the video (whether simulated or not), potentially guilty of incitement. The subsequent ambiguous statements by the participants since and lack of clarity in the video make this clear. At no point in the reply has this been addressed. Not only a criticism by me but also indicated by this Lib Dem councillor:
To get back to the facts of the case, the key questions were:

1/ Q: Were Ciggy Busters funded/ part-funded by Medway Council?
A: From press-reports, Yes

2/ Q: Were Ciggy Busters's plans approved by the police?
A: From press reports, yes, providing it involved only group members not unsuspecting members of the public.

3/ Q: Did Ciggy Busters involve unsuspecting members of the public?
A: From the statement by Gramenga, Yes

4/ Q: Would a resonable person have approved of Ciggy Busters project methods (surrounding people in the street and snatching their property)
A: No

5/ Q: Would a resonable person think that the actions of Ciggy Busters were illegal, if it was shown that they took property from members of the public?
A: Yes

6: Q: Were the member of the public doing anything illegal themseleves?
A: No - they were smoking in a public place (CHatham High Street)

7: Q: Even if all the people filmed in the video were actors/ members of the group, would a resonable person have approved of Ciggy Busters project methods (surrounding people in the street and snatching their property)?
A: No

8: Q: Do the actions of this group warrant further investigation?
A: Yes
I'm currently writing a response, I will post it on here when I can.

Thursday, 2 September 2010

All Quiet On The Blogging Front

I'm taking a short blogging sabbatical as I head towards Torquay for a jolly the serious business of a party conference.

Just a quick update on my complaint to Medway Council. No response yet. They gave me a 5 day target via their email auto response, but their guidelines give a 10 day one:
We will acknowledge your complaint within three working days of us receiving it and will aim to provide you with a full reply within 10 working days. If this is not possible we will contact you to explain the reason for any delay and give you a new reply date.
I've had it confirmed that the 10 day target takes precedence and this is due this weekend. I don't expect a response, but if they think that means I'm going away quietly then they will be wrong.

Saturday, 28 August 2010

Presumptions From Medway

Oh dear, it seems that the negative reaction to the 'ciggy busters' stunt has incurred the misguided ire of Labour blogger Tristan Osborne:
'Ciggy Busting' attracts right wing wrath.
As well they might, the actions of the students and teacher are potentially illegal. He continues - linking to me twice, as the token UKIP view:
The 'ciggy busting' campaign run by Hundred of Hoo students last week to highlight the health risks surrounding smoking, is being savagely attacked by the right wing blogosphere, and on sites closely associated with the Libertarian and UKIP political vantage.

Individual bloggers have been writing letters to the Police and Council to attack school pupils for trying to highlight a real and remaining health problem which blights parts of Medway.
No, Tristan, the blogosphere weren't attacking school pupils for trying to improve people's health. They are criticising this particular campaign because it was, and still is, legally dubious. Don't take my word for it, here's the words of one of the participants:
“I was scared about doing something so crazy on the street - I mean you can get arrested."
But to him the finer point of legality is irrelevant - to condemn this stunt in anyway must mean you support smoking and the repeal of the ban. So by using the complaints as an excuse to deploy a straw man of leviathanic proportions he tries to reinforce his self-righteous views on smoking and the smoking ban, including this astonishingly puerile comment:
The Libertarian argument that someone has the right to smoke in a confined public space, where it can harm others is mad, just as the argument that someone has the right to rape, hit or harm someone else by violence.
Aside from the fact that smoking is a legal activity and the others aren't, a point again overlooked (he's not very good at technicalities is he?) I don't think he fully appreciates what he is actually saying. By linking smokers to rapists he is arguing that rape and passive smoking are similar crimes which means the logical extension of that is the impact on the victims must be the same also. In effect he is telling a rape victim; "I know how you feel because I suffered from passive smoking once".

He continues:
Perhaps those Libertarian and UKIP individuals should reflect on their own environment before passing comments on our hard working young people who are trying to highlight the harm to health of smoking to our community.
Perhaps Mr Osborne should stop passing off assumptions. Either he hasn't been bothered to read my blog in detail or he has ignored the inconvenient parts which don't fit in with his view. I've made it clear on this blog that I'm a non-smoker, disagree with my wife doing so and support anyone's right to campaign within the law. I've never made any comment on the smoking ban either for or against. But to him this point is irrelevant, just mere inconvenient detail. Criticism of this particular stunt according to the simple uncomplicated world of Tristan Osborne must automatically mean we criticise all anti smoking campaigns per se.

He concludes:
Right wing bloggers calling for a relaxing of the smoking ban have it totally wrong.
As I pointed out earlier I haven't made any such assertions. No matter, the 'ciggy busters' get his full support:
Smoking Kills. Passive Smoking Kills. Well done our young people.
So buoyed by his own sense of moral superiority, legality is unimportant, and the law is just an a la carte menu where he can pick and choose which bits of it he doesn't agree with; he argues it's not right to hit someone but then endorses just that view if it's against smokers. Ends justifies the means even if illegal you see.

Interestingly he's been selected to stand in Luton & Wayfield for the local elections in 2011. I wonder what potential voters will think when they discover that he apparently supports the incitement of theft, mugging, assault, steaming and happy slapping?

hattip:Corrugated Soundbite

Friday, 27 August 2010

Medway Council (Sort Of) Update

As yet no response to my complaint; they have a 5 day target which expires today, so I have the escalation procedure primed and ready to go. So while we're waiting here's another gem about Medway Council courtesy of former councilor John Ward:
Today, [Councillor David Craggs] has resigned!

The reason for the resignation is given in a statement from Mr Craggs in YourMedway, which has just appeared while I was writing this post:

"People will know that I have served as a volunteer special constable on behalf of the people of Kent for the past 17 years, a role that I have held with pride. In the hope that I could expand my community service I stood as a councillor for Medway.

I did not believe there was any conflict between these roles and was unaware that police regulations prevent anyone from holding political office whilst also serving the police."
Like John Ward I wasn't aware that Special Constables were "politically restricted". However he later highlights this below (my emphasis):
... since this story broke on Conservative Home, it has become clear that other councillors and even MPs have been allowed to be Special Constables at the same time, as HERE and HERE. I suspect the reason the Kent Police Authority's policy has been left unclear is to allow for politically-motivated manipulation. I could be wrong; but I do wonder whether the same would have happened if (say) a Labour or Green candidate had been in exactly the same situation...
Medway Council and Kent Police are not very good are they?

Update: John Ward has further information on his blog with a press release, from which this extract comes from:
Kent Police were incorrect, and arguably unlawful. They had even threatened disciplinary action against David Craggs. Because the statutory �Notice of vacancy‘ has now been issued, acting upon David Craggs resignation letter, the electoral cycle is started and cannot be retracted, despite the resignation now clearly being unnecessary, based on wrong advice and arguably extracted under duress.

This means that another election may need to be held, because Kent Police got the law wrong. The situation is virtually unbelievable. Kent Police must bear full responsibility for this situation, and for the extra costs to be borne by the council, candidates and political parties. No explanation or apology has been forthcoming.
His conclusion is:
Yes, this was almost certainly a case of political manipulation, as the timing and other details show sufficiently clearly that a jury would very probably come to that conclusion.
The terms 'Medway', 'cosh' and 'under' come to mind.

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

Ciggy Busters Update

Not for me yet unfortuantely, 2 days left to respond to my letter, but Freedom-2-Choose has this:
I received an amazing phone call about half an hour ago from a gentleman by the name of Jim. Now 'Jim' is a reporter working for the Medway newsgroup, I assume the Medway Messenger (?) I was amazed because he had phoned to enquire why we were so angry about the 'Ciggy Busters' article & video-he wanted our side of the story.

Sorry, I'll repeat that for the benefit of the dazed & bewildered...

HE WANTED OUR SIDE OF THE STORY.

I informed him very politely that all smokers would find it offensive for the simple reason that it was portraying smokers as 'fair game' for any type of vigilante abuse. (Oh!) It was sending out the message that we agreed with 'wolf packs', ie gangs of kids, marauding the streets taking any chance to intimidate people not of their liking/persuasion. (Oh!)

I then explained that this would not be tolerated if it was aimed at gays, muslims or the disabled. (No. Well of course not Phil)
Then why can a minority faction, smokers, be subject to random attacks when gays, muslims & the disabled are obviously exempted? (Well they are...[pause]...I see...yes...hmm)...

Safe to say 'Jim' is now a lot wiser as to smokers temperament, reasoning & feelings so I think the article will be a fair reflection of what was said this afternoon. He seemed mortified at the thought of a smoker objecting to such treatment and 'smacking' one of these idiot youths 'in the mouth'. He did not answer when I asked what HE thought the police would do in such a circumstance?
Which is a bit different to Kent Police's reply

Sunday, 22 August 2010

Medway Council

The endorsement by Medway Council of the conduct of these students has annoyed me to the extent that I've decided to write to them via their complaints procedure. The full text of my email is as follows:
Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding Medway Council’s apparent endorsement of potentially illegal activity by some students from The Hundred of Hoo School based in Rochester.

Some students have formed an anti-smoking campaign group who call themselves ‘CiggyBusters’ which, as this article makes clear, involves running through the streets removing cigarettes from members of the public while filming them and the subsequent video has been put on the internet. The organizers, and the teacher, appeared to have confirmed that some members of the public were targeted at random.

As I’m sure you are acutely aware, removing items from people without consent constitutes a criminal act (in this case more than one). Therefore it should be of great concern to Medway Council, that one its employees: Tobacco Control Strategic Coordinator, Rachael Noxon, not only condones this behaviour, but is actively promoting it, as seen by her website and her Twitter feed.

In addition I’m sure you are aware, encouraging criminal activity is also a serious offence; it’s incitement. It contravenes sections 44, 45 & 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (even if the criminal activity featured in the video on the internet is ‘simulated’)

As a non-smoker, I support the involvement of anyone involved in campaigns by means of methods such as; leaflets, T-shirts & posters etc, but the conduct of these students clearly oversteps the mark both morally and legally. It does not take a lot of imagine to appreciate the distress a vulnerable person may feel when approached by gang of young people shouting and taking items from them.

Another ‘campaign’ is planned for September, again with the full endorsement and encouragement of a Medway Council employee.

I trust you will investigate Rachael Noxon’s conduct in this case with the utmost urgency and I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours faithfully
Let's see how they like them apples.

One wonders how long it will be before smokers have to wear yellow stars. Certainly if I had produced a video showing people ripping veils off Muslim women, even if stage-managed, as a protest about Burqas, I would have a visit from Mr Plod very quickly.

It looks like however the students in question are trying to back-track rapidly as they frantically try to remove their names and videos from various websites (the wonders of Google cache). The hostile reaction seems to be scaring them. Good.

Update: I have an auto mail reply confirming they've received it. They have a target of 5 working days to respond.