Zero Tolerance...

...for a disabled child:

In the past, the drivers have pulled up at the closest point to the school gates so teachers can see Ernest Morozova arrive.

They then go to his aid and help him into the school as he cannot walk by himself.

All together now: aaaahhh. See what happens when people co-operate to help one another, and understand one another's problems?

Well, this can't be allowed to go on:

But unbeknown to them, a council's new spy camera car that drives around and automatically detects illegal parkers recorded the taxis while on the zig-zag lines.

Four drivers were stunned when they were sent letters warning them of their crime and threatening them with fines if they offend again.

No problem, you'd think. They obviously aren't aware of the reasons. Once they are made aware, they'll see sen...

Oh:

His mother and the cab drivers are demanding the council show some common sense (Ed: good luck with that!) and allow Ernest to be dropped off outside the gates of St Michael's School in Bournemouth, Dorset.

Miss Morozova said: "He can't walk by himself and it causes him a lot of pain when he has to walk far.

And the council's response?

You can tell what's coming next, can't you:

James Duncan, transport manager for Bournemouth council, defended the new camera car.

He said: "Some may see it as a means of taxing the motorist, but this is simply untrue; our prime concerns are the safety of children.

"We have been working closely with head teachers across the borough to introduce this and we have already noticed improvements at some of our schools.

"It is not acceptable for any motorist, including taxi drivers, to risk a child's life through irresponsible parking.

"We take a zero-tolerance approach with irresponsible parking on zig-zags; they are there to keep children safe."

*bang*

That was the sound on my head hitting the desk. Good job council drone James Duncan wasn't within arm's reach, or it would've sounded a bit more like:

*bang* *bang* *bang* *bang* *squelch*

Let me explain something to you, James Duncan.

Now, I'm typing it e x t r a s l o w l y so that even a council-employed cretin like you can understand: this little boy is disabled and cannot walk without pain.

He isn't being dropped off because his mother is too damn lazy to park elsewhere, or too damn scared of paedophiles/other drivers to allow him to walk an extra few yards. He can't. Not without pain.

Do you know what pain is? I so very much hope you do. You deserve to.

Because 'keeping children safe' also includes 'not forcing them to walk on their disabled legs because you are too much of an idiot to realise an exemption should apply in this case'.

I know! Amazing, eh? It's possible to have exemptions to your rules. And not just for trough-wallowing council staff, either.

I'm creating a new blogtag, James Duncan. Just for you...

Update: The Ranting Penguin has tracked down a picture of this ghastly boil on the bum of humanity. And you know what? It's just as I imagined he'd look...

Have You Informed On Your Neighbour Today, Comrade?

Members of the public are to be given the power to report anyone they suspect of posing a danger to children, under a new Government scheme.

Oh, just fantastic...

People who suspect an individual of being unsuitable to work or volunteer with children will be able to refer them to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) through a form on its website. After receiving an allegation from a member of the public, the ISA will examine the available evidence and contact the person concerned to allow them to mount a defence.

Mount a defence? To what? They aren't being charged with a crime, they are being accused, on the basis of an anonymous tip off, of one of the worst things anyone could ever be accused of...

Depending on the seriousness of the allegations, they could be asked to make a written statement, be interviewed over the phone or talk face-to-face to an ISA representative.

I don't even know where to start...

A Home Office spokesman said that as the scheme had not yet been launched, it was difficult to say exactly how the interview process would operate, but that each allegation would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

He added that if the safeguarding authority decided the allegations were unfounded, the accused person's information would be discarded.

OK, first, you have no idea how this is going to work? You are seriously proposing this as an option and you haven't even drafted out a protocol for it?

You're either making it up as you go along, or you know full well that it will have no chance whatsoever of seeing the light of day and it's just a cynical exercise to hoik in the 'pedophiles under the bed, oh my!' crowd..

Secondly, on the 'information will be discarded', yeah. Riiiighhht....

Even the curiously uninvolved sounding Liberty spokeswoman didn't go for that:

Anna Fairclough of the human rights group Liberty said that any accusations made by individuals rather than official bodies should be "treated with circumspection" by the ISA. "In principle there's probably nothing wrong with the ISA gathering information from all sorts of sources," she said, "but obviously if an allegation is made by a member of the public, the chances of it being malicious is perhaps higher."

She thought it "unlikely" that the ISA would discard the details of the wrongly accused, but that there was no problem with this as long as the information was not passed on.

I’m sorry...?

Was this person actually a member of Liberty, or did the reporter mistakenly talk to the cleaner, or something?

Oh, and another government sympathiser has come forward to support the Vetting and Barring Scheme that Phillip Pullman so bravely spoke out about last week:

However, the chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, Martin Narey, defended the scheme.

"Before I joined Barnardo's I ran the prison service, so I know a little bit about sex offenders and the unique way they plan their crimes and groom children," he said. "What they might do while under supervision in a school is not the point – their appearance in the school gives them legitimacy, and the next time they might see a child on their own it's in the park or outside the school gates, by which time they're a trusted adult."

Oooh, good point Martin!

You know who else children regularly see at school? Other parents!

Let’s get them all checked out and on the register, shall we? Maybe the daft cow at Liberty might wake up and take notice if that was proposed.

And maybe not...

Is This The Moment That The Labour Party Jumped The Shark?

Stupid policies are legion. Unworkable policies announced then quickly walked back or dropped litter the pages of the media.

But they now seem to be going for the plain evil policy:

Victims of violent crime are to have their compensation slashed if they have previously committed minor offences such as speeding.

To put that into figures, if you are paralysed by your attacker, you will receive £175,000. If you, in the past, committed a minor speeding violation, the government will then knock off £26,250.

And it could be even more:

Individual payments to assault and rape victims will be reduced by up to £37,500 as part of a £25million public spending cuts programme ordered by the Government, it was claimed last night.

This is monstrous. And I'd like to say they haven't a hope in hell of getting it through unchallenged.

But with the feeble 'opposition' so far provided by The Dave, they probably will...

Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'People will be astonished that Ministers are targeting victims of crime simply because they may have committed minor traffic violations - for which they have already paid the penalty - while prisoners released early are being given compensation for the food and accommodation they would have received free.

'The idea that a rape victim or the parents of a murdered child should have their compensation docked for a speeding conviction years earlier is a revolting proposition.

People won't be 'astonished' - they will be furious, bitter, despairing, sickened - all those things, but not 'astonished'.

Because really, this is nothing more than the logical conclusion of this 'government of all the talents' that we currently have under Brown. No wonder he is losing ministers and cronies left right and centre.

Even their spokesman's heart doesn't seem to be in defending this one:

A Ministry of Justice spokesman confirmed that the changes in compensation payments would affect motorists convicted of minor offences - but denied it was unfair and insisted the budget was not being cut.

'The UK's Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world. Each application will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis,' he said.

'We need to recognise that compensation is paid with taxpayers' money and this has always been taken into account when compensating those who have already cost the public purse.'

After the way ministers have been so cavalier with taxpayer's money in the past, that one is going to fly about as well as the MoD's non-existant helicopters...

Sunday Funnies

Toys to introduce your children to the less than wonderful world of work...

I'd actually quite like a go with the tattoo pen!

Different Rules Apply…

It seems someone has finally noticed the rise in deaths caused by officers with ‘Starsky & Hutch’ syndrome:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission disclosed that 40 people died in police-related traffic accidents in the past 12 months, up from 24 the year before.

The watchdog called for a nationwide policy on pursuits to be implemented urgently. They first raised concerns two years ago that the pursuit policy can differ from region to region and was confusing both for the public and officers alike.

The commission also called for police motorcycle chases to be stopped except in "exceptional" cases.

Now, no-one wants to see a bunch of criminals escape because the police are instructed to go ‘softly softly’ (and I’d like to see those figures split into true victims and those who initiated the chase by committing a crime in the first place), but the rise in innocent bystanders mown down by cars on a shout is unacceptable, and needs to be curbed. Most can be monitored from a safe distance, or by air.

The IPCC is right to bring that message home – chases should be restricted only to true life and death situations, where the risk of leaving fleeing drivers is greater than the immediate prospect of mowing down a passerby on a crowded street.

On the other hand, if the suspect is a middle-aged woman who has committed the grievous offence of parking in a bus lane, then it’s to hell with the rule book and GO GO GO!:

Chris Tarrant’s former wife Ingrid has been convicted of resisting arrest – after she was chased for two miles and wrestled to the ground by police in a row over a parking ticket.

Mrs Tarrant, 54, had been ‘abrupt and rude’ with an officer who tried to issue her with the ticket for leaving her Saab parked at a bus stop, a court heard.

The policeman, who said he feared she had ‘mental health issues’, was astounded when she suddenly leapt into her car and drove off, despite repeatedly being asked to stop.

Mental. Yes. Nothing to do with a member of the public being rude to you, I suppose?

Was a chase necessary? You had her number, I assume?

He then followed her in his van for two miles before eventually stopping her on a country lane, wrestling her to the ground and handcuffing her.

/golfclap.

People can walk the streets of Cobham, safe from mouthy middle aged women, when PC Groves is around!

PC Groves told the court: ‘I was not sure why the whole incident had taken place at all over the minor parking matter. I did not know what I was dealing with.

‘I was concerned that the car was stolen or the person had been drinking or if there were mental health issues. I was getting no response.’

Because if you give a cop a bit of lip, you are obviously mad?

You know, the police might have fewer PR problems if, when questioned in the media and court, they didn’t make you long for the warm, empathetic, proportionate service of Robocop or Judge Dredd instead….

Don’t Put Your Daughter On The Stage Party On The Internet…

Andrew Poole got the shock of his life when he decided to hold a barbecue for his 30th birthday in a field:

He was just about to light the barbecue and had not even turned on the music when the gazebo suddenly started flapping wildly and the sound of chopper blades filled the air.

He should have played ‘Ride of the Valkyries’ to make them feel at home…

Eight officers wearing camouflage trousers and body armour jumped out and demanded that the 'rave' to be shut down.

Which puzzled Mr Poole, because the ‘rave’ was just him and 15 pals…

Mr Poole said: 'We were nowhere near anyone. We weren't even playing any music. What effectively the police did was come in and stop 15 people eating burgers.'

Because it seems that, stung by the recent criticism of their inactions in other forces in dealing with raves, they have decided to go all-out, full-bore crackers on even the hint of a gathering.

Having surveilled the situation with the force ‘Airwolf’ though, realised it’s a tiny bunch of 30 year olds having a barbecue under the sort of teeny marquee you can pick up for a fiver in ASDA, you’d think they would realise their error and call off the dogs.

But oh no:

Four police cars, a riot van and a helicopter were involved in the swoop on Andrew Poole's gathering for his family and friends.

Obviously, crime is almost unheard of in this rural paradise…

What sparked their interest?

The party was organised using the create an event facility on Facebook.

Mr Poole, a coach driver, said he invited 17 family and friends and two had not even arrived by the time the helicopter was whirring overhead.

Mr Poole said: 'All of a sudden there was this noise in the sky. The thing then hovered over us for about 25 minutes, watching 15 people eat. They told us to take down the sound system and said everybody's got to leave.

Why? It clearly wasn’t a rave, as initially suspected.

What law were they breaking, then, other than – of course – ‘making the police look like a bunch of clueless, hysterical, tooled-up knobs’?

'It was 4pm and we hadn't even plugged the music in yet. We tried to reason with them but they were having none of it.'

Oh, that was a mistake…

And of course, they are, even in the cold light of day, when everyone’s laughing at them, totally unrepentant:

Yesterday, police insisted they were right to end the party. 'We were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party,' a spokesman said.

Somehow, I just knew the Internet would get the blame….

I Was Wrong…

I thought the person Labour would wheel out to crush the Rebellion of the Children’s Authors would be JK Rowling.

Instead, step forward Anthony Browne, Children’s Laureate, to defend his Labour chums and pooh-pooh the claims of his peers.

And in the process, show that he hasn’t really understood the reasons for their action:

Philip Pullman and three of my predecessors as Children’s Laureate, Anne Fine, Michael Morpurgo and Quentin Blake, say that as an act of protest they will stop visiting schools. These distinguished children’s authors and illustrators are infuriated with a government scheme that requires them to be vetted in case they are a danger to children.

I have a certain sympathy with them — but I will not feel compelled to join them in their boycott.

Well, I’ll bet they are all broken up about that, Anthony.

Although it will be irritating to have to pay £64 for the privilege of being on the Independent Safeguarding Authority database, I do not see why writers should be treated differently from others who work with children — from music teachers to dinner ladies.

The reason, apart from the assumption of guilt, is because the circumstances are different.

As Phillip Pullman explained on yesterday’s ‘Jeremy Vine’ show, he is NEVER left alone with children – he comes on, does his talk and leaves. At all times, he is accompanied by the teachers. This is the same for the other authors, unlike teachers and dinner ladies.

So why the sheep dip approach, and not a ‘risk based’ one?

School visits show children that writers and illustrators are no different from anyone else — we are just like them and they can become writers when they are older. There isn’t a hierarchy with writers and illustrators at the top and children at the bottom. So for writers to say that we’re not the same as other people — that we are special, and certain rules do not apply to us — goes against everything I strongly believe.

Oh, where to start….

Firstly, children’s authors ARE different from everyone else, as clearly outlined, because their contact with children is different. That is the thing that Pullman and the others have made clear, and I have to question your reading ability if you can’t understand that.

Or your honesty, if you understand it all too well, but wish to give the impression to your readers that the protest isn’t about what it clearly is about…

Secondly, what a load of wishy-washy socialist hogwash! No-one must be different in Anthony Browne’s world – anyone can become a writer, it doesn’t need anything as random or unfair as talent.

Everyone is the same as everyone else…

I don’t believe that registering will make a difference to how children feel about us — nor will it create or reinforce, as some claim, a gulf between children and adult society. There is an argument to be had about whether children are overprotected but if all those who work in a position of trust with children have to be checked, I won’t feel “insulted or degraded” by being included.

He positively relishes being ‘just another of the drones, nobody special’, it seems.

So, why did he accept the position of Children’s Laureate then…? Doesn’t that set him apart from all his peers?

Or is that somehow different, more acceptable?

It’s that creative impulse that will suffer if we let our irritation with a bureaucratic intrusion stop us from going into classrooms.

Yes, indeed, Anthony. Trust Big Brother, never question…

Another ‘Government is Good’ convert is the ever-amusing Bea Campbell in Cif, who contributes many an opportunity for the readers to rip her ‘argument’ to shreds with gleeful delight.

For me, this is the stand-out quote:

But if it is worth letting someone check your body and examine the contents of your bag at an airport, then it is worth letting the computer check whether you've committed crimes against children before you are allowed to attract their attention in their schools.

Yup. Children’s authors, terrorists – totally interchangeable….

Oh, and yes, it is (for anyone who hasn't come across her before), that Bea Campbell, of 'OMG! Satanist monsters under the bed! Protect the chiiilllldreeen!' infamy...

More Fun With Photography…

Harry Potter star Jamie Waylett, who plays Hogwarts bully Vincent Crabbe in the hit films, today admitted growing ten cannabis plants in his bedroom.
The tubby 19-year-old actor was arrested in April this year after police stopped him and a friend in an Audi car in London.

No sympathy.

You grow cannabis, which is against the law, then you can expect the law to take a dim view. Even if you are an actor in the latest merchandising opportunity exciting children’s film…

But this drew my attention:

The officers thought he'd been taking photos of them, the court heard.

That was their sole reason for stopping the car in the first place…?

A Glimpse Into The Priorities Of Some Facets Of The Justice System

What? You thought the top one might be justice?

Perish the thought:

A former magistrate cleared of rape has launched a landmark legal claim for £300,000 damages against his accuser.

Anthony Hunt, 66, was jailed in 2003 for after a jury found him guilty of raping a woman in her home after they both attended a flower show.

Who knew all that talk about stamens could have such an effect?

But it wasn’t long before the case fell apart and he was cleared. Though to Mr Hunt, it no doubt seemed far, far too long:

He spent nearly two years on a prison sex offender's wing before his conviction was overturned.

Now in a legal first, Mr Hunt wants to 'vindicate his reputation' by bringing a claim of malicious prosecution against the woman who alleged rape.

His first such application was turned down, but he’s now been given a chance to overturn that.

Mark Warby QC, representing Mr Hunt, however, said the move offered a vital legal remedy to those wrongly accused of rape.

Mr Warby said: 'It is 14 years ago to the day that my client had sex with the defendant with her consent at her home at the age of 52.

'It was nearly seven years afterwards that he was arrested and first learned of her allegation of rape. '

Eh…? Seven years after the act, this woman thinks to herself she’ll accuse a man of rape? Now I know why he wants his day in court, no matter the cost of the further publicity!

Meanwhile, over at the ‘Independent’, the emphasis is most definitely not on the unfortunate Mr Hunt:

Women who cry rape face being sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages if the prosecution fails to secure a conviction in court, it was claimed during a landmark legal challenge yesterday.

Only if it can be proved they’ve lied, presumably?

Anyone would think that was a desirable outcome. Who, exactly, is arguing against this?

Lawyers and women's rights groups said that, if successful, the action could set back the prosecution of rape by decades. Mr Hunt has argued that the woman became the prosecutor by giving a witness statement to police in 2002 and by agreeing to give evidence against him, although the charge was brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

There you have it, straight from the mouths of the vested interests themselves.

Not exactly ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall…’ is it?

Anna Mills, a lawyer at law firm Lovells, who acts for AB on a pro bono basis, said: "The case is unusual because Mr Hunt brought his initial claim against the complainant rather than the prosecuting authorities. This means that our client... is personally having to defend his claim for £300,000 in damages."

Ms Mills added: "Casting AB as the 'prosecutor' in a rape case brought by the proper authorities is oppressive... If the appeal succeeds, it will have serious public policy implications and allow rape complainants... to be sued by their alleged attackers."

No, Ms Mills.

It will finally allow some redress for men who have been falsely accused of the most dreadful crime, and hopefully make their tormentors think twice if they may be made to account for their actions financially.

Anyone interested in real justice, rather than the ideological kind, cannot fail to support this.

Modern Nursery Rhymes: Today’s The Day The Teddy Bears…

…cough up £ 70 insurance for their picnic:

There can be few things more sedate than a picnic.

But a council says they are so fraught with danger that organisers must take out insurance - of £5million.

It seems someone had an idea to hold a picnic on council land.

Ian Blackwell was stunned when he received the ultimatum from Totnes Town Council, in Devon, after organising a picnic for the local community.

He did this in response to The Eden Project's ‘The Big Lunch’ concept, which is pushing the touchy-feely ‘have lunch with your street’ concept in order to ‘bring communities together’.

Harmless fun, you’d think.

But they reckoned without the local council:

The council claimed that as the organiser, Mr Blackwell would be responsible for any accidents or injuries and needed 'public liability insurance cover'.

The 63-year-old businessman said: 'And yet if we had a birthday party in the park and invited friends and family along, we're apparently not responsible for their actions.'

Very odd…

He rang up for a quote - but couldn't get one because the insurance company didn't see his picnic as a risk.

'They couldn't understand why people would want to insure a picnic,' he added.

That’s because they don’t work for a council…