List of Police Officers and other Public servants charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence 2009 to 2016

Here's my latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016. It's a long list

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016 Version 30

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Is Mayor Joe Anderson committing 'purdah' offences?

Liverpool's Mayor, Joe Anderson has made a "second major announcement this week, coming just days after he announced plans to build 10,000 new ‘rent to buy’ homes across Liverpool to help young families get on the housing ladder."

Mayor Joe Anderson has published a letter that he has sent to the Secretary of State, in which he says, "should I be returned as Mayor", "it is my intention to explore a bid by Liverpool to be the host city for the Commonwealth games in 2026"

The pre-election restrictions are governed by Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986,as amended in 1988.

Essentially councils should “not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.”

Publicity is defined as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

Government advice on 'purdah' states:

"It would be inappropriate for the post holder of Mayor to speak on controversial issues or those associated with a particular political party and care should be taken about using photos from such events if any members are standing for election."

"Do not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views on proposals in a way which identifies them with individual councillors or groups of councillors."

"Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published unless expressly authorised by statute"

http://www.local.gov.uk/purdah

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Stock photography by Huyton Freeman at Alamy

A tale of the Knowsley Greenbelt 2000 to 2016

Sixteen years ago Knowsley Council sold off 6 acres of the King George V playing fields in Huyton. Despite telling residents that they would not sell them, under any circumstances.

Sixteen years on, Knowsley's Labour Councillors vote to release 1000 acres of greenbelt, and the Council insist on banning residents who protest and oppose this madness.

It's time the one party state in Knowsley had some opposition in place. The Labour Councillors in place do NOT represent the views of Knowsley Residents.

Knowsley Labour Councillors SAY one thing, and DO another. No different from your current Conservative Government.

This video attempts to show this, and tell the story of how Knowsley Labour are destroying Knowsley's Green space.

Stock photography by Huyton Freeman at Alamy

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Do ALL Security guards need an SIA licence?

Or are some exempt?

Liverpool City Council Enforcement Officers acting as security guards at last night's Council meeting, seem to think they are exempt.



I thought that:

Anyone working in the security industry providing contract security services and in limited cases in-house security services would require a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence.

Difference between in-house and contract security

In-house refers to providing security services with company's own funds, staff and resources as opposed to services being out sourced or contracted out to another company.

Sectors requiring a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence:

Key holders - under contract
Security Guarding - under contract
Security Consultants - under contract
Door Supervisors - under contract and in-house
Vehicle Immobilising - under contract and in-house

SIA.HOMEOFFICE.GOV.UK


Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council Meeting - 23rd March 2016

Knowsley Counci meeting on 23rd March 2016 in Huyton.

A speech from Council Leader Andy Moorehead, and questions from three members of the Public.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

'Guilty' of a 'crime' for feeding the homeless

Today, Amanda and Kim were found guilty of "breaching a dispersal order under s35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014", after Kim had been giving food to the homeless outside the Old Bank, in Castle St, Liverpool and Amanda was seen by Police throwing a sandwich to people who she believed to be homeless, who were occupying the building in May 2015.

After a three day trial in Feb 2016, two others charged with Amanda and Kim, were acquitted. But Amanda and Kim's trial was adjourned until today, when they were both found guilty.

Judge Shaw sentenced Kim to 40 hours community work, £60 victim surcharge and £713 court costs, and Amanda recieved the same surcharge and costs, but was given a curfew (8am to 10pm) and ordered to wear a tag.

In authorising this power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

"An authorisation under s34 of the Act must -

(a) be in writing

(b) be signed by the officer giving it, and

(c) specify the grounds on which it is given.

Where an authorisation is in force under Sec 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation - according to Sec 35:

(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and

(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction.

Two conditions need to be met for a direction to be given:

The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to -

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder."

Neither Amanda or Kim had harassed, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality, nor had they committed any crimes or behaved disorderly. Therefore, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that they had 'contributed' to the two conditions, and the two conditions had not been met. I'd be of the view that their arrests were quite unlawful.

In my view, the only way that Amanda and Kim are guilty of this offence is, if giving food to the homeless, or anyone for that matter is 'anti-social behaviour, then they are guilty.

If giving food to others is not 'anti-social behaviour', as most sensible and compassionate people would surely agree, then they should both have been acquitted.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

98% of Merseyside Police Officers are not injured whilst on duty every year.

Government statistics say 574 Merseyside Police officers were assaulted on duty between 2010 and 2015, with 124 attacks recorded in the 2014/15 financial year.

Top cops say the figures highlight the dangers faced by Merseyside Police everyday, while the Police Federation has called for changes to the law to offer all public servants better protection.

But, hang on a minute. If there are approximately 6000 Merseyside Police Officers, and the figures are over five years.



Then this works out as 120 per year. 120 out of 6000 is only 2%. So, 2% of Officers are injured every year whilst on duty.

Or in other words 98% of Merseyside Police Officers are NOT injured whilst on duty every year.

So, in reality, statistics show, that Merseyside is relatively a safe place for Police Officers to work.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council's unacceptable, oppressive and intimidating behaviour.

It is 5.26pm. I am waiting, quite peacefully, in the Public foyer of the Council building in ‪Huyton‬ for the Council meeting that starts at 6pm.

These people are quite clearly dressed like Police Officers.

Together with ‪Knowsley‬ Council staff they surround and intimidate me, ordering me to leave the building as I am, they say, 'trespassing'.

They call the Police, yes, they call the Police because I refuse to wait outside in the cold for less than 30 minutes, and the Police turn up within 10 minutes to support them.

Where do I live again? Russia?, Korea? Iraq? Syria?

No, Knowsley 2016.

Unacceptable, oppresive and intimidating behaviour? yes I would say so.

How do I go about banning THEM?

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Love Activist supporter on trial said "“What law states I can’t feed the homeless people, please?”"

Amanda Doyle, aged 27 asked Police Officers “What law states I can’t feed the homeless people, please?

Amanda, was seen by Police throwing sandwiches up to occupiers standing on the balcony inside the former bank, the empty building that had been occupied by the "Love Activists", and told officers:

“I’d like to feed them, if that’s alright with you.”

PC Ian Hayhurst, who arrested Doyle, informed her to “be careful”, to which she replied, “why do I need to be careful?

“Am I going to be at risk if I give these guys food? You work for me, for us, for him, her, her, her, her...”

Moments later, Doyle was arrested after police alleged she breached a Section 35 notice for “contributing or being at risk of contributing to harassment, alarm or distress to members of the public”.

That prompted a large melee, the court was shown on video, with supporters shouting “Assault, assault, assault!” and then yelling “police brutality, get your hands off her!”

PC Hayhurst said he felt intimidated after detaining Doyle, of Woolfall Crescent, Huyton, as mobile phones were held up in his face.The officer said: “I felt very intimidated.

Richard Brigden, representing Doyle, suggested to Merseyside Police officers giving evidence that his client’s behaviour had been “polite and respectful”. He claimed police had not correctly followed legal procedures when ordering people to leave the area.

The anti-austerity sit-in started on April 18 and ended weeks later, on May 12 when police entered the premises.

The trial continues.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Lawyers accuse Merseyside Police of "unlawfully arresting" women supporting 'Love Activists'

Merseyside Police were today accused of unlawfully arresting a young woman in the same area as the ‘Love Activist’ protests in Liverpool City Centre last year.

Four women are on trial at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court after being arrested outside the old bank building in Castle Street, on April 30th 2015.

The women were in the area offering support to the activists, who were illegally occupying the building in protest against austerity and lack of support for the homeless.

Prosecutors say women on trial were staffing a soup stand, holding a placard and throwing bottles of water.

Ellie Louise Longman, 19, from Huyton, Ann Cawson, 58, from Walton, Kim Michelle Scott, 39, from Chester and Amanda Doyle, 27, from Huyton, have all pleaded not guilty to one charge of failing to comply with a section 35 direction excluding a person from an area.

The trial continues tomorrow and Thursday.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Merseyside Police Inspector says, "Anyone, can ban anyone, from anything"

Asking a Merseyside Police Inspector, under what law or power of exclusion, can Knowsley Council prevent members of the Public from attending Public meetings.

Bearing in mind, "The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012":

Regulation 4 (5) which states "Without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting, the decision-making body is not to have the power to exclude members of the public from a meeting while it is open to the public."

Inspector Rankine says, ""Anyone can ban anyone from doing anything"

Before you all start 'banning' things, what the Inspector says is not true.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council issue statement on 'banning members of the public'.

Knowsley Council has issued a statement: "Council confirms stance on conduct at public meetings", in regard to the letters they have sent to a number of Knowsley residents, informing them that they are banned from Council meetings for six months.

The statement begins:

"Following disruption at two recent Council meetings, Knowsley Council has confirmed it is taking action to ban a small number of individuals from future public meetings.

After taking statements from attendees and reviewing CCTV and video footage, the Council is excluding six individuals.

Note: I was an attendee at this meeting. I have not made a statement. Nor have I been asked to make a statement by Knowsley Council. Out of all of the residents who also attended this meeting, none of them have been asked to make a statement.

"The evidence showed that the behaviour of these people was disruptive, abusive and/or aggressive and therefore in breach of the standards of behaviour expected at Council meetings. All have been excluded with immediate effect from Council meetings for a period of 6 months, at which time the situation will be reviewed."

Note: I saw residents who were understandably angry and frustrated at the way the Council have dealt with the whole local plan issue. I did not see any residents who were abusive or aggressive. The 'standards of behaviour' that I expect from a Council and their employees was not met in my view, and was more of a criminal standard. The video evidence also shows that a number of Knowsley residents attending the meeting were assaulted by Council security and told they were not allowed to film, as they entered the building before the meeting started. VIDEO LINK

"Councillor Andy Moorhead, the Leader of Knowsley Council, commented:
We welcome reasoned debate and discussion and we know that there will be occasions when our decisions or proposals may meet with opposition from some residents. That is what democracy is all about. But what democracy is not about is allowing people to behave in a way that is simply aimed at disrupting meetings and stopping legitimate Council business from taking place.

Note: Democracy, is "a system of government in which all of the people are involved in making decisions about its affairs". I have not yet, met anyone (apart from Knowsley Councillors and Council Officers) who would agree that this issue has been the subject of "reasoned debate and discussion", or that all of the people were involved in making this decision, far from it. The Council have held token Public consultations and hearings, where members of the Public have given many many compelling reasons why this plan is flawed. The Council and Government Inspector pretend to listen and then go ahead with their plan regardless, and against the wishes of the majority of Knowsley residents. THIS IS NOT democracy. Far from it. Many Councillors have used the mantra that they, "had no choice". But if this is true, then it just confirms the view that the local plan was done and dusted long before the consultations, hearings and voting took place.

"Furthermore, behaviour which is aggressive, intimidating and at times directly threatening and abusive to Council staff, Councillors and other members of the public will simply not be tolerated."

Note: Why was the aggressive, intimidating and directly threatening behaviour of Council security guards tolerated then? A number of Council staff, Leader Andy Moorehead included, as well as two Police Officers, were informed of this behaviour and of the assaults on members of the Public, but this was ignored. I class this as abuse.

"After the Council meeting shortly before Christmas had to be adjourned because of disruption, we decided to reconvene it in order to give people another chance to come along and take part in a constructive and reasoned manner."

Note: This is completely untrue. One member of the Public tried to ask a question that he had not submitted in writing before the meeting, so the Council adjourned the meeting. There was NO disruption. VIDEO LINK

It is also untrue to say that, "we decided to reconvene it in order to give people another chance to come along and take part in a constructive and reasoned manner". The Council promised that questions could be asked at the reconvened meeting, but they reneged on this promise. So people were NOT given a chance to 'take part' in any way, shape or form.

"Unfortunately, a small number of people took this as an opportunity to continue the same behaviour which they demonstrated in December. In fact, it was even worse this time. We are now left with little choice but to take action not only to ensure that future meetings can proceed without disruption but also so that staff, Councillors and indeed other members of the public can attend without fear for their own personal safety and wellbeing."

Note: Very much a libelous comment. As stated, and as the video shows, there was no disruption at the meeting on Dec 16th. So, the people who have been accused of this have a case to sue Council Leader for his comments here. It actually beggars belief the arrogance of this man. I was assaulted by a security guard, I told Andy Moorehead this, and he shrugged his shoulders, and he has the bare faced cheek to talk about people 'fearing for their own personal safety". I was genuinely concerned for my personal safety long before the meeting had started, by the behaviour of staff employed by the Council he is a leader of and this man did not care one bit. It's easy to see how his comments now are disingenuous.

"Whilst this is a regrettable situation, people have a right to attend our meetings without fear for their safety, so we simply have no other option than to proceed with these exclusion notices for small number of individuals. We are also undertaking a full review of our processes and procedures to ensure that future Council meetings can be conducted in a professional and courteous way.”

Note: What is Andy going to do to ensure my safety at future meetings from Knowsley Council security? Is he going to apologise for what happened? Is he going to take similar action on the security guards involved?

Knowsley Council have no powers or jurisdiction to exclude members of the Public from Council meetings, apart from regulation 4 of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations. Only the Police can arrest an individual for 'disrupting' a Council meeting, and only then, at the time and on seeing the disruptive behaviour for him or herself.

The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 PART 2

Admission of public to meetings of local authority executives and their committees states that:

Meetings of local authority executives and their committees to be held in public

3. Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of a decision-making body must be held in public.
Admission of the public to meetings of local authority executives and their committees

4.—(1) A meeting of a decision-making body must be open to the public except to the extent that the public are excluded under paragraph (2).

(2) The public must be excluded from a meeting during an item of business whenever—

(a) it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item, confidential information would be disclosed to them in breach of the obligation of confidence;

(b) the decision-making body concerned passes a resolution to exclude the public during that item where it is likely, in view of the nature of the item of business, that if members of the public were present during that item, exempt information would be disclosed to them;
or
(c) a lawful power is used to exclude a member or members of the public in order to maintain orderly conduct or prevent misbehaviour at a meeting.

(3) A resolution under paragraph (2)(b) must–—
(a) identify the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings to which it applies, and
(b) state, by reference to the descriptions in Schedule 12A to the 1972 Act (access to information: exempt information), the description of exempt information giving rise to the exclusion of the public.

(4) The public may only be excluded under sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (2) for the part or parts of the meeting during which it is likely that confidential information or exempt information would be disclosed.

(5) Without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting, the decision-making body is not to have the power to exclude members of the public from a meeting while it is open to the public.

(6) While the meeting is open to the public, any person attending the meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings is, so far as practicable, to be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report.

To conclude, the only legal reasons under which Knowsley Council can exclude members of the Public is if:

(a) it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item, confidential information would be disclosed to them in breach of the obligation of confidence;
or
(b) the decision-making body concerned passes a resolution to exclude the public during that item where it is likely, in view of the nature of the item of business, that if members of the public were present during that item, exempt information would be disclosed to them;
or
(c) a "lawful power" is used to exclude a member or members of the public in order to maintain orderly conduct or prevent misbehaviour at a meeting.


Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council BAN members of the Public from Council meetings

Knowsley Council have written letters to two members of the Public who attended the Council meeting on 6th Jan 2016, BANNING them from all future Council meetings for six months, unless they sign a commitment to not disrupt in future.

Peter Forrest, one of the six banned individuals, rejected all of the claims.

The letter alleged his behaviour was likely to have ‘harassed, alarmed or distressed’ councillors or staff, and that he failed to stop when asked.


The Council accused him of obstructing the Mayoress on her way out. Peter said: “I’ve done nothing wrong. The threatening letter is a weak attempt to stop people finding out what the council are doing. There’s no transparency. We can’t have a council who people can't ask questions of".

It is believed that the Council intend to ban a total of six Knowsley residents from Council meetings, but as of yet only three people have received letters from the Council.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council (reconvened) Meeting 6th Jan 2016

A controversial and boisterous meeting as Knowsley Councillors vote to release 1000 acres of Knowsley greenbelt for housing developments.

Thirty members of the Public were not allowed in to the meeting by the Council, one resident was barred without good reason he says, and accusations of assault by security guards were also made by members of the Public.

This meeting was reconvened after the adjournment of the meeting on the 16th Dec 2015 - Knowsley Council Meeting 16th Dec 2015

Knowsley Council 'deferred' most of the items on the agenda from the adjourned meeting until the next Council meeting, and used the reconvened meeting just to approve the local plan.

In 2010 the Council consulted on the Knowsley Core Strategy “Issues and Options” Report 26.

The report sought the views of stakeholders on a number of issues, including how the Borough should meet its future development needs.

Three Strategic Spatial Options were presented, which were:

Option A “Urban Concentration” – this option would focus investment in development and infrastructure in Knowsley‟s existing urban areas. There would be no urban expansion into Green Belt land and neighbouring authorities would have to meet residual development needs.

Option B “Focused Urban Regeneration” – this option would also focus development in the existing urban area, with a focus on deprived areas and regeneration opportunities. Residual development needs would also need to be met in neighbouring authority areas under this option

Option C “Sustainable Urban Extensions” – this option would initially focus development in the existing urban areas, with changes to Green Belt boundaries

Knowsley Council voted for option C.

LINK to document

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Council Security guards try to stop members of the public from filming before Council meeting.

Whilst waiting to go into a tonight's meeting of Knowsley Council, we were told by security guards that we were not allowed to film, and a grab was made for our cameras. This is what happened next:



Follow @HuytonFreeman

‎Knowsley‬ Council's meeting in ‪‎Huyton‬ to approve the 'Local Plan' and the release of Knowsley's greenbelt, was cancelled and the vote postponed after Police were called, when members of the Public tried to ask questions that had not been put in writing beforehand.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council VOTE on mass removal of Knowsley greenbelt

Knowsley Councillors meet on Wed 16th Dec 2015 at the Council buildings to vote on the local plan, a plan that wants to remove vast areas of Knowsley from the greenbelt, in order to build houses and business parks.

Please attend this meeting to show your disapproval.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Seven foiled terrorist plots - None of them were directed from Syria

None of the seven terror plots foiled in the UK over the past year were directed from Syria, senior MPs have been told by security and intelligence sources.

Despite David Cameron’s claim that the plots were ‘linked to’ or ‘inspired by’ ISIL, MPs have ascertained there is no evidence that any of them were actually coordinated by the Islamists’ command and control centre in Raqqa.

The admission is a serious challenge to the case for RAF bombing in Syria as it counters the hints from some Tory – and Labour - MPs that ISIL in Syria had to be targeted with airstrikes because it poses a ‘direct’ threat to the UK.

In the run up to the Syria vote in the Commons, senior Shadow Cabinet ministers and senior MPs in other parties asked detailed questions about the nature of the threat posed by ISIL.

When pressed, senior intelligence officials representing the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) said that the seven foiled British terror plots over the past 12 months were either ‘lone wolf’ types, from individuals radicalised or ‘inspired by’ Islamist propaganda, or ‘linked’ to ISIL in other ways.

MP were further briefed that there was some suggestion that the Paris attacks may have been directed from Syria, although the intelligence was far from firm.

But there was no evidence of any of the potential UK attacks being directed in a similar way, even though the nature of the threat could change at some point in the future.

Some MPs were persuaded to vote for bombing in Syria after being briefed confidentially by the PM’s National Security Adviser Sir Mark Lyall Grant and other officials.

Hilary Benn, the Shadow Foreign Secretary who made a much-praised speech during the Commons debate, said beforehand that there was now a “strong case” for the UK “playing our full part” because “the threat to the UK, to our citizens, from Isil-Daesh is very real”.

Yet other MPs believe that the Prime Minister exaggerated the cause of the seven foiled terror plots and that it was as much 'spin' as his now infamous claims of 70,000 'moderate' ground troops in Syria ready to work with the West.

In his first Syria statement to Parliament on Thursday November 26, Mr Cameron declared: “In the last 12 months, our police and security services have disrupted no fewer than seven terrorist plots to attack the UK, every one of which was either linked to ISIL or inspired by its propaganda.

“So I am in no doubt that it is in our national interest for action to be taken to stop it—and stopping it means taking action in Syria, because Raqqa is its headquarters.”

Yet senior Westminster sources said that Alex Salmond, former SNP leader and still a Privy Councillor, captured accurately the summary of UK briefings to MPs when he appeared on Radio 5 Live’s ‘Pienaar’s Politics’ on Sunday.

Mr Salmond said: “Every one of the seven foiled plots - and let’s compliment our security services in keeping us safe -not one of them was directed from Raqqa.

“And you will find that admission, although not fronted up, in the Prime Minister’s own statements. They’ve either been inspired by - that is lone wolf stabbers or shootists who are caught up in the worldwide rhetoric of Daesh and decide to do something on their own, and perhaps the incident in the Tube station in London last night was an example of that - or ‘connected to’.

“And ‘connected to’ is like the shooting in California, where the perpetrator says I’m a supporter of Daesh and Daesh of course immediately claims responsibility because they will claim responsibility for everything.”

The former First Minister of Scotland went on: “I’m saying what is fact: not one of the seven foiled plots was directed from Syria. If you look at the Prime Minister and examine his own record you know that.

“That doesn’t mean to say there couldn’t be future directed plots. But it does mean that the vast majority of the danger we face are plots which are either inspired by or connected to [ISIL].”

Mr Salmond added that it was a huge leap from the intelligence to backing bombing in Syria.

“You have to judge whether or not your actions in terms of what you’re doing actually makes that danger more likely, as opposed to foiling a directed plot,” he said.

“And then you have to judge whether or not it is possible to bomb in a deeply congested urban area like Raqqa without the inevitable civilian casualties.”

Several Labour MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, have also been briefed on the threat posed by ISIL and have concluded that the risk of civilian casualties and of reprisals from terrorists were too great to justify bombing.

Downing Street today slapped down Boris Johnson after he also suggested that the 70,000 ground troops claim had been exaggerated.

The PM's official spokeswoman said that the claim, like others in the PM's statement, had been cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Source: Huffington Post

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Vote on military action in Syria - Shadow MP's who voted for

According to the Press Assocation, 66 Labour MPs voted for the government motion approving airstrikes.

They were: Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East), Ian Austin (Dudley North), Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West), Kevin Barron (Rother Valley), Margaret Beckett (Derby South), Hilary Benn (Leeds Central), Luciana Berger (Liverpool Wavertree), Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East), Ben Bradshaw (Exeter), Chris Bryant (Rhondda), Alan Campbell (Tynemouth), Jenny Chapman (Darlington), Vernon Coaker (Gedling), Ann Coffey (Stockport), Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford), Neil Coyle (Bermondsey & Old Southwark), Mary Creagh (Wakefield), Stella Creasy (Walthamstow), Simon Danczuk (Rochdale), Wayne David (Caerphilly), Gloria De Piero (Ashfield), Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South & Penarth), Jim Dowd (Lewisham West & Penge), Michael Dugher (Barnsley East), Angela Eagle (Wallasey), Maria Eagle (Garston & Halewood), Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside), Frank Field (Birkenhead), Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar & Limehouse), Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East), Caroline Flint (Don Valley), Harriet Harman (Camberwell & Peckham), Margaret Hodge (Barking), George Howarth (Knowsley), Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central), Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central), Alan Johnson (Hull West & Hessle), Graham Jones (Hyndburn), Helen Jones (Warrington North), Kevan Jones (Durham North), Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South), Liz Kendall (Leicester West), Dr Peter Kyle (Hove), Chris Leslie (Nottingham East), Holly Lynch (Halifax), Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham & Morden), Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East), Conor McGinn (St Helens North), Alison McGovern (Wirral South), Bridget Phillipson (Houghton & Sunderland South), Jamie Reed (Copeland), Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East), Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West), Joan Ryan (Enfield North), Lucy Powell (Manchester Central), Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North), Angela Smith (Penistone & Stocksbridge), John Spellar (Warley), Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston), Gareth Thomas (Harrow West), Anna Turley (Redcar), Chuka Umunna (Streatham), Keith Vaz (Leicester East), Tom Watson (West Bromwich East), Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) and John Woodcock (Barrow & Furness).

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Police Accountability App Launches in UK

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — An app recently launched in the U.K. enables people stopped and searched by police to capture incriminating footage and report the experience instantly.

Designed to hold police officers to account, the new Y-Stop app was developed by two U.K. groups: Release, which advocates for evidence-based drug policies, and StopWatch, a coalition that promotes police accountability. Lawyers will be employed to assess footage.

Stop and search powers in the U.K. allow officers to search a person if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the individual is in possession of drugs, weapons, stolen property, or anything that could be used to commit a crime.

Figures released by Stopwatch reveal that in London, black people are stopped and searched at just under 3 times the rate of white people. Officers are also allowed to stop and search a person without suspicion through Section 60, and under that provision, black people are searched at nine times the rate of whites. Those of mixed race are searched at four times the rate of white people while Asians are stopped at just under twice that rate.

Created as a response to police misuse of stop and search powers, the app helps the public instantly capture footage of discriminatory, unprofessional, or unlawful actions. Since it launched six months ago, the U.S. version of the app has been downloaded 170,000 times in California, alone.

A tutorial explains that the app works in two ways: by recording and reporting. After filling in the date and time of the stop, users use a GPS map to pinpoint where the search took place.

After those stopped briefly describe the details of their incident, such as what the officer was looking for, they have two choices: They can send the report just to Y-Stop (which can be done anonymously), or to the police — in which case Y-Stop will get a copy and decide if a lawyer is needed.

Developers have taken into account the possibility that police may take the phone and attempt to delete footage, and as such, designed the app so recorded video and audio information is sent to a server in seconds.

Download the app here

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Amanda's Trial for 'feeding the hungry' - Adjourned until Feb 2016

Amanda was in court today to face charges that she 'failed to comply with a Sec 34 dispersal order'. The trial was adjourned as the Police turned up without any evidence. Judge Andrew Shaw apologised to the defendants for the trial not going ahead

Amanda's Lawyer told the Judge that they had been left “in the dark” over the prosecution case.

Under legislation governing court procedure, the Crown Prosecution Service was required to serve evidence in sufficient time for the defence to prepare their case. But Richard Brigden, representing Doyle and Cawson, told the court the CPS were planning to rely on two and a half hours of CCTV footage during the case, which had not been served.

According to the CPS, the footage had been sent to Merseyside Police for editing.

Judge Shaw said: He said: “I’m not being critical of the defence, because this does appear to be a prosecution problem, but the law requires both sides to be pro-active and I’m not seeing letters in September, October, November. I’m not seeing letters to the court explaining the problem.”

He adjourned the trial until February 9.





Follow @HuytonFreeman

List of Police Officers charged/convicted of criminal offences 2009 to 2015 - V29

Here's my latest list of 'bad apple' Police Officers. It's a long list

Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2015 Version 29

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Taser Police Officers recieve £25,000 payout from Merseyside Police

Two police officers who were libelled on live radio by one of their bosses have received £25,000 in damages and an apology by Merseyside’s Chief Constable.

Former PCs Joanne Kelly and Simon Jones were sacked in October 2013 after using a Taser on a man called Kyle McArdle in the back of a police van.

But they appealed their dismissal and were reinstated in June 2014 when the Police Appeals Tribunal concluded the findings of the misconduct panel had been unreasonable and unfair.

Assistant Chief Constable Andrew Ward appeared on BBC Radio Merseyside a month later and was asked what his force had learnt following the sacking of the officers for the Taser attack.

instead of correcting the interviewer and saying Miss Kelly and Mr Jones had been reinstated, he said the incident “demonstrated his force would not tolerate inappropriate use of Tasers”.

In a statement read out at the Royal Courts of Justice today, Jeremy Clarke-Williams, head of libel at legal firm Slater and Gordon, said: “By doing so, he suggested not only that Joanne Kelly and Simon Jones remained sacked from the force, but also that their case was a prime example of conduct which Merseyside Police would not tolerate.”

R.I.P John Harris

It's with sad regret to inform you that John Harris has passed away.

John Harris was a great inspiration to me, he put me on the path to freedom many years ago. I had the chance to see John doing one of his talks in Liverpool back on May 25th 2009. An extremely enlightening experience.

R.I.P John, you were a wonderful inspiration to me, one that enhanced my life, I thank you, you will always be remembered by me.

http://www.tpuc.org/john-harris/

Follow @HuytonFreeman

VIDEO: Huyton activist arrested for feeding the hungry.

Local activist Amanda was arrested yesterday by Merseyside Police after she attempted to throw food to hungry people in the Old Bank building in Castle Street, Liverpool.



Merseyside Police had put in place a 'Section 35 - Dispersal order'. These orders have to be signed by an Inspector who has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of those powers in the locality during that period may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of — (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b)the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

A constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation.The constable has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to - (a)members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b)the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder and that the the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of the events mentioned in (a) or (b).

It is clear from the video, that Amanda was NOT harrassing, alarming or distressing anyone, nor was she committing any crime, and therefore in my view the 'arrest' was clearly both illegal and unlawful.

Amanda was charged with refusing to comply with a direction from a Constable to leave the area and released on bail.

Amanda is due to present herself in court on June 16th 2015.

Follow @HuytonFreeman