This Is Not The ‘Big Society’ Dave Was Looking For…

Mr Peaple, 22, had stood outside the shops in Hollytree Parade in Sidcup Hill, Foots Cray, where he helps out at the glass shop, on April 7, holding a notice to warn potential customers a camera car was in the area.

The shopkeepers claim their small parade has been targeted by the council’s CCTV camera cars, and say the fear of getting a parking ticket is driving away customers.

But there are ‘customers’, and there are ‘customers’. And the council wants to preserve its own reluctant ‘customers’ of the parking fine business.

So they had a word, and sent the boys round:

Last week Mr Peaple says there was a knock on the door of his home in nearby Mallard Walk.

He opened it to find a police officer on the doorstep.

Mr Peaple said: “He said to me ‘You know why I am here. You have been interfering with a camera car ‘.

Sounds like the sort of thing that should land you on the Sex offenders Register!

Mr Peaple claims told the officer told him some people wanted “his head on a plate” and said his activities were costing revenue.

What, no ‘safety issues’? Oooh, he’s going to be in need of some re-education when he gets back to the station! The council, of course, hit all the right buzzwords:

A council spokeman said: “The council is unable to comment on matters dealt with by the police.

“The safer neighbourhood teams have been made aware of recent incidents affecting the council’s mobile cctv civil parking enforcement operations, which have raised safety issues and in some cases resulted in civil enforcement officers being prevented from carrying out their statutory duties by non-authorised third parties.”

In other words, they are losing money, and they don’t like it. And unlike Tony Soprano, they have no leg-breakers on the payroll. But the police will help out…

Bexley police said: “There are various obstruction offences that may have been committed as well as a potential for a breach of the peace and any police response would be confined to these issues.”

A spokeswoman added: “The fact an officer visited the person in question to point this out, without resorting to any formal action is a good example of safer neighbourhoods teams working within local communities to sort out local issues as quickly and as effectively as possible.

“Local officers do have a role within partnership working to assist in the identification of persons who may have committed offences against byelaws but of course only if this is proportional.”

Wow! I suggest that the next time someone’s up before the beak for extortion, they try out the phrase ‘No, your honour, I was merely displaying a good example of safer neighbourhood conflict resolution!’

Bexley is, of course, prone to this sort of thing:

The move follows the issuing of Warning of Harassment letters by Bexley police at the council’s request, to people posting vitriolic anti-Bexley Council blogs on websites and the council’s proposal to ban people who have had a “warning” about their behaviour, from asking questions at council meetings.

The mask slips. Hey, at least Tony was the sort of guy you could have a drink and a chat with. And he probably didn’t spend all your extorted cash on diversity co-ordinators either!


14 comments for “This Is Not The ‘Big Society’ Dave Was Looking For…

  1. PT
    May 9, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    There’s simply no need for all these threats from any Council, or any police force. All Bexley Council needs to do is find a compliant Judge, who will issue a hyper-injuction to restrain the whole world from saying anything critical about the Council, discussing the matter with any MP, lawyer or anyone else, or revealing that an injunction is in force.
    Democracy in action, job’s a good ‘un!

    • May 9, 2011 at 2:05 pm

      Don’t give them ideas! 😉

  2. Jeremy Poynton
    May 9, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    But of course. The role of the Police is now to prosecute crimes against the state and to raise revenue. The above is exactly what one would expect. Utterly grotesque.

  3. May 9, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    “Interfering with a camera car”?

    To which the only answer is the rather Chavvy ; “Yeah? Never touched it. Never even went near it. Prove I did.” 👿

  4. May 9, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    PT’s right – there’s no need. I was on the station platform the other day and there were three threats made over the tannoy in the space of the twelve minutes whilst I waited for my train.

    These are the days of interfacing with people by threat of prosecution or litigation.

  5. Lord T
    May 9, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    I think I have a solution that would help the councils as well;

    We take someone from the dole.
    Give them a sandwich board with the warning on drafted by a council official for a private car park
    Get them to do whatever our good friend did

    Gets someone off the dole, screws the council and well it screws the council, I’m happy with that.

  6. May 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    This has all become rather too common place. The police acting as enforcers for local councils a sis the use of police resourses to identify and track down percieved miscreants

    As is the weasel we’ll fit him up with something if he makes a fuss

    Bexley police said: “There are various obstruction offences that may have been committed as well as a potential for a breach of the peace and any police response would be confined to these issues.”

    @Julia: aaargh. I had one already to go on this, stay on your side of the river 😉

    • Paul
      May 9, 2011 at 8:39 pm

      Pavlov’s Cat: As is the weasel we’ll fit him up with something if he makes a fuss

      That’s half the problem – the humiliation of people who speak the truth. I am beginning to suspect that, for the political machinery/police, miscreants are actually encouraged whereas peaceful truth-seekers are not.

      We’re not dealing with honest police officers here, we’re dealing with something else entirely.

      If they were honest, above board and not directed by dogma or malice, we’d have a much healthier society.

    • May 10, 2011 at 5:53 am

      “aaargh. I had one already to go on this”

      Put it up, we can always use a new take on it!

  7. May 9, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    So it’s fine for the CCTV cars to cost Mr Peaple revenue but unacceptable the other way round – sounds about right! 🙄 😡

    Bring on the revolution! 😈

  8. May 10, 2011 at 5:06 am

    “As is the weasel we’ll fit him up with something if he makes a fuss”: like ‘finding kiddie porn on his computer’ which is becoming increasingly common.

    Reminds me of a converstion I had a while back. Two women shoppers were pleased to see a CCTV van in the area “Oh good, they will put a stop to the yobos hanging around the back of the shops”.
    I replied “No they won’t but they will film you putting out your wheelie bin on the wrong day”.

    • Maaarrghk!
      May 10, 2011 at 12:32 pm

      Which begs the question, why don’t they put a stop to the yobs etc?

      Are they afraid of getting a kicking?

  9. June 1, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Under FOI Bexley council has now admitted that Mr. peaple broke no bye-laws.

    In desperation they have now started obscene blogging against residents.

    Go here for starters.

  10. June 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    @JuliaM and PavlovsCat You can both stay put whichever side of the river you’re on :o)

    I have this one covered here: and I have help from my buddy Malcolm: Although of course everyone here is more than welcome to blog about Bexley as much as they want, whenever they want and however they want. We do need help getting their undemocratic and draconian measures a little more exposure.

    PS: Malcolm and I were the vitriolic bloggers referred to in the article. Me? Vitriolic? Yes! Malcolm? Not so much :o)

    PPS: Can’t believe I missed this post.

    Starve the Beast

Comments are closed.