real whitby facebook group

Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

FREE! N. Yorks Inhabitants’ On-Street Parking in Whitby

101 Things To Do In Whitby

FREE! N. Yorks Inhabitants’ On-Street Parking in Whitby

  • a report by NIGEL WARD on the legality (or otherwise) of the on-street parking regulations in Whitby (and elsewhere in North Yorkshire), as they will apply to RESIDENTS of the County. (Visitors from beyond the County boundary do remain subject to on-street parking regulations – though not in their own respective Counties).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FREE! N. Yorks Inhabitants’ On-Street Parking in Whitby

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

As local readers of Real Whitby are surely aware, there have been a number of highly contentious changes to the ways in which on-street parking is to be regulated in Whitby, starting – at least according to the Whitby Gazette (that venerable font of knowledge) – in certain areas, as of this month.

  • “Road closures and some parking prohibition will take place across some areas of Whitby from March 31.”

My most recent information from NYCC reads:

“It is currently strongly anticipated that the scheme will begin operation on the 18th April; the only delay to achieving this date would be associated with any element of the lining and signing being incomplete, (which may occur, for example, due to the weather condition) in which case the new restrictions clearly couldn’t be enforced.

Enforcement in the location will continue as it does at present, albeit the additional parking restrictions, including the parking bays (which will be operational between the hours of 9:00am and 7:00pm), will be included in the enforcement from the start date, which will be advertised accordingly before commencement.

Questions regarding the applicable charges for any non-compliance with the restrictions may be aimed at Scarborough Borough Council, for the appropriate response to be issued, as it will be responsible for enforcement of the scheme, as agents to the County Council.”

Many residents feel (quite rightly) that the fundamental tenet of the consultation process has not been met: that the regulations must first and foremost offer priority to Whitby residents.

The Law Dictionary defines “priority” thus:

noun.

A legal preference or precedence. When two persons have similar rights in respect of the same subject-matter, but one is entitled to exercise his right to the exclusion of the other, he is said to have priority.

The “other”, in the present context, refers to the motorist who is not resident in the town, and who in no way stands second in the queue to residents. He will compete for his parking space on a par with residents.

The new regulations do not conform to the most fundamental tenet of the proposal – and there the matter should rest. But NYCC takes a different view. The government grant is available for the project – and for this project only. Much of it will be ‘absorbed’ within NYCC itself.

Fortunately for motorists who are residents of North Yorkshire, there appears to be a fatal flaw in the best laid plans of mice and County Councillor Joe PLANT, whose support for the proposals has vacillated from time to time between opposing viewpoints, in accordance with political expediency. When he and County Councillor David CHANCE were excluded from the first attempt to ratify the arrangements, County Councillor Joe PLANT bemoaned the fact that he had been deprived of the opportunity to express the opinions of 83% of Whitby residents to oppose the new regulations. Then, when the regulations were ratified at the second attempt, County Councillor Joe PLANT took the contrary view, expressing his unbounded delight for the fact that the regulations had finally been adopted.

Perhaps, opinion-wise, he was taking both on board simultaneously; after all, that was the approach he took to his Broadband/IT Allowances from both SBC and NYCC – for which we still await the “frank and honest statement” that he promised to readers of the Whitby Gazette, back on 26th October 2012.

A case, perhaps, of “Me – and Me Too!.

On-Street Parking – the legal issues

Before cutting to the bottom line on the on-street parking issue, some readers may wish to examine the legal arguments surrounding the new regulations – though it does make for some rather dry reading, so I would encourage those readers who wish to cut straight to the bottom line to skip this section entirely and go directly to the next sub-heading – ‘A Flaw in The Law’ – or even to the concluding section – ‘The Bottom Line’.

The new on-street parking regime is to be administered for NYCC by SBC (draft regs here), who provide the following information on the SBC website.

I quote here the information specific to Whitby (and Filey):

Filey and Whitby

Filey and Whitby Town Centres provide time restricted on street parking bays. These bays vary in parking time, although many are 40 minute bays. 

A driver can park in these bays for the amount of time permitted on the sign. The driver must then move the vehicle away from the area for the permitted time stated by the sign before returning.

There is no need to display a clock in these bays as a Civil Enforcement Officer will observe the vehicle on two separate occasions, to determine whether the vehicle has been parked for longer than the permitted time, before issuing a Penalty Charge Notice.

Please be aware that there are also other restrictions within the town centre area, which are in force outside of the permitted time stated for the marked bays e.g. double yellow lines, disabled bays, loading bays etc. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they have adhered to the regulations that are in place when they park their vehicle.

It is helpful also to consider the SBC information relating to Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs):

Penalty Charge Notice

How to pay

Appeal online

What is a Penalty Charge Notice?

Following the introduction of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, Scarborough Borough Council is changing the way it enforces parking regulations. This came into effect on 31st March 2008.

The majority of motorists park correctly, however a vehicle parked incorrectly can not only be dangerous to other road users and pedestrians, but it can cause queues, delays and inconvenience for other road users.

We have changed the way we enforce parking regulations to ensure better traffic management, improved compliance with parking restrictions, less abuse of disabled bays and less parking in resident parking bays by non permit holders.

From 30th May 2013 CPE is extended across North Yorkshire with Scarborough Borough Council operating CPE on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council, Ryedale, Richmondshire and Hambleton Districts. In the rest of the County, Harrogate Borough Council will be enforcing parking regulations on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council, Craven District Council and Selby District Council

What is a Penalty Charge Notice?

A Penalty Charge Notice is issued to a vehicle when the driver has parked somewhere they should not be, or if they have broken the parking restrictions relating to where the vehicle is parked.

The cost of the PCN will differ depending on the severity of the contravention.

A serious contravention will incur a cost of £70.00 (£35.00 if paid within 14 days). A serious contravention can include parking on yellow lines, parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge or parked in a loading bay, to name a few.

A less serious contravention will incur a cost of £50.00 (£25.00 if paid within 14 days). A less serious contravention can include parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a valid pay and display ticket or parking in a disc zone without displaying a permit or parking clock, to name a few.

“Cost” is defined thus:

noun.

1. an amount that has to be paid or spent to buy or obtain something.

NB: will “incur a cost” – i.e. incur a liability, pursuant to a duty to pay an amount or charge.

A closer look at Section 6, 72(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, upon which SBC bases its perceived authorisation, reveals a very interesting point of law:

72 Civil penalties for road traffic contraventions

(2) The regulations shall include provision specifying the person or persons by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid (who may be the owner of the vehicle involved in the contravention, its driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person).

A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is not a fine. (A fine is a sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offence. In most cases, an offender can only be subject to a fine upon conviction of an offence, in a court of law. Councils are not courts of law).

What is a “charge”?

A “charge” is defined in law thus:

noun.

duty, responsibility, or obligation; a price asked for goods or services.

North Yorkshire County Council, in its Draft Order, defines “charge” thus:

  • “Charge” means the payment for a parking ticket or Permit during the Charging Hours

Interestingly, this seems to indicate that motorists are not to be charged for parking – rather, as payment for the provision of a ticket.

So a PCN is a levy of “duty” – a “liability”, under the law, to pay a “charge”. This “charge” is most definitely not a “fine”.

A “duty” is defined in law as:

noun.

1) a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. In a lawsuit a plaintiff must claim and prove that there was a duty by defendant to plaintiff. This can be a duty of care in a negligence case or a duty to perform in a contract case.

And a “liability” is defined in law as:

noun.

The state of being bound or obliged in law or justice to do, pay, or make good something; legal responsibility. Wood v. Currey, 57 Cal. 209; McElfresh v. Kirkendall, 36 Iowa, 225; Benge v. Bowling, 100 Ky. 575, 51 S. W. 151; Joslin v. New Jersey Car-Spring Co., 36 N. J. Law, 145.

Regarding 72(2) of Section 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (mentioned above), readers who have not already lost the will to live may wish to consider the phrase “other appropriate person”.

Who might that “other appropriate person” be?

Well, before examining the adjective “appropriate”, we must bear in mind that the noun “person” has a very specific meaning in law.

It is defined in Schedule 2, Part One, 4(5) of the Interpretation Act 1978, thus:

  • (5) The definition of “person”, so far as it includes bodies corporate, applies to any provision of an Act whenever passed relating to an offence punishable on indictment or on summary conviction.

To be clear, a Council – which is a body corporate – is a “person”. This is a formal legal term for a “corporation”, which is defined thus:

    1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
    2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
    3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.

So it is true that a corporation may be fined upon conviction of an offence. As can an individual human being. Upon conviction.

However, a body corporate is clearly not to be confused with an individual living human being. It cannot, for example, contract AIDS or die from pancreatic cancer. Incidentally, note how the “rights” and “privileges” are off-set by the “liabilities” – the “liabilities”  are the “duties” of the body corporate. Everything has its price.

An individual human being – in this very precise legal sense of the word – is not a, by default, “person”. Of course, an individual human being may elect to be a “person”, if he or she so wishes. Or not, as may be the case. But “personhood”, for human beings, is a right as defined in Human Rights legislation – and, like any other right, may be waived by an individual human being, as an expression of his or her own free will.

On the other hand, the Council most definitely is a “person”; its “personhood” is fundamental to its defining condition and may not, under any circumstance, be waived.

Equally clearly, a Council must surely qualify not only as a “person”, but as an “appropriate person”, as referred to in Section 6, s.72 of the Traffic Management Act 1978, cited above, because a Council is a corporation – a body corporate – in this case specifically and statutorily called upon to administer the regulations in question. It is clearly an “appropriate person”, since it exists precisely for the purpose of conducting such matters as traffic management – though it is not authorised to treat traffic management as a potential revenue stream.

Indeed, s.76 of the same Traffic Management Act 1978 clearly references this distinction between a “person” and an “individual” (a living human being), in particular in its treatment of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs – or “traffic wardens”, as they tend to be commonly known):

76 Civil enforcement officers

(2) A civil enforcement officer must be—

(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a civil enforcement officer.

In this clause, the “person” is an agent of the body corporate – the Council – and the “individual” is the human being who works as a “traffic warden” (acts as an agent of the body corporate – the Council) – who, when off duty, may conceivably park his or her car in contravention of the new regulations, or even die of pancreatic cancer (heaven forbid). We must concern ourselves only with his or her duties as an agent of the body corporate – the Council.

I hope that this important legal distinction between a “person” and an “individual living human being” is now fully clear to the reader. (And to Councillor Mike COCKERILL – if not Mike – who recently demonstrated his inability to make the distinction at Filey Town Council recently).

The Flaw in the Law

free-parking-card

Let us now consider the implications of the Local Government Act 1888s.79.(2) of which remains extant (i.e. it is still on the Statute books, has never been amended or repealed, and is therefore still actively in force, to this day), which reads:

79 Incorporation of county council.

(2) All duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of a county shall become and be duties and liabilities of the council of such county.

Now, an “inhabitant”, as we all know, is an individual human being (or animal, or any other animate entity) that lives in or occupies a specific place. But a “council” is a “person” (emphatically not a living entity) and cannot be said to “live” anywhere, cannot drive a car or eat a meal or sleep in a hammock, and cannot, therefore, be considered in any sense to be an “inhabitant” – though it may be argued that a corporation is a resident, insofar as its Registered Office is where it ‘resides’ – though does not ‘live’.

So what the law decrees, as far as every “inhabitant” of North Yorkshire is concerned (or, for that matter, any “inhabitant” of his or her own given County), is this:

      • If and when SBC issues a Penalty Charge Notice, or seeks by any other means to exact a “duty” or “liability” from a motorist who is an “inhabitant” of the County of North Yorkshire, then it will be legally impossible for the Council to enforce payment of such “duty” or “liability”, since all duties and liabilities of the motorist who is an inhabitant of the said County must – by law – “be and become the duties and liabilities of the County Council”.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line, therefore, is that NYCC has to pick up the tab!

  • “All duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of a county shall become and be duties and liabilities of the council of such county.”

No inhabitant of North Yorkshire can legally be forced to pay – at least until or unless there has been a change in the law.

Of course, motorists who receive PCNs – or any other demand for payment of “duties and liabilities” – for failing to pay for a ticket that they neither requested nor received – may prefer to pay up anyway, out of sheer perversity. That is a matter for them.

However, motorists who are “inhabitants” of North Yorkshire may, if they wish, pass on their “duties and liabilities” to NYCC at County Hall – and would be acting within the law to do so.

In order to make this fact clear to CEOs (“traffic wardens”), who are “only doing their jobs”, it might be helpful to print out the image at the top of the page and display it behind your windscreen – thus allowing the CEO the opportunity to refrain from generating untold reams of inconsequential correspondence (and legal costs) at Scarborough Borough Council – and, thereby, sparing the public purse a great deal of futile expenditure.

Incidentally, I have been urging NYCC to look more closely at the legal position with regard to the on-street parking regulations in Whitby (and their associated function of underpinning the running-costs of the Whitby Park-&-Ride – and possibly the NYCC Pension Fund deficit) for about a year now. They do not listen. I do not know why they have ignored my advice. Perhaps they think I am a fool.

Perhaps they are considering whether or not other demands for payment issued by Scarborough Borough Council, such as Council Tax, National Non-Domestic Rates (Business Rates) and even charges for special waste removal charges and dog-fouling, are also legally enforceable.

Who knows?

Frankly, I hope that they will examine the situation afresh, right now. Today.

But as Charles LAMB would have it, here cometh April again, and as far as I can see the world hath more fools in it than ever.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

free-parking-card_subtext

free_parking_good_news_01

Posted by on April 1, 2014. Filed under Featured,News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

14 Responses to FREE! N. Yorks Inhabitants’ On-Street Parking in Whitby


  1. Paul Cruickshank Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Legal Cause why I have not paid council tax

    I have not paid council tax on the grounds that the demand by the Council is wrong in law by requiring me to commit crimes against domestic and international law.
    I acknowledge that in times of peace when HM Government is acting lawfully taxpayers are bound by statute to pay taxes, including income tax, VAT and council tax.
    Duty to refuse to obey unlawful orders

    Illegal war

    That the war with Afghanistan is illegal can be ascertained by reference to the terms of:
    (i) The Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [Kellogg-Briand Pact] by which HM Government agreed never to wage war and to settle disputes peacefully [A3];

    “War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world an illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law…. We denounce them as law breakers.”

    Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State 1932

    (ii) The UN Charter in which 192 States have agreed never to threaten or use force, to respect human rights and to settle all disputes by peaceful means [A4];

    (iii) The United Nations Act 1946 which limits the deployment of HM Forces under the authority of the UN to “measures not involving the use of armed force” [A5];

    (iv) The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946 [A6] which states:

    “After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing…

    (v) The United Nations Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [A7] which includes the following statement:

    “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.”

    (vi) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which outlaws aggressive war, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [A12];

    As the war with Afghanistan and the unlawful killings of thousands of men women and children have continued throughout the intervening years, the duty of taxpayers and tax collectors to refuse to obey illegal orders continues unabated and will carry on until:
    (i) the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Syria have ended,

    (ii) HM Forces have returned home,

    (iii) legal proceedings have begun against those responsible for war crimes and the unlawful deaths of men women and children, and

    (iv) HM Government and its agents are acting in full accord with the laws of war.

    Criminal offences associated with paying (council) tax

    When taxpayers pay tax to a Government or its agents (Havant Borough Council), while it is acting unlawfully and waging a war of aggression, or employing terrorism they commit criminal offences and render themselves liable for prosecution in Britain or the Hague for crimes of:
    (i) ‘accessory to murder’ under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 [A8];

    (ii) ‘complicity in a crime against peace’ under Principle VII of the Nuremburg Principles [A9];

    (iii) ‘conduct ancillary to war crimes, crimes against humanity and / or genocide’ under section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 [A10];

    (iv) ‘fundraising for purposes of terrorism’ under sections 15 or 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 [A11];

    (v) genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and/or aggression under Article 25.3(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [A12] which states:

    25.3 In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

    (c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;

    (vi) Terrorism under section 15 (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which states:

    A person commits an offence if he—
    (a) provides money or other property, and
    (b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

    Summary

    The evidence in this case identifies:
    (1) errors in law by the Council;

    (2) potential conflicts of law between the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and

    (i) the International Criminal Court Act 2001,

    (ii) the Terrorism Act 2000 and

    (iii) the Offences Against the Person Act 1861;

    (3) criminal offences against international and domestic law by Councillors and staff of Havant Borough Council, tax collectors, taxpayers and others.

    1. In summary I am refusing to pay council tax because it is unlawful, wrong in both domestic and international law and will involve me as an accessory to war crimes and terrorism.

    2. I respectfully request that the Justices reject Havant Borough Council’s application for a liability order on the grounds that it is unlawful, wrong in law and will involve the defendant in serious criminal offences.

    3. I also respectfully request that whatever the decision of the court today, the Magistrates in their private capacities seek to view:

    4. The BBC’s Panorama programme referred to above and at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465 , and

    5. The video entitled, “7/7 Ripple effect” available on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7PQG5weeHk More

  2. Zen Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 12:43 am

    [ a useful draft email/letter comes to mind ]:-

    Dear SBC,

    I have read
    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/free-residents-street-parking-whitby.

    Please confirm or deny by return.

    A Member-ofthe-Public

  3. ron Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 6:16 am

    Update: a flaw has been found in the legality of the free parking scheme and an announcement will be made tomorrow 02/04/2014 cancelling it.

  4. darren green Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpa/Vict/51-52/4
    the Local government act 1888 c, 41 regnal 51 and 52 vict PV proceedings of council committees section 79 incorporation of county council subsection 2 the council ALL DUTIES LIABILITIES OF THE INHABITANTS OF A COUNTY SHALL BECOME AND BE THE DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF THE COUNCIL [ONLY BOROUGH COUNCILS NOT METROPOLITAN ]
    THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1885 AND 1882 AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS 1888 /1933 THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS OF THE COUNTY CHOSEN TO ACT AS TRUSTEES OF THE PEOPLE INHABITING THE COUNTY . OR NATIVE TO THE COUNTY 1888 S.79 SS2 CLARK OF THE PEACE HAS BEEN REPEALED ACCORDING TO GOV LEGISLATION WEBSITE BUT subsection 2 is still valid go to white rabbit education for a full explanation from simon goldberg ex banking clerk watch his video collection for more
    much Love one and all peace :)

  5. Tim Thorne Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Some people are using this notice next to their tax disc: http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/Parking-Notice

  6. Pete Budd Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    The individual, whether or not he chooses to be a person is being extorted in this instance by his local authority. His use of his vehicle on the highway is under contract to government. It’s called a road tax. A major local authority is authorised by government to make a further compulsory charge for the maintenance of the highways in that area. That is the council tax. A third contract for this one service (use of the highway ) is an entirely optional opportunity for that citizen individual with a car

  7. Nigel Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    I see Scarborough Borough Council came third in a Yorkshire-wide Councils’ parking PROFITS league table:

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/minister-may-relax-parking-rules-1-6529744

    “In total, Yorkshire’s 22 councils profited by more than £32.5m from parking fines and charges last year, with Leeds and York Councils two of the highest-earning in the country.

    Leeds pocketed almost £6.25m over the 12-month period, the highest in Yorkshire. York was second in the region, with £5.1m. Scarborough was third, with £3.2m profit, followed by Bradford, Hull and then Harrogate.”

    I would like somebody to explain to me how profiteering to the tune of £3.2M has contributed to genuine traffic management in the best interest of businesses and the wider public in the Borough.

  8. Nigel Reply

    April 1, 2014 at 11:58 pm

    And here we have another Council – York City Council – ruled to be going beyond its powers over the issuing of Penalty Charge Notices. It’s all about the money. It’s always about the money.

    http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11117372.7_15pm_UPDATE__Council_has__no_power__to_issue_Lendal_Bridge_or_Coppergate_fines__says_ruling_____1_3m_of_fines_in_doubt___Council__very_perturbed__but_bridge_trial_stays___Demand_a_refund__says_top_traffic_lawyer___Read_the_shock_report_in_full_here/

    “CITY leaders have no power to issue fines through traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate in York, the Government’s traffic adjudicator has ruled.”

  9. Tom Brown Reply

    April 2, 2014 at 11:48 am

    I’ll say again, ask a freedom of information question as to wether SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL has been abolished as an elected democratic body. I’ve done this three times with NO RESPONSE . Even an acknowledgement is a response, if indeed SBC exists then a response will be given, no response implies that it is not required to. The law only covers governmental organisations others are not obliged to answer
    Be assured we in the North are living in a Crimea type situation, in the opinion of Brussels and worse David Cameron and his predecessors who have tacitly agreed that we are nothing but a European Region.

  10. Paul Cruickshank Reply

    April 2, 2014 at 9:53 pm

    I will not be paying a fine due to these laws and will have the information on the website below on how the court case goes.

    When is it a crime to pay fines, licence fees, tax, VAT, PAYE, council tax.?.

    Anyone who collects taxes, duties, licence fees, fines etc by authority of an Act of Parliament is an agent of Government and is criminally liable for their actions. This means that staff of HMR&C, councillors collecting council tax, company directors collecting PAYE as well as owners of businesses collecting VAT are accessories to war crimes and liable for arrest.

    The Terrorism Act 2000 15 Fund-raising.

    (1) A person commits an offence if he—
    (a)invites another to provide money or other property, and
    (b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
    (2 ) A person commits an offence if he—
    (a)receives money or other property, and
    (b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
    (3) A person commits an offence if he—
    (a)provides money or other property, and
    (b)knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

    17 Funding arrangements.

    A person commits an offence if—
    (a) he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and
    (b) he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

    The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.

    Article 25 Individual criminal responsibility
    1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.
    2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court [genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime] shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.
    3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
    (a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
    (b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
    (c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
    (d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
    (i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
    (ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
    (e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;
    (f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person’s intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

    Article 27 Irrelevance of official capacity

    1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

    2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
    Criminal offences associated with paying (council) tax

    When taxpayers pay tax to a Government or its agents (Council), while it is acting unlawfully and waging a war of aggression, or employing terrorism they commit criminal offences and render themselves liable for prosecution in Britain or the Hague for crimes of:

    (i) ‘accessory to murder’ under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861;
    (ii) ‘complicity in a crime against peace’ under Principle VII of the Nuremburg Principles;
    (iii) ‘conduct ancillary to war crimes, crimes against humanity and / or genocide’ under section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001;
    (iv) ‘fundraising for purposes of terrorism’ under sections 15 or 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000;
    (v) genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and/or aggression under Article 25.3(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which states:

    25.3 In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
    (c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
    (vi) Terrorism under section 15 (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which states:
    A person commits an offence if he—
    (a) provides money or other property, and
    (b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

    http://www.makewarshistory.co.uk

  11. just 66 votes Reply

    April 3, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    All very complicated. But, most of this story and subsequent comments seem to have been added on 1 April. Is this just a coincidence? And, why when I click to go to the image at the top of the page do I get to a photo of scooters? I think we trivialise the parking issue for Whitby residents here by appearing to be too big and clever for our own boots with smart-Alec info on parking fines/charges. This change to parking is going to devastate dozens of small businesses. The cost of parking, the non-existent public transport, the appallingly flawed plans for running the park and ride will combine to drive visitors away. The complete imcompetence and lack of service and support from SBC and NYCC and Central Government, for North Yorkshire’s coastal towns and villages, from Staithes to Filey is killing these communities.

  12. Nigel Reply

    April 27, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Interesting to see hugely successful campaigner Andy STRANGEWAY challenging the legality of SBC’s Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs):

    http://andystrangewayovernightparkingcampaigner.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/whitby-disappointment/

    “I compliment Scarborough Borough Council for their decision not to issue a PCN as this would have resulted in a successful legal challenge against it and thus make the Order nul and void. My friend and I are happy to return at any time if SBC would like to issue a ticket.

    Could I politely suggest that a certain councillor does not rant in a public place in future as this could result in a prosecution for a breach of the peace?”

    I wonder if you guess the identity of the Councillor?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.