Island Labour condemns ‘Big Brother abuse of police motoring operation’ (Updated)
Officers from the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) and IW Council benefit fraud investigators intruded into the private lives of Islanders say Island Labour
According to the report the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) and IW Council benefit fraud investigators were invited by the Police to join in an operation focused on targeting bad drivers.
Intruding in private lives
These other agencies used the invitation to intrude Big Brother-style into the private lives of Islanders going about their normal business, asking them for private and personal information that in most cases was none of the business of these agencies in this setting.
Law-abiding Islanders were interrupted in their daily lives and quizzed about their National Insurance numbers, who their employers were and who they lived with, in a seemingly random attempt to crackdown on benefit fraud.
“Entirely inappropriate invitation”
The IW Labour Party Chair, Deborah Gardiner, said, “While Labour Party members naturally disapprove of benefit fraud, the Police seem to have issued an entirely inappropriate invitation to the agencies who deal with this fraud to join in a motoring operation and to interrogate innocent people about their private lives.
“It certainly smacks of Big Brother and I particularly find the participation of the IW Council disgraceful.
“We will be seeking an explanation for the invitation to these agencies from the local Chief Inspector, for comment from the new Police Commissioner, and asking the Island’s MP to condemn this intrusion into Islander’s civil liberties.”
Readers’ comments on Facebook Update 4.Dec.12 This story raised quite a bit of for and against debate on Facebook, so for those who aren’t on FB, we’ve added the comments below.
You have to wonder what it has to do with road traffic offences. I doubt that they’re entitled to ask, unless Pughtin passed a bye-law about it last week…
There is something underhand and sinister about this. What has using mobile telephones and not wearing a seat belt got to do with benefit fraud?
I agree 100 per cent with the Isle of Wight Labour and hope it pursues this issue on our behalf with the backing on our Conservative Member of Parliament.
This is an outrageous intrusion into people’s lives for entirely inappropriate reasons. If I had been stopped for a defective brake light or whatever, I would hope that I could refuse to answer questions about my NI number (which I can’t remember anyway) and my personal living arrangements. These are clearly irrelevant to any motoring offence.
I wasn’t stopped, but if I had been I wouldn’t have minded at all as I have nothing to hide and greatly resent having to work whilst some fraudsters sit on their backsides and are better off than I am by fraudulently drawing benefits. I think it was an excellent idea for the police and other agencies to work together. It makes a pleasant change to see that someone is obviously thinking and trying to save public money by doing this. It was on a Tuesday which, apparently, is signing on day. So what an brilliant idea to invite the DWP to work with the police and IW council to catch fraudsters on their way to work at the same time as those committing motoring offences. Good work!!
The reponse to such intrusions is commonly ‘If you are innocent you have nothing to fear’. Terri may feel happy about this example, but it paves the way for the Police to intrude into his/her (or his/her friends & family’s) lives in another way at another time, when s/he may wish s/he had spoken out earlier.
Isn’t there a ‘sus’ law that says there must be some reason to suspect someone of an offence before they can be stopped for investigation of the same offence? I didn’t think they were allowed to do ‘fishing trips’.
I hope the Labour Pary doesn’t just go through the motions of blustering about this. Some senior members rely on IWC for their income, & may reasonably consider they wouldn’t find employment elsewhere, if they cross them too hard…..
On reflection, as it wasn’t the police asking the intrusive questions, they can’t be blamed on that score. But for issuing the invites to the other agencies & lending those agencies spurious authority – yes they can be.
Actually I think it makes a lot of sense agencies working together, otherwise you would have to set up 3 road stops like this.
Its a bit like the road being dug up for gas and then relayed and a week later along come BT to dig it up again and i’m sure we have all said at some point why cant they work together.
For me I have nothing to hide and right now the country needs to claw back every penny after many years of Labour mis spending money the country did not have.
No, Alistair, it is nothing like roads being dug up by gas, phone etc.
I too have nothing to hide, and so far I have been a law abiding citizen. However, this collaboration goes a step too far in my opinion. For a start, the information that the DWP hold about me is private and confidential, this confidentiality would be breached the moment they shared it with the police without my permission. Secondly, I am one of those long term sick/disabled people who exist on benefits (I would hardly call it living), last time I checked it was not a criminal offence to be sick and/or disabled. I am not sure if I would like my private medical details to be divulged to the policeman who happened to be on duty, it’s bad enough having to tell DWP all my ailments in order to get any help (the claim forms are embarrassing and intrusive).
I am well aware that this country are in dire straits, and benefit fraud must be stamped out. However, treating those on benefits as criminals is wrong, in my humble opinion, not all people on benefits are cheats, most are people in genuine hardship through no fault of their own…this island is a notorious unemployment blackspot, and many of those in work are low paid and/or seasonal, which makes them (top up) benefit claimants too.
To those lucky enough to have well paid jobs and good health, think on. One day you could end up on benefits through illness or unemployment, it could (and does) happen to anyone.
Well said Rea 1 in 4 people will experience some kind of mental health problem in the course of a year. Many will become completely incapacitated by it and consequently reliant on the safety net of the welfare state.
Unfortunately that safety net is being removed in ever increasing bounds by the government so keen to also erode our civil liberties, as in this case, and to impede legal aid and obstruct Judicial Reviews. There are some very sinister forces at work in this country.
How many reading this are aware that today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and how many are aware that the coalition have also chosen this very day to introduce forced unpaid workfare for the sick and disabled? People who may be seriously ill with cancer, have disabilities or mental health issues will be expected to work unpaid on threat of benefit sanctions for an ‘unspecified length of time’.
But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you aren’t aware of it as there is a news blackout being carried out. Find that hard to believe? Dont take my word for it check the Internet starting here http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1808 and then check the BBC news.
@Alistair “right now the country needs to claw back every penny after many years of Labour mis spending money the country did not have.
Never let the historical facts get in the way of political propaganda! :-))
From 1997 -2008 (11 years for those mathematically challenged) the ratio of debt to GDP was BELOW that inherited from the previous Tory government.
2008 brought the global financial crisis stemming from the greediness of the bosom pals of the Tory party (and Tory-Lite New Labour). Add to that the senseless cost of two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) supported by both New Labour and Tories.
Neither New Labour nor the present Coalition was/is willing to put a brake on the banks’ activities or withdraw from unwinnable wars that are nice little earners for the military-industrial complex.
Simon & Sal- how about doing a quick survey on how many people can remember their NI number and then comparing that figure with how many police and DWP people can remember theirs?
Maybe with even how many times police and DWP people were asked to show their warrant cards/ID during the round-up?
This little caper is certainly a nasty development and I would question its legality. I would refuse to answer such questions and, if arrested, would be interested to know the basis for the arrest. I have never been in contravention of the law but this would result in a first occasion for me.
I was out and about for work and saw the camera vans at Lushington and outside St Marys’ I counted about 8 ‘official’ individuals in yellow jackets holding clipboards and things in Fairlee Road. I assume there were others on other roads. Unusually I didn’t get stopped although I was driving one of their ‘easy’ targets namely a white transit van. With all the vehicles and man power, it looked to me like a bloody expensive operation. I would be interested to know the cost/benefit.
However, I would be reasonably content to put up with this, if I thought that for one moment the same effort would be put into once and for all stamping out anti social behaviour in our almost ‘no-go’ town centres on Fridays and Saturdays.
One wonders just how admissible in law the evidence gathered in that operation would really be. Were the drivers cautioned first? If so, for what offence?
Why do people of the Isle of Wight think that just because it happened here, its the first time it’s ever happened and let’s question it’s legality?
This “Government” is cutting jobs in the police, council services, civil servants even tax inspectors. Closer working and co-operation is the only way these agencies will be able to get their jobs done.
At least they questioned people to their face rather than going through the back door via the credit reference agencies to see who has taken out loans, how much they got in the bank, who has given their address as where and what their income is.
As for the cost, these people are paid wages whether they sit behind a desk shuffling papers or get out on the streets trying to catch people.
You know, some people actually guard fearlessly their rights and freedoms…hard won and fought for over many, many years.
So people do question things on many levels….if they didn’t you can just imagine (research if you like) the issues that have been overturned by the community when those in power *overstepped their authority.
It is almost certainly not legal to ask people about their NI number (and/or personal circumstances)at a roadside check by non police officers. Which was the case here.
This has a Publicity edge to it…. just like the *drink driving* campaign…. get as much coverage and public attention as yu possibly can about these road controls and hope, firstly you catch a few people (I read that stats on these stoppages – they weren’t jaw dropping…)and secondly, you make people stop and think – look over their shoulder type of reaction…
Like many things..there is (and if there isn’t, there ought to be) proportionality involved. The amount of man power, costs, admin and whatever else is involved HAS to be measured against the results.
For example, what would many people feel if the POlice blocked a main road (I’ve experienced this in France, by the way) at, say, 5.30pm one evening (say, in the summer) and made every driver blow into a breathalyser ….?
Would the numbers of drink driver caught like that be proportional to the mass disturbance and inconvenience to the many….? There’s no right answer…. merely a philosophical attitude…
In the UK, you have to stop if directed by a Police Officer but, the POlice cannot carry out random breath tests…. In France they can. Who’s right…and who’s wrong?
Yes, even better, why don’t we just have roving gangs of officials & Police working continually from door to door, “at least it’s face to face”. The innocent have no need for fear, afterall…… ;->
@nobby “This “Government” is cutting jobs in the police, council services, civil servants even tax inspectors. Closer working and co-operation is the only way these agencies will be able to get their jobs done.”
How long until the Government privatises these civil service snooping exercises? Do you want a G4S wally (“Yesterday I wuz filling shelves, today I iz peaked capped authority”) doing the checks?
I would rather the benefits agency did its job properly and didn’t need the help of a traffic sting… this is indicative of the inefficiency of the department who should better vet in the first place, follow up better and use proper resources to catch offenders.
I feel the police have a far better job to do doing their stated task in the action without delaying and interfering with their job whilst drivers were interviewed (interogated) by fraud investigators.
This is one step away from every single one of us being interogated whether we are guilty or not of benefit fraud.
I presume the DWP thought it would be good publicity for them. I think we can say it has backfired. As no.5 indicates, the operation smacks of their not having a grip on their usual duties…..
If this nonsense is ever tried again the best policy is to answer a question with a question. eg
What is your NI Number?
Why do you wish to know?
We are checking on benefit fraud
Do you suspect me of benefit fraud?
Keep this going for as long as possible.
During the war the Germans occupied a certain town in Holland. A plain clothes gestapo man asked the mayor how many jews were living in his town. The mayor told him and then realised by answering he was playing their game.
He should have said he had no idea as a person’s religion was considered irrelevant.
By answering these roadside questions you are confirming that this is acceptable behaviour from public officials which it is not.
Most drink-drivers are caught because they are driving without a seat-belt, using their phone, or driving with defective lights, or similar.Or else they are involved in an accident.
It’s only when stopped that, if the police have grounds to suspect drinking, they do the test.
However if they found ( for example) a stash of drugs in the stopped car, they would deal with that too.
In essence this does not seem any different to me.
So you get stopped for a defective side light & can expect the rest of your life to be an open book to whoever the Police choose to introduce to you……?
@greenhey £Police traffic stop for some reason…. if they found ( for example) a stash of drugs in the stopped car, they would deal with that too….In essence this does not seem any different to me.”
Then, would these sample questions also be of the “same essence”?
“Show me your TV licence?….
“Has your dog defecated on the pavement recently?”…
“Have you any car parking fines outstanding?” …
“Are your Community Charge payments up to date?”…
“Do you owe the HRMC any money?…
“Have you violated any local Planning conditions”…
“Do you have a valid ESOP?” (limited to festival organisers”
“Have you played games in public parks where are they are not permitted?”
“Have you at any time embezzled your publicly funded expenses?” (limited to MEPs,MPs and local councillors)
“Have you agreed to somebody else accepting your driving penalties? (limited to Cabinet Ministers)
I look forward to hearing of drivers being stopped & checked for mismanagement of public money, failure to adequately consult the public on numerous issues, suspicious senior management expense account claims, dodgy alliances of politicians with private companies…..oh no, these would be dealt with (if at all) in a much more respectful manner…..
Numbers “to be investigated” are probably going to sound more impressive in a press release than the numbers later on actually found acting fraudulently.
Probably many or most or all of those “to be investigated” were people who didn’t have their Ninos on them at the time & are having to produce them at the police station at a later date – with NFA.
I bet the numbers sound impressive to the ones they did not catch, I hope it has put the wind up a lot of benefit fraudsters. Dozens of motoring offences, even if it was just one vehicle that was not fit for the road, it has stopped a potential accident.
But then these agencies, police, customs and excise, benefit fraud, border agency, etc are damned if they don’t and then damned when they do.
Noone here suggests that cars shouldn’t be stopped when they are defective in some way, rjc! We’re all in favour of saving from injury & death.
The point of this topic has been that the Police invited the DWP to piggyback onto their work. “Putting the wind up fraudsters” whilst overrriding hard-fought civil liberties for everyone else, is a very slippery slope. As well as antagonising many residents who previously supported these agencies.
@Tom Evans “It appears to me that this type of check is covered by section 4 of PACE:”
…………………………………….
The Intro to this section reads “This section shall have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks by police officers for the purpose of ascertaining whether a vehicle is carrying—
(a)a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic offence or a [F1vehicle] excise offence;
(b)a person who is a witness to such an offence;
(c)a person intending to commit such an offence;
………………………………..
Might not a defence lawyer argue that 4.1.(a) implies that the “offence” had already been committed and discovered and that the road stop was to detain the offender.
Otherwise a general fishing road stop implies an attitude of “guilty until proven innocent”.
if the police followed their own guidelines, the people stopped would have been visibly committing a driving offence, for example:
1.Speeding
2.Non-use of seat-belts ( in back as well as front)
3 Using phone while driving
4. Lighting-broken; using parking lights when headlights needed ( very common on IOW); using foglights wrongly.
All of those are grounds to stop a vehicle.
Once stopped, the police are free to investigate anything else they suspect.
It’s amazing how many drug dealers actually get caught when stopped for ,for example, not using belts.
I don’t understand why people think the police or other agencies with statutory powers need some pretext to actually enforce democratically-chosen laws of the land.
Because they are doing this does not mean they are ignoring other things.
@greenhey “I don’t understand why people think the police or other agencies with statutory powers need some pretext to actually enforce democratically-chosen laws of the land.”
Which agency other than the police and some HMRC officers are warranted by statute to stop, demand ID and question citizens in a public place? AFAIK the DWP does not.
Look, the POlice have quite wide powers, believe it or not, and they really don’t *need* to see any offence being committed to direct people (walking or driving) in varying ways. They only need to suspect an offence has taken place and that gets into extraordinarily subjective areas regarding what has taken place.
The point here is this. The Police have the power and used it to stop vehicles in an *apparent* random fashion. This is not the forum to discuss IF there were legal complexities that prevented the Police from doing that.
It also follows that VOSA are able to *attempt* to carry out vehicle checks for ANY infringements of the regulations…to include both paperwork and roadworthiness.
The VOSA personnel were directed traffic by the POlice who, it appears, did not undertake any questioning of the drivers.
There are good grounds to suggest that questions asked by VOSA personnel are/were subject to the driver being in agreement to answer those questions. There are also good grounds to understand that no penalty could be delivered to drivers who refused to co-operate with VOSA personnel. It is almost certain there had to be a statement from the outset (from VOSA) that the questions were a matter for each individual to decide if they answered or not. It is decidely accepted that VOSA – after having been stopped by the Police – could inspect vehicles however.
Clearly, the Police *could* become involved insofar as legal documents for the vehicle, licence, ownership, insurance, MOT etc were concerned. No-one would begin to challenge the Police actions on these matters.
However, as soon as we come to DWP (..and, if present, Council officers) we are straying into, questionably, absolute illegality by questioning motorists in the way they have (allegedly) done so.
So, when you trot out “democratically chosen Laws of the land…” what exactly do you have in mind?
It is almost certainly true that questions posed at the roadside by DWP personnel – questions about employment, routes, journeys, employment, non employment, benefit claims – would be considered illegal. That some people (under false duress and false information) answered the questions does not change the situation.
It would be interesting to hear of anyone refusing to answer such questions being ‘threatened’ with further sanctions at the roadside. In reality, no doubt, the investigations that are being proudly announced resulting from these roadside checks result from, in some cases, people refusing to comply and answer the questions.
There can be no sanction for that and no offence (insofar as DWP is concerned, that is)has occurred.
It becomes even more sinister IF Council Officials were involved in these roadside checks.
Finally, I sincerely hope and trust *they* are not “ignoring” other things as well…… but that’s not the point…is it?
And that’s the point. It means that the matter wouldn’t stand up in court if anyone chose to contest it. I rather doubt that the DWP persons prefaced any of their enquiries with ‘you don’t have to answer this..’
This in from the Isle of Wight Labour Party. In their own words. Ed
3.Dec.2012 3:02pm
You have to wonder what it has to do with road traffic offences. I doubt that they’re entitled to ask, unless Pughtin passed a bye-law about it last week…
3.Dec.2012 3:30pm
There is something underhand and sinister about this. What has using mobile telephones and not wearing a seat belt got to do with benefit fraud?
I agree 100 per cent with the Isle of Wight Labour and hope it pursues this issue on our behalf with the backing on our Conservative Member of Parliament.
3.Dec.2012 3:43pm
This is an outrageous intrusion into people’s lives for entirely inappropriate reasons. If I had been stopped for a defective brake light or whatever, I would hope that I could refuse to answer questions about my NI number (which I can’t remember anyway) and my personal living arrangements. These are clearly irrelevant to any motoring offence.
3.Dec.2012 4:01pm
I wasn’t stopped, but if I had been I wouldn’t have minded at all as I have nothing to hide and greatly resent having to work whilst some fraudsters sit on their backsides and are better off than I am by fraudulently drawing benefits. I think it was an excellent idea for the police and other agencies to work together. It makes a pleasant change to see that someone is obviously thinking and trying to save public money by doing this. It was on a Tuesday which, apparently, is signing on day. So what an brilliant idea to invite the DWP to work with the police and IW council to catch fraudsters on their way to work at the same time as those committing motoring offences. Good work!!
3.Dec.2012 4:12pm
Not the old “I’ve nothing to hide” argument. That’s how our civil rights are eroded, through complacent, holier than thou attitudes.
3.Dec.2012 4:21pm
The reponse to such intrusions is commonly ‘If you are innocent you have nothing to fear’. Terri may feel happy about this example, but it paves the way for the Police to intrude into his/her (or his/her friends & family’s) lives in another way at another time, when s/he may wish s/he had spoken out earlier.
Isn’t there a ‘sus’ law that says there must be some reason to suspect someone of an offence before they can be stopped for investigation of the same offence? I didn’t think they were allowed to do ‘fishing trips’.
I hope the Labour Pary doesn’t just go through the motions of blustering about this. Some senior members rely on IWC for their income, & may reasonably consider they wouldn’t find employment elsewhere, if they cross them too hard…..
3.Dec.2012 4:32pm
On reflection, as it wasn’t the police asking the intrusive questions, they can’t be blamed on that score. But for issuing the invites to the other agencies & lending those agencies spurious authority – yes they can be.
3.Dec.2012 4:11pm
Actually I think it makes a lot of sense agencies working together, otherwise you would have to set up 3 road stops like this.
Its a bit like the road being dug up for gas and then relayed and a week later along come BT to dig it up again and i’m sure we have all said at some point why cant they work together.
For me I have nothing to hide and right now the country needs to claw back every penny after many years of Labour mis spending money the country did not have.
3.Dec.2012 4:58pm
No, Alistair, it is nothing like roads being dug up by gas, phone etc.
I too have nothing to hide, and so far I have been a law abiding citizen. However, this collaboration goes a step too far in my opinion. For a start, the information that the DWP hold about me is private and confidential, this confidentiality would be breached the moment they shared it with the police without my permission. Secondly, I am one of those long term sick/disabled people who exist on benefits (I would hardly call it living), last time I checked it was not a criminal offence to be sick and/or disabled. I am not sure if I would like my private medical details to be divulged to the policeman who happened to be on duty, it’s bad enough having to tell DWP all my ailments in order to get any help (the claim forms are embarrassing and intrusive).
I am well aware that this country are in dire straits, and benefit fraud must be stamped out. However, treating those on benefits as criminals is wrong, in my humble opinion, not all people on benefits are cheats, most are people in genuine hardship through no fault of their own…this island is a notorious unemployment blackspot, and many of those in work are low paid and/or seasonal, which makes them (top up) benefit claimants too.
To those lucky enough to have well paid jobs and good health, think on. One day you could end up on benefits through illness or unemployment, it could (and does) happen to anyone.
3.Dec.2012 7:31pm
Well said Rea 1 in 4 people will experience some kind of mental health problem in the course of a year. Many will become completely incapacitated by it and consequently reliant on the safety net of the welfare state.
Unfortunately that safety net is being removed in ever increasing bounds by the government so keen to also erode our civil liberties, as in this case, and to impede legal aid and obstruct Judicial Reviews. There are some very sinister forces at work in this country.
How many reading this are aware that today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and how many are aware that the coalition have also chosen this very day to introduce forced unpaid workfare for the sick and disabled? People who may be seriously ill with cancer, have disabilities or mental health issues will be expected to work unpaid on threat of benefit sanctions for an ‘unspecified length of time’.
But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you aren’t aware of it as there is a news blackout being carried out. Find that hard to believe? Dont take my word for it check the Internet starting here http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1808 and then check the BBC news.
3.Dec.2012 8:58pm
If you are looking for fraud, Rea, we could start with the MP’s. In addition, benefit fraud only accounts for 1% of the entire benefits budget
3.Dec.2012 5:50pm
@Alistair “right now the country needs to claw back every penny after many years of Labour mis spending money the country did not have.
Never let the historical facts get in the way of political propaganda! :-))
From 1997 -2008 (11 years for those mathematically challenged) the ratio of debt to GDP was BELOW that inherited from the previous Tory government.
2008 brought the global financial crisis stemming from the greediness of the bosom pals of the Tory party (and Tory-Lite New Labour). Add to that the senseless cost of two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) supported by both New Labour and Tories.
Neither New Labour nor the present Coalition was/is willing to put a brake on the banks’ activities or withdraw from unwinnable wars that are nice little earners for the military-industrial complex.
3.Dec.2012 6:37pm
@cynic:
….and *we* had to buy a big part of a couple of banks ….
WW
3.Dec.2012 4:13pm
Simon & Sal- how about doing a quick survey on how many people can remember their NI number and then comparing that figure with how many police and DWP people can remember theirs?
Maybe with even how many times police and DWP people were asked to show their warrant cards/ID during the round-up?
3.Dec.2012 4:18pm
This little caper is certainly a nasty development and I would question its legality. I would refuse to answer such questions and, if arrested, would be interested to know the basis for the arrest. I have never been in contravention of the law but this would result in a first occasion for me.
3.Dec.2012 4:26pm
I was out and about for work and saw the camera vans at Lushington and outside St Marys’ I counted about 8 ‘official’ individuals in yellow jackets holding clipboards and things in Fairlee Road. I assume there were others on other roads. Unusually I didn’t get stopped although I was driving one of their ‘easy’ targets namely a white transit van. With all the vehicles and man power, it looked to me like a bloody expensive operation. I would be interested to know the cost/benefit.
However, I would be reasonably content to put up with this, if I thought that for one moment the same effort would be put into once and for all stamping out anti social behaviour in our almost ‘no-go’ town centres on Fridays and Saturdays.
I doubt that will happen though.
3.Dec.2012 5:54pm
Mmmm- camera vans? I wonder if they were authorised under the RIPA legislation and by whom? A defense lawyer might well ask that question in Court.
3.Dec.2012 5:38pm
One wonders just how admissible in law the evidence gathered in that operation would really be. Were the drivers cautioned first? If so, for what offence?
3.Dec.2012 6:31pm
Is it illegal to demand your NI number.What would happen if you refused to give it?
3.Dec.2012 6:35pm
@Mike:
absolutely nothing. You are not obliged to give that information to anyone at any roadside….
WW
3.Dec.2012 6:46pm
thanks WW
3.Dec.2012 6:29pm
Why do people of the Isle of Wight think that just because it happened here, its the first time it’s ever happened and let’s question it’s legality?
This “Government” is cutting jobs in the police, council services, civil servants even tax inspectors. Closer working and co-operation is the only way these agencies will be able to get their jobs done.
At least they questioned people to their face rather than going through the back door via the credit reference agencies to see who has taken out loans, how much they got in the bank, who has given their address as where and what their income is.
As for the cost, these people are paid wages whether they sit behind a desk shuffling papers or get out on the streets trying to catch people.
3.Dec.2012 6:52pm
@Nobby:
You know, some people actually guard fearlessly their rights and freedoms…hard won and fought for over many, many years.
So people do question things on many levels….if they didn’t you can just imagine (research if you like) the issues that have been overturned by the community when those in power *overstepped their authority.
It is almost certainly not legal to ask people about their NI number (and/or personal circumstances)at a roadside check by non police officers. Which was the case here.
This has a Publicity edge to it…. just like the *drink driving* campaign…. get as much coverage and public attention as yu possibly can about these road controls and hope, firstly you catch a few people (I read that stats on these stoppages – they weren’t jaw dropping…)and secondly, you make people stop and think – look over their shoulder type of reaction…
Like many things..there is (and if there isn’t, there ought to be) proportionality involved. The amount of man power, costs, admin and whatever else is involved HAS to be measured against the results.
For example, what would many people feel if the POlice blocked a main road (I’ve experienced this in France, by the way) at, say, 5.30pm one evening (say, in the summer) and made every driver blow into a breathalyser ….?
Would the numbers of drink driver caught like that be proportional to the mass disturbance and inconvenience to the many….? There’s no right answer…. merely a philosophical attitude…
In the UK, you have to stop if directed by a Police Officer but, the POlice cannot carry out random breath tests…. In France they can. Who’s right…and who’s wrong?
WW
3.Dec.2012 6:57pm
Yes, even better, why don’t we just have roving gangs of officials & Police working continually from door to door, “at least it’s face to face”. The innocent have no need for fear, afterall…… ;->
3.Dec.2012 7:21pm
Perhaps @Nobby should reflect on Pastor Martin Newmoller’s thoughts in Nazi Germany;
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
3.Dec.2012 8:20pm
Godwin’s Law ?
4.Dec.2012 11:15am
True- it is an example of Godwin’s Law. But was he boasting or complaining?
You might recall that he was advertised as being “every weeknight at 5pm on Fox News Channel”- possibly the most right-wing of US channels
4.Dec.2012 6:39pm
@nobby “This “Government” is cutting jobs in the police, council services, civil servants even tax inspectors. Closer working and co-operation is the only way these agencies will be able to get their jobs done.”
How long until the Government privatises these civil service snooping exercises? Do you want a G4S wally (“Yesterday I wuz filling shelves, today I iz peaked capped authority”) doing the checks?
3.Dec.2012 6:55pm
Who are going to investigate the police? Do the police declare their payments for moonlighting?
Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) should broaden their net, and not just on our roads.
3.Dec.2012 7:06pm
Sounds like the bumbling idiots at County Hall agreed to this.
It was clearly an unlawful operation and no-one was under any obligation to provide the information asked for.
Shocking behaviour from the council, police and other agencies who love to exceed their powers.
3.Dec.2012 7:46pm
A stab in the dark guess would be that they are abusing powers put in place to apprend illegal immigrants working in the UK.
Or possibly anti-terror laws, as we know that Councils have abused such laws in the past to spy on ‘bin crimes’and other trivial offences. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html
3.Dec.2012 9:19pm
I would rather the benefits agency did its job properly and didn’t need the help of a traffic sting… this is indicative of the inefficiency of the department who should better vet in the first place, follow up better and use proper resources to catch offenders.
I feel the police have a far better job to do doing their stated task in the action without delaying and interfering with their job whilst drivers were interviewed (interogated) by fraud investigators.
This is one step away from every single one of us being interogated whether we are guilty or not of benefit fraud.
3.Dec.2012 9:30pm
I presume the DWP thought it would be good publicity for them. I think we can say it has backfired. As no.5 indicates, the operation smacks of their not having a grip on their usual duties…..
4.Dec.2012 7:14am
If this nonsense is ever tried again the best policy is to answer a question with a question. eg
What is your NI Number?
Why do you wish to know?
We are checking on benefit fraud
Do you suspect me of benefit fraud?
Keep this going for as long as possible.
During the war the Germans occupied a certain town in Holland. A plain clothes gestapo man asked the mayor how many jews were living in his town. The mayor told him and then realised by answering he was playing their game.
He should have said he had no idea as a person’s religion was considered irrelevant.
By answering these roadside questions you are confirming that this is acceptable behaviour from public officials which it is not.
4.Dec.2012 10:15am
Most drink-drivers are caught because they are driving without a seat-belt, using their phone, or driving with defective lights, or similar.Or else they are involved in an accident.
It’s only when stopped that, if the police have grounds to suspect drinking, they do the test.
However if they found ( for example) a stash of drugs in the stopped car, they would deal with that too.
In essence this does not seem any different to me.
4.Dec.2012 10:47am
So you get stopped for a defective side light & can expect the rest of your life to be an open book to whoever the Police choose to introduce to you……?
4.Dec.2012 10:52am
@greenhey £Police traffic stop for some reason…. if they found ( for example) a stash of drugs in the stopped car, they would deal with that too….In essence this does not seem any different to me.”
Then, would these sample questions also be of the “same essence”?
“Show me your TV licence?….
“Has your dog defecated on the pavement recently?”…
“Have you any car parking fines outstanding?” …
“Are your Community Charge payments up to date?”…
“Do you owe the HRMC any money?…
“Have you violated any local Planning conditions”…
“Do you have a valid ESOP?” (limited to festival organisers”
“Have you played games in public parks where are they are not permitted?”
“Have you at any time embezzled your publicly funded expenses?” (limited to MEPs,MPs and local councillors)
“Have you agreed to somebody else accepting your driving penalties? (limited to Cabinet Ministers)
If not, why not?
4.Dec.2012 11:04am
I look forward to hearing of drivers being stopped & checked for mismanagement of public money, failure to adequately consult the public on numerous issues, suspicious senior management expense account claims, dodgy alliances of politicians with private companies…..oh no, these would be dealt with (if at all) in a much more respectful manner…..
4.Dec.2012 2:32pm
….tax fraud……
4.Dec.2012 2:14pm
240 cars stopped, 25 benefit fraud cases to be investigated, that’s a result in my book.
4.Dec.2012 2:22pm
Numbers “to be investigated” are probably going to sound more impressive in a press release than the numbers later on actually found acting fraudulently.
Probably many or most or all of those “to be investigated” were people who didn’t have their Ninos on them at the time & are having to produce them at the police station at a later date – with NFA.
4.Dec.2012 2:38pm
How many driving offenders were charged out of the 240 which was claimed to be the main objective??
4.Dec.2012 3:44pm
I bet the numbers sound impressive to the ones they did not catch, I hope it has put the wind up a lot of benefit fraudsters. Dozens of motoring offences, even if it was just one vehicle that was not fit for the road, it has stopped a potential accident.
But then these agencies, police, customs and excise, benefit fraud, border agency, etc are damned if they don’t and then damned when they do.
4.Dec.2012 5:54pm
Noone here suggests that cars shouldn’t be stopped when they are defective in some way, rjc! We’re all in favour of saving from injury & death.
The point of this topic has been that the Police invited the DWP to piggyback onto their work. “Putting the wind up fraudsters” whilst overrriding hard-fought civil liberties for everyone else, is a very slippery slope. As well as antagonising many residents who previously supported these agencies.
6.Dec.2012 10:55am
It appears to me that this type of check is covered by section 4 of PACE:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4
– as one of the purposes is to check for offences other than a traffic offence. If so it would require authorisation and for other criteria to be met.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/authorisations_for_road_checks_u/
6.Dec.2012 12:36pm
@Tom Evans “It appears to me that this type of check is covered by section 4 of PACE:”
…………………………………….
The Intro to this section reads “This section shall have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks by police officers for the purpose of ascertaining whether a vehicle is carrying—
(a)a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic offence or a [F1vehicle] excise offence;
(b)a person who is a witness to such an offence;
(c)a person intending to commit such an offence;
………………………………..
Might not a defence lawyer argue that 4.1.(a) implies that the “offence” had already been committed and discovered and that the road stop was to detain the offender.
Otherwise a general fishing road stop implies an attitude of “guilty until proven innocent”.
6.Dec.2012 11:14am
if the police followed their own guidelines, the people stopped would have been visibly committing a driving offence, for example:
1.Speeding
2.Non-use of seat-belts ( in back as well as front)
3 Using phone while driving
4. Lighting-broken; using parking lights when headlights needed ( very common on IOW); using foglights wrongly.
All of those are grounds to stop a vehicle.
Once stopped, the police are free to investigate anything else they suspect.
It’s amazing how many drug dealers actually get caught when stopped for ,for example, not using belts.
I don’t understand why people think the police or other agencies with statutory powers need some pretext to actually enforce democratically-chosen laws of the land.
Because they are doing this does not mean they are ignoring other things.
6.Dec.2012 12:05pm
@greenhey “I don’t understand why people think the police or other agencies with statutory powers need some pretext to actually enforce democratically-chosen laws of the land.”
Which agency other than the police and some HMRC officers are warranted by statute to stop, demand ID and question citizens in a public place? AFAIK the DWP does not.
6.Dec.2012 5:08pm
@Greenhey:
Look, the POlice have quite wide powers, believe it or not, and they really don’t *need* to see any offence being committed to direct people (walking or driving) in varying ways. They only need to suspect an offence has taken place and that gets into extraordinarily subjective areas regarding what has taken place.
The point here is this. The Police have the power and used it to stop vehicles in an *apparent* random fashion. This is not the forum to discuss IF there were legal complexities that prevented the Police from doing that.
It also follows that VOSA are able to *attempt* to carry out vehicle checks for ANY infringements of the regulations…to include both paperwork and roadworthiness.
The VOSA personnel were directed traffic by the POlice who, it appears, did not undertake any questioning of the drivers.
There are good grounds to suggest that questions asked by VOSA personnel are/were subject to the driver being in agreement to answer those questions. There are also good grounds to understand that no penalty could be delivered to drivers who refused to co-operate with VOSA personnel. It is almost certain there had to be a statement from the outset (from VOSA) that the questions were a matter for each individual to decide if they answered or not. It is decidely accepted that VOSA – after having been stopped by the Police – could inspect vehicles however.
Clearly, the Police *could* become involved insofar as legal documents for the vehicle, licence, ownership, insurance, MOT etc were concerned. No-one would begin to challenge the Police actions on these matters.
However, as soon as we come to DWP (..and, if present, Council officers) we are straying into, questionably, absolute illegality by questioning motorists in the way they have (allegedly) done so.
So, when you trot out “democratically chosen Laws of the land…” what exactly do you have in mind?
It is almost certainly true that questions posed at the roadside by DWP personnel – questions about employment, routes, journeys, employment, non employment, benefit claims – would be considered illegal. That some people (under false duress and false information) answered the questions does not change the situation.
It would be interesting to hear of anyone refusing to answer such questions being ‘threatened’ with further sanctions at the roadside. In reality, no doubt, the investigations that are being proudly announced resulting from these roadside checks result from, in some cases, people refusing to comply and answer the questions.
There can be no sanction for that and no offence (insofar as DWP is concerned, that is)has occurred.
It becomes even more sinister IF Council Officials were involved in these roadside checks.
Finally, I sincerely hope and trust *they* are not “ignoring” other things as well…… but that’s not the point…is it?
WW
7.Dec.2012 9:30am
“under false duress and false information”
And that’s the point. It means that the matter wouldn’t stand up in court if anyone chose to contest it. I rather doubt that the DWP persons prefaced any of their enquiries with ‘you don’t have to answer this..’