Anti-terror laws used to swoop on paperboys - for not having the correct
paperwork
Last updated at 3:39 PM on 05th December 2008
To most people, the lot of a hardworking paperboy - getting up before
the crack of dawn to deliver newspapers door to door - is not likely to
cause a threat to national security.
However, one local council used swingeing anti-terror law to crackdown
on paperboys thought to be working without the correct paperwork.
Cambridgeshire County Council used the controversial Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to spy on a branch of Spar in the
village of Melbourn.
It sent undercover council officers to lurk outside the shop in the
early hours and take notes on the movements of the store's eight
paperboys.
The spies' evidence was then used as part of a criminal prosecution of
the shop's owners for employing five of the boys without the correct
official documentation.
Cambridgeshire'
local authorities' increasing willingness to use RIPA for minor
misdemeanours.
Likened to the activities of the Stasi - the East German secret police -
the council's covert approach has heightened concern that our
fundamental liberties are being eroded by a Big Brother-type state.
A Cambridgeshire bylaw rules that all paperboys and girls must have a
work permit issued by the council and signed by the child's employer,
headteacher and parents.
According to the law - which the council introduced in 2003 - working
children must also be aged over 13 and cannot start work until after 7
o'clock in the morning.
This week Cambridge Magistrates' Court was told that Dips Solanki, 42,
and his wife Rashmi, 38, had failed to get the correct work permits for
five of their eight paperboys.
Prosecutor Simon Reeve told the court that the couple ignored letters
and visits from a child employment officer informing them that they
could only employ children with a valid permit.
He said that although eight applications for work permits had been sent
to the children's school, only three had been signed. He then produced
the surveillance evidence proving the boys in question had been working.
The Solankis now have a criminal record after being found guilty of
breaching employment law. They were given a six-month conditional
discharge.
Yesterday, however, the couple insisted that there had simply been a
paperwork mix up. And they condemned the council for using a 'hammer to
crack a nut'.
Mrs Rashmi, who used to work as Melbourn's sub postmistress, said: 'Who
do they think they are? They should only do such things for a serious
crime. We're innocent people trying to make an honest living.
'It's ridiculous. We only found out they had been spying on us when we
heard about it in court. It was a complete waste of everyone's time and
came out of confusion over paperwork.
'It should never have gone to court. The whole thing was really stupid.
We just want to put it behind us now.'
Mark Wallace, campaign director for the Tax Payers' Alliance, said:
'It's crazy that this council has used the full force of anti-terror
laws against paperboys. Local residents want decent services and low
council tax, not a jumped up version of the A-Team.'
Andrew Lansley, Tory MP for South Cambridgeshire, said: 'These powers
should only be used for the scope they were intended, which is to tackle
serious crime and terrorism.'
A Cambridgeshire spokesman said: 'Officers did use RIPA powers to
investigate this case. We are required to follow the law that those
employing children should have a valid work permit. We were simply
enforcing the law.'
Martin Smith, head of Education and Welfare at Cambridgeshire said:
'Delivering heavy bags early in the morning is potentially very
hazardous. We do not want to wait until someone has an accident before
we start to uphold the law properly.'
Introduced in 2000, RIPA has become one of the most powerful tools of
the surveillance state.
As well allowing spying in the interests of national security, it also
allows state agencis such as councils, NHS trusts and the fire servise
to act secretly in the interests of 'protecting public health' and
'securing economic well-being'.
In practice, these catch-all conditions have meant there is very little
legal limit on how local authorities can use the Act to their own
advantage.
http://www.dailymai
swoop-paperboys-
Saturday, 6 December 2008
Posts
