POLICE BAN TRAFFIC FINES IN PAY ROW

Cameron Houston September 25, 2011

The dramatic move could punch a hole in the state budget, which is expected to reap $257 million from speed cameras alone this financial year.POLICE will refuse to issue speeding fines, toll road penalties and traffic infringement notices across Victoria from Friday as they escalate their campaign for better pay.

Of the 7651 officers who voted in the Police Association ballot over the past week - about two-thirds of all members - 7585 supported banning all penalty notices, amid growing fury over ''blatant stalling tactics'' by the state government, which insists it is negotiating in good faith.

The Police Association is expected to officially notify Victoria Police of the result tomorrow and is required under federal industrial legislation to give three days' notice before taking protected action.

The measures approved by Fair Work Australia will also include a ban on unpaid overtime and a refusal to execute money warrants.

Officers will be urged to use discretion - people who commit serious traffic violations are expected to be charged on summons, which would place further strain on Victoria's court system.

And while no speed camera fines will be issued, police resources will still be used to warn drivers of the location of cameras.

The bans will come into force at 7am on Friday and will continue indefinitely until a satisfactory pay deal is reached.

Police Association secretary Greg Davies said members were seething that their request for a 4.5 per cent pay increase had not been discussed during the protracted negotiations.

''This is bizarre and unprecedented. We are heading towards 12 months of negotiations and have not talked money. Not once. It's farcical,'' he said.

''From tomorrow on, the only thing left to discuss will be money, and if the government refuses to come to the table, then they can't possibly argue that their negotiations are in good faith.''

Mr Davies said the government's law and order credentials were in tatters, with Premier Ted Baillieu breaking a key election promise to award police pay rises linked to inflation plus productivity gains.

''What we have asked for is exactly what the Premier said he would give us when he was spruiking his law and order agenda before last year's election. Not a penny more,'' he said.

The government has refused to revise its original offer of 2.5 per cent plus productivity.

Mr Davies conceded the government was in an invidious position, with four other unions locked in bitter negotiations for new enterprise bargaining agreements. ''I can't speak for other unions, but it's our job to look after our members and it's the Premier's job to keep his promises,'' he said.

The escalating battle with police comes as the Baillieu government struggles to resolve increasingly hostile negotiations with several other unions, including the powerful teachers' and nurses' unions.

The public sector union has already moved to cripple 11 government departments with actions that were put to votes last week.

Last month Finance Minister Robert Clark moved to temper union demands, when he told The Age that wage claims would inflict a $21 billion financial hit that would push the budget into deficit.

''Some union representatives in Victoria appear to be oblivious to the current international climate and the pressures placed on Victoria by the Commonwealth government,'' Mr Clark said. ''Victoria needs to be careful, particularly at this time, to maintain a sound budgetary and fiscal position.''

Last week, the Community and Public Sector Union ramped up pressure on the government, with a request to Fair Work Australia for protection on 63 separate actions that would hobble 11 government departments.

More than 12,000 public servants will vote on the campaign, which could further undermine the government's law and order reforms. It is believed that a plan to ban the processing of non-criminal fingerprints would make it impossible to conduct security checks on 1700 new police and 940 protective services officers promised by the government.

Most of Victoria's 12,400 police will vent their anger on the steps of Parliament House at a protest march in early October.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-ban-traffic-fines-in-pay-row-20110924-1kqwg.html

INSIGHT: INSIDER EXPOSES HOW CLAMPERS CHEAT DRIVERS

A whistleblower has exposed the dirty tricks allegedly used by clamping companies to fine innocent motorists and earn bonus cash

The Sunday Times Published: 25 September 2011

Nick Raymond claims his car was clamped in his own parking spaceStaff at one of Britain’s biggest clamping companies have been exposed for falsifying evidence and removing parking permits so that they can fine innocent motorists.A whistleblower has disclosed a series of dirty tricks allegedly used by staff at Shoal Enforcement, which patrols almost 600 parking sites.The firm encourages staff to clamp as many cars as possible by offering financial rewards. It can earn as much as £700 in penalties from just one vehicle.According to the whistleblower, staff routinely tamper with the photographic evidence showing the time a car was parked illegally. He says this allows them to make it appear as if vehicles have been parked for at least 15 minutes — the minimum time before they are allowed to clamp.The whistleblower gave details of two occasions in recent months when staff allegedly removed valid parking permits from car dashboards. The cars were clamped and fined for failing to display the permits.The Sunday Times has tracked down the owner of one of the cars. He accused Shoal of “trapping and deceiving honest motorists” and has reported the matter to the police.The management company at the site where the second parking permit was removed has cancelled its contract with Shoal after receiving a number of complaints.The AA said it had concerns about Shoal, which had clamped one of its patrol vans. “They were ruthless. Within six minutes of arriving to help a car, our patrol van had been clamped,” a spokesman said.In a statement, Shoal said the two cars had been “immobilised” for not displaying valid permits. The firm said it was not aware of any occasion when its staff had changed the time codes on cameras.The whistleblower’s disclosures come as Parliament is considering a clause in the Protection of Freedoms Bill which would outlaw clamping on private land. Government figures show that there are 500,000 clampings each year costing motorists almost £55m.Shoal is no stranger to controversy. One of its staff was charged with obstructing the police after he clamped the car of officers guarding the Queen.

FREEMAN UNDER CHRIST REVEALED

LAW AND GOVERNMENT DRIVERS LICENSE FRAUD TAJ TARIK BEY

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION ACT, 1872—JURISDICTION OF SIR ARTHUR GORDON.

HC Deb 21 July 1881 vol 263 cc1454-5
MR. GORST asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the jurisdiction of Sir Arthur Gordon as High Commissioner under "The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875," is not by that Act restricted to a jurisdiction over subjects of Her Majesty; and, whether Sir Arthur Gordon has any authority, as Governor of New Zealand or otherwise, to levy war against the natives of the Solomon Islands, who are 2,000 miles distant from New Zealand; and, if so, under what statute, or by what Commission, such authority is constituted?
MR. TREVELYAN Sir, the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner extends over British subjects, and British subjects only. In reply to the hon. Member on Monday, I stated that Sir Arthur Gordon had authority to sanction the sending of the Emerald. The circumstances under which that sanction was asked for are these. Up till 1880, on the Australian station, and on the Australian station alone, it had been the custom for naval officers to resort to force for the protection of British subjects, without any requisition from any diplomatic or any other civil authority. As almost the last act of their administration, the late Board of Admiralty determined that, in cases where immediate and instantaneous action was not required, the sanction of the High Commissioner would have to be obtained before armed force was used, in order that the naval officer might act in conjunction with the civil authority in the Pacific as elsewhere. It must be re-membered that all the world over, however strong may be the requisition of a Consul or other civil functionary, a naval officer must, and often does, use his own discretion, and is absolutely responsible to the Admiralty for the manner in which he uses it.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1881/jul/21/pacific-islanders-protection-act-1872

LAW AND GOVERNMENT DRIVERS LICENSE FRAUD2

TAJ TARIK BEY - FORECLOSURES, MORTGAGES, NATIONALITY ETC