It's time meddling councils were put in their place
The days when a law-abiding Englishman could go through his life barely interacting with the state beyond the policeman and the postman are long gone. Even so, it is dispiriting to see the eagerness with which minor government apparatchiks seize every opportunity to infringe on personal freedoms and impose inconveniences on the population.
Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham Council's decision to fine a resident £1,000 for putting out his bins a few hours early before travelling away from home is a perfect example of the type of small-minded bureaucracy that permeates life in modern Britain.
It fits all too neatly into a schema containing the proliferation of anti-driver Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph zones imposed against the wishes of residents, the excessive taxation of those who dare to own a second home, and the impression that local officials are all too willing to interfere and meddle in the daily lives of their residents with little sense of self-restraint.
Hammersmith and Fulham has taken this logic further than most, with uniformed enforcement teams patrolling the borough and issuing fines 'day and night, seven days a week', without providing the safety and security of police officers. But establishing a specialist unit of jobsworths is merely a logical continuation of a broader trend across the country as a whole.
A stranger arriving in Britain for the first time could be forgiven for believing that the primary role of local government is to restrict choice and wage war on convenience. It is hard to otherwise explain the sheer extent to which councils delight in imposing their whims on residents, and the sheer number of rules weighing down daily interactions with the public sector.
Rather than viewing their role as providing services to the taxpayers who fund them, however, it seems to be that councils see their job as ensuring adherence to the most rigid interpretation of the rules possible, enforcing ideological conformity with ambitions such as net zero or biodiversity improvement, and – potentially – levying fines to help balance the books.
The result is an unending war on convenience, and ever greater state intrusions into daily life that should rapidly be reined in.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
37 minutes ago
- The Sun
Grooming gangs national inquiry demands grow as Tories force vote on new probe into ‘disgusting' crimes
LABOUR MPs will be put under pressure as Tories force a vote on holding a national grooming gangs inquiry. The Conservatives are tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which calls for a statutory inquiry into the scandal later this month. 3 3 They say Labour's plan for five local inquiries is inadequate because the scale of abuse was much wider. And they do not have the power to summon witnesses and requisition evidence. It will put Labour MPs in a tricky position as some have gone against the party to call for a national inquiry. And it could trigger a Red Wall rebellion. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'We now know that these disgusting crimes were deliberately covered up by the police and local authorities simply because the majority of the perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage. 3 "The young girls - some as young as 12 - had their lives ruined. 'The cover-up has to end and those who hid these crimes held to account. 'It is disgraceful that not a single person has been punished for the cover-up. 'Every decent Labour MP who cares about this should vote for our amendment in Parliament.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
British lawyers for Hamas investigated by watchdog
The law firm trying to remove Hamas from the UK's list of proscribed terrorist groups is being investigated by a solicitors' watchdog, The Telegraph understands. Riverway Law made headlines in April when it launched an appeal to have Hamas taken off Britain's list of proscribed groups. The firm made a submission to Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, arguing that Hamas posed 'no threat to the UK people' and should be allowed to operate here on free speech grounds. Just days after submitting its appeal to the Home Office, the firm was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary. Mr Jenrick argued that Riverway's appeal potentially breached UK sanctions rules on terror groups. He also drew attention to apparent social media posts about the war in Gaza by Fahad Ansari, the leading lawyer in the case and the director of Riverway. The posts included claims that Hamas is a 'legitimate resistance movement' protecting Palestinians from 'UK-sponsored Israeli genocide'. A good reminder that in the majority of the world, Hamas is not a banned group but is viewed as a legitimate resistance movement fighting for liberation against a genocidal apartheid state occupying Palestinian land. — Fahad Ansari 🇵🇸 (Stop the Gaza genocide) (@fahadansari) December 6, 2023 The SRA is understood to be at an early phase of its investigation and no conclusions have yet been reached. In a letter to the watchdog sent in April, Mr Jenrick said there was 'a clear need to uphold public confidence in the legal profession and to ensure rigorous enforcement of the UK sanctions regime'. He said that there were 'significant questions as to whether Riverway have complied with their obligations under the UK sanctions regime, the SRA's own published guidance and broader professional standards expected of solicitors'. Mr Ansari has defended his firm's actions. In response to Mr Jenrick's complaint he said: 'We were in contact with OFSI [the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation], external counsel and others who had represented sanctioned organisation[s], to ensure that we did not breach our duties under the sanctions regime.' Riverway submitted a 106-page application to the Home Office in April, accompanied by a video which was posted to its social media channels. Today, our legal team submitted the application to the Home office to remove Hamas from the banned list of organisations under UK Counter terrorism powers You can read the full legal application here: — Riverway Law (@riverwaylaw) April 9, 2025 The application argued the proscription of Hamas in the UK should be lifted in line with European Convention of Human Rights protections in the interest of freedom of speech. It also claimed the ban is disproportionate and that Hamas poses 'no threat to the UK people'. The ongoing appeal, believed to be the first of its kind, is being fronted by Mousa Abu Marzouk, Hamas's head of international relations and its legal office. Mr Jenrick welcomed the SRA's investigation on Saturday, telling The Telegraph: 'Our sanctions regime is pointless if it isn't enforced. 'Ansari is a shameless apologist who argues Hamas poses no threat to the British people. What nonsense. This evil death cult threatens free people everywhere.' Mr Ansari has previously appeared to make a series of controversial social media posts related to the ongoing Israel-Gaza war. In posts dating from last year he appeared to praise fighters of the 'courageous Palestinian mujahideen', wrote 'you should view Hamas as an army of angels' and dismissed international courts as 'hopeless', saying that 'only armed resistance' would help Palestinians. In April last year, a post on his X account said: 'Eid Mubarak to everyone celebrating especially the courageous Palestinian mujahideen who continue to resist the Western-backed Israeli genocide entirely on their own. You are the pride of this Ummah. May you celebrate Eid one day in a fully liberated Palestine.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
‘We are disappearing': Britain's first trans judge on Supreme Court defeat – and why she's challenging it
I don't think any lawyer would have expected that outcome,' says Britain's first trans judge about the Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex, rather than gender. It means trans women – including those with a gender recognition certificate (GCR) – can be excluded from single-sex spaces for women, such as changing rooms and medical services. 'I wasn't expecting the trans community to lose,' admits Dr Victoria McCloud, who was publicly promoted as a symbol of the modern judiciary's diversity. April's bombshell ruling leaves Britain 'not much better than countries that criminalise trans people', she says. Dr McCloud believes her rights as one of the 8,000 people to have legally changed the sex on their birth certificate have been violated under Article Six of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 'It literally changed my legal sex for discrimination purposes, overnight,' she says. The ruling states sex is binary 'but it has actually created a situation where I am two sexes at once, which is a bit peculiar … for the purposes of the Equality Act, I am male, but for the purposes of everything else I'm female, so if I have to tick a box on a form, I don't know what box to tick.' It is for these reasons that, along with a team, she plans to take the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It is not a decision taken lightly, as she expects the ECHR could take six years just to decide the case and, even if she is successful, change would not come automatically. 'If you win, all you get is a declaration that the country's breached your human rights.' The Supreme Court ruling was seen as a victory by the gender critical side; it was campaign group For Women Scotland that brought the case after first challenging the definition of a woman back in 2022. For the trans community and its allies, it is seen as a huge rollback in rights, an outcome that Dr McCloud hoped to avoid. She notes that there were no trans voices heard in the case, even though she relinquished her role as a judge in order to apply last year to intervene in the case (but wasn't allowed to, and wasn't given a reason why). 'I think it becomes embarrassing to law, to have a situation where essentially the people who are the most affected in human rights terms don't actually have any voice at any stage.' Now living in Ireland – which she describes as a 'much safer place' where she can 'go down the pub and no one cares what loo I go to' – she says hearing the Supreme Court ruling was like 'watching a car crash from a distance'. 'My own country has left me as much as I've left my own country. The distance enables you to cushion yourself from a shock, whereas I think a lot of people in the UK are still bewildered and numb from the shock. I'm in an interesting position in that I'm sort of leading this [campaign] and yet I'm in exile.' To Dr McCloud, the dispersal of trans people means 'we are just quietly disappearing'. It's in the physical sense, as trans people are leaving the UK, but also metaphorically as trans rights are being erased at pace both in the UK, the US and around the world. Returning to London for a visit feels like a 'special mission', she says, because she feels unable to use toilets in the airport and instead has to reach where she is staying. 'It now does feel palpably different as soon as you hit the ground [in the UK].' To help other trans people, especially those who do not want to be outed, Dr McCloud has created the Trans Exile Network (TEN), which can be joined by request through her LinkedIn page. 'It's a group of trans, non-binary and intersex people (along with their families) who want to get out,' she explains. 'It's a private group for sharing tips from those who've done it and have the experience of what you need to do.' She also hopes to crowdfund to help those who will financially struggle to move. 'I don't want anyone to be left behind through a lack of means.' For those in Britain, things could worsen further for trans people 'as long as Keir Starmer, Wes Streeting and Bridget Phillips are in charge', she fears. 'I had 25 years, whatever it's been, of a perfectly ordinary, very nice life,' she says, with younger people having a bleaker prospect. And since her legal challenge could take a decade, her commitment to it is less about herself and her peers, 'it's really for people who are the next generation instead'.
