Featured

  • Modern Slavery Act – a synopsis (Guest Blog by Ben Ticehurst)

    The following is a guest blog by solicitor Ben Ticehurst of  E.M.M. Solicitors  


    The Modern Slavery Act 2015

     

    The Modern Slavery Bill received Royal Assent on the 26th March 2015. Following the announcement of Royal Assent, Unicef Director David Bull said:

    The passing of the Modern Slavery Bill into law is an historic moment in the fight against modern slavery and human trafficking. Unicef UK is proud that the UK has committed to stamping out these horrific crimes and, in particular, to protecting vulnerable children.

    http://blogs.unicef.org.uk/2015/03/26/modern-slavery-bill-becomes-law-unicef-uk-statement/

    Why the need for new legislation?

    The Global Slavery Index 2014 reported that over 35 million people are trapped in slavery across the world today. Modern slavery takes multiple forms including forced labour and human trafficking, and is found across the economic sphere in domestic servitude, the sex trade, on farms, building sites and in factories. Many are working in terrible conditions for extremely long hours, for little or no pay, and are vulnerable to verbal and physical abuse. 

    http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/

    The National Crime Agency suggests that the number of victims of trafficking in the UK rose by 22 per cent from 2012 to 2013 and these numbers are continually on the rise globally as well.

    http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/news-listings/452-nca-human-trafficking-report-reveals-22-rise-in-potential-victims

    In the UK, around 60% of children rescued from trafficking have gone missing from social services. Those working as foreign domestic workers on a tied visa (about 15,000 each year), meaning that they are tied to one employer for the duration of their stay, are unable to leave their houses unaccompanied or find alternative jobs to escape abusive employers without becoming criminalised. 

    Until now, there were three pieces of legislation on slavery and trafficking that are scattered, impractical and therefore difficult to use. As a result, there were only 8 convictions of human trafficking in the UK in 2011. There have been calls for the law was to be on the side of victims of slavery and trafficking and so the new Modern Slavery Bill, has been hugely welcomed as it is pivotal to ensuring victims of abuse are found, cared for and receive justice for crimes committed against them.

    A Home Office spokesperson recently said the bill was 

    an historic opportunity to get legislation on the statute books that will , for the very first time, address slavery and trafficking in the 21st Century”

    Summary of the Act

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0098/15098.pdf

    The Modern Slavery Act brings together current offences of trafficking and slavery, introduces tougher sentences (up to a maximum of life imprisonment) for traffickers, and creates an independent anti-slavery commissioner, likely to be a former police officer. It contains provisions for seizing traffickers’ assets and allows for confiscation proceedings (section 7) under the Proceeds of Crime act 2002 (POCA 2002). It also allows for the channelling of traffickers money towards victims, by way of compensation payments (section 9).

    It is hoped the Act will provide greater protection for victims and improve the prospects for prosecuting perpetrators

    The Act includes provision to defend those that have been forced to commit crimes as victims of slavery or exploitation (section 45). This includes a defence for child victims against prosecution for crimes committed directly as a consequence of their trafficking.

    The provisions to protect children are continued in that Section 48 creates ‘Child Trafficking Advocates’ who will support and represent any child that has been the victim of human trafficking. The Act also sets out a ‘presumption about age’ (section 51) which means that where is it unclear as to the age of the victim and they could be under 18 years of age then they will be treated as under 18 until it is know otherwise.

    The Act will also make a development in relation to corporate responsibility and accountability in an attempt to improve transparency in supply chains (section 54). This will require companies to make a statement detailing the steps they have taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place within the company or supply chains, or that no such actions have been taken. This step follows the USA, Brazil and Australia who have already made efforts to address modern slavery in supply chains.

    Observations

    There have ben some criticisms of the Bill in that it concentrates on enforcement and prosecution of traffickers as opposed to focusing more on victim protection.

    Former conservative MP Anthony Steen has said: 

    the prime minister said he wants to drive slavery out of Britain; I am convinced he is committed to doing something about it, but you are not going to catch traffickers unless you have evidence, and you are not going to have any evidence unless you support the victims. The reason why we have so few convictions in Britain is that police scare the living daylights out of victims.”

    Barrister Parosha Chandran has commented that the section of the bill that deals with transparency in supply chains does not extend to wholly owned subsidiaries of UK companies abroad. 

    She has stated that 

    “…the modern slavery bill represents a huge step forward in the development of corporate accountability. Yet we will never really begin to tackle modern slavery unless we ensure that the supply chains of all our companies, whether doing business in the UK or overseas, are not tainted by trafficking, exploitation or abuse.

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/24/loophole-modern-slavery-bill-transparency-supply-chain-abuses

    Andrew Wallis, chief executive of Unseen, a charity that works with the survivors of trafficking and modern slavery, was more inclined to be positive. 

    Whilst no legislation is ever perfect it must now be matched by a concerted and collaborative effort to put the provisions of this law into full effect”.

    “Many have contributed to the process of drafting this legislation and we have arrived at an

    Act that the UK can and should be proud of. There is and always will be more to be done

    but it was crucial that this legislation reached the statute books before this parliament ended

    so that we have a good foundation upon which to build.”

    http://www.unseenuk.org/uploads/20150326125647668.pdf


  • Grayling Day- the Save Legal Aid Demo 07/03/14

    Grayling Day- the Save Legal Aid Demo 07/03/14

    The demonstration on 07 March 2014 in support of Legal Aid in Old Palace Yard, Westminster (outside Houses of Parliament) was possibly the largest gathering of protesting Legal Aid Criminal Lawyers and Supporters ever assembled, and became known as “Grayling Day”, after the man responsible for the cuts, MP Chris Grayling.

    The demo raised the profile of the fight against Legal aid cuts. Guardian report here

    Highlights in this short film on YouTube

    The Fight to Save Legal Aid

    Justice Secretary Chris Grayling introduced further cuts to Legal Aid which threatened to destroy the ability of firms or individual lawyers to properly represent clients if reliant on legal aid.
    The demo was not about Lawyers livelihoods. This was about equal access to justice for all, not just those who can afford to pay privately. No action was taken to stop wealthy defendants getting Legal Aid because their assets are “restrained” so they can’t use them to pay legal fees (as Martin Bentham  pointed out here)
    I had the privilege of compering the demo, organised by LCCSA and the Justice Alliance, supported by revolting lawyers, inspirational speakers, MPs, and an effigy of Grayling. Many Legal Aid Lawyers were not working on the first ever full “strike” (day of action.) Concerns about the justice system were the theme. (BBC coverage here)

    A full list of speakers with a summary of their contributions HERE.

    I had previously blogged about a Legal Aid day of action in the New Year, (January 2014) but this demo was the first ever full-day National day of Action (aka a strike) by Criminal Lawyers.

    20140301-091255.jpg

    Footnote

    Sadly, a year later the fight was ongoing, and we were back again.

    We  kept fighting until Grayling had his day. Chris Grayling was demoted after the election, and replaced by Michael Gove,, who was in turn replaced by Liz Truss and two further changes before the lamentable appointment of the current incumbent.

    Eight years after Grayling Day demo, there has been no positive outcome, and legal aid cuts together with court closures and general underfunding of the criminal justice system have meant that once again lawyers are taking action- with a day of action scheduled for 26th June 2022.

  • Drug Driving (guest blog by Tim Huestis)

    Drug Driving (guest blog by Tim Huestis)

    Drug Driving


    This blog is by Tim Huestis of Shearman Bowen and Co.

     

    As of 2 March 2015 new drug driving laws come into effect.  Drug driving is prohibited by a new s5A Road Traffic Act 1988.

    Drivers can be subjected to a roadside ‘drugalyser’ test that can detect the presence of cannabis and cocaine in a driver’s saliva.  Drivers can also be subjected to a field impairment test.  

    A failure of either roadside test can lead to an arrest whereby a suspect is taken to a police station to undergo a blood or urine test.  The blood or urine test will test for 8 illegal drugs: cocaine, cannabis, ketamine, LSD, methylamphetamine, heroin, benzoylecgonine, and MDMA. 

    It is also now illegal to drive with certain prescription drugs, however the legal limits have been set above normal doses and drivers who take their medication in accordance with the advice of their doctor should fall below the limits. 

    Drivers convicted of drug driving face imprisonment (up to 26 weeks currently as a summary only offence, although 51 weeks allowable if the legislation increasing Magistrates sentencing powers comes into effect) together with disqualification, level 5 fine and anywhere between 3-11 points.

     

    Certain procedural aspects surrounding the enforcement of drug driving laws remain unclear.  Indeed, Greater Manchester Police have issued a statement confirming that they will not be prosecuting suspected drug drivers until the new laws and procedures have been scrutinised by the Courts.

    There will inevitably be legal challenges to the procedures, practice and evidence, and myself and the Shearman Bowen team look forward to putting the legislation under rigorous scrutiny.

    Tim Huestis, Solicitor, Shearman Bowen & Co.

    2nd March 2015

    Thanks Tim!

    Notes

    1 Official guidance on Govt. Website www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law 

    2 Drugs playlist 

    3 The legislative amendments to the Road Traffic Acts were enacted by SI 733 (publ. March 2015)

    Likely Defences

    Not the driver, exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE following alleged  breaches of police powers, testing carried out incorrectly, false positives, post driving consumption (the drug equivalent of “hip flask defenc even”, defective testing devices, prescription drugs or other lawful reason (expert evidence needed)

  • Not Magna Carta: Grayling’s Legal Summit

    Not Magna Carta: Grayling’s Legal Summit

    2015 marked the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, where we should have celebrated the cherished ideals of Equality before the Law, right to a jury trial, and the principle that  Justice should not be for sale. Instead, the Government, with it’s legally illiterate Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling, held (on February 23rd) an invite only “Legal Summit” with tickets priced at £1500 per head.
    It has been said , “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” (Anatole France, see here for more on equality before the law)
    But only the rich could afford to attend Grayling’s fat-cat jamboree, hypocritically masquerading as a Magna Carta celebration. Some invited to speak chose to boycott the event.
    Many with integrity indicated their opposition, and set out why as recoreded in this blog

    I attended the alternative “Not the Great Law Summit”  protest, demonstrating outside the official event. A write-up is here in the Justice Gap.

    Speakers included  Maxine Peake (Pictured below), Debora Coles from Inquest,  Marcia Rigg, Karl Turner MP, Andy Worthington and  Jon Black (President of LCCSA)


    There was an impeachment hearing for “King John” Christopher Grayling. 

    There was also a walk from Runnymede to Westminster over the weekend of 21st-23rd February (“Relay for Rights“)

    Anyone who would like to learn more about the issues raised in this blog, may like to look at the website of the Justice Alliance www.justiceallianceuk.wordpress.com
    You can also catch up on events as they happened on Twitter using hashtags  #RelayforRights and #NotGLS2015

    Notes

    1 Check out this excellent article in the New Statesman by Anthony Barnett (founding editor of Open Democracy) who spoke at the start of the March at Runnymede, and joined the walk and demo. 

    2 This Article in the Islington Tribune features Ruth Hayes of Islington Law Centre, who also spoke at the Runnymeade gathering and joined both walk and demo. My letter in the same paper is here

  • The Impeachment of “King John” Christopher Grayling

    The Impeachment of “King John” Christopher Grayling

    0n 21st February 2015 the Justice Alliance met in Runnymede and set out for Westminster as part of a JA event called Relay for Rights.

    This finished on 23rd February with the “NOT THE GREAT LEGAL SUMMIT” In Westminster.

    This was organised as a direct response to the hypocritical “Great” Legal Summit, which in the name of Magna Carta, was being used to promote the kind of law that in fact has no resemblance to the principles still celebrated from that historic document.

    At the alternative event, on the inspiration of Justice Alliance member Rhona Friedman, I was asked to seek impeachment of the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling by asking the assembled crowd to vote on “articles of impeachment” .

    The Articles put to the crowd, and their responses, are recorded below:-

     

                                                     ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 

     

                                        The People

                                          V

                         King John Christopher Grayling”

     

    SummaryOne Resolution consisting of four articles of impeachment. 

    The articles will be debated and voted on individually

     

    Introduction

     

    The original King John  had ruled using the principle of “force and will”, taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions, justified on the basis that a king was above the law.

    800 years later, Chris Grayling, a man posturing as Lord Chancellor, takes executive and arbitrary decisions, and by seeking to remove the rights to Judicial Review attempts to place himself above the Law. 

    Article 1   MISLEADING PARLIAMENT AND THE PEOPLE

     

    As Secretary of State, King John Christopher Grayling provided false and misleading evidence to the House of Commons regarding Judicial Review Reform, having either knowingly lied in order to try to get his bill past the Commons or fundamentally misunderstanding his own legislation.

     

    The Secretary of State further provided false and misleading evidence to the Commons about probation privatisation projects in that G4S and Serco confirmed they had been granted new government work during a period when Grayling had told MPs that contracts would not be awarded   Remember SERCO are the robber barons who claimed for supervising the dead!  

     

    TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS MISLED THE COMMONS AND THE PEOPLE?

     The People voted AYE 

     

     Article 2       OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 

     

    The Secretary of State has obstructed and diminished Justice by :

     

    Reducing the number of people who took mental health cases from 42,000 to 523 in one year 

     

    -Removing legal aid from family cases so that 2/3 of people face court alone 

     

    Pricing peoplout of Employment Tribunals so that unfair employees know that they can sack their staff unlawfully 

     

    Banning books in prisons until Court Action forced  him to stop 

     

    Creating a two tier criminal justice

     

     TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE?

    The people voted AYE 

     


     

     Article 3       ABUSE OF POWER

     

    The Secretary of State misused and abused his office and impaired the administration of justice, in that

     

    1. He forced through a privatisation of  Probation Service with no proper impact-assessment and at great risk
    2. He has brought the Ministry of Justice into disrepute by “Flogging to the floggers” (contracting with the selling of legal services to Saudi Arabia, which has despotic judicial and barbaric punishment systems)
    3. Whilst holding the title of Justice Secretary, he has practiced,supported and embodied INJUSTICE, and has been defeated repeatedly in the Courts.

     

    TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS ABUSED THE POWER VESTED IN HIM?

    The people voted AYE

     

    ARTICLE FOUR -ABUSE OF OATH OF OFFICE

     

    AS Lord Chancellor King John Grayling is charged with upholding the Rule of Law  We the people have by the above articles found him guilty of misleading Parliament , obstructing justice and abuse of power.

     Do you the people therefore think he has properly discharged his constitutional duty in accordance with his oath of office to ensure the provision of services  for the efficient and effective support of the courts?

     TO THIS ARTICLE DO YOU THE PEOPLE FIND THAT KING JOHN CHRISTOPHER GRAYLING HAS ABUSED HIS OATH OF OFFICE-HOW SAY YOU, AYE OR NO?

    The People voted AYE

    Lastly do we the people on this fake anniversary of the Great Charter find him to be an Upholder OF THE RULE OF LAW?  AYE OR NO ? 

    The People voted No

      

    KING JOHN GRAYLING WAS DULY IMPEACHED- SO SAID WE ALL!

    He was then conveyed, in stocks, amidst a jeering crowd,  to the “Great Legal Summit” , wherapon the Crowd did chant “Failing Grayling -out, out, out!”

    But alas, he stayed in, and the will of the people once again was overborne.

    800 years after it was sealed, people still remember the Magna Carta.

    Grayling, if recalled in history at all, will be remembered about as fondly as his medieval predessor, the hated King John.


     

     

     

  • Movember

    Movember

    What a wonderful month is Movember!
    Check out my playlist of moustache songs for Movember-click this link!)
    Movember involves being sponsored for the growing of a moustache throughout one month, to raise awareness of health issues, such as prostate cancer, mental health and associated charities.
    My original Movember page is here

    IMG_1243.JPG

  • GUEST BLOG: The Big Picture

    GUEST BLOG: The Big Picture

    “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time”
    – Sir Edward Grey – British Foreign Secretary 1905 to 1916

    Part of 14-18 NOW, WW1 Centenary Art Commissions, LIGHTS OUT invited artists to create large-scale, site-specific artworks at locations across the UK.
    In a dramatic UK-wide event LIGHTS OUT was an invitation to turn off lights on 4th August, leaving on a single light or candle for this shared moment of reflection.  Find Out More here: www.1418now.org.uk

     The Big Picture provide virtual candles and other digital resources to mark the occasion. They have video loops of candles and lamps to play back on your tv, laptop or mobile .

    This is a part of The Big Picture – a pan-European video installation designed to creatively commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the First World War.

    You can view all their resources at www.thebigpicture.org.uk/resources

  • “Save Our Slide!” Guest Blog by Adam and Daniel FoxSmith

    “Save Our Slide!” Guest Blog by Adam and Daniel FoxSmith

    This first part of blog from 2014 is by Adam Foxsmith then aged 10 

    We all know that children’s play space is important in a crowded place like Islington. So when my brother Daniel,( aged 6, yr2) and I heard that the Council were planning on taking down the Archway slide, we felt we had to do something about it.
    There was a consultation, but we discovered that both options involved taking down the slide!
    So, Daniel and I put together a question for the Council meeting, as reported in the Islington Tribune HERE
    At the meeting, Daniel asked the question “Will you save the slide?”, and I asked a supplementary question. The Council said they would think about it!
    We also presented a petition to save the slide.
    We have decided to continue the petition, to see how many more signatures are gathered. The Council is still considering what to do, as reported HERE

    20140329-172443.jpg

    This part of the blog is by Daniel Foxsmith (now aged 10) in 2017

    I am very happy that the Council has improved the park. It is great to have the slide back and I am glad that we saved it. I have tested the slide and can confirm that it as good as before or maybe better! 👍

    Slide re-opening covered by Islington Tribune here

    Notes

    The park-including revamped slide was re-opened on September 30th 2017

    7BB041AF-6A74-4982-9FB1-EB41E3432E34 33AF3AC2-EDAB-487B-BF8A-E344E6BCA6DA19660121-D17D-4741-B250-EB3FDAA5D3F9 82E8172E-00F6-4EFA-B61A-4806338923E3

  • Grayling Day Demo -Speakers for Justice

    Grayling Day Demo -Speakers for Justice

    The following speakers spoke up for Justice at The Grayling Day demo in Westminster on 07/03/14

    1 Paul Harris
    A former president of LCCSA, Paul opened the proceedings with a rousing address. He said the cuts would result in a two-tier system – one for those with money and one for those without.
    2 Alistair Webster QC
    20140313-233553.jpg
    A Lib Dem peer but speaking as a lawyer he reminded us of their Party Policy of supporting Legal aid, but commented adversely on their failure in government to speak out against Grayling’s cuts, concluding “The politicians may have failed Justice. We will not.”

    3 Laura Janes
    Laura, representing The Howard League for Penal Reform dealt with how Chris Grayling has removed most prison law work from criminal legal aid.
    4 Sir Ivan Lawrence QC
    Sir Ivan (criminal barrister for over 50 years, and was a Tory MP for over 20 years) said he was ashamed of this Government. “We will bring the Criminal justice system to a halt to save it- that’s why we are here
    5 Ian Lawrence (NAPO)
    Representing the Probation Service, also under attack by Grayling,

    6 Paddy Hill

    20140314-003739.jpg

    Paddy reminded us what is at stake. “There will be many more miscarriages of Justice like the Birmingham 6 if legal aid is cut to this level.” An article about Paddy’s speech, with a clip in which he brands the MOJ the “Ministry of Injustice” is here.

    20140314-004257.jpg

    7 Sir Anthony Hooper
    Retired Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Anthony reminded us  eloquently:-“For some 60 years everyone has had the right to equal access to Justice. This Government is destroying that right”
    8 Francis Neckles
    Francis was rightly acquitted at trial, preserving his good character, thanks to good representation by his Legal Aid lawyer. “Chris Grayling says he can’t afford to fund legal aid- Francis Neckles says we can’t afford NOT to
    9 Shami Chakrabarti

    20140314-005149.jpg
    Representing Liberty, Chakrabarti made a powerful speech linking Legal Aid with freedom.

    10 Dave Rowntree
    Dave is drummer with Blur and was also a solicitor with Kingsley Napley.
    He spoke about the Magna Carta, which was signed 800 years ago next year, and clause 40 – “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
    11 Nigel Lithman QC
    Representing the CBA, he had been invited to speak to demonstrate the unity between bar and solicitors in fighting the cuts. Three weeks later, the CBA struck a “deal ” with the MoJ, favourable to the bar but not solicitors, having met the MoJ secretly and without solicitors representatives being consulted. Relations between the criminal bar and criminal solicitors reached an all-time low point following these actions, but have improved enormously under subsequent and present CBA leadership.
    12 Janis Sharp
    Janis is Mum to Gary McKinnon, and led a courageous (and ultimately successful) fight against his extradition. She knows the value of legal aid, and  can be seen in the YouTube film below (incorrectly subtitled as Janis McKinnon- apologies Janis)
    13 Bill Waddington
    Bill was a former and the current chair of the CLSA.
    14 Noela Claye
    Speaking with the support of the charity Women against Rape WAR, Noela brought a victims perspective, and showed that ultimately this demo was not just about fees or careers, it was also about victims, clients, and justice.
    Noela spoke on camera in the short film of the start of the demo (link below)

    Hanna Evans
    Hanna was a new tenant and rising star at 23 Essex St. Chambers. Read more (and hear her speech) at #Just4Justice demo here.
    15 Sadiq Khan
    A former lawyer in a legal aid practice,  Labour MP and shadow Lord Chancellor (as he then was) Khan said he opposed Grayling’s cuts. When asked  to give an unequivocal commitment to reverse them if in office however he declined. In the run-up to the election campaign, he  combined his portfolio responsibility with the role of Labour lead for attacking the Green Party (who had made a commitment  to restore legal aid funding) and left the justice portfolio in favour of visits to Brighton rallying the Labour troops in an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Green MP Caroline Lucas. After the election, he successfully campaigned for London Mayor.
    16 Matt Foot
    Matt, one of the founder members of the Justice alliance summed up the rally, before leading a march to the Ministry of Justice.

    NOTES

    Short summary of the event by film-maker Ed Stradling with speaker clips here on Youtube

    Another short film of the start of the demo here (Thanks to Matt Tiller)

    Excellent commentary and photos of “Grayling Day” here (courtesy of Legal Aid Watch)

    Photos of demo, all speakers, thanks to Luca Nieve, here

  • Late Night Levy Madness

    The streets of Islington are, according to Islington Labour, rife with violent drunks after the midnight hour, and thus they have rushed to be the first London Borough to raise a tax on licenced premises- well summarised in the Tribune here as the Islington “late night levy”
    The move will have little effect on high-profit clubs with promotional drinks offers, disgorging their drunken clientele in the early hours, but will hasten the closure of small community pubs according to CAMRA
    In classic Islington style, the money raised will be spent on more saturation CCTV coverage, and recruiting a private security force, who will patrol the streets with no powers of arrest, a rag-tag motley-crew of para-military red-coats.
    This hare-brained scheme was introduced by Islington Labour’s Councillor Paul Convery.

    There was always something of the Puritan about Cllr Convery.

    Unfortunately, Captain Convery’s New model Army is more of a “Dad’s Army”, with Paul as a cross between Private Frazer and the pompous Captain Mainwaring character, supported by his loyal sidekick Cllr Poole, and some loyal backbenchers resembling Cpl. Jones, running around wringing their hands and shouting “Don’t Panic! Don’t Panic!”

    20140302-200305.jpg

    The proposal to introduce a privatised security squad was buried in the policy paper (at para 5.3 ) and was not a “recommendation” , perhaps because the idea had nothing to recommend it, but more likely as under the Constitution it is possible only to amend recommendations, so therefore impossible to table an amendment to the goon squad proposal. 

    Predictably, Councillors supporting the levy ignored the failure of current licensing policy and policing, and naively assumed that the levy would somehow magic away the problems associated with late night drinking. Thus, they argued anyone against the lobby was somehow in favour of vomit, urine and yobbery. Each speaker was keen to outdo each other with apolacyptic visions of Hogarthian imagery, Cllr Poole offering to conduct guided tours of the hellish scenes in his ward. It’s only a matter of time before someone takes up that idea, and we see “drunk and disorderly” tours advertised in TimeOut or Rough Guide. It was this hellish imagery that gave rise to the headline “Islington rivers of vomit and urine” in the Islington Gazette.

    In 1979 Elvis Costello recorded Oliver’s Army.
    Now we have Convery’s Army:-
    Convery’s Army are on their way
    Convery’s Army are here to stay
    And we would rather see anything else than Islington run this way…

    Full music playlist for “Cap’n Convery’s Late Night Levy Army” here

    Letter in Islington Tribune here