Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

I won't make any comment about your mental state .

LOL . No I wouldn't it would be like the pot calling the kettle somewhat

[bluebottle]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

LOL . No I wouldn't it would be like the pot calling the kettle somewhat

Talking about yourself again, Andy?

[Amethyst]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

Okay guys, I think that is enough and you're starting to descend to name calling so if you wish to continue this discussion I will move posts to an alternative thread. Otherwise please allow the OP some chance of following the thread.

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

The OP should make complaint to her local authority regarding the unreasonable behavior of the enforcement officer concerned.

[MissFM]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

Hi Mio

Thanks MissFM for reviewing the videos honestly. What may not be immediately obvious from the videos is that when Mr Khan approached me, he was a considerable distance from the area where he says he saw my dog assume a squatting position. And when he got my attention, he was still some considerable distance still from me. This tells me that at the time he supposedly saw my dog squat, he was at a some distance from us. Which would also explain why neither I or my dog had noticed him. At a distance from us, I would say it was quite likely that he had mistaken my dog squatting to wee (which she does often) for my dog squatting to perform another necessary bodily function! My dog does not generally defecate in public at all, and one per walk is as much as she would ever do, so I was really quite sure that he was mistaken.

The other reason I am considering a claim against TH is because even after I had provided my details and picked up and disposed of the disputed poo, Mr Khan, joined by two of his CEO colleagues, continued to follow me at close range demanding details and telling me I was committing an offence. They followed me out of the park and around the adjacent street, until the Police arrived. Now, I understand what you are saying in your post, but do you honestly think that kind of behaviour is acceptable and should go unchallenged? Also, the entire fiasco took about an hour. That's an hour of trying to communicate with that guy, who I could not understand, who followed me even after I had done everything he asked, and who seemed to be trying to have me arrested.

There are also several posts over on my YouTube channel by people who have had similar incidents with CEOs - one of them even with Khan and one of his colleagues. That particular poster alleges she/he was knocked to the ground by him. This, and the council's backing up of Khan, leads me to believe that this is a deliberate approach being used by local authorities to extort money from people and hand out FPNs. Do you think this is a possibility?

“If find this really interesting, especially since they give such a hard line. But I found this information on Mylawyer.co.uk on exceptions to the offence, which funnily enough TH don't mention on their Poop scoop law page. See the section 'Exceptions to the offence' and in particular 'The person puts the faeces in a bin on the land'”

Yes, that’s very much in line with all the links Andy has provided and with my own research:ranger: – but it’s a little ambiguous, isn’t it? Because the law on this also says that the removal (by means of poopa scoop etc.) should be “immediate” and that ignorance etc. of the dog’s activities is no excuse.

“This, and the council's backing up of Khan, leads me to believe that this is a deliberate approach being used by local authorities to extort money from people and hand out FPNs. Do you think this is a possibility?”

Of course it is – though unlikely IMO, but possible as a result of the law of unintended consequences – for example, if the THEOs have any kind of financial or job security related incentives to issue FPNs then that is likely to trigger draconian behaviour in anyone less than saintly, as you describe above. FPNs were introduced to reduce red tape and to further reduce expense in prosecuting relatively trivial (summary) criminal charges.


The confusion over whether or not allowing your dog to poop and not immediately removing the poo is a criminal or civil offence IMVHO arises from the fact that, although prosecutable (an offence) under criminal law, it is a summary (rather than indictable) offence – ie it can be dealt with by a FPN should the accused accept liability, otherwise dealt with by a magistrates court if the FPN (allegation) is disputed – all a lot quicker, more appropriate and less expensive than a Jury Trial: a well-documented distinction within criminal law .

“Does this mean then, that we are legally obliged to give our details to an accredited CEO? And that by not doing so we commit a criminal offence?”

The THEO has a duty to get your details if he has reason to believe an offence has been committed. The “grey areas”, as I understand, are whether or not a refusal to provide those details is an offence (giving false details definitely is) and whether the THEO has the power of arrest (I don’t think he does, but it’s not clear). The police would certainly have the power to arrest under these circumstances.


He certainly does have the authority and the duty to take your details and issue a FPN if he believes (has reasonable suspicion that) a crime has been committed.


Another observation – the possibility of a “squat to wee” being misinterpreted had also occurred to me. As you know, the above is more of a graceful curtsey, whilst the “intent to poo” is characterized by a distinctive roached back and upcurved tail. I wonder if the Dog enforcement officers are given any training in this, or indeed required to have knowledge of any “doggy lore” at all?

HTH, Mio - it's just my opinion - as you can see there are many differing opinions on here. We are all anonymous posters - mostly passionately caring (hence the din of clashing antlers, lol) aw

[MissFM]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

:focus:

One other little quickie, Mio, is that IMO it really would be worthwhile getting expert legal advice if you wish to take this further down the legal route (a pro bono solicitor http://www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk/ should you be strapped for cash) - it looks like a bit of a minefield to me, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, especially in view of your videos (your companion's apparent behaviour in particular).

What I would have suggested would have been to take it to the press - but you have already done this with great aplomb!

Wishing you the very best in this - my personal opinion is that you have been caught in the usual trap in which the law abiding are ensnared - ie we are sitting ducks for nervous law-enforcers who have the choice between nabbing non-threatening targets and scary scallies wielding knives and pit-bulls x

[teaboy2]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

For those wishing to follow the debate/argument about dog fouling and council tax i created a new thread here for it - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...209#post408209

Apologies to you MIA for the direction this thread went. Laws can be a confusing subject at the best of time, and people can be very enthusiastic in support of their opinion or interpretation. Fact is, whether it was a criminal matter or not, simply is not relevant to your circumstances - And council tax certainly isn't relevant at all.

Also thanks to EXC too (You know what for)!

[bluebottle]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

:focus:

One other little quickie, Mio, is that IMO it really would be worthwhile getting expert legal advice if you wish to take this further down the legal route (a pro bono solicitor http://www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk/ should you be strapped for cash) - it looks like a bit of a minefield to me, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, especially in view of your videos (your companion's apparent behaviour in particular).

What I would have suggested would have been to take it to the press - but you have already done this with great aplomb!

Wishing you the very best in this - my personal opinion is that you have been caught in the usual trap in which the law abiding are ensnared - ie we are sitting ducks for nervous law-enforcers who have the choice between nabbing non-threatening targets and scary scallies wielding knives and pit-bulls x

They tend to go for the easy targets rather than those they should be tackling. Very valid point, MissFM. I am in agreement that Mio needs to go down the formal legal route about Citizen Khan's behaviour if his employers will not take this matter seriously. The National Pro Bono Centre is an ideal start for such a course of action.

[bluebottle]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

This is a tongue-in-cheek parody of Citizen Khan's behaviour. Those of you old enough - myself included - may remember a pop singer named Alvin Stardust who released a record entitled "My Koo Ka Choo" during the 1970s. The parody uses the tune from this -

Hey, you. I just saw you
Let your dog do a ruddy great poo.
I'm gonna give a ticket to you
Cos you let him poo, poo, poo.