Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[mio]

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

This also

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/61

61Power to require name and address

(1)

If an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 59, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.

(2)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or

(b)

he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

(3)

A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4)

In this section “authorised officer” has the same meaning as in section 59.

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?

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

Unlike you, it would seem, I took exams in law, when in the police which, for your information, draw the questions from Bar exams. After I retired from the police, due to a knee injury, I studied a number of areas of the law which have come in handy over the years.

For your information, what is termed "Public Law", as I have already explained in a previous post, is the law applicable to the administration of government, whether it be central or local. It provides local authorities with their power to exist and to provide public services. It does not provide them with powers to concoct laws as a means of extracting money from people in the form of penalties.

Yes I am sure.

I have worked with members of the police in the latter stages of my working life(of all ranks), and to be honest I found them like anyone else, some charming intelligent and perceptive, some as thick as two planks and all shades in between, so you will forgive me if I do not engender you with any special knowledge because of your previous employment.

However I am interested into why you think this "public law" would be in any way connected with council tax enforcement. Also as yet I have not seen any evidence of its existence.

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

So by this logic there is no such thing as a criminal offence, Because until someone has been found guilty none exists. So I suppose we can tear up all the criminal statue as no one will ever be able to arrest anyone for anything,

If you cannot see how ridiculous this is, I am not going to be able to convince you with logical argument.

And yes by offence i mean criminal offence(what other kind of offence is there in this context), an offence against nature or perhaps the little green fairy that lives at the bottom of the garden.

[teaboy2]

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

Perhaps you should nor have tried to argue the point in the first place. Making statements and assertions is always a bad move if you do not know what you are talking about, ask BB.

The rest is just nonsense. Any offence is not proven until it has been to court, the point is that dog fouling is an offence the same as any other.

If it is not then where is the cause for complaint, the point is so simple it is hardly worth the effort, however it seems that it is nevertheless beyond your grasp.

As for anyone's right to be assume to have knowledge on the strength of their alleged previous occupation (Speak for yourself mate, i have not lied about who i am or what i do now or previously, unlike Eloise, and another whom was once banned and who you know better than most!), you will excuse me if I do not agree. We can all be what we like on here, I prefer to see authority which I can check myself, if what is said is fact then it is not hard to come by, if however it is all so much nonsense then the lack of proof / authority speaks for itself.

I post all the authority form government websites for one reason only, because it is there (Just because its there, doesn't mean its correct or up to date!), and to try and show you your errors.

In this instance though no real authority is required because anyone with an ounce of knowledge in the area would know.

Yes dog fouling is an offence (if the person suspected of it is proven to committed the offence, in court), but its not the kind of offence you have been arguing it was. From what i understood of your argument, was that a person had be found to have committed an offence purely because they had an FPN issued to them.

In regards to dog fouling, A person is merely suspected of committing an offence (like with all offences). Its is then up to the council to prove to a court that the person suspected of committing the alleged offence actually did so - Until it is proven, then no offence has actually been committed and is only suspected to have been. If I were to suspect my neighbor of committing a offence, does that mean hes actually committed one? No it doesn't!! When the police arrest you for a crime, do they saying "I am arresting you for murder", or do they say, "I'm arresting you on suspicion of murder"? Its the latter of the two. Doesn't section 55 of the 2005 act state under section 56 (1(a)) "an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under a dog control order made by that authority;" (Reason to believe is suspicion that a person, or to suspect a person).

It was you that argued the point in the first place, not myself. There was no need for you to state what you did in your first post, since MIA was never given an FPN and had her dog had not fouled the land. Which was evident by the CEO not being able to show her it and instead simply proceeded to point out a pile of dog mess at random.

I see your now referring to it as an offence rather than criminal offence. So we now gone from it being a criminal matter, constitutes a crime under criminal law, criminal offence to just "offence".

[bluebottle]

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

Sorry I do not seem to be able to find this, do you have a link, all I can find is this and it is a practice directive

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...aw_outline.pdf


Not sure what you mean by "desperate" you have been repeatedly caught in errors, all documented on here for posterity.
Just trying to ascertain if this is yet another, it is looking good so far.

Unlike you, it would seem, I took exams in law, when in the police which, for your information, draw the questions from Bar exams. After I retired from the police, due to a knee injury, I studied a number of areas of the law which have come in handy over the years.

For your information, what is termed "Public Law", as I have already explained in a previous post, is the law applicable to the administration of government, whether it be central or local. It provides local authorities with their power to exist and to provide public services. It does not provide them with powers to concoct laws as a means of extracting money from people in the form of penalties.

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

This is certainly an interesting learning curve for me and this is what I understand from the material provided above and from my own researches (can’t believe I’m spending so much energy on dog poo):



From:



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/20/section/4



(see also Section 3 of this act as quoted by Andy above)

I understand this to mean that, although the Enforcement Officer believes himself to have witnessed a criminal offence, he has the duty to offer the alleged offender a fixed fine as an alternative to prosecution and possible conviction for that offence.

The question as to whether or not the alleged offender did indeed commit the act (their innocence or guilt) has no bearing on the criminality of the offence itself.

So, as with many driving offences, the alleged perpetrator is given the option of throwing up their hands, saying “It’s a fair cop, Guv” and paying the fine, thereby avoiding any further action (and possible conviction) or going to court , contesting the charge before a Judge and answering the allegations (the onus of proof being, as always, on the prosecution).

Please read this too – the magnitude of the problem and TH’s LA’s measures to remedy are an eye-opener IMVHO



http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/...scoop_law.aspx

I don’t “get” the argument that the original “summary” offence isn’t in itself a criminal offence unless/until the FPN (a legal alternative to prosecution) isn’t paid – only then becoming criminal - please would someone clarify (or concede)? Does this argument have factual merit? Is there any evidence?

It’s not semantics, it’s important to get this absolutely clear – both arguments can’t be correct.

See also:

http://docklandswire.wordpress.com/2...E2%80%9Cscoop-the-poop%E2%80%9D-london-dog-wardens-warn/

Yes indeed, the fact is that there is only civil and criminal. Civil offences do not permit punishment to be given out, they can only issue recompense for damages sustained.

A fine or even a fixed penalty notice is punishment. The rest is nonsense.

I agree that the chap who tried to issue the ticket was a burke, however he did have the authority of criminal law to make the charge and accuse the OP of the offence, even though misguided in this instance.

[MissFM]

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

To the OP:

Mio – I’ve just re- watched your 2 videos and in view of (to me!) recent enlightenment on the law in general re this subject - Tower Hamlets’ bylaws in particular - I’ve rather changed my view. Add links below to reading matter above (lol!)

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news_...g_fouling.aspx

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/...n_service.aspx

FWIW, I don’t think Officer Khan exceeded his remit or his authority although he could have been less clumsy in exercising it; your companion’s apparently (from the soundtrack) confrontational attitude didn’t seem to me to be helpful.


I note in video 2 Officer Khan says that he saw your dog, when you were ahead of her, “take up position” and “perform” before entering the water, and that he is prepared to give evidence in court (under oath) to this effect. I’m not suggesting either you (or he) are lying but that it may indeed have happened thus, your dog getting in some extra relief - (you having been lulled into a false sense of security by the first poo) - or it may have been the random dog in the red coat. Or A.N.Other. One of you is mistaken.



In any case, you don’t have a FPN. Which is a stroke of luck in the circumstances.

IMVHO you would not be wise to sue anybody for anything, although you could, obviously, complain to the council about Officer Khan if you wanted to. I wouldn't. Just my thoughts, though, offered honestly in the hope that it might help in some way


Good luck whatever you decide – lovely dog, btw! aw:

[MissFM]

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

This is certainly an interesting learning curve for me and this is what I understand from the material provided above and from my own researches (can’t believe I’m spending so much energy on dog poo):



From:



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/20/section/4

4 Fixed penalty notices.

(1) Where on any occasion an authorised officer of a local authority finds a person who he has reason to believe has on that occasion committed an offence under section 3 above in the area of that authority, he may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty.
…..
(4)In this section “authorised officer”, in relation to a local authority, means any employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of issuing notices under this section.

(see also Section 3 of this act as quoted by Andy above)

I understand this to mean that, although the Enforcement Officer believes himself to have witnessed a criminal offence, he has the duty to offer the alleged offender a fixed fine as an alternative to prosecution and possible conviction for that offence.

The question as to whether or not the alleged offender did indeed commit the act (their innocence or guilt) has no bearing on the criminality of the offence itself.

So, as with many driving offences, the alleged perpetrator is given the option of throwing up their hands, saying “It’s a fair cop, Guv” and paying the fine, thereby avoiding any further action (and possible conviction) or going to court , contesting the charge before a Judge and answering the allegations (the onus of proof being, as always, on the prosecution).

Please read this too – the magnitude of the problem and TH’s LA’s measures to remedy are an eye-opener IMVHO



http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/...scoop_law.aspx

I don’t “get” the argument that the original “summary” offence isn’t in itself a criminal offence unless/until the FPN (a legal alternative to prosecution) isn’t paid – only then becoming criminal - please would someone clarify (or concede)? Does this argument have factual merit? Is there any evidence?

It’s not semantics, it’s important to get this absolutely clear – both arguments can’t be correct.

See also:

http://docklandswire.wordpress.com/2...E2%80%9Cscoop-the-poop%E2%80%9D-london-dog-wardens-warn/

Tower Hamlets designated all streets, parks and housing estates under the Dogs Fouling of Land Act in 1996, which makes it a criminal offence if dog owners do not immediately dispose of the waste. Failure to comply can lead to a £1,000 fine. The council hands out free waste bags and litter bins equipped with “poop scoops” for disposal are available across the borough.

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

What Part of, its not relevant to this thread whether its a criminal offence, criminal matter or not, do you not understand - i have said this as such on a number of occasions!

We have now had 5 pages of mainly yourself posting links and arguing about that its a criminal offence, criminal matter. Where bluebottle who has served many years enforcing criminal law as a police officer has also stated its not a criminal matter, which i agree with.

You started out saying it was a criminal matter, then you argued its a criminal offence. But that fact is, MIA did not commit any offence of any kind. So thank you andy, for arguing and destroying this thread over a subject you brought up that was not even relevant to the thread in the first place.

For the record, its a summary offence under environmental crime laws (where liability is extinguished by payment of FPN) where your prosecuted by the council. Its not a criminal offence under criminal law (enforced by the police and CPS and tried under indictment) - There's a difference you know. And on top of that, no offence whatsoever, regards or type of offence, has been committed until a court/jury says a person has committed it - And i bet my last dollar that bluebottle agrees.

Perhaps you should nor have tried to argue the point in the first place. Making statements and assertions is always a bad move if you do not know what you are talking about, ask BB.

The rest is just nonsense. Any offence is not proven until it has been to court, the point is that dog fouling is an offence the same as any other.

If it is not then where is the cause for complaint, the point is so simple it is hardly worth the effort, however it seems that it is nevertheless beyond your grasp.

As for anyone's right to be assume to have knowledge on the strength of their alleged previous occupation, you will excuse me if I do not agree. We can all be what we like on here, I prefer to see authority which I can check myself, if what is said is fact then it is not hard to come by, if however it is all so much nonsense then the lack of proof / authority speaks for itself.

I post all the authority form government websites for one reason only, because it is there, and to try and show you your errors.

In this instance though no real authority is required because anyone with an ounce of knowledge in the area would know.

[bluebottle]

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

What Part of, its not relevant to this thread whether its a criminal offence, criminal matter or not, do you not understand - i have said this as such on a number of occasions!

We have now had 5 pages of mainly yourself posting links and arguing about that its a criminal offence, criminal matter. Where bluebottle who has served many years enforcing criminal law as a police officer has also stated its not a criminal matter, which i agree with.

You started out saying it was a criminal matter, then you argued its a criminal offence. But that fact is, MIA did not commit any offence of any kind. So thank you andy, for arguing and destroying this thread over a subject you brought up that was not even relevant to the thread in the first place.

For the record, its a summary offence under environmental crime laws (where liability is extinguished by payment of FPN) where your prosecuted by the council. Its not a criminal offence under criminal law (enforced by the police and CPS and tried under indictment) - There's a difference you know. And on top of that, no offence whatsoever, regards or type of offence, has been committed until a court/jury says a person has committed it - And i bet my last dollar that bluebottle agrees.

100%.

[teaboy2]

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

What Part of, its not relevant to this thread whether its a criminal offence, criminal matter or not, do you not understand - i have said this as such on a number of occasions!

We have now had 5 pages of mainly yourself posting links and arguing about that its a criminal offence, criminal matter. Where bluebottle who has served many years enforcing criminal law as a police officer has also stated its not a criminal matter, which i agree with.

You started out saying it was a criminal matter, then you argued its a criminal offence. But that fact is, MIA did not commit any offence of any kind. So thank you andy, for arguing and destroying this thread over a subject you brought up that was not even relevant to the thread in the first place.

For the record, its a summary offence under environmental crime laws (where liability is extinguished by payment of FPN) where your prosecuted by the council. Its not a criminal offence under criminal law (enforced by the police and CPS and tried under indictment) - There's a difference you know. And on top of that, no offence whatsoever, regards or type of offence, has been committed until a court/jury says a person has committed it - And i bet my last dollar that bluebottle agrees.

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

Public Law is that relating to the administration of government and public services. Have you gotten so desperate that you are now resorting to the statements you have made?

Sorry I do not seem to be able to find this, do you have a link, all I can find is this and it is a practice directive

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...aw_outline.pdf


Not sure what you mean by "desperate" you have been repeatedly caught in errors, all documented on here for posterity.
Just trying to ascertain if this is yet another, it is looking good so far.

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

Here is a bit more for you

http://kb.keepbritaintidy.org/dogs/p...s/guidedog.pdf

The maximum penalty for committing an offence under
a Dog Control Order is £1000 in a Magistrates Court.
However an authorised officer of an authority may
alternatively issue a Fixed Penalty Notice. The amount
of the fixed penalty can be set by the local authority
within a prescribed range, but will be £75 unless
another amount is specified.

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

It is interesting to note that I have come up with over twenty pieces of authority to support my position and you and BB have yet to come up with a single one.

HMM Wonder why that is ?

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

I am afraid the law is clear, and if not a criminal offence then what justification for any action at all, on behalf of the police or their representative, you must see your arguments make no sense.

Any criminal act has to be acted on by the enforcement agency before guilt is proven, that is just the way our criminal justice system works teaboy, innocent until proven guilty, you heard of that one?

It does not mean that the offences do not fall under the heading of criminal law. I could post pages of authority and incidents of people being fined under the criminal aspects discussed here , but if you google "is dog fouling a criminal act" you will find them yourself

All this is very fundamental stuff I must say