Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[bluebottle]

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

Here was my reply in case you missed it

You seem to have conveniently-overlooked the fact that the text of the website page you have provided a link for has been written so that those who are not legally-trained or work in allied fields, e.g. law enforcement, can understand it. However, it is also known that there are factions within government agencies and departments who disseminate false or misleading information to the public. Although it may say "Civil" in the text on the website, anything relating to the administration of government and public services would come under the general heading of Public Law.

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

To the OP

If it were me I would have a word with my Councillor, perhaps attend his/her next surgery, he will be aware of the arrangements for community policing and will be in a position to make a complaint on your behalf.

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

There again the Magistrates courts themselves seem to dissagree with you

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-...headingAnchor3

Magistrates - Civil

Although most magistrates deal with criminal work, they also decide many civil matters, particularly in relation to family work. Magistrates' civil roles include dealing with cases such as non-payment of council tax.

Did they teach you anything at bobby school

Here was my reply in case you missed it

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

You're clutching at straws, Andy58. Council Tax falls under the scope of Public Law, not Civil Law. It was Parliament who decided to deem magistrates courts the venue for hearing such cases. Incidentally, a court can be held almost anywhere. It doesn't have to be held in a court building. Courts have been held in public halls.

Here you go,

[bluebottle]

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

Sorry I must have missed your explanation, I remember seeing some unsubstantiated nonsense relating to council tax which was proven to be complete rubbish, is that what you mean.

I am still awaiting some link to this. When ever you are ready.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate and qualify your statement as to what is "unsubstantiated nonsense relating to Council Tax which was proven to be complete rubbish".

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

I am of the view that your Convention rights under Article 6 of ECHR were breached and that Khan, his colleagues and London Borough of Tower Hamlets have probably breached Articles 17 and 18 also. However, you do need to confirm this with a legal professional. That is most important.

As for Common Purpose, the organisation and its "graduates" are terrified of exposure. That is their Achille's Heel. You might like to contact Brian Gerrish at UK Column. He is an authority on Common Purpose and the sort of agenda Citizen Khan appears to be following.

Hope this and the comments in red text helps.

Yes I would contact the UN task-force and see if they will send a cruiser,

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

Unfortunately, Mio, Andy58 has caused confusion by his argumentative nature. The temptation to shake him warmly by the throat is becoming irresistible.

Lats not get carried away BB, someone has to correct your factual errors, anyway you seem to have gotten back into rhetoric mode now,
I see your conspiracy theories are coming out as well, much better than trying to quote actual law, especially in your case.
This is your strength I would work with that,

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

I am not going to repeat myself as to what Public Law is. If you are so pig-headed and argumentative to understand what I am trying to explain to you, I am not going to waste what energy I have repeating myself.

Sorry I must have missed your explanation, I remember seeing some unsubstantiated nonsense relating to council tax which was proven to be complete rubbish, is that what you mean.

I am still awaiting some link to this. When ever you are ready.

[bluebottle]

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

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.

Either Citizen Khan has telescopic vision or neither he or Tower Hamlets Council understand or have even a basic grasp of the rules of evidence. Do they honestly believe a court would swallow a statement that Citizen Khan saw your dog take a dump at some considerable distance when, in reality, it would not have been possible to see what the dog was doing? Of course they wouldn't. What Citizen Khan claims he saw is stretching the truth as it defies the laws of physics.

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.

See above comment.

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.

That sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable. It is almost certainly a breach of the Public Order Act 1986.

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?

Definitely not. The question that comes to mind is "How many others has Citizen Khan done this to and how many others are he and his colleagues likely to do it to if they are not stopped?"

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.

Further evidence of unacceptable conduct.

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?

It sounds deliberate to me. If you go on the UK Column website at www.ukcolumn.org you will find a link to check their Common Purpose database. If it comes up with any at London Borough of Tower Hamlets, it is a pretty good indication they have an infestation of their "graduates". Common Purpose is a Marxist organisation that masquerades as an educational charity. They have been linked to some pretty nasty incidents and fraud.

To be honest, Mio, I would strongly advise you to seek advice and guidance from a legal professional. They will be in a better position to advise as to what options are available to you.

I am of the view that your Convention rights under Article 6 of ECHR were breached and that Khan, his colleagues and London Borough of Tower Hamlets have probably breached Articles 17 and 18 also. However, you do need to confirm this with a legal professional. That is most important.

As for Common Purpose, the organisation and its "graduates" are terrified of exposure. That is their Achille's Heel. You might like to contact Brian Gerrish at UK Column. He is an authority on Common Purpose and the sort of agenda Citizen Khan appears to be following.

Hope this and the comments in red text helps.

[bluebottle]

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

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?

Unfortunately, Mio, Andy58 has caused confusion by his argumentative nature. The temptation to shake him warmly by the throat is becoming irresistible.

[bluebottle]

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

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.

I am not going to repeat myself as to what Public Law is. If you are so pig-headed and argumentative to understand what I am trying to explain to you, I am not going to waste what energy I have repeating myself.

[mio]

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

To the OP:

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.

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?

[mio]

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/

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'

[mio]

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

it is only treated as a criminal matter once prosecution is brought by the council. Prior to that it is a civil matter.

So... in my case, at the point the Police arrived, it was an alleged civil offense? And remained an alleged civil offence even after the CEO filled out a form reporting me for prosecution? And, had the Tower Hamlets Council decided to pursue prosecution, it would have remained an alleged civil offence, only becoming a criminal offence if a court had heard the case and decided in their favour? Or am I completely misunderstanding?

[mio]

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

I can see, and agree, that no offence was committed by the OP if she is telling the truth and also that the para-policeperson appears to have behaved ridiculously; nevertheless it does seem important (specially for dog owners) to establish the correct ground rules, since it's come up:juge:

Thank you, yes, it is important for me to understand my rights and to know if, as Tower Hamlets Council says, Mr Khan acted appropriately, or if he was wrong. I would like to know what is the best thing to do in this situation and would like to be able to advise others. It's not something I ever thought I would have to deal with, because I do always clean up after the dogs in my care, but now it seems like this kind of thing could happen at any time.