Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[teaboy2]

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

Yes paying the FPN avoids prosecution, I think we all know that, however the ability to issue a FPN is given because a criminal act has taken place, A violation of criminal law. - And who decides that, for a matter of fact, a criminal act has occurred?.. the CEO?.. Since when did the CEO have to power to convict someone on the spot? No criminal act has occurred, it is merely suspected by the CEO that someone has committed an offence


Or are you saying that any offence for which a FPN can be issued is not really an offence, if so by what right do the police issue anything. - FPNS are issued on CEOs suspicion alone. Issuing FPNs is not based on a matter of fact that an offence has occurred. It is for a court/jury to decide if an offence has occured or not. Prior to that it is deemed to not have occurred until proven otherwise.

You seem you have changed tack somewhat, but your argument is still hopeless.

I have not changed tact at all. I its not a criminal offence, its only a criminal offence when a person is found guilty by court/jury and it is only treated as a criminal matter once prosecution is brought by the council. Prior to that it is a civil matter. I have stated that repeatedly.

You changed from stating it was a criminal matter, to it consituted a crime (and/or criminal act). to now stating a person has committed (convicted off) a criminal offence, just because they have been issued with a fixed penalty notice. No one has is guilty of committing a criminal offence until they are found guilty in court or by jury. That is the number 1 rule of criminal law.

The law doesn't even deem dog fouling as a criminal offence anyway. So your were wrong from start to finish!

[bluebottle]

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

Incidentally "Public law" is this anther new category you invented similar to the " not quite criminal ", I would love to hear more about this one too.

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?

[bluebottle]

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

Yes paying the FPN avoids prosecution, I think we all know that, however the ability to issue a FPN is given because a criminal act has taken place, A violation of criminal law.

Or are you saying that any offence for which a FPN can be issued is not really an offence, if so by what right do the police issue anything.

You seem you have changed tack somewhat, but your argument is still hopeless.

Just because some disingenuous and corrupt politicians and civil serpents come up with some alleged law to allow "pretend police officers" like Citizen Khan to dish out pieces of paper for alleged offences in order to extort money from them and tell them to appeal to a court does not mean it is law. Far from it. We have politicians who make laws, knowing that some of those laws breach not only English Law, but International Law also. As stated about, Convention rights under ECHR are inalienable - they cannot be taken away - and inviolate - politicians cannot breach them, even though the disingenuous so-and-sos frequently do.

Citizen Khan was on a sticky wicket with his imaginary dog poo number and he knew it. So desperate was he to issue a ticket he went off in search of a dog poo, but could not state for definite whether he had seen Mia's dog do the dirty deed. That is how unsafe and legally dubious not only the law, but the likes of Citizen Khan and his colleagues' actions are.

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

Incidentally "Public law" is this anther new category you invented similar to the " not quite criminal ", I would love to hear more about this one too.

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.

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

[bluebottle]

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

Magistrates courts can hear some Civil complaints of course, for instance council tax, where a warrant or liability order is required.

The point is that they either hear civil or criminal cases they do not have a category for, "just a bit criminal", minor criminal offences are just given smaller fines

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.

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

Yes paying the FPN avoids prosecution, I think we all know that, however the ability to issue a FPN is given because a criminal act has taken place, A violation of criminal law.

Or are you saying that any offence for which a FPN can be issued is not really an offence, if so by what right do the police issue anything.

You seem you have changed tack somewhat, but your argument is still hopeless.

[teaboy2]

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

[QUOTE=bluebottle;407735]

As i have said before. No criminal offence has occurred until and only until the recipient fails to both pay the fine or opt to appeal via a court hearing! (Payment of FPN is not an admission of guilt according to the Crown Court). So there is no liability to any criminal offence, as the criminal offence is not deemed to have occurred until a court says otherwise (Innocent to proven guilty) and a fine is registered against them.

An criminal offence does not occur just because a CEO with a pad full of FPN suspects you to have committed one. There needs to be evidence to support the CEO suspicion or allegation against a person.

What your trying to tell us, is basically akin to someone being suspected/accused of abusive language by a CEO and being given an FPN. When, in fact, the recipient had never said a word at all and its was the CEO simply hearing things in his head. Which is stupid, but that is exactly what you are saying. Your saying because the CEO suspected it, then the person the CEO suspected or accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence! Do you see just how dangerous and open to miscarriage of justice that is.

Its also strange, don't you think that only those that do not turn up to court end up with court fines for it. I bet 90% of times where an FPN is issued is based on CEO word against the alleged offender, with no physical evidence - It be like this in court CEO "yes did" Defendant "No i didn't CEO "Yes you did" defendant "Noooo Iiii DDDDidn't!". And body cam footage is not reliable, as the body cam faces one way, whilst the CEO's head could be looking to his right or left when they claim to see you. Also, isn't falsely accusing someone of an offence known as perverting the course of justice, punishable as a criminal offence under common law.

Even the Police Officers that spoke to MIA confirmed it was not a criminal matter, therefore it was a civil one between MIA, the CEO(s) and the council.

Also i said its the council that prosecutes, i didn't say the prosecution was carried out at the councils offices!!


I have just noted the bit I have highlighted in bold text, TB. It breaches Article 6 of ECHR and, consequently, puts London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Citizen Khan in breach of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, rendering their actions unlawful. You cannot just hand out penalty tickets and tell someone they can appeal to a court if they don't agree. If you are accusing someone of any offence, the matter needs to go before a court. That is an inalienable and inviolate right under English and International Law. The politicians and other factions in the corridors of power have been tampering with our laws in the misguided belief they can fool the public into believing the likes of Citizen Khan have legal authority. Citizen Khan has no more authority to dish out pieces of paper and accuse people of doing things than next-door's cat. Any legal provision that is incompatible with the rights under ECHR is likely to unravel when put to strict legal and judicial scrutiny.

Exactly Bluebottle - I couldn't agree more with you.

I won't be replying to andy, as its clear he doesn't actually know of what type of offence dog fouling is, as its not a criminal offence under law. I'll PM you more about what i mean bluebottle, though you probably already know.

[bluebottle]

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

[QUOTE=teaboy2;407681]As i have said before. No criminal offence has occurred until and only until the recipient fails to both pay the fine or opt to appeal via a court hearing! (Payment of FPN is not an admission of guilt according to the Crown Court). So there is no liability to any criminal offence, as the criminal offence is not deemed to have occurred until a court says otherwise (Innocent to proven guilty) and a fine is registered against them.

An criminal offence does not occur just because a CEO with a pad full of FPN suspects you to have committed one. There needs to be evidence to support the CEO suspicion or allegation against a person.

What your trying to tell us, is basically akin to someone being suspected/accused of abusive language by a CEO and being given an FPN. When, in fact, the recipient had never said a word at all and its was the CEO simply hearing things in his head. Which is stupid, but that is exactly what you are saying. Your saying because the CEO suspected it, then the person the CEO suspected or accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence! Do you see just how dangerous and open to miscarriage of justice that is.

Its also strange, don't you think that only those that do not turn up to court end up with court fines for it. I bet 90% of times where an FPN is issued is based on CEO word against the alleged offender, with no physical evidence - It be like this in court CEO "yes did" Defendant "No i didn't CEO "Yes you did" defendant "Noooo Iiii DDDDidn't!". And body cam footage is not reliable, as the body cam faces one way, whilst the CEO's head could be looking to his right or left when they claim to see you. Also, isn't falsely accusing someone of an offence known as perverting the course of justice, punishable as a criminal offence under common law.

Even the Police Officers that spoke to MIA confirmed it was not a criminal matter, therefore it was a civil one between MIA, the CEO(s) and the council.

Also i said its the council that prosecutes, i didn't say the prosecution was carried out at the councils offices!!


Note the bit I have highlighted in bold text, TB. It breaches Article 6 of ECHR and, consequently, puts London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Citizen Khan in breach of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, rendering their actions unlawful. You cannot just hand out penalty tickets and tell someone they can appeal to a court if they don't agree. If you are accusing someone of any offence, the matter needs to go before a court. That is an inalienable and inviolate right under English and International Law. The politicians and other factions in the corridors of power have been tampering with our laws in the misguided belief they can fool the public into believing the likes of Citizen Khan have legal authority. Citizen Khan has no more authority to dish out pieces of paper and accuse people of doing things than next-door's cat. Any legal provision that is incompatible with the rights under ECHR is likely to unravel when put to strict legal and judicial scrutiny.

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

Magistrates courts can hear some Civil complaints of course, for instance council tax, where a warrant or liability order is required.

The point is that they either hear civil or criminal cases they do not have a category for, "just a bit criminal", minor criminal offences are just given smaller fines

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

Interesting has this been repealed then ? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/91

The Criminal justice act ? As for the CPS being advisory well they advise that dog fouling is a criminal matter and really they should know

91Drunkenness in a public place.

(1)

Any person who in any public place is guilty, while drunk, of disorderly behaviour may be arrested without warrant by any person and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

(2)

The foregoing subsection shall have effect instead of any corresponding provision contained in section 12 of the M1Licensing Act 1872, section 58 of the M2Metropolitan Police Act 1839, section 37 of the M3City of London Police Act 1839, and section 29 of the M4Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (being enactments which authorise the imposition of a short term of imprisonment or of a fine not exceeding £10 or both for the corresponding offence) and instead of any corresponding provision contained in any local Act.

(3)

The Secretary of State may by order repeal any provision of a local Act which appears to him to be a provision corresponding to subsection (1) of this section or to impose a liability to imprisonment for an offence of drunkenness or of being incapable while drunk.

(4)

In this section “public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.

(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2

[bluebottle]

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

Being Drunk and Disorderly In A Public Place, whilst dealt with by a magistrates court, is a strictly non-crime offence. Don't forget that the CPS act as an advisory body as well as a prosecuting body. They only get involved in their prosecuting role in criminal cases, which are offences where the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of five years or more.

If Dog Fouling was deemed a criminal offence, it would bring the justice system into disrepute and make it a laughing stock. No one would take it seriously or have any confidence in it.

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

What the fxxk does this mean
We are talking about what actions constitute a criminal offence, not guilt or innocence.

Your innocent if you shoot someone in the head until the court proves otherwise

#I give up on this thread


Not picking up poo after your dog is a criminal offence, punishable by a maximum fine of £1000.

I Don;t have a clue what the hell else you are on about. Issuance of a FPN allows the offender to escape prosecution by paying a smaller amount if they choose not to pay they can opt to defend in court if they fail they will get a criminal fine.

[teaboy2]

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

As i have said before. No criminal offence has occurred until and only until the recipient fails to both pay the fine or opt to appeal via a court hearing! (Payment of FPN is not an admission of guilt according to the Crown Court). So there is no liability to any criminal offence, as the criminal offence is not deemed to have occurred until a court says otherwise (Innocent to proven guilty) and a fine is registered against them.

An criminal offence does not occur just because a CEO with a pad full of FPN suspects you to have committed one. There needs to be evidence to support the CEO suspicion or allegation against a person.

What your trying to tell us, is basically akin to someone being suspected/accused of abusive language by a CEO and being given an FPN. When, in fact, the recipient had never said a word at all and its was the CEO simply hearing things in his head. Which is stupid, but that is exactly what you are saying. Your saying because the CEO suspected it, then the person the CEO suspected or accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence! Do you see just how dangerous and open to miscarriage of justice that is.

Its also strange, don't you think that only those that do not turn up to court end up with court fines for it. I bet 90% of times where an FPN is issued is based on CEO word against the alleged offender, with no physical evidence - It be like this in court CEO "yes did" Defendant "No i didn't CEO "Yes you did" defendant "Noooo Iiii DDDDidn't!". And body cam footage is not reliable, as the body cam faces one way, whilst the CEO's head could be looking to his right or left when they claim to see you. Also, isn't falsely accusing someone of an offence known as perverting the course of justice, punishable as a criminal offence under common law.

Even the Police Officers that spoke to MIA confirmed it was not a criminal matter, therefore it was a civil one between MIA, the CEO(s) and the council.

Also i said its the council that prosecutes, i didn't say the prosecution was carried out at the councils offices!!

[QUOTE=andy58;407431]

I made a simple statement of fact, I correcting a poster, when I stated that dog fouling is a criminal offence, this was a statement of fact. You decided to argue , that is not my fault. - Thats funny, just who were you correcting exactly, becuase i don't see anyone (Myself or Bluebottle) prior to your posting saying it was not a criminal offence! So just who were you correcting, as to me you were not correcting anyone. As such you brought a subject of criminality into this thread, where it was not even relevant to the thread since MIA was never given a FPN. Probably because the CEO realised his job was more important that the extra pennies in bonus he get for that 1 ticket.

As for enforcement, as explained before the current position is that the 2005 act is in place until the particular council adopts the statutory option of adopting a by law using a regulation under the act.

This does not mean that it is no longer a criminal act, it just means that the enforcement is done via a bylaw. This is all irrelevant to the point of if this is a criminal or civil act.

If punishment is involved (ie a fine) it has to be a criminal sanction, punishment is not allowed under civil law. law 101 - Guess you have never heard of Civil Penalties/fines, which are punishment under civil law, just like council enforced parking tickets (FPN).

No one here is saying that one can not be convicted of a criminal offence for dog fouling, what i and saying (and i believe bluebottle is also saying) is that an criminal offense can not have occurred until one is convicted of it. If your not convicted of it, then as far as the law is concerned, a criminal offence has not occurred.

SO until the FPN is either not paid or the recipient has not opted to have a court hearing within the required time-frame, it is treated as civil matter!! Its only after the non payment and failure to opt for court hearing with the time frame, that it is then treated as a criminal matter. And even then, it has to go to court, where no crimminal offence is deemed to have occurred until proven otherwise in court (innocent till proven guilty).

You can't go up to someone on the street and say you dropped that mars bar wrapper, thats blowing around the accused feet, and then shout at top of your voice, "Hey this guys a criminal"!! - That would be slander, as the accused has not been covicted of an offence and in the eyes of the law, that means no offence was committed. CEO's can issue FPN(s) simply on suspicion, but being issued one doesn't mean you have committed a crime, and that your actions were criminal.

End of the day, MIAs dog did not foul, Mia was not given an FPN, so what was the point in bringing up the subject of criminal act relating to dog fouling and desecrating this post after post contain links and qoutes on legislation not even relevant to MIA's actual circumstances. So for the, what fifth, or is now sixth time, whether its a criminal or a civil matter it is not relevant to MIA's thread!!

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

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/59

This is the authority for the FPN, Notice the section where it says," CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE" I wonder what it means

59


Fixed penalty notices

(1)

This section applies where on any occasion—

(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; or

(b)

an authorised officer of a secondary authority has reason to believe that a person has in its area committed an offence under a dog control order made by a primary authority.

(2)

The authorised officer may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty.

(3)

A fixed penalty payable under this section is payable to the primary or secondary authority whose officer gave the notice.

(4)

Where a person is given a notice under this section in respect of an offence—

(a)

no proceedings may be instituted for that offence before the expiration of the period of fourteen days following the date of the notice; and

(b)

he may not be convicted of that offence if he pays the fixed penalty before the expiration of that period.