Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[Guest]

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

[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.

[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.

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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 ?

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[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.