Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[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%.

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[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:

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[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".

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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

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

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?

[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.