Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[mio]

A New year's day dog walk went horribly wrong when I encountered an over-zealous civil enforcement officer in Victoria Park, Tower Hamlets. Here's the chain of events.

It's New Years Day and we take the dogs for a morning walk. My dog poos, I bag it, bin it and continue our walk.

About 20 to 30 minutes later a civil enforcement offer shouts me over. I put my (female) dog on lead and approach.

He accuses me of failing to remove a dog poo and I tell him he has made a mistake but if he can show me a poo my dog has done I will get rid of it. I am sure he is wrong. He refuses and demands my details repeatedly and reads me my rights. He wants to give me a ticket and/ or have me arrested.

As he's already told me where he says the incident took place, but refused to allow me to go there to see evidence, so I walk to that location, against his will and my friend begins filming. Part 1 video on Youtube

If, in the highly unlikely event my dog has done a second sneaky poo somewhere I want to remove it and if, in the more likely event she hasn't, the guy will have no evidence and we can go home and enjoy the new year.

The enforcement officer calls for Police back-up and continues to demand my details

I provide details - I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. He doesn't have time to write them down because he's too busy reading me rights and threatening me with arrest.

The enforcement officer continues to demand details and refuses to show me the poo. We now are convinced there is no poo and that this guy is making it up in order to meet his ticket quota.

I am informed we are now being monitored on CCTV and on radio by the Police. "Good" I thought - "This is crazy".

More pleading with the officer to please evidence his claims and "SHOW US THE POO!" I
We stop filming part 1.

About 10 minutes of "SHOW ME THE POO" later, he declares "The poo was here, but it is gone now."

The enforcement officer then wonders off looking at the floor and in an area nearby he does indeed locate a poo. Part 2 begins. Part 2 video on YouTube

"Right then," I say "I don't believe this poo has anything to do with me, but because you do, and because I respect your authority, I'll remove it." This is not an admission of anything, other than that I am a responsible dog owner and would be devastated if I had in fact missed my dog having another poo.

I have a pocket full of dog poo bags every where I go, because I clean up after my dog! If there is a problem in Tower Hamlets with dog poo in the street, it has absolutely nothing to do with me or my dog.

I was then followed around and out of the park by the enforcement officer and two more of his civil enforcement colleagues, while he continued to radio for Police back-up and continued to harass me for my details, which I had already provided.

Outside the park, the Police arrived. They said it was not a criminal matter and that they had no problem with either me or my dog. Due to running out of memory on the iPhone, we haven't got a video for part three.

I have since requested the bodycam footage from Tower Hamlets Council but this has not been responded too. I have also made a complaint against the CEO. The council are backing him up so far.

My questions are:

1 - Was I legally obliged to give my details to the CEO? (I have been told by several others that I was not)
2 - How do I issue a claim against Tower Hamlets Council for the harassment and distress he caused me?

Thanks for any advice.

[bluebottle]

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

This is a tongue-in-cheek parody of Citizen Khan's behaviour. Those of you old enough - myself included - may remember a pop singer named Alvin Stardust who released a record entitled "My Koo Ka Choo" during the 1970s. The parody uses the tune from this -

Hey, you. I just saw you
Let your dog do a ruddy great poo.
I'm gonna give a ticket to you
Cos you let him poo, poo, poo.

[bluebottle]

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

:focus:

One other little quickie, Mio, is that IMO it really would be worthwhile getting expert legal advice if you wish to take this further down the legal route (a pro bono solicitor http://www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk/ should you be strapped for cash) - it looks like a bit of a minefield to me, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, especially in view of your videos (your companion's apparent behaviour in particular).

What I would have suggested would have been to take it to the press - but you have already done this with great aplomb!

Wishing you the very best in this - my personal opinion is that you have been caught in the usual trap in which the law abiding are ensnared - ie we are sitting ducks for nervous law-enforcers who have the choice between nabbing non-threatening targets and scary scallies wielding knives and pit-bulls x

They tend to go for the easy targets rather than those they should be tackling. Very valid point, MissFM. I am in agreement that Mio needs to go down the formal legal route about Citizen Khan's behaviour if his employers will not take this matter seriously. The National Pro Bono Centre is an ideal start for such a course of action.

[teaboy2]

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

For those wishing to follow the debate/argument about dog fouling and council tax i created a new thread here for it - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...209#post408209

Apologies to you MIA for the direction this thread went. Laws can be a confusing subject at the best of time, and people can be very enthusiastic in support of their opinion or interpretation. Fact is, whether it was a criminal matter or not, simply is not relevant to your circumstances - And council tax certainly isn't relevant at all.

Also thanks to EXC too (You know what for)!

[MissFM]

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

:focus:

One other little quickie, Mio, is that IMO it really would be worthwhile getting expert legal advice if you wish to take this further down the legal route (a pro bono solicitor http://www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk/ should you be strapped for cash) - it looks like a bit of a minefield to me, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, especially in view of your videos (your companion's apparent behaviour in particular).

What I would have suggested would have been to take it to the press - but you have already done this with great aplomb!

Wishing you the very best in this - my personal opinion is that you have been caught in the usual trap in which the law abiding are ensnared - ie we are sitting ducks for nervous law-enforcers who have the choice between nabbing non-threatening targets and scary scallies wielding knives and pit-bulls x

[MissFM]

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

Hi Mio

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?

“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'”

Yes, that’s very much in line with all the links Andy has provided and with my own research:ranger: – but it’s a little ambiguous, isn’t it? Because the law on this also says that the removal (by means of poopa scoop etc.) should be “immediate” and that ignorance etc. of the dog’s activities is no excuse.

“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?”

Of course it is – though unlikely IMO, but possible as a result of the law of unintended consequences – for example, if the THEOs have any kind of financial or job security related incentives to issue FPNs then that is likely to trigger draconian behaviour in anyone less than saintly, as you describe above. FPNs were introduced to reduce red tape and to further reduce expense in prosecuting relatively trivial (summary) criminal charges.


The confusion over whether or not allowing your dog to poop and not immediately removing the poo is a criminal or civil offence IMVHO arises from the fact that, although prosecutable (an offence) under criminal law, it is a summary (rather than indictable) offence – ie it can be dealt with by a FPN should the accused accept liability, otherwise dealt with by a magistrates court if the FPN (allegation) is disputed – all a lot quicker, more appropriate and less expensive than a Jury Trial: a well-documented distinction within criminal law .

“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?”

The THEO has a duty to get your details if he has reason to believe an offence has been committed. The “grey areas”, as I understand, are whether or not a refusal to provide those details is an offence (giving false details definitely is) and whether the THEO has the power of arrest (I don’t think he does, but it’s not clear). The police would certainly have the power to arrest under these circumstances.


He certainly does have the authority and the duty to take your details and issue a FPN if he believes (has reasonable suspicion that) a crime has been committed.


Another observation – the possibility of a “squat to wee” being misinterpreted had also occurred to me. As you know, the above is more of a graceful curtsey, whilst the “intent to poo” is characterized by a distinctive roached back and upcurved tail. I wonder if the Dog enforcement officers are given any training in this, or indeed required to have knowledge of any “doggy lore” at all?

HTH, Mio - it's just my opinion - as you can see there are many differing opinions on here. We are all anonymous posters - mostly passionately caring (hence the din of clashing antlers, lol) aw

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

The OP should make complaint to her local authority regarding the unreasonable behavior of the enforcement officer concerned.

[Amethyst]

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

Okay guys, I think that is enough and you're starting to descend to name calling so if you wish to continue this discussion I will move posts to an alternative thread. Otherwise please allow the OP some chance of following the thread.

[bluebottle]

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

LOL . No I wouldn't it would be like the pot calling the kettle somewhat

Talking about yourself again, Andy?

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

I won't make any comment about your mental state .

LOL . No I wouldn't it would be like the pot calling the kettle somewhat

[bluebottle]

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

Just had to comment on this ridiculous statement, this really shows the level of your delusions.

A do you really think that the "government" would conspire to mislead the public by giving factually incorrect information in this manner, and

B If they did do you really think that they would do so on something as minor as saying something was a civil case instead of a "public law offence" (whatever that may be.)

Seriously delusional IMO

I'm afraid this post just goes to show how little you really know. I won't make any comment about your mental state as I am sure you know yourself there is something "not right" about the way in which you perceive what others say and do.

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

All this legal or not talk rather detracts from the OPs situation. Could we have here a uniformed wanna be policemen throwing his weight about?would think mthat part of the job training is to be satisfied that the OP in this case is the guilty party from what I read this should be 50/50 so maybe training would be give a polite warning,
Instead we have this Khan character turning the episode into a farce, whether or not there is anything criminal hear talk of human rights laws Etc. just elevates the farce.
one question I have is what does the OP want the outcome of this to be? we have rogue Bailiffs overstepping the mark with their powers and many others including no doubt some CEOs remember no amount of training can turn someone perfect. Here we have such a trained fool thinking they have powers that they have not.

Yes the problem is the behavior of the "officer" involved, the local community police are funded in a joint collaboration between the police force and the local authority. I was involved in the creation of such a facility for Tameside council in 2002.

The best course for a complaint would be via the council and if there is one, a question raised in the district assembly. IMO

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

However, it is also known that there are factions within government agencies and departments who disseminate false or misleading information to the public.

Just had to comment on this ridiculous statement, this really shows the level of your delusions.

A do you really think that the "government" would conspire to mislead the public by giving factually incorrect information in this manner, and

B If they did do you really think that they would do so on something as minor as saying something was a civil case instead of a "public law offence" (whatever that may be.)

Seriously delusional IMO

[wales01man]

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

All this legal or not talk rather detracts from the OPs situation. Could we have here a uniformed wanna be policemen throwing his weight about?would think mthat part of the job training is to be satisfied that the OP in this case is the guilty party from what I read this should be 50/50 so maybe training would be give a polite warning,
Instead we have this Khan character turning the episode into a farce, whether or not there is anything criminal hear talk of human rights laws Etc. just elevates the farce.
one question I have is what does the OP want the outcome of this to be? we have rogue Bailiffs overstepping the mark with their powers and many others including no doubt some CEOs remember no amount of training can turn someone perfect. Here we have such a trained fool thinking they have powers that they have not.

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

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.

So the government website is wrong BB, not you. I see.( this is a government website)

Just to cut the blarney BB, I do not accept that you have any special knowledge in any area of law, so please support any contentions with authority as I do, "because I say so", will not do.

This is way off topic. But i do find it unsettling that someone who purports to advise on bailiff matters does not know why liability orders for council tax are heard in the magistrates court, instead of the county court as you would expect of a CIVIL debt.

This as the subject of an action By Reverend Paul Nicholson and back in 2002, in which i took a minor part.

The reason, is so that criminal penalties can be applied to a civil debt(the liability order), this allows a bailiff or court officer not only to levy goods but also to commit to prison an offender for failing to pay a bill.


This is why the magistrates court is used the county court has no such power, at the time the idea that a CIVIL debt can be enforced by a penalty like this caused quite a stir and made many think of the old days where people were put into the workhouse or arrested for debt.

So there you are, a little more factual information for you to ignore.