Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Powers of a private environmental enforcement officers?
2,926 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim Watts
Jul 19, 2015, 5:09:07 PM7/19/15
to
http://www.courier.co.uk/Crackdown-littering-sees-1-300-offenders-given/story-26914322-detail/story.html
with regard to relatively newly appointed, by Tunbridge Wells Borough
Council, anti-littering enforcement officers:
(quote):
"The officers, who operate eight hours a day for six days a week, work
for private company Kingdom Security which does not charge Tunbridge
Wells Borough Council.
But it pays the council half of each £80 fixed penalty notice for
littering and £10 for each £50 dog fouling fine."
I applaud having less litter, but I am rather less enthusiastic about
the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
in proportion to the fines issued.
So what powers do a private firm's officers have, if engaged by a
council? Anything special over and above a citizen's?
What could they do if someone refused to cooperate? Could they hold them
using more than "reasonable force" until a constable arrived? (Let's
assume the person they are holding is strong enough to potentially walk
away from an attempt to restrain).
Do they even have powers to hold someone using "reasonable force"?
with regard to relatively newly appointed, by Tunbridge Wells Borough
Council, anti-littering enforcement officers:
(quote):
"The officers, who operate eight hours a day for six days a week, work
for private company Kingdom Security which does not charge Tunbridge
Wells Borough Council.
But it pays the council half of each £80 fixed penalty notice for
littering and £10 for each £50 dog fouling fine."
I applaud having less litter, but I am rather less enthusiastic about
the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
in proportion to the fines issued.
So what powers do a private firm's officers have, if engaged by a
council? Anything special over and above a citizen's?
What could they do if someone refused to cooperate? Could they hold them
using more than "reasonable force" until a constable arrived? (Let's
assume the person they are holding is strong enough to potentially walk
away from an attempt to restrain).
Do they even have powers to hold someone using "reasonable force"?
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 3:54:51 AM7/20/15
to
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:08:20 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>http://www.courier.co.uk/Crackdown-littering-sees-1-300-offenders-given/story-26914322-detail/story.html
>
>with regard to relatively newly appointed, by Tunbridge Wells Borough
>Council, anti-littering enforcement officers:
>
>(quote):
>
>"The officers, who operate eight hours a day for six days a week, work
>for private company Kingdom Security which does not charge Tunbridge
>Wells Borough Council.
>
>But it pays the council half of each £80 fixed penalty notice for
>littering and £10 for each £50 dog fouling fine."
>
>
>I applaud having less litter, but I am rather less enthusiastic about
>the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
>in proportion to the fines issued.
This isn't the devolution of policing. It's the outsourcing of a council
service. No policing powers are being exercised by the private company.
Issuing fixed penalty notices for dropping litter is one of the civil
enforcement powers of a council.
>So what powers do a private firm's officers have, if engaged by a
>council? Anything special over and above a citizen's?
They have the ability to act on behalf of the council in issuing civil
fixed penalty notices. Just as they would if they were directly employed by
the council. The nature of their employment and/or contractual relationship
with the council is not relevent to the legal situation; what matters is
the authority they act under.
But it's important here to bear in mind that even if employed directly by
the council, they would have no additional powers. Council employees are
not constables; they only have powers to do certain things (like issue
CFPNs) to the extent that the council has that power and they are acting on
the council's behalf.
>What could they do if someone refused to cooperate? Could they hold them
>using more than "reasonable force" until a constable arrived? (Let's
>assume the person they are holding is strong enough to potentially walk
>away from an attempt to restrain).
>
>Do they even have powers to hold someone using "reasonable force"?
They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
typed:
>http://www.courier.co.uk/Crackdown-littering-sees-1-300-offenders-given/story-26914322-detail/story.html
>
>with regard to relatively newly appointed, by Tunbridge Wells Borough
>Council, anti-littering enforcement officers:
>
>(quote):
>
>"The officers, who operate eight hours a day for six days a week, work
>for private company Kingdom Security which does not charge Tunbridge
>Wells Borough Council.
>
>But it pays the council half of each £80 fixed penalty notice for
>littering and £10 for each £50 dog fouling fine."
>
>
>I applaud having less litter, but I am rather less enthusiastic about
>the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
>in proportion to the fines issued.
service. No policing powers are being exercised by the private company.
Issuing fixed penalty notices for dropping litter is one of the civil
enforcement powers of a council.
>So what powers do a private firm's officers have, if engaged by a
>council? Anything special over and above a citizen's?
fixed penalty notices. Just as they would if they were directly employed by
the council. The nature of their employment and/or contractual relationship
with the council is not relevent to the legal situation; what matters is
the authority they act under.
But it's important here to bear in mind that even if employed directly by
the council, they would have no additional powers. Council employees are
not constables; they only have powers to do certain things (like issue
CFPNs) to the extent that the council has that power and they are acting on
the council's behalf.
>What could they do if someone refused to cooperate? Could they hold them
>using more than "reasonable force" until a constable arrived? (Let's
>assume the person they are holding is strong enough to potentially walk
>away from an attempt to restrain).
>
>Do they even have powers to hold someone using "reasonable force"?
situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
Message has been deleted
Tim Watts
Jul 20, 2015, 11:35:22 AM7/20/15
to
On 20/07/15 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
Thank you for confirming what I thought must be the case. However, I was
> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
partly expecting there to be some special powers.
The reason for thinking there must be some special powers granted is:
As it stands, how do they have a greater than zero success rate? It
would appear that anyone challenged could simply walk away and would not
even have to resist "reasonable restraint".
Martin Bonner
Jul 20, 2015, 12:15:00 PM7/20/15
to
with authority figures in uniforms.
Tim Watts
Jul 20, 2015, 12:49:19 PM7/20/15
to
For the most part, they are probably a force for good in that they are
standing around looking official and neat and probably put off most
potential offenders.
But I do like to know where I stand - you never know when that knowledge
might be useful[1].
[1] Perhaps an overzealous one tries to nick my kid for accidentally
loosing a wrapper due to a gust of wind or something. There have been a
few complaints about one or two of them being a bit happy with the PCN book.
Roger Hayter
Jul 20, 2015, 1:52:36 PM7/20/15
to
Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:54:38 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:08:20 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> > typed:
> >
> affect employee performance evaluation and so any integrity in the process.
I agree. But exactly the same employee performance evaluation criteria
can be, and at least in some cases, are applied by councils to their own
employees, so the privatised employees may behave no worse than the
direct council employees.
--
Roger Hayter
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:54:38 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:08:20 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> > typed:
> >
> >> I applaud having less litter, but I am rather less enthusiastic about
> >> the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
> >> in proportion to the fines issued.
> >
> > This isn't the devolution of policing. It's the outsourcing of a council
> > service. No policing powers are being exercised by the private company.
> > Issuing fixed penalty notices for dropping litter is one of the civil
> > enforcement powers of a council.
>
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/policing
> >> the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
> >> in proportion to the fines issued.
> >
> > This isn't the devolution of policing. It's the outsourcing of a council
> > service. No policing powers are being exercised by the private company.
> > Issuing fixed penalty notices for dropping litter is one of the civil
> > enforcement powers of a council.
>
>
> >> So what powers do a private firm's officers have, if engaged by a
> >> council? Anything special over and above a citizen's?
> >
> > They have the ability to act on behalf of the council in issuing civil
> > fixed penalty notices. Just as they would if they were directly employed by
> > the council. The nature of their employment and/or contractual relationship
> > with the council is not relevent to the legal situation; what matters is
> > the authority they act under.
> >
> > But it's important here to bear in mind that even if employed directly by
> > the council, they would have no additional powers. Council employees are
> > not constables; they only have powers to do certain things (like issue
> > CFPNs) to the extent that the council has that power and they are acting on
> > the council's behalf.
> >
> >> What could they do if someone refused to cooperate? Could they hold them
> >> using more than "reasonable force" until a constable arrived? (Let's
> >> assume the person they are holding is strong enough to potentially walk
> >> away from an attempt to restrain).
> >>
> >> Do they even have powers to hold someone using "reasonable force"?
> >
> > They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> > situation.
>
> However compensation now coming from commissions on penalty payments may
> >> So what powers do a private firm's officers have, if engaged by a
> >> council? Anything special over and above a citizen's?
> >
> > They have the ability to act on behalf of the council in issuing civil
> > fixed penalty notices. Just as they would if they were directly employed by
> > the council. The nature of their employment and/or contractual relationship
> > with the council is not relevent to the legal situation; what matters is
> > the authority they act under.
> >
> > But it's important here to bear in mind that even if employed directly by
> > the council, they would have no additional powers. Council employees are
> > not constables; they only have powers to do certain things (like issue
> > CFPNs) to the extent that the council has that power and they are acting on
> > the council's behalf.
> >
> >> What could they do if someone refused to cooperate? Could they hold them
> >> using more than "reasonable force" until a constable arrived? (Let's
> >> assume the person they are holding is strong enough to potentially walk
> >> away from an attempt to restrain).
> >>
> >> Do they even have powers to hold someone using "reasonable force"?
> >
> > They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> > situation.
>
> affect employee performance evaluation and so any integrity in the process.
I agree. But exactly the same employee performance evaluation criteria
can be, and at least in some cases, are applied by councils to their own
employees, so the privatised employees may behave no worse than the
direct council employees.
--
Roger Hayter
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 2:58:38 PM7/20/15
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:22:19 -0400, Anthony R. Gold put finger to keyboard
and typed:
OK, but if you're going to be pedantic in that respect then policing has
been in private hands since long before the constabulary got involved with
it, and remains so in a very large number of circumstances :-)
I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to a transfer of powers from the
Police (with a capital P) to a private firm. Which, in the long run, has
happened, but only as a consequence of the original decriminalisation of
the offence itself and the ability of local authorities to authorise ther
staff and contractors to enforce it. So if there is any sense in which that
transfer is undesirable, it's very late in the day to be objecting to it.
It certainly isn't a new thing.
>However compensation now coming from commissions on penalty payments may
>affect employee performance evaluation and so any integrity in the process.
That's a possibly more concerning issue, yes. Whether it is actually a bad
thing in practice is something that may only become apparent in the light
of experience.
The worst case scenario is that people get ticketed who have not, in fact,
engaged in littering, or have only done so to a degree that most people
would consider de minimus[1]. To mitigate against that, there needs to be
an effective appeals process coupled with contractual sanctions against the
contractor in the event of an excessive number of upheld appeals. It would
be interesting to find out how that is administered in the situation which
prompted this thread.
[1] Although it's important to bear in mind that the absolute size of the
item of litter isn't what matters most in this context. Chewing gum and
cigarette butts dropped on teh floor, despite being small, are among the
worst forms of litter and do more damage to the environment than a
newspaper left on a park bench.
and typed:
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:08:20 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>> I applaud having less litter, but I am rather less enthusiastic about
>>> the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
>>> in proportion to the fines issued.
>>
>> This isn't the devolution of policing. It's the outsourcing of a council
>> service. No policing powers are being exercised by the private company.
>> Issuing fixed penalty notices for dropping litter is one of the civil
>> enforcement powers of a council.
>
>http://www.yourdictionary.com/policing
>>> the devolution of policing to a private firm who's income stems directly
>>> in proportion to the fines issued.
>>
>> This isn't the devolution of policing. It's the outsourcing of a council
>> service. No policing powers are being exercised by the private company.
>> Issuing fixed penalty notices for dropping litter is one of the civil
>> enforcement powers of a council.
>
OK, but if you're going to be pedantic in that respect then policing has
been in private hands since long before the constabulary got involved with
it, and remains so in a very large number of circumstances :-)
I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to a transfer of powers from the
Police (with a capital P) to a private firm. Which, in the long run, has
happened, but only as a consequence of the original decriminalisation of
the offence itself and the ability of local authorities to authorise ther
staff and contractors to enforce it. So if there is any sense in which that
transfer is undesirable, it's very late in the day to be objecting to it.
It certainly isn't a new thing.
>However compensation now coming from commissions on penalty payments may
>affect employee performance evaluation and so any integrity in the process.
thing in practice is something that may only become apparent in the light
of experience.
The worst case scenario is that people get ticketed who have not, in fact,
engaged in littering, or have only done so to a degree that most people
would consider de minimus[1]. To mitigate against that, there needs to be
an effective appeals process coupled with contractual sanctions against the
contractor in the event of an excessive number of upheld appeals. It would
be interesting to find out how that is administered in the situation which
prompted this thread.
[1] Although it's important to bear in mind that the absolute size of the
item of litter isn't what matters most in this context. Chewing gum and
cigarette butts dropped on teh floor, despite being small, are among the
worst forms of litter and do more damage to the environment than a
newspaper left on a park bench.
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 3:08:08 PM7/20/15
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:34:52 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence not to give your
name and address, when requested, to "an authorised officer of a litter
authority"[1]. Although the authorised officer has no power of arrest
should the person refuse, it's a serious enough offence to be followed up
by the police on the testimony of the authorised officer. Essentially,
refusing to cooperate is a gamble which may end up costing you far more
than an FPN.
[1] Who can be either a direct employee or a contractor.
typed:
name and address, when requested, to "an authorised officer of a litter
authority"[1]. Although the authorised officer has no power of arrest
should the person refuse, it's a serious enough offence to be followed up
by the police on the testimony of the authorised officer. Essentially,
refusing to cooperate is a gamble which may end up costing you far more
than an FPN.
[1] Who can be either a direct employee or a contractor.
lordgnome
Jul 20, 2015, 4:00:48 PM7/20/15
to
Mahatma Ghandi or some such, and walk away.
Les.
Tough Guy no. 1265
Jul 20, 2015, 4:03:57 PM7/20/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265
Jul 20, 2015, 4:04:53 PM7/20/15
to
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 4:28:53 PM7/20/15
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:10:59 +0100, lordgnome put finger to keyboard and
typed:
You could, but that would be an offence.
typed:
Pelican
Jul 20, 2015, 4:30:27 PM7/20/15
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34hqqa58oj1ev94tk...@news.markshouse.net...
response to the request is that the person is John Smith, and lives at 9
John Street, Smithston (or similar false details), the authorised officer
will have to lump it. There is no power to require the production of proof
of a valid ID or address. Not this week.
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 4:42:12 PM7/20/15
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:37:57 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 put finger to
They'll know when they send out the reminder that you haven't paid your FPN
and it comes back "not known at this address".
At which point, it ceases to be merely littering and becomes an entirely
different offence one; that will be dealt with by the police rather than a
local authority employee or contractor and one which will result in a hefty
fine and a criminal record if/when you are convicted.
It's a big gamble for the sake of £75. To get away with it, you've got to
be pretty sure that you weren't on CCTV when you were initially approached
by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
and it comes back "not known at this address".
At which point, it ceases to be merely littering and becomes an entirely
different offence one; that will be dealt with by the police rather than a
local authority employee or contractor and one which will result in a hefty
fine and a criminal record if/when you are convicted.
It's a big gamble for the sake of £75. To get away with it, you've got to
be pretty sure that you weren't on CCTV when you were initially approached
by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
Pelican
Jul 20, 2015, 4:55:53 PM7/20/15
to
news:kfmqqahitvv0soer3...@news.markshouse.net...
> It's a big gamble for the sake of Ł75. To get away with it, you've got to
They are really dreadful people. But you know perfectly well that the
chance of dealing with a person who chooses to give a false name and address
(to anyone) where there is no power to require the production of ID is zero.
> be pretty sure that you weren't on CCTV when you were initially approached
> by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
> recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
> litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
> mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
I'm all for anti-litter programs, especially against them litter louts.
> by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
> recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
> litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
> mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
They are really dreadful people. But you know perfectly well that the
chance of dealing with a person who chooses to give a false name and address
(to anyone) where there is no power to require the production of ID is zero.
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 5:25:01 PM7/20/15
to
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:21:40 +1000, Pelican put finger to keyboard and
No, but the falsehood will become apparent when the FPN is not paid and the
authorities chase it up. And if the enforcement officer becomes supicious
at the time, then he can make a point of reporting the incident to the
police.
authorities chase it up. And if the enforcement officer becomes supicious
at the time, then he can make a point of reporting the incident to the
police.
Roger Hayter
Jul 20, 2015, 6:06:16 PM7/20/15
to
To do so overtly would be a little confrontational, but might encourage
sober people to pay.
--
Roger Hayter
Pelican
Jul 20, 2015, 6:33:25 PM7/20/15
to
news:2fmqqa9t5fq8bcmdr...@news.markshouse.net...
plausible.
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:10:59 +0100, lordgnome put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On 20/07/2015 17:14, Martin Bonner wrote:
>>> On Monday, 20 July 2015 16:35:22 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
>>>> On 20/07/15 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in
>>>>> this
>>>>> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case,
>>>>> is no
>>>>> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for confirming what I thought must be the case. However, I
>>>> was
>>>> partly expecting there to be some special powers.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for thinking there must be some special powers granted is:
>>>>
>>>> As it stands, how do they have a greater than zero success rate? It
>>>> would appear that anyone challenged could simply walk away and would
>>>> not
>>>> even have to resist "reasonable restraint".
>>>
>>> Possibly because many people are not confident of their rights when
>>> dealing
>>> with authority figures in uniforms.
>>>
>>
>>I suppose you could reply to the demand for 'name & address' with
>>Mahatma Ghandi or some such, and walk away.
>
> You could, but that would be an offence.
And the offence is stupidity in a public place. If you must lie, make it
> typed:
>
>>On 20/07/2015 17:14, Martin Bonner wrote:
>>> On Monday, 20 July 2015 16:35:22 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
>>>> On 20/07/15 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in
>>>>> this
>>>>> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case,
>>>>> is no
>>>>> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for confirming what I thought must be the case. However, I
>>>> was
>>>> partly expecting there to be some special powers.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for thinking there must be some special powers granted is:
>>>>
>>>> As it stands, how do they have a greater than zero success rate? It
>>>> would appear that anyone challenged could simply walk away and would
>>>> not
>>>> even have to resist "reasonable restraint".
>>>
>>> Possibly because many people are not confident of their rights when
>>> dealing
>>> with authority figures in uniforms.
>>>
>>
>>I suppose you could reply to the demand for 'name & address' with
>>Mahatma Ghandi or some such, and walk away.
>
> You could, but that would be an offence.
plausible.
Tough Guy no. 1265
Jul 20, 2015, 6:33:31 PM7/20/15
to
> be pretty sure that you weren't on CCTV when you were initially approached
> by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
> recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
> litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
> mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
There's an easy way to stop littering, provide enough bins. I often find myself carrying around a piece of litter for several minutes until I can find somewhere to put it. Is it any wonder people don't bother?
> by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
> recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
> litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
> mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
Mark Goodge
Jul 20, 2015, 6:34:54 PM7/20/15
to
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:52:52 +1000, Pelican put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kfmqqahitvv0soer3...@news.markshouse.net...
>>
person who does so.
Remember, the vast majority of people who routinely engage in low-level
antisocial behaviour, such as littering, are not very bright. And even
those who are, tend to drop litter repeatedly in much the same places. Even
if they can convincingly lie on the spot, they are unlikely to be able to
avoid being seen again in the same location. Most litter wardens - and most
local police - know full well who the most likely offenders tend to be.
It isn't difficult to find examples of cases where people have been
successfully prosecuted for giving a false name and address. For example:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9310641.Two_men_in_the_dock_for_dropping_litter/
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/litter-lout-caught-out-948885
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/high_cost_of_dropping_cigarette_and_giving_false_address_1_3573562
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Dropped-cigarette-proves-costly/story-19609015-detail/story.html
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Student-pays-163-1-000-dropping-litter/story-11592374-detail/story.html
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Arnold-woman-court-cigarette-offence/story-12205896-detail/story.html
That last one (in Nottingham) is quite ironic, really, as the individual in
question was only prosecuted for giving a false name and address - the
charge of littering was dropped. So if she'd given her real details and
contested the FPN, she'd have avoided paying anything.
typed:
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kfmqqahitvv0soer3...@news.markshouse.net...
>>
>> It's a big gamble for the sake of Ł75. To get away with it, you've got to
>> be pretty sure that you weren't on CCTV when you were initially approached
>> by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
>> recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
>> litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
>> mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
>
>I'm all for anti-litter programs, especially against them litter louts.
>They are really dreadful people. But you know perfectly well that the
>chance of dealing with a person who chooses to give a false name and address
>(to anyone) where there is no power to require the production of ID is zero.
Not at all. In most cases, there's a fairly good chance of catching the
>> be pretty sure that you weren't on CCTV when you were initially approached
>> by the litter officer and that there's no chance he or she will ever
>> recognise you in the street again. Given that most litter louts tend to
>> litter the same areas repeatedly (their local parks and shopping streets,
>> mainly), that's a fairly tall order.
>
>I'm all for anti-litter programs, especially against them litter louts.
>They are really dreadful people. But you know perfectly well that the
>chance of dealing with a person who chooses to give a false name and address
>(to anyone) where there is no power to require the production of ID is zero.
person who does so.
Remember, the vast majority of people who routinely engage in low-level
antisocial behaviour, such as littering, are not very bright. And even
those who are, tend to drop litter repeatedly in much the same places. Even
if they can convincingly lie on the spot, they are unlikely to be able to
avoid being seen again in the same location. Most litter wardens - and most
local police - know full well who the most likely offenders tend to be.
It isn't difficult to find examples of cases where people have been
successfully prosecuted for giving a false name and address. For example:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9310641.Two_men_in_the_dock_for_dropping_litter/
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/litter-lout-caught-out-948885
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/high_cost_of_dropping_cigarette_and_giving_false_address_1_3573562
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Dropped-cigarette-proves-costly/story-19609015-detail/story.html
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Student-pays-163-1-000-dropping-litter/story-11592374-detail/story.html
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Arnold-woman-court-cigarette-offence/story-12205896-detail/story.html
That last one (in Nottingham) is quite ironic, really, as the individual in
question was only prosecuted for giving a false name and address - the
charge of littering was dropped. So if she'd given her real details and
contested the FPN, she'd have avoided paying anything.
Zapp_Brannigan
Jul 20, 2015, 6:50:38 PM7/20/15
to
On 20/07/2015 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/88
> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
They have the power to require your name and address, and you commit a
criminal offence if you fail to provide that truthfully. The stasi
warden can call the police, who have grounds to arrest you because you
are a crime suspect and you will not identify yourself.
Of course if you walk away briskly, you'll be long gone before the
Police arrive. I do not think force could reasonably be used to detain
you because it isn't an indictable offence. OTOH, a sly warden might
accuse you of assault or aome other pretext for s24A arrest.
Zapp_Brannigan
Jul 20, 2015, 7:01:35 PM7/20/15
to
On 20/07/2015 23:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
> It might well be possible to surreptitiously photograph perpetrators.
> To do so overtly would be a little confrontational, but might encourage
> sober people to pay.
If a person denies the allegation of littering and demands their day in
> It might well be possible to surreptitiously photograph perpetrators.
> To do so overtly would be a little confrontational, but might encourage
> sober people to pay.
court, the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The opinion
of a single stasi warden regarding the trajectory of a fag-end, observed
from some distance on a busy street, would be rather contestable. Photo
or video evidence would be helpful.
Pelican
Jul 21, 2015, 1:21:40 AM7/21/15
to
"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1m7vryq.1mcrjy9gli8vvN%ro...@hayter.org...
evil wrongdoer is being photographed.
Tim Watts
Jul 21, 2015, 1:29:25 AM7/21/15
to
Do you tell the warden you are refusing the PCN or do you accept it and
send it back demanding a court appearance.
Pelican
Jul 21, 2015, 1:41:24 AM7/21/15
to
"Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:cn118c-...@squidward.sv.dionic.net...
means that they have a name and an address.
Mark Goodge
Jul 21, 2015, 2:58:47 AM7/21/15
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:58:31 +0100, Zapp_Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
No, but most of these offences happen in public places where there are
other witnesses and/or CCTV. And there's rarely any shortage of people
willing to grass up a litter bug. It's not a crime which generates much
public sympathy.
and typed:
other witnesses and/or CCTV. And there's rarely any shortage of people
willing to grass up a litter bug. It's not a crime which generates much
public sympathy.
Mark Goodge
Jul 21, 2015, 3:07:36 AM7/21/15
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:48:52 +0100, Zapp_Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On 20/07/2015 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
>> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
>> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
>
>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/88
>
>They have the power to require your name and address, and you commit a
>criminal offence if you fail to provide that truthfully. The stasi
>warden can call the police, who have grounds to arrest you because you
>are a crime suspect and you will not identify yourself.
>
>Of course if you walk away briskly, you'll be long gone before the
>Police arrive.
But you also have to make sure that you weren't caught on CCTV and that you
don't go back again at some other time when you might be recognised.
There's a commonly held misconception that if the police don't catch
someone in the act of, or immediately after, a crime then they've got
little chance of ever catching them. This is possibly reinforced by the
regularity with which the police themselves ask for public help in tracing
criminals (eg, by releasing CCTV imagery).
But, in reality, most suspected offenders are traced fairly quickly after
the incident, usually by following a chain of who know who knows who, etc,
or imply because they are recognised as a likely suspect. And, if the
offender is local, releasing CCTV images will almost always have the
desired result.
That's particularly the case for unpremeditated crimes, such as low-level
antisocial behaviour. Obviously, where a crime is premeditated and the
prospect of detection is considered, it is a lot easier to minimise the
prospect of being caught. But for something like littering, the offender
generally doesn't stop to think about the possibility of being caught
(because if they did, they'd probably conclude that it's safer just to use
a bin anyway), and hence they are much easier to catch.
and typed:
>On 20/07/2015 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
>> situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
>> power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
>
>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/88
>
>They have the power to require your name and address, and you commit a
>criminal offence if you fail to provide that truthfully. The stasi
>warden can call the police, who have grounds to arrest you because you
>are a crime suspect and you will not identify yourself.
>
>Of course if you walk away briskly, you'll be long gone before the
>Police arrive.
don't go back again at some other time when you might be recognised.
There's a commonly held misconception that if the police don't catch
someone in the act of, or immediately after, a crime then they've got
little chance of ever catching them. This is possibly reinforced by the
regularity with which the police themselves ask for public help in tracing
criminals (eg, by releasing CCTV imagery).
But, in reality, most suspected offenders are traced fairly quickly after
the incident, usually by following a chain of who know who knows who, etc,
or imply because they are recognised as a likely suspect. And, if the
offender is local, releasing CCTV images will almost always have the
desired result.
That's particularly the case for unpremeditated crimes, such as low-level
antisocial behaviour. Obviously, where a crime is premeditated and the
prospect of detection is considered, it is a lot easier to minimise the
prospect of being caught. But for something like littering, the offender
generally doesn't stop to think about the possibility of being caught
(because if they did, they'd probably conclude that it's safer just to use
a bin anyway), and hence they are much easier to catch.
Mark Goodge
Jul 21, 2015, 3:38:51 AM7/21/15
to
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:36:02 +1000, Pelican put finger to keyboard and
place :-)
typed:
>
>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2fmqqa9t5fq8bcmdr...@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:10:59 +0100, lordgnome put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>>
>
>
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2fmqqa9t5fq8bcmdr...@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:10:59 +0100, lordgnome put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>>
>>>I suppose you could reply to the demand for 'name & address' with
>>>Mahatma Ghandi or some such, and walk away.
>>
>> You could, but that would be an offence.
>
>And the offence is stupidity in a public place. If you must lie, make it
>plausible.
If only there were such an offence. The world would be a much more pleasant
>>>Mahatma Ghandi or some such, and walk away.
>>
>> You could, but that would be an offence.
>
>And the offence is stupidity in a public place. If you must lie, make it
>plausible.
place :-)
Robin
Jul 21, 2015, 4:55:30 AM7/21/15
to
Zapp_Brannigan wrote:
>
> If a person denies the allegation of littering and demands their day
> in court, the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
> opinion of a single stasi warden regarding the trajectory of a
> fag-end, observed from some distance on a busy street, would be
> rather contestable. Photo or video evidence would be helpful.
ISTM if a person refuses to pay the FPN and goes to court
>
> If a person denies the allegation of littering and demands their day
> in court, the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
> opinion of a single stasi warden regarding the trajectory of a
> fag-end, observed from some distance on a busy street, would be
> rather contestable. Photo or video evidence would be helpful.
the witness for the prosecution is likely to be an employee of the
firm with a financial incentive to achieve a guilty verdict. Patently
this is not a bar to their evidence but is it something the bench is
permitted to, and likely in practice to be minded to, take into account?
I have in mind here recollections (perhaps erroneous) that a constable's
evidence in such matters is usually given credence against the
background of "why would s/he make it up?" - a question which patently
may have a different answer in the case of private firms (though I am
sure they would deny it - well they would, wouldn't they?).
I even worry about video evidence. I could have been recorded dropping
litter on a highway yesterday and served with a FPN. My picking up the
litter straightaway and taking it away with me might, ahem, not have
been captured or noticed. In the absence of a regulator my only hope
would presumably be (a) to find independent witnesses and/or (b) to
persuade the police to investigate the firm/employee to see if there was
a pattern of such
FPNs. Not much chance given police resources?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Tim Watts
Jul 21, 2015, 5:24:18 AM7/21/15
to
http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/cms/document/Litter_Enforcers_let_loose_in_Leeds_JOH.pdf
although it claims the offence for failing to provide a correct name and
address was created in 2006.
I'm going to find that particular act, out of interest...
Robin Bignall
Jul 21, 2015, 4:25:23 PM7/21/15
to
video cameras.
We have a friend who lives near Hoddesdon, about 30 minutes walk away.
In mid-December he was Xmas shopping in Waltham Cross (about 10 miles
away) when he was approached by one of these officers, who accused him
of stubbing a cigarette out, on November 18, a month before, in
shrubbery outside a doctor's surgery in Hoddesdon. The officer was not
able to give him an FPN at the time because he had neither FPN pad nor
camera with him. My friend denied the alleged offence -- he doesn't
smoke while walking -- and has no idea whether he was in Hoddesdon on
that date. He gave his name and address, and an FPN came through the
mail a few days later. There was now a bombardment of mail from the
council over the next few months, together with a statement that he had
been caught on CCTV. He kept denying the alleged offence and asked for
a copy of the CCTV. When the disk arrived, it was of the meeting in
Waltham Cross, not the original supposed offence. The council also kept
changing the street on which the offence is supposed to have occurred.
The case eventually went to Mags' Court, where the officer didn't show,
and was adjourned to next month. The council seems dead set on
convicting him, and he's fairly sure he didn't do any such thing.
The friend found that none of the solicitors in Hoddesdon did this kind
of case, and he's been out of work for a long time and is badly off for
money, so he hasn't tried solicitors in other places. He's also not
particularly articulate. It seems to me that it's his word against that
of the officer, who lives near him and seems to know him. I suspect the
council will ride roughshod over him in court.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Pelican
Jul 21, 2015, 7:08:34 PM7/21/15
to
"Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eo7tqap1454492rio...@4ax.com...
be able to prove its case. You friend should have no case to answer.
ARW
Jul 24, 2015, 7:27:32 PM7/24/15
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34hqqa58oj1ev94tk...@news.markshouse.net...
news:34hqqa58oj1ev94tk...@news.markshouse.net...
If you tell them "to sit on it and swivel" and then walk away then they call
the police.
--
Adam
Message has been deleted
Robin Bignall
Jul 29, 2015, 5:25:27 PM7/29/15
to
dropping the case. This is the "Orange peel" council!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150834/Council-loses-nine-month-case-costs-8-000-against-golfer-dropped-orange-peel-size-10p-piece-binned-anyway.html
http://tinyurl.com/qc8d8wu
facto...@gmail.com
Mar 16, 2020, 5:41:21 AM3/16/20
to
The issue of whether someone would be arrested for refusing to give details to a litter enforcement officer surely depends on whether the police really want to and are going to trawl through CCTV footage of people who have committed such an "offence" and then send officers to look for that person and arrest him/her. The police are already over-streched and under funded and whether they want more burden put on them over trivial matters like littering and refusing to give details to a litter enforcement officer is debatable.
Also what if the person approached by the enforcement officer does not live in the area where the offence took place. Let's say they live in Barnet and are in Walthamstow and drop litter there and then when approached and requested for details just walk away and get a bus and return to Barnet. That would mean the police scouring the length and breadth of London looking for this person. For a littering related offence? Yeah right.
facto...@gmail.com
Mar 16, 2020, 5:42:13 AM3/16/20
to
perry....@talk21.com
Aug 2, 2020, 7:06:19 AM8/2/20
to
They will never do that.....better things to do
chuckl...@gmail.com
Aug 2, 2020, 11:18:09 AM8/2/20
to
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com wrote:
> They will never do that.....better things to do
Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying non-essential items?
> They will never do that.....better things to do
Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the wide open moors of the Lake District?
If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would have us believe.
Max Demian
Aug 2, 2020, 2:35:23 PM8/2/20
to
even decide? If murder was as common as in Mexico or Colombia, would we
just be issued with a crime number from a website?
--
Max Demian
Roland Perry
Aug 2, 2020, 3:35:03 PM8/2/20
to
In message <GImdnZ0CTu3BmrrC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
19:35:04 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
remarked:
offence. You'll never get them to turn out to investigate a stolen bike,
for example.
> If murder was as common as in Mexico or Colombia, would we just be
>issued with a crime number from a website?
--
Roland Perry
19:35:04 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
remarked:
>On 02/08/2020 15:48, chuckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com wrote:
>>> They will never do that.....better things to do
>> Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying
>>non-essential items?
>> Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the wide
>>open moors of the Lake District?
>> If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most
>>certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would have
>>us believe.
>
>How do the police decide what to turn their attention to today? Do they
>even decide?
They have what they call "thresholds", different for different types of
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com wrote:
>>> They will never do that.....better things to do
>> Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying
>>non-essential items?
>> Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the wide
>>open moors of the Lake District?
>> If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most
>>certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would have
>>us believe.
>
>How do the police decide what to turn their attention to today? Do they
>even decide?
offence. You'll never get them to turn out to investigate a stolen bike,
for example.
> If murder was as common as in Mexico or Colombia, would we just be
>issued with a crime number from a website?
--
Alasdair X
Aug 2, 2020, 4:05:34 PM8/2/20
to
On Monday, 20 July 2015 16:35:22 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 20/07/15 08:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> > situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
> > power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
>
>
> > They only have the powers that a member of the public would have in this
> > situation. As, indeed, would a council employee. Which, in this case, is no
> > power to detain, as it isn't a sufficiently serious offence.
>
> Thank you for confirming what I thought must be the case. However, I was
> partly expecting there to be some special powers.
>
> The reason for thinking there must be some special powers granted is:
>
> As it stands, how do they have a greater than zero success rate? It
> would appear that anyone challenged could simply walk away and would not
> even have to resist "reasonable restraint".
The interesting point is what powers do they have to demand proof of ID? If I were stopped for littering and I gave a false name and address, what could the council do about it? Fortunately, pedestrians don't need number plates yet!
> partly expecting there to be some special powers.
>
> The reason for thinking there must be some special powers granted is:
>
> As it stands, how do they have a greater than zero success rate? It
> would appear that anyone challenged could simply walk away and would not
> even have to resist "reasonable restraint".
Peter
Aug 2, 2020, 5:03:52 PM8/2/20
to
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/13/nottinghamshire-police-count-wolf-whistling-hate-crime
already demonstrate as much?
Max Demian
Aug 2, 2020, 6:12:26 PM8/2/20
to
On 02/08/2020 20:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <GImdnZ0CTu3BmrrC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 19:35:04 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>> On 02/08/2020 15:48, chuckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> They will never do that.....better things to do
>>> Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying
>>> non-essential items?
>>> Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the wide
>>> open moors of the Lake District?
>>> If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most
>>> certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would
>>> have us believe.
>>
>> How do the police decide what to turn their attention to today? Do
>> they even decide?
>
> They have what they call "thresholds", different for different types of
> offence. You'll never get them to turn out to investigate a stolen bike,
> for example.
If they had *attempted* to steal a bike, would they not try to take
> In message <GImdnZ0CTu3BmrrC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 19:35:04 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>> On 02/08/2020 15:48, chuckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> They will never do that.....better things to do
>>> Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying
>>> non-essential items?
>>> Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the wide
>>> open moors of the Lake District?
>>> If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most
>>> certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would
>>> have us believe.
>>
>> How do the police decide what to turn their attention to today? Do
>> they even decide?
>
> They have what they call "thresholds", different for different types of
> offence. You'll never get them to turn out to investigate a stolen bike,
> for example.
fingerprints and possibly DNA? They might have matching samples on
record, or might have some from a later arrest.
--
Max Demian
Roland Perry
Aug 3, 2020, 1:22:47 AM8/3/20
to
In message <LvSdnV7qKM6jp7rC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
23:12:09 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
to see if anyone at the station recognised them, but that's about it, I
expect.
--
Roland Perry
23:12:09 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
remarked:
>On 02/08/2020 20:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <GImdnZ0CTu3BmrrC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>19:35:04 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
>>remarked:
>>> On 02/08/2020 15:48, chuckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> They will never do that.....better things to do
>>>> Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying
>>>>non-essential items?
>>>> Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the
>>>>wide open moors of the Lake District?
>>>> If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most
>>>>certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would
>>>>have us believe.
>>>
>>> How do the police decide what to turn their attention to today? Do
>>>they even decide?
>> They have what they call "thresholds", different for different types
>>of offence. You'll never get them to turn out to investigate a stolen
>>bike, for example.
>
>If they had *attempted* to steal a bike, would they not try to take
>fingerprints and possibly DNA? They might have matching samples on
>record, or might have some from a later arrest.
No. If there was a photo of the perp they might pass it around briefly
>On 02/08/2020 20:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <GImdnZ0CTu3BmrrC...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>19:35:04 on Sun, 2 Aug 2020, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
>>remarked:
>>> On 02/08/2020 15:48, chuckl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+1, perry...@talk21.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> They will never do that.....better things to do
>>>> Like patrolling supermarket aisles ensuring people aren't buying
>>>>non-essential items?
>>>> Or sending drones up to catch people walking their dogs on the
>>>>wide open moors of the Lake District?
>>>> If lockdown has taught us anything, it is that the police are most
>>>>certainly not as under-resourced as their publicity machine would
>>>>have us believe.
>>>
>>> How do the police decide what to turn their attention to today? Do
>>>they even decide?
>> They have what they call "thresholds", different for different types
>>of offence. You'll never get them to turn out to investigate a stolen
>>bike, for example.
>
>If they had *attempted* to steal a bike, would they not try to take
>fingerprints and possibly DNA? They might have matching samples on
>record, or might have some from a later arrest.
to see if anyone at the station recognised them, but that's about it, I
expect.
--
Roland Perry
newshound
Aug 3, 2020, 6:14:32 AM8/3/20
to
0 new messages