# Beware the Public Spaces Protection Order



## maureenandtom (Sep 26, 2017)

Byelaws.   We have had a very small success in opposing byelaws affecting motorhomers.   Byelaws seem, on the face of it, to offer councils very effective means of controlling us.  They can be used to make parking (decriminalised) into a crime.  The one defect about byelaws, as far as councils are concerned, is that they must be approved by a higher authority - central government.   They are supposed to be used when there is no other existing alternative so a reasonable opposition to a byelaw is that there are other alternatives already available and on at least two occasions byelaws have been refused by central government after complaints from motorhomers.   On a third, after a conviction in a magistrates' court, an appeal court overturned the conviction and, so far as I know, that, still valid,  byelaw has never been used again for prosecution or for the summary issue of a Fixed Penalty Notice.

This has all changed.  There is now an alternative to a byelaw.   A Public Spaces Protection Order.   This, despite its friendly name, is no more than the ability of the council to pass its own byelaws and disobedience becomes a crime.   PSPOs have been passed a number of times and there is very little we can do about them.

Mostly they are about low level disorder.  Cambridge Council, for example, used a PSPO Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) | Cambridge City Council
to prohibit advertising to sell the hire of punts.   Try that in Cambridge and you might incur a Â£1000 fine.





In other places, google them, you can be prosecuted for spitting or you can have unopened alcoholic drinks confiscated.  Don't give up your recently purchase bottle of wine to a council employed (or sub-contracted) Civil Enforcement Officer (parking warden) and you might get a Â£1000 fine.

Salford prohibits the public from certain places during certain hours to prevent people gathering when, for example, drugs might be sold or used.   The logic is that the council can't prevent drugs being sold but it can prevent anyone being in that place at certain times by simply preventing ALL of us from being there.   If there's nobody there then no drugs can be bought and sold.  Simple. Dudley Street, proposed Public Spaces Protection Order            •
Salford City Council 

One, the Brighton and Hove PSPO, Public Space Protection Orders | Brighton & Hove City Council  contains this prohibition â€œoccupying any vehicle, caravan, tent or any other structure" (no limit on time) and this has now been used to remove motorhomes as we have seen in the thread about it.  The council gave itself permission to remove the vehicles itself.

It's up to the council alone to pass the PSPO and there seems to be nothing we can do about it other than apply for a judicial review within six weeks of the order being made.  Six weeks is hardly any time at all to gather evidence to present to a court so any objections must be made at the public consultation stage.   The council need not act on objections.  The Brighton and Hove PSPO was objected to by no less an authority than the Equality and Human Rights Commission but the council ignored it and passed the order.  So much for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.   If the council can ignore that body then what chance for the rest of us?

PSPOs, it seems to me, will be used increasingly in the future to control us.  Forget Byelaws, TROs or Off-street Parking Orders.   Councils have a new tool.  Brighton and Hove is the trail blazer and other councils will be watching its success.  There'll be plenty more of these orders.

We're doomed.


----------



## carol (Sep 26, 2017)

Very depressing but thanks for the research and information.


----------



## Private (Sep 26, 2017)

*Thank you.*

You impress me maureenandtom with your work. 

I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you in expressing my belief that until we take to the streets in violent protest there will be no let up from our oppression.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 26, 2017)

Private said:


> You impress me maureenandtom with your work.
> 
> I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you in expressing my belief that until we take to the streets in violent protest there will be no let up from our oppression.



All we need is a leader.

The press, even the Guardian, has had something to say about them

PSPOs: the new control orders threatening our public spaces | Cities | The Guardian

Fancy leading us into peaceful protest?


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 26, 2017)

Did you ever hear of the saying to boil a frog,if you put a frog in water and slowly bring to the boil the frog wont jump but simply boil to death.
Well this is what our gov is doing to all of us now by slowly bringing in laws of oppression,right to speak out ,protest etc.
We are as frogs now and heading back to what our forefathers fought ww2 for our rights and freedoms being taken away.
Its time we all stood up and be counted,think of our childrens future if any at this rate,they wont have one.
GB is now coming to an end as any viable power in the world,more a laughing stock,and we are letting it happen,rant over for today.:mad2:


----------



## colinm (Sep 26, 2017)

It's not the first time the government has created legislation which local governments have taken and abused, remember how the anti terrorist laws where used by some councils to spy on school pupils to ensure they lived in catchment areas.


----------



## Private (Sep 26, 2017)

*I'll do my piece.*



maureenandtom said:


> All we need is a leader.
> 
> The press, even the Guardian, has had something to say about them
> 
> ...



Peaceful protest is just a good oportunity for the authorities to log details and bully protesters; governments don't understand peace.


----------



## Fazerloz (Sep 26, 2017)

trevskoda said:


> Did you ever hear of the saying to boil a frog,if you put a frog in water and slowly bring to the boil the frog wont jump but simply boil to death.
> Well this is what our gov is doing to all of us now by slowly bringing in laws of oppression,right to speak out ,protest etc.
> We are as frogs now and heading back to what our forefathers fought ww2 for our rights and freedoms being taken away.
> Its time we all stood up and be counted,think of our childrens future if any at this rate,they wont have one.
> GB is now coming to an end as any viable power in the world,more a laughing stock,and we are letting it happen,rant over for today.:mad2:



Not only is your frog well and truly  boiled Trev but your goose is cooked as well.
The one thing those in power always want is more and more control and power over the population. It's a long time since this was a free country, not as bad as some yet but heading that way. Most of it been sold as control of terrorism which is difficult to argue against.


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 26, 2017)

I realise that I am probably in a minority of one here and what I am about to say might not be too popular but here goes.

I have no issue with PSPOs, I dont want motorhomes parked for days on end at every scenic spot in the country, nor do I want advertising posters plastered all over the place (not for punts or anything else).

When I wild camp  - and I do it quite a lot - over 100 nights so far this year I ensure that my presence doesnt offend any one, arrive late leave early  even if some one did feel the need to complain by the time they come out Im gone! (in these days of belt tightening and fiscal carefulness I dont think that they work nights!)

Has any one driven near Loch Lomond or Loch Earn (previous to this year when the problem has been somewhat addressed) lines of motorhomes and caravans which arrive in spring and remain until autumn there is no grey or black waste disposal  so guess where most of it goes, they could take their rubbish away but by the way things looked few did.

I was in Orkney during the summer and there was a M/h parked in Kirkwalls main carpark for weeks, it never moved, I dont know what they did with their black waste but I know  what they did with the grey - the large scummy patch under the M/h testified to where it was being dumped (and dont even start me about the generator)  people should not have to put up with this, IT IS NOT OK!

Are PSPOs going to be misused? you betcha, and when they are I will vent my spleen then  but not before.


----------



## suneye (Sep 26, 2017)

Ok so you could try chaining yourself to the railings at the houses of parliament but you would probably be carted off before getting the padlock out of your pocket so a little peaceful protest would be to sign this petition.  it may not be much, it may not be successful but at least we will have done something and it doesn't take a minute.

Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) | Campaigns by You


----------



## DnK (Sep 26, 2017)

suneye said:


> Ok so you could try chaining yourself to the railings at the houses of parliament but you would probably be carted off before getting the padlock out of your pocket so a little peaceful protest would be to sign this petition.  it may not be much, it may not be successful but at least we will have done something and it doesn't take a minute.
> 
> Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) | Campaigns by You



Signed.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 26, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> I realise that I am probably in a minority of one here and what I am about to say might not be too popular but here goes.
> 
> I have no issue with PSPOs, I dont want motorhomes parked for days on end at every scenic spot in the country, nor do I want advertising posters plastered all over the place (not for punts or anything else).
> 
> ...



Then vent your spleen now.  They are being misused now.


----------



## mistericeman (Sep 26, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> I realise that I am probably in a minority of one here and what I am about to say might not be too popular but here goes.
> 
> I have no issue with PSPOs, I dont want motorhomes parked for days on end at every scenic spot in the country, nor do I want advertising posters plastered all over the place (not for punts or anything else).
> 
> ...



Far from alone chap..... 

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth... well said.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 26, 2017)

Here, let's make a start. Is the council misusing its authority?

The order says:






So that is ...Any vehicle.   Any vehicle with an occupant.

But the council on this day discriminated.  It targeted only lived in vehicles.  It said so:






The real target, I submit, of the order.   The "any vehicle" provision is just a smokscreen because to say only motorhomes in the order would be illegal under the equality act.

I've signed the petition.  I'd urge all to do the same.


----------



## RoaminRog (Sep 26, 2017)

Could all this be an easy way for local councils to deal quickly and effectively with the 'travelling community' who delight us all with the amount of filth and rubbish they leave behind.
I would pay money to witness any official demanding on the spot fines from them.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 26, 2017)

RoaminRog said:


> Could all this be an easy way for local councils to deal quickly and effectively with the 'travelling community' who delight us all with the amount of filth and rubbish they leave behind.
> I would pay money to witness any official demanding on the spot fines from them.



For the Brighton and Hove order, yes, I think so.    The Equality Commission recommended that the council not implement their order. I think this is why it was worded to include all vehicles.  

Worthing Council has also introduced an order prohibiting overnight camping https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/media/media,141630,en.pdf and this, I believe, is only the start.

You do realise, I hope, that all councils who have introduced TROs etc to deal with we ordinary motoromers also accuse us of exactly what you've accused the travelling community of.  With ony one or two minor exceptions we ordinary motorhomers have never generated the complaint councils allege.   In Keswick just lately, the local press issued a photograph alleged to be our rubbish but later proven to have been a stock picture and nothing to do with either us or the site complained of.

I think PSPOs are a gift from a benevolent God to councils.   Keswick council will now allege - not have to prove - our neglicent attitude to the environment, introduce a PSPO - and we're history.  They can use them for anything - not just to target our own activity but anything at all.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

Here's the proposed order for *Doncaster.*

Public Spaces Protection Order for Doncaster Town Centre - Doncaster Council

Item number six prohibits you smoking in the town centre.  And you can't congregate in a group of three or more if it is likely to annoy any person (Item 4)..

But Item 8 is for us.   *Camping or sleeping overnight with or without a tent, or using a vehicle, caravan or any other structure in a public place *

It makes me wonder if the area, but it's a large area, is to be pedestrianised;  Closure of streets and highways used to be a big thing needing a magistrate's order.     But a PSPO seems to be able to do these things without much  public consultation.

The public consultation for this one expires today and has been open since 17th September (I think) – not much time to make your views known.





These things are going to be used all over the place.


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

Quite frankly Doncaster proposed PSPO long overdue and I suspect applied with in the spirit of the legislation.

I go back occasionally and the town centre is full of anti social behaviour, including misuse of alcohol , begging etc,

However my serious reservation is the genuine homeless with nothing are being criminally penalised for their vagrancy. The impact of pspos far greater for some people than frankly parking of a motorhome.

People talk of alternative remedies that already exist, 28 days traditional eviction order , 28 days to accumulate rubbish and impact on an area greater, it is easy to see why PSPO are being used simple fasttrack, the issue is the fairness of terms which varies order to order.

Controlling the masses is nothing new, it just seems Orwell was a few years out  with his prediction.

What is even scarier is the Equality act is being deliberately broken by the government that introduced it, The discrimination of disabled people by the DWP illustrates again control of the masses. So we have the Equality Act 2010 telling us one thing and a raft of legislation that says another

A mess, and sorry for my lack of enthusiasm at petitions waste of energy only structured challenge in the courts will change anything 

Channa


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

That's all probably true.   The range of things councils seem to be using PSPOs for is huge.   This order proposes a ban on the wearing of face coverings.   Now I think most will agree with this but that doesn't make it right.

I wonder if our muslim fellow citizens have heard of this one or what will happen when they do.  I can't really seeing this get through to the final order but it will be very interesting if it does – or even more interesting if the council tries to enforce it with a veiled muslim woman.

- Proposal for Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) in Westvale, Kirkby


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

maureenandtom said:


> That's all probably true.   The range of things councils seem to be using PSPOs for is huge.   This order proposes a ban on the wearing of face coverings.   Now I think most will agree with this but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> I wonder if our muslim fellow citizens have heard of this one or what will happen when they do.  I can't really seeing this get through to the final order but it will be very interesting if it does – or even more interesting if the council tries to enforce it with a veiled muslim woman.
> 
> - Proposal for Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) in Westvale, Kirkby



PSPO's opens up a proper can of worms, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that ,PSPO's are far easier to administer  than messing about with TRO's or Bylaws.

On face value little can be done if you are accused of being in breach, This has massive implications for any form of alternative living accommodation or lifestyle in the case of full timers who we have proved are travellers no different to the other travelling communities so I find the anti traveller comments a little ironic.

It is going to take someone like the ECHR to challenge in the courts, As I see things so far headless and ruthless legislation with no precedents set by the justices to temper it all 

Channa


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 27, 2017)

All of this springs from the coalition governments "Bonfire of Red Tape" and "Hands off Government" announcements, resulting in devolving central powers to local government.

These orders only need local advertising a one paper (local rag) to comply with a requirement for advertising and consultation.   Mis the adverts and the laws will be approved unopposed.   I said this before and will say it again we* ALL *need to be checking what our individual councils are proposing ((check their web sites for consultations on a weekly basis) and let the greater community know of such proposals.

The authorities are not incurring running costs in some of these proposals as they are entering into agreements with companies that say the costs will be covered by fine income.   So there is an incentive to issue fines no initial warning as they are not cost effective.

Thanks Tom for the heads up on this.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 27, 2017)

Another example I heard of is that dog walkers will be stopped and if they are not in possession of an unused bag to collect they dogs droppings they will be fined £300.

This seems heavy handed but as a litter picker locally I know that some people will just drop litter etc. and not clear up for themselves.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

Thanks John,

There seems to be no burden of proof.

If you get a parking ticket, a PCN I mean, then the enforcement guy will take a photograph as proof;  how your're parked or a picture of the out of time payment docket.   With a PSPO it seems there is no proof necessary.   A warden says he sees you having a drink in a non-drinking area and confiscates your booze whether open or not.   A fine of up to £300, or maybe more for all I know, and no proof needed.

So, not guilty, you don't pay it.    

Then you get taken to court.  Not to prove your guilt – there is no need for that – but to get a court order to recover from you the unpaid Fixed Penalty Notice.   You're guilty of that and that particular court will not take into account your pleading not guilty to the original offence.

These things are very dangerous.


----------



## alcam (Sep 27, 2017)

John Thompson said:


> Another example I heard of is that dog walkers will be stopped and if they are not in possession of an unused bag to collect they dogs droppings they will be fined £300.
> 
> This seems heavy handed but as a litter picker locally I know that some people will just drop litter etc. and not clear up for themselves.



Can't see how that could possibly work legally John .


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

alcam said:


> Can't see how that could possibly work legally John .




https://www.malvernhills.gov.uk/doc...AQ's.pdf/b5e6c39b-ff00-a891-223c-7872437e57a2


----------



## yorkslass (Sep 27, 2017)

Talk about wanting their cake and eating it.

It seems a civil matter becomes a criminal offence if you refuse to comply.:mad2::mad2::mad2:


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

yorkslass said:


> Talk about wanting their cake and eating it.
> 
> It seems a civil matter becomes a criminal offence if you refuse to comply.:mad2::mad2::mad2:



I agree.

It seems to me that there is no restraint.  The power to object is severely limited and the option of taking court action is severely limited.  For example, I can not take a legal objection to a court over a motorhome banning PSPO in your area if I do not live there.  Or, some places have said, if I'm not a frequent and regular visitor. 

Anything a council thinks objectionable can be made into a crime.  There is no burden of proof.   The way is open for corruption on a large scale.   The example is the ban already referred to of making it a crime to advertise, verbally, punting opportunities on the River Cam.   Motorhoming experience says that there is a very good possibility that this crime was created by, or on behalf of, owners of punt boats for hire on the River Cam.  Simple strangling the opposition.


----------



## brucews (Sep 27, 2017)

signed.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

John Thompson said:


> Another example I heard of is that dog walkers will be stopped and if they are not in possession of an unused bag to collect they dogs droppings they will be fined £300.
> 
> This seems heavy handed but as a litter picker locally I know that some people will just drop litter etc. and not clear up for themselves.



Never mind dog toilet wast,have you noticed how many public toilets are now closed or non existant these days,belfast city and many small towns /villages do not have a loo,so now i have to remember what shops have them or im in trouble.:dance:


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

maureenandtom said:


> https://www.malvernhills.gov.uk/doc...AQ's.pdf/b5e6c39b-ff00-a891-223c-7872437e57a2



Just dont tell them and walk on,i would think if they contacted police it would not be followed up as cops have more important things here to do than chasing folk without poo bags.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

trevskoda said:


> Just dont tell them and walk on,i would think if they contacted police it would not be followed up as cops have more important things here to do than chasing folk without poo bags.



Or, if you happen to have one - squash a full one into their pocket.

EDIT:   But, seriously, most of us are law-abiding and would abide by the law and comply.


----------



## Private (Sep 27, 2017)

*Take your wallet*

If we protest peacefully we need to take our wallets. 
There is an alternative but obviously it can't be discussed here. 

We have many excellent people doing great work to argue the better way but it is futile in the long run. 
The government takes our money to use against us. 
They employ so many people at our expense to work against us full time that resisting within their rules is futile. If you mount a successful challenge they then change the rules to prevent it happening again. 

If we had one coordinating body for all the 'for the people'  based organisations (such as 38Degrees, CND, GreenPeace, the unions etc.) then maybe the tide can be turned. The idea would be that regardless of whether you were a member of a particular organisation that was mounting a protest, you would still support it. For example, your specialist area may be CND based but if GreenPeace was holding a protest you would still support it trusting in the validity of their protest through their inclusion of the overall body. 
It is the opposite of divide and conquer. 
We need to pull our abilities together and protest on masse so that even the suggestion of a big protest scares the government. 

Short if that we have little chance as they are already confident they can handle all the organisations  individually.


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

trevskoda said:


> Never mind dog toilet wast,have you noticed how many public toilets are now closed or non existant these days,belfast city and many small towns /villages do not have a loo,so now i have to remember what shops have them or im in trouble.:dance:



Ironic Trev, last couple of days investigating on behalf of a disabled group the legality of refusing people access to toilets in shops , Some of these people are incontinent and can get caught short, Refusal by companies in these circumstances is the law is on their side , one thing seems to be a lot of shops their liability insurance doesn't allow cover away from the shop floor ...The world has gone mad another example of what is the human thing to do ...there are also health and safety issues too...cant believe it can you ? 

Re dog wardens June time collared by 3 and asked if I had a bag, they suspected my dog had defecated, so obliged to give my name and address I did and spoke very quickly too quick for them to write it down....they asked me to repeat it told them no need too given the info if they are too slow to write it down not my issue I had discharged my duties. I also had a bag and he hadn't had a **** if he had I had the bag ...Sherlock 

re dog wardens I walked off one stood in front and I offered to plant the fucker straight in the canal...they allegedly rang the police,, walked home and heard no more.

Most people would perhaps be startled at their confrontation and I am not confident re safe convictions that's what concerns me with some of these laws the company involved have tried fining people for dropping bread feeding ducks ( case thrown out ) level of idiots we are dealing with 

Channa


----------



## Robmac (Sep 27, 2017)

Jesus!

We'll all be having to walk around with registration plates on our backs so they can identify and fine us.

It's the only way they would get any info out of me. As Trev said, the police have better things to do than follow up on this kind of crap.


----------



## alcam (Sep 27, 2017)

maureenandtom said:


> https://www.malvernhills.gov.uk/doc...AQ's.pdf/b5e6c39b-ff00-a891-223c-7872437e57a2



Very dodgy ground legally . Don't believe any court would , or could , find you guilty .


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

alcam said:


> Very dodgy ground legally . Don't believe any court would , or could , find you guilty .



They can, Only the police can do a stop and search, but if the order is drafted that produce a bag upon request and you cant or don't ,,offence is complete 

Dog walkers could face a PS80 fine for not carrying poo bags | Nature | News | Express.co.uk
Channa


----------



## Robmac (Sep 27, 2017)

Wonder what they would do if I answered in Danish?

"Jeg taler ikke engelsk"


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

Robmac said:


> Wonder what they would do if I answered in Danish?
> 
> "Jeg taler ikke engelsk"



Probably arrest you , detain you on bread and water with a few drunks and shoplifters as neighbours...high level crime  contact a translator ...In the mean time don't bother ringing when you have been burgaled or a vehicle theft , they are too busy 

jeez sarcastic today 

Channa


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

alcam said:


> Very dodgy ground legally . Don't believe any court would , or could , find you guilty .



If you had, genuinely, refused?   No chance I'm afraid.  You've committed a crime - assuming the PSPO has been passed.    I think that would be your only defence (that the council had no right to pass it) - and that would fail because, I'm certain, the council would have approved the PSPO.  It became law from the moment the council put its seal upon it.

I agree with Private.   Peaceful protest has worked in the past;  I'd hope it could work again but the idea of organisations coming together appeals to me and I'd support cooperation.

The trouble is -  many people will say that we're trying to approve of dog muck everywhere,  or we want to approve drinking in public, or we want to allow young people to congregate witn boistrous behaviour.  So the councils get away with it.  And every time the council gets away with it the water gets a little hotter around us frogs.

Gonna sign the petition, Kermit?


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

Until this – and at least one other – was authorised there were strict limits on what councils could do.  The landmark case which enshrined this in our legal system was Entick vs Carrington Entick v Carrington and the principle was laid down that individuals like you and me could do whatever we wanted provided there was no law restricting us.   Government could only do provided there was a law permitting it.   

Do you see the difference?   We can do what we like unless it's prohibited but the council can only do what it's permitted to do.

Well – we've now given the council the right to decide for itself what it is permitted to do.  There is no restraint upon them like there was with byelaws.   Byelaws had to be approved by Government. Councils didn't approve them, councils could only ask for approvel.   Councils now give themselves their own approval.  No restraint.  No examination.  No control.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

Robmac said:


> Jesus!
> 
> We'll all be having to walk around with registration plates on our backs so they can identify and fine us.
> 
> It's the only way they would get any info out of me. As Trev said, the police have better things to do than follow up on this kind of crap.





Chips.  That's the future.  Chips. We'll all have one.


----------



## alcam (Sep 27, 2017)

channa said:


> They can, Only the police can do a stop and search, but if the order is drafted that produce a bag upon request and you cant or don't ,,offence is complete
> 
> Dog walkers could face a PS80 fine for not carrying poo bags | Nature | News | Express.co.uk
> Channa



Ok does appear to fly in the face of the law being fair . Not advocating dogs*it being left in street . I carry , minimum , 4 bags . I have a VERY prolific dog .
Curious if these laws are in place in god's country [no , not Yorkshire]


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

maureenandtom said:


> Until this – and at least one other – was authorised there were strict limits on what councils could do.  The landmark case which enshrined this in our legal system was Entick vs Carrington Entick v Carrington and the principle was laid down that individuals like you and me could do whatever we wanted provided there was no law restricting us.   Government could only do provided there was a law permitting it.
> 
> Do you see the difference?   We can do what we like unless it's prohibited but the council can only do what it's permitted to do.
> 
> Well – we've now given the council the right to decide for itself what it is permitted to do.  There is no restraint upon them like there was with byelaws.   Byelaws had to be approved by Government. Councils didn't approve them, councils could only ask for approvel.   Councils now give themselves their own approval.  No restraint.  No examination.  No control.



Dangerous, the example of numpties even trying to prosecute someone for feeding ducks speaks volumes in itself thankfully common sense prevailed.

I see very little in terms of defence to all this , Already we have seen commissions advice disregarded, Questionable breaches of the Equality Act 2010 Councils have carte blanche opportunity to abuse their position and are doing!

Not sure of the answer, pacifist objections are pretty futile no notice is taken. I suspect the horse has already bolted. I believe in areas like Brighton and Hove residents ( members) lobby there MP it will take something like an ECHR breach to stop them but I fear it wont stop they will merely revise. 

As you say no one wants groups of youths out their tree loitering in areas drunk , smoking weed etc so other bits get slipped in and not a lot we can do to prevent it other than as John Thompson says and that is show more interest in proposed local legislation , even that  goes full circle when you look how B an h ignored people 

Channa


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

Robmac said:


> Jesus!
> 
> We'll all be having to walk around with registration plates on our backs so they can identify and fine us.
> 
> It's the only way they would get any info out of me. As Trev said, the police have better things to do than follow up on this kind of crap.



You got the last word right on target.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

Robmac said:


> Wonder what they would do if I answered in Danish?
> 
> "Jeg taler ikke engelsk"



They may think you are walking a great dane.:lol-053:


----------



## Deleted member 52918 (Sep 27, 2017)

Well this is a can of nasty teeny tiny worms isn't it.

The worms I'm referring to, are those that governments of all colours gradually, slowly, softly invade ours right to privacy with, under the guise of whatever is the perceived threat at the time.

We are being more & more tightly controlled, observed & tracked every year & things are getting to a point that as Robmac says, we might well be required to wear a registration number on our clothes in the nearer than you think future.

Yet I AM worried by the thought of the criminal element, those that think they can do as they please because basically, the law doesn't seem to want to know & yet the same body of law enforcement, seems to pounce upon the more menial offenders with the greatest of zeal! 

My concerns about the new PSPO's are like most on here, the fact that when any part of a government body, is given cart blanch to instigate their own laws, then those laws will more than likely be to stop what annoys the council members, rather than the general populace. Absolute power & all that.

It can all get very petty & in the end it comes down to respect. If people are ignorant enough to throw litter, drink alcohol (to excess) in public malls/parks & city centres, throw empty cans & bottles on the pavement, walk away & leave their dogs doings on the path or grass etc., then that needs to be stopped.
I suppose that when it comes down to it, the only crime that needs any kind of punishment is ignorance, which is possibly what these PSPO's are meant for!

Sorry for the waffle but I think you get the gist

Phill


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 27, 2017)

> Then vent your spleen now. They are being misused now.



Not in any of the examples posted they arent!

If I may address this PROPOSED order

  Proposal for Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) in Westvale, Kirkby
item 1 = causing or being likely to cause nuisance/ alarm /harassment/ distress
that is already a criminal offence under the public order act section 4

item 2 similarly a criminal offence under section 5 POA

Item 3 is  also a criminal act under POA 

item 4 a criminal act under POA (if the police are just a little inventive)

item 5  Sections 59 and 60 Police Reform Act 2002 already give the police power to sieze vehicles in this circumstances

item 6 wearing a mask whilst not illegal of itself the police do already have the power to order you remove it section Section 60AA CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994

item 7 already a criminal act section 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Since all these thing are already criminal acts all that is being done is implementing existing law and shifting the burden of implimentation from the already over burdened police to the council.

.

the public order act is not Englands finest piece of law but its been with us for 30 years now so why has it taken so long to work up this level of opposition in the M/homing community?  Im very sorry but it does sound to me very like some here are very happy for the law to be imposed on others just not them





> the example of numpties even trying to prosecute someone for feeding ducks speaks volumes in itself thankfully common sense prevailed.



I assume that you are yourself well disposed to sharing your house and garden with rats?
because feeding ducks in the park results in nothing other a thriving rat population

BTW nor do I want people walking with their dogs with no way of collecting that which their dog is very likely to deposit, you have a dog then its your responsibilty to clean it up (and yes I have a dog) personally if I had my way I wouldnt impose a fine I would make them pick it up in their hand and put it in a pocket!


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

time4t said:


> Well this is a can of nasty teeny tiny worms isn't it.
> 
> The worms I'm referring to, are those that governments of all colours gradually, slowly, softly invade ours right to privacy with, under the guise of whatever is the perceived threat at the time.
> 
> ...



I agree with the sentiments but last paragraph of course could apply to motorhomes, emptying grey waste ( yes I know its not harmful etc but I am not General Public or a councillor) Campers leaving rubbish ,parking inconsiderate , sod others I don't care if I block hotel views etc....it seems that the birds have come home to roost ...we reap what we sow and now we see the resultant crop we don't like it 

Channa


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

I dont mind laws which are used in a correct manor and with common sense ,but we as law abiding folk know full well they will and are used on folk with money houses cars etc trying to make a living,councils know full well the above can be milked for cash,where as louts etc are given a fine which the dole pays or a small time inside with a better standard of life than they had at home,all at our expense,so in fact we are stuffed twice.


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> Not in any of the examples posted they arent!
> 
> If I may address this PROPOSED order
> 
> ...



Firstly I agree it is another fine example of Police power transferred to other agencies, The difference is this , other remedies require investigation and collating evidence that the CPS may bring a prosecution if allegations are robust and in public interest a slight point but a bloody big one . Then under existing legislation with " travellers" court applications  etc on each and every occasion ,,,,PSPO;s are a one hit so cost effective.

Are you seriously suggesting that feeding ducks is so contributory to the littering issue  Do you work for Kingdom ? Do you not think a traditional pastime is harmless considering fly tipping , food rubbish in general as for sharing the garden and house with rats , slight technicality it isn't a public space unlike a park or canal side, Made my day with that comment ,it reflects the hare brained ideas of councils ....councillor or kingdom ? 

Channa


----------



## Private (Sep 27, 2017)

*Started*



maureenandtom said:


> Chips.  That's the future.  Chips. We'll all have one.



Once that is implemented it is all over for us. As you say it will come.

In the meantime they are collecting biometric data from primary school children upwards (just for the convenience of logging lunch payments of course).
Those systems are not even chargeable to the cash strapped schools to increase uptake.

Many of us use our biometric data to unlock our 'phones now which handily is already connected to the WWW so it can be collected easily.

If you want a passport, biometric data is compulsory too.

These are just a few examples; there won't be many without their biometric data logged now.

Please don't anybody say if you are not committing a crime it does not matter because if you do it shows you have not understand the points made in this thread.


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 27, 2017)

> Are you seriously suggesting that feeding ducks is so contributory to the littering issue



YES!
the difference between throwing a loaf of bread out for the ducks/ sparrows/ pigeons/seagulls and depositing a bed at the side of the road is only one of scale



> Do you work for Kingdom



Not only do I not work for them I have no idea who they are!




> as for sharing the garden and house with rats , slight technicality it isn't a public space unlike a park or canal side



when you are able to convince me that you have trained the population of rats in your garden not to wander get back to me!
(if you wish to live in a rat infested slum that is your privledge so long as you keep your rats at home)



 we as law abiding folk know full well they will and are used on folk with money houses 

As they should - being well to do and middle class should not absolve you from your liabilities under the law, 'law abiding people' should have nothing to fear so long as you abide by the law,  what is being sought here  - it seems to me - is that some people should be treated differently under the law and that would not be correct.

As some one mentioned eariler (sorry whoever you are I forget your name) there is no difference between a full time motorhome dweller and a Gypsy/pikey/ irish traveller/ new age traveller none what so ever.

Some in this and its sister thread talk as if M/home users are some how different and that other rules (or no rules at all) should apply - they are afterall 'law abiding citizens' the fact that they are breaking the law by parking illegally not withstanding


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

As some one mentioned eariler (sorry whoever you are I forget your name) there is no difference between a full time motorhome dweller and a Gypsy/pikey/ irish traveller/ new age traveller none what so ever.

Some in this and its sister thread talk as if M/home users are some how different and that other rules (or no rules at all) should apply - they are afterall 'law abiding citizens' the fact that they are breaking the law by parking illegally not withstanding[/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree there must be some control in car parks/sea fronts etc,but just to hammer some poor sod who has stopped over night in my opinion is daft to the point of harrasment.
I think a 12 hr time limit say 7 pm to 7am would be ok which would stop irish travelers or other long term unwelcome freeloaders taking root.
I do understand in todays climate with some folk not able to afford a home or long waiting on list to a council house they have nowhere to go,motorhome only option.
Why can the council then not open old factory sites up and allow temp siting with water and sewage/w/bins etc,they do it here for travelers


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 27, 2017)

> which would stop irish travelers or other long term unwelcome freeloaders taking root



you seem to be drawing a distinction between good law abiding motorhome uses like your self and 'others' when no such distinction exists.

In the case of the sister thread to this one -"PSPO" it isnt clear to me how long those handed the notices were parked up at the sea front but it does say "There are currently between 20 and 30 fulltimers around Brighton "  which suggests (no more, just suggests) that some of them might have been there a while.

I sympathise I really do with those who want a quite place to park preferably with a nice view but I also sympathise with those who live in nice places with a nice view who dont want it constantly full of motorhome dwellers who add little to the community (no council tax for a start - and I bet that they use council provided facilities).




> I do understand in todays climate with some folk not able to afford a home or long waiting on list to a council house



I and Im sure you too are aware of what it costs to tax, insure, maintain a motorhome.



> Why can the council then not open old factory sites up and allow temp siting with water and sewage/w/bins etc,they do it here for travelers



they have had to be dragged kicking and squealing into doing this  - and by the way you are as entitled as any one else to use them


----------



## Private (Sep 27, 2017)

*Criminal value*



time4t said:


> .......
> Yet I AM worried by the thought of the criminal element, those that think they can do as they please because basically, the law doesn't seem to want to know & yet the same body of law enforcement, seems to pounce upon the more menial offenders with the greatest of zeal.
> 
> Phill



It is about understanding the value of the criminal to the purse of the money people.

If someone burgled a house and stole the car keys then damaged some property with the car they are a great asset to the money markets.
The householder has to buy new possessions, increase his security, pay an increased insurance premium etc.
Others in the area will spend more on their security just by hearing about the incident.
The car companies get to sell another car, the damaged property has to be replaced etc.
It goes on almost ad infinitum. It's all spend, spend, spend on things people didn't intend to spend on (without the need for advertising!).
So that scroat is a benefit to the economy which we all keep hearing is all important. Therefore why would the powers that be want to stop the scroat? 

On the other hand if you are a good citizen looking after your money, happy with your lot you are bad for the economy. 
They need to force you to spend which they do through the scroats they let off, but also if they can criminalise you or get you into court for anything at all they can then fleece you. 
If they are lucky you will be one of the many who are a pay packet or so away from being in financial trouble and they will have forced you into a downward spiral. The markets make much more out of people in debt.

Have you noticed how you now always get asked if you have any convictions for anything other than speeding whenever applying for insurance? 
It is all linked.

The bad are good and the good are bad - for the economy which is all important (for the few).


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> Not in any of the examples posted they arent!
> 
> If I may address this PROPOSED order
> 
> ...



In my view, you've got it wrong.

Criminal acts should be treated as such.   There should be no crime of _“likely to …..”._  and nor is there until a council makes it so.  Under the byelaw system, a requirement is that there should be no existing law to deal with the offence and byelaws have been rejected becaus of this.   As you say, I haven't checked but I believe you, that all these actions are criminal acts already.   You seem to think it not important how the offences are prosecuted.  I do.  In other PSPOs previously decriminalised offences (parking for example) now become crimes. 

Now to the peaceful protest I support – or I used to.   One reason peaceful protest won't work is that in the example of West Vale is its rule, or proposed rule, regarding groups of people. Should the council want to disperse a protest group then it can - all it hs to do is institute a PSPO.   On its website Order to tackle anti social behaviour in Westvale, Kirkby - Knowsley News it quotes:

_“The Authorised Person can request for a group to be dispersed, for example, and failure to comply with instruction or evidence of the behaviour outlined in the PSPO will be recorded as an offence and a Fixed Penalty Notice may be issued, which is a fine of £100 if paid on time, however this could result in a fine up to the value of £1,000 upon conviction. “_

And yet, the Human Rights Act Article 11 Right to protest and freedom of association | Liberty
gives us the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.  So join a peaceful protest, of which we see many, and the PSPO makes this human right a criminal offence.





Who do these councils think they are to overturn so easily the Human Rights Act?

Some PSPOs have gone further.  Making groups of three or more illegal.  Badly thought out.  Mum, dad and three kids in company could be judged by some council employee (or some sub-contractor paid on commission) as being illegal.


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

maureenandtom said:


> In my view, you've got it wrong.
> 
> Criminal acts should be treated as such.   There should be no crime of _“likely to …..”._  and nor is there until a council makes it so.  Under the byelaw system, a requirement is that there should be no existing law to deal with the offence and byelaws have been rejected becaus of this.   As you say, I haven't checked but I believe you, that all these actions are criminal acts already.   You seem to think it not important how the offences are prosecuted.  I do.  In other PSPOs previously decriminalised offences (parking for example) now become crimes.
> 
> ...



PSPO.s used for making legitimate protests unlawful or legal gatherings, Only a matter of time for something like rememberence day. They actually have the tools to do it !!

Much as English Defence league, British National Party are unpalatable democracy means that they should have there say, By denying groups like these,toouble will brew,,,remember the rots of 2001
Channa


----------



## Val54 (Sep 27, 2017)

As with all things, the success or otherwise of PSPO's is down to common sense. I wholeheartedly supported the efforts of Chester to try and make the city centre at night a safe place where you could take a family without fear of being harassed by drunken yobs. The Council however drafted a wide ranging Order which impacted on buskers and a whole host of things that weren't bothering the general public. I can say this because the result of the public consultation was to reduce the effect of the order down to three things that really bothered everyone in a public place, drunken behaviour, use of drugs and urination. It will get reviewed in 3 years and we will see if it has delivered. Councils are going to use PSPO's to deal with their own local issues, if that happens to be motorhomers overstaying their welcome and causing a nuisance to local residents, then we only have ourselves to blame.


----------



## yorkslass (Sep 27, 2017)

Just seen an article in the Bristol News about an area called Easton which has more than a few vehicles parked nose to tail. They are living in their vans cos they can't afford local housing rents. A perfect place to introduce a ban but not find somewhere for the vans to park permanently. Move the problem somewhere else.


----------



## shawbags (Sep 27, 2017)

trevskoda said:


> Did you ever hear of the saying to boil a frog,if you put a frog in water and slowly bring to the boil the frog wont jump but simply boil to death.
> Well this is what our gov is doing to all of us now by slowly bringing in laws of oppression,right to speak out ,protest etc.
> We are as frogs now and heading back to what our forefathers fought ww2 for our rights and freedoms being taken away.
> Its time we all stood up and be counted,think of our childrens future if any at this rate,they wont have one.
> GB is now coming to an end as any viable power in the world,more a laughing stock,and we are letting it happen,rant over for today.:mad2:



You've hit the nail on the head , not only are we being treated like idiots by our own government but they are flooding the country with foreigners that will quickly be the majority, we are a sinking ship but no party will say it as it is , shame on us for allowing this to happen!


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 27, 2017)

> Criminal acts should be treated as such. There should be no crime of “likely to …..”.



 a point which I wouldnt argue very much with, HOWEVER such offences have been with us since the dawn of modern juris prudence - they certainly existed in common law (largely all the POA did was codify common law) and the particular examples you currently find so offensive have been on the books for 30years so you are a little late in the day campaigning against them.


As I opined earlier the POA especially sections 4 and 5 are very poor laws but they are laws and the time to protest about them is long gone, I very much doubt that you objected to the same act when it was used to stop rave parties or to limit the  extent of National Front marches.


Oh! you dont need a PSPO to ban a peaceful protest - the public order act  section 14 will do very nicely!


----------



## yorkslass (Sep 27, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> a point which I wouldnt argue very much with, HOWEVER such offences have been with us since the dawn of modern juris prudence - they certainly existed in common law (largely all the POA did was codify common law) and the particular examples you currently find so offensive have been on the books for 30years so you are a little late in the day campaigning against them.
> 
> 
> As I opined earlier the POA especially sections 4 and 5 are very poor laws but they are laws and the time to protest about them is long gone, I very much doubt that you objected to the same act when it was used to stop rave parties or to limit the  extent of National Front marches.
> ...



I don't know if I'm missing something, but the way I'm understanding this, is that existing laws need permissions from the courts to implement them, ie,banning marches or removing travellers, whereas the PSPO can be implemented at the whim of someone in the council at any time,who may have vested interests. Not saying it would be, but it could be. Maybe I've read it wrong.


----------



## alcam (Sep 27, 2017)

yorkslass said:


> I don't know if I'm missing something, but the way I'm understanding this, is that existing laws need permissions from the courts to implement them, ie,banning marches or removing travellers, whereas the PSPO can be implemented at the whim of someone in the council at any time,who may have vested interests. Not saying it would be, but it could be. Maybe I've read it wrong.



Not making a political point [before the zealots go off on one!] , but apparently PSPOs don't apply in Scotland . We may have something similar , hopefully not .


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 27, 2017)

Val54 said:


> As with all things, the success or otherwise of PSPO's is down to common sense. I wholeheartedly supported the efforts of Chester to try and make the city centre at night a safe place where you could take a family without fear of being harassed by drunken yobs. The Council however drafted a wide ranging Order which impacted on buskers and a whole host of things that weren't bothering the general public. I can say this because the result of the public consultation was to reduce the effect of the order down to three things that really bothered everyone in a public place, drunken behaviour, use of drugs and urination. It will get reviewed in 3 years and we will see if it has delivered. Councils are going to use PSPO's to deal with their own local issues, if that happens to be motorhomers overstaying their welcome and causing a nuisance to local residents, then we only have ourselves to blame.



I agree with the above,but when one needs to go and there are no loos the deed must be done.


----------



## runnach (Sep 27, 2017)

yorkslass said:


> I don't know if I'm missing something, but the way I'm understanding this, is that existing laws need permissions from the courts to implement them, ie,banning marches or removing travellers, whereas the PSPO can be implemented at the whim of someone in the council at any time,who may have vested interests. Not saying it would be, but it could be. Maybe I've read it wrong.



In my mind you are correct, Malagaoth has quoted Public Order Act of 1986 sections 4 , 5 and 14....here is the difference the Act involves dealing with public order crimes , the important part is the persons alleged of misdemeanour have already congregated the PSPO meanwhile prevents people getting together in the first place.

In the event of us lot gathering and becoming "boisterous" the police have the option of charging under the POA as opposed to a fixed fine.

That leaves Section 14, familiar with this one from my previous life, A police officer of Inspector or above could close the pub with immediate effect if they suspected trouble for 24 hours after that an order form magistrates would be required. typical example intel that violence expcted near a football ground...But that police Officer has to have reasonable cause 

So of course a PSPO prevents people from entering an area on an permanent basis or at least until the PSPO is revised. The concerning thing is people can be issued fixed penalty notices, the advantage money saved involving the CPS and court costs , and considering Police numbers are circa 1985 with a bigger population to Police  it is a fantastic piece of legislation that can be offloaded to PCSO and council enforcement officers 

Channa


----------



## Val54 (Sep 27, 2017)

yorkslass said:


> I don't know if I'm missing something, but the way I'm understanding this, is that existing laws need permissions from the courts to implement them, ie,banning marches or removing travellers, whereas the PSPO can be implemented at the whim of someone in the council at any time,who may have vested interests. Not saying it would be, but it could be. Maybe I've read it wrong.



The PSPO can only be implemented after public consultation and then for a maximum of 3 years before it has to be reviewed. It can only be proposed and approved by councillors that you have elected and they can only do that if they have reasonable evidence of the problem that they are trying to deal with and that the PSPO would be effective in dealing with it. There are a lot of comments about PSPO's being used to prevent future events. What do you say to the residents of estates whose lives are made a misery by the actions of a minority. No law is perfect and it can be abused by those in power, but sometimes our views become coloured by the high profile cases reported by the tabloids. In the end we are all responsible for making sure that those we elect are acting for the general good, so if your local council consults on a PSPO, get involved!


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

I've been trying to write something similar to Channa.   Something about trusting the judgement of a senior police officer rather than a council worker.  

I'm more concerned about PSPOs making crimes, creating criminal offences, where none existed before.  Parking is the obvious one for me as a (temporarily) ex motorhomer.    But I'm not yet an ex-human being and it was enough for me to see the council rejection of the advice of the Equality Commissioner to begin looking into PSPOs and there's nothing for me to like. Certainly not the idea of justice on the cheap.

There is logic in the decision, for example, of Salford (?) council to close a street where drug dealing had been suspected.   The logic is – if drug dealing goes on in this street, let's close it and there will be no more drug dealing.   Morons.   There will still be drug dealing;  it will be displaced somewhere else.  The trick is to catch the criminals and to subject them to the legal process..

The same with antisocial motorhomers like us.     Ban them from this area and they won't be here to be antisocial.  Morons.   We will still be antisocial but we'll be antisocial somewhere else.  (Except me - as an ex).  The trick is to put us somewhere not antisocial.

Then there are the horror stories.  Fine a beggar £100 for being a beggar and you don't stop him being a beggar.  He just has to be a better beggar to find that extra £100.    Or make a homeless person into a criminal.  A £100 fine for being homeless doesn't seem like much of a cure to homlessness.

The one that amused me was the one trying to ban face-coverings in public.   I feel that one could be dangerous.  Our muslim citizens are not noted for accepting this sort of diktat easily. On reflection it didn't amuse me.  It frightened me.

A Zealot


----------



## Val54 (Sep 27, 2017)

maureenandtom said:


> I've been trying to write something similar to Channa.   Something about trusting the judgement of a senior police officer rather than a council worker.
> 
> I'm more concerned about PSPOs making crimes, creating criminal offences, where none existed before.  Parking is the obvious one for me as a (temporarily) ex motorhomer.    But I'm not yet an ex-human being and it was enough for me to see the council rejection of the advice of the Equality Commissioner to begin looking into PSPOs and there's nothing for me to like. Certainly not the idea of justice on the cheap.
> 
> ...



You make a lot of sweeping statements and assumptions and avoid the point that it's not the Council worker on the street that created and approved the PSPO in the first place. We get the opportunity to comment on these Orders, if you don't agree with your local politicians, do something about it. As an ex-council worker, I take exception to the view that an experienced police officers view is superior to mine, it may well be in some circumstances, but don't trot out the usual vitriol against all council workers, those who are still employed by councils, are by and large, trying to do their best; just as the police do, by and large! And just take your Salford example, I don't know the facts, but perhaps the idea of closure was to push the using and dealing into areas with CCTV where the culprits could be caught, just a thought, but then I'm only an ex-council worker!


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 27, 2017)

Sincerely meant.


----------



## runnach (Sep 28, 2017)

This article is interesting highlights a few issues, Maingate if alone don't walk 4 dogs in Lincoln , and isolated anti social behaviour in Oxford but disproportionate PSPO proposed.
www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/files/Public_Space_Protection_Orders.pdf

Channa


----------



## maingate (Sep 28, 2017)

channa said:


> This article is interesting highlights a few issues, *Maingate if alone don't walk 4 dogs* in Lincoln , and isolated anti social behaviour in Oxford but disproportionate PSPO proposed.
> www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/files/Public_Space_Protection_Orders.pdf
> 
> Channa




Sadly we are down to 3 dogs nowadays, 2 of them small dogs but thanks for the heads up Andrew.

I am angry about these new draconian measures affecting everyone but there is a small hard core of eejits in City Centres who can disrupt the lives of ordinary folk and need dealing with somehow ..... a PSPO is not the way to do it. Perhaps a return of the Birch, administered on the spot may get the message home. :cool1:

Sadly, I include some motorhome owners in this small group of retards.


----------



## wildebus (Sep 28, 2017)

maingate said:


> Sadly we are down to 3 dogs nowadays, 2 of them small dogs but thanks for the heads up Andrew.
> 
> I am angry about these new draconian measures affecting everyone but there is a small hard core of eejits in City Centres who can disrupt the lives of ordinary folk and need dealing with somehow ..... a PSPO is not the way to do it. *Perhaps a return of the Birch, administered on the spot may get the message home*. :cool1:
> 
> Sadly, I include some motorhome owners in this small group of retards.



Not sure if you mean administered BY the council or TO the council?  (both would be appropriate quite often!)

I guess PSPOs started to find favour to deal with those people who "know they're rites"  (spelling deliberate) and for whom the existing remedies were not effective.  So when out to consulatation to the public, it is hardly surprising there are very few dissenting voices.

it amuses me that there are so many posts saying essentially that all people with motorhomes and caravans are the same, and so there is no difference between a gyspy (or roma, or traveller, or whatever the PC term is) and an individual with a Motorhome who stops in a carpark overnight or maybe two. 
What a load of tosh.  You don't get many casual motorhomers travelling in large groups, parking up on playing fields, parks, etc, setting up camp and eventually depart leaving a ton of rubbish behind, and in the meantime making themselves unwelcome by accosting people to buy their quality wares and nosing around their gardens.  (Is that a generalisation that I have from reading the Daily Mail? No, it is from direct (and multiple) experiences).

I am sure there are lots of lovely gypsy folk around, but it is the pugnacious examples in that community that give the whole lot a bad name and it is hardly surprising just about anyone would want them away from their back yard and shifted to be someone elses problem.
It is unfortunate individual motorhomers get caught up in the situation but in these PC days, when in truth and relality you want to target a specific group that is the real issue, instead you have to target everyone to prove you are not biased.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> ...
> 
> Oh! you dont need a PSPO to ban a peaceful protest - the public order act  section 14 will do very nicely!



Not sure what point you're making but I entirely agree with you - the legislation already exists.  In the hands of a senior police officer rather than a traffic warden or somebody sub-contracted by the council.   If the legislation exists and, if as you say, the POA dealt nicely with rave parties and political protests (I'm too young to personally remember such things) then I cannot see the need to take the responsibility from trained, experienced police officers other than to satisfy the desires of councils to be in unfettered control.

So the legislation exists, it is used successfully and up to now there was a principle that only central government could approve such laws - byelaws.

If it's not broke, don't fix it.


----------



## maxi77 (Sep 28, 2017)

alcam said:


> Can't see how that could possibly work legally John .



In the same way you are required to have the owners contact details available on the dog and now it has to be chipped, simple if you are in charge of a dog you need the means to clear up after it. I tend to have a roll of bags even if the dogs are not with me


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 28, 2017)

> I cannot see the need to take the responsibility from trained, experienced police officers other than to satisfy the desires of councils to be in unfettered control.




Put simply the police are too busy with serious crime to be bothered with what is really little more than a parking issue.

Rightly or wrongly (we shall see) I really dont believe that this piece of now 3 year old legislation will serious affect most responsible motorhome users, because in effect little has changed other than who is enforcing pre existing law.

The people who park up their motorhomes in carparks and streets and live in them for days and weeks on end are doing most of the people here a huge disservice, its because of those people more and more carparks are getting height restrictors and more and more coucils are taking a "no motorhomes here" stance.

I genuinely do not believe that any council gives a hoot about a motor home turning up in a carpark at 7pm and being gone at 9am what they care about is  a quiet stop over for the night by one motor home becoming 12 motorhomes in permanent residence.


----------



## mistericeman (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> Put simply the police are too busy with serious crime to be bothered with what is really little more than a parking issue.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly (we shall see) I really dont believe that this piece of now 3 year old legislation will serious affect most responsible motorhome users, because in effect little has changed other than who is enforcing pre existing law.
> 
> ...



At last.... common sense


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> Put simply the police are too busy with serious crime to be bothered with what is really little more than a parking issue.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly (we shall see) I really dont believe that this piece of now 3 year old legislation will serious affect most responsible motorhome users, because in effect little has changed other than who is enforcing pre existing law.
> 
> ...



Music to my ears.   You see?   We agree completely.  And yet .... somehow you make that agreement sound as if we don't.   I'm like you.  I see the councils as being to blame for pretty well all motorhome problems with their _"no motorhomes here"_ stance..  If only councils would see, like some already do, Wyre for example, Canterbury for another and a few more, like Lytham,  too, that the motorhome problem  can be easily solved.   Provide places.  We can easily solve the stop-over becoming a permanent residence problem - and make some money at it too.   

_Line Deleted_

But we're talking about PSPOs - not just motorhomes.

You're right about the majority of motorhomers not being affected by face coverings in public or advertising boat rides in Cambridge or under 21s being banned from a tower block.   Still, I'm a motorhomer and I think councils passing laws about these things want looking at too.  Keep byelaws, scrap PSPOs.   Like you say, and I agree, legislation already exists and it's been a proven success.


----------



## Deleted member 52918 (Sep 28, 2017)

channa said:


> This article is interesting highlights a few issues, Maingate if alone don't walk 4 dogs in Lincoln , and isolated anti social behaviour in Oxford but disproportionate PSPO proposed.
> www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/files/Public_Space_Protection_Orders.pdf
> 
> Channa



Thank you Channa, your link provides a prime example of why all councils PSPO's need proper scrutiny & at least 1 example of the lack of experience of the proposer & consultation with those affected.

I'm referring to the Oxford waterways PSPO, the part about canal boats causing pollution by emitting smoke & noise.
This proposal was obviously going to put all the people who live in canal boats into a very miserable existence indeed, it shows a remarkable lack of understanding how these folk live & I'm glad that it was thrown out when it was pointed out to the council that a canal boat needs the engine etc., running to have electricity & most have wood burners for heat.

The pictures of smoke around the area were taken on a foggy day & were of only one location.
No scientific equipment was used in determining the air quality!

It's a worrying observation that the canal folk only knew about this a few days before it was due to become ratified!!

Phill


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 28, 2017)

> You don't get many casual motorhomers travelling in large groups




Oh yes you do!

I believe that some of the esteemed members of this very board decended _en mass _on Hoxa and Sands of Wright (Orkney) this summer! 

and it really doesnt matter if the 30 "full timers" in Brighton are related, know each other or are total strangers to each other it doesnt change the fact that there are 30 of them parked up. 




> But we're talking about PSPOs - not just motorhomes


Yes, and really I dont care who moderates the loutish behavour in our towns, I dont care who polices the dog fouling laws, or the public drinking laws, or the public nuisance laws - but I would rather they be enforced by someone (any one) as not be enforced by the police.





> if alone don't walk 4 dogs in Lincoln



BTW there have been laws about walking multiple dogs for a very long time - and not just in lincoln 
from the  control of greyhounds act of 1950
 "A person shall not exercise or lead, or cause or permit to be exercised or led by any one person, more than two greyhounds in any street, road, highway or other public place, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, other than such premises or track mentioned in section"

But I suppose that you didnt care because your dogs arent greyhounds!


----------



## shawbags (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> Oh yes you do!
> 
> I believe that some of the esteemed members of this very board decended _en mass _on Hoxa and Sands of Wright (Orkney) this summer!
> 
> ...



I never knew that walking more than two dogs is against the law lol , it was obviously thought necessary back then , our police abuse their powers all the time now and get away with it it's another joke !


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 28, 2017)

There have been at least three PSPOs used for the control of motorhomes which in the past would have been the subject of a byelaw, or a TRO or an off-street parking order.   (One is as yet only a proposal – for the benefit ot the pedantic).     None of these three PSPOs have been subject to the same standards of necessity, consultation or approval. I don't want laws to be made without publicity at the whim of a council without the proper controls we have been used to.

I'm sure there are more orders right now that we don't know about and I am also sure there will be a lot more in the future.

By any standards, the byelaw for Huttoft was a failure for Lincs CC.    Hugely expensive and ultimately disgraced in court.  The Judge said the council had abused its authority.   Had a PSPO been available to the council then I'm not sure that it would have been a failure.  

A PSPO allows the council to create laws without proper supervision.   It was heartening to see the case in Leeds being thrown out by Judge Saffman (so far as I see the council obtained an injunction in a lower court using the PSPO against two named and number of unnamed individuals) and I'm grateful to Channa for the reference.

The appeal argument heard by Judge Saffman was this submission on behalf of the victims.





I wonder where the two named got the money to pay for the appeal;   they were, allegedly, beggars.

The Judge said:
_
“Judges and lawyers should be aware that local authorities do make applications without notice to obtain these injunctions when there are no grounds for them being made and that they should be challenged. It is understood that apparently unlawful begging injunctions of this type may be in force in other cities in England.”_


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you once again.  I hadn't known the legislation already existed.  No need for the PSPO.


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 28, 2017)

the control of greyhounds act of 1950 applies only to greyhounds - no idea why greyhounds were considered so dangerous - but do you really think it safe for a person to walk 3 or 4 (or more) large powerful dogs over which they have no physical control.
when it comes to law making it is far easier to say "walk no more than x number of dogs"  than set out a list or lay down qualifications both of which would only serve to make the law more complicated more difficult to understand and allow all sorts of legal loopholes - "its not a mastif, its a mastif bull mastif cross".

I am sick and tired of seeing women hauling on leashes attached to (usually) husky type dogs they have zero control over them they are simply being dragged around, the police could prosecute under existing laws  - but could you imagine the out cry?

PSPOs can be challenged the penalties can be appealed.

Absent a PSPO very much the same effect can be achieved by implimenting other laws - some of which would result in those convicted getting a criminal record, is that really what you are setting out to achieve a criminal record?

I would pretty much guarantee that if an officious police authorised officer examined the motor homes at Bristol or Brighton  he could find enough reason to have a fair few of the vehicles taken off the road and sizeable penalties applied - would that be an improvement of a PSPO?


----------



## wildebus (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> Oh yes you do!
> ...


If you are going to quote me, quote the ENTIRE sentence in order not to twist my words to your own ends.

So what you MEANT to quote was "_You don't get many casual motorhomers travelling in large groups, parking up on playing fields, parks, etc, setting up camp and eventually depart leaving a ton of rubbish behind, and in the meantime making themselves unwelcome by accosting people to buy their quality wares and nosing around their gardens_"

Care to reply to that?


----------



## malagaoth (Sep 28, 2017)

I was going to leave this as 'enough said' but since I have been asked I will address this full sentence (and yes I shouldnt have cherry picked from it)



> You don't get many casual motorhomers travelling in large groups, parking up on playing fields, parks, etc, setting up camp and eventually depart leaving a ton of rubbish behind,



No you probably dont but what you do get is groups of motor homes parked up owned by people who have no connection with each other who cause similar problems (absent the huge piles of rubbish).  If a dozen motorhomes park up in the carpark in your village you dont care if they know each other  or not.

I could list things I have seen "law abiding motorhome owner" do  - which includes emptying  black waste onto a gravel carpark (particularly annoying since there was a porta potty not 75yards away he could have used)  a motorhomer emptying not one but two cassettes in a public toilet which had large signs saying "motorhome owners PLEASE do not dump toilet waste in these toilets"  more Motor homes with grey waste empting out on to carparks than I could count - including several times in town center car parks.

Never seen them in playing fields but then I tend not to visit playing fields, I have seen them on common land and Ive seen them in church car parks.

I have seen public carparks with upwards of a dozen motor homes in them overnighting and not ones which advertise that they welcome such stop overs.

It is no wonder that people get upset because if I see it they see it.

any how enough said


----------



## wildebus (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> I was going to leave this as 'enough said' but since I have been asked I will address this full sentence (and yes I shouldnt have cherry picked from it)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still cherry picking the quote to miss the primary meaning of my sentence.  
Anyhow, enough said but your posts cannot be relied upon to be a genuine retort.


----------



## maureenandtom (Sep 28, 2017)

malagaoth said:


> ...
> 
> Absent a PSPO very much the same effect can be achieved by implimenting other laws - some of which would result in those convicted getting a criminal record, is that really what you are setting out to achieve a criminal record?
> 
> I would pretty much guarantee that if an officious police authorised officer examined the motor homes at Bristol or Brighton  he could find enough reason to have a fair few of the vehicles taken off the road and sizeable penalties applied - would that be an improvement of a PSPO?



Yes, I'd prefer a police officer - if it had to be one or the other.   If I understand you correctly then you believe a PSPO in this case would have the effect of allowing - no, compelling, unroadworthy and therefore dangerous, vehicles to remain on the road?   It's difficult for me to believe that any responsible person would prefer a PSPO so that it could enable unroadworthy vehicles to remain in use.


----------



## Debroos (Sep 29, 2017)

The answer to my question is probably already on this thread but I can't see it...

How do you know that a PSPO is in place? For instance if it was an overnight parking ban would it be posted in the car park to which it referred?
Or what if you were walking multiple dogs?


----------



## runnach (Sep 29, 2017)

I note with interest my pointing out the differences between the Public Order Act quoted and a PSPO hasn't been questioned, The POA is a mechanism to deal with offences a pspo to prevent any offence occurring an important point, In other words one piece of legislation is reactive (pspo) is proactive to deter what could happen which is dangerous where does it stop there may be minimal to non existent chance of an offence in the first place.

Prevention is better than cure, I can buy that on face value, afterall all of us I assume disagree with offences like drunk in a public space , graffiti etc , picking up dog faeces .Someone pointed out it may prevent offence in an area but what it doesn't do is preventing that problem it shifts elsewhere, Well that is true since the introduction of cctv in Doncaster, has prostitution gone away ? No is the answer a different part of town is the result. Society doesn't seem mature enough to accept the "oldest profession " Let he hath never sinned cast the first stone" is biblical when Rebecca was about to be stoned. So why not regulate it ? give the girls places to work safely, even tax them ....Brothels away from residential areas to keep the NIMBYs happy (rightly so) and use industrial estates.

I don't use or have ever used prostitutes by the way , but I think it is naïve to believe the problem will go away , it needs managing constructively, getting those on drugs off,and society being a bit more supportive. But fines are preferred yet doesn't address the problem 

I digress, The point is PSPO can easily be abused by authority and far reaching, Proof exists of minimal consultation before it becoming local law, enforcement by private companies contracted to the councils frees up cps and court time but there lies an additional issue 

On the spot fine from someone contracted or working for a council can be contested in court that is fair I hear you say but is it ? Consider PSPOs work a bit like a speeding ticket.

Unless the speed was of such magnitude a custodial sentence is likely then there is no access to legal aid . Legal aid is available from what I can gather for a PSPO...but does my analogy of speeding offences mean that in the future legal aid becomes unavailable for PSPO fines ? Hopefully you can see my concern

As things stand, the minimum tariff for an offence is the fixed penalty (it isn't based on income) Yet if you are to challenge an allegation you lose that earliest plea discount and tariffs ARE THEN set upon income and savings. Also over and above if found guilty you have costs and victim surcharge. So it doesn't need Einstein to work out that incentive based companies chasing targets if acting unfairly are expensive to challenge that cant be right, it costs nothing to accuse but does to challenge.

So I don't have a problem dealing with anti social behaviour but what I do have a problem with is a system that lacks transparency and accountability and is easy to abuse , with redress being beyond many "pay up get it over with "

Channa


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 29, 2017)

time4t said:


> Thank you Channa, your link provides a prime example of why all councils PSPO's need proper scrutiny & at least 1 example of the lack of experience of the proposer & consultation with those affected.
> 
> I'm referring to the Oxford waterways PSPO, the part about canal boats causing pollution by emitting smoke & noise.
> This proposal was obviously going to put all the people who live in canal boats into a very miserable existence indeed, it shows a remarkable lack of understanding how these folk live & I'm glad that it was thrown out when it was pointed out to the council that a canal boat needs the engine etc., running to have electricity & most have wood burners for heat.
> ...



Front page of the Times today that London Mayor is seeking powers to prevent the use of wood burning stoves and also to prevent diesel engines being used on building sites and on boats.   Sounds like canal folk are again heading for a very miserable existence as are those who use wood burners in there homes and motorhomes.

I wonder when he will get around to banning aircraft taking off, landing and overflying London?


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 29, 2017)

The Police are now over stretched to be able to administer the law.  They simply mop up after the event.   I was told on Monday at any one point there are at a maximum of 4 Police officers on duty in Darlington.   No wonder if you call an incident in on a Friday or Saturday night you get told there is no one available to deal with it.

Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) can not deal with a lot of issues.


----------



## runnach (Sep 29, 2017)

John Thompson said:


> The Police are now over stretched to be able to administer the law.  They simply mop up after the event.   I was told on Monday at any one point there are at a maximum of 4 Police officers on duty in Darlington.   No wonder if you call an incident in on a Friday or Saturday night you get told there is no one available to deal with it.
> 
> Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) can not deal with a lot of issues.



Sometimes a crime number for your insurers etc constitutes the "mopping Up"

More and more legislation off loaded to private enterprise and potential corruption doesn't make sense.

After the Manchester Bombing Arena the Army mobilised and showing presence at public venues, our illustrious prime minister telling us they are taking care of us ..bunkum bollox etc...the only reason the armed forces mobilised is because the Police Service has been starved of officers in numbers to address such issues, The Police service in my mind is stretched and thus on its knees, unable to cope ,akin to two checkouts open in Sainsburys on Christmas Eve.

We need more police simple as that , hit the anti social behaviour and idiots hard and fast, and let the courts ( also cut) deal with offenders.

Franchising the legal system is seriously flawed , you only have to look at how probation services and the prison service are failing. Part of custody is punishment part is re habilitation setting folk on th straight and narrow...all of it failing on so many levels

Channa


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Sep 30, 2017)

channa said:


> Part of custody is punishment part is re habilitation setting folk on th straight and narrow...all of it failing on so many levels
> Channa



From working in a prison the part relating to punishment these days is simply denial of freedom to a greater or lesser extent.  Re habitation comes down to knowing how to play the system.  Tick the right boxes and you are considered fit for release.   Protest your innocence and/or refuse to do the courses and you can be kept in indefinitely.


----------

