Beware the Public Spaces Protection Order

[malagaoth]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

 

[Channa]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

Sincerely meant.

 

[Channa]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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.

At last.... common sense

 

[maureenandtom]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.





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!

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 !