Beware the Public Spaces Protection Order

[maureenandtom]

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]

...



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!

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

 

[malagaoth]

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]

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]

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]

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)



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

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]

...

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]

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?

 

[Channa]

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[Channa]

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]

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.