maureenandtom
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,248
- Likes
- 1,962
Beware the Public Spaces Protection Order
- Thread starter maureenandtom
- Start date
alcam
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,412
- Likes
- 7,179
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]
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 42,866
- Likes
- 63,191
You got the last word right on target.
trevskoda
Full Member
- Posts
- 42,866
- Likes
- 63,191
They may think you are walking a great dane.:lol-053:
Deleted member 52918
Guest
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
malagaoth
Guest
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
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!
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
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
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 42,866
- Likes
- 63,191
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.
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 572
- Likes
- 711
Started
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.
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
Guest
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
Not only do I not work for them I have no idea who they are!
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 42,866
- Likes
- 63,191
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
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
Last edited:
malagaoth
Guest
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 and Im sure you too are aware of what it costs to tax, insure, maintain a motorhome.
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 572
- Likes
- 711
Criminal value
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).
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,248
- Likes
- 1,962
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.
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
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.
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,876
- Likes
- 2,646
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
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,758
- Likes
- 11,244
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
Guest
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!