Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: coffee pot on February 14, 2025, 04:32:56 pm
-
This is excellent news, about time they did something about dog poo.
Minority Report was a work of fiction.
-
"What do you do for a living?"
"I work for the council running DNA tests on dog poo"
-
This is excellent news, about time they did something about dog poo. As a sufferer of OCD, it ruins my day if I tread in it.
I read a few years ago that in parts of Spain, a dog owner is required to have their dog's DNA registered. Then then test the poo and fine the owner. I'd love to see that here too.
-
This story reminds me of the controversy a few years ago when Manchester City Council brought in 'Environmental Enforcement' officers, ostensibly to discourage littering in the city centre. At some point they farmed this out to a private company who kept 75% of the money, leading to some rather over-zealous enforcement.
-
Everyone has powers of arrest; the citizen's arrest. However, that is strewn with elephant traps.
"Any person can arrest a person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence or
Anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing such an offence, if
it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead and
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary, for one of the following reasons:
To prevent the person in question:
causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
suffering physical injury;
causing loss of or damage to property; or
making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him."
As everyone here well knows, an indictable offence is one that is tried at Crown Court. 'Not being in possession of a plastic bag', from memory, isn't in the list.
-
Yes. It seems like it is a system that relies heavily on compliance.
-
I fail to see how a PSPO could grant a power of arrest.
-
The PSPO in this case does cover this later:
"Failure to give correct details
If an authorised officer proposes to give a person a fixed penalty notice under any part of the PSPO, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.
A person commits an offence if:
(a) they fail to give his name and address when required to do so
(b) they give a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under the proceeding subsection."
It is silent on whether or not there is any power of detention until the cops arrive.
-
I've never been approached by council officers for any reason, but I have often wondered what their response would/can be to 'shove it up your arse mate' when asked for my details?
-
I've often wondered about these various tickets that council officials can dish out. They have no means to force anyone to provide their identity (unlike the police), so couldn't you just walk off, or get back in the car and drive off? How much effort are they going to go to to identify the culprit? Even driving off, they don't have the S.172 means of identifying the driver. We've seen this when they send threatening letters to Registered Keepers whose car has been the source of litter thrown from it.
-
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous question.
-
So it’s not just not having poo bags, it’s not being able to produce them on demand? That really is some “turn out your pockets” type legislation. I’m not convinced it is intra vires.
-
I've been out with the dogs before and they have been so crap happy, they have gone through the 5 or 6 poo bags I took out with me. So this council is proposing to fine me if they catch me heading back home sans poo bags, but with two completely pooed out dogs?
Edit to add. It is however in my humble reserved opinion that for people who let their dogs poo in the street and fail to pick it up, you should be legally allowed to stab them in the face.
-
Surely having the bags in the car a few yards away satisfies the requirement to be able to " produce suitable and unused means of removing dog faeces from the ground when asked to do so"? The dog owner isn't required to actually carry them on their person. Alternatively a handkerchief would also satisfy the requirement.
-
If you look at the Metro story that appears to be precisely their position and actions. Bearing in mind it is a story as reported in the Press, and anyone who has been involved in anything that appears in the Press knows their fact checking is sometimes less than perfect, it does seem likely. The council also wave the old toxocara canis shroud despite their being very little evidence that this very rare disease in humans is caused by companion dogs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667114X24000116 for the really interested.
-
So it imposes liability for not having a poo bag because your dog might have a poo and you might not pick it up?
Are council goons wandering around demanding papers poo bags please?
-
https://wolverhampton.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s241418/Public%20Spaces%20Protection%20Order%202023%20-%20Dog%20Control.pdf
The relevant section
4.6 As part of the consultation exercise into renewal and variation of the PSPO, consultation
was undertaken regarding a new requirement for a person in charge of a dog on public
land to be able to produce on the request of an authorised officer suitable and unused
means of removing dog faeces from the ground. Anyone who fails to comply with this
requirement shall be guilty of an offence if they are unable to produce suitable and
unused means of removing dog faeces from the ground when asked to do so by an
authorised officer. The receptacle / bags must be disposable, and this requirement is
unaffected by whether the dog has recently defecated. Exceptions to this proposal are:
i That person has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so; or
ii The owner/occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has
consented (generally or specifically) to that person failing to do so.
I would have thought that, "my car is 10 yards away and I have one or more there" is a perfectly valid response. It doesn't say it has to be produced from anywhere in particular.
-
I agree that poo is to be picked up and we always pick up (unless it's low tide). However, I have never heard that it is an offence to be near your dog (how did they prove ownership? He might be walking the dog, but is he the registered keeper?) without a plastic bag about your person.
The report says that the Public Spaces Protection Order applies to a "person in charge of a dog", not its owner.
-
I agree that poo is to be picked up and we always pick up (unless it's low tide). However, I have never heard that it is an offence to be near your dog (how did they prove ownership? He might be walking the dog, but is he the registered keeper?) without a plastic bag about your person.
-
How much was he fined for punching them in the face?
-
An 80-year-old grandad was left shocked after he was handed a £80 fine for going on a 10-yard walk with his dog without a poo bag.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/13/granddad-fined-80-not-poo-bag-10-second-dog-walk-22552010/
That seems entirely reasonable.
One of the many ways that life has improved over my recent decades has been the elimination of dogsh1t on the pavements and other public places.
-
An 80-year-old grandad was left shocked after he was handed a £80 fine for going on a 10-yard walk with his dog without a poo bag.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/13/granddad-fined-80-not-poo-bag-10-second-dog-walk-22552010/