Undercover dog wardens to crackdown on dog fouling in Hyndburn (From Lancashire Telegraph)

they want to lurk around the cycle path between station road and St. Huberts street in great harwood, it's got to be one of the filthiest paths in town.

Living near Peel Park school I find it disgusting that the few people that do scoop the poop into a handy little bag, will then leave the playing field and drop the above mentioned bag into/around the open bin right outside the school gate, and if that bin is full, as they usually are then the same bags will nicely be left on somebodies back alley.

we need bigger bins or smaller dogs

What a sh*t job.

There is'nt enough space left for all the humans let alone Poop Producing Pets.We had a problem with the PPP's accross from our kitchen window 'which was a bit of a sickener' your just getting your cumberland sausages out the grill you throw them on a plate turn round to put the grill in the sink and there is a big fat st bernard dropping a steaming fat turd not very apputising as you can imagine.So what we did is fit a big fat speaker just under the gutter so when these strange people turn up with their PPP's to sh1t our field up we do a running commentary of their visit and if they stop long enough for thier PPP to operate we politely ask them to take it with them.Only thing is nobody as stopped that long yet.job done.

About time !

There is something sinister about council employees equipped with 'night vision goggles' and ancillary surveillance apparatus spying on the populous.
A dog usually defecates within an hour of feeding. I cannot see the reason why people who are willing to scoop up dog dirt and put it in a plastic bag - where it could fester for years, cannot keep their animal in the yard or part of the garden until duty is done then scoop it up and dispose of it down the toilet using a strong disinfectant to clean the area.
If you can’t face the above advice, take your dog away from the town, take a trowel with you and bury the stuff where its biodegradable qualities will break it down and dispose of it within a week take a plastic bag a scooper with you in case you have mistimed things. The practice of putting little plastic bombs of dog faeces into a rubbish container is unhygienic and disgusting.
I have seen people putting their dog in the car and taking it a mile or so away so that they can export the stuff to other parts of town, Windsor Road Great Harwood, (where the recreation ground was willed to the town for the use and pleasure of the people of Great Harwood), used to be a favourite ‘dumping’ ground there is no pleasure in your child coming home with dog mess all over clothing and shoes. That practice is as antisocial as the poo bins and just as likely to cause the spread of toxicana canis.
Having said that, I still fear for the areas where the night scope snoopers will operate. Are you sure you are putting the right stuff in your wheelie bin? Is your bin lid being forced open because you have put too much or the ‘wrong’ waste in? Did a piece of paper fall unnoticed from your pocket as you pulled out your handkerchief and the night scope snooper saw you littering? Where else are the spies going to spy? How much ‘scope’ are we allowing councils to spy on us?
Dog mess is not the only thing that smells about these Gestapo tactics.

Jack Straw wrote his piece about the European Convention on Human Rights last week. Suggesting it needs reform. Whether or not reform is needed, article 8 of that convention guarantees privacy. As far as I can see, these measures violate that article.

what next road blocks,ID cards thay tryed that!, spotchecks make shaw your wearing underware? go to jail for spiting out a fly or bee, its mad total madness!, And the sadest thing about this is thay will make it happen. and it doesnt mater a jot what any of public think. Their smarter and the police and the law backs them up! democracy your haveing me on? when did anyone ask what people think and why was i excluded. ho! forgot i dont matter, i just live here?. if the council is hell bent on public safety, it should do something about the mad taxi drivers that cut you up,push you off the road. No! this is nothing more than policeing by the backdoor. too put us all on the DNA data base speed up crimanalizing of the working class. thay must have better things to do! the towns a building site thats an hazzard. The night scopes, its for your benifit thay cry?.just think ladies someone is out there spying on us day and night, and you ll never know! if your lucky???

outofyourmind wrote:
what next road blocks,ID cards thay tryed that!, spotchecks make shaw your wearing underware? go to jail for spiting out a fly or bee, its mad total madness!, And the sadest thing about this is thay will make it happen. and it doesnt mater a jot what any of public think. Their smarter and the police and the law backs them up! democracy your haveing me on? when did anyone ask what people think and why was i excluded. ho! forgot i dont matter, i just live here?. if the council is hell bent on public safety, it should do something about the mad taxi drivers that cut you up,push you off the road. No! this is nothing more than policeing by the backdoor. too put us all on the DNA data base speed up crimanalizing of the working class. thay must have better things to do! the towns a building site thats an hazzard. The night scopes, its for your benifit thay cry?.just think ladies someone is out there spying on us day and night, and you ll never know! if your lucky???

Don't be sacred be prepared.

disclosetv.com

They need to come up Sandy Lane in Accrington, up the lane by St Anne's School and they are guaranteed to catch a few who are giving genuine dog owners a bad name. Best time is between 8 and 9 in the mornings. We have seen them.

outofyourmind wrote:
what next road blocks,ID cards thay tryed that!, spotchecks make shaw your wearing underware? go to jail for spiting out a fly or bee, its mad total madness!, And the sadest thing about this is thay will make it happen. and it doesnt mater a jot what any of public think. Their smarter and the police and the law backs them up! democracy your haveing me on? when did anyone ask what people think and why was i excluded. ho! forgot i dont matter, i just live here?. if the council is hell bent on public safety, it should do something about the mad taxi drivers that cut you up,push you off the road. No! this is nothing more than policeing by the backdoor. too put us all on the DNA data base speed up crimanalizing of the working class. thay must have better things to do! the towns a building site thats an hazzard. The night scopes, its for your benifit thay cry?.just think ladies someone is out there spying on us day and night, and you ll never know! if your lucky???

Spot on my friend.Under WHAT AUTHORITY are the Council being allowed to use night vision goggles and surveillance vans to spy on people.

Thank goodness somethings being done about it!!

I wonder people who object to the 'spying' havent had to clean dog muck off pram wheels or off their shoes or their kids shoes or swill it away from the pavement from outside their house!!!!

Dear VicLou,
Oh yes we have!
I have even returned a pile left outside my gate to the doorstep of the owner of the offending animal with a note saying, 'I think you dropped something.'
My objection is to stinking bins full of plastic covered dog mess and to council officials being paid spies. There are better ways to deal with the problem.

need to get to ewood park lot of **** down there,kean and venkys covered in it

VicLou wrote:
Thank goodness somethings being done about it!!

I wonder people who object to the 'spying' havent had to clean dog muck off pram wheels or off their shoes or their kids shoes or swill it away from the pavement from outside their house!!!!

I object to the council using night vision goggles and surveillance vans to spy on people without a warrant to do so.We are fast becoming a No privacy hell hole and please don't bother with the "nothing to hide,nothing to fear" BS,it won't work.

I can smell another TV documentry coming soon,
"Silent footsteps in the dark"

Good call wrote:

VicLou wrote:
Thank goodness somethings being done about it!!

I wonder people who object to the 'spying' havent had to clean dog muck off pram wheels or off their shoes or their kids shoes or swill it away from the pavement from outside their house!!!!

I object to the council using night vision goggles and surveillance vans to spy on people without a warrant to do so.We are fast becoming a No privacy hell hole and please don't bother with the "nothing to hide,nothing to fear" BS,it won't work.

They will get caught by a punch of estate thugs and if they're lucky they will just take their surveillance equipment if they're not lucky.Well we all know what will happen to them.

IF THERE UNCOVER THEY WONT BE NOW YOU JUST TOLD EVERY ONE HAHAHAHAHA THE MIND BOGGLES

When my dog poops i pick it up but it dose my head in when there is about 3 othere **** on the floor even around the bin!!but hyndburn council dont empty them as much as they ment to

brok wrote:
Jack Straw wrote his piece about the European Convention on Human Rights last week. Suggesting it needs reform. Whether or not reform is needed, article 8 of that convention guarantees privacy. As far as I can see, these measures violate that article.

Perhaps if you read Article 8 (2) you might understand!

outofyourmind wrote:
what next road blocks,ID cards thay tryed that!, spotchecks make shaw your wearing underware? go to jail for spiting out a fly or bee, its mad total madness!, And the sadest thing about this is thay will make it happen. and it doesnt mater a jot what any of public think. Their smarter and the police and the law backs them up! democracy your haveing me on? when did anyone ask what people think and why was i excluded. ho! forgot i dont matter, i just live here?. if the council is hell bent on public safety, it should do something about the mad taxi drivers that cut you up,push you off the road. No! this is nothing more than policeing by the backdoor. too put us all on the DNA data base speed up crimanalizing of the working class. thay must have better things to do! the towns a building site thats an hazzard. The night scopes, its for your benifit thay cry?.just think ladies someone is out there spying on us day and night, and you ll never know! if your lucky???

They don't need ID cards as everyone has a phone that carries more details! You were asked what you thought - do you remember voting or did you write to your MP or Council member expressing your views?
.
How is it policing by the back door? Its actually policing by the front door! thye are giving your fair warning about their policing actions.
.
How does DNA come into this? its dog poo that they are trying to prevent.
.
Are you implying that its only the working class that don't pick up after their dogs?
.
You will be wanting to ban truancy officers next? (never did like school did you?)

Good call wrote:

outofyourmind wrote: what next road blocks,ID cards thay tryed that!, spotchecks make shaw your wearing underware? go to jail for spiting out a fly or bee, its mad total madness!, And the sadest thing about this is thay will make it happen. and it doesnt mater a jot what any of public think. Their smarter and the police and the law backs them up! democracy your haveing me on? when did anyone ask what people think and why was i excluded. ho! forgot i dont matter, i just live here?. if the council is hell bent on public safety, it should do something about the mad taxi drivers that cut you up,push you off the road. No! this is nothing more than policeing by the backdoor. too put us all on the DNA data base speed up crimanalizing of the working class. thay must have better things to do! the towns a building site thats an hazzard. The night scopes, its for your benifit thay cry?.just think ladies someone is out there spying on us day and night, and you ll never know! if your lucky???

Spot on my friend.Under WHAT AUTHORITY are the Council being allowed to use night vision goggles and surveillance vans to spy on people.

What authority do they need?

Please can we have some spies around the sunnyhurst area, it is full of piles of S**T, that means that a lot of dog owners do not pick up the crap.

Please can we have some spies around the sunnyhurst area, it is full of piles of S**T, that means that a lot of dog owners do not pick up the crap.

Midas said:'Perhaps if you read Article 8 (2) you might understand!'
I have and I do.

Article 8(2) ECHR:
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The operative words are 'in accordance with the law' and 'necessary'
I would argue that spies with night vision and other apparatus spying on people is not 'according to law' and is not 'necessary' when there are better ways to deal with a problem.
If we allow this for this subject (dog mess) it creates a precedent and the councils can then spread their surveillance techniques to other areas in our private live. It is a frightening prospect.
Is everything 100% right in our homes and the environment for which we are responsible. We are giving local authorities carte blanche to come, take pictures and report on any aspect of our lives if we stand for this measure

Which law isn't it in accordance with? This is not covert and therefore not covered by RIPA and it isn't spying as its an overt operation.
.
necessary? - how else would you see at night without the use of night vision?
.
There is no precedent to set, the operation is on public ground not private ground nor is it frightening.

Sorry, Midas, I disagree. If I had made my reply to your post clearer, you would have been able to see that the precedent being set will enable a council to get away with this sort of thing in any number of ways and nothing to do with dogs.
We are the most acquiescent, forelock tugging nation in the world; local and national government can impose anything upon us and we obey without question.
There are more CCTV cameras in this country than anywhere else on this globe, even in the most totalitarian states.
THAT is why it is frightening - because we do not see the whole picture, one of erosion of rights and civil liberties. Not to sound to dramatic, Germany and Russia between 1927 and 1939 allowed a system of state control to evolve where neighbour would spy on neighbour (remember 'Tell us if your neighbour is claiming and working in this country not too long ago?)
'How else would they see in the dark' is just fatuous.
I am not a lawyer, nor, I suspect are you, and I still contend that this can be shown to be in violation of ECHR 8 (1&2)

I was a lawyer and using overt light enhancing equipment to film illegal activities isn't a violation of Article 8.
.
What sort of thing will the council be able to get away with?
.
How does overt filming erode civil liberties and rights? and exactly which civil liberties are you thinking of?
.
Its not fatuous its factual and thats why your arguement fails.

Target areas in my neighbourhood are:

The walkways from Wensley Dv through to Ingleton Close to Dent Dale

Sandy Lane - especially near St Anne's & St Joseph's school

It's always at night when I see them - bloke with two staffies (one has 3 legs) even lets his dogs sh*t anywhere during the day!!

Target areas in my neighbourhood are:

The walkways from Wensley Dv through to Ingleton Close to Dent Dale

Sandy Lane - especially near St Anne's & St Joseph's school

It's always at night when I see them - bloke with two staffies (one has 3 legs) even lets his dogs sh*t anywhere during the day and just leaves it.

As a dog owner myself who does pick up my dogs poops,after dodging some other dogs poops to do so, i find it hard to belive that so many dog owners are lazy as not to bother .......every day i walk my dog around the resoivours at the rear of New Lane and every day the same people let there dogs poop all over the place its disguisting, one person is indeed a daily offender who has at least 4 dogs with him and they all s**t and he just walks past,so Mr Dog Warden get your self up there around 9am every day you will catch this individual and stop me and others from poop dodging :-)

Good call wrote:

VicLou wrote:
Thank goodness somethings being done about it!!

I wonder people who object to the 'spying' havent had to clean dog muck off pram wheels or off their shoes or their kids shoes or swill it away from the pavement from outside their house!!!!

I object to the council using night vision goggles and surveillance vans to spy on people without a warrant to do so.We are fast becoming a No privacy hell hole and please don't bother with the "nothing to hide,nothing to fear" BS,it won't work.

Well if your a dog owner and your picking up your dogs poo, then you have nothing to worry about. If you dont have a dog, then why would the council be interested in 'spying' on you?????

brok wrote:
Dear VicLou,
Oh yes we have!
I have even returned a pile left outside my gate to the doorstep of the owner of the offending animal with a note saying, 'I think you dropped something.'
My objection is to stinking bins full of plastic covered dog mess and to council officials being paid spies. There are better ways to deal with the problem.

Oh my word .... your obviously wasted in the job that you do now when you could be 'advisor to the council'!!!

Midas says:
'I was a lawyer and using overt light enhancing equipment to film illegal activities isn't a violation of Article 8.'
Have you ever handled a case in Strasbourg on this issue?
Can you give me a legal precedent? An actual case where this has been challenged?
'There is no precedent to set, the operation is on public ground'.
It is an invasion of privacy whether it takes place on public ground or in a garden shed.
Here is an example; the following concerning electronic surveillance is quite apposite: Attention was specifically drawn to this fact (electronic surveillance)by the well-documented case of Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner No.2 ( 2 WLR 700). The defendant was prosecuted for allegedly handling stolen property and it became apparent during the trial
that the prosecution had tapped Malone’s telephone. He challenged the legality of the tap only to find that there had been no violation of English law. Megarry V-C recognised that the interception of the defendant’s telephone calls was not a crime and as such ‘it was not a subject on which it possible to feel any pride in English law’ (ibid: 732). Malone took his case to the European Court in Strasbourg who held that his right to respect for private life under Article 8 had been infringed … The lack of any legal regulation governing the use of electronic surveillance devices by the police in the UK would inevitably be problematic in light of the above principles.
(Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14 cited in Taylor 2002, Surveillance in Society). ..
There IS a problem with the use of electronic surveillance, will Strasbourg deal in the same manner with anyone convicted of letting their dog mess the ground. Will the local council be prepared to foot the bill for the litigation involved?
There are many instances where bad and unjust law has been changed from jus primae noctis (the lord of the manor’s right to share the bride on the first night), the Margaret Thatcher’s Poll Tax.
Perhaps from your expert stand point, you could say, it is right to knuckle the forelock towards our betters. But then, I would fight you all the way.

VIcLou said:
If you dont have a dog, then why would the council be interested in 'spying' on you?????
Because the issue is not dog muck. Let them get away with it and the council can use this type of snooping for anything.How would you feel if the council were using these tactics to make sure your wheelie bin was in the correct order as specified by the dustbin dictators all over the land or any other thing that the council in its wisdom 'legislates' about.
It is about the right to privacy and not having the feeling that a council snooper is looking over your shoulder every time you do something.
The word 'precedent' means to set an example of behaviour as a bench mark for similar activity in the future, it is an action that precedes similar actions, as you well know.
Why should I advise the council, THEY didn't allow their filthy dog mess to foul outside my gate to the danger of my kids.

brok wrote:
Midas says: 'I was a lawyer and using overt light enhancing equipment to film illegal activities isn't a violation of Article 8.' Have you ever handled a case in Strasbourg on this issue? Can you give me a legal precedent? An actual case where this has been challenged? 'There is no precedent to set, the operation is on public ground'. It is an invasion of privacy whether it takes place on public ground or in a garden shed. Here is an example; the following concerning electronic surveillance is quite apposite: Attention was specifically drawn to this fact (electronic surveillance)by the well-documented case of Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner No.2 ( 2 WLR 700). The defendant was prosecuted for allegedly handling stolen property and it became apparent during the trial that the prosecution had tapped Malone’s telephone. He challenged the legality of the tap only to find that there had been no violation of English law. Megarry V-C recognised that the interception of the defendant’s telephone calls was not a crime and as such ‘it was not a subject on which it possible to feel any pride in English law’ (ibid: 732). Malone took his case to the European Court in Strasbourg who held that his right to respect for private life under Article 8 had been infringed … The lack of any legal regulation governing the use of electronic surveillance devices by the police in the UK would inevitably be problematic in light of the above principles. (Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14 cited in Taylor 2002, Surveillance in Society). .. There IS a problem with the use of electronic surveillance, will Strasbourg deal in the same manner with anyone convicted of letting their dog mess the ground. Will the local council be prepared to foot the bill for the litigation involved? There are many instances where bad and unjust law has been changed from jus primae noctis (the lord of the manor’s right to share the bride on the first night), the Margaret Thatcher’s Poll Tax. Perhaps from your expert stand point, you could say, it is right to knuckle the forelock towards our betters. But then, I would fight you all the way.

You are just so far off topic quoting Malone that I can only presume you are still studying. Legal regulation governing the use of electronic surveillance is covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and you seem unable to distinguish between covert and overt operations.
.
Malone = covert whereas using light enhancing equipment on a camera = overt. can you see the difference?
.
Having to fund your case through Magistrates, Crown, Appeal and Supreme I think your pockets would need to be deeper than the Councils!

The fact remains that Strasbourg are just as likely to overturn a decision - covert or overt is irrelevant.
I know that the 'justices' or lawyers whose fair round belly with good capon lined, fill their pockets with all the petitions of the oppressed; but that will does stop the slow but inexorable course of justice.
By the way, my student days were a long time ago, if I was an impolite person, I would be tempted to say, 'Don't be so damned patronising'.

correction:

but that will does stop the slow but inexorable course of justice.
Should read but that does not stop..

Responsible dog owners clean up after their dogs eh??
No way do they clean up in the true sense of the word. Just picking a few lumps up in a plassy bag doesn't qualify as cleaning up to me. If their beloved Fido crapped in their own kitchen or on their sofa they would be out with the mop bucket and Domestos in a flash (or is it a Jiffy?).
Bring back the licence fee set it at £100 and fine any owners out and about without a plastic bag on their person and make the fine double after dark.

brok wrote:
The fact remains that Strasbourg are just as likely to overturn a decision - covert or overt is irrelevant. I know that the 'justices' or lawyers whose fair round belly with good capon lined, fill their pockets with all the petitions of the oppressed; but that will does stop the slow but inexorable course of justice. By the way, my student days were a long time ago, if I was an impolite person, I would be tempted to say, 'Don't be so damned patronising'.

I did right in a patronising manner because you construct your arguement like a child. You seem unable to actually grasp the difference between covert and overt.
.
How can overt be a breach of privacy when you are telling people what you are doing!!!!
.
You get me a precedent showing that overt is a breach of privacy! You are the one challenging the legal position not me.

brok wrote:
VIcLou said:
If you dont have a dog, then why would the council be interested in 'spying' on you?????
Because the issue is not dog muck. Let them get away with it and the council can use this type of snooping for anything.How would you feel if the council were using these tactics to make sure your wheelie bin was in the correct order as specified by the dustbin dictators all over the land or any other thing that the council in its wisdom 'legislates' about.
It is about the right to privacy and not having the feeling that a council snooper is looking over your shoulder every time you do something.
The word 'precedent' means to set an example of behaviour as a bench mark for similar activity in the future, it is an action that precedes similar actions, as you well know.
Why should I advise the council, THEY didn't allow their filthy dog mess to foul outside my gate to the danger of my kids.

To be honest, I couldnt care less if the council were using these tactics for anything .... Ive nothing to hide, nor do I think they will be interested in 'snooping' my life other than whether Ive put my bin in the correct place!! I suggested you advise the council because you implied that you knew a better way of dealing with it!!

my dog doesent poo he just has a wee wee , he looks like a rubber glove blown up with compressed air

I am glad to see that the sensible majority find this use of nightvision cameras abhorrent, but to those who uphold the idea that it is fair and reasonable I ask this:

Why only dogs? Not cats, not horses in fact no other animal, not even humans; just dogs. Is it because people are seen to be responsible for their own pets? If so, when will the loony left apply this same logic to children?

BridgeAccrington wrote:
I am glad to see that the sensible majority find this use of nightvision cameras abhorrent, but to those who uphold the idea that it is fair and reasonable I ask this: Why only dogs? Not cats, not horses in fact no other animal, not even humans; just dogs. Is it because people are seen to be responsible for their own pets? If so, when will the loony left apply this same logic to children?

Because BridgeAccrington, generally it's dogs that leave piles of doddie doo on pavements usually just round a blind corner for one to step in it. Dogs and their owners I would add..we have all seen the dog crouching down with the owner stood 15 feet away holding one of those extending leads picking their nose and pretending not to see what his mutt is doing. I ban those leads as well.
Overall.... we have lost the elements of responsibility, deference and respect that are the basic structures of society..Bring back the beat bobby and put them in police houses on their patch I say that would be a start.

Good Im glad of it all, sick of walking around trying to avoid **** like the plague......and when they have sorted this out (doubt they will), they can do summat about them ruddy cats **** in me garden....the poo is just as dangerous as dog poo, and it stinks more!....yuk

**** = poo ;)

Midas said: ‘I did right in a patronising manner because you construct your arguement like a child. You seem unable to actually grasp the difference between covert and overt’.
Did you mean ‘I did write in a patronising manner’ or ‘I did right in a patronising manner’? Are you certain that the word ‘argument’ should be spelled that way?
Now, Mr Midas, if your career as a ‘lawyer’ was as meticulous as your written work in this example, it is no surprise that you no longer practice.
The adversarial nature of most systems of justice provides two sides (that’s what adversarial means, by the way), a defence and a prosecution although in circumstances, the terms may differ.
One lawyer will present his client’s case and his opponent will present a refutation. You see, if the law, as interpreted by all lawyers was the same, there would be no need for lawyers and no justice. Lawyers are there to find the best argument for their client not to be judges. You seem to forget that.
I am willing to bet that I could find among my own relations, one solicitor and one barrister who would be able to argue much better than my childish efforts could ever do and produce a counter to yours in a professional ‘lawyer’s way; but then, it is not in my interest to go down that road because in my own childish and immature way, I don’t do too badly as things are.
You see, arrogance and apoplectic utterances usually finish up working against their authors.
Now, you may have spent your time (if any) in probate or conveyancing or enmeshed in the humbler strata of the legal profession. One thing you may have learned is that for every legal argument there is an equal and opposite counter argument. In the end, it is not the lawyers but those who represent the freedom of the individual, amnesty international, ECHR and the like who have the power to curtail injustice.

Yes in my haste to type my response to your ill conceived comments my disability came to the fore and my spelling was incorrect.
.
The point is still valid, you either have not or are unable to grasp the difference between overt and covert operations and the legislation that is already in place to restrict covert filming. If it is overt filming on public ground (for the purpose of crime prevention)then your expectation of privacy is greatly reduced and cannot therefore be in breach of your rights under Article 8.
.
Now, if for every legal arguement there is an equal and opposite counter arguement then how is anything decided? One side has the correct interpretation and the other doesn't, how is that equal?
.
Perhaps you should find a relative who can take the time to explain the law to you in terms that you understand, but i do like your arrogance in thinking that you are the first person to argue that survelliance of this nature, is a breach of privacy, I'm sure that better minds than yours have considered the question, perhaps you can be the one to seek a Judicial Review of the councils plans!

Midas said:
Yes in my haste to type my response to your ill conceived comments my disability came to the fore and my spelling was incorrect.
Please don’t insult with the ‘disability’ thing, I have worked with disabled people for years, it does not stop you using a spell checker. Imagine Steven Hawkins saying, ‘You can’t say that I’m disabled’. Things like dyslexia are a curse, or If you have a physical or learning disability, you have worked through and beyond it and have my respect, but it isn’t a parachute.
You say further: 'Now, if for every legal arguement there is an equal and opposite counter arguement then how is anything decided? One side has the correct interpretation and the other doesn't, how is that equal?'
I would have thought that even you would have been able to work that one out, Midas. The difference between a legal argument and Newton's law is the lack of human control needed for laws of motion, compared with the amount of interpretation and presentation skills the protagonists possess and the way these skills are used to convince a court in legal argument. So, although the arguments may be equal and opposite, the skill is not; ergo, one side wins over the other.
You may have on the one hand, the school bully type lawyer who feels he has the golden touch with every argument; who can (and often does) browbeat his OCD way through a case. Ham fisted, yet sticking on one aspect of a case, for example, covert, overt etc.
Then on the other, we could have the childish bumbling hayseed, who feels that things are wrong and the councils who hide their employees in vans so that they can use light enhancing equipment (ie infra red, not a torch) to spy on the populace for ANY reason are carrying out a COVERT activity as covert as phone tapping. Covered, hidden? It may not be ‘covert’ in a strict legal sense, but it is covert snooping in practice. Even if the council took up every page in the telegraph to advertise that they will do it.
In between, we have decent lawyers who don't perhaps feel they have the golden touch, remember the original Midas and what happened to him?
What about bumbling amateurs? Do they ever achieve ends over the smarty-bum lawyer?
Josephine Butler? W T Stead? Charles Dickens? Rowntree? Shaftsbury? Barnardo? Orwell? Marx? Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Ad infinitum, Midas, ad infinitum .

Yawn, never has so much been written to say so little!
.

What we need is someone with the ability to SNIFF out the culprits and then rub their noses in it! That should cure the problem! And I do not mean the dogs noses!