Undercover dog wardens to crackdown on dog fouling in Hyndburn (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Undercover dog wardens to crackdown on dog fouling in Hyndburn
8:30am Sunday 29th January 2012 in News
UNDERCOVER wardens using night-vision goggles are to start following people and staking out hot-spot areas to target dog fouling.
Hyndburn’s team of dog wardens are to use covert techniques to crackdown on the problem including the use of plain clothes officers and surveillance vans after an increase in complaints.
The wardens, who were asked by borough councillors to step up patrols in the worst affected areas, are urging residents to supply intelligence of regular offenders who they should be following.
The campaign will see people encouraged to ‘name and shame’ by contacting Hyndburn Council with details of people who regularly flout the dog fouling laws.
A team, led by Hyndburn’s dog warden Fran Gibbons, will continue regular patrols in uniforms but will also use information from the public to stake out certain places covertly.
The 40-year-old, who has been a dog warden for 10 years, said: “Dog fouling is a serious problem and that is why we are taking such serious measures.
“It can cause blindness so it is very important to keep the borough as clean as we can and end this problem. If an older person or young child happens to slip and get something in their eye, within months their sight could be gone.
“To have someone lose their sight simply because someone was too irresponsible to clean up after their dog is unacceptable.
“It’s massively unhygienic as well as dangerous and there is no excuse for not cleaning up after your dog.”
Rishton councillor Ken Moss, who launched a campaign for councils to gain powers to raise instant dog fouling fines to £1,000, has asked the Hyndburn wardens team to step up action in the town.
He said: “Residents are completely disgusted by this problem and want to see us take action. I have asked wardens what they can do and they have pledged to act on any information they receive.
“Most dog walkers are creatures of habit and if people are regularly offending in the same spot, the wardens could use that information to stamp out the irresponsible minority.”
Coun Moss launched a campaign last year ago calling on the government to award council dog wardens the power to impose £1,000 on-the-spot fines.
After the bid was reported in the Lancashire Telegraph, 85 per cent of readers said they backed the idea in an online poll.
Hyndburn currently hands out £75 penalties in line with neighbouring authorities, whose fines range from £50 to £75.
Second time offenders can be taken to Hyndburn Magistrates Court where they face fines of up to £1,000. The council has historically taken a tough stance on the issue, employing one of the first dog wardens, becoming the first to ban dogs without leads from cemeteries and piloting a special street sweeper nicknamed the ‘Super Dooper Pooper Scooper’.
Council leader Miles Parkinson said: “It’s unacceptable that residents across the borough have to suffer the actions of an irresponsible few. I hope residents do realise we take it extremely seriously.”
In the past three years, the council has fined 50 people for failing to clear up after their pet.
Opposition leader Peter Britcliffe said: “It’s a great idea. We need to do all we can because people who let their dogs foul are an absoulte menace.”
The biggest threat to health from dog mess is toxocariasis, an infection of the roundworm toxocaracanis. The eggs of the parasite can be found in contaminated soil or sand and if swallowed or contact is made with the eyes, can result in infection.
Residents can anonymously give information of anyone they see or know to be allowing their dog to foul by using contacting the dog wardens at Hyndburn Council on 01254 388 111.
Comments(53)
Rusty Bullethole
says...
9:19am Sun 29 Jan 12
hairy mary
says...
9:28am Sun 29 Jan 12
happycyclist
says...
9:47am Sun 29 Jan 12
living the end times in BB1
says...
10:10am Sun 29 Jan 12
jet008
says...
10:27am Sun 29 Jan 12
brok
says...
12:07pm Sun 29 Jan 12
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.
brok
says...
12:17pm Sun 29 Jan 12
outofyourmind
says...
1:45pm Sun 29 Jan 12
living the end times in BB1
says...
2:28pm Sun 29 Jan 12
outofyourmind wrote:Don't be sacred be prepared.
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???
disclosetv.com
maxcollie
says...
4:03pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Good call
says...
6:34pm Sun 29 Jan 12
outofyourmind wrote: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 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???
VicLou
says...
9:36pm Sun 29 Jan 12
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!!!!
brok
says...
10:15pm Sun 29 Jan 12
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.
gary17
says...
10:43pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Good call
says...
11:20pm Sun 29 Jan 12
VicLou wrote: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.
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!!!!
NWRaider
says...
11:56pm Sun 29 Jan 12
"Silent footsteps in the dark"
living the end times in BB1
says...
8:35am Mon 30 Jan 12
Good call wrote: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.
VicLou wrote: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.
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!!!!
chris283
says...
8:42am Mon 30 Jan 12
ratshowilikeit
says...
9:41am Mon 30 Jan 12
midas
says...
9:48am Mon 30 Jan 12
brok wrote:Perhaps if you read Article 8 (2) you might understand!
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.
midas
says...
9:53am Mon 30 Jan 12
outofyourmind wrote: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?
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???
.
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?)
midas
says...
9:54am Mon 30 Jan 12
Good call wrote:What authority do they need?
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.
past it
says...
12:53pm Mon 30 Jan 12
past it
says...
12:54pm Mon 30 Jan 12
brok
says...
2:02pm Mon 30 Jan 12
I have and I do.
brok
says...
2:14pm Mon 30 Jan 12
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
midas
says...
2:31pm Mon 30 Jan 12
.
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.
brok
says...
4:47pm Mon 30 Jan 12
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)
midas
says...
5:26pm Mon 30 Jan 12
.
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.
HKPhooey
says...
6:08pm Mon 30 Jan 12
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!!
HKPhooey
says...
6:09pm Mon 30 Jan 12
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.
baxter
says...
7:16pm Mon 30 Jan 12
VicLou
says...
9:54pm Mon 30 Jan 12
Good call wrote: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?????
VicLou wrote: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.
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!!!!
VicLou
says...
10:01pm Mon 30 Jan 12
brok wrote:Oh my word .... your obviously wasted in the job that you do now when you could be 'advisor to the council'!!!
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.
brok
says...
10:22pm Mon 30 Jan 12
'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.
brok
says...
10:39pm Mon 30 Jan 12
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.
midas
says...
9:22am Tue 31 Jan 12
brok wrote: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.
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.
.
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!
brok
says...
1:05pm Tue 31 Jan 12
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'.
brok
says...
1:07pm Tue 31 Jan 12
but that will does stop the slow but inexorable course of justice.
Should read but that does not stop..
DtheP47
says...
3:27pm Tue 31 Jan 12
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.
midas
says...
3:46pm Tue 31 Jan 12
brok wrote: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.
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'.
.
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.
VicLou
says...
9:48pm Tue 31 Jan 12
brok wrote: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!!
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.
hairy mary
says...
10:36pm Tue 31 Jan 12
BridgeAccrington
says...
1:05pm Wed 1 Feb 12
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?
DtheP47
says...
3:10pm Wed 1 Feb 12
BridgeAccrington wrote: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.
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?
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.
loopylass
says...
6:00pm Wed 1 Feb 12
loopylass
says...
6:02pm Wed 1 Feb 12
brok
says...
12:37am Thu 2 Feb 12
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.
midas
says...
10:48am Thu 2 Feb 12
.
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!
brok
says...
8:49pm Thu 2 Feb 12
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 .
midas
says...
9:14am Fri 3 Feb 12
.
Elegant1
says...
3:40pm Wed 8 Feb 12
frank says...
9:07am Sun 29 Jan 12