Dispersal Orders and Public Space Protection Orders

Dispersal Orders and Public Space Protection Orders

Author
Discussion

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,680 posts

205 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
Interesting story in the Evening Standard - about supercar drivers and car-spotters in Kensington:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/supercar-dri...

Magic919

14,126 posts

200 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
I expect the Maserati thread relates to that http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Interesting story in the Evening Standard - about supercar drivers and car-spotters in Kensington:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/supercar-dri...
Some rich brat said:
"...and yet we are treated like criminals.”
Yeh... About that, mate... There might be a reason for that...

<clue: It's because you ARE breaking the law>

Tom_C76

1,923 posts

187 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
Wonder if Cambs Police would like to take similar measures against the local modified cruise brigade?

PorkInsider

5,877 posts

140 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
Surprised the barrister think the police are abusing their powers.

Obviously you know what you're talking about, AGT, so I'd be interested to hear what you think they should do instead, with regard to the nuisance?

Edited to remove an assumption which could be wildly incorrect.

Edited by PorkInsider on Monday 11th July 22:16

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,680 posts

205 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm quoted in the article.

Ki3r

7,806 posts

158 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm quoted in the article.
I was hoping you were the bloke in the photo.

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,680 posts

205 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
He makes a fair point.

ashleyman

6,962 posts

98 months

Monday 11th July 2016
quotequote all
The best way to fix this is to put plain clothes officers around the hot spots and when they identify a specific car that's causing trouble they seize it.

They should also make fines proportionate to ones wealth. If you're a billionaire and you get fined £100 for a noise complaint where's the punishment - it means nothing. Whereas if you're a billionaire and you get fined a £1m, well it's a weeks wages but it's also more of a hit for them. I'm sure it'd be super tough to actually figure out what these people earn or spend though.

It's unfair to target ALL owners, some of whom live there and drive sensibly. It's also unfair to target people based on a cars 'normal' operation ( the downshift on the Maserati) regardless of how they act when stopped.

I guess you could also say it's unfair to have one set of fines for us peasants, and one set of fines for the wealthy. Who knows. But the cops in the maserati video had no idea of the way the car functions. He basically got fined for changing gear...

Oh well.

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,680 posts

205 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
[In response to a deleted post] Dispersal Orders have been made against photographers in Knightsbridge; see my Twitter feed for an example. The power to make the order derives from Part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is completely separate from the PSPO.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Dispersal Orders have been made against photographers in Knightsbridge; see my Twitter feed for an example. The power to make the order derives from Part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is completely separate from the PSPO.
I deleted my reply before seeing you replied.

I did so because I re-read the article and concluded it must have been S.35 or similar where the power is from for the photographers, and not the PSPO.

As I previously replied, I can see some examples where this is justified, and some where it wouldn't be.

La Liga previous reply said:
I broadly agree with your statements, Andrew. I think you could argue that certain photographers who chase the cars around, film them and upload to social media etc encourage the behaviour. I don't think you could say the same of people spontaneously taking photos of the cars on a phone etc.

However, as I am no doubt you are aware, the PSPO's conditions are specific to the drivers of the vehicles, so I can't see any scope for using it against third party photographers: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/...


Biker 1

7,690 posts

118 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
Oh how I wish this would happen in my neck of the woods!!!
There are now at least 3 little sts riding around 125cc learner bikes with straight through exhaust systems in my village. The wkers think its amazingly cool to pin it to the rev limiter, in every gear, particularly late at night when most of us are nodding off. Most of the area is 30mph residential housing, & they must be doing in excess of 60 once in top gear - you can hear the racket from miles away! wkers.

No sympathy for the millionaire princes driving in London like wkers...

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
Living in central London you're going to accept it's busy most of the time, however that doesn't mean you should have to put up with people treating the roads outside like a race track. The attitude of "we're rich and spend money, so we can do what we like" that appears in the article is pretty disgraceful.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
It's tough to feel sympathetic when this is something that has come about after consultation with the local residents, who have to live there and suffer this kind of thing going on every summer (probably year round on Sloane street).

If you're just visiting London, or walking down the streets in question, your exposure is going to be very minimal, a minute or so at best before you're either somewhere else or traveling home. These people have to endure this anti-social behaviour for hours upon hours. It's hard to imagine how maddening that must be.

I also don't think the fact they're supercars has any relevance at all. If it was more ordinary cars or people doing this there would be zero sympathy, but because they are flash cars that (some) people decide are exempt because they want to see them, it's somehow ok?

It's perfectly possible for one to drive a supercar in a sympathetic and considerate manner. My 458 made barely any noise if you didn't want it to, but conversely it was easy to intice it to make a LOT of noise by manually going down a gear, using Race mode and working the revs to keep the flaps open. If you modify the exhaust to make more noise (illegal) and/or drive in a manner which is likely to aggravate pedestrians (not everyone will enjoy your presence) then I think it's perfectly fair to be prosecuted.

The PMPO is strictly speaking open to abuse as it's based around subjectivity, but I'm not entirely sure how you could legislate it in a practical way whilst still being an effective deterrent. I doubt in the area where it is being enforced, which is in one borough, there are many complaints from the local community, quite the opposite in fact.

rpguk

4,458 posts

283 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
There is a problem to be dealt with and there are simple mechanisms available to deal with it. Where the cars aren't road worthy, enforce the laws regarding road worthiness. Where the driving is subpar, invoke dangerous driving/speeding etc laws. Where those involved are behaving anti-socially, apply s59/asbo.

However much as I find the brown nosing photographers nauseating, I am far more uncomfortable with the police using such vague powers against people taking pictures. Especially when there are plenty of tools available to them to deal with the actual lawbreakers.

My fear is that it sets a precedent for the future. Could such orders be used where the government/police would prefer people not take photos? A protest for example? Where perhaps they could argue the photographers are encouraging unwanted behaviour. Maybe far fetched but it's a principle I'm very uncomfortable with.

agtlaw, do you know if the orders were against specific photographers or just anyone photographing the cars? How did they know the order was in place?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
The S.35 power used against the photographers don't require publicity, unlike some of the powers they replaced: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dispersal_power...

New laws require 'breaking in' and shaping through the courts. The only way for the courts to define the boundaries is for the police to push and widely intercept the legislation. A common example is the harassment act. The police used it more widely and frequently than parliament intended, and the courts supported this wider use with their decisions.



anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
A common example is the harassment act. The police used it more widely and frequently than parliament intended, and the courts supported this wider use with their decisions.
For example?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th July 2016
quotequote all
The H/O guidance at the time anchored the legislation to a domestic context. It was there to plug a gap with stalking-type behaviour in both criminal and civil courts. IIRC the H/O expected there to be 700 cases per year or something similar and it was grossly exceeded thus more widely than parliament intended.

For example, although though the appeal suggests parliament intended it to be the case with the wording, the fact that a company could harass an individual went beyond the guidance and intended use and was supported by the courts.






HB2K

82 posts

105 months

Tuesday 19th July 2016
quotequote all
Biker 1 said:
Oh how I wish this would happen in my neck of the woods!!!
There are now at least 3 little sts riding around 125cc learner bikes with straight through exhaust systems in my village. The wkers think its amazingly cool to pin it to the rev limiter, in every gear, particularly late at night when most of us are nodding off. Most of the area is 30mph residential housing, & they must be doing in excess of 60 once in top gear - you can hear the racket from miles away! wkers.
You're lucky. I have a fleet of them in my London suburb, plus a guy from up the road on a trail bike. All using residential roads (and parks) as race tracks. I have wondered what can legally be done?

Bigends

5,412 posts

127 months

Tuesday 19th July 2016
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
La Liga said:
A common example is the harassment act. The police used it more widely and frequently than parliament intended, and the courts supported this wider use with their decisions.
For example?
See these incorrectly recorded everyday - the victim should suffer some significant impact as a result of the suspects behaviour - a couple of unwanted phone calls for example does not constitute harassment

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 19th July 16:15