Police cutbacks what a joke
Discussion
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
My guess would be that it's a criminal offence, so if they don't wish to remain they'd be arrested.
For what? You're not obstructing Police as they've finished with you Is it an offence not to engage with the council official or allow entry to search the vehicle for the no smoking sticker?Edited by Bigends on Thursday 24th May 21:47
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
My guess would be that it's a criminal offence, so if they don't wish to remain they'd be arrested.
For what? You're not obstructing Police as they've finished with you Is it an offence not to engage with the council official or allow entry to search the vehicle for the no smoking sticker?The government guidance to Enforcement Officers states this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-i...
creampuff said:
vonhosen said:
That detracts no value from the Police presence looking for things that they deal with, it hasn't stopped them or diverted them from doing what they needed to do at the location. A smaller fish hanging around has just picked up some scraps that they look for. The small fish ignoring the scraps they look for would make no sense.
^ If the local council can tag along here, why should they not tag along more often when the police are going about their duty if it has no effect on the police? Why stop at the police; the fire brigade will often conduct fire safety inspections. The council could tag along to look for no smoking signs there too. It obviously occupies police time. The police would need to interface with the council during planning. The police have a duty of care to operate a safe scene, so they would need to devote some time, however minimal, to observing the council enforcement officers while they are going about their useless job.
If somebody gets reported for littering because they get caught throwing a coke can on the floor I don't suddenly feel sympathy for them or that they are a victim somehow just because some other random fly tipped somewhere else & got away with it because he wasn't seen.
La Liga said:
o involvment if the person receiving the FPN provides their details, if they don't then it could result in the police being involved. Practically, going back to your original question, attempting to drive off would amount to refusing.
The government guidance to Enforcement Officers states this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-i...
The council have to determine an offence has occured before requiring details. As per my previous - I wonder what powers they have to enter a vehicle to search for the stickers. The government guidance to Enforcement Officers states this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-i...
Bigends said:
The council have to determine an offence has occured before requiring details. As per my previous - I wonder what powers they have to enter a vehicle to search for the stickers.
The legislation presumably says the sticker has to be visible. Since most vehicles have clear windows, the sticker, if present, could be seen from the outside. vonhosen said:
They don't need to watch the council officers for safety anymore than they'd view any other interaction between two people in their presence (wherever they were patrolling).
If somebody gets reported for littering because they get caught throwing a coke can on the floor I don't suddenly feel sympathy for them or that they are a victim somehow just because some other random fly tipped somewhere else & got away with it because he wasn't seen.
The council have the opportunity to undertake whatever level of enforcement they think is required without involvement with the police. If somebody gets reported for littering because they get caught throwing a coke can on the floor I don't suddenly feel sympathy for them or that they are a victim somehow just because some other random fly tipped somewhere else & got away with it because he wasn't seen.
creampuff said:
The council have the opportunity to undertake whatever level of enforcement they think is required without involvement with the police.
Exactly, the average High street will have vans delivering and fetching all day - an ideal opportunity to check for the stickers. Enforcement is nothing to do with the Police until things get nasty between the driver and enforcement officerBigends said:
creampuff said:
The council have the opportunity to undertake whatever level of enforcement they think is required without involvement with the police.
Exactly, the average High street will have vans delivering and fetching all day - an ideal opportunity to check for the stickers. Enforcement is nothing to do with the Police until things get nasty between the driver and enforcement officerIn terms of the 'no smoking' enforcement. Was that all they were doing? What proportion of work was it etc.
La Liga said:
Not a bad thing for relationships and establishing contacts.
Other than in a time of chronic lack of police resources, the public are left with the impression that the police are able to devote time to multi-agency days out which detect offences as trivial as a lack of no smoking stickers. IMHO it reflects poorly the police and the police planners who decided to have a day out involving the local council for trivia. Everything which goes on there is a reflection on the police as it is the police who do the stopping. creampuff said:
Other than in a time of chronic lack of police resources, the public are left with the impression that the police are able to devote time to multi-agency days out which detect offences as trivial as a lack of no smoking stickers. IMHO it reflects poorly the police and the police planners who decided to have a day out involving the local council for trivia. Everything which goes on there is a reflection on the police as it is the police who do the stopping.
As evidenced by this threadcreampuff said:
La Liga said:
Not a bad thing for relationships and establishing contacts.
Other than in a time of chronic lack of police resources, the public are left with the impression that the police are able to devote time to multi-agency days out which detect offences as trivial as a lack of no smoking stickers. IMHO it reflects poorly the police and the police planners who decided to have a day out involving the local council for trivia. Everything which goes on there is a reflection on the police as it is the police who do the stopping. Perhaps the police seized several uninsured vehicles, arrested a disqualified driver etc which could all be perceived a positives to anyone who finds out about it.
Who knows? Not us because we have one outcome presented to us on a forum. We have no idea what else was achieved.
colinrob said:
We are a small company with three directors and one employee we all work either at our unit or driving, I do 99% of the driving my fellow director (nephew) only drives if I am on holiday, it is a 14 plate Mercedes sprinter, with approx 110,000 miles, always Insurared, taxed and mot’d, unfortunately my nephew was driving, they were pulling every van and the car park was full apparently, everything on our van (apart from the sticker, which we now have) was legal, there was no fine for a f****n sticker, Han I been driving I may well have said I was the only driver then you don’t need a sticker
It's nothing to do with who's driving or not. It is a workplace for both of you... THAT's why you need the sticker, not because it's a vehicle.This is not a hard concept. And you used to be Mr H&S...? I'm hoping you are being deliberately obtuse, because the other explanation shows exactly why you used to be Mr H&S.
colinrob said:
the same guy who pulled him then visited his premises with a FPN for not displaying a no smoking sign at his premises without checking, when he showed him his sticker
So it was somewhere very non-obvious, then?colinrob said:
(bearing in mind he is a butcher) he then asked for his waste disposal records, it is ilford council being support by an under resourced police looking to make some more C***s
Ohnoes! How terrible that they're checking people aren't just dumping foetid food waste...La Liga said:
erception, confidence and trust in the police doesn't really change that much, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Perhaps the police seized several uninsured vehicles, arrested a disqualified driver etc which could all be perceived a positives to anyone who finds out about it.
Who knows? Not us because we have one outcome presented to us on a forum. We have no idea what else was achieved.
Nobody is questioning what else was achieved and everything knows this outing was not about no smoking stickers. It's disingenuous to assume the public is not smart enough to work out the police did not work out there was more to this operation. Perhaps the police seized several uninsured vehicles, arrested a disqualified driver etc which could all be perceived a positives to anyone who finds out about it.
Who knows? Not us because we have one outcome presented to us on a forum. We have no idea what else was achieved.
You know when you are well liked chap with lots of friends, but you bring some idiot along to a public event and they irritate everybody? It's a bit like that. Everybody knows it is not you personally, but that doesn't make your mate any less irritating and they think twice about turning up to the next party if you will be there incase you bring that idiot along again. They start to wonder about your judgement about bringing them along in the first place.
Then there are the members of the public who maybe aren't that bright but don't mean any harm either. They decide not to report something the police next time, because they are genuinely worried that if they do, some chump is going to turn up and hand them a PCN for some infraction they don't even know they have committed.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
My guess would be that it's a criminal offence, so if they don't wish to remain they'd be arrested.
For what? You're not obstructing Police as they've finished with you Is it an offence not to engage with the council official or allow entry to search the vehicle for the no smoking sticker?The government guidance to Enforcement Officers states this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-i...
The relevant legislation for no smoking in designated vehicles/lack of stickers is not mentioned anywhere.
I would be interested to know under what power/s the LA dished one out to the OP.
TooMany2cvs said:
I think the problem here is that you're thinking of the van as "a vehicle". The law isn't. The law is thinking of it as "a workplace"... The people are in that van because they're working, not because they're there for fun.
All workplaces need no smoking signs.
Smoking isn't banned in pubs. People work in pubs, so smoking is banned there because the pub is a workplace.
Absolutely. All workplaces need no smoking signs.
Smoking isn't banned in pubs. People work in pubs, so smoking is banned there because the pub is a workplace.
InitialDave said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not convinced it's that minor. Imagine a young apprentice, stuck in a van for hours with two wizened old builders, both smoking 40 a day.
We're not disagreeing with there being a benefit to the smoking ban itself.How many people still go on about "when they banned smoking in pubs"...?
TooMany2cvs said:
And part of that ban is putting "no smoking" stickers up in every workplace, to remind those so hard-of-thinking that they might not realise that <here> counts as "a workplace", so smoking's banned there.
Which I agree with as an appropriate way for businesses to remind people of the requirement, I just disagree with it being a legal requirement and fines being issued for it.If no one is smoking in a workplace, the important part of the rules is being obeyed, so if that is happening without a sign to enforce it, I don't care if they don't have one.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff