Breach a byelaw and pay an immediate £100 on the spot fine

#1
Some may have seen this latest proposal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1929868,00.html

Some may feel that the Government, clearly stung by public disquiet over rising Council Tax Bills, particular it's effect on the elderly and those on fixed incomes seems to have found yet another imaginative way for the local raising of revenue through a 'stealth tax' on behaviour:

Notice how they have 'spun it' - giving more local people a say in running their communities! Does anyone actually 'believe' that? Is such a statement consistent with what some see as New Labour's track record of stripping power from Local Authorities and centralising it?

I have attended Council Meetings when they have been open to the public. I have seen first hand how they interpret their obligations in this area. Although a member of the public may put questions to them, they interpret this narrowly by holding that there is no corresponding obligation to provide an answer to the question posited. You can ask them why, but they will not answer because there is no obligation for them to do so!

What do you think the effect of such a practice would be when a proposed byelaw is being discussed during a meeting open to the public?

Can anyone foresee a rash of bylaws if this proposal is effectuated? Can anyone actually foresee long abandoned byelaws which have fallen into disuse but are still, nevertheless bylaws although not enforced suddenly spring back to life again?

Does anyone know of any obscure or unusual byelaws in their area?

What about a byelaw to the effect that "wheeled vehicles will not be taken into the Park", will some local or Parish Council 'enforcer' in meeting his revenue targets interpret this to mean a child's pram? How about a Skateboard? A radio-controlled model car? Roller-Skates etc etc

Does anyone see where this is going?

Any comments?
 
#2
^Its another example of Labour breaching our civil liberties. I would have thought the councils would have no legal athority to enforce such scheme, since under the Bill of Rights 1672 (ish) :lol: no one can issue an on the spot fine without first takling you to court.....Which is why you can dodge traffic parking fines.
 
#3
A man has invoked the 1689 Bill of Rights to fight a £60 parking fine from Worcester City Council at a tribunal.

Robin de Crittenden, 67, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, argues the bill protects people from having to pay fines until convicted by a court..........

The Bill of Rights dates from the reign of William and Mary, after James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution.

In part, it reads: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4450196.stm
 
#4
Iolis said:
Some may have seen this latest proposal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1929868,00.html

Some may feel that the Government, clearly stung by public disquiet over rising Council Tax Bills, particular it's effect on the elderly and those on fixed incomes seems to have found yet another imaginative way for the local raising of revenue through a 'stealth tax' on behaviour:

Notice how they have 'spun it' - giving more local people a say in running their communities! Does anyone actually 'believe' that? Is such a statement consistent with what some see as New Labour's track record of stripping power from Local Authorities and centralising it?

I have attended Council Meetings when they have been open to the public. I have seen first hand how they interpret their obligations in this area. Although a member of the public may put questions to them, they interpret this narrowly by holding that there is no corresponding obligation to provide an answer to the question posited. You can ask them why, but they will not answer because there is no obligation for them to do so!

What do you think the effect of such a practice would be when a proposed byelaw is being discussed during a meeting open to the public?

Can anyone foresee a rash of bylaws if this proposal is effectuated? Can anyone actually foresee long abandoned byelaws which have fallen into disuse but are still, nevertheless bylaws although not enforced suddenly spring back to life again?

Does anyone know of any obscure or unusual byelaws in their area?

What about a byelaw to the effect that "wheeled vehicles will not be taken into the Park", will some local or Parish Council 'enforcer' in meeting his revenue targets interpret this to mean a child's pram? How about a Skateboard? A radio-controlled model car? Roller-Skates etc etc

Does anyone see where this is going?

Any comments?
Room 101 with any luck
 
#5
Once again it appears to me that the book 1984 is regarded as an instruction manual not a work of horror/fiction
 
#6
It will be very profitable. pass by-laws about wearing shoes in public or not wearing a hat, and then rake in the cash! you will also get con-men giving on the spot fines to old ladies.

It would be nice however to put in a by-law about letting chav scum out in public. fine the parents every time a young scrote steps outside. :)

Ski.
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#7
conner said:
A man has invoked the 1689 Bill of Rights to fight a £60 parking fine from Worcester City Council at a tribunal.

Robin de Crittenden, 67, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, argues the bill protects people from having to pay fines until convicted by a court..........

The Bill of Rights dates from the reign of William and Mary, after James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution.

In part, it reads: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4450196.stm
Does anyone know whether there has yet been as positive legal judgement in this area upholding the Bill of Rights over locally imposed fines?
 
#8
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/data/default.asp?ID=116&loc=no

Without trawling google I can't give an answer. However I can say that I know people who have challenged fines and they have simply gone away.

The reason? How could the courts handle the influx of cases of people challenging every onthe spot fine they get? The councils know their wrong but continue relentlessly. If some one does challenge it then its easier to let them go than risk public exposure.
 

diplomat

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#9
Conner, many thanks.
 
#10
"It is not yet clear whether it will be possible for an offender to plead not guilty to a bylaw offence and take his case to a magistrates court"

Staggering.

So when Reginald R-Tard, your local Community "Support Officer", decides you've done something wrong, they don't know yet whether you'll have any defence against it.

Abso-fcuking-lutely staggering.

Why oh why didn't I emigrate when I left the mob?
 
#11
I think it's legal for me to shoot Welsh people as long as I use a longbow or is that Bristol?

Back to topic, fixed penalties will be applied to those who (a) can pay up and (b) will do so in a nice middle class way without protest.

You'll get a FP for putting your cans in the wrong recycling sack by mistake, but the scrote torching the bus shelter?? Or the bunch of White Lighning product testers hanging around the 24hr shop??



However they can do what they like to people who let their dogs sh1t everywhere without scooping. Force-feeding of the offending dog egg sounds good.
 
#12
conner said:
A man has invoked the 1689 Bill of Rights to fight a £60 parking fine from Worcester City Council at a tribunal.

Robin de Crittenden, 67, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, argues the bill protects people from having to pay fines until convicted by a court..........

The Bill of Rights dates from the reign of William and Mary, after James II was deposed in the Glorious Revolution.

In part, it reads: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4450196.stm
Yes, this refers to article 12 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which affirmed the Monarch was subject to the law, forced the Crown to govern through Parliament and protected the rights of individuals to be free of unlawful inteference in the private affairs. Article 12 reads:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."

The position of the Subject under the Bill of Rights is not compromised since the subject issued with a summary penalty by an official by way of fixed penalty fine (or even caution) may be rejected in favour of trial before a court, usually a Magistrates Court and this is generally explained at the time such a penalty is awarded.

Such fixed penalty fines are generally accepted since those subject to them, avoid the costs which accompany the fine if convicted before a court of competent jurisdiction under which the Subject elects to be tried.

Tip though, never accept a caution for any allegation sexual impropriety no matter how trivial you think it is or how trivial it is made to sound by the issuer who seeks to avoid the paperwork which risks being thrown out by CPS - you'll go straight onto the Sexual Offences Register as a result of your easily exploitable desire to avoid the embarrassment of a trial - see what happens to your career and future employment prospect then!
 
#13
The position of the Subject under the Bill of Rights is not compromised since the subject issued with a summary penalty by an official by way of fixed penalty fine (or even caution) may be rejected in favour of trial before a court, usually a Magistrates Court and this is generally explained at the time such a penalty is awarded
A fixed fine penalty is perfectly legal if it is for an act which is considered criminal. Hence illegal parking was decriminalised in the 90's and gave over to local councils. Thus parking tickets themselves are illegal.

Unless the bye law issues a fixed penalty by someone qualified to charge over an illegal act then surely the penalty is void. Only the police can make an arrest and issue a fine. A council flunky with no such legal power would not legally be able to issue an on the spot fine. A hired goon, like park attendant etc, would not be able to issue such an on the spot fine.

The thing is, we bend over backward in this country and accept that any c*nt with an authoritarian like uniform can dictate to us how we should lead our lives. What angers me is if your broke then they'll leave you alone as theres no profit in persecuting the illiterate, chav scum who have nothign to give.
 
#14
kahonen said:
"It is not yet clear whether it will be possible for an offender to plead not guilty to a bylaw offence and take his case to a magistrates court"

Staggering.

So when Reginald R-Tard, your local Community "Support Officer", decides you've done something wrong, they don't know yet whether you'll have any defence against it.

Abso-fcuking-lutely staggering.

Why oh why didn't I emigrate when I left the mob?
Although that is the report, it would be most unlikely in the extreme that the legislative drafter would seek to expressly close off access to the court to detemine the issue in the knowledge that the court would strike it down as ultra vires (exceeding the authority to do so). The courts make mincemeat of provisons (ouster clauses) which seek to oust their jurisdiction.
 
#15
conner said:
The position of the Subject under the Bill of Rights is not compromised since the subject issued with a summary penalty by an official by way of fixed penalty fine (or even caution) may be rejected in favour of trial before a court, usually a Magistrates Court and this is generally explained at the time such a penalty is awarded
A fixed fine penalty is perfectly legal if it is for an act which is considered criminal. Hence illegal parking was decriminalised in the 90's and gave over to local councils. Thus parking tickets themselves are illegal.

Unless the bye law issues a fixed penalty by someone qualified to charge over an illegal act then surely the penalty is void. Only the police can make an arrest and issue a fine. A council flunky with no such legal power would not legally be able to issue an on the spot fine. A hired goon, like park attendant etc, would not be able to issue such an on the spot fine.

The thing is, we bend over backward in this country and accept that any c*nt with an authoritarian like uniform can dictate to us how we should lead our lives. What angers me is if your broke then they'll leave you alone as theres no profit in persecuting the illiterate, chav scum who have nothign to give.
You are quite right in suggesting that a parking ticket may be issued legally. However, would fall into illegality when your right to challenge it's validity is denied to you.

Also bear in mind Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. This was incorporated into our law by virtue of Section 1(1)(a) Human Rights Act 1998 and under section 6 of the 1988 Act is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with convention rights. and under Section 6(3), 'public authority' includes a court or tribunal and any person certain whose functions are of a public nature.

Thus, the scrote without legal training who demands a fixed fine and suggests to you that you have no recourse to the court, acts illegally.

The courts are well aware of the trend of the Government to opt for summary dealing and devolve that function to an ever increasing band of officials and will not allow the protection to which the law allows the individual to be eroded by such means.

Hope this puts your mind at rest.

Regards and best wishes
 
#16
You should also be aware that the courts where evidence of blatant missuse of power and procedural irregularity are found, have a habit of awarding rather large amounts of compensation thereby 'punishing' authorities accordingly who generally get ther act together fairly swiftly
 
#17
You are quite right in suggesting that a parking ticket may be issued legally. However, would fall into illegality when your right to challenge it's validity is denied to you.
Isn't the act of issuing a fixed fine penalty from a council employed civilian illegal though because the bill of rights assures you the right to fair trial before the issuing of the fine? You cannot instigate the fine procedure without the court hearing first, so the whole process of fixed fines are in themselves completely void (unless the fine is for something which falls under criminal jurisdiction).
 
#18
If the toe-rags who let their, seemingly horse-size dogs, dump outside my gaff receive a fine then I'll buy the 'officer' a large drink there and then.

If Britain adopts some teutonic Swiss standards of behaviour we might ensure the filth and muck on our streets disappear. Take a stroll round any inner city or town park and you'll find putrid levels of filth left by people who don't give a monkey's. 'bout time people paid for the chewing gum and shite they whizz out their white vans or drop on their way back from the kebab house. We're a disgusting nation at times.

Do I have powers now to issue a 'citizen's fine'... ? Go on..!
 
#19
BoomShackerLacker said:
If the toe-rags who let their, seemingly horse-size dogs, dump outside my gaff receive a fine then I'll buy the 'officer' a large drink there and then.

If Britain adopts some teutonic Swiss standards of behaviour we might ensure the filth and muck on our streets disappear. Take a stroll round any inner city or town park and you'll find putrid levels of filth left by people who don't give a monkey's. 'bout time people paid for the chewing gum and shite they whizz out their white vans or drop on their way back from the kebab house. We're a disgusting nation at times.

Do I have powers now to issue a 'citizen's fine'... ? Go on..!
BSL,

Spot on. Most of the thrust of this thread, and others like it, is to seek to avoid personal responsibility/obligation by concentrating on the legal aspects of the issue. Does it matter who fines who as long as it has been endorsed by Parliament?

Probably the subject of a different thread but the legal industry is a self sucking lollipop that has sadly lost its purpose. It used to ensure that justice is done. It is now merely a forum for the judiciary to interpret legislation in accord with its leftish liberal view of the world, for the QC profession to get rich on taxpayers money by fighting cases that support the judiciary's view of the world, and for the remainder of the legal set up to fight for the scraps left over from the QC's.

Guardians of freedom not.

PAW
 
#20
Spot on. Most of the thrust of this thread, and others like it, is to seek to avoid personal responsibility/obligation by concentrating on the legal aspects of the issue. Does it matter who fines who as long as it has been endorsed by Parliament?
I disagree completely. If the government instigates ideas which are themselves illegal then what is the point of even making the suggestion? It completely matters who fines who becasue these laws more often target people who are not scum, who are middle class and can ill afford something like a criminal record or blemish on their driving license.

A dole mole on benefits is highly unlikely to pay a fixed fine and what really can the legal system do to enforce its payment? Jailing them isn't an option, fining them more money isn't an option so there is no real detterent to them but to people like myself these laws are an encrochment on my life whilst doing little to stop people who really cause social upheaval.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top