Litter louts - gotcha!

[British Red]

Thanks for the really unhelpful comment. We don't burn people in wicker men in this part of the country - how else would I deal with it without ending up with a criminal record of my own?

It wasn't meant to be unhelpful....just a comment about "they have to clear it up"....hardly a punishment is it...they have to clear up what is probably a tiny fraction of the litter that they left.

I would have hoped for, as a minimum, a court appearance and a community service order.

This in no way reflects on your efforts - but rather on the leniancy shown to the offender

 

[spandit]

It's galling, I agree but better than just doing nothing about it

 

[Wayland]

Small victory as it may be. I still know that it must feel better than constant clearing up without help or thanks.

People like yourself are so important in dealing with anti social behaviour like this so give yourself a big pat on the back and lets hope that that girl at least, and maybe some of her friends will have learned a lesson.

Lets just hope it's not how to clear up the "evidence" in future.

 

[baldscot]

In the fields where I walk the dogs there is a beech tree where groups of youths (and I've seen them, so not just blaming youths for no reason) congregate to light fires & drink. The fires I can live with but the broken glass, cans and plastic bags infuriate me.

Yesterday the mess was especially bad but amongst the litter there was a Tesco receipt. The toe-rags had paid with a Clubcard. A swift email to the police later and as a result they will be getting a visit from the PCSO...

Well done, would have taken 4 PC's and a D.I to even consider that kind of detection work! Hopefully the parents will be dishing out some punishment

 

[widu13]

So when did the police gain the authority to hand out punishments? I thought that was the job of the courts after due process or are the police taking the law into their own hands again instead of just enforcing the law they are given.

Since the Government voted in by the people, passed a law allowing them to do so

I recall when they would catch a thief and beat them into permanent injury as it was less trouble and more fun than filling in all those forms. I thought those days had long gone.

Blimey, I must have missed the 100s of 1000s of thieves bearing permanent injury. Where do they all hang out? Did the police kill most of them?

 

[Wayland]

I think they used to cut bits off, or was that before the police?

 

[boatman]

No problem with apprehending littering people which is a crime even on private land but I am intrigued by the detective work.

Tesco say that their clubcards are only available to those aged 18+, I presume it was a combined clubcard and credit card in order to pay for the goods used. So either it was an adult amongst the guilty ones or somebody's parents had bought the stuff. Then I wondered how easy it was to get an identification from a till receipt which of course do not show the whole number on the card.

Presumably Tesco apply their privacy policy to requests for the identification of somebody from a till receipt and don't just give them out over the phone even to somebody saying they are calling from the Police. Certainly even years ago we would not give information on anybody without a court order and this was just from a library card and was way before the Data Protection laws.

As I say I am intrigued and would love to hear how the identification was managed from this evidence.

 

[spandit]

When I said "young girl" I was paraphrasing what the police told me - she could have been over 18 for all I know.

I gave the ClubCard number to the police and they visited Tesco and came out with a name/address, any other details I have not been made aware of

 

[IanM]

Whilst police do have the ability to OFFER an on the spot penalty, for example for littering, it must be in a certain format i.e. a notice and fine. This was not done in this case. The police obviously had good evidence but in fact let the offender off. I don't believe they can demand that people clear up litter, they just do not have that authority. What is next? "bung me £10 and I will ignore the crime".

I agree with Red that this was no punishment, the police must do their job or they will be trivialised (who trusts the police these days?). I suspect it was just a way for the police to avoid paperwork and the lass in question just laughed and probably boasted to her mates how she 'got one over'. I repeat, the police are not the law, they just enforce it.

It was common for the police to take the law into their own hands in the early 70s, typified by the scene in 'A Clockwork Orange' where the police beat and torture Alex. I had a friend who had all his fingers broken on the right hand for 'answering back'. Slammed in a police car door. It was especially common in Glasgow and London during that decade, especially of blacks. There were many more deaths in custody and 'falling down the stairs of the cell block' in those days. I hope they are gone, but I wonder.

 

[salad]

No problem with apprehending littering people which is a crime even on private land but I am intrigued by the detective work.

Tesco say that their clubcards are only available to those aged 18+, I presume it was a combined clubcard and credit card in order to pay for the goods used. So either it was an adult amongst the guilty ones or somebody's parents had bought the stuff. Then I wondered how easy it was to get an identification from a till receipt which of course do not show the whole number on the card.

Presumably Tesco apply their privacy policy to requests for the identification of somebody from a till receipt and don't just give them out over the phone even to somebody saying they are calling from the Police. Certainly even years ago we would not give information on anybody without a court order and this was just from a library card and was way before the Data Protection laws.

As I say I am intrigued and would love to hear how the identification was managed from this evidence.

Having worked with loyalty card schemes from big company s , I have also been intrigued while reading this thread . The customers personal info is protected by the data protection act and the companies I have worked for tend to guard there information so they don't end up in breach of the data protection act .

The police can force a company to disclose information to help solve a crime however is is not as straight forward as just asking them for this info ,it needs to normally be applied for, so the company is then covered and cant be taken to court themselves for data protection breech

I am just glad it all worked OK in this instance and tesco gave over there customers personal(and protected) details to your local police when charges were not even being brought against the offenders .

I have to say though It is possible that the offender could check that the release of there information was done properly and if not then they could be seeking compensation from tescos for releasing there private information .

I hope this is not the case and they don't make any money out of this as I like it when litter louts are punished

 

[Bushwhacker]

I'm just thinking now.
After reading this and if I was a criminal, all I have to do is look through someone's dustbin, find a receipt they've used, commit a crime and leave the receipt at the scene as 'evidence'. I could get away with anything.

 

[spandit]

Let's not overreact. Some youths left some litter. The police asked them if they'd done it and they said yes and will be clearing it up. No expensive solicitors or court process, no criminal records.

Bear in mind the police are cracking down on underage drinking in our area & seeing as how this is connected perhaps they have an agreement with local alcohol vendors. I don't know but to start blowing this up into a Daily Mail style rant about criminals' rights and data protection is unnecessary. Let's lock the thread and move on.

 

[IanM]

no criminal records.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[spandit]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I know ignorance is no defence (except in knife law apparently ) and I don't want to sound like a bleeding heart liberal but I think to burden young people with a criminal record for a minor crime such as this is harsh. I consider their actions negligent but don't think it was a deliberate intention to despoil the countryside. Education is the key and heavy-handedness is only likely to build a resentment of the police rather than respect

 

[salad]

Let's not overreact. Some youths left some litter. The police asked them if they'd done it and they said yes and will be clearing it up. No expensive solicitors or court process, no criminal records.

Bear in mind the police are cracking down on underage drinking in our area & seeing as how this is connected perhaps they have an agreement with local alcohol vendors. I don't know but to start blowing this up into a Daily Mail style rant about criminals' rights and data protection is unnecessary. Let's lock the thread and move on.

Sorry if you mis-understood me, I did not intend having a daily mail style rant ,.

I was actually happily impressed that your Poirot like skills with the tescos receipt paid off. Having worked with customer details and loyalty card schemes for 18 years before moving over here , I fully understand the challenges the police face in getting large corporates like tescos to give up there customer details .

I think it is a positive testament to the way the times are moving that tescos and the police in your local area where able to co-oporate despite the obstacles that I outlined in my previous post , and whats even better is it will hopefully mean less litter in your local country side

Well done I say

 

[bronskimac]

The Data Protection Act and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) make it quite clear that the police can have access to personal data for the purposes of investigating a crime or potential crime.

Quite an interesting article about fixed penalties that can be issues by local authorities and even private companies. The piece is from Our Kingdome and is weighted to the breach of civil liberties side but the numbers are surprising. It is quite shocking how much criminality is now dealt with by the summary judgement of a lay person. On the other hand for cases like the one refereed to in this post there is the option of issuing an Fixed Penalty Notices. If the case went to the Crown Prosecution Service they would probably drop it citing "not in the public interest" to take it to court, i.e. costs too much.

On-the-spot fines mean that police and other officials can punish people for a series of offences ‘on-the-spot’, without legal checks and balances. A criminal offence that would have been tried in a court room – the offence of causing ‘harassment, alarm and distress’, for example, or ‘disorderly behaviour while drunk’ – are now often dealt with like a parking ticket.

The most significant form of on-the-spot fines (known as Penalty Notices for Disorder, PND) have been running at around 200,000 a year since they were introduced in 2004, under powers contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. In 2009-10, 43,338 people received PND for the offence of causing ‘harassment, alarm and distress’, and 43,570 for disorderly behaviour while drunk.

In addition, local authorities gained new powers to punish environmental offences (including littering, fly-posting, dog fouling and noise) with on-the-spot fines known as Fixed Penalty Notices, as a result of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. 45,076 of these penalties were issued in 2008-9.

In a decade, the criminal justice system has been transformed. Now ‘out of court’ punishments make up nearly half of all offences ‘brought to justice’, increasing from 23% in 2003 to 40% in 2008.

 

[salad]

The Data Protection Act and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) make it quite clear that the police can have access to personal data for the purposes of investigating a crime or potential crime.

Quite an interesting article about fixed penalties that can be issues by local authorities and even private companies. The piece is from Our Kingdome and is weighted to the breach of civil liberties side but the numbers are surprising. It is quite shocking how much criminality is now dealt with by the summary judgement of a lay person. On the other hand for cases like the one refereed to in this post there is the option of issuing an Fixed Penalty Notices. If the case went to the Crown Prosecution Service they would probably drop it citing "not in the public interest" to take it to court, i.e. costs too much.

Your absolutely right they do have the power to get that information, however the reality is that it is not usually so straight forward as going into a retail outlet and asking for it.
When I was a store manager if the police came in asking for customer details then it was my Job to give them our loss prevention departments details, they would then deal with the polices request and yes ultimately pass the requested information over but only once all the procedures for getting the info had been followed.
I think its great that it seems tescos have an easy access approach to there information with the police, it obviously helped here .

 

[MattB]

Whilst police do have the ability to OFFER an on the spot penalty, for example for littering, it must be in a certain format i.e. a notice and fine. This was not done in this case. The police obviously had good evidence but in fact let the offender off. I don't believe they can demand that people clear up litter, they just do not have that authority. What is next? "bung me £10 and I will ignore the crime".

Presumably comes under the heading of discretion. What the Plod are essentially saying is "undo the crime and we'll call it quits", which seems entirely reasonable.

 

[jackcbr]

Looks to me like a great outcome all round.

Spandit did a responsible civil thing without baying for justice. Rather than deal with the problem (i.e. just clean it up), he found a way to possibly deal with the cause (identify who was doing it)

The police listened and acted upon Spandits issue, they took action to deal with it. The way they dealt with it was not blown out of proportion and discretion was used.

The "offender" for want of a better term, had a knock at the door from the police. A bit of a talking to and had to clean up the mess they had left.

So we are talking about 2 hours police work, that has resulted in a young person being put on to their radar. The young person has had a warning and hopefully learns from their mistake, a mistake that's not going to affect their future with a criminal record. The council don't have to send someone out to clean up the mess.

A reasonable result. The type of thing I was use to as a child, just minus the clip round the ear. I've grown up with a respect for the police and my society. But maybe that's just me

 

[Silverclaws]

There is a thing the police can do I discovered recently when someone stole my mountain bike, is a thing called Restorative Justice , as it was it was me that did the detective work as to who stole my bike, a few phone calls to people in the know locally and I got a name and a facebook profile and even a local news article describing the perps last criminal activities that put him in prison; GBH. So when the police turned up I gave them all the information I had, but the thief had already been told to return my bike by people he knew because they also know me, but the police said if I am happy they will serve restorative justice on the thief, which meant he was now back on the radar, two more offences and they know they have a problem and will take it from there.

The police when they discovered I had found out all what I had myself were pretty impressed but said I should leave the detective work to them, to which I replied, yes like last time, when my last mountain bike was stolen from behind a locked door accessible by only eight people, the police took the details and I heard nothing after that, if I had not acted this time my latest mountain bike could have gone the same way as the last one with police not really doing their job and inspiring a lot of confidence. The reply was well mountain bike theft is low priority to which I replied exactly that is why I am doing your job for you, I want my bike back and I got it back and the thief had a visit.

But it does interest how someone that had a long string of various criminal convictions culminating in prison time on release the police are not aware a person is back in the community and back up to his old activities.

As to the litter bug a visit from the police to a person's home is punishment enough because everybody sees the car outside and with parents that is a source of shame when their child is having their first visit from the police, so you can bet the litter bug got more from their parents than what the police could do, and to be told to go and clean up their mess is further shame.

Shaming is an old and effective soft punishment.