Topic ID 2891
Press Release from Herts Police: A Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) is being sought for part of Hertford town centre and Hartham Common. A public consultation begins on June 25 for eight weeks. If the public support the application for the order it will go before East Herts District Council’s executive committee in November. The DPPO gives police officers and PCSO’s the authority to ask people to stop drinking alcohol within that area if they believe it is creating a disorder. They can ask people to stop drinking and to get rid of the alcohol, by pouring it away, putting it in the bin or giving it to the officer. If people refuse, they can be issued with a £50 fixed penalty notice or can be arrested and can face a maximum penalty of £500. The ban will be in place at all times but the proposal does not effect the general area of Hartham Common, only the children’s play area and adjacent car parks. http://www.herts.police.uk/crimedatabase/site/content.php?article_id=3658
Reply ID 42003
Interesting that it only covers the children's play area and the car parks. Is it aimed at unruly adults though, or at the underage drinkers who seem to congregate on Hartham on a Friday night? If it's the latter, then do they need any additional powers? Surely if the kids are underage the police can confiscate the booze anyway?
Reply ID 42005
Or is it those unruly young adults just legally allowed to drink too? I am confused.. Does this mean that if you innocently had a picnic and wanted a small something with your spam sandwich this is going to be a no-no? And also does it include the Castle Grounds (which host the Rock Concert) and what does that mean to the organisers of these events???? Rubbing head now... [:(!]
Reply ID 42006
It does say that the ban will not effect the general area of Hartham Common
Reply ID 42007
But its the "General Area" of hartham that has the problem surely!!???
Reply ID 42010
It would make sense to restrict the order to the play area. I wouldn't want to be forbidden a nice bottle of something with my picnic. So much is already banned, controlled, watched or monitored.
Reply ID 42017
quote:I would like to see the state of the officer by the end of the day when he has been given all the confiscated drink!!!!![:o)][^]
Originally posted by Steve
Press Release from Herts Police: A Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) is being sought for part of Hertford town centre and Hartham Common. A public consultation begins on June 25 for eight weeks. If the public support the application for the order it will go before East Herts District Council’s executive committee in November. The DPPO gives police officers and PCSO’s the authority to ask people to stop drinking alcohol within that area if they believe it is creating a disorder. They can ask people to stop drinking and to get rid of the alcohol, by pouring it away, putting it in the bin or giving it to the officer. If people refuse, they can be issued with a £50 fixed penalty notice or can be arrested and can face a maximum penalty of £500. The ban will be in place at all times but the proposal does not effect the general area of Hartham Common, only the children’s play area and adjacent car parks. http://www.herts.police.uk/crimedatabase/site/content.php?article_id=3658
Reply ID 42018
The key bit for me is 'if they believe it is creating a disorder'. Obviously it's at the police discretion but I would have thought a bottle of chardonnay with your picnic would be looked on more favourably than the 16 yr olds getting lairy on Special Brew or whatever the headbangers choice of beverage is these days.
Reply ID 42022
quote:That's the stated intent of such orders, but in practice they don't work that way. The police have ample powers to deal with the stated intent already, under current law.
Originally posted by Leo Densian
The key bit for me is 'if they believe it is creating a disorder'. Obviously it's at the police discretion but I would have thought a bottle of chardonnay with your picnic would be looked on more favourably than the 16 yr olds getting lairy on Special Brew or whatever the headbangers choice of beverage is these days.
Reply ID 42024
Am I just too old and cynical or will the police go for me and my bottle of picnic Liebfraumilch (ie the easy collar) rather than the drunken trouble makers we want them to go after. Still it's a start of the fight back.
Reply ID 42027
quote:If they beleive you're creating disorder, maybe [:D] I think the point is that they're going after drunken, yobbish teenagers, not law-abiding picnicers. I would recommend you get a form from The Post Office or W.H.Smith's and have your say.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Am I just too old and cynical or will the police go for me and my bottle of picnic Liebfraumilch (ie the easy collar) rather than the drunken trouble makers we want them to go after. Still it's a start of the fight back.
Reply ID 42028
Actually I would like to see the rozzers be a bit more pro-active. It was quite an eye opener on a recent trip to Scotland at the difference in policing style.
Reply ID 42039
Having seen such orders in practice, they do tend to be blanket. To create a law which relies on police to execise discetion and discrimination is always dangerous. Many public servants feel it's safer and easier to apply them universally. Those that don't, apply their own viewpoint of what is likely to lead to disorder, leading to an application of the law which is not immune from personal prejudice. For instance, is a group of 19 year-olds with a six-pack, enjoying a sunny social gathering more of a danger to order than mum and dad with a bottle of Chablis?
Reply ID 42044
quote:I tend to agree shunt and unfortunately the blanket approach is often the way, no matter how draconian or dumb. At a slight tangent, but in similar vein, I am pi**ed off at the moment because of the new no smoking regs - I have a company car of which I am the sole driver. I do not smoke nor allow anyone to smoke in my car, but because its a company motor I have to clearly display a no smoking sticker or be liable for a disciplinary or £200 fine or both [:(!]
Originally posted by shunt
Having seen such orders in practice, they do tend to be blanket. To create a law which relies on police to execise discetion and discrimination is always dangerous. Many public servants feel it's safer and easier to apply them universally. Those that don't, apply their own viewpoint of what is likely to lead to disorder, leading to an application of the law which is not immune from personal prejudice. For instance, is a group of 19 year-olds with a six-pack, enjoying a sunny social gathering more of a danger to order than mum and dad with a bottle of Chablis?
Reply ID 42048
quote:There's more and more of these creeping in since the Criminal Injustice Bill set the ball rolling. The smoking ban, excessive CCTV monitoring, dispersal orders, stop and search, conspiracy law etc. We've turned into a nation which is ruled by a mob, who'll shout "Yeah, ban it!" before considering the erosion of civil liberty and the wider effect on the structure of British society.
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:I tend to agree shunt and unfortunately the blanket approach is often the way, no matter how draconian or dumb. At a slight tangent, but in similar vein, I am pi**ed off at the moment because of the new no smoking regs - I have a company car of which I am the sole driver. I do not smoke nor allow anyone to smoke in my car, but because its a company motor I have to clearly display a no smoking sticker or be liable for a disciplinary or £200 fine or both [:(!]
Originally posted by shunt
Having seen such orders in practice, they do tend to be blanket. To create a law which relies on police to execise discetion and discrimination is always dangerous. Many public servants feel it's safer and easier to apply them universally. Those that don't, apply their own viewpoint of what is likely to lead to disorder, leading to an application of the law which is not immune from personal prejudice. For instance, is a group of 19 year-olds with a six-pack, enjoying a sunny social gathering more of a danger to order than mum and dad with a bottle of Chablis?
Reply ID 42052
You mean we're turning into America... Land of the Free it certainly aint... I agree, we have the powers now to deal with difficult situations like these maybe the real answer is just for me to see a real-life, walking, breathing policeman/woman every once in a while, instead of the cut-out speed trapping/cannot come out unless we look good in the paper sort of gang we have now.. When's the last time you saw a Policeman in the town and I don't mean the Specials who are volunteer civilians???
Reply ID 42346
quote:
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:I tend to agree shunt and unfortunately the blanket approach is often the way, no matter how draconian or dumb. At a slight tangent, but in similar vein, I am pi**ed off at the moment because of the new no smoking regs - I have a company car of which I am the sole driver. I do not smoke nor allow anyone to smoke in my car, but because its a company motor I have to clearly display a no smoking sticker or be liable for a disciplinary or £200 fine or both [:(!]
Originally posted by shunt
Having seen such orders in practice, they do tend to be blanket. To create a law which relies on police to execise discetion and discrimination is always dangerous. Many public servants feel it's safer and easier to apply them universally. Those that don't, apply their own viewpoint of what is likely to lead to disorder, leading to an application of the law which is not immune from personal prejudice. For instance, is a group of 19 year-olds with a six-pack, enjoying a sunny social gathering more of a danger to order than mum and dad with a bottle of Chablis?