I'm aware of that one. It's still the only one that seems to be out there on the internet. It's absolutely nothing to do with the PNC or the police or any other official body. It's a self-contained, in-house database in just the same way as a fingerprint operated access control system is.
Bouncers get the right to issue on-the-spot fines
- Thread starter Fruitloop
- Start date
There would be no reason why Jobcentre security staff could not apply for accreditation.
Yes. That is what I was referring to when I said about the fundamental issue being powers for Constables (who swear an oath and hold a specific office under the Crown) and powers for others (who are not and who don't).
The power to search is NOT a power which can be delegated to accredited persons.
And as I have said the power to issue a fixed penalty notice is NOT a power to "fine" you - it is effectiovely a power to report you. If you do not agree with the allegation, do not pay the fixed penalty, ask for a Court hearing and the Court will end up deciding the issue and, if appropriate, they will fine you in exactly the same way as if the police had arrived, taken statements from everyone, charged you and then called the door staff to give evidence about what happened.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
report it to 'everyones guilty unless they turn up in a suit and tie with a m/c accent' magistrates court
/gross generalising
/gross generalising
That is an entirely different issue - what moon23 was alleging was that as you entered a nightclub the club door staff took your fingerprints and checked them against the PNC.
New Deal Scanda
New Member
DB thanks for clearing this up. My point is that the next step would be allow these things to happen.The power to report is similar to the police and DVLA I suppose.
The problem with this it isn't a civil case where they would have to sue you to get money owed but a formal debt (if you like) i.e. I could claim you owe me £150 but in order to recover it I would have to take you to county court Vs me reporting you requiring you to pay a fine and it is deemed that you are guilty pending clearance from a court. You would have to be careful to avoid a CCJ resulting from this.
As my experience is more involved with jobcentre tribunals, I am the outsider, the JCP (or the bouncer in this case would be the equivillent) is correct unless I can argue the points and for the tribunal to agree with me (in this case it would be the court). If I didn't go to the hearing its likely they would rule against me even if I did have a case; in the same way that if I went to the hearing but didnt argue the points effectively enough it would go against me. The system needs to be balanced where if a dispute is raised the blame remains in the middle until later decided.
The problem with this it isn't a civil case where they would have to sue you to get money owed but a formal debt (if you like) i.e. I could claim you owe me £150 but in order to recover it I would have to take you to county court Vs me reporting you requiring you to pay a fine and it is deemed that you are guilty pending clearance from a court. You would have to be careful to avoid a CCJ resulting from this.
As my experience is more involved with jobcentre tribunals, I am the outsider, the JCP (or the bouncer in this case would be the equivillent) is correct unless I can argue the points and for the tribunal to agree with me (in this case it would be the court). If I didn't go to the hearing its likely they would rule against me even if I did have a case; in the same way that if I went to the hearing but didnt argue the points effectively enough it would go against me. The system needs to be balanced where if a dispute is raised the blame remains in the middle until later decided.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
park patrols and hospital a&e staff would presumably be public servants, albeit potentially subcontracted to a private firm.Where did I say "fucking bouncers" were appropriate? I said "security staff" - I had in mind things like park patrols, shopping mall staff, hospital A&E staff; transport security staff ...
(and the word you're looking for is "lording" ...)
transport security would be little different to train guards who can currently issue effectively the same fixed penalty notices for non-payment of fares, so not too much problem there.
SHopping mall staff... hmm, not too sure about that, but I guess for basic shoplifting type offences it might not be such a bad idea.
problems being the lack of oversight / right of appeal against anyone being overzealous and basically abusing their powers to harrass kids off their turf etc.
no fucking way should it be extended to nightclub doorstaff though, SIA registered or not - 95% of them have absolutely no idea about the law or the limitations on their powers as it is, never mind giving them the right to write out fixed penalty notices to drunk people who'd have serious difficulty making their word count in court against that of a sober SIA person. I say this as someone who's worked alongside hundreds if not thousands of SIA staff from all over the country over the last few years, and there is just no way that this should ever be contemplated. If there is even the slightest chance of this happening as a consequence of the extension of these powers to the staff DB indicates, then that too should be stopped without a seconds thought.
New Deal Scanda
New Member
Anyway.... What stops an SIA bouncer issuing a on-the-spot fine to some random person because they dont like the look of them (race, someone they hate)??
Bouncers typically come in 2's... another bouncer backing up the first one is adequate to enforce claimed events as true.
Bouncers typically come in 2's... another bouncer backing up the first one is adequate to enforce claimed events as true.
You certainly shouldn't simply ignore them, no (but then again you shouldn't simply ignore a summons to Court or a bail date given after charge, otherwise you could just as easily be found guilty in your absence, be fined and have the fine registered as a debt).
You are misinterpreting what a Fixed Penalty Notice actually is. If they did not exist, the system would be this:
1. You kick off or whatever commit whatever minor offence it is.
2. Witnesses - door staff or whatever - see what is happening and call the police.
3. Police turn up. They have not seen what happened so they ask the witnesses.
4. If they believe that an offence has been committed, they report you for summons or arrest and charge you (and if they do you get your prints, DNA and picture taken and kept).
5. You go to Court. If you plead guilty they fine you up to the maximum (lots more than £80) or give you some other sentence. You get a criminal record (this bit is important too)
6. If you plead not guilty the witnesses (the door staff or whatever) come and tell the Court what happened, you give you account and the Court decide whether you are guilty or not.
With FPNs everything is the same until stage 4. There the police have another option - they issue a FPN. There are then two additional stages:
4a. If in the 7 or 14 days or whatever you have to decide, you decide you committed the offence and are guilty, you pay the fixed penalty notice and that is the end of the matter - no criminal record, no prints/DNA/photo taken, no time off work for meaningless court hearing only to plead guilty.
4b. If you decide you are not guilty, you fill in the little slip and the police / CPS decide whether or not to summons you for the offence. IF they do (and they may not), continue just as before from stage 5.
If we take the police out of the equation in issuing the FPN there is absolutely no difference to the rest of the sequence - it simply does not involve them turning up, listening to what the door staff of whatever say and then issuing a FPN entirely based on that account.
It is worth noting that the Magistrates main concerns seem to be that people who should have been arrested, charged and brought to Court and sentenced to way more than an £80 fine would not be dealt with seriously enough! Not that people may be treated too harshly!
You raise some valid issues in relation to the competence of door staff (though we need to differentiate the theoretical training from what actually happens in some cases - I think the majority of door staff have a adequate level of training and the absolute cowboy training providers are a minority) and certainly in relation to the use of FPNs in situations involving drunkenness and aggression.
But they are still employees of a private company and if it is OK for staff of, say, South-West trains working as security guards on South-West trains property to be accredited why, in principle, should it not be OK for staff of, say, Waterspoons working as security guards on Waterspoons property to be accredited?
New Deal Scanda
New Member
I am sure the JP's will negotiate the fines into hours community service too lol not like they really give out that big sentences anyway.
What stops an SIA bouncer calling the police over and getting some random person nicked because they don't like the look of them (race, someone they hate)?? (i.e. this makes no difference at all).
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
response time on a weekend night and the idea that they might have to explain themselves to a real copper rather than throwing fines around, perhaps?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
that's not really true at all though is it?
the police don't automatically issue a fixed penalty notice based solely on what the doorstaff say. In the vast majority of cases the coppers will listen to the doorstaff's side of things, then listen to the other persons side of things providing that they're capable of stringing a sentence together, then usually get information from a 3rd party if one's available, then form a judgement on what action to take using their own discretion.
The police do this in the knowledge that there is an at least partially effective process for tackling corruption and abuse of power within the police service, and that any complaint that's upheld against them will stay on their records / potentially result in dismissal from a pretty cushy job with a good pension etc. This contrasts fairly drastically with the position of most SIA doorstaff who have no job security, no pension etc and know that there boss is more likely to brush something under the carpet than to actually investigate it if a complaint is made.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Police, community support officers, bouncers, security guards...
How many different uniforms are needed to keep us in line?
It's a crazy idea and it will lead to it being standard to have to show id when wanting to enter a club. Another way to force people to buy the id card. It fucking stinks. Fucking fucking stinks. I really hate the way this country is going.
How many different uniforms are needed to keep us in line?
It's a crazy idea and it will lead to it being standard to have to show id when wanting to enter a club. Another way to force people to buy the id card. It fucking stinks. Fucking fucking stinks. I really hate the way this country is going.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
the chance that the police would actually query why that person should be arrested vs an innimate form that has no capacity to investigate the situation objectively.
I'd be interested to see what system of checks and balances is in place for these fixed penalty notices at present before even contemplating rolling them out any further.
btw, one problem you've not addressed with fixed penalty notices is that they are just that - fixed penalties, which apply equally to millionaires and minimum wage single parents...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
d-b, you're on very weak ground here. Why are you defending this? You say you want people to take more responsibility for themselves, then you support yet another layer of coercion that takes it away.
Patrons need to be aware though that should anything kick off in the town their information WOULD be going to the police, even if they had nothing to do with the incident or didn't even witness it.
Which is a step further than (say) the police identifying individuals who were in the immediate vicinity of a violent incident
Yes. I've seen (doing my trespassing thing, not kicking off down the pub
) SIA folk change their tune when I've introduced the idea of police attending.I think the thing here is that although you are right, DB, to point out the rights of those involved, most people will not understand it that way. The fact that you have to explain it to us here demonstrates that.
revol68
what, fucking what?
cos he's got a pigs brain, he follows their logic, they are only there to help and so every small rise in the level of it can be justified at each stage, just one more straw, just one more, what difference does it make.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
If we reach a situation where we have to show our national id cards to enter a club, this is in effect precisely what they will be doing.
Do you not see why they are doing this?
Revol's right. You're extraordinarily naive.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
A small part of me thinks 'keep piling em up, the quicker to topple and burn the edifice'
/dreamer
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Unfortunately, I think the opposite is true. You have to get rid of these repressive measures to allow the room to do more. The more regimented society becomes, the harder it will be to change things. Hard-won rights and freedoms will have to be won the hard way all over again.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
in the last 3 years I've worked alongside and/or managed SIA security teams from around 15 different companies across the country from cornwall to wales to the north east.
The training may or may not be adequate, it's the capacity for the people in question to actually absorb and understand that training that is in question in many cases, particularly when it conflicts with their previous practice IMO. It's also about the knowledge that the SIA is really pretty toothless, and they can pretty much get away with whatever they like with very little chance of any comeback.
At the end of the day, in most cases when push comes to shove, we're dealing with organised gangs of licensed thugs who'd harrass and intimidate anyone making a serious complaint against them as pretty much their standard reaction. Giving them the ability to issue FPN's is only going to increase their Judge Dred delusions.
and certainly in relation to the use of FPNs in situations involving drunkenness and aggression.
South West Trains is a relatively reputable company, with proper HR policies, complaints procedures etc that nightclubs just don't have in place properly. They're also unlikely to be intimidated by the local hardman into giving them their door to run etc.
But if someone believes they have been fitted up they just need to not accept the ticket and the cops'll be called just the same ... by all means criticise the scheme but stick to things that actually are different about it.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
and who is responsible for ensuring that they understand their rights?
the bouncer issuing the FPN?
that'd presumably go something like 'take the fucking fine or spend the night in the fucking cells for drunk and disorderly if I have to call the fucking police'
Misrepresenting what I am posting again ... there's a fucking original idea ...
Are you totally incapable of reading what I actually fucking write.
I have NOT defended "this crack pot idea". You will see on post after post I have criticised the idea of using FPNs (issued by anyone) in situations involving drunkenness and aggression.
I HAVE pointed out that if you are going to criticise it you should find out what it actually IS first (as I have seen nothing to suggest that the access to the PNC bit is anything but some imaginings of some journalist).
And I HAVE suggested that there is a time and a place for accredited persons (whether bouncers or others) being given the power to issue fixed penalty notices for minor offences.
But I have NOT defended "this crack pot idea".
Now why don't you go back and read my posts again and if you wish to take issue with them, do so on the basis of what they actually contain as opposed to your prejudiced assumptions as to what I will be saying ...
Insofar as they are an additional stage of deciding whether or not to take any action, obviously that is right. The issue is, in relation to minor offences and what is effectively a very minor and informal penalty, it is a useful deployment of a fully trained police officer. (And there is an argument that says that the police should not be making decisions about guilt or innocence in assessing the different accounts anyway, though I would not seek to make it.)
But the point I was making was that the evidence is the evidence - the police have no personal knowledge of what happened and so the only account of what happened is that provided by someone else (primarily the door staff) and that then provides the evidence at Court if the matter is contested, just as with the new system.
The issue of how complaints are dealt with is a very significant concern ... but it is not beyond the wit of man to invent an appropriate system.
Similar threads
