Expanded Brixton Dispersal Zone

[detective-boy]

what are these increased powers? I though the police have always had the right to move people on if they're loitering.

Basically an order can be made under s.30 Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 which defines an area (big or small, usually a few streets) in which a constable can move on a group (two or more) if they have reasonable grounds for believing their presence has, or is likely to, cause intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress. The requirement can be to leave the defined area (if they don't live there) and not to return for up to 24 hours. Between 9pm and 6am an unaccompanied person under 16 in the area can be taken to their home.

The same sort of grounds are needed to justify the order in the first place. Orders last for a defined period. The local authority must be consulted. In practice this means that they are usually done via the local Community Safety Partnership (all of which include many ways for public to be involved (e.g. each Ward has it's own local consultation panel arrangements - ask your police Safer Neighbourhood Team) ... and all of which struggle to get any members of the public interested in taking part ... )

 

[detective-boy]

If you did explicitly not say so, would it still be legal to make that a condfition of entry?

Yes. Your gaff, your rules. Although it is (obviously) good practice to publicise conditions, there is absolutely no legal obligation to do so. Even when they are mentioned, it is in the small print no-one ever reads.

 

[editor]

We used to do it at both Chelsea and QPR in the 80s, don't know of it being used more recently (improved CCTV has probably meant it is not worthwhile), but there would be no reason why it couldn't be a condition of entry.

So you pulled people out of the queue outside and told them that unless they agreed to pose for your picture they would not be allowed in?

 

[shygirl]

Well, one guy who'd turned up to food not bombs thing was actually on the receiving end of intimidating behaviour by the police man, shoving the camera right in his face. He understandably got upset and was a bit lippy, so was then threatened with arrest. I kinda got in the middle, allowing your man to leave and leaving me to reason with the copper about why he should try a less in yer face approach.

to be honest, I can't be bothered asking for my pic to be given to me (its probably shit anyway).

The police in cardiff are something else, not sure if they are monitored that closely down there. I saw them roughing up a couple of valleys boys last year, after turning a blind eye to the taxi driver who just punched one of them in the face. Now, the boys might have been tossers, but one had still been quite badly assaulted and the police didn't give a shit.

 

[detective-boy]

So you pulled people out of the queue outside and told them that unless they agreed to pose for your picture they would not be allowed in?

It was done at the turnstiles when I was doing it - targetted (as best we could, intelligence was shite) on known yobs.

 

[editor]

It was done at the turnstiles when I was doing it - targetted (as best we could, intelligence was shite) on known yobs.

So they were lined up against a wall by the police and told that they had to have their photo taken?

So what law covers that then?

 

[TopCat]

That's not the same though, is it.

They can take a picture without consent (as can anyone else in a public place). They can't use force to take it.

I have had force used against me to take my photo. Pushed against a wall, arms held, face snapped, t shirt sleves pulled up, tattoo's snapped.

The police do what they want and lie about it afterwards.

 

[editor]

I have had force used against me to take my photo. Pushed against a wall, arms held, face snapped, t shirt sleves pulled up, tattoo's snapped.

The police do what they want and lie about it afterwards.

Yep. I've heard of - and seen - police doing that at football matches. I've gone over and told queuing fans that they don't have to comply with their demands for photos and then had my picture taken endlessly through the match as a result.

Ah, good ol' police intimidation, eh?

 

[TopCat]

Yep. I've heard of - and seen - police doing that at football matches. I've gone over and told queuing fans that they don't have to comply with their demands for photos and then had my picture taken endlessly through the match as a result.

Ah, good ol' police intimidation, eh?

It got on my nerves to be honest and a lot of my mates nerves. They were doing it endlessly for season after season.

Plus the video in your face on the trains to away matches.

The searching before and after boarding the train.

The forced march to crap pubs before matches and being locked in.

The mysterious police dissapearances just before a load of opposition lads would attack us.

Oh the joys of being a football fan. Then the police wonder out loud why so many 'wall gave them a doing years later at Millwall vs Brum! Well if you think elephants have long memories think again, Bermondsey remembers longest and laughs last.

 

[Not a Vet]

Well, the early signs are for my road not good. We are on the edge of where the disposal zone ends and all this week we've experienced anti-social behavour with crack heads using our garden as a place to be and use as a toilet. The hookers and the dealers use the road as their main meeting point and yesterday a pensioner from the old people home next door was mugged suffering serious injuries. I'm trying not to sound like a nimby but it seems that all these dispersal zones do is move the problems somewhere else without tackling the root causes.

 

[nick h.]

That doesn't sound good. What street are you on?

 

[detective-boy]

So what law covers that then?

In this particular instance the common law of land ownership - you want to come on to private property you comply with the conditions of the owner, otherwise you can fuck off.

(Not that there needs to be a law "allowing" it anyway - as I have repeatedly pointed out here we have a legal system in which all things are permitted unless they are specifically made illegal.)

 

[Gramsci]

The problem with photos is that its more about intimidation than proper info gathering leading to a possible arrest.

The police seems to be using it to keep people down.However they can say they have the powers to us it.

 

[Bob]

Well, the early signs are for my road not good. We are on the edge of where the disposal zone ends and all this week we've experienced anti-social behavour with crack heads using our garden as a place to be and use as a toilet. The hookers and the dealers use the road as their main meeting point and yesterday a pensioner from the old people home next door was mugged suffering serious injuries. I'm trying not to sound like a nimby but it seems that all these dispersal zones do is move the problems somewhere else without tackling the root causes.

Doesn't sound good that.

Is that the old people's home on (I think) the Railton road junction with Effra Parade? I cycle past twice a day so will keep a look out.

 

[detective-boy]

The police seems to be using it to keep people down.

How does it "keep people down" beyond it's legitimate deterrent effect?

(There are two principal uses for overt photographs / video:

1. To deter anyone thinking of acting unlawfully (and especially anyone intent on violence) because they know that there is a clear photograph of them in the vicinity.

2. To provide evidence to assist in the investigation and prosecution of any crimes which happen in the vicinity, by providing far clearer footage for use in identifying suspects and, especially, linking facial identification with clothing, etc. worn on that occasion.)

 

[editor]

In this particular instance the common law of land ownership - you want to come on to private property you comply with the conditions of the owner, otherwise you can fuck off.

That still doesn't back up your original claim but I can see that you're too stubborn to concede this point, so I'll give up asking.

 

[detective-boy]

That still doesn't back up your original claim but I can see that you're too stubborn to concede this point, so I'll give up asking.

If you are referring to any "claim" that police can forcibly take your picture (as opposed to taking it without consent, which is different), I have never made such a claim. You, for some reason, seem to think that I did. Perhaps you have not grasped the difference between using force and not having consent?

 

[editor]

If you are referring to any "claim" that police can forcibly take your picture (as opposed to taking it without consent, which is different), I have never made such a claim. You, for some reason, seem to think that I did. Perhaps you have not grasped the difference between using force and not having consent?

Great. So we're agreed. The police have "no right to force you to have your picture taken if you're in a public place."

Just like I said thirty posts ago.

 

[Not a Vet]

No, we're on St Matthews Road

 

[snowy_again]

.

 

[detective-boy]

Just like I said thirty posts ago.

And just like I pointed out immediately:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7672624&postcount=21

I don't understand why you persisted in banging on about something I wasn't saying, never had been saying and had quite specifically pointed out I wasn't saying right at the start.

 

[editor]

And just like I pointed out immediately:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7672624&postcount=21

I don't understand why you persisted in banging on about something I wasn't saying, never had been saying and had quite specifically pointed out I wasn't saying right at the start.

When I said that the police had "been known to insist that they do have the right to make you have your photo [forcibly] taken" when queuing outside grounds, you said that they could as "a condition of entry to (or remaining in) a football ground (or any other private place)."

Could you give me an example of a club where it is a condition of entry that the police have the right to forcibly take your picture before you're allowed in, because I'd like this clarified for the info sections on my site.

I've refused many times at games and never been challenged by the police.

 

[detective-boy]

When I said that the police had "been known to insist that they do have the right to make you have your photo [forcibly] taken" when queuing outside grounds, you said that they could as "a condition of entry to (or remaining in) a football ground (or any other private place)."

You have a real mental block about this!

You initially said:

No, but the police have been known to insist that they do have the right to make you have your photo taken. They used to regularly try it on at Cardiff City away games.

You did NOT mention the use of force. I did not read it as meaning the use of force. I read it as meaning without consent.

Immediately after your post, I replied to a post of rennie's, in which they mentioned that they "... will as a matter of course take your picture without asking.":

That's not the same though, is it.

They can take a picture without consent (as can anyone else in a public place). They can't use force to take it.

I thought this made it perfectly plain that I was distinguishing between the two situations - taking a picture without consent (permitted as a condition of entry) and taking a picture using force (not permitted).

A couple of posts later you specifically asked:

Can you give me examples of the police legally having the right to forcibly take photos of people entering a UK football ground please, because such a condition would be extremely ominous in my eyes.

I replied:

No, that's not the condition. The condition would be that you consent to having your picture taken (and coopperate). If you do not, then you become a trespasser and can be forcibly removed if you do not leave when asked.

Again I emphasised the difference.

How could I be clearer? Why won't you let it go? What is it you do not get?

 

[editor]

How could I be clearer? Why won't you let it go? What is it you do not get?

It's important to me that I get this information right because the legal section on this site is used by a lot of football fans. I want it to be 100% accurate and I'm not still clear about it after this exchange:

If the police - or anyone else - tried to force football fans into "co-operating" and having their photograph forcibly taken against their will as they entered grounds there would be uproar.

Can you give me a example of this happening at a UK football ground please?

Why are you ignoring the fact that I have said that would NOT be a condition of having a photograph taken forcibly. The condition would be one of consenting to having your photograph taken or don't come in / remain. In effect, you would be forced (albeit not by using physical force) to cooperate if you wanted to enter.

We used to do it at both Chelsea and QPR in the 80s, don't know of it being used more recently (improved CCTV has probably meant it is not worthwhile), but there would be no reason why it couldn't be a condition of entry.

This sounds to me that you were stopping fans at Chelsea and QPR entering the ground unless they were forced to have their photos taken (i.e. forced as in "Oy! You! We, the police, demand that you pose for our picture or you ain't coming in") .

I've never, ever heard of such a thing - in fact, I've stepped in and stopped police doing just that at grounds - so perhaps you could clarify exactly what you meant and show me what law gives the police the right to demand that fans pose for their photos or be refused entry.

What private clubs do is immaterial here - I'm asking you to show me what laws you used to demand that fans be photographed or refused entry.

 

[detective-boy]

I've never, ever heard of such a thing - in fact, I've stepped in and stopped police doing just that at grounds - so perhaps you could clarify exactly what you meant and show me what law gives the police the right to demand that fans pose for their photos or be refused entry.

What private clubs do is immaterial here - I'm asking you to show me what laws you used to demand that fans be photographed or refused entry.

Why are you drawing a distinction between football grounds and private clubs? Football grounds ARE private places. The owners of them are entitled to set ANY conditions of entry (with the exception of conditions based on sex / race / etc. discrimination) they like. If they have set a condition that everyone enters consent to having their photograph taken that is perfectly legal. No law "allowing it" is necessary. It is the common law of land ownership (succinctly summarised as "My gaff, my rules" by the Pub Landlord). I have no idea whether any clubs currently have that as a condition of entry. Even if they haven't, the owner or their agent could make the request verbally with no prior notice. When we were doing it, ground stewards hardly existed and police were operating as agents of the ground owners. The owners of the ground had no direct interest in the photos we took and we kept control of them for as long as necessary. But the taking of the photo was as a result of the condition of entry imposed by the owner, not as a result of any power we the police had. Anyone acting as the agent of the property owner can enforce the conditions of entry. Failure to comply with any condition of entry makes you a trespasser and you may be required to leave (or be refused entry if it is at the door/gate). If you fail to leave, or try to force entry, reasonable and necessary force may be used by the owner or their agents to remove you.

It is exactly the same situation as with conditions of search or dress or whatever enforced by door staff at pubs.

The best advice for football fans is a general "You will be entering privately owned property and there is an absolute right for any property owner to make any condition of entry they wish (subject only to anti-discrimination law). If they do you have a simple choice - comply or do not enter."

 

[editor]

Why are you drawing a distinction between football grounds and private clubs?

Err, because that's what we were talking about and that's what I've been interested in clarifying. And of course, there is a raft of legislation that only applies to football fans and not club-goers.

Football grounds ARE private places. The owners of them are entitled to set ANY conditions of entry (with the exception of conditions based on sex / race / etc. discrimination) they like. If they have set a condition that everyone enters consent to having their photograph taken that is perfectly legal.

Of course they can set any conditions they like as private owners, but you still haven't clarified which law you - as an agent of the law - were using to force* fans to have their pictures taken against their will when they were entering Chelsea and QPR grounds.

You also haven't produced any examples of clubs demanding that fans have to have their photos taken on the turnstiles as a condition of entry.

I suspect that such a requirement would get human rights campaigners very interested, but as a football campaigner, I'm keen to clarify the matter, and especially keen to learn how you justified forcibly photographing law abiding fans entering a ground.


(*Force as in "We, the police, demand that you pose for our picture or we will physically stop you coming in")

 

[detective-boy]

Of course they can set any conditions they like as private owners, but you still haven't clarified which law you - as an agent of the law - were using to force* fans to have their pictures taken against their will when they were entering Chelsea and QPR grounds.

I've clarified it a million times - you just won't listen. (I have also pointed out repeatedly that it doesn't really matter - anything is legal until a law says it isn't in the UK).

You also haven't produced any examples of clubs demanding that fans have to have their photos taken on the turnstiles as a condition of entry.

I have no idea whether any have now - I suspect probably not as CCTV has become way better quality and far more widely used. Back in the 80s we did it at Chelsea and QPR.

I suspect that such a requirement would get human rights campaigners very interested

It would make very little difference at all. The Human Rights Act applies only to public authorities. The football ground owners are not public authorities.

Why do you keep going on about the police like this:

"We, the police, demand that you pose for our picture or we will physically stop you coming in"

When acting as we were, we were acting in our role as agents of the ground owners, not as police officers (in exactly the same way as a police officer assisting a licensee to eject a trespasser from a pub is not actuing as a police officer (and, hence, cannot be assaulted as a police officer in the course of their duty)).

 

[editor]

The Human Rights Act applies only to public authorities. The football ground owners are not public authorities.

That's not strictly true:

Despite the fact that the Act states that it applies to public bodies the Human Rights Act has had increasing influence on private law ligitation between invididual citizens leading some academics to state that it has horizontal effect as well as vertical effect (as in disputes between the state and citizens). This is because s6(1) of the Human Rights Act defines courts and tribunals as public bodies meaning their judgments must comply with human rights obligations except in cases of declarations of incompatibility. Therefore judges have a duty to act in compatibility with the Convention even when an action is a private one between two citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

When acting as we were, we were acting in our role as agents of the ground owners, not as police officers (in exactly the same way as a police officer assisting a licensee to eject a trespasser from a pub is not actuing as a police officer (and, hence, cannot be assaulted as a police officer in the course of their duty)).

Could you give me an example of a football fan being refused entry to a ground because they refused to have their photograph forcibly taken by the police please?

Oh, and if a fan hits a copper "acting as an agent" inside the ground - as you have described - are you saying that they wouldn't be done for assaulting an officer in the course of their duty? Any examples?

 

[detective-boy]

That's not strictly true:

I know about the Courts (as a public authority) having an obligation to abide by the Human Rights Act and the line of jurisprudence which suggests it could lead to all sorts of new rights being created in general UK law, thank you. I have been posting to that effect about the law of privacy, paps, etc. since well before it became fashionable.

Could you give me an example of a football fan being refused entry to a ground because they refused to have their photograph forcibly taken by the police please?

Yes. We threw loads out. (No. I haven't got a "link")

Oh, and if a fan hits a copper "acting as an agent" inside the ground - as you have described - are you saying that they wouldn't be done for assaulting an officer in the course of their duty? Any examples?

Yes. Me. On at least two occasions. (No. I haven't got a "link")

 

[Not a Vet]

Depressingly my road, St Matthews is now being used for kerb crawling. Does anyone have any advise for tackling this? I thought about recording car regs etc