A campaigner who replaced dog mess with drawings of cupcakes has been told that she could be arrested ... for criminal damage.You mean, they can’t catch the dog-foulers, but they can catch a lone female ‘artist’ drawing pictures in bio-degradable, non-toxic chalk on the pavement?
Hmmm, something whiffs here…
Her mission was simple: replace every dog mess she found with a chalk drawing of a pink cupcake in a yellow cup. Such is the extent of the 'plague' in her area that she drew 25 sketches in just three days.Wow! Those two WPCs must feel so proud.
She also wrote: 'Dog owners, please clear up your dog's mess. Children walk here.'
However, on Saturday, she was approached by two WPCs who told her the drawings constituted criminal damage and had to be cleaned away.
Why try to tackle Wayne with his snarling pitbull when you can intimidate weedy little Louise, who won’t spit at you, swear, or ignore you?
She said: 'I explain that it's just chalk and it's part of a campaign to end this scourge of dog fouling by a children's park and school, but they're insistent it is criminal damage and I must wash it off.And makes them feel like real cops?
'They are clear that I must fetch a bucket and a brush. I guess this is so it feels like a real punishment.'
After washing the cupcakes off the streets she added: 'I only wish they'd keep an eye out for the perpetrators of the actual crime.'Don’t be silly!
'I'm prepared to stand trial for this - but I don't think I would ever be arrested and I don't think any judge in the land would throw the book at me for what I'm doing. 'Sadly, I suspect you’re wrong.
I think it's about time people like Louise just said "no, arrest me" every single time a policeman does something like this.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure they wouldn't have arrested her. I think the police think they are untouchable, and can force you to humiliate yourself because you won't do anything about it.
It's clearly not criminal damage, nothing is damaged. So they're clearly lying. However, since she wasn't charged, I suspect they have done nothing wrong. Arrest her, and I think that becomes very different.
Any police readers care to comment on my thoughts?
As an aside, people who let their dogs shit anywhere except their own home or garden and don't clear it up should be made to eat it. Now that would be effective policing.
We've already been here.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009 a Bristol sociology student was arrested and charged with criminal damage. He wrote chalk slogans on the pavement, which is very irritating. Twice. In defiance of being told to stop because it only encouraged all the other graffiti fools, who didn't use chalk.
However, in April 2009 he received a discontinuation letter from the CPS as there wasn't enough evidence to proceed and anyway, somebody had exercised a bit of sense and didn't fancy the chalky protest he was proposing outside the court.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/CPS-throws-Bristol-chalk-vandal-case/article-882806-detail/article.html
The question as to whether chalking could be regarded as criminal damage may be one of scale and content.
The reference is:
"It is considered that damage has been caused when the property requires cleaning that has to be paid for. In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (1986), the defendant drew a picture on the pavement with chalk. This was regarded as criminal damage as the council had to pay to have it cleaned off."
However, perhaps in the Bristol case the CPS didn't fancy an argument about how much, if anything, it would cost to remove a few slogans which would wash away and nobody was reading anyway.
My bet is that a few chalky cup cakes would be barely prosecutable and the WPCs have fallen right in to a hefferlump trap by making a story where there otherwise might not have been one.
I'll also betcha that they weren't WPCs but were PCSOs.
I'm not a "Police" reader ..
ReplyDeleteBut, if I were the Lady concerned, I would have challenged the Police Officers (one does wonder if in fact they were "Warranted" Officers, or merely PCSO's) to arrest & charge me with the alleged offence ..
Police have no right or powers to order anyone to clean-up what they consider to be "criminal damage" ..
They should either arrest, or exercise their discretion ..
The following link may be of interest ..
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/#a03
For ref: the Hardman case was where body outlines in water-soluble paint were painted on the pavement in memory of the 40th anniversary of the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb.
ReplyDeleteA great deal hangs on how water-soluble the paint was; thin powder colour could have been left until it rained, but sloshing emulsion around which stops being water-soluble after a while would have involved the council in the cost of clearing up.
The test for the cupcakes would be if the council were obliged to clear them up or if they would have just left them to fade away.
Agreed WoaR ..
ReplyDeleteSo, by the definition of these so-called "Police Officers" .. a couple of kids, chalking a Hop-Scotch grid (do kids do that any longer ? ) on the pavement would be guilty of Criminal Damage ..
If they turn out to be mere PCSO's, they may be safely ignored ..
If they turn out to be "Warranted" Officers .. then a strongly worded, written complaint of "overbearing conduct" should be made to the Chief Constable, as their employer .. with copies to the local Press ..
An example must be made of these people who feel they have the right to flout our laws. We will prosecute them with the full force of the law.
ReplyDeleteHanging is too good for the likes of some of these, who refuse to conform; they must be FORCED to conform.
Whatever next - our children will be playing hop-scotch!
@ CH - "Police have no right or powers to order anyone to clean-up what they consider to be "criminal damage"
ReplyDeleteSurely to do so would be destroying the evidence? This is the same as police stopping photographers under spurious security laws, and demanding they erase the pictures.
And regarding the subject of this post, I was watching daytime TV in the trade counter of a wholesaler this morning whilst waiting to be served. It was a programme following council public health officials. They were investigating an unbelievable case of a dog owner who bagged up his pooches crap, and threw it up into a tree!!!
The poor official counted nearly 30 black binbags in one tree alone... They were studying CCTV recordings which were hopefully going to help catch the perpetrator. Maddeningly the programme ended before this occurred. So I will never know who the "Phantom Dog Poo Flinger" was....
@ MD ...
ReplyDelete"They were investigating an unbelievable case of a dog owner who bagged up his pooches crap, and threw it up into a tree" !!!
Perhaps they were only trying to feed the Shite Hawks, Dave .. ;)
... I don't think any judge in the land would throw the book at me for what I'm doing. '
ReplyDeleteSadly, I suspect you’re wrong.
Judge might. A jury? Might be worth taking your chances with 12 people who'll all have had to walk around someone else's dog's shit at some point and who might well return a verdict of 'tell the plod to not be so fucking silly'.
I'm in the police and stories like this (if true) make me sigh.I can only hope they were PCSO's.
ReplyDeleteWere I to bring a prisoner in who has done what this person did I would be laughed out of the station.Quite rightly
Jaded
"They were investigating an unbelievable case of a dog owner who bagged up his pooch's crap, and threw it up into a tree" !!!
ReplyDeleteThere are quite a few cretins who do this - carefully bag up their dog's shite and then hang it in a hedge for the world to admire!
"I think it's about time people like Louise just said "no, arrest me" every single time a policeman does something like this."
ReplyDeleteAgreed! But so many are conditioned to obey 'authority'.
"My bet is that a few chalky cup cakes would be barely prosecutable and the WPCs have fallen right in to a hefferlump trap by making a story where there otherwise might not have been one.
I'll also betcha that they weren't WPCs but were PCSOs."
Good point!
"The test for the cupcakes would be if the council were obliged to clear them up or if they would have just left them to fade away."
Given that they aren't repairing potholes big enough to trap small animals, I can't see they'd come out for chalk drawings...
"If they turn out to be mere PCSO's, they may be safely ignored .."
And may be politely ignored if they are real police - as long as you don't mind getting arrested out of spite, and your DNA taken.
"Whatever next - our children will be playing hop-scotch!"
ReplyDeleteIn some areas, they play far less innocent games!
"Surely to do so would be destroying the evidence? This is the same as police stopping photographers under spurious security laws, and demanding they erase the pictures."
Good point.
"...I was watching daytime TV in the trade counter of a wholesaler this morning whilst waiting to be served. It was a programme following council public health officials. They were investigating an unbelievable case of a dog owner who bagged up his pooches crap, and threw it up into a tree!!!"
I caught the tail-end of that too!
"Judge might. A jury? Might be worth taking your chances with 12 people..."
Which is why they are removing that option from every low-level offence they can.
They're certainly discouraging people accused of minor offences from taking the jury option what with all the fixed penalties and cautions and magistrates court trials, and no doubt where it's a strict liability offence - which is most of them - they'll make a big deal about it being a foregone conclusion and that the the non-jury options will be lesser punishments. But are they actually removing the option from low level offences altogether? I know the precedent has been set for more serious cases now, which is enough of a concern as it is. If they've now started on the other end of the scale too then that's very worrying.
ReplyDelete