June 22, 2018 at 11:55 pm #151428
Some very interesting insights as always Rob, CouncilWatcher.
I suppose you can consider it ‘fair enough’ that they would no longer have a copy of a recording of a meeting 2 and a half years old that was meant for the designed purpose of the public viewing for a period of 6 months. It would now be 2 years beyond its expiry date for expired purpose.
However, the complete disparity occurs between the language when Wrexham.com’s request was turned down
A spokesperson for Wrexham Council said: “Archived webcasts are available to view via the Council’s website for a period of six months, after the broadcast meeting – there is no facility to view webcasts after this six month period.
And then when I prompted in a similar request in explicit FOI form directly as a result of the original request turned down that the information no longer existed.
So there is a huge difference between no facility to allow people to view said webcast and for it to not exist to even be reproduced in any form.
There are a lot of questions to be answered then such as when is the cut off point for webcasts being deleted? And are FOI requests for non deleted webcast transcripts or copies of videos beyond 6 months something that they will actually show to members of the public or other concerned parties?
Stoneagle, I could well ask them to make an internal review but I am not sure how helpful they will be. I can’t help feel like their short response was deliberately obtuse. No detailed explanations was provided about why this information was no longer available to what was a highly detailed, specific and crafted FOI request to try and overcome any objections to us members of the public in Wrexham accessing important information.
It was also effectively delayed for weeks hoping the hype would die down. They’d have known straight away if they had the information or not but they literally waited until the response deadline.
The next logical step is to actually press Clr Bithell to produce Any Evidence Whatsoever that the relevant committee in December 2016 did provide instructions of any kind or come to an agreement that a zero tolerance policy was to be adopted by Kingdom on people dropping litter and the issuing of fines. As the legal representations of the meeting which were the minutes do not mention them AND the zero tolerance position is completely against both council policy and official DEFRA guidelines.
If Clr Bithell cannot give us utmost assurances and proof beyond just his say so that Kingdom are permitted to operate in a zero tolerance manner in Wrexham then a review of their contract must be called ASAP as they are not operating to acceptable defined guidelines and thousands of people across Wrexham will have unfairly received an instant fine rather than have been given a chance to pick up the litter to avoid receiving the fine.
This is highly important on a county level politically as the control of the decision making of punitive measures MUST fall into the remit of elected councillors and Wrexham council and NOT a private corporation seeking to make profit and those decisions purely being made on a for profit basis rather than an effective and measured deterrent.June 23, 2018 at 10:02 am #151434
I think that due to the great work of the North Wales Against Kingdom Security Facebook group, it won’t be long until Kingdom are gone from Wrexham and it is quite possible that all FPN’s may have to be refunded. In the meantime, please don’t deliberately drop litter but if you do accidentally drop something and Kingdom try it on then pick up your litter, remain calm and walk away from themJune 23, 2018 at 12:25 pm #151438
Please don’t advise people to commit a criminal offence. Refusal to give your details/ give false details when requested is a criminal offence and many have been prosecuted for it.June 23, 2018 at 2:43 pm #151440
A friend of mine is a serving officer with North Wales Police. I have asked him about what happens when someone refuses to give Kingdom their details and he has told me that the police will not attend as they cannot force the alleged offender to give Kingdom their details and futhermore, the police cannot pass any details over to Kingdom due to data protection.June 23, 2018 at 2:47 pm #151441
Not me in this video and I’ve no idea if the gentleman was guilty or not but the police let him go eventually and couldn’t make him hand his details over to Kingdom.June 23, 2018 at 3:04 pm #151442
Please don’t advise people to commit a criminal offence. Refusal to give your details/ give false details when requested is a criminal offence and many have been prosecuted for it.
Whatever happened to the right to remain silent? In this case it is best to not say anything at all as Kingdom seem to take any kind of conversation with them as admission of guilt. If you are unsure of what is going on you cannot be forced to state anything at all to a non police officer with zero powers of criminal arrest.
As it has been confirmed that no police will ever attend a call from Kingdom then there is no criminal liability whatsoever. It is also the onus of the Kingdom enforcement to secure the civil penalty not the member of the public to self incriminate.
Would be highly offensive to suggest that even everyone is capable of verbally giving their details anyway, such as those with certain types of disability or those who are perhaps deaf and cannot hear What is being said to them. If those people remained silent and unable to give over their details would they be committing a criminal offence?June 23, 2018 at 3:59 pm #151443
Your police friend needs to brush up on the law then. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-penalty-notices#getting-the-offenders-details
The thing is we all live in the digital age and can all look up information on line.
Liitering IS a criminal offence. If a Police officer has reasonable suspicion you have commited an offence you are legally obliged to give your details.June 23, 2018 at 4:01 pm #151444
Just look up the answers to your questions http://newsroom.carmarthenshire.gov.uk/news-archive/2015/10/man-fined-for-littering-offence-and-giving-false-details/June 23, 2018 at 4:47 pm #151446
Kingdom’s Enforcement Officers are ignoring 2 very important points. (Highlighted)
When not to issue a fixed penalty notice
Don’t issue an FPN if any of the following apply:
there’s no criminal liability
enforcement action is inappropriate or would be disproportionate for the offence
prosecution is more suitable
littering is done accidentallyJune 23, 2018 at 5:04 pm #151449
You are correct. If I accidentally dropped litter and was approached by Kingdom and informed I was being offered a FPN, I would refuse it and defend in Magistrates Court. They have to produce video evidence of the alleged offence, which will of course show it as an accident.
“enforcement action is inappropriate or would be disproportionate for the offence”
If someone intentionally drops litter then an offer of a FPN to avoid prosecution is appropriate IMO.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.