A controversial Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), approved by Thanet council on Thursday 25 July has been sent back to Cabinet members for re-examination.
Councillors on the overview and scrutiny committee discussed the new PSPO, which is a combined order made up of a previous order focused on alcohol and another one related to antisocial behaviour.
However, the new PSPO has faced a legal challenge from the Free Speech Union which says there are issues with the wording of the PSPO and also with the consultation that was carried out in May.
The decision was called in to the scrutiny panel by chairman Cllr Phil Fellows due to the council receiving a letter under the pre-action protocol for judicial review from the Free Speech Union (FSU). The FSU said it would apply to judicially review the PSPO decision.
Consultation and order ‘flaws’
The FSU says the consultation was inadequate, the decision was made without councillors accessing all the evidence, the order breaches Human Rights legislation for freedom of expression and assembly, it is unlawful because it does not define the activities that are being prohibited and covers a wide area rather than targeting trouble hotspots.
Speaking at the scrutiny panel meeting last night Steven O’Grady, for the FSU, said: “We do not object to PSPOs as a concept, they are a fantastic tool for local authorities to use to combat problems that are in the area.”
But, he said the FSU believed Thanet’s new PSPO “may be unlawful” and the consultation process was inadequate.
He said sufficient information was not given during the consultation process for people to make an informed decision for their responses and there was no explanation of the reasons for implementing it. He also highlighted that Cabinet members were not told of the FSU response to the consultation and so made a decision without all the relevant information.
On the order itself, Mr O’Grady said it breached human rights for gathering and freedom of expression, potentially criminalising peaceful protests and was too vague in what was actually being prohibited, leaving it open to individual interpretation for enforcement and leaving people unclear about what behaviour was being banned.
He also said the FSU believed the order was too wide, taking in all of Ramsgate, Margate, Broadstairs and Birchington, questioning how it would be possible that antisocial behaviour was happening in “every side street and park” of the four areas.
He added: “We are very serious in our opposition to this order. We mean business with our letter and intend to continue with our course of action.”
Concerns
Thanet council’s monitoring officer Ingrid Brown told councillors it was not for them to consider whether the order was ‘lawful’ but if they had concerns then it could be sent back to Cabinet members.
Cllr Becky Wing (Green) said she found combining the two previous PSPOs to be sensible although there were concerns about whether there were enough staff for the order to be enforced.
She criticised the FSU, saying: “The FSU makes assumptions that enforcement officers and police cannot make judgements about who to tell off for swearing etc. I make the assumption that our enforcement officers and police know how to deal with these situations, to de-escalate and disperse.”
Cllr Wing said any issues could be resolved through training. She also highlighted the problem of street drinkers in Ramsgate, saying: “Some sit in a quiet corner and are no harm to anybody. But we have a hard core of people that for some reason we cannot engage. We are encouraging residents to report (issues) to police.”
She said this stopped crimes but also gave an opportunity for officers to engage with the people involved and offer services that could help change their behaviour. She said this was a positive aspect of having the PSPO.
Cllr Wing expressed anger at the FSU saying she felt councillors were “being bullied” and that Mr O’Grady is: “not living here, not on our streets and not on our beaches” and noted there were no residents bringing objections in the council chamber.
Cllr Joanne Bright was equally critical, saying she was “baffled” by the legal challenge and asked why the FSU was raising the issue now when the council had PSPOs in place since 2018. She also questioned how many times the FSU would threaten legal action against amended PSPOs.
Cllr John Davis said he backed the proposal to send the PSPO “back to the drawing board” saying although it was a useful tool, it had to be “fit for purpose.”
Questions were raised over why Birchington was included in the order, with ward councillors saying it wasn’t needed there.
Chairman Phil Fellows said the PSPO was needed but “what we don’t need is a Judicial Review that will cost £100,000.”
Legal issues relating to the PSPO and the FSU challenge were discussed after exclusion of press and public.
It was noted that the monitoring officer had noticed deficiencies in the drafting of the order and advised sending it back to Cabinet members for discussion.
The PSPO is currently not in force because it was called in for further scrutiny.
Return to Cabinet
Councillors agreed to a suggestion by Cllr David Green that the PSPO decision be returned to Cabinet, saying the panel: “Support the aim of the PSPO and consider it necessary in some areas,” but added there were: “concerns that some aspects of the PSPO may be open to question and Cabinet look again to ensure it can be smoothly implemented.”
What does the PSPO include
The PSPO, which is due to be in force for one year, covers Birchington, Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs. It includes a reference to ‘foul language’ saying: “all persons are prohibited from using foul or abusive language in such a manner that is loud and can be heard by others and cause either alarm or distress to any other person in any public place,” which has caused considerable debate.
Thanet council says: “The restriction included in the PSPO does not relate to swearing in general. It refers specifically to foul language that causes alarm or distress to other people. “This is not a new restriction, it has been in place since 2018 when the Antisocial Behaviour PSPO was first introduced.”
The order would also prohibit behaviour such as congregating in “anti-social” groups that are “abusive, alarming, threatening, insulting, intimidating, harassing, distressing or otherwise causing a disturbance to other members of the public”.
Causing a “nuisance, harassment, alarm or distress” when consuming alcohol would also be banned, as would using a public space in a way that is not “in accordance with its intended use”.
Excreting bodily fluids in public, in a way that could cause alarm or distress, would also be covered by the order.
Offenders could face fines of up to £100, reduced to £60 if paid within two weeks.
Cabinet members will discuss the concerns raised about the PSPO at a meeting tomorrow (August 22).
ECHR Article 10 Freedom of Expression, has a second para, §2 “.. subject to conditions… as are prescribed by law…in a democratic society…prevention of disorder or crime… ”
So don’t quote Human Rights unless you get it right
Been wondering for a long time why these things are never challenged-likely because it usually effects drunks & little urchins. Yes, it might well be used to deal with little scrotes causing problems in certain areas-as we have seen recently with Dane Park & the Town.
But the problem then is it can be widened to cover anything they want or the enforcement officers/police don’t like-a group not bothering anybody/causing gathering in that area for instance.
It could even be applied to a group of joggers running round a park if a jobsworth/spiteful official whose power has gone to their head wants to do so & we saw how the police behaved during Covid in many areas-spying on people’s shopping trolley items, stopping them outside to check their bags, harassing people sitting on their own in parks, out jogging, spying through letterboxes etc & how the short-lived Covid Marshalls (failed power hungry cops) tried to do similar.
Find it odd that TDC don’t run such things by their legal experts first to see if it is actually legal or not & they aren’t more specific as to what it covers. Again it reeks of people having powers & their word is the law. But that is what happens until such things are actually challenged-they are blase about it just being accepted forever.
The wording is clearly not fit for purposes-any of us could swear at any time loudly, maybe we see a car nearly hit another car & we say the f word out loud & then it only takes one of the permanently offended types who write to Points Of View, newspapers etc complaining about everything, to make a spurious claim of being offended & we could be punished-regardless of what TDC claims. It should be very specific about what it covers, the same way police have to carefully word their search warrants & not overstep those bounds.
Mate, why are you inventing scenarios and hurting your own feelings with them?
Whilst most of the council committee supported the aims of the PSPO as a tool for controlling antisocial behavior in oor town centres,we took advice that the wording needed tightening to avoid possible misuse in the future. It surprised me that Tory councilors wanted Birchington Town centre removed from the scope of the order.
Sounds like the document was rushed in light of what has happened in the last few weeks, but we do need something to stop McDonalds staff been punched in the high street, and families also going for it outside McDonalds store. Birchington is somewhere I expect the Tory councillors don’t live, or care about.
Us Birchington lot are always effin an’ blindin’ in the street. Fortunately though, we don’t have a McDonalds or Wetherspoons (there was a Costa here briefly, but people just boycotted it and it closed).
i live in Birchington, I am the District Councillor here, also a Parish Councillor. We do not have a crime problem or major ASB issue here. Residents expressed to me concerns why our village had been labelled as having so and why it’s necessary to have such restrictions such as a PSPO here in our village and its valid point for me to make and question the reason for it
i think george orwell was on to something all those years ago ?
Well, the UK police boss who should be sorting out the Met & GMP, is instead threatening to extradite citizens from other countries for social media comments-aimed at Elon Musk.
But worrying he either doesn’t know how the law works, or is so arrogant/power mad that he thinks he can extradite a multi-billionaire from the US & the US who block sending dangerous criminals back would just hand him over, or that he wouldn’t have infinite funds to block every attempt.
Will be interesting to see how far Labour are going to go in the wake of the justifiable arrests, prosecutions & convictions & how clearly defined their policies will be-what exactly will class as misogyny for instance?
Are you referring to the film 1984, if so you are to late, we already have 2 cameras for every member of the UK public, and Pegasus to monitor your phones, and click showed that the met was looking at using the software from “A Person of Interest” to follow people about. Big Brother is watching you!
Not in Thanet-the police are always asking for mobile phone footage & door ring bell footage regarding incidents, even in the main areas that say they are covered by CCTV. One thinks most are just dummy cameras to save money.
You mean the socialist who spent his life fighting fascism, of which, 1984 was a warning about right wing, power hungry totalitarian divs, like Farage in the modern day et al?
No it wasn’t George Orwell, it was the film “Clockwork Orange” some 50 years ago, that predicted anti-social and criminal behaviour out of control! The film was banned here, I don’t know if it still is!
I doubt it, as it’s been shown on TV a couple of times since.
Appears that there are very few enforcements actually made /acted upon now- let alone new ones .Statements of prohibited actions need enforcing in addition to endless wordsmiths and meeting bilge after meeting after meeting .
Whilst all these meetings continue ad nausium in the meantime Thanet remains a playground for all those hell bent on turning it into a cesspit – as they know they can get away with it as no enforcement is made .
Same old same old
Thanet remains a playground for all those hell bent on turning it into a cesspit.
I thought that was the job of the council. They seem to be hell bent on destroying our quality of life.
Alex Peters’ view of Thanet doesn’t seem very realistic. Perhaps he/she doesn’t walk around Ramsgate much.
When was the last time you visited Birchington? Minster? St. Nicholas? Sarre?
Erm …https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2024/08/21/teen-arrested-after-armed-police-called-to-report-of-man-with-gun-in-ramsgate/
TDC couldn’t organise a tupperware party.
I didn’t vote my local councillor in to arrange Tupperware parties.
So that’s all right.
Why don’t you stand for election as a councillor next time, Alex Peters?
I’d vote for you if you did. We need more diversity in local politics.
So how are they going to Police the use of ‘foul language’ in public if you cannot understand the language the person is swearing in? I defy the ordinary Thanet resident to understand if I were using profane language in Spanish or Latin, let alone Slovakian, Polish etc.
Ahhh the Free Speech Union.
“Non-partisan” apparently, but founded by Toby Young and its various “advisory councils” full of the usual right wing crowd.. Daily Mail columnists, think tankers, contrarian commentators and assorted nut cases.
Wonder who is funding it all?
And why on earth they are stinking their noses into a District councils democracy?
A concerted effort to divide ,agitate the local population and elected officials?
Perhaps , a future piece for The Spectator magazine .
Toby Young, who’s had some abhorrent comments about women and allegedly, underage women too.
It’s not for Ingrid Brown to decide on what is lawful either.Life, liberty and freedom from oppression are too precious to be decided upon by the likes of TDC with their past record.
We may feel that strong measures are appropriate for dealing with scrotes as you call them, but the use of such orders should be applied with care, or otherwise they could be used by a rather less savoury bunch of politicians to oppress those they don’t agree with or like.
We must always be vigilant of people who are prepared to use any means to justify their ends.The free speech union might be a right wing libertarian group but their concerns ought to be addressed and not simply brushed under carpet, because they are inconvenient.
In my view TDC has outlived it’s usefulness if ever there was any.We should say to them as Oliver Cromwell said to the rump parliament “it is not fit that should sit here any longer. You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing lately,,,depart I say and let us be done with you…in the name of god go.
I totally agree with you (there’s a first time for everything!).
I worked for the council for nearly a year, having come from a previous legal, enforcement career. We had training given to us by a company called Mallards of London. I was in a position as a Coastal officer. I was concerned at the time that the PSPO was unlawful, as was the lawyer who gave me training, when I tried to engage with my line manager she just rebuked my concerns, told me to be quite and not to mention anything. The coastal department was not fit for purpose
Now that sounds very much like Thanet Council !
George Nokes- what do you think should replace TDC?
It should be absorbed into the Canterbury and Dover district councils.
I’m not G N but I think TDC should be replaced by the old system of Margate Ramsgate and Broadstairs, each with their own staff and councillors who actually live in the towns. Get rid of the highly paid hangers on and have people who care for the area not out for their own personal gain.
The police have all the powers they need to deal with morons causing unrest / disruption / antisocial /. Free speech is one thing inciting others to cause mayhem is another thing.
But they don’t do much for anything but the most serious cases, they just don’t have the resources to deal with low level vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
Plus TDC are just looking for another revenue stream.
Anecdotally it seems that TDC are desperate to bring in cash, recently heard they’d bought forward ( yet again) payments for beach huts and wanted to charge extra for those paying by installments via direct debit. From someone i’ve no reason to doubt , but not something i’ve seen in writing.
Pointless having procedures that won’t get used, or if they are used done so very selectively. It won’t stop the shelters getting burnt or vamdalised, deal with the street drinkers causing mayhem , using what ever they want as a toilet, endlessly arguing or turning small areas into places normal folk will choose to avoid.
Tickets won’t be issued to those that can’t/ won’t pay, as
1) it’ll be seen as a system the council can’t/ won’t enforce
2) council won’t takenon payers to court in most cases
3) by not issuing tickets they can pretend some problems don’t exist
4) the officers will be told not to issue tickets in situations that may become aggressive, so again it’s easier to avoid doing anything.
Utterly pointless piece of pantomine of trying to look as if something is being done.
The replacement for TDC and KCc in my humble opinion ought to be a unitary East Kent Council as envisaged by the Radcliffe Maud comission way back in 1968/9. It would be based in Canterbury,the natural capital of East Kent and be coterminous with a reformed East Kent Hospital trust half the size of the current failing institution. The districts of Dover, Canterbury, Thanet, Folkestone and the Eastern part of Swale, which includes Faversham.Ashford would be spun off into a midkent or West Kent unitary council.The remainder of Swale would be joined with Medway.
Was the formation of East Kent Housing not a tentative step towards such unification? You’ve only to look at the circus that turned into with all the competing vested and differing political outlooks soon meaning there were effectively 4 organisations within one and as a result it all fell apart.
Can you imagine the skeletons that’d fall out of cupboards ,when arse covering was no longer the primary concern, as it was attempted to combine all the various departments and duties?
It’s a poor state of affairs that public order offences are apparently dealt with by local councils such as Thant. I just wonder whatever happened to Kent police.
Thanet council have struggled to look after local interests for many years whether maintaining assets or public services.
The idea that our lackluster local masters should be arbiters of what you can and cannot say is as ridiculous as it is sinister.
Having allowed many of our public conveniences to close, sometimes replaced by expensive thunder boxes, it seems rather vindictive to legislate against someone caught short and “excreting bodily fluids in public.”and would this include someone having a poo on the steps of the Thanet council offices.?
Cllr Wing said: “there were no residents bringing objections in the council chamber” but there was no public consultation or publicity, and just a few locals picked up on the story via a few mainstream media pieces. The dangers of overreach on freedom of speech are obvious and TDC seems to have been amateur in its drafting of the order, and now puts out ludicrous claims of bullying when it gets some legal scrutiny from human rights professionals. Orwellian clumsiness at its finest. Or perhaps something more sinister for the future.
Yes of course “Democrat”, it means something sinister for the future! Something frightening, something which will cow the populace into submission! Let’s all stop reading the MSM and stick to little bits of nonsense spoken by people who are enmeshed in the threads of conspiracy theories instead.
These comments are hilarious! Keep ’em coming.