Southend's traffic wardens issued with DNA kits to help catch vile spitters

Neil Hunwicks and Jade Glover

Neil Hunwicks and Jade Glover

First published in Echo News by , Senior reporter

TRAFFIC wardens working in Southend are being issued with swab-kits so they can catch people who spit at them.

Contractor Apcoa, which employs wardens to patrol the borough, has issued the kits to all frontline officers in a bid to catch more people who commit the vile assaults on its staff.

The move follows a case last year where a warden was spat at in Hamlet Court Road, Westcliff.

Manager Neil Hunwicks said: “Our officer was spat at and the perpetrator brought along his wife to the trial as a witness.

“It was our one officer’s word against theirs and if there hadn’t been CCTV in the road, we might not have been able to prove it.

“This is something which can help us gather evidence.

“But the idea is to make people aware that we have this as an option and will pursue a prosecution, so theywon’t attack our officers in the first place.

“It’s just a small minority who would do something like that, but we do everything we can to keep our officers safe and won’t tolerate abuse of any kind.”

In the past two years, there have been 40 recorded attacks on officers in Southend, involving all types of assaults.

The kits will be used to capture a swab of saliva from someone who spits at a warden which will be passed to the police. Officers would take a sample and test its DNA against a national database.

Jade Glover, a supervisor for Apcoa and its hate crimes officer, came up with the idea.

She said: “There’s been an increase in spitting and it is hard to catch people doing it.

“If someone is a passenger in a car, they’re hard to pin down.

“I’d heard them being used in the security industry and other places, so I thought it was something we might be able to do.

“Everyone here is happy about the idea and is willing to learn how to use the kit.”

Chief Insp Matt Bennett, Southend district commander, said: “I welcome Apcoa’s swab-kit initiative. It provides the police with even more opportunities to bring anyone to justice who assaults or abuses a civil enforcement officer.

“It shouldn’t be underestimated the role civil enforcement officers perform in the community. Without them, the roads would simply grind to a halt.”

BEING spat at is the worst thing to happen to an officer, says the woman who came up with the swab kit idea.

Jade Glover, 27, from Southend, has worked as a warden for seven years.

She was on the receiving end of the crime when someone had parked illegally during an airshow weekend, close to the seafront.

She said: “It was a woman. She didn’t agree with a ticket. She was swearing at me and she just spat right at my face.

“You do step back, but it hit me.

It was quite horrifying, especially when you smell it afterwards.”

The perpetrator was never caught.Southend Standard:

SWABS will be measured against the Police National DNA database.

The database formerly collected and retained indefinitely the DNA samples and profiles of anybody arrested. However, the Government ordered the removal of children and innocent people from the database and millions of profiles have been removed.

The data collected by parking enforcement officers in Southend will be tested against the database and destroyed if there is no match.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:40am Fri 21 Feb 14

mouthend on trout says...

spitting really just isnt enough!!!
spitting really just isnt enough!!! mouthend on trout
  • Score: -11

11:50am Fri 21 Feb 14

essexracer27 says...

I have dealt with parking enforcement officers in southernd on the seafront , although I disagree with that kind of act against them I have to admit they do need skills in how to speak to people and learn to show some discretion instead of adopting their bully boy type attitude
I have dealt with parking enforcement officers in southernd on the seafront , although I disagree with that kind of act against them I have to admit they do need skills in how to speak to people and learn to show some discretion instead of adopting their bully boy type attitude essexracer27
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Fri 21 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

essexracer27 wrote:
I have dealt with parking enforcement officers in southernd on the seafront , although I disagree with that kind of act against them I have to admit they do need skills in how to speak to people and learn to show some discretion instead of adopting their bully boy type attitude
I agree some are right miserable with a face like a slapped bottom...but some are pretty good and helpful and decent/fair, pot luck really who you come across, i s'pose the miserable ones always have a bad day and dealing with some knobs makes it worse, spitting at them is disgusting and should be dealt with as an assault, surprised they don't wear cams in dodgy areas, some people just can't accept they parked like a knob and can't accept the ticket...they see red, no one likes getting a fine, so to sum up....some miserable officers who just want to inflict grief when it could be avoided....and some nice normal ones,(and you know who you are) a pick and mix mixed bag.
Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]essexracer27[/bold] wrote: I have dealt with parking enforcement officers in southernd on the seafront , although I disagree with that kind of act against them I have to admit they do need skills in how to speak to people and learn to show some discretion instead of adopting their bully boy type attitude[/p][/quote]I agree some are right miserable with a face like a slapped bottom...but some are pretty good and helpful and decent/fair, pot luck really who you come across, i s'pose the miserable ones always have a bad day and dealing with some knobs makes it worse, spitting at them is disgusting and should be dealt with as an assault, surprised they don't wear cams in dodgy areas, some people just can't accept they parked like a knob and can't accept the ticket...they see red, no one likes getting a fine, so to sum up....some miserable officers who just want to inflict grief when it could be avoided....and some nice normal ones,(and you know who you are) a pick and mix mixed bag. Thanks. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 7

12:30pm Fri 21 Feb 14

justifiedcause says...

I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion!
I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion! justifiedcause
  • Score: -12

12:32pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Keptquiettillnow says...

How vile are some people? #CarCulture
How vile are some people? #CarCulture Keptquiettillnow
  • Score: 1

1:26pm Fri 21 Feb 14

danger2013 says...

If they are going to take dna samples, people must make sure they administer a standard type of assault. I.e a punch in the face or kick etc.
If they are going to take dna samples, people must make sure they administer a standard type of assault. I.e a punch in the face or kick etc. danger2013
  • Score: -11

1:45pm Fri 21 Feb 14

tezzason1 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
essexracer27 wrote:
I have dealt with parking enforcement officers in southernd on the seafront , although I disagree with that kind of act against them I have to admit they do need skills in how to speak to people and learn to show some discretion instead of adopting their bully boy type attitude
I agree some are right miserable with a face like a slapped bottom...but some are pretty good and helpful and decent/fair, pot luck really who you come across, i s'pose the miserable ones always have a bad day and dealing with some knobs makes it worse, spitting at them is disgusting and should be dealt with as an assault, surprised they don't wear cams in dodgy areas, some people just can't accept they parked like a knob and can't accept the ticket...they see red, no one likes getting a fine, so to sum up....some miserable officers who just want to inflict grief when it could be avoided....and some nice normal ones,(and you know who you are) a pick and mix mixed bag.
Thanks.
They should wear cams at all times and in all areas. Perhaps the fines should be doubled to increase wages and employ burlier traffic wardens with better people skills. No one is going to spit on a warden that eats nails for breakfast. Pay peanuts you get monkeys. Pay decent wages and you get polite Gorillas in uniform. Perhaps to be deployed in the 'dodgy' areas as you call them.
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essexracer27[/bold] wrote: I have dealt with parking enforcement officers in southernd on the seafront , although I disagree with that kind of act against them I have to admit they do need skills in how to speak to people and learn to show some discretion instead of adopting their bully boy type attitude[/p][/quote]I agree some are right miserable with a face like a slapped bottom...but some are pretty good and helpful and decent/fair, pot luck really who you come across, i s'pose the miserable ones always have a bad day and dealing with some knobs makes it worse, spitting at them is disgusting and should be dealt with as an assault, surprised they don't wear cams in dodgy areas, some people just can't accept they parked like a knob and can't accept the ticket...they see red, no one likes getting a fine, so to sum up....some miserable officers who just want to inflict grief when it could be avoided....and some nice normal ones,(and you know who you are) a pick and mix mixed bag. Thanks.[/p][/quote]They should wear cams at all times and in all areas. Perhaps the fines should be doubled to increase wages and employ burlier traffic wardens with better people skills. No one is going to spit on a warden that eats nails for breakfast. Pay peanuts you get monkeys. Pay decent wages and you get polite Gorillas in uniform. Perhaps to be deployed in the 'dodgy' areas as you call them. tezzason1
  • Score: 5

4:09pm Fri 21 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place.. ThisYear
  • Score: -7

4:58pm Fri 21 Feb 14

pembury53 says...

F5ck da law wrote:
I sh1t on them instead then. Let's see if they will take a sample of that, especially after the curry from the previous night.
LOL....A 'dodgy' prawn vindaloo ought to do the trick
[quote][p][bold]F5ck da law[/bold] wrote: I sh1t on them instead then. Let's see if they will take a sample of that, especially after the curry from the previous night.[/p][/quote]LOL....A 'dodgy' prawn vindaloo ought to do the trick pembury53
  • Score: -12

5:29pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Kim Gandy says...

justifiedcause wrote:
I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion!
Not on here you're not.

On another thread about a tragic teenager who died after meeting someone from facebook, I expressed "my opinion" about social networking and its destructive influence in our lives.

A load of idiots on here down arrowed it.

So I put up another post saying that obviously if you disagree with "my opinion" it means you think bullying people into suicide or other social networking related deaths are OK.

12 people down arrowed.

Shows you the mentality of some people on here.

Expressing "my opinion" on the Echo website makes you a target.

But what's remarkable is that they don't come out and make the statement, they do it anonymously.

And when they do make a statement it is from behind the safety of a pseudonym.

Over the past few months, the sort of people you find on here are the absolute dregs of the earth.

I rarely read their responses to things I put on here and very rarely read their opinions although sometimes it's just so tempting to see what they're saying just so I can shoot down their lowlife comments.

A lot of what they criticise, they actually do themselves.

There are no saints on this website but plenty of nasty little horrors.
[quote][p][bold]justifiedcause[/bold] wrote: I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion![/p][/quote]Not on here you're not. On another thread about a tragic teenager who died after meeting someone from facebook, I expressed "my opinion" about social networking and its destructive influence in our lives. A load of idiots on here down arrowed it. So I put up another post saying that obviously if you disagree with "my opinion" it means you think bullying people into suicide or other social networking related deaths are OK. 12 people down arrowed. Shows you the mentality of some people on here. Expressing "my opinion" on the Echo website makes you a target. But what's remarkable is that they don't come out and make the statement, they do it anonymously. And when they do make a statement it is from behind the safety of a pseudonym. Over the past few months, the sort of people you find on here are the absolute dregs of the earth. I rarely read their responses to things I put on here and very rarely read their opinions although sometimes it's just so tempting to see what they're saying just so I can shoot down their lowlife comments. A lot of what they criticise, they actually do themselves. There are no saints on this website but plenty of nasty little horrors. Kim Gandy
  • Score: 6

5:49pm Fri 21 Feb 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Thats right, it would be inadmissible in court due to the simple fact who is going to prove that the saliva is from any one particular person, won't go anywhere.
A lot of cost for no gain ??
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Thats right, it would be inadmissible in court due to the simple fact who is going to prove that the saliva is from any one particular person, won't go anywhere. A lot of cost for no gain ?? carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 2

7:27pm Fri 21 Feb 14

tezzason1 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
justifiedcause wrote:
I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion!
Not on here you're not.

On another thread about a tragic teenager who died after meeting someone from facebook, I expressed "my opinion" about social networking and its destructive influence in our lives.

A load of idiots on here down arrowed it.

So I put up another post saying that obviously if you disagree with "my opinion" it means you think bullying people into suicide or other social networking related deaths are OK.

12 people down arrowed.

Shows you the mentality of some people on here.

Expressing "my opinion" on the Echo website makes you a target.

But what's remarkable is that they don't come out and make the statement, they do it anonymously.

And when they do make a statement it is from behind the safety of a pseudonym.

Over the past few months, the sort of people you find on here are the absolute dregs of the earth.

I rarely read their responses to things I put on here and very rarely read their opinions although sometimes it's just so tempting to see what they're saying just so I can shoot down their lowlife comments.

A lot of what they criticise, they actually do themselves.

There are no saints on this website but plenty of nasty little horrors.
They are called trolls and there are plenty of them posting on this site and stealing our oxygen. Its a waste of time responding as you just put petrol on the fire. Most of them, I surmise, had a neglected childhood, or have no idea who their parents are and are just seeking attention.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justifiedcause[/bold] wrote: I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion![/p][/quote]Not on here you're not. On another thread about a tragic teenager who died after meeting someone from facebook, I expressed "my opinion" about social networking and its destructive influence in our lives. A load of idiots on here down arrowed it. So I put up another post saying that obviously if you disagree with "my opinion" it means you think bullying people into suicide or other social networking related deaths are OK. 12 people down arrowed. Shows you the mentality of some people on here. Expressing "my opinion" on the Echo website makes you a target. But what's remarkable is that they don't come out and make the statement, they do it anonymously. And when they do make a statement it is from behind the safety of a pseudonym. Over the past few months, the sort of people you find on here are the absolute dregs of the earth. I rarely read their responses to things I put on here and very rarely read their opinions although sometimes it's just so tempting to see what they're saying just so I can shoot down their lowlife comments. A lot of what they criticise, they actually do themselves. There are no saints on this website but plenty of nasty little horrors.[/p][/quote]They are called trolls and there are plenty of them posting on this site and stealing our oxygen. Its a waste of time responding as you just put petrol on the fire. Most of them, I surmise, had a neglected childhood, or have no idea who their parents are and are just seeking attention. tezzason1
  • Score: 10

7:43pm Fri 21 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

pembury53 wrote:
F5ck da law wrote:
I sh1t on them instead then. Let's see if they will take a sample of that, especially after the curry from the previous night.
LOL....A 'dodgy' prawn vindaloo ought to do the trick
but you would need to carry a step ladder around with you if you do actually want to plop on them....and some bog roll, seems like a lot of effort.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]F5ck da law[/bold] wrote: I sh1t on them instead then. Let's see if they will take a sample of that, especially after the curry from the previous night.[/p][/quote]LOL....A 'dodgy' prawn vindaloo ought to do the trick[/p][/quote]but you would need to carry a step ladder around with you if you do actually want to plop on them....and some bog roll, seems like a lot of effort. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 3

7:58pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Nebs says...

ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back? Nebs
  • Score: 15

8:09pm Fri 21 Feb 14

girlie71 says...

Just say you sneezed ....
Just say you sneezed .... girlie71
  • Score: -6

9:42pm Fri 21 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Nebs wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?
A rather vacuous question.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?[/p][/quote]A rather vacuous question. ThisYear
  • Score: -11

11:10pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Joe Clark says...

ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above.

They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally.

Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that.

Only stupid morons would be against such a move.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above. They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally. Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that. Only stupid morons would be against such a move. Joe Clark
  • Score: 21

12:05am Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Joe Clark wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above.

They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally.

Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that.

Only stupid morons would be against such a move.
**Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above**

When you wrote that, where did you mean by 'above'?

Whats 'troll' got to do with anything?

You don't think there could be legal ramifications over someone acquiring a persons DNA? Regardless as a swab or a sample.. both being and resulting in the same thing, DNA being collected.

While that may be your opinion, I'd not say you were a troll for holding that opinion.

Can you say why there is no legal aspect to this collection of DNA in the first place?

Do you feel having a uniform of some type allows such collation, or that anyone can can save spittle as evidence?

Spitting at or on someone is common assault...we could all carry the equipment provided for wardens or they could provide it for themselves...after all it is merely a swab and container..

The legal issue may arise in regards to any contamination of said retained DNA...and how it is alleged to have been collected...

*Only stupid morons would be against such a move*

Silly AND vacuous statement!
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above. They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally. Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that. Only stupid morons would be against such a move.[/p][/quote]**Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above** When you wrote that, where did you mean by 'above'? Whats 'troll' got to do with anything? You don't think there could be legal ramifications over someone acquiring a persons DNA? Regardless as a swab or a sample.. both being and resulting in the same thing, DNA being collected. While that may be your opinion, I'd not say you were a troll for holding that opinion. Can you say why there is no legal aspect to this collection of DNA in the first place? Do you feel having a uniform of some type allows such collation, or that anyone can can save spittle as evidence? Spitting at or on someone is common assault...we could all carry the equipment provided for wardens or they could provide it for themselves...after all it is merely a swab and container.. The legal issue may arise in regards to any contamination of said retained DNA...and how it is alleged to have been collected... *Only stupid morons would be against such a move* Silly AND vacuous statement! ThisYear
  • Score: -17

4:50am Sat 22 Feb 14

tezzason1 says...

ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse. tezzason1
  • Score: 12

8:06am Sat 22 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

ThisYear wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above.

They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally.

Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that.

Only stupid morons would be against such a move.
**Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above**

When you wrote that, where did you mean by 'above'?

Whats 'troll' got to do with anything?

You don't think there could be legal ramifications over someone acquiring a persons DNA? Regardless as a swab or a sample.. both being and resulting in the same thing, DNA being collected.

While that may be your opinion, I'd not say you were a troll for holding that opinion.

Can you say why there is no legal aspect to this collection of DNA in the first place?

Do you feel having a uniform of some type allows such collation, or that anyone can can save spittle as evidence?

Spitting at or on someone is common assault...we could all carry the equipment provided for wardens or they could provide it for themselves...after all it is merely a swab and container..

The legal issue may arise in regards to any contamination of said retained DNA...and how it is alleged to have been collected...

*Only stupid morons would be against such a move*

Silly AND vacuous statement!
I would like to think that the Parking company did look at the legality's before going ahead with the plan,(although not a given) thought you would have been all for it, its not nice being spat at...disgusting when people spit just before walking into a shop too.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above. They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally. Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that. Only stupid morons would be against such a move.[/p][/quote]**Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above** When you wrote that, where did you mean by 'above'? Whats 'troll' got to do with anything? You don't think there could be legal ramifications over someone acquiring a persons DNA? Regardless as a swab or a sample.. both being and resulting in the same thing, DNA being collected. While that may be your opinion, I'd not say you were a troll for holding that opinion. Can you say why there is no legal aspect to this collection of DNA in the first place? Do you feel having a uniform of some type allows such collation, or that anyone can can save spittle as evidence? Spitting at or on someone is common assault...we could all carry the equipment provided for wardens or they could provide it for themselves...after all it is merely a swab and container.. The legal issue may arise in regards to any contamination of said retained DNA...and how it is alleged to have been collected... *Only stupid morons would be against such a move* Silly AND vacuous statement![/p][/quote]I would like to think that the Parking company did look at the legality's before going ahead with the plan,(although not a given) thought you would have been all for it, its not nice being spat at...disgusting when people spit just before walking into a shop too. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 5

9:02am Sat 22 Feb 14

Nebs says...

ThisYear wrote:
Nebs wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?
A rather vacuous question.
But pertinent.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?[/p][/quote]A rather vacuous question.[/p][/quote]But pertinent. Nebs
  • Score: 3

11:45am Sat 22 Feb 14

Tiger Rider says...

ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Quite easy really, if you don't want traffic wardens to collect your DNA from a saliva sample don't spit at them in the first place!
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Quite easy really, if you don't want traffic wardens to collect your DNA from a saliva sample don't spit at them in the first place! Tiger Rider
  • Score: 5

11:51am Sat 22 Feb 14

Tiger Rider says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Thats right, it would be inadmissible in court due to the simple fact who is going to prove that the saliva is from any one particular person, won't go anywhere.
A lot of cost for no gain ??
If the defendants DNA matches that of the sample then that would prove the saliva came from the defendant and the question has to be asked how did the saliva get there in the first place in such great quantities.
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Thats right, it would be inadmissible in court due to the simple fact who is going to prove that the saliva is from any one particular person, won't go anywhere. A lot of cost for no gain ??[/p][/quote]If the defendants DNA matches that of the sample then that would prove the saliva came from the defendant and the question has to be asked how did the saliva get there in the first place in such great quantities. Tiger Rider
  • Score: 1

12:10pm Sat 22 Feb 14

_Lotus_ says...

justifiedcause wrote:
I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion!
Let me explain in simple terms, how these swabs work, because I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.

You ready? Good, now listen carefully.......

Some scumbag spits at a Traffic Warden, the spit lands ON the Warden

got it so far? Excellent, continue reading.......

The Warden takes a swab from the spit that is on their body, this is then used as evidence.

I am not a traffic warden, but I have be spat at in my job and it is far from pleasant.

If the scum who spit at a person does not wish to be caught and prosecuted for it, simple, DO NOT SPIT.

It is disgusting and totally unnecessary.

The end.
[quote][p][bold]justifiedcause[/bold] wrote: I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion![/p][/quote]Let me explain in simple terms, how these swabs work, because I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. You ready? Good, now listen carefully....... Some scumbag spits at a Traffic Warden, the spit lands ON the Warden got it so far? Excellent, continue reading....... The Warden takes a swab from the spit that is on their body, this is then used as evidence. I am not a traffic warden, but I have be spat at in my job and it is far from pleasant. If the scum who spit at a person does not wish to be caught and prosecuted for it, simple, DO NOT SPIT. It is disgusting and totally unnecessary. The end. _Lotus_
  • Score: 7

12:44pm Sat 22 Feb 14

stopmoaning1 says...

I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.
I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 8

3:46pm Sat 22 Feb 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Tiger Rider wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Thats right, it would be inadmissible in court due to the simple fact who is going to prove that the saliva is from any one particular person, won't go anywhere.
A lot of cost for no gain ??
If the defendants DNA matches that of the sample then that would prove the saliva came from the defendant and the question has to be asked how did the saliva get there in the first place in such great quantities.
Maybe a defence would be that you spit a lot when talking....a bit like The Roy Hattersley Spitting Image puppet, someone will use that i am sure..
[quote][p][bold]Tiger Rider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Thats right, it would be inadmissible in court due to the simple fact who is going to prove that the saliva is from any one particular person, won't go anywhere. A lot of cost for no gain ??[/p][/quote]If the defendants DNA matches that of the sample then that would prove the saliva came from the defendant and the question has to be asked how did the saliva get there in the first place in such great quantities.[/p][/quote]Maybe a defence would be that you spit a lot when talking....a bit like The Roy Hattersley Spitting Image puppet, someone will use that i am sure.. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: -5

5:16pm Sat 22 Feb 14

_Lotus_ says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.
As I previously said in another post, I was issued with one of these kits at work - I am not a traffic warden and nor do I work in that field of employment, but these kits are quite commonplace and ARE use to swab the saliva from somebody's spit that lands on a person.

To the person that said about spittle being expelled when speaking, you have obviously never been gobbed at by the looks of it, it is beyond disgusting.

and yes, they are viable pieces of evidence.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.[/p][/quote]As I previously said in another post, I was issued with one of these kits at work - I am not a traffic warden and nor do I work in that field of employment, but these kits are quite commonplace and ARE use to swab the saliva from somebody's spit that lands on a person. To the person that said about spittle being expelled when speaking, you have obviously never been gobbed at by the looks of it, it is beyond disgusting. and yes, they are viable pieces of evidence. _Lotus_
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

tezzason1 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.
Assault Maybe depending on how it is claimed the spit came to be where it was.... battery no!

Even police forums do not seem to be to sure what a person could be charged with if they deny purposely spitting..

There is also the lesser change of criminal damage in regards to clothing..
[quote][p][bold]tezzason1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.[/p][/quote]Assault Maybe depending on how it is claimed the spit came to be where it was.... battery no! Even police forums do not seem to be to sure what a person could be charged with if they deny purposely spitting.. There is also the lesser change of criminal damage in regards to clothing.. ThisYear
  • Score: -4

11:08pm Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above.

They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally.

Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that.

Only stupid morons would be against such a move.
**Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above**

When you wrote that, where did you mean by 'above'?

Whats 'troll' got to do with anything?

You don't think there could be legal ramifications over someone acquiring a persons DNA? Regardless as a swab or a sample.. both being and resulting in the same thing, DNA being collected.

While that may be your opinion, I'd not say you were a troll for holding that opinion.

Can you say why there is no legal aspect to this collection of DNA in the first place?

Do you feel having a uniform of some type allows such collation, or that anyone can can save spittle as evidence?

Spitting at or on someone is common assault...we could all carry the equipment provided for wardens or they could provide it for themselves...after all it is merely a swab and container..

The legal issue may arise in regards to any contamination of said retained DNA...and how it is alleged to have been collected...

*Only stupid morons would be against such a move*

Silly AND vacuous statement!
I would like to think that the Parking company did look at the legality's before going ahead with the plan,(although not a given) thought you would have been all for it, its not nice being spat at...disgusting when people spit just before walking into a shop too.
My point was on the legality of it...presenting spittle doesn't mean it was spat at whoever presents it as a sample...

**thought you would have been all for it**

Rather vague comment.


Im sure all agree spitting at someone is disgusting...footbal
lers do it constantly...it has even crossed over to womens football now...
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above. They are NOT repeat NOT taking DMA swabs from somebody they are taking samples from the spit that some sick moronic freak has spat out on to the traffic warden so therefore there is NOT a legal issue as the person taking the sample is not touching the sicko who has parked illegally. Spitting on somebody is classed as an assault, they the person who has spat has not got a criminal past they will be fine as they will not be on the police DMA database if they have a criminal past then they MUST be charge simple as that. Only stupid morons would be against such a move.[/p][/quote]**Erm are you tick stupid dumb or just a troll or all the above** When you wrote that, where did you mean by 'above'? Whats 'troll' got to do with anything? You don't think there could be legal ramifications over someone acquiring a persons DNA? Regardless as a swab or a sample.. both being and resulting in the same thing, DNA being collected. While that may be your opinion, I'd not say you were a troll for holding that opinion. Can you say why there is no legal aspect to this collection of DNA in the first place? Do you feel having a uniform of some type allows such collation, or that anyone can can save spittle as evidence? Spitting at or on someone is common assault...we could all carry the equipment provided for wardens or they could provide it for themselves...after all it is merely a swab and container.. The legal issue may arise in regards to any contamination of said retained DNA...and how it is alleged to have been collected... *Only stupid morons would be against such a move* Silly AND vacuous statement![/p][/quote]I would like to think that the Parking company did look at the legality's before going ahead with the plan,(although not a given) thought you would have been all for it, its not nice being spat at...disgusting when people spit just before walking into a shop too.[/p][/quote]My point was on the legality of it...presenting spittle doesn't mean it was spat at whoever presents it as a sample... **thought you would have been all for it** Rather vague comment. Im sure all agree spitting at someone is disgusting...footbal lers do it constantly...it has even crossed over to womens football now... ThisYear
  • Score: -3

11:09pm Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Nebs wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Nebs wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?
A rather vacuous question.
But pertinent.
You feel it was a serious question therefore pertinent?
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]What are they supposed to do when someone spits on them, give it back?[/p][/quote]A rather vacuous question.[/p][/quote]But pertinent.[/p][/quote]You feel it was a serious question therefore pertinent? ThisYear
  • Score: -2

11:11pm Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Tiger Rider wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Quite easy really, if you don't want traffic wardens to collect your DNA from a saliva sample don't spit at them in the first place!
Do you need to spit at a warden for them to collect your DNA?
[quote][p][bold]Tiger Rider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Quite easy really, if you don't want traffic wardens to collect your DNA from a saliva sample don't spit at them in the first place![/p][/quote]Do you need to spit at a warden for them to collect your DNA? ThisYear
  • Score: -4

11:14pm Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
justifiedcause wrote:
I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion!
Let me explain in simple terms, how these swabs work, because I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.

You ready? Good, now listen carefully.......

Some scumbag spits at a Traffic Warden, the spit lands ON the Warden

got it so far? Excellent, continue reading.......

The Warden takes a swab from the spit that is on their body, this is then used as evidence.

I am not a traffic warden, but I have be spat at in my job and it is far from pleasant.

If the scum who spit at a person does not wish to be caught and prosecuted for it, simple, DO NOT SPIT.

It is disgusting and totally unnecessary.

The end.
The evidence only shows that it is spit...it doesn't show how the spit got there...

No one going about their occupation should have to endure being spat on...
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justifiedcause[/bold] wrote: I think its immoral that traffic wardens can collect DNA. They are not police officers and should have no right or access to the database. I agree with DogMessInLeigh there are some good ones but not enough! They are hitlers love child! I would compare a traffic warden to Justin beiber too much power to soon they don't know what to do with it! and shouting abuse at anyone is allowed if you say before anything "My Opinion" because everyone is entitled to their own opinion![/p][/quote]Let me explain in simple terms, how these swabs work, because I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. You ready? Good, now listen carefully....... Some scumbag spits at a Traffic Warden, the spit lands ON the Warden got it so far? Excellent, continue reading....... The Warden takes a swab from the spit that is on their body, this is then used as evidence. I am not a traffic warden, but I have be spat at in my job and it is far from pleasant. If the scum who spit at a person does not wish to be caught and prosecuted for it, simple, DO NOT SPIT. It is disgusting and totally unnecessary. The end.[/p][/quote]The evidence only shows that it is spit...it doesn't show how the spit got there... No one going about their occupation should have to endure being spat on... ThisYear
  • Score: -3

11:17pm Sat 22 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.
As I previously said in another post, I was issued with one of these kits at work - I am not a traffic warden and nor do I work in that field of employment, but these kits are quite commonplace and ARE use to swab the saliva from somebody's spit that lands on a person.

To the person that said about spittle being expelled when speaking, you have obviously never been gobbed at by the looks of it, it is beyond disgusting.

and yes, they are viable pieces of evidence.
All the sample does is show its spittle...and so it is evidence of that...but not much else.
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.[/p][/quote]As I previously said in another post, I was issued with one of these kits at work - I am not a traffic warden and nor do I work in that field of employment, but these kits are quite commonplace and ARE use to swab the saliva from somebody's spit that lands on a person. To the person that said about spittle being expelled when speaking, you have obviously never been gobbed at by the looks of it, it is beyond disgusting. and yes, they are viable pieces of evidence.[/p][/quote]All the sample does is show its spittle...and so it is evidence of that...but not much else. ThisYear
  • Score: 5

11:05am Sun 23 Feb 14

stopmoaning1 says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.
As I previously said in another post, I was issued with one of these kits at work - I am not a traffic warden and nor do I work in that field of employment, but these kits are quite commonplace and ARE use to swab the saliva from somebody's spit that lands on a person.

To the person that said about spittle being expelled when speaking, you have obviously never been gobbed at by the looks of it, it is beyond disgusting.

and yes, they are viable pieces of evidence.
So just to clarify then, you know of cases where the CPS have accepted DNA evidence that has not been collected by the police or other approved agency using proper evidential rules, and this has been successfully used in court.
If that's the case, then this is a good idea.
Otherwise as I've already said, a well intentioned but worthless publicity stunt.
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: I'm sure being spat at is a horrendous experience. However, I can't help feeling this is a worthless publicity stunt. I can not for one minute believe a sample of DNA collected by one of the wardens would be a viable piece of evidence in court. I wonder why the Echo reporter has not followed that up with the CPS? The person who wrote this item identifies himself as a 'Senior Reporter' Come on Ian, do some digging and get the full story.[/p][/quote]As I previously said in another post, I was issued with one of these kits at work - I am not a traffic warden and nor do I work in that field of employment, but these kits are quite commonplace and ARE use to swab the saliva from somebody's spit that lands on a person. To the person that said about spittle being expelled when speaking, you have obviously never been gobbed at by the looks of it, it is beyond disgusting. and yes, they are viable pieces of evidence.[/p][/quote]So just to clarify then, you know of cases where the CPS have accepted DNA evidence that has not been collected by the police or other approved agency using proper evidential rules, and this has been successfully used in court. If that's the case, then this is a good idea. Otherwise as I've already said, a well intentioned but worthless publicity stunt. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 9

3:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Maverick06 says...

I'm sure Chief Insp Matt Bennett, Southend district commander answers the issue of weather these are admissible or not when he said: “I welcome Apcoa’s swab-kit initiative. It provides the police with even more opportunities to bring anyone to justice who assaults or abuses a civil enforcement officer. “It shouldn’t be underestimated the role civil enforcement officers perform in the community. Without them, the roads would simply grind to a halt.”

He doesn't say " they can collect what they like, but it won't be admissible in court anyway so they are wasting their time!"

If anybody should know, I would assume it would be a Chief Inspector?
I'm sure Chief Insp Matt Bennett, Southend district commander answers the issue of weather these are admissible or not when he said: “I welcome Apcoa’s swab-kit initiative. It provides the police with even more opportunities to bring anyone to justice who assaults or abuses a civil enforcement officer. “It shouldn’t be underestimated the role civil enforcement officers perform in the community. Without them, the roads would simply grind to a halt.” He doesn't say " they can collect what they like, but it won't be admissible in court anyway so they are wasting their time!" If anybody should know, I would assume it would be a Chief Inspector? Maverick06
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

Maverick06 wrote:
I'm sure Chief Insp Matt Bennett, Southend district commander answers the issue of weather these are admissible or not when he said: “I welcome Apcoa’s swab-kit initiative. It provides the police with even more opportunities to bring anyone to justice who assaults or abuses a civil enforcement officer. “It shouldn’t be underestimated the role civil enforcement officers perform in the community. Without them, the roads would simply grind to a halt.”

He doesn't say " they can collect what they like, but it won't be admissible in court anyway so they are wasting their time!"

If anybody should know, I would assume it would be a Chief Inspector?
The police only investigate and pass the evidence collated to the CPS.. its they who decide what is admissible or could be challenged in court.
[quote][p][bold]Maverick06[/bold] wrote: I'm sure Chief Insp Matt Bennett, Southend district commander answers the issue of weather these are admissible or not when he said: “I welcome Apcoa’s swab-kit initiative. It provides the police with even more opportunities to bring anyone to justice who assaults or abuses a civil enforcement officer. “It shouldn’t be underestimated the role civil enforcement officers perform in the community. Without them, the roads would simply grind to a halt.” He doesn't say " they can collect what they like, but it won't be admissible in court anyway so they are wasting their time!" If anybody should know, I would assume it would be a Chief Inspector?[/p][/quote]The police only investigate and pass the evidence collated to the CPS.. its they who decide what is admissible or could be challenged in court. ThisYear
  • Score: 1

1:22am Thu 27 Feb 14

tezzason1 says...

ThisYear wrote:
tezzason1 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.
Assault Maybe depending on how it is claimed the spit came to be where it was.... battery no!

Even police forums do not seem to be to sure what a person could be charged with if they deny purposely spitting..

There is also the lesser change of criminal damage in regards to clothing..
You do not have to touch anyone to be charged with assault my friend. Just make the threat to do so. Once you touch someone - even if you use a garden hose to direct water over them - it is battery. You do not have to beat someone up to be charged with assault and battery. "battery no !" in your response is incorrect as you are drawing the assumption that spitting can hardly be described at battery. In fact it is more serious than recovering from a broken nose. About 12 police officers, paramedics etc, get spat on -sometimes bitten - in Perth W.A every month. ( I dont live in Perth by the way) and up until recently they were faced with an agonising wait of three months to see if they had contacted an infectious disease, after having three different blood tests. Not anymore. Police can now seize a sample of your blood for testing and you have no say in the matter. The reality is, we have all had run ins with parking inspectors/traffic wardens because we are too lazy to read signs properly and we vent our righteous anger on them. I have made the point in a previous comment that ALL inspectors should wear video cameras. They are cheap and effective and would dramatically reduce the number of incidents of abuse. Best of all, if some low life gobs on you, you can take the son-of-a-b**** and pursue civil damages.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tezzason1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.[/p][/quote]Assault Maybe depending on how it is claimed the spit came to be where it was.... battery no! Even police forums do not seem to be to sure what a person could be charged with if they deny purposely spitting.. There is also the lesser change of criminal damage in regards to clothing..[/p][/quote]You do not have to touch anyone to be charged with assault my friend. Just make the threat to do so. Once you touch someone - even if you use a garden hose to direct water over them - it is battery. You do not have to beat someone up to be charged with assault and battery. "battery no !" in your response is incorrect as you are drawing the assumption that spitting can hardly be described at battery. In fact it is more serious than recovering from a broken nose. About 12 police officers, paramedics etc, get spat on -sometimes bitten - in Perth W.A every month. ( I dont live in Perth by the way) and up until recently they were faced with an agonising wait of three months to see if they had contacted an infectious disease, after having three different blood tests. Not anymore. Police can now seize a sample of your blood for testing and you have no say in the matter. The reality is, we have all had run ins with parking inspectors/traffic wardens because we are too lazy to read signs properly and we vent our righteous anger on them. I have made the point in a previous comment that ALL inspectors should wear video cameras. They are cheap and effective and would dramatically reduce the number of incidents of abuse. Best of all, if some low life gobs on you, you can take the son-of-a-b**** and pursue civil damages. tezzason1
  • Score: -1

4:47pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

tezzason1 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
tezzason1 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..
Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.
Assault Maybe depending on how it is claimed the spit came to be where it was.... battery no!

Even police forums do not seem to be to sure what a person could be charged with if they deny purposely spitting..

There is also the lesser change of criminal damage in regards to clothing..
You do not have to touch anyone to be charged with assault my friend. Just make the threat to do so. Once you touch someone - even if you use a garden hose to direct water over them - it is battery. You do not have to beat someone up to be charged with assault and battery. "battery no !" in your response is incorrect as you are drawing the assumption that spitting can hardly be described at battery. In fact it is more serious than recovering from a broken nose. About 12 police officers, paramedics etc, get spat on -sometimes bitten - in Perth W.A every month. ( I dont live in Perth by the way) and up until recently they were faced with an agonising wait of three months to see if they had contacted an infectious disease, after having three different blood tests. Not anymore. Police can now seize a sample of your blood for testing and you have no say in the matter. The reality is, we have all had run ins with parking inspectors/traffic wardens because we are too lazy to read signs properly and we vent our righteous anger on them. I have made the point in a previous comment that ALL inspectors should wear video cameras. They are cheap and effective and would dramatically reduce the number of incidents of abuse. Best of all, if some low life gobs on you, you can take the son-of-a-b**** and pursue civil damages.
All you mention already exists...providing traffic wardens doesn't add to that, other than providing them with a receptacle to place spittle in...what standing it would have in court would probably be determined on a case to case basis...if it even got past the CPS.
[quote][p][bold]tezzason1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tezzason1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: There is of course the matter of the legality of a person collecting another person's DNA in the first place..[/p][/quote]Spitting on some one is assault and battery.Collecting the evidence is quite legal. Pull that stunt in Perth, Western Australia ( paramedics, security guards, cop etc) and you go to jail for three months.,Mandatory sentence. No slap on the wrist as the victim can be traumatised .waiting for several months to find out he or she has not contracted hepatitis C or worse.[/p][/quote]Assault Maybe depending on how it is claimed the spit came to be where it was.... battery no! Even police forums do not seem to be to sure what a person could be charged with if they deny purposely spitting.. There is also the lesser change of criminal damage in regards to clothing..[/p][/quote]You do not have to touch anyone to be charged with assault my friend. Just make the threat to do so. Once you touch someone - even if you use a garden hose to direct water over them - it is battery. You do not have to beat someone up to be charged with assault and battery. "battery no !" in your response is incorrect as you are drawing the assumption that spitting can hardly be described at battery. In fact it is more serious than recovering from a broken nose. About 12 police officers, paramedics etc, get spat on -sometimes bitten - in Perth W.A every month. ( I dont live in Perth by the way) and up until recently they were faced with an agonising wait of three months to see if they had contacted an infectious disease, after having three different blood tests. Not anymore. Police can now seize a sample of your blood for testing and you have no say in the matter. The reality is, we have all had run ins with parking inspectors/traffic wardens because we are too lazy to read signs properly and we vent our righteous anger on them. I have made the point in a previous comment that ALL inspectors should wear video cameras. They are cheap and effective and would dramatically reduce the number of incidents of abuse. Best of all, if some low life gobs on you, you can take the son-of-a-b**** and pursue civil damages.[/p][/quote]All you mention already exists...providing traffic wardens doesn't add to that, other than providing them with a receptacle to place spittle in...what standing it would have in court would probably be determined on a case to case basis...if it even got past the CPS. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree