Britain - I cant wait until Im 81...

#4
She was a soft target. Normally law-abiding, compliant, harmless and unlikely to be a threat to those who enforce Council Bye-Laws.

These are the ones to go for to satisfy your conviction targets!

They are dead easy to be 'pulled' into the conviction net

On no account try and enforce a similar law against a 6ft robustly-built loud-mouthed gobshite who is likely to fill you in or stick a knife in your ribs!
 
#6
Appalling, appalling, appalling.

I know that I am about to sound like someone who has been stopped for speeding and goes off on a tirade about why the Police don't spend more time arresting murderers and rapists rather than harassing innocent motorists etc etc... But really! If we lived in a perfect Utopian society, then there might be a place for asking elderly ladies POLITELY not to feed the pigeons, having explained to her why those pigeons are a nuisance. To threaten this lady with the full weight of the law is an absolute disgrace under any circumstance. It is even more unacceptable when the country is prey to yobs, vandals and criminals thumbing their noses at the legal system and at law-abiding members of society.

Message to the Chief Constable: APOLOGISE to this lady immediately and discipline the idiots you apparently employ.

Message to Tony and Dr Reid: Stop setting targets. Even 'Elementary Management for Beginners' will tell you that what gets measured gets managed - if you set a target for the reduction of anti-social behaviour, where one pensioner feeding pigeons has an equivalence to a yob tormenting the entire community with foul language and low-level 'nuisance' activity, then those whose performance is judged against targets will inevitably choose the easiest way to hit the target.
 
#7
*yawn*

"Nottingham - a crime riddled city" etc etc... how much crime to the council wardens that saw this old biddy solve?

Pigeons are vermin, their very presence drags down an area. If feeding birds is against a bye-law then don't do it.

Another Daily Mail wonder story

editted to add; please note that no police were originally involved in this, I'm sure they were actually off trying to reduce crime etc etc while council wardens went about their job of making sure the city is in a fit state for everyone to enjoy
 
#8
crabby said:
Pigeons are vermin, their very presence drags down an area. If feeding birds is against a bye-law then don't do it.
I fully agree, but i cant understand how fining a penisoner in this instance was in the public interest. Surely explaining to the lady why there was a bylaw about this and asking her to refrain in future would have been sufficient - but no, an easy crime statistic.
 
#9
boney_m said:
crabby said:
Pigeons are vermin, their very presence drags down an area. If feeding birds is against a bye-law then don't do it.
I fully agree, but i cant understand how fining a penisoner in this instance was in the public interest. Surely explaining to the lady why there was a bylaw about this and asking her to refrain in future would have been sufficient - but no, an easy crime statistic.
I do agree with that - I think they've been harsh, and if they did indeed instantly mention £2000 then they need "retraining" as they obviously think they're more important than they are. There needs to be far more flexibility in the way these things are administered and employees need to be allowed to use their own initiative
 
#11
Fixed penalty fines can now be issued not only by the Police, but by a wide variety of other local authority officials as a means to by-pass the judicial process. In the case of the Police, it satisfies their monthly personal performance indicators upon which the performance of an individual officer is assessed. In the case of Local Authority officials, they exist to satisfy a set of financial targets.

The common denominator in all cases is a target culture which the normally law-abiding, the meek and servile exist to satisfy!

In any event, it amounts to extra-judicial summary justice and anyone who is issued with one should refuse to accept any fixed penalty fine and instead opt for the issue to be determined before a magistrate!

I can tell you from experience that those that are thrown out belong to the bloody-minded and those who stand their ground and argue the toss!

Regards and best wishes
 
#12
Just playing Devils advocate here...

But I seem to remember a thread about New York, and how the new mayor had a get tougth policy on all the small crimes, and that had a knock on effect and genrally improved the condition of the city. It also cut overall crime.

Seems, to my possibly wrong memory, that there where lots of posters who where screaming that it was exactly the right thing to do, and where all in favor of the policy.



:D
 
#13
Yes, it is called 'Zero Tolerance'. In New York under Mayor Giuliani it was applied ruthlessly to anyone and everyone who committed low-level offences regardless of who they were.

In this country, it is more easily applied to those who are in awe of authority, are least likely to question it', are easily intimidated by it, will accept it's word without question and therefore most likely satisfy a performance target in respect of the official who is the subject of it.
 
#14
I accept the 'back in your box' slapdown (fully deserved) for trying to pin this one on the Police! I must read with more care (perhaps I should do the same in MB?).

On the subject of 'zero tolerance', I couldn't agree more. If you crack down on petty crime then you can help to set the conditions for dealing with more serious crime (not least by reassuring the law-abiding that they will be safe and protected if they speak out against criminals). However, are you really suggesting that feeding the pigeons, whether against the bye-laws or not, is actually a CRIME?

I am fairly certain that a quick straw poll of the residents of Nottingham would reveal that their key concern regarding anti-social behaviour is not some old dear shaking crumbs out for the pigeons (it is not as if she set out 'equipped' and with malice aforethought).
 
#15
The problem with handing responsibililty to an official for the imposition of fixed-level fines under statutes such as 'The Environmental Protection Act is that unlike crimes which are recognisable as in breach of some order, regulation or statutute, the crime recognised by the 'target-driven' or 'revenue-raising' official comprises two elements. The first temporal element is that the 'crime' is whatever he says it is, tailored to what he thinks you will believe!

The second temporal element is that the crime is whatever you accept as the truth when you accept his award based on his version of the facts!

That is why courts exist!

They exist to put the prosecution to proof!

It is these questions which a court exists to determine and even if she were substantively guilty of a crime, the court have a discretion to make an award significantly different or at least lower than the automatic fixed £80 penalty and even to refuse a guilty plea and throw it out!

Coming soon to a place near you, a little man from the Council, empowered to issue you with a fixed penalty fine if, after peering in your wheelie-bin, he finds that you (or a malevolent neighbour!) have emptied the wrong kind of rubbish into it and failed to engage in recycling it!

You can expect a great deal more of patrolling officialdom and a great deal more fixed penalty fines!
 
#16
Fifth_Columnist said:
I accept the 'back in your box' slapdown (fully deserved) for trying to pin this one on the Police! I must read with more care (perhaps I should do the same in MB?).

On the subject of 'zero tolerance', I couldn't agree more. If you crack down on petty crime then you can help to set the conditions for dealing with more serious crime (not least by reassuring the law-abiding that they will be safe and protected if they speak out against criminals). However, are you really suggesting that feeding the pigeons, whether against the bye-laws or not, is actually a CRIME?

I am fairly certain that a quick straw poll of the residents of Nottingham would reveal that their key concern regarding anti-social behaviour is not some old dear shaking crumbs out for the pigeons (it is not as if she set out 'equipped' and with malice aforethought).
Is It against the local bye-laws? Then Yes It's a crime.
Will she do it again? Probaly not.

As to "Is it a crime" how would you feel if someone was encouraging Rats to come and inhabit the area in front of your place of work, or your home? Just becuase they're not rodents, don't mean pigeons are giant, flying, dessised, vermin infested Vermin!

People are refering to these blokes as "Jobsworths", and that seems to be the popular perception. Anyone know what these guy's did for the rest of the hours they where walking about Nottingham? Some here seem to have critsised them for not standing up to the little scrotes we all hate, and picking on little old ladies.

How do you know they didn't stand up to the scrotes earlier or later in the day? Belive me an upity little old lady Like she seemed to be (just going by the newspaper article and my tired perceptions there of) can be just a big a nightmare than scrotes. Little Chavs tend to know they're in the wrong and are jsut bigging it up in front of their mates, but when you find someone who thinks they're in the right...
 
#17
Adding to that final point, the bin men around here have refused to empty colour coded bins due to the wrong waste being in the wrong bin, for 2 consecutive weeks. The result; a lot of smelly waste hanging about. Long term result - more rats!! Should have thrown bread crumbs eh?

Anyway, this week my wife asked a bin man why he would not take the bin for card/paper recycling. His reply: "That cardboard pizza box has a wax coated inner"! How petty is that!!?
 
#18
Listy said:
...but when you find someone who thinks they're in the right...
Like, say, a couple of council employees who seem to have let the power go to their heads? I can't help but note that this was in Nottingham - which if I remember correctly* has been quoted as one of the worst places in the country to live. I'm going to support the sentiment that if the report is completely correct then the council bods went way over what was proportionate and necessary.


*According to Reform, cited in the Grauniad, Nottingham's crime rate runs at 115.5 crimes per 1000 people, compared to 49.1 per 1000 in similarly sized Wolverhampton.

Oh and googling 'Nottingham Crime' in the course of digging that up turned up the lady at the center of all this...in the Mumbai Mirror of all places.
 
#19
doomandgloom said:
Adding to that final point, the bin men around here have refused to empty colour coded bins due to the wrong waste being in the wrong bin, for 2 consecutive weeks. The result; a lot of smelly waste hanging about. Long term result - more rats!! Should have thrown bread crumbs eh?

Anyway, this week my wife asked a bin man why he would not take the bin for card/paper recycling. His reply: "That cardboard pizza box has a wax coated inner"! How petty is that!!?
That's not petty. That ruins an entire batch that goes for recycling. In the long run that means no economic return from recycling and higher council taxes - as you're also landfilling more which rightly attracts landfill tax. Binning the wrong product is your responsibility and if residents could be bothered to read what they can and can not recycle you wouldn't have these problems.

Just for a starter, you normally can't recycle:

Wet paper (don't leave the newspapers in the rain)
Pizza boxes etc, mainly because of food contamination
Yoghurt pots and other plastic containers - the only plastics that can be recycled are clear plastics, milk bottles and drinks bottles.

Help for your future reference? It had better because after repeatedly reoffending and ruining entire batches the council can take you to court.
 
#20
crabby said:
doomandgloom said:
Adding to that final point, the bin men around here have refused to empty colour coded bins due to the wrong waste being in the wrong bin, for 2 consecutive weeks. The result; a lot of smelly waste hanging about. Long term result - more rats!! Should have thrown bread crumbs eh?

Anyway, this week my wife asked a bin man why he would not take the bin for card/paper recycling. His reply: "That cardboard pizza box has a wax coated inner"! How petty is that!!?
That's not petty. That ruins an entire batch that goes for recycling. In the long run that means no economic return from recycling and higher council taxes - as you're also landfilling more which rightly attracts landfill tax. Binning the wrong product is your responsibility and if residents could be bothered to read what they can and can not recycle you wouldn't have these problems.

Just for a starter, you normally can't recycle:

Wet paper (don't leave the newspapers in the rain)
Pizza boxes etc, mainly because of food contamination
Yoghurt pots and other plastic containers - the only plastics that can be recycled are clear plastics, milk bottles and drinks bottles.

Help for your future reference? It had better because after repeatedly reoffending and ruining entire batches the council can take you to court.
Please tell me you're fcuking joking Crabby. You are right? No one can write such a prickish thread as that and keep a straight face. Can they?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads