Britain - I cant wait until Im 81...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PandaLOVE, Jul 8, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thank you for risking your life to secure our future when skippering a motorboat between our warships on the hellish English Channel during the second world war. As a show of gratification to you more than 60 years later, this is for you Beryl.....

    Sorry drain_sniffer. From link please scroll down to story: PENSIONER GETS FINED ........ etc. :roll:
  2. You have lost me D&G - what are you getting at?
  3. 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!
  4. Thanks Radovan, you saved me!

    Iolis has summed it up. I have a couple of friends in the Police force and they tell me how small-time criminal charges are doctored to reach 'targets' as and when needed. This old lady has fallen into that bracket. Shameful, bloody shameful.
  5. 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.
  6. *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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Perhaps they should be investigating why she's been widowed three times.
  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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!