You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Dangerous Criminals?

HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,862
The dutiful citizens left feeling like criminals: Fined £100 for visiting her husband's grave with the family dog and slapped with a £150 penalty for feeding the birds - councils are now raking in millions by hiring private firms to enforce petty by-laws




According to a new report, councils are raking in millions of pounds each year employing private police forces to issue fines for an ever-growing number of minor offences - everything from littering to loitering. Lynda Martin (left) was fined £100 for visiting her husband's grave with her 12-year-old collie Megan. Meanwhile, Patrick Ward (right) put out some cardboard for recycling by his wheelie bin - only to be branded a fly-tipper and was hit with a £400 fine. And 68-year-old James Watson (inset) was given a £150 fine for 'throwing bird food on the ground and walking away'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11158201/The-dutiful-citizens-left-feeling-like-criminals-Councils-making-millions-hiring-private-firms.html

Comments

  • tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,688
    Unbelievable. No wonder this Country is in such a sorrowful state.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,780
    3 very different cases. With 3 very different results.

    1. The dog walker. I have every sympathy for that lady. I am sure she has walked past the sign saying "no dogs" many times. Surely there should be room for an exception to be made, provided she keeps it on a lead at all times

    2. The duck feeder. I have every sympathy for the Council. It was an easy mistake to make. Living by the sea, I am sick of people feeding the rats with wings that are seagulls. Fine them. Every time. But this time it was feeding the ducks. No reason to give a fine. And the Council/their agents recognised that, and cancelled the fine. No story.

    3. The fly tipper. That fine is correct. That is not "domestic" waste. It is commercial waste-that was a commercial landlord making improvements to his rental property, nothing to do with any Tenant. He has decided that he would pretend that his Commercial waste was Domestic, to avoid paying for collection. Got caught. Got fined. 1 of those people who wants to whine about it afterwards. Zero sympathy.

    Weirdest case of this type I ever had was the following.

    Smoker. Finished cig, crushed it underfoot, then immediately picked it up and disposed of it safely. Fined for littering. Weirdly, that was classed as littering-the picking it up immediately afterwards held to be of relevance to size of fine, but not offence!

    Councils have had massive cuts imposed upon them. I don't like this sort of outsourcing but, to be fair, the Councils have no choice.
  • tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,688
    Essexphil said:

    3 very different cases. With 3 very different results.

    1. The dog walker. I have every sympathy for that lady. I am sure she has walked past the sign saying "no dogs" many times. Surely there should be room for an exception to be made, provided she keeps it on a lead at all times

    2. The duck feeder. I have every sympathy for the Council. It was an easy mistake to make. Living by the sea, I am sick of people feeding the rats with wings that are seagulls. Fine them. Every time. But this time it was feeding the ducks. No reason to give a fine. And the Council/their agents recognised that, and cancelled the fine. No story.

    3. The fly tipper. That fine is correct. That is not "domestic" waste. It is commercial waste-that was a commercial landlord making improvements to his rental property, nothing to do with any Tenant. He has decided that he would pretend that his Commercial waste was Domestic, to avoid paying for collection. Got caught. Got fined. 1 of those people who wants to whine about it afterwards. Zero sympathy.

    Weirdest case of this type I ever had was the following.

    Smoker. Finished cig, crushed it underfoot, then immediately picked it up and disposed of it safely. Fined for littering. Weirdly, that was classed as littering-the picking it up immediately afterwards held to be of relevance to size of fine, but not offence!

    Councils have had massive cuts imposed upon them. I don't like this sort of outsourcing but, to be fair, the Councils have no choice.


    When they employ chewing gum enforcement officers and the like at great expense including wages, benefits and pensions I get rather concerned.

    Did you know that over 40% of most Local Authority income goes to pay their pension commitments?

    Do we as a race really need all of these controls?
  • goldongoldon Member Posts: 9,061
    Don't throw bread in the pond for the Ducks it's bad for them ... but you can chuck a shopping trolley in.
Sign In or Register to comment.