Harrow Council may cancel contract after girl, 5, fined £1,000 – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c047422e6y4o.amp
Posted by Fox_9810
Harrow Council may cancel contract after girl, 5, fined £1,000 – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c047422e6y4o.amp
Posted by Fox_9810
7 Comments
A 5 year old girl threatened with prosecution for “fly-tipping” by APCOA. A sexual abuse survivor prosecuted for her foot on a Merseyrail train seat. Pensioners prosecuted by TV licencing for genuine mistakes. The Post Office committing the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history for, seemingly, profit.
The common thread here is private prosecutions. When are we going to end them?
“May,” “threatened.”
Has anyone been prosecuted yet for saying they witnessed the girl ‘littering’ in an official court document? Why not?
Oh look, yet another instance of something being subcontracted to fucking vultures going incredibly wrong, who could have seen that coming apart from anyone with an IQ above single digits?
Further legalised robbery by the authorities, this time stopped. So, is emptying a van.load or a tissue cones with a 1000 fine???
Get yourself a paper shredder and destroy every letter when no longer needed. Remove labels from your packages and destroy them so they are completely unreadable. Never put anything with your address on it in the bin.
I say this because I think the bin police must be paid on commission.
I say this because I recorded a council bin cop ripping open bags and dumping them on the floor, before taking her pictures and writing in her little notebook before sending my neighbour a £1000 fine for littering, and a £400 fine for not recycling.
I sent him the evidence which he forwarded on and the council, who had held the position of “We are never wrong.” suddenly backed down when threatened with court.
Councils are addicted to getting money by any means necessary, and these people are probably paid by the fine. They’re not above it, and the council will hold a position that they are completely infallible without concrete evidence (even with concrete evidence, they will still try it on hoping you won’t appeal in court).
A nice ’respond and block’ from SwitchAncient8558
> The legislation doesn’t require an enforcement or police officer to witness the fly tipping happen.
That doesn’t mean that some investigation is not required!
And a trivial amount of investigation would have revealed that a 5 year old had not dumped the rubbish.
> They had a parcel packaging with their name and address on. That gives them the reasonable grounds needed to issue the FPN.
It doesn’t.
It gives them reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation that *might* lead to a FPN.
> They had all the evidence they needed
They had no evidence whatsoever that the person named on the rubbish had dumped it.
> How do you think they prosecute the builders dumping rubble in the middle of the night? Invoices with their names on.
By conducting investigations, which didn’t happen here.
-> What legislation are you referring to that gives the enforcement officer the power to investigate and question people?
What legislation gives people the power to issue FPNs based on no evidence whatsoever.
> The wording of the letter is irrelevant and would have no bearing on the outcome in court.
Duh! It wasn’t going to court, as an FPN had been issued to ‘buy it out’ going to court.
> A lie requires an intent to deceive.
It doesn’t.
Not caring whether something is true or not before proceeding is equally duplicitous.
> I’m not trying to win, I’m too old for playing games.
I would suggest your ‘response and block’ says you are not being honest.
> Which they did.
They didn’t, as they made no checks to consider whether their actions were even sensible, let alone justified.
Heads up u/SwitchAncient8558 is a 42 day old account, zero posts and this is the only post he has chosen to comment on.
Troll.