Gran fined - for picking up litter!

Occasionally, the Big Brother Watch team are confronted with examples of truly mind-blowing stories about the behaviour of local council officials.

The case of Lesley Apps is one such example. While walking through Coventry city centre, the 64 year old grandmother noticed a cigarette wrapper had fallen out of her pocket and onto the pavement below. Noticing her inadvertent littering, she stooped to pick up the wrapper, struggling with back problems as she did it. At that very same moment, a local council official swooped in and issued her with a £50 fine for littering the pavement.

Whatever happened to common sense? (The likely answer is that, in council officer-land, common sense has been surplanted for a culture of commission based fines - the more you issue, the more money you dosh you take home).

The whole torrid tale, which is brought to us c/o the Coventry Telegraph, can be found here.

Hat-tip: PT

Comments

[J]

The words "common sense and council" Should not used in the same sentence.

[Andrew Ampers Taylor]

Could this be the latest oxymoron? Like "Military Intelligence" and that unfortunate name Microsoft gave to their sub-standard cheapie office program: "Works"? It gives rise to the unfortunate oxymoron "Microsoft works" :-)

[Richard Craven]

The victim was perfectly within her rights to withhold her name and address, and should have done so. She should also have ordered the council employee to stop being impertinent.

[Peter Thurgood]

The victim should have done a lot of things Richard, as should we all when confronted by bullies like this, but the trouble is, most people are just plain scared.

I have heard that in Spain, bar owners are organising themselves to fight the unjust smoking-ban, which is threatening not just their businesses, but the economy as well. It is a pity that we don't do the same here, and fight back against all these little Hitlers.

[Cazzy Jones]

Sadly inspiring - my take is here - if only Richard's suggested remedy would happen more often.

http://cazzyjones.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-council-snooper-strikes.html

[Peterloo]

s87 of the EPA90 is very clear: A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.

The important part is the last 3 words.

The lady was not guilty of an offence and should not have been fined.

I do hope she appeals.

[Richard Craven]

@Peter Thurgood
Of what relevance to Mrs Apps's predicament is the smoking ban in Spain?

[Peter Thurgood]

Why do you think this poor woman was picked on Richard? It was a smoking related article that this elderly grandmother alegedly discarded. This isn't related to just the smoking-ban in Spain, this is related to the smoking-ban in this country, and the gradual intrusion into our liberties throughout the world.

I mentioned Spain because at the moment, they are one of the countries that, unlike us, are fighting back.

[Cazzy Jones]

Hi Peterloo - I've just replied under my own article thread - the catch is that s.88 gives the jobsworth the right to issue the penalty notice simply upon reason to believe a littering offence has been committed, and there's then a separate offence under s.88 of failure to give name and address when asked. Looking further, s.88 does define "jobsworth" - sorry, "authorised officer" - as a person authorised in writing by the authority, so there would always be scope to argue the authenticity of the authority. However, doing an immediate bunk still has its practical merits...

[Purlieu]

Exactly, if she just walked away the jobsworth would be powerless, since any attempt to stop her would be an offence.
The jobsworth could call a cop of course, now that would make interesting reading ;-))

[old age terrorist]

I'd rather do time than pay a fine like this.

[Richard Craven]

@Peter

Surely you can see that this article is about the misapplication of rules on littering, not smokers' rights. The fact that Mrs Apps's case happens to concern smoking paraphernalia is incidental. She would have got into the same trouble if she had inadvertently dropped something else. Surely you can see that.

[Peter Thurgood]

Richard, you are obviously not a smoker. If you were then you would have experienced the humiliation that smokers have to go through. They are treated like lepers. Where someone dropping or spitting out chewing gum all over our pavements, which is almost impossible to remove, is not prosecuted, a smoker will be laid into as if they are a top criminal. That, Richard, is what this case is really about. Surely you can see that?

[Richard Craven]

@Peter

I quit tobacco two years ago, after smoking since 1978. I don't recall enduring much humiliation, or being treated like a leper. I do recall feeling guilty about my anti-social habit.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that smokers who litter are treated worse than non-smokers who litter.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? I doubt it.

And do you have any reason for your dogged insistence that Mrs Apps's case in particular is about smoking rather than littering? I doubt that too.

[Richard Craven]

@Peter

I am very much in favour of adopting a robust attitude towards unwarranted intrusions by authority into the private sphere, as I think that my posting history attests.

However, not all legislation or enforcement thereof is fairly described as unwarranted intrusion.

Fining people for picking up litter - whether smoking paraphernalia or otherwise - is unwarranted. I'm sure we both agree about this.

You may think that legislation against smoking in covered public premises is similarly unwarranted. Evidently, we disagree about this.

Mrs Apps's case is a case of the first kind. It is only tangentially related to the issue of smoking bans, by the fact that the litter in question happened to be smoking paraphernalia. In the absence of contradicting evidence, we should accept that she would not have been treated any differently had the offending item been, say, a sweet wrapper.

[Richard Craven]

@Peter

My point here is not to argue the pros and cons of smokers' vs non-smokers' rights. Despite my professed support for the legislation against smoking in public, I acknowledge that the smoker-rights lobby may have some interesting arguments in support of its case.

My point here is to object to your linking Mrs Apps's case to your smoker-rights agenda. When you overplay tenuous links between other topics and your own chosen cause, you risk the inference that you have no real arguments of substance supporting your chosen cause.