Fighting ‘them’ on the Sandwell.
70 years ago this week, Winston Churchill made his famous speech immortalising the words ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’ He did so to rally every man and woman in these Isles to support the war effort:
“because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.”
Sheila Martin was a fragile babe in arms when her Mother heard those words. Too young to understand the menace behind the Messerschmitts and Heinkels screaming overhead and disturbing her slumber. She was the intended beneficiary of Churchill’s words, one of the generation of children that depended on the bravery of British men such as her Father, away in France fighting for the freedom, tolerance and variety that was Britain’s hallmark.
Today, Sheila is once more fragile; she is 70 years old and was widowed 30 years ago. She tells me she has survived five heart attacks; she suffers from asthma, angina and high blood pressure. She only smokes the occasional cigarette these days, partly for health reasons, partly because her minimal state pension doesn’t stretch to any more.
70 years after Churchill’s speech was made, she has retired from a lifetime of hard work.
She was part of that unsung army of hard working, clean living, decent individuals, who cheerfully got up every morning and trudged off to put in a decent days work for a paltry wage as a ‘Mrs Mop’, raised her family, nurtured her marriage, made ends meet, saved little, but asked little in return, save the freedom, and tolerance that her older relatives had fought to provide. She is not a politically aware lady, nor insolent, nor ambitious for financial rewards.
In common with other ‘Smokers’ who may not like the new laws prohibiting them from smoking where others may be offended by the practice, she respected the law of the land, and complied. She is no campaigner against such laws.
Thus it was that she found herself standing at a bus stop, waiting for the bus which would take her home, and taking the opportunity to smoke a cigarette in the open air – there was no bus shelter. She could no longer smoke a cigarette on the top deck of the bus. She had not been able to smoke a cigarette with the cup of tea she shared with her daughter in town. Now she must stand in the road to enjoy the ‘freedom, tolerance and variety’ of the British Isles.
She only smoked half the cigarette; as the time drew close for the bus to arrive, she ‘nibbed’ the cigarette, letting the lit end fall to the ground, and thriftily stowing the other half of the cigarette in her handbag for a later occasion. It was her last cigarette until pension day.
Two of Sandwell’s famed ‘enforcement wardens’ approached her – a man and a woman. They told her that they were issuing a ‘Fixed Penalty Fine’ of £75 under Section 87 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This mouthful of gobblygook was lost on Sheila; she had no idea what she had done wrong and put the piece of paper in her pocket.
Once home, friends and neighbours clustered round to read this piece of officialdom. Sheila still had the ‘end’ of the cigarette, with its precious inch or so of un-smoked tobacco in her handbag, so how could she be accused of littering the street – it had to be the cigarette ash they were talking about?
I have spoken to Sandwell Council, they tell me that they do not issue fixed penalty notices for cigarette ‘ash’ – I am sure they don’t. I am equally sure that Mrs Martin is telling the truth when she tells me that the half cigarette with its ‘butt’ was still safely in her handbag when she returned home. So we are left with the quandary of whether the ‘lit’ end of a cigarette, which will become cigarette ‘ash’ within seconds, constitutes parliament’s intention when they defined litter as including:
In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A)“Litter” includes—
(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and
(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.”
If a court holds that it does, then every smoker is liable for a £75 fine every time they smoke a cigarette in the street. I do not believe that to be parliament’s intention.
On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.
Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)
Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.
We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.
There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.
70 years ago we were prepared to ‘fight them on the beaches’ – how appropriate that today we prepare to f’ight them on the Sandwell……’
UPDATE:
CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to raise funds to help an elderly widow who has been threatened with a £2,500 fine for dropping cigarette ash on the pavement.
Sheila Martin, 70, was smoking at a bus stop when a Sandwell Council warden pounced and handed her the £75 fixed penalty for littering.
The frail granny, from Oldbury, has refused to pay – and now faces a £2,500 penalty or even prison.
But on-line campaigners who freed a pub landlord from jail for a similar offence earlier this year have now come forward to lend their support.
Nick Hogan, former landlord of The Swan and Barristers in Bolton, was jailed for six months for failing to pay fines and costs totalling £10,136 after being guilty of allowing customers to light up.
But he walked free after an internet campaign raised £10,000 to secure his early release in just 10 days.
Web blogger Anna Raccoon was instrumental in securing his freedom and has now vowed to help Mrs Martin.
She said: “As a result of articles I wrote, the generosity of my readers and with the co-operation of other bloggers, we managed to raise the money in 10 days and get Nick released from jail.
“Now we are prepared to turn our efforts to helping Sheila Martin. If she does not pay the fine, she could be sent to jail just as Nick Hogan was.
“That is oppressive persecution and we should not stand by and watch an elderly widow treated like this.
“My readers are happy to support Sheila in any way we can, to enable her to fight this penalty.”
Last night Mrs Martin said: “I am so touched by all the support people have been giving me all week.
“I thought I was all alone and now I realise I am not. It has made me feel so much better.”
Simon Clarke, Director of Pro-smoking Group FOREST, also offered his support. He said: “What is happening to her is just another example of the bully state.
“Smokers are easy targets and while we do not condone littering, this case is just a complete overreaction by Sandwell Council.
“We will not allow this frail old lady to be bullied and we will do everything we can to help her.”
adam.aspinall@sundaymercury.net
September 8, 2010 at 15:28
-
I live in the Unfree States of America, where the special interest and
governmental sectors have already surpassed Hitler’s propaganda campaign — and
there’s no end in sight. I’m sorry to see that your governments are
neck-and-neck with us in the persecution (and prosecution) of smokers. The
Revised Enforcement Policy is scary, indeed, as it leaves authority up to
individual “enforcement wardens” (good lord!) — who, by definition, are
guaranteed to be haters of anyone who exhibits “unacceptable behavior.” The
REP is rather like our PACT Act (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking), which
exempts cigars — unless cigars are deemed to be cigarettes in disguise. Given
the PACT Act wording, this deeming will be left to the discretion of
individuals who couldn’t tell a stogie from Fido’s stool, without a close
nasal inspection. But what can be expected from those who accuse Native
Americans of illegal tobacco sales? I think the scariest part of this whole
anti-smoker frenzy is that the movers and shakers are morons.
- August 31, 2010 at 14:40
-
Thanks Anna, I`m speechless. Please could we have the e-mail address`s of
the people responsible for this so that we can let them know what we think.
- August 25, 2010 at 17:15
-
When laws are drafted it is a hope that those who read and enforce them use
common sence in their interpation.
This is one of those times when the
powers that be, in this case two of them, appear not to have an ounce of
common sence between them and why should they when their bosses dont have any
either.
- August 25, 2010 at 17:28
-
The very fact that this has happened in itself is an eloquent indictment
on that accursed ‘authority.’ I have scant respect for local government as
it is – but this one has worked hard for the opprobrium it gets from
fair-minded people. I have vented my spleen in the form of an open letter.
Not that these vermin are likely to read it..
http://faulkstalks.blogspot.com/
- August 25, 2010 at
17:30
-
Superb letter Falksd, and I woulnd’t be too sure that they won’t read
it, my feedback so far is that they are very aware of the amount of
criticism they are attracting.
-
August 26, 2010 at 08:58
-
Thanks, Anna. If this council as as aware of the degree of
criticism/venom its actions have generated from bloggers – as well as
ordinary members of the human race – perhaps it might be inclined to
moderate its draconian policies. But there again, the words ‘leopard’
and ‘spots’ spring readily to mind..
Methinks Sandwell is a testbed
for regional social policy and policing that will one day be ubiquitous.
That’s a scary thought.
- August 23, 2010 at 21:19
-
PS: Big Brother Watch has a report that explains how many people in each
council across the U.K. have the power to enter your home without warrant or
police participation. Most councils answered the FOI request however some
didn’t and cited cost. 2 of those councils were… Sandwell and Medway, who have
both been in the news recently.
Just saying…
- August 23, 2010 at 19:38
-
I am fully expecting to be ripped apart for this but this lady couldn’t get
her story straight on the local news. “I dropped the cigarette…err ash onto
the floor”. Runs for cover
- August 23, 2010 at 19:48
-
Have you a link to that news?
-
August 23, 2010 at 19:55
-
Unfortunately not. It was on local tv news. She may have just gotten
confused being in front of a camera.
- August 23, 2010 at 20:10
-
smeghead – no, you won’t get ripped apart on here – we’re not like that –
are we folks?
I have spoken to Sheila at length on the phone and
obviously formed a strong imrpession of her truthfullness and her ability to
stand up to pressure – a TV film crew would be quite outside her experience
in life and I can quite believe that she was tongue tied, it would be in
keeping with her personality. She is not a sophisticated lady. I have also
spoken to some of her friends and neighbours, and they were quite sure that
she still had the remains of the cigarette with her.
- August 23, 2010 at 21:17
-
Even if she *had* actually dropped a cigarette butt we would be
justified in defending her against the disgusting imposition of the state
in the form of FPNs.
- August 23, 2010 at 14:37
-
Good work. This is the council that prosecutes families who feed ducks in
their parks.
- August 23, 2010 at 14:20
-
Eeek, do I read Church of Scientology… ?!
-
August 23, 2010 at 12:39
-
Bastards – utter bastards …
Need funds ? – count me in ! …
- August 23, 2010 at 12:29
-
It’s the warped mindset of these people ,they are actually fooling
themselves that what they are doing is for some kind of greater good rather
than the authoritarian evil it really is.
If they are not fooling
themselves then we have some very “sick people” in power at local level in
certain areas of the UK.
- August 23, 2010 at 12:16
-
Oooh, A Smoke In. I’ll go along with that. It would at least put paid to my
chain smoking guilt for a couple of hours.
It’s a good job we don’t have such people here, the pile of fag ash outside
the local Bar can be quite embarrassing, until someone comes and sweeps it up
for their Roses.
Um, now there’s a thought.
- August
23, 2010 at 11:18
-
Now here is an interesting little tidbit I just chanced upon,
regarding Sandwell Council’s Chief Executive, Dr. Allison Fraser:
“A town hall boss is spending
-
August 23, 2010 at 11:39
-
- August 23, 2010 at 18:18
-
“A town hall boss is spending
- August
25, 2010 at 01:21
-
No, it just isn’t classed as a religion (for purposes of tax and
subsidy etc).
- August 23,
2010 at 09:47
-
Hi Anna, too many things to say, but this 2 unimportant comments:
1. I’m
so glad i didn’t miss that excellent post of yours
2. Happy to notice that
blogging IS political & not just ranting, blogging is ACTION! Bravo Anna
to you and all the supporters!
- August 23, 2010 at 08:54
-
I’m no longer a smoker, so couldn’t attend the smoke-in. Hang on a minute
though, I do have dandruff…..
-
August 23, 2010 at 03:26
-
The whole point of this tyranny is extract money with menaces ,no more no
less. Issue an on the spot fine which people will pay instead of the hassle
and expense of going to court to defend themselves. They must be raking in the
money hand over fist . And people wonder where they find the mouth breathers
who become wardens ? Just remember they found guards for the concentration
camps from ordinary people . For tyranny
to flourish all it takes is for
good men to do nothing. The Anti Terroist has some excellent advice on his
website on dealing with the police and courts.
-
August 23, 2010 at 06:40
-
Spot on and well said
-
August 23, 2010 at 12:59
-
Oz! 2nd time I’ve read your posts today and had to totally agree. I need
to go lie down…
-
August 23, 2010 at 03:02
-
Emailing from America here.
I don’t see the paypal link on this
page.
Is it somewhere on this blog or on another blog?
- August
23, 2010 at 08:53
-
I don’t think Anna’s after money at the moment. She wants some good ‘pro
bono’ lawyers.
I’m sure she’ll ask if necessary though.
- August 23, 2010 at 01:36
-
May I just say how nice it is to see a raccoon illustrating this post.
Recently the blog seems to have been infested with pigs. Nothing wrong with
that, of course, but I was beginning to think this had turned into Blandings
Castle.
- August 22, 2010 at 23:07
-
NEVER, have so many been oppressed by so few.
Stand united against the INSANITY that is GLOBAL TOBACCO CONTROL.
- August
22, 2010 at 22:16
-
What about a defence of as 70 odd% of the ciggie is tax , you ( the council
actually own it and I have only returned it to the rightful owners to deal
with as they see fit. bastards!
- August 22, 2010 at 22:22
-
Haha …
-
August 22, 2010 at 21:59
-
Olly – I always do my comments in word then copy and paste. Have one
document in word for your comments if you wish to save them. This way you
don’t have to retype.
- August 22, 2010 at 21:55
-
Anna/Anyone,
I notice the consulting company that did the research on whether wardens
would be a good idea is http://www.rhcs.uk.com/ I’ve done some digging, written a
nice huge email to you only for the blinking thing to go tits up and I’m too
lazy to retype.
The ladies that run the consulting agency are deeply religious, a quick
Google of their names (Available on their webby) and you’ll see what I mean.
Nothing wrong with being deeply religious, but sometimes, sometimes there is a
vested interest (do-gooders).
I wonder if a well placed phone call asking them how they felt about this
situation as Christians would go. Just saying….
Cheers
Olly
-
August 23, 2010 at 12:56
-
Is that a whiff of Common Purpose in the air?
“We have a particular interest and affinity with the third sector…”
If it looks like CP, smells like CP, and tastes like CP….well, you know
where this is going…
- August 22, 2010 at 21:44
-
I’ve observed that the public sector, in recent years, has become a job
creation scheme for the pocket Hitler mindset.
- August 22, 2010 at 21:32
-
Sometimes even I have to stand up and be counted – see http://damned-to-hell.blogspot.com/2010/08/dr-alison-fraser.html
-
August 22, 2010 at 21:27
-
Contact address
Anna – Do you have an email address for the council where we can show our
disgust?
- August 22,
2010 at 21:22
-
Great post Anna. I too will pledge whatever. Cash if needed.
I’ve linked
to this story.
I hope that smoke in idea comes off. That would be fun.
-
August 22, 2010 at 21:38
-
In the spirit of the smoke-in, I pledge to stop saving any butts over 1/2
an inch to smoke in the eventuality that my car is removed for the day and
here declare that I will save them for the smoke-in, hoping that I can be
filmed by a Mobile Police Surveillance Unit (complete with ‘Smile! You’re on
CCTV!’ graphic! I’ll smoke my disgusting butts and I’ll smile my yellow and
snaggled-toothed smile and give ‘a glad-eye’ with my one remaining eyeball!
I’ll even wear my rain-bonnet if it’s unclement weather but nothing will
stop me from sucking the last few dribbles of tar from age-old butts if it
will prove a point ‘gainst the Sandwell Stazi.
- August
22, 2010 at 21:12
-
Blogged and linked Anna, this is a complete farce and an utter disgrace,
the idea of a mass smoke in is very appealing!
Bastards! time the worm turned BIG STYLIE!
- August
22, 2010 at 20:59
-
Reading through the Enforcement Policy, I got to the section (4.5.1) where
it states the situations where prosecution should be pursued and one of those
is where a person refuses to provide their details.
It reminded me of this earlier trial scheme in Colchester, Essex:
“Town hall snoopers armed with police powers are issuing ‘wanted’
photographs of suspected litterbugs, it emerged last night.
Litter wardens given police-style accreditation by the Government are using
cameras to snap alleged offenders. They are then shamed in local
newspapers.”
- August 22, 2010 at 20:46
-
WTF!
4.4.12
It is important to note that [SANDWELL COUNCIL] cautions are not
covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and do not become spent after a
period of time.
Words have absolutely failed m…
-
August 22, 2010 at 20:29
-
“This is an increasingly high priority for the Council and it might be
possible to consider providing some sort of an
- August
22, 2010 at 20:21
-
From Bertie’s googling above:
“This could also be further developed by linking into the
Council
- August
23, 2010 at 05:36
-
Why not? They clearly believe the Jesuits favoured saying…
- August 23, 2010 at 11:28
-
…”It’s our secret, don’t tell anyone else what I do with you.”?
-
August 28, 2010 at 09:24
-
Ouch!
- August 22, 2010 at 20:19
-
I’ve just been on the Sandwell council website and came across this little
bit on wardens.
“Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council will seek accreditation for its
Wardens by the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police.”
“The following list of powers as described in Schedule 5 of the Police
Reform Act 2002 will be sought:”
Question is. Unless this is really out of date, have they actually been
accreditated? Or are Sandwell jumping the gun?
- August 22, 2010 at 19:51
-
If there’s anything I can do, let me know.
- August
22, 2010 at 19:31
-
I’ve just blogged on this and stuck a link in to this post.
I’ve also
sent Mr Eling a nice e-mail.
-
August 22, 2010 at 18:56
-
The allegation is that litter (a tangible ‘thing’ as legally defined) was
dropped.
The “Enforcement Wardens” should have seized this alleged litter
for production as an exhibit in the Court. Without this vital exhibit, and the
proper chain of evidence pertaining to that exhibit, there can be no Court
case. It is the Wardens’ word against the accused; i.e. No Case to Answer.
- August 22, 2010 at
23:50
-
Unfortunately, you’re wrong Stephen.
No evidence is required as council wardens are deemed better witnesses
than others. They are trained and so are ‘accredited’ as more reliable. I’m
not joking.
-
August 23, 2010 at 23:51
-
The requirement as I outlined above is a very necessary requirement for
any case involving a physical “thing” (i.e. litter) which forms the
principal substance of the charge.
I could not charge a person with the
possession of an offensive weapon without being able to produce that
weapon in Court. It would avail me nothing to say that I had seen the
weapon but now know not where it is.
If the offending litter cannot be
produced to the Court then it never existed.
- August 22, 2010 at 18:41
-
What a bunch of sad cretins, picking on a defenseless elderly lady for the
end of a cigarette which clearly is ash anyway. Dont they have anything better
to do with their time. than bully people? Sandwell sounds like a horrid
place.
-
August 22, 2010 at 18:32
-
I looked up Mr. Kominiak and found his home postcode – NG18 4TH. A quick
check on streetmap.co.uk to find out exactly where this is, ironically reveals
the nearest place name is “Thieves Wood”. A very ugly irony.
- August 22, 2010 at 19:09
-
Appropriate name, though it’s the location of a management company, not
necessarily his home postcode.
- August 22, 2010 at 18:02
-
For training programs sponsored by the tax payer, look no further than
Common Purpose. Be very aware these are dangerous people.
http://www.stopcp.com/
- August 22, 2010 at 17:42
-
Anna,
Counteth me in for dosh and a smoke in…. coincidentally I’d like to draw
your readers attention to this: http://youve-been-cromwelled.org/?p=1267
Low down skinny is this. Portcullis House is open to the public for 2 days
this year, the 18th & 19th September. I “heard” there’s going to be a
party, where smoking and drinking will be allowed.
Congrats on the hard work!
Olly
- August 22, 2010 at 17:19
-
what i find extremely sad is that there are thousands of people out there
willing to be wardens !
i see them around southend with there ill fitting uniforms,looking like
norman wisdom,without the humour obviously…..
and the police are in on the scam too…….they have a nice white van with a
speed camera inside with ‘making essex safer’ written on the side.it is parked
around town on hills…so when people drive past slightly over the limit they
get a nice ticket in the post……..
what sort of shitbag would do this job?
sitting all day hiding? (the
windows are blacked out)
utter,utter,hoons….
-
August 22, 2010 at 17:09
-
Presumably Sandwell Council issued a fixed-penalty notice against
Eyjafjallajokull last spring for depositing ash on their streets. If not, why
not?
More power to you, Anna, but I am concerned that raising money to pay fines
(as in the Nick Hogan case) merely rewards these shit-heads. It would be
better by far if this lady refused to pay the fine and made them put her in
jail; and for her to refuse the usual anonymous “benefactor” (i.e. the
government in some guise or other) when he offers to spring her. I appreciate
that she is no longer in the first flush of youth, but would she be up to it?
The resulting uproar would sever quite a few jobsworths’ heads from their
vulturine necks.
- August 22, 2010 at 18:16
-
T. P. Fuller,
I am not raising money to pay her fine – I’m raising a fine body of legal
minds to stick this fine right back where it belongs.
You would not credit the number of e-mails I have had today offering
assistance on that score, nor the amount of information and useful legal
points that the collective brain of the blogosphere can conjure up in a few
hours when it throbs as one. Quite incredible – believe me, the comments you
see on screen are only a small part of the response.
- August 22, 2010 at 21:20
-
Anna,
Please point a legal mind in the direction of the Revised Enforcement Policy Penalty Enforcement Notices
4.3.4
“Examples of offences where a penalty notice for disorder may be issued
include:
Behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
others”
Isn’t that what the Blockwarts have done to Mrs Martin? Hoist on their
own petard!
- August 22, 2010 at 17:02
-
Bravo, Anna Raccoon.
- August 22, 2010 at 17:01
-
As a non-smoker who would like to join a “smoke-in” I was wondering about
the practicalities of one of those pumps you use for blowing up balloons. Does
anyone with a legal training know if such things ar proscribed under
anti-terrorist legislation yet?
-
August 22, 2010 at 16:38
-
Hi, Anna
I’ll send funds if required
SadButMadLad’s extract, when
googled, took me
http://www.walsallpartnership.org.uk/18.05.07_-_wardens_update.doc
The
report itself – entitled Warden’s Feasibility Study – was prepared by a Mr
Clive Wright, WBSP Director, after considering the research prepared by RHCS
Consultancy and refers to Walsall Council’s business, not Sandwell’s.
The
report states
“4. . . .Sources of possible Council funding were thought to
include LABGI funding
-
August 22, 2010 at 16:10
-
Lets cut the pussyfooting about on this issue,time for some
incitement,
some finger pointing,some relentless headline grabbing
attention on
the two bit officials as a warning to other overzealous
dipsticks.
Can the web wizards and blog barons concentrate ALL their
firepower on
these over funded freaks . Get this story up in neon lights so
other
council Kommandants get a very clear message,get of our backs
before
someone gets really annoyed,yep really upset, and physical.
So
down to brass tacks,here is a golden opportunity for the 100+
Libertarian
and Freedom blogs and sites to show us ,the ordinary,
whether you are
capable of concerted action for a worthy cause or
just a digital branch of
the chattering classes.
For this old lady ,will you fight ,will you
unite,will you persvere ?
The Ends justify the Means
-
August 22, 2010 at 16:06
-
I have just posted this over at EUReferendum..http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/non-apology.html
by permanentexpat
- August 22, 2010 at 16:00
-
Have you seen the awful suck up to authority article in the (dead tree)
Sunday Times explaining how important it is that the nice wardens in Sandwell
(photo happy smiling wardens) are allowed to issue 75 quid penalties so that
Sandwell, which was apparently rather litter strewn, gets cleaned up? It is
truly some of the most cringeworthy reporting I have seen in some time, I
thought at first they were being sarcastic but they weren’t!
-
August 22, 2010 at 20:19
-
After reading your comment, woodsy, I thought I’d buy a copy of the
Sunday Times when I nipped out for my ciggies & some cat food. The
article you mention is, indeed, an awful suck-up to authority.
The article starts with these words: “Hang on, Chris,” says Gillian
George, a street warden. “I think we’re about to see an offence.” She stops
abruptly at the entrance to a shop, her eyes fixed on something Chris Jones,
her fellow warden, has not yet spotted. Beside them stands a young mother
with young children. The mother is smoking a cigarette. When she sees the
wardens she hastily moves on. … Suddenly, the wardens take off. The mother
looks horrified – pulls her children close – but the wardens overtake her to
stop a man in his thirties wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt.”
Now forgive me for thinking it isn’t yet illegal for a man in his
thirties to wear a baseball cap and a T-shirt. Oh, silly me! Of course it
isn’t, however hard Sunday Times journalist John-Paul Flintoff manages, by
his syntax, to suggest that it is. Tsk, tsk! Sloppy, sloppy stuff,
John-Paul. Let’s hope that, if you want us to take your words seriously,
you’ve paid more attention to your hyphens/use of commas/placement of verbs
in the next bit, shall we?
Mr Flintoff goes on to say: “The wardens invite him to step outside the
mall, and beside Poundstretcher they tell him he’s been seen committing an
offence. … Specifically, he stowed a fag end among many others in a
municipal flower bed and walked away – and a person is guilty if he or she
throws down, drops or otherwise deposits litter in a public place and leaves
it. The penalty is
- August 22, 2010 at 21:50
-
Well said, SISTER,
As part of his recent PENANCE, my social friend
Gildas has been put to use in this matter – fetching and carrying,
photocopying, that sort of thing.
I can promise you, he is working
quite hard
Yours
Sister Eva Longoria
- August 22, 2010 at 22:10
-
Tell Brother Gildas from me that instead of fetching and carrying and
photocopying he should be flinging off that hair-shirt he claims to wear
at all times and rolling his unclad/peach-skinned torso in all its
questionable glory repeatedly through a thick band of mature
stinging-nettles until his ample-midriff trills with the special,
painful and un-imagined ‘zing’ of a million poisoned-hairs embedding
themselves into the tender and probably un-touched epidermis of a
serial-womaniser who likes to think of himself as a man of God.
Not that I’m bitter ….
- August 22, 2010 at 23:46
-
“However, I shall enjoy putting Page 7 of The Sunday Times News
Review down under the cats
- August
22, 2010 at 15:31
-
As some of you know, I’m not a smoker and I hate the stink of cigarettes
but this is going beyond all reason.
If you need money, I’ll chip in.
- August
22, 2010 at 18:22
-
I’m not a smoker either. But this does, indeed, go far, far beyond
reason. Their plan is, as Leg-Iron has said time and time again, to pick us
off one by one. Smokers today, drinkers tomorrow, lovers of fry-up the next
day.
It never stops, ever. Until they are stopped.
- August 22, 2010 at 14:42
-
I’ll chip in if required.
Idespise these bullies in high vis the perfect
example of everything sick about this country now.
They always go for the
easy target ,maggots.
- August 22, 2010 at 14:42
-
my local council is full of morons.southend on sea,essex.
there is no joined-up thinking……they just waste money….
a couple of years back they spent over
-
August 22, 2010 at 14:24
-
Mass smoke in Sandwell? Count me in. Also count me in as and when
contributions are needed to fund the defence/pay the fine.
I’m sick of this bullying shit. I want my country back.
- August 22, 2010 at 16:00
-
“I
- August
22, 2010 at 14:05
-
Ridiculous! Clearly no case to answer as ‘ash’ is not a cigarette end.
Jobsworths make me sick…
- August 22, 2010 at 14:00
-
I worked in Sandwell when it was West Bromwich -what an armpit and I come
from Liverpool!! The world has gone absolutely mad if these people are in any
way typical. Words fail to describe their inanity
Brian
- August 22, 2010 at 13:54
-
Great ammunition for my continuing mission to man-shame @paulwrblanchard,
prison style.
- August 22, 2010 at 13:43
-
I picked up on this story a couple of days ago, too.
As the Express & Star newspaper carried a defensive quote from this
policy automaton, it was this guy I sent an email with my thoughts:
http://cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Member.aspx?personID=57
Anything that I can do to help, I’d like to. This must stop.
-
August 22, 2010 at 13:25
-
With all these sort of stories, what appears to have gone by the way side,
is something that was drilled into us remorselesly in police training and when
I took law as a “filler” for a degree course, and that is something called
“Spirit of the law”.
Meaning in theory, a 3 year old dropping the end of an ice cream cone IS
causing litter, BUT it could NEVER be described as being “within the spirit of
the law” to actually BOOK the littering bastard.
This is what happens when you give a shower of semi illiterate imbiciles a
book of tickets and a hat, and absolutely ZILCH “legal training”.
- August 22, 2010 at 13:33
-
Furor Teutonicus,
You forgot – ‘and a quota to fill……..’
-
August 22, 2010 at 15:46
-
But not just any quota, a “Revenue Generating” quota.
- August 22, 2010 at 13:24
-
Hi Anna. Well done for highlighting another case of sheer fascist stupidity
. Please tell us who we should write to and / or e-mail so that we can make
their lives a misery. The war generation fought and died for liberty.Let us
honour their memory and prove ourselves worthy!!!!
- August
22, 2010 at 13:20
-
I have also linked to this Anna, and so has F2C (Scotland.)
Sterling work.
- August 22, 2010 at 13:09
-
Gloria, my flabber is ghasted too.
Anna, well done.
If you need any
help I might be able to provide, don’t hesitate to ask.
- August 22, 2010 at 13:05
-
The person responsible for writing the enforcement strategy is L J
Kominiak, probable full name Leslie John Kominiak.
It seems he was previously Chief Superintendent of Nottinghamshire before
moving to Sandwell and becoming Interim ASB Service Manager-Strategy and
Operations and Interim Warden Manager. He seems to be the one in charge of the
3 senior and 21 junior wardens according to various documents which list him
as the contact for such issues dog fouling. Therefore he seems to be the main
person to contact about their enforcement.
The following is attributed to him:
“Sandwell has 3 senior wardens and a
team of some 21 wardens. They were the first Accredited Warden scheme in the
West Midlands. NRF contributes some
- August 22, 2010 at 13:08
-
August 22, 2010 at 13:36
-
Well done!
- August 22, 2010 at 18:14
-
Using a few assumptions and some rough maths;
24 wardens. If they all meet their targets of
- August 22, 2010 at 13:02
-
Well said and done Anna.
If the time comes when some funds are needed I will gladly contribute.
- August 22, 2010 at 12:52
-
I’m musing on the idea of a mass smoke-up in the centre of Sandwell.. bring
video cameras, draw these egregious little twerps out and make then YouTube
stars.
- August 22, 2010 at 13:04
-
*Al Jahom*
*Swoon*
Wonderful idea!
Edited to add: could you make it a hot day so you could all carry ice
creams which drip on the ground? (Or is a hot day out the question in the
UK?)
-
August 22, 2010 at 19:22
-
I’m on for the smoke-in.
I have now started saving all of my old
dog-ends for surreptitious sprinkling on the hallowed Sandwell pavements
via the same sort of cunning ruse used by those disposing of the excavated
waste from the tunnels Tom, Dick and Harry in the Great Escape!
- August 22, 2010 at 23:24
-
Abso-bloody-lutely Al jahom. Gave up smoking 2 months 2 weeks 6 days and
15 hours ago (approx) and am willing to start again in Sandwell. “Egregious
little twerps” – you are FAR too polite.
- August 22, 2010 at 12:41
-
Interesting Times Anna. Excellent work.
- August 22,
2010 at 12:41
-
Will pop a link up for this Anna. Somebody may know a willing solicitor.
Good for you and commendations for your hard work.
- August 22, 2010 at 12:41
-
I’ve just read through the
- August 22, 2010 at 12:50
- August 22, 2010 at 12:34
-
Whatever law it was that gave powers to impose fines to assorted councils
and other non judicial bodies was bad one.
It has spawned an army of
officious bullies who prey on soft targets.
Can it be
repealed?
Incidentally, has Sandwell become a litter-free zone thanks to
its vigilant enforcers?
- August 22, 2010 at 12:32
-
Just think of the country we could have if Anna or someone like her was
running the BBC.
Instead we are subject to endless lefty propaganda glorifying the
state.
- August 22, 2010 at 12:30
-
Well done Anna, makes me proud there are people like you prepared to stand
up to the fascists within.
- August 22, 2010 at 12:18
-
As Twinarp 11:00 highlights:
“(5A)
- August 22, 2010 at 22:06
-
Sadly not. There is a general principle of statutory interpretation that
the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. (Those with lively visual
imaginations may like to know that the masculine includes the feminine, and
vice versa, too.)
-
August 22, 2010 at 12:15
-
So the big tough “Enforcement Wardens” chose to go for a single pensioner.
I wonder if the same jobsworths would have tackled a gang of mouth-breathing
chavs?
I agree with what Tom above says- name and shame the council employees
involved.
-
August 22, 2010 at 12:13
-
Councillor Steve Eling (home 429 2875, office 569. 3045, email: eling.s@sandwell.gov.uk) …
Tribune of the People
-
August 22, 2010 at 12:09
-
Anna thanks for publicising this and the very best of luck.
- August 22, 2010 at 12:07
-
I see the Sunday Times is carrying an interview with the Stasi Labour
Deputy Leader of Sandwell today on how splendid the whole thing is, and how he
is going to turn Sandwell into the Singapore of the West Midlands.
-
August 22, 2010 at 19:25
-
Hmmm. Singapore of the Midlands, eh?
Does that mean six lashes of the
lathi for vandalism, urinating in public and other forms of real anti-social
behaviour?
If it does, I’ll support that proposal!
-
August 22, 2010 at 19:26
-
Oh, and the death penalty for drugs traffickers, too?
-
August 22, 2010 at 11:52
-
Shameful Intolerance
I wish you every success in helping Sheila with her fight against this
spiteful council. This poisonous and vindictive smoking legislation has given
carte blanche to every jobs worth in the land.
Our country has now become a cesspit of mindless political correctness
which knows no bounds.
Common sense is a concept that died on the 1st July
2007.
-
August 22, 2010 at 11:35
-
Wandering round Brighton last week I saw rather a lot of a Police Mobile
Surveillance Unit (complete with ‘Smiley’ logo stating that I should “Smile,
you’re on CCTV!” ). My flabber was then almost entirely ghasted when I saw the
same van, sirens screeching and blue-lights flashing, tearing down Prince
Albert Street. Now what in the name of Heaven could there be in Prince Albert
Street that needed to be filmed so urgently? A spectacularly daring intimate
piercing perhaps? A new Dish of the Day at the oyster bar? Or, given Mrs
Martin’s disgraceful treatment at the hands of the jobsworths, maybe it was
just a little old lady leaving ash on the pavement.
Sheesh.
Thanks, Anna, for taking the time and trouble to pin-point this
nonsense.
- August
22, 2010 at 11:18
-
Bless you for taking up these cases Anna. You’re a true modern heroine.
If money is needed, or letters need to be written, phone calls made, be
sure to let us know where to direct our ire!
- August 22, 2010 at 11:18
-
Yes, one wonders if these people are able to tell front from back
-
August 22, 2010 at 11:15
-
Sandwell is where a young woman was prosecuted when a passenger in her car
dropped an apple core: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/westmidlands/2008/01/index.html
The Law under which she was charged was designed to be applied to those
dumping commercial refuse thus damaging the environment.
Here’s another case where a man who denied he had dropped an apple core was
arrested by 5 police, DNA tested and locked up for 18 hours: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/050908_apple_core.htm
“Officers are expected challenge anyone seen littering and have powers to
deal with this on the street. We work closely with the City Council and other
partners and take a firm stance against all environmental crime,”
Superintendent Ian Palmer said.
What we had is crime inflation to meet the top down targets for crime
clear-up. Basically get the middle classes because they are easy targets and
leave the real criminal to get on with their careers.
What we need is a demerit system where the judge at the trial can ‘fine’
the CPS for initiating prosecutions against the public interest.
- August 22, 2010 at 11:00
-
The ENDS of cigarettes would only describe multiples of the bit of the
ciggie that had been in her mouth. Stupid Stupid Stupid. She has not broken
their law.
- August 22, 2010 at 10:58
-
Go for it Anna.
I think we should be told the names of all the council officials involved
:
Warden 1
Warden 2
Head of “Enforcement”
Head of
Legal
Environmental Portfolio holder = elected representative
Name and shame, yup… name and shame
It’s not “The Council” perpetrating this poisonous stupidity it’s people
and I think we should know who they are and not allow them to hide behind the
municipal fa
- August 22, 2010 at 10:53
-
Thank you for highlighting this story of unbelievable pettiness and
bullying.
Once again we are faced with the consequences of badly framed laws,
enforced with the full backing of the state apparatus by public servants with
neither the education, judgement or common sense to realise the stupidity of
what there are doing.
The Government really does have such a long way to go to dismantle the
edifice of laws, councils and quangos which Labour created. I’m once again
aggravated that my taxes in some way are used to pay for these two cretins and
the enforcement office of this council.
It’s bullying, but no-one is exempt when there are targets to fulfil. The
fact that the Council won’t even admit they’ve made a mistake when challenged
is disgraceful. The fuckers would rather argue it in court than admit what
they’ve done is wrong.
- August 22, 2010 at 10:49
-
Apart from the obvious distress that they are causing to this poor woman,
they are simply making a laughing stock of themselves.
So let’s hope that
it gets broadcast far and wide.
- August 22, 2010 at 10:47
-
Power to your Paypal button. I will contribute should the need arises. This
stupidity needs to be quashed asap. Has Sheila Martin’s MP contacted Eric
Pickles yet about this injustice?
It would be imteresting if the Sandwell
Securitate treated the blessed Traveller community equally. My experience of
the cost of clearing up the damage caused by their middens and industrial
waste dumps, aka illegal sites, would require a bale of
- August 22, 2010 at 10:24
-
Top work, Anna.
What I find most disturbing is the stubborn refusal of the council to drop
the case. Despite damning articles in the Mail amongst others, despite
interest from the likes of yourself. It’s arrogance on a grand scale.
One of the big problems in society these days is a widespread unwillingness
to apologise or admit that one has got something wrong – the conceit of always
insisting that one is right, no matter what. The council are exhibiting the
very same anti-social and damaging tendencies as some two bit chav.
-
August 22, 2010 at 10:56
-
Anna, the way to encourage these cretins to think again, is to publish
the contact details of the councilors involved and encourage readers to link
them to other blogs. It allows the public to write and tell them just what
they think of them and they don’t like that ! The oxygen of publicity can be
a powerful weapon against the jobsworths.
- August 22, 2010 at 22:01
-
I agree with publication of the names of those responsible. But not
just the councillors. The officials who issued the original ticket, and
those who decided, at each stage, to take the matter further, should also
be named and shamed. The fact that they were only obeying orders does not
let them off the hook. They need to be made to think before they follow
the laid-down procedures.
- August
22, 2010 at 12:05
-
“One of the big problems in society these days is a widespread
unwillingness to apologise or admit that one has got something
wrong…”
No doubt as a result of the ‘where there’s blame, there’s a claim!’
mentality.
- August 22, 2010 at 10:16
-
Even as an avowed lifetime non-smoker I’m galled at this. Are these special
cuntstables on commission?
- August 22, 2010 at
10:10
-
That
- August 22, 2010 at 11:25
-
I’d guess that not a single councillor actually read and debated the
contents of that ‘Revised Enforcement Policy’ – for sure, under our
‘executive and scrutiny’ system, the chances of there even being a debate
about the policy are as close to zero as makes no difference (the committee
system was ‘old-fashioned’). Moreover, Sandwell is a one-party state. So, my
dear geek you devout wish would not have been possible because it didn’t
happen. You didn’t think you lived in a liberal democracy or something did
you?
- August 22, 2010 at
21:04
-
“You didn
- August 22, 2010 at 09:45
-
STAZI II
- August 22, 2010 at 09:37
-
This truly terrible. Is there no shame felt by this council in this
persecution of one of the generation that always tried to obey the law?
I linked to your article on my humble blog. Well done Anna.
-
August 22, 2010 at 09:03
-
Actually, Julia, although Parliament (meaning the Parliamentary draftsman
really) is sometimes a bit sloppy, in my view the position is clear: throwing
away a cigarette butt an offence. Getting rid of sum ash or some other
disbursable material is not covered, and if it were, every smoker in the land
who drops ash which floats away on the wind is guilty of an offence. In
addition, DEFRA guidance is that if there is any issue about the persons
intent to create litter (for example, if you drop a
- August 22,
2010 at 07:25
-
“I do not believe that to be parliament
- August 22, 2010 at 12:28
-
Craply drafted law = more work for lawyers.
I can think of two other reasons why lawyers would go to Parliament; 1.
They are no good at lawyering. 2. They want authority.
-
August 22, 2010 at 15:55
-
My father’s a lawyer, Alan. He’s seen it first hand: you can’t be a
decent lawyer and have a political career at the same time. They’re
*failed* lawyers. Or professional politicians who took a law degree to
advance their careers.
Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t teach go
into politics.
But statutes are drafted by civil servants anyway. Good lawyers could
point out poor drafting, but MPs barely read the Bills put before them.
They couldn’t; there’s simply too many.
- August 22, 2010 at 07:18
-
The trouble is, if morons are given discretion, they will handle it like
morons. Thanks for sharing this and supporting this lady.
{ 138 comments }