The plot thickens (more tab end saga,sorry)

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:01 am

Well I Emailed our MP,Council Chairman & Mayor.
This is the reply from our council chairman

Quote:

I have spoken to Ian Burton, and he believes what the officer say's and they seem to be determined to take this to court. I did point out that it was the officer's word against you and I felt that it would have been better had there been two officers in the car as they have with the police. but they said the council could not afford it. I also pointed out that the council would be on stronger grounds if we could check the DNA of the cigarette, but again he did not think that was necessary I also remember you saying that you had given up smoking in January, but he says that you had told them in writing that you had smoked the odd cigarette since, So I am not sure I can do anything else in this case.

This is my response to him

Quote:

Thank you very much for this,you have just proven that Ian Burton is either a liar or incompetent.I have copies of every piece of correspondence that has been exchanged between us & I can prove that I have NOT said anything about smoking the odd cigarette.I will provide all the letters in court & when it is over I have every intention of going to the local and national press,especially in light of Ian Burton making this statement to yourself which is absolutely 100% untrue.
I am doing everything I possibly can to avoid going to court,but Ian Burton seems determined to waste our tax payers money on the basis of an uncorroborated accusation with no evidence whatsoever,I am not even sure that this is legal & when I am found innocent I will be looking into suing Hartlepool Council for harrassment.
Once again,thank you for your help,it is much appreciated & Im sure will prove to be invaluable

Our Mayors response

Quote:

Thank you for your e-mail. As you will appreciate, the Council takes littering of any kind very seriously indeed. In fact, I personally receive more complaints about litter and dog fouling than any other issue. It is a problem that blights the town and one which we are trying to tackle at many different levels, both through enforcement and education.

I have looked into the background of your case and spoken to the officers concerned and fully appreciate your wishes for this not to end up in court. Unfortunately, the case has reached the point of no return so to speak and I am unable to intervene.

I am sure you will appreciate, the department has a procedure to follow regarding the enforcement of fixed penalty notices and I am satisfied that the correct procedure has been followed in this case. I must point out that the enforcement officers have an extremely difficult, stressful and sometimes dangerous job and, to my knowledge, they are not in the habit of making things up. The officer concerned is convinced he saw a cigarette end being thrown from you car and his supervisors have no reason to doubt him. You deny it and that is why it is going to court.

I have, in effect, tasked these officers to patrol the streets of Hartlepool and enforce the by-laws on dropping litter. It would be wrong of me to then question their judgement on individual cases. I do accept that mistakes can be made, it is human nature. However, I believe they are vital if we are going to get through to people that littering is not acceptable.

I sincerely hope that, if there wasn't a cigarette discarded from your car, then the magistrates will find in your favour.

Best wishes

I am tempted to reply with "Mr Drummond,I now have proof that Mr Ian Burton DOES make things up" but I think its now time to just wait for my court date,I have enough written evidence from the council to prove their incompetence,if not their dishonesty & plenty of evidence to embarrass them in the press once its over.
One thing I am happy about is that Stuart Drummmond & Carl Richardson at least had the decency to reply.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22670

Interesting.

Putting your particular case aside for a second, don't forget that they both have to act on policy rather than individual cases. Specifically; in effect they have both done as much as they can without undermining the whole system. You have asked them to look into it and they have both spoken to the supervising officer in the hope (probably) of them accepting there could have been a mistake. For either of them to overrule this Ian Burton they would have to essentially called him a liar or incompetent, they couldn't do that without strong evidence that he was mistaken or lying. I don't see that you can criticise either as they've both done as much as they can. (I know you haven't)

Hold your fire now (no pun intended) you've got good evidence that casts doubt on the word of Mr Burton and as Mr Marx said: its impossible to positively identify you. You could also back this up with a CO2 test which would prove whether you smoke or not - admittedly it would only prove the few days before the test but it adds to your case.

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:32 am

I have no criticism of either Stuart or Carl.To be honest I never thought that they would be able to do a lot,but Carl Richardson has actually proven that Ian Burton is unreliable.
The bit about Ian Burton saying he doesnt think they need DNA evidence is laughable,he does not have DNA evidence because it does not exist.Surely they must have realised by now that I am past the point of trying it on to get off with it & that I am going this far because I really DID NOT do it.

Splod · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:47 am

As the Council Chairman reports that you stated in writting that you admitted to smoking the odd cigarette, perhaps it would be prudent for the Chaiman to ask for sight of this written statement and perhaps he could send you a copy. If the document cannot be produced it will at least prove to the Chairman that his staff have mislead him.

Spender · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:22 am

*****Pulls hoodie up and runs for dark alleyway*************** :shock:

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:49 pm

Beef curtain.

katcha · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:32 pm

i'm sure also that there is law that info posted on a forum cannot be used as evidence.....#

do em tone

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:42 pm

We are constantly warned not to take anything thats on internet forums or chat rooms as gospel because we have no way of knowing that people are who or what they claim to be.
Ian Burton says I told THEM in writing,he is either lying or just plain wrong,either way I really dont see how anything he has to say can be accepted as credible by a court.
Im looking forward to the case being over so I can look at suing for compensation,especially after Burtons comment,which amounts to slander.

dawlishmonkey · **Joined:** Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 am **Posts:** 1588

I admire your passion groovy and hope you win.but it might be an idea to be careful what you say about this burton fella on a public forum,sounds a bit personal to me,don't know how that works from a legal point of view

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:57 pm

Theres nothing personal,I have in my possession an email from a prominent local politician which mentions a statement he made about me which is not true.

katcha · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:20 pm

I'm sure it is to do with the fact they cannot prove it was you eho posted it due the possibility that someone else compromised your username and password

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:42 pm

Master of Disguise wrote:

GroovyCrimes wrote:

Our Mayors response

Quote:

Thank you for your e-mail. As you will appreciate, the Council takes littering of any kind very seriously indeed. In fact, I personally receive more complaints about litter and dog fouling than any other issue. It is a problem that blights the town and one which we are trying to tackle at many different levels, both through enforcement and education.(What the fook? Is our Mayor suggesting he gets loads of letters about the odd tab end, or is he using artistic licence here to make a point? I.e Most of the complaints are probably about Fly Tipping.)

I have looked into the background of your case and spoken to the officers concerned and fully appreciate your wishes for this not to end up in court. Unfortunately, the case has reached the point of no return so to speak and I am unable to intervene. (OK Mr Mayor.........should your daft bounder of an officer lose YOU this case........please dont DARE try and increase the council tax)

I am sure you will appreciate, the department has a procedure to follow regarding the enforcement of fixed penalty notices and I am satisfied that the correct procedure has been followed in this case. (Guilty till you prove yourself innocent eh? Does the council have targets to meet Mr Mayor? So they could hand out notices at their leisure?) I must point out that the enforcement officers have an extremely difficult, stressful (I cant believe you of all people are falling for that one.) and sometimes dangerous job and, to my knowledge, they are not in the habit of making things up.(But in this case they have) The officer concerned is convinced (Well he would say that wouldnt he? Whats he gonna do, admit he made it up? ) he saw a cigarette end being thrown from you car (What is he? Eagle eyed action man?) and his supervisors have no reason to doubt him. You deny it and that is why it is going to court.

I have, in effect, tasked these officers to patrol the streets of Hartlepool and enforce the by-laws on dropping litter. It would be wrong of me to then question their judgement on individual cases. (No, but you could question their judgement in general.) I do accept that mistakes can be made, it is human nature.(Its human nature to lie to cover your arse?) However, I believe they are vital if we are going to get through to people that littering is not acceptable. (So a bit like in war, its OK to have the odd innocent casualty to get your message through?)

I sincerely hope that, if there wasn't a cigarette discarded from your car, then the magistrates will find in your favour. (What? This despite all of what you said earlier? Now I think maybe YOU are lying as well.)

Best wishes

Groovy..............I really hope you beat these bounders.

Lets be honest, can anyone be shocked at Mr Drummonds response?, could he really give less of a feck?

no6bus · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 pm **Posts:** 5095

like was said earlier do you expect him to call the other bloke a liar

something like this cannot be altered by the mayor but why let that get in the way of slagging him off.

ffs give the bloke a break.

he was democratically elected by the people of hartlepool and always stood no chance of making a real difference because of the way the political parties will block everything unless it is in their favour.
the only way to achieve any real change is to vote for independents and get rid of labour conservative and the lib dems then the mayor might have some influence.
but i wont hold my breath.

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:08 pm

no6bus wrote:

like was said earlier do you expect him to call the other bloke a liar

something like this cannot be altered by the mayor but why let that get in the way of slagging him off.

ffs give the bloke a break.

he was democratically elected by the people of hartlepool and always stood no chance of making a real difference because of the way the political parties will block everything unless it is in their favour.
the only way to achieve any real change is to vote for independents and get rid of labour conservative and the lib dems then the mayor might have some influence.
but i wont hold my breath.

I realise that! but I'm sure people have asked 'why can't the mayor do something, he is a Poolie', or words to that effect

Being a nice bloke or/and a Poolie has nowt to do with this issue, and why CANT he make a difference, what is the point of taking the coin if he can’t change things?

If he thinks he can’t make a difference, he should jack it in....

no6bus · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 pm **Posts:** 5095

the peoples republic of hartlepool decided to elect a mayor would you have prefered leo gillen to have got in.
mayor drummond was our way of saying up yours

but expecting him to intervene in a fixed penalty dispute is just plain silly.

although i do hope this case is laughed out of court

TalbotAvenger · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:22 pm

no6bus wrote:

the peoples republic of hartlepool decided to elect a mayor would you have prefered leo gillen to have got in.
mayor drummond was our way of saying up yours

but expecting him to intervene in a fixed penalty dispute is just plain silly.

although i do hope this case is laughed out of court

I dont expect him to intervene, some do however

Would it of been any different if Gillen had got in?

I don't live in Hartlepool, but travel back on a regular basis

Can you, as a resident, say it has got any better in, how long is it now, six years?
Council Tax sky high, streets strewn with shite, issues over re-cycling etc etc etc, or doesn't he have a say in any of the issues?

no6bus · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 pm **Posts:** 5095

I don't live in Hartlepool, but travel back on a regular basis

Can you, as a resident, say it has got any better in, how long is it now, six years?
Council Tax sky high, streets strewn with shite, issues over re-cycling etc etc etc, or doesn't he have a say in any of the issues?[/quote]

i have issues with the high council tax but dont we all
i have to say the town is no longer strewn with shite except the 2 legged variety
the issues over recycling are not just in hartlepool but country wide as a result of the goverment rules on landfill
his clean sweep initative was/is a good idea and has been copied by other councils
but we dont know how much behind the scenes back stabbing goes on

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:48 pm

TalbotAvenger wrote:

streets strewn with shite

Like tab-ends you mean! The mayor is trying to clamp down on suchlike but those who get FPN's moan about it!

Seriously the mayor and the council cannot win no matter what they do, people will always moan.

Imagine the story that the Hpool Mail would run if the Mayor got the FPN or prosecution rescinded because the culprit was a Poolie! He would be out of a job ffs!

Like I said before, If Groovy did NOT throw anything out of his window then hopefully he will come out of the prosecution ok. Likewise if it was a passenger who threw something.

If something WAS thrown out of his window by him (it doesnt matter whether it was a tab-end or scrap of paper / whatever) then he cant complain at being prosecuted when he was told that such action would result if the FPN was not paid.

katcha · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm

mayor gets treat like a dog by the rest the councillors
sought ill advice some say when he took office but
he had a bum deal

the mayor has prob read the posts himself cos as far as i am aware he too is a bunkerite

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:13 pm

Like I said,I have no gripe with the mayor,at least he had the decency to reply.
Grave there are no ifs about it.Do you really think that if I had done it I would risk going to court & being presented with proof,the reason I am prepared to go all the way is because I know full well they have no evidence because no evidence exists.

no6bus · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 pm **Posts:** 5095

katcha wrote:

mayor gets treat like a dog by the rest the councillors
sought ill advice some say when he took office but
he had a bum deal

the mayor has prob read the posts himself cos as far as i am aware he too is a bunkerite

he is indeed but has the sense to keep his identity low key but quite a few will be aware of it.
bloody hell another elite the "who knows the mayors bunker name elite"

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:48 pm

GroovyCrimes wrote:

Grave there are no ifs about it.Do you really think that if I had done it I would risk going to court & being presented with proof,the reason I am prepared to go all the way is because I know full well they have no evidence because no evidence exists.

Im not doubting you Groovy, you obviously would know if you had done anything wrong. Did you have a passenger btw?

Jonny · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:58 pm

The mayor is being a bit of an earthworm as usual, if there is no evidence and it is just one persons word against anothers then it SHOULDN'T be going to court. It is a waste of money. Someone in authority with a bit of common sense should intervene and drop the issue, why can't the mayor be that person? How has it reached the point of no return?

As for procedure's, they should change their phuqing procedure to collect any discarded litter so that they have proof that it has been dropped. A tab end would obviously have spit on it and could be tested for ownership. Obviously the person who reported the supposed offence may of made an honest mistake, he may of been under pressure to catch litter bugs to meet targets that the council no doubt have to fund inflated saleries.....

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

You say its a waste of council tax payers money to take it to court but want DNA testing on dropped fag ends??

Sturat hired these people to do a job, he cant then just turn round and say "lets let this one off as he has complained" He has hired them to do a job and that means he trusts them. If he then throws a case out-what does that say of his trust in his workers??

I admire you fighting it groovy but im pretty sure its gonna cost you a fair few quid.

Jonny · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:15 pm

Mr Hamster - People are trusted to do a lot of jobs but it doesn't stop people from dipping into tills, failing to return calls or being generally incompitant does it...?

And as stupid as it is to collect discarded fags when someone has chucked one it is even stupider to have someone in court for allegedly committing an offence when there is no evidence except the officers say so. There would not need to be a DNA test on every cigarette but if they had an uncontaminated sample for each case if someone disputes the claim the evidence would be there.

I also think that Groovy is going to be about a grand lighter when the case goes to court, I know of a case in Sedgefield where someone was done for littering when their bank statement had blown into a park an they ended up paying 900 quid.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:35 pm

Jonny wrote:

And as stupid as it is to collect discarded fags when someone has chucked one it is even stupider to have someone in court for allegedly committing an offence when there is no evidence except the officers say so.

I disagree. Thats like saying that the Police should not prosecute a mugger because the only witness may have made a mistake and got the culprits identity wrong.

There comes a point when a supposed 'experts' opinion will warrant further action. Yes, a mistake is always a slight possibility but many times a prosecution comes as a result of a witness statement. The same applies here.

The prosecution still has to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the offence occured. Therefore if the Officer was close enough etc and his vision was not badly impaired than his statement will carry a lot of weight.

If Groovy's solicitor can raise enough doubts as to the validity of the witnesses statement then its possible that the case will not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted accordingly.

But to say that a case should never be taken against someone on the grounds of a solitary witness statement and no physical evidence is not appropriate. Lots of crimes would go unpunished if this was the case.

Spender · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:27 am

For once I agree with Mr Hamster. You can't give a bloke a job and then do it for him. If the Department makes the decisions, all the Mayor and the Council Leader can do is make the bloke aware that they are aware, but the decision is till made at Department level. Otherwise, next you know the towns knee deep in discarded shite and they're asking why, bloke will reply, you told us not to do anything.

They'll be looking for the publicity AFTER the event. You can already smell the bullshit. 'We will not tolerate these louts throwing their rubbish about in our town, we want a clean town for our citizens, that's why we serve our adoring public....ect etc etc.....blah blah blah' :roll:

This is the age of the soundbite don't forget. confised

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:34 am

no6bus wrote:

katcha wrote:

mayor gets treat like a dog by the rest the councillors
sought ill advice some say when he took office but
he had a bum deal

the mayor has prob read the posts himself cos as far as i am aware he too is a bunkerite

he is indeed but has the sense to keep his identity low key but quite a few will be aware of it.
bloody hell another elite the "who knows the mayors bunker name elite"

I'll have to do a Dibble and change my name now! :evil:

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:21 am

Is Mr Tree aka Ian Burton? :shock:

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

Dibble losing his temper again and resorting to name calling.

I know no one at the council im afraid and dont work for them. I just cant see how he can get away with it if they are so adamant of taking it to court. They will make an example of him, if it goes to court there is no way he will be let off as that will be seen as an even bigger waste of council payers money.

no6bus · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 pm **Posts:** 5095

BUT if it goes to court HOW do they prove the guilt.
no evidence other than a persons word letters/e mails where mr burton contradicts himself
and the magistrate must satisfy him/herself that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged crime was commited by the accused.
or
elect for trial by jury :grin:

katcha · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:40 am

fair point no6

like i've said all along evidence is needed.

one person's alleged sighting of this is not satisfactory and for there to be no hard evidence - ie the fag end - then they don't really have a leg to stand on.

tooth n nail

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:31 pm

no6bus wrote:

or
elect for trial by jury :grin:

He can't, it's a summary offence and therefore only triable in the magistrates' court.

no6bus · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 pm **Posts:** 5095

thats a shame but shows my lack of knowledge of court procedures which i think is a good thing :shock:

The plot thickens (more tab end saga,sorry)

Gadgies online