Well,the feckers are prosecuting me.

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:45 am

Quote:

The environmental etc etc has instructed my department to prosecute you for depositing & leaving litter namely a cigarette end in Catcote Road on 24th July at 12:50pm.
I understand that a fixed penalty notice was sent & has not yet been paid & you are therefore liable to be prosecuted under section 87 which carries a maximum penalty of £2500.In addition you will be liable to pay prosecution costs of £80.
I am however willing to withhold court action for 7 days to allow you to pay the fixed penalty of £75
If you have any queies or wish to discuss this matter further contact blah blah blah

So there we have it,Hartlepool council refuse to accept that they can make mistakes & when challenged resort to extortion.I guess my next move is to go to the press & accuse the council of extortion & question their integrity,especially Ian Wright,Stuart Drummond & Carl Richardson who are our main 3 elected officials.
This may well end up costing me more than £75,but I will embarrass these feckers every step of the way.
Next May look at who your representatives are & vote every one of the bastads out!!!

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:48 am

By the way,does anyone know the addresses where Drummond & Wright can be contacted ?

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:59 am

I hope youre right,I will be writing to Misters Drummond,Wright & Richardson today.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

Can I just ask, and it'll go no further than this board (I missed the start of the saga), are you actually completely innocent in this? Or did you chuck a tab end out of the window, or one of your passengers, and are you just trying it on to see if you can get away with it?

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:52 am

The council official states that he seen a male chuck a fag end out of my drivers window & that is not true.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

If you don't smoke then you can't have chucked a tab end out of the window. No tab throwing passengers on the day in question?

Splod · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:02 am

You could ask to examine the evidence in this heinous crime. I presume they have kept the evidence - if not why not?

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:03 am

They are not accusing passengers they are accusing me so thats irrelevant,but yes I did have a passenger in the car that day.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

Time for an angry letter.

" Dear whoever,

With reference to your latest notice asking me to pay the fine within 7 days or face court action, for the very last time I would like to remind you that I DO NOT SMOKE. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that I threw a cigarette end out of my drivers side window. Do you understand? IMPOSSIBLE. I DID NOT do it.

Please GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS that non smokers DO NOT throw cigarette ends out of windows, and accept that your official is wrong!

I refuse to pay the fine within 7 days, and I will not have to pay £80 court costs at all, because I will win the case, should you STILL decide to proceed with your action.

Furthermore, if you do not cease this harassment of me, which is causing me mental stress, sleepless nights and not forgetting time taken out of my life to keep corresponding with you to seemingly bang my head against a brick wall, then I will take my grievances to the press and I will write to other council representatives informing them of this ridiculous situation.

I look forward to your PROMPT reply.

Yours in anger and frustration,

Groovy chimes"

Something like that should do.

ptbap · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:20 am

you do have your uses after all then! Although I can't recommend the 'thick skulls' bit, that isn't really going to help the situation.

My one worry is you are taking on the system here, if it ends up being your word against there's, who's side will a judge come down on?

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:22 am

If only it were that simple quakerz,anyway this morning the binmen have just provided me with the perfect ammunition to question the councils integrity & I have the photos to prove it.

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:30 am

My reply at the minute goes....

Quote:

Dear Ms Leonard
FIXED PENALTY NOTICE *****

I have received a letter of intention to prosecute regarding the fixed penalty notice number ***** which states that if I have any further queries or wish to discuss matters further I am to contact yourself.
This fixed penalty alleges that I deposited a cigarette from my car window which I did not do as I stopped smoking in January this year.
I have corresponded with Mr Burton from environmental enforcement who refuses to consider that the issuing officer could make a mistake,yet still offers no evidence to prove that this offence occurred other than the word of the issuing officer who seems to be embellishing his statement every time he is asked.
As Im sure you will appreciate I have thought about this a lot & cant allow myself to pay a penalty for something that I didn’t do,therefore I must inform you that I cannot pay this penalty.
If this case is to be referred to the magistrates court may I request that we avoid Tuesdays & Thursdays as I do college studies and charity work on those days.I will also be out of town on Friday 21st September and Friday 2nd November.
I regret that we have to waste each others valuable time by going this far,but paying a penalty for something you didn’t do is something that Im sure neither of us belive is right.
Last but not least can I draw your attention to 2 photographs that were taken this morning.The first taken after my blue box was emptied showing that a can has been dropped on the floor.The second after my Green bin was emptied showing the can still on the floor.
I would appreciate it if someone from your department can expain your position here as one of your staff has dropped litter outside my house & another of your staff has walked right past it.I am curious as to wether it is OK for your staff to leave litter in the street or is it just possible that this can was dropped by accident & a member of your staff has made a mistake ?

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

ptbap wrote:

you do have your uses after all then! Although I can't recommend the 'thick skulls' bit, that isn't really going to help the situation.

My one worry is you are taking on the system here, if it ends up being your word against there's, who's side will a judge come down on?

Thick skulls. Sometimes you have to tell it as it is to show you mean business. They can't prosecute him for his opinion of them.

Personally I wouldn't try to bring stuff about the binmen into it, because it would look like you're trying to distract away from the alleged offence and get away with it on a technicality.

You need to keep it simple. You do not smoke therefore you did not and could not have possibly thrown a tab end.

I'm not so sure that a court would come down on the side of the council if groovy chimes persistantly lays it on the line that he does not smoke.

Also if they ask if he has ever smoked, all he has to do is say "no I've never smoked" as they can't prove otherwise.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

Have you told them in previous correspondance that you stopped smoking in January? If you haven't, then change the sentence from "I stopped smoking in January" to "I do not smoke"

The reason I say that is because if they know you once smoked they may think that you are just simply moving the stopped smoking date to fit.

I'm also concerned about the line "yet your officer still offers no proof that the offence occurred".

The reason I say that is because when guilty people are charged with something and are trying to get away with something and think they might get away with it, they'll say "prove it then". An innocent person is more likely to keep repeating "I did not do it, and here is the reason why, your officer is clearly wrong"

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22621

Mr Crimes, the first letter should be polite, respectful and conciliatory but stating your position clearly. The other stuff such as the can on the road is entirely irrelevant to this case and including it at this stage would only antagonise the bloke. The desired resuly is that the penalty is dropped, you're not going to achieve that by sticking two fingers up to him. I've drafted a simple letter below which I suggest you send. Once a response is recieved that we can look at offering the other information.

Quote:

Dear Mr Leonard

I have recently received a letter of intention to prosecute regarding the fixed penalty notice number ***** I enclose a copy for your consideration. The notice states that if I have any further queries or wish to discuss matters further I am to contact yourself.

This fixed penalty alleges that I deposited a cigarette from my car window in January this year. I vehemently contest this allegation given that is it simply impossible for me to have discarded this alleged cigarette end; I do not smoke nor do I allow smoking in my car.

I have corresponded with Mr Burton from environmental enforcement who refuses to consider that the issuing officer could make a mistake. There is no evidence to prove that this offence occurred other than the statement of the issuing officer. This statement has differed on the three occasions I have corresponded with Mr Burton.

As I'm sure you will appreciate that it is neither fair nor just for Mr Burton to disregard my response. I accept that the issuing officer was most likely acting in a manner that he believe to be correct however he is undoubtedly mistaken. Consequently I would respectfully request that you withdraw this penalty notice. Clearly from an unbiased perspective it is demonstrably highly unlikely that a non smoker would be discarding cigarette butts and I am advised that court action would be likely to fail.

I have no wish to go through the courts over a relatively minor matter but I am resolute in that I cannot pay a fine or penalty that is not justified.

I would be grateful if you could give this matter your urgent attention and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

grabec · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:57 am

Quakerz wrote:

Have you told them in previous correspondance that you stopped smoking in January? If you haven't, then change the sentence from "I stopped smoking in January" to "I do not smoke"

The reason I say that is because if they know you once smoked they may think that you are just simply moving the stopped smoking date to fit.

I'm also concerned about the line "yet your officer still offers no proof that the offence occurred".

The reason I say that is because when guilty people are charged with something and are trying to get away with something and think they might get away with it, they'll say "prove it then". An innocent person is more likely to keep repeating "I did not do it, and here is the reason why, your officer is clearly wrong"

Poor Groovy...must be a bit of a drag having this hanging over you for so long. If the worst comes to the worst, I'm sure we'll have a whip round, but I can't see how the council can win when they have no proof, as Mr Pinhead has already said. Agree with Quakerz that bringing up the binmen thing at this stage might be a bit dodgy....I can see how that might be used against you in court, especially as your pics don't actually show who left the can. But it's just a hostage to fortune for Q to suggest saying Groovy should say he's never smoked. Of course they could prove he used to...people will have seen him. What's the point of lying when the truth is just as effective?

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

He's already done polite letters though.

good letter mind.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

grabec wrote:

Quakerz wrote:

Have you told them in previous correspondance that you stopped smoking in January? If you haven't, then change the sentence from "I stopped smoking in January" to "I do not smoke"

The reason I say that is because if they know you once smoked they may think that you are just simply moving the stopped smoking date to fit.

I'm also concerned about the line "yet your officer still offers no proof that the offence occurred".

The reason I say that is because when guilty people are charged with something and are trying to get away with something and think they might get away with it, they'll say "prove it then". An innocent person is more likely to keep repeating "I did not do it, and here is the reason why, your officer is clearly wrong"

Poor Groovy...must be a bit of a drag having this hanging over you for so long. If the worst comes to the worst, I'm sure we'll have a whip round, but I can't see how the council can win when they have no proof, as Mr Pinhead has already said. Agree with Quakerz that bringing up the binmen thing at this stage might be a bit dodgy....I can see how that might be used against you in court, especially as your pics don't actually show who left the can. But it's just a hostage to fortune for Q to suggest saying Groovy should say he's never smoked. Of course they could prove he used to...people will have seen him. What's the point of lying when the truth is just as effective?

OK I'll put it another way. He does not need to tell them that he stopped smoking in January. It is irrelevant. On July 24th, he is a non smoker and could not have done it. That is all that is important.

I also doubt that they would go around asking people if he used to smoke.

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:01 pm

Excellent Mr I.Puts across what Im saying very eloquently.
I did already mention January in my 1st letter to them,but if they do insist on prosecuting I will be able to take a breath test & get a smoke free result

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22621

Quakerz wrote:

He's already done polite letters though.

good letter mind.

Aye but if he goes to court he can demonstrate that he has done all in his power to communicate with the council and provide evidence that the charge is wrong. The council could be viewed as being bloody minded.

grabec · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:09 pm

Quakerz wrote:

grabec wrote:

Quakerz wrote:

OK I'll put it another way. He does not need to tell them that he stopped smoking in January. It is irrelevant. On July 24th, he is a non smoker and could not have done it. That is all that is important.

I also doubt that they would go around asking people if he used to smoke.

Myself I strongly suspect that they're trying to call Groovy's bluff, and that he'll give in and just pay up. What judge would rely on evidence of an official who has changed his story 3 times?
So of course the Council will be looking for evidence to undermine him. Saying he hasn't smoked when he has is just the lever they would need to be able to question his honesty

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:10 pm

Its the first time Ive spoken to this Ms Leonard so Im gonna go with Mr Is draft & keep it polite & friendly at the moment,I have been tempted to just cough up,but it will bug me for evermore if I go guilty on something I didnt do.
Thanks for all your input folks,it is much appreciated.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

The trouble is that if they know he used to smoke but stopped in January he is on a sticky wicket, for they can reasonably assume that although now a non smoker, he could have fallen off the wagon on July 24th, and their man saw it happen. He can't prove he didn't smoke on the day in question, so he should always have said "I do not smoke" from day one.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

GroovyCrimes wrote:

Its the first time Ive spoken to this Ms Leonard so Im gonna go with Mr Is draft & keep it polite & friendly at the moment,I have been tempted to just cough up,but it will bug me for evermore if I go guilty on something I didnt do.
Thanks for all your input folks,it is much appreciated.

You simply can't cough up, you just can't. Even if it goes to court and you get found guilty. You get the press involved then.

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

Can you not ring them? Sometimes ringing the person for an "ear to ear" chat has much more effect, and then you write a letter corroborating your conversation.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:20 pm

Just a couple of tweaks...

Mr I wrote:

I have recently received a letter of intention to prosecute regarding the fixed penalty notice number ***** I enclose a copy for your consideration. The notice states that if I have any further queries or wish to discuss matters further I am to contact yourself.

This fixed penalty alleges that I deposited a cigarette from my car window in January this year. I vehemently contest this allegation given that is it simply impossible for me to have discarded this alleged cigarette end; I do not smoke nor do I allow smoking in my car.

It is alleged that I deposited a cigarette.... (penalties do not allege)
that is it simply impossible for me to have discarded a cigarette end (no need to go overboard with allegations!)

I have corresponded with Mr Burton from environmental enforcement who refuses to consider that the issuing officer could make a mistake. There is no evidence to prove that this offence occurred other than the statement of the issuing officer. This statement has differed on the three occasions I have corresponded with Mr Burton.

I have corresponded with Mr Burton from environmental enforcement who rejects the possibility of a mistake by the issuing officer. (he did consider it before rejecting it didn't he; I think in one of his replies he says he has had a further word with the issuing officer)

As I'm sure you will appreciate that it is neither fair nor just for Mr Burton to disregard my response. I accept that the issuing officer was most likely acting in a manner that he believe to be correct however he is undoubtedly mistaken. Consequently I would respectfully request that you withdraw this penalty notice. Clearly from an unbiased perspective it is demonstrably highly unlikely that a non smoker would be discarding cigarette butts and I am advised that court action would be likely to fail.

I am sure you will appreciate... (the original sentence is badly formed)
... that he believed to be correct; however he is undoubtedly mistaken. (typo)

I have no wish to go through the courts over a relatively minor matter but I am resolute in that I cannot pay a fine or penalty that is not justified.

I would be grateful if you could give this matter your urgent attention and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

grabec wrote:

Myself I strongly suspect that they're trying to call Groovy's bluff, and that he'll give in and just pay up. What judge would rely on evidence of an official who has changed his story 3 times?
So of course the Council will be looking for evidence to undermine him. Saying he hasn't smoked when he has is just the lever they would need to be able to question his honesty

Yes but smoking in the past is irrelevant. The statement "I do not smoke" on July 24th, is truthful, factual and relevant. Not mentioning smoking in the past is not dishonesty because it has nothing to do with July 24th. I would have only told them that I stopped smoking in January if they had asked me if I ever smoked in the past.

Unfortunately, he's told them anyway, so is going to have to deal with that if they try and use it against him.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22621

Thats the reason I used the expression "I do not smoke nor do I allow smoking in my car" that is a statement of fact. If they come back and say "you used to smoke" the obvious answer is 'so what?, I used to wear nappies and suck a dummy too'

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

Indeed!

grabec · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:37 pm

Yes, I see that...I thought at first that Quakerz was saying something else.

Is it Groovy's case that no-one at all was smoking in his car, though?

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:02 pm

Did you say that you had a passenger at the time?

Have you considered wheeling said passenger out in court to give evidence?

Mr Poolz · **Joined:** Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:34 pm **Posts:** 484

Maybe the passenger was a "lady of the night"?

Compo · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:58 pm

i hope you do get it over turned as its just madness, how many kids go along catcote rd smoking throwing litter about and chewing gum at that, however i do see a slight problem if it does go to court hope any of the sniveling councilers or magistrates dont post on here

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:07 pm

Ms Leonards reply

Quote:

I would advice that all correspondence regarding this matter must now cease as the file has now been passed to our legal section

"I would advice" for fecks sake it sounds like a Nigerian 419 scammer.Unbelievable that they tell me to adress any further queries to her & she gives me this response.
Time to contact our council leader,MP & mayor as well as the press.

Miss Tigga · **Posted:** Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:40 pm

But she only advises that the correspondence stops, not that it should. :wink:

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:49 pm

GroovyCrimes wrote:

Ms Leonards reply

Quote:

I would advice that all correspondence regarding this matter must now cease as the file has now been passed to our legal section.

She *would* advice (sic) you of that if what?

"Ms Leonard,

I must advise you that you have no authority to require me to stop corresponding.

I also insist that my future correspondence be dealt with by someone who has received training in the proper use of the English language."

billyisgod · **Joined:** Thu May 17, 2007 3:13 pm **Posts:** 90

Richard M. Head wrote:

GroovyCrimes wrote:

Ms Leonards reply

Quote:

I would advice that all correspondence regarding this matter must now cease as the file has now been passed to our legal section.

She *would* advice (sic) you of that if what?

"Ms Leonard,

I must advise you that you have no authority to require me to stop corresponding.

I also insist that my future correspondence be dealt with by someone who has received training in the proper use of the English language."

the idiocy of beaurochracy amazes me, spellings aside, and i hope your local authority officers get their bare arses spanked publically for wasting tax payers money!

grabec · **Posted:** Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:19 pm

This is turning into a farce, ain't it, if it means that no-one in the Council who's commented on the case so far has had any legal background. Explains a lot; but it looks quite promising, as Mr Pinhead says, because now the status of the 'evidence' will be exposed

(The mayor doesn't have the power to intervene in legal cases.)

grabec · **Posted:** Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:33 pm

offshorepoolie wrote:

Methinks...opps, once the lawyers get hold of this there will be a climb down...

Then Groovy can sue them for harrassment

Spender · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:35 am

Pinhead wrote:

Well I am no expert on Law................I know......you are surprised.

But:

Is it not the case that a magistrate would have to come down on the side of the law........not on personal opinion of who he believes?

For example: If the Police or CPS prosecute they do so, only when they have evidence and proof to back up their case. Not on the say so of one official.

So, if this magistrate is in abad mood and finds you guilty........you then appeal, and go to a higher court, when evidence will be needed.

I cant believe our Mayor has not stepped in here to stop this needless waste of tax payers money.

If he doesnt step in, I will personally question him as to how he dare justify an increase in the council tax.......when he allows wastage like this to go on.

Firstly there's three magistrates, not one. Therefore one in a bad mood will not make much difference if the other two aren't because it has to be a majority decision.

Secondly if they produce evidence in court that Groovy could have seen beforehand the Magistrates will be furious because that means the whole matter could have been resolved without going to court and they HATE it when court time gets wasted.

Thirdly, the mayor is hardly likely to patrol corridors of the Civic Centre knocking on every door and asking 'are you prosecuting anyone off the Bunker today?? If so, stobbit.....' is he?? He's at the top of the tree and these amoebae are at the bottom.

Fourthly, as the matter is now due in court, no-one will comment publicly.

Hopefully, the magistrates will see it as it is and throw it out but I doubt it. Frustrating though it'll be for them, they'll patiently sit through it and come to a conclusion based on the evidence put in front of them.

Crucial point: if this 'operative' says he saw the fag end come out of your window, what did he do then? How far away was he?? Did he step into the road without taking his eyes off it?? If not, how does he know the fag end that he eventually identified was yours and didn't come from another vehicle while he was looking right and left? If stuck try this one: Do they DNA evidence directly identifying the cigarette end as one handled by you??

Compo · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:54 am

Pooliekev wrote:

Pinhead wrote:

Do they DNA evidence directly identifying the cigarette end as one handled by you??

very good point all groovey has to say i am willing to have a DNA test to compair my profile with the affore mentioned butt, if they say they dont have it just suggest it was a vital piece of evidence in the case and could have proved the point then ask why if the person writting the ticket didnt pick it up surely this was a dereliction of duty and they all should pick up the ends incase people appeal, also this would clean up the street of the mentioned butts that they are winging about

Spender · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:53 am

I would just stick with the question, as Groovy knows for a fact that they don't. Whatever the 'operative' did isn't relevant as he's not the one on trial. The stark fact is that they have to prove that Groovy deliberately deposited litter. They say he did, he says he didn't. Can they prove that he handled the item in question. If not, no case.

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:06 am

My 3 main concerns in this which I have emailed to Misters Richardson,Wright and Drummond,all of who will be canvassing for votes at some point in the future & could do without bad press.

Quote:

1

The issuing officer initially simply states my car registration number & alleges a cigarette was discarded

When I question this the issuing officer then decides to state that it was a male.

When I again refute this allegation the officer states that he is ‘convinced he saw’ the offence occur whilst the car was stationary,yet he did not approach the car to issue the penalty.

When I again refute this the officer decides that he is now not just ‘convinced he saw’ the event but that it did happen & he now deides to mention that it was the car driver.

This officer has embellished his statement every time I have questioned him & still hasn’t given a full account such as a description of the driver or the number of occupants in the vehicle,which direction the vehicle was traveling or where he ‘witnessed’ the event from.

2

I Contacted Mr Ian Burton on 28 August.I received a letter from the council legal department on 29th August stating their intent to prosecute.I also received a letter from Mr Burton dated 29th August which shows that he has asked the legal department to prosecute before even considering my correspondence.

3

The letter from the legal department states

“If you have any queries regarding the above or wish to discuss matters further please contact Alison Leonard”

Yet when I contact Ms Leonard I get the response

“I would advice that all correspondence regarding this matter must now cease as the file has now been passed to our legal section”

I know full well that they have no eividence at all because I didnt do it,I am completely gobsmacked that they are pushing this all the way to court,I can understand them knocking back my first couple of letters in case I was trying it on,but surely they must see that in being prepared to go to court I am not just trying it on.
Anyway,the points I have highlighted show that they have been determined to go to court & waste our council tax rather than conced their mistake.

Mr Ripper · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:23 am

Out of order to blame the mayor.

Quite true that nearly all council employees are thick as pigsht.

Gibsons Beard · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:23 am

Pinhead wrote:

I havent blamed the mayor. I know its not his doing.

But if he reads this board, then he now knows of a problem. As mayor, representing the people, he should act, now he sees a problem.

Its what representing the people is all about.

But what about representing all the people that phone the council complaining about littering ffs. Can you imagine the response of a rate payer who phones the council to complain about his neighbour throwing fag ends out of his window onto the street only to be told by the said council worker "Sorry but enforcing littering legislation is a waste of time, we dont enforce it as people just complain that we are being petty and wasting tax payers money by enforcing it."

There are two sides to every argument. If Groovy did not throw the fag end out of the window then I would prey the lack of any real evidence would go in his favour, if he did throw the fag end then why should action not be taken (ps I suspect by what Groovy has said that he 'didnt' do it) however its wrong to blame the council for enforcing littering laws that they are told (by the taxpayers) to enforce!

parmopooly · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:33 am

Mr Ripper wrote:

Out of order to blame the mayor.

Quite true that nearly all council employees are thick as pigsht.

they're like the police, no matter how useless or vindictive they are, it has to be something very serious for them to be moved jobs into a more appropriate vocation, and it will have to make the papers for them to get the sack!!!!

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:46 am

Doesn't anyone listen to me? The main point here, is that the officer identified the CAR, not the person. As a result, they have no idea who the culprit was. Groovy could've loaned the car to a mate, who did this. The officer can't prove who was driving, only that it was a man. Well, that's half the population. More importantly, there's no obligation on groovy to state who was driving.

Those of you who have been caught speeding by a camera will know the drill. You get a form from the rozzers asking you to identify who was driving. You get this, because they can't assume that the registered keeper was driving the vehicle. They need to know the exact person. If you didn't submit the form, you couldn't be prosecuted for speeding because they can't identify the culprit. (However, failure to complete the form is an offence!)

Groovy. Stop the letters, there's no point. Wait for your court appearance. See the duty solicitor on the day, and tell him or her that the officer can't identify who was in the car. There's a simple lack of effective identity evidence here.

Spender · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:00 am

Talking of speeding Mr Marx, why is it likely that Victor Pericard got 4 months in nick for lying about his driver, and Teddy Sheringham got off with a caution?? confised

Karl Marx · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:04 am

Pooliekev wrote:

Talking of speeding Mr Marx, why is it likely that Victor Pericard got 4 months in nick for lying about his driver, and Teddy Sheringham got off with a caution?? confised

Teddy offered his missus to the arresting officer?

Spender · **Posted:** Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:10 am

I would imagine that Teddy has better access to guest tickets at good stadiums but he's a single bloke!! Seriously, isn't there a standard set by the CPS or someone??

Well,the feckers are prosecuting me.

Gadgies online