View Full Version : Job titles...inverse proportion to ability ( Council type !)

Krystal n chips
28th May 2008, 18:21
Not sure which is the most, erm, amusing here.....:rolleyes::E..the very grandiose job title of the terribly, terribly important ( well you have to be surely.... with a job title like the one mentioned.....:ugh::E....don't you ??.).council person...don't want to be be seen as non PC after all ....or the capital offence committed !


No matter, the bolleaux uttered by way of justification says it all !

28th May 2008, 18:54
Don't get me started on politics gone mad. I swear to [insert deity here] that it's going to be the end of me. Apparently common sense is no longer an option.


tony draper
28th May 2008, 18:59
Apparently there is a bit more to the story than that,it featured on the local news here,that area of Eldon Square has just been done up and they are trying to encourage the teen yobs that have made it their bailiwick to **** orf to pastures new and they aint allowed to round them up take them somewhere out of the way and put a nine in their heads now unfortunately,I know it's political correctness gone mad.

28th May 2008, 19:03
We're not talking about a 5 year old who dropped something, but a 16 year old, who admitted that they were aware of what they were doing was wrong.

I know I did something wrong, but if the warden had asked me to pick it up I would have done. But it was just a balloon."

Just maybe, a 50 fine might make him consider his actions in the future, and he might not be tempted to just dump his rubbish for other people to pick up.

The contents of a car ashtray aren't much bigger than a balloon (and they are more biodegradable), so should it be okay to just tip them out of a car window?, how about the odd crisp packet or chocolate bar wrapper, after all, they are only small as well.

James 1077
28th May 2008, 23:39
At some point people in the UK need to remember that these people are civil servants and not civil dictators.

Having read the article better I have no problem with the guy receiving a fine for littering - however I do have a big problem with the fine not being levied by a court.

Why not just draw up some ticket books yourself and start issuing them to all and sundry for any sort of a perceived offense?

Life's a Beech
28th May 2008, 23:48
I agree entirely with 419, the fine was reasonable. They should not be preferentially targeting one group to move them on, but this boy should not be dropping litter.

However, "director of regulatory services and public protection". That is not reasonable. Anyone accepting that job title should be laughed out of the town hall. Anyone who would even venture to apply should be banned from holding a public post for 5 years.

29th May 2008, 01:35
Lets see him do it in Singapore.

Going by the amount of other peoples car tossed litter I pick up from the front wall of our house at home (and we live in the country) the fine should be doubled.

29th May 2008, 02:45
... for any sort of a perceived offense?But littering isn't a perceived offence, it IS an offence. A balloon might not seem like much but when it is added to all the other things that people drop ... all of which (individually) may well be "only" one small item ... you can see how the littering problem grows.

People complain about littering and demand that their local councils keep control of such things. Yet when the council does what it's employed to do, the same people complain about that too. :rolleyes: :confused:

29th May 2008, 04:44
James 1077

At some point people in the UK need to remember that these people are civil servants and not civil dictators.

They are civil servants, they are carrying out the wishes of the majority who don't want people who couldn't give a damn spoiling their environment. If that means dictating to people that they obey the laws then I am all in favour of them being dictators. Why should the fine be levied by a court? the law says for doing what he did, he was entitled to recieve a fixed penalty fine from the appointed officer. Would it have been different if it was a police officer issuing a fixed penalty fine? This person has the right to challenge the fine in court but will probably end up with a higher fine in view of his wasting the time of the court. He admits that he knew he was doing wrong but did it anyway which makes it a malicious act. Then he felt he should have been asked to pick it back up...... Deserves a lot worse if you ask me!

29th May 2008, 07:22
James, the person concerned can refuse to pay the fine and opt to go to court to challenge it, but as they appear to realise that they were well aware of what they were doing was wrong, this probably won't happen.

Personally I agree with this method of getting people to pay.
If they (the litterer) know that they are guilty, they will pay up and not clog the courts with trivial matters, but if they are convinced they are innocent, they can get their say in court.

29th May 2008, 10:23
What gets me annoyed the most is if they drop their rubbish and a rubbish bin is just a few yards away!!

Can't you hold on to your rubbish for just a few steps more to drop it where it belongs???


Foxy Loxy
29th May 2008, 17:52
I may have been a tad slow on the uptake, but I was out in Southend recently and was intrigued to see a "Civil Enforcement Officer" (that's what it said on the epaulettes anyway).... until I saw said individual place a parking ticket on a vehicle. So there is no such thing as Traffic Wardens any more?? :confused:

29th May 2008, 18:28
You may find that said Civil Enforcement Officer is also empowered to issue fixed-penalty notices for those who drop litter or fail to clean up their dog excrement (and any other similar indiscretions that the general public might commit), thus the expanded job-title.

More here:-

Krystal n chips
29th May 2008, 20:06
:hmm: Ok, so there is more to this than meets the eye it seems....c/o our North East Social Affairs correspondent......Mr D. :D:E

Right, first point. Last time I heard of somebody described as a public protector his initials were O. C. !

True, the lad should not have deposited "litter" in the way he did.....although a balloon is hardly the most offensive piece of litter that gets dropped now is it ?.

Then we come to Council powers.....given that most of those who impose these laws are hardly the educational elite.....leaving aside the clinically brain dead superiors waiting for their gong of course....the chances of common sense being applied are roughly the same as me flying to the moon. Of far greater concern however is that the range of "offences" seems to be growing daily......all it takes is some little oxygen thief....the sort who would have been the first to offer his / her / it's services to any invading power to protect it's own neck...to see an opportunity to become even more authoritarian "in the public interest" :yuk:....and UK Councils seem to have a surfeit of such only too ready to impose these laws.

And then we have this little gem......shame they got found out of course....just wondering how many more were thinking ( used reservedly here ) of doing the same ?


29th May 2008, 21:07
The last "freebie" I received from my ex-employer was a nice denim shirt - with the organization's name emblazoned over the pocket. Six words, four of them obnoxious adjectives. :yuk:

Once a year I wear it around the house to remind myself why I quit. :}

29th May 2008, 21:37
Not often I say it, but in this instance I would back the council.

One condition mind...

Littering needs to be enforced across the board along with all other anti-social misdemeanors (dog $hitting in public, urinating in public etc).

As Solar states above. You would not do it in Singapore due the fact that despite what your 'status' is chances are you will end up wearing a nice day-glo jacket whilst sweeping the streets on your time off.

Enforce the basic laws and the rest will follow.

29th May 2008, 21:53
Not surprised the ballon deflated. How the **** could he blow it up in the 1st place with that ridiculous pierced lip? :=

James 1077
29th May 2008, 23:25
R4 +Z

Why should the fine be levied by a court?

Because it should be up to the judiciary to decide what an adequate punishment is for the offence; not for some failure who is so thick that the only job he can get is working for a council with a poncy job title.

Perhaps the order should be; send/give a notice to the "offender" (remembering that they are not guilty of any offence until found so in court) stating that they have been seen doing X in contravention of Y law. The notice should state that Court proceedings will be started in 14/21/31 days unless the "offender" should wish to settle out of court for Z pounds. Should the case go to court the council will seek the costs of processing and prosecuting as well as the original costs of cleaning up after the offense X.

While the outcome is likely to be exactly the same (ie the "offender" pays the money rather than go to court) the order seems more just to me.

30th May 2008, 02:21
Boy got off light.

I mean look at him; fat, ridiculous pierced lip, long scruffy hair. Bet he was slouching as well.

Flog him, I say.