Excellent News!

Hull is clearly a veritiable paradise on earth. There are no problems still remaining from the floods, poverty has been abolished, there are no children needing council care, the libraries are fully stocked, the schools paragons of perfection.

She said: "I had just picked up Chloe from nursery. We were both hungry so I got us a sausage roll to share. I had a bite and then bent down to give a bit to Chloe who was on her bike.

“A tiny bit missed her mouth and fell on the floor and seconds later some pigeons flew down and grabbed it. I crossed the road and was approached by two men – at first I thought they were canvassers as they were dressed in tracksuit bottoms.

“But one came up to me, said he was from the council and said I was going to be fined for dropping litter.”

She added: “I felt really small and humiliated. I was treated like I was a criminal. Where is the common sense? It was a small, bite-sized piece – just big enough for her mouth.

“I went back to take a picture of the \’litter’, but it had been gobbled by pigeons. There was no litter there at all.”

Hull City Council confirmed a fixed penalty ticket had been issued by a member of its Environment Crime Unit.

Well, it must be, musn\’t it? They wouldn\’t employ people to issue such fines if it weren\’t would they?They\’d be off doing those more important things.

Yes?

Anyone?

Bueller?

20 thoughts on “Excellent News!”

  1. “She added: “I felt really small and humiliated. I was treated like I was a criminal.”

    Just wait for all the commenters who poh-poohed the Bin Lid case last week to pitch up to enthusiastically proclaim that she is, indeed, a criminal…

  2. From the council, in the article: “The issuing of the fixed penalty notice is the result of the mother’s actions and not as a result of child’s.”

    Whether that’s because she dropped a fag at the same time, or because she told the council guys to go and f*** themselves when they asked her to pick up the kid’s litter, isn’t clear.

    But it does sound like the mother’s story – kid drops sausage, jobsworths immediately fine mother – is bollocks.

  3. john b,
    Do you think it is right we have track-suited “Environment Crime Units” patrolling our streets? Stop being an apologist for this fascist government.

  4. Hmmm, my last comment seems to have been caught in a filter.

    I included the link to the BBC report of the young lad stabbed to death in London when two thugs threw a sweet wrapper into his car, and wondered if the fearless litter patrollers of Hull would have been quite as keen to tackle them as they apparently were a mother with a toddler…

    I also note that there is no evidence for john b’s baseless assumption that the fine was issued for anything other than exactly what the lady claimed.

    If there had been the slightest chance the council could claim they were in the right, then even the Johhny-no-stars employed by council PR departments would surely have twigged it might be in their interests to say so.

    Tim adds: Sorry, spam filter being a little aggressive at present.

  5. Do you think it is right we have track-suited “Environment Crime Units” patrolling our streets?

    I thought right-wing types were supposed to be in favour of zero-tolerance, broken-window-style policing…?

    If there had been the slightest chance the council could claim they were in the right, then even the Johhny-no-stars employed by council PR departments would surely have twigged it might be in their interests to say so.

    They did say so, hence the quote. The Telegraph ignored them. The mother has nothing to lose from being caught lying; the council officers do. William of Occam applies here…

  6. “They did say so, hence the quote. “

    What quote…? The only one referred to in the Telegraph and your comment is “The issuing of the fixed penalty notice is the result of the mother’s actions and not as a result of child’s.”

    Can’t see how you make that into the fantasy ‘chav mother slags off honest council employee’ you were peddling above. I read it as ‘the mother was the responsible adult so we are fining her as the child is too young to incur a fine’.

    If there’s another quote that supports your assumption, please link to it.

    If the council officers have something to lose by lying, then it would only make sense for the dim PR people to LIE that she abused them.

    If however she did abuse them, then they could simply say so, and convert this into another Telegraph-beloved story, that of ‘foul-mouthed litter lout’.

  7. “I thought right-wing types were supposed to be in favour of zero-tolerance”: right-wing types think they should have shot the slag, because she was eating pork.

  8. The issuing of the fixed penalty notice is the result of the mother’s actions and not as a result of child’s.”

    ‘the mother was the responsible adult so we are fining her as the child is too young to incur a fine’.

    Those two statements mean *entirely* different things. The first one means “the fixed penalty notice was issued to the mother as the result of her own actions”; the second one means “the fixed penalty notice was issued to the mother as a result of the child’s actions”.

    Interpreting the first stament as meaning the second one requires a special degree of reading incomprehension…

  9. Not, not at all. The mother is the responsible adult and didn’t pick up the litter which the child (not her) dropped. No other ‘actions’ are specified, and believe me, they would be if the council thought it’d get them off the hook.

    To read it any other way is to be obtuse beyond belief and to…oh. I am conversing with john b here….

    Look, if you have a quote that proves the mother kicked off and she is being fined for THAT, pony it up.

    If not, we are forced to conclude that your knee-jerk response to fall into line with officialdom as you did with the Bin Lid thread is driving you a little batty, and into seeing things that aren’t there…

  10. A bit of food dropped by a child – as opposed to being thrown away deliberately – and small enough to be bagged by a pigeon, isn’t worth getting a fine for. Fines for lost socks and mittens will be next, or parking tickets for waiting ambulances.

    Anyway, council employees in tracksuit bottoms? If she was rude, she’d have been entitled to be for that reason alone, nevermind the lack of common sense.

  11. “Anyway, council employees in tracksuit bottoms?”

    Got to blend in with the populace if you want to swell the council coffers with fines…er, I mean, tackle the serious problem of litter.

  12. “john b, please stop digging;)”

    yes, whatever. it’s hilarious the way that while most of the people commenting on this thread would normally run a mile from believing the word of a Benefits Chav Estate Teen Mum on anything, as soon as she’s implicated in an obviously-cooked up piece of Political Correctness Gone Mad bullshit you’re suddenly defending her word as if it she were the bleedin’ Madonna…

  13. Oh, dear, don’t go off in a pet, pet… 🙂

    You see, we are currently taking the word of a ‘Benefits Chav Estate Teen Mum’ because there’s no evidence otherwise. And councils have ‘form’ for this sort of thing lately.

    It could be entirely as you imagine. If so, I suspect there’s a council PR person who is on the carpet just now for forgetting the first rule of PR: ‘Attack is the best form of defence’.

    Oh, what am I saying…? He/she works for the council. Of course there won’t be any adverse consequences jobwise…

  14. And, as has been pointed out, even if she was a ‘Benefits Chav Estate Teen Mum’ who kicked off with a host of four-letter words on being confronted, is the employment of two plainclothes council employees appropriate to prevent the dropping of a freakin’ sausage roll….?

    Not the wrapper. Not a plastic carrier bag. A piece of the roll itself. Totally bio degradable waste. If the article is correct, it didn’t even long breach the five second rule before a pigeon had flown off with it!.

    Think about that. Savour it, as you might savour a particularly nice sausage roll. Then wonder what sort of people you are dealing with (and defending) here…

  15. “Benefits Chav Estate Teen Mum”

    Does a 20 year-old count as a teen mum? Or is the deciding factor the age she became pregnant?

    Does being a teenage chav on benefits mean you deserve a ticket when your sprog drops a bit of pigeon food, whereas baby sausage-roll-droppers belonging to middle-aged, non-chav mothers are O.K.?

    If everyone wears tracksuits, who are the chavs?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *