Stop Local Councils from Prosecuting Innocent People with Barmy Laws

Local councils are threatening to prosecute and are even prosecuting law abiding people (who are not harming anyone else and in some cases actually trying to improve society) for some of the most bizarre reasons.

If you do not believe me consider the following absolutely true and completely daft cases that have appeared in the national and local press

(i) Wiltshire Council threatened a man with prosecution if he cleaned the grass verge outside his property .

(ii) Copeland Borough Council fined a man because his wheelie bin lid was overfilled by four inches.

(iii) Swansea Council prosecuted a man for accidentally putting the rubbish in the wrong cycling bin and now he has a criminal record. The irony here was this man was a keen recycler who was trying hard to recycle.

(iv) Havering Council prosecutes a law abiding shop owner for a scap of paper 120 yards from his shop. That could happen to anyone, for all we know the paper could have been dropped when the bin men last collected the bins or it could have just blown out of the bin.

(v) Ipswich Council fined a 14 year old £50 for feeding a seagull half a chip.

(vi) Hinckley and Bosworth Council prosecuted a man for putting two pieces of junk mail into a street bin with his address on it. Is it really a criminal offence to put rubbish in a street bin?

I could go on and on…

My proposals are that the government should, at the very least, be minded to:

(1)  reword or even, in some cases repeal, any central government laws which allows such crazy prosecutions (or crazy threats to prosecute). I realise that for local bye-laws it might be difficult for central government to do anything.

(2)  not use the criminal law over such trivial matters. Something as serious as a criminal prosecution is not appropriate for some trivial offence like putting rubbish in the wrong place. In none of these cases has anyone deliberately littered or deliberately refused to recycle. Maybe this could be achieved by primary legislation in parliament.

(3) tell councils very firmly that they must use their powers far more sparingly and far more responsibly.

Why is this idea important?

Local councils are threatening to prosecute and are even prosecuting law abiding people (who are not harming anyone else and in some cases actually trying to improve society) for some of the most bizarre reasons.

If you do not believe me consider the following absolutely true and completely daft cases that have appeared in the national and local press

(i) Wiltshire Council threatened a man with prosecution if he cleaned the grass verge outside his property .

(ii) Copeland Borough Council fined a man because his wheelie bin lid was overfilled by four inches.

(iii) Swansea Council prosecuted a man for accidentally putting the rubbish in the wrong cycling bin and now he has a criminal record. The irony here was this man was a keen recycler who was trying hard to recycle.

(iv) Havering Council prosecutes a law abiding shop owner for a scap of paper 120 yards from his shop. That could happen to anyone, for all we know the paper could have been dropped when the bin men last collected the bins or it could have just blown out of the bin.

(v) Ipswich Council fined a 14 year old £50 for feeding a seagull half a chip.

(vi) Hinckley and Bosworth Council prosecuted a man for putting two pieces of junk mail into a street bin with his address on it. Is it really a criminal offence to put rubbish in a street bin?

I could go on and on…

My proposals are that the government should, at the very least, be minded to:

(1)  reword or even, in some cases repeal, any central government laws which allows such crazy prosecutions (or crazy threats to prosecute). I realise that for local bye-laws it might be difficult for central government to do anything.

(2)  not use the criminal law over such trivial matters. Something as serious as a criminal prosecution is not appropriate for some trivial offence like putting rubbish in the wrong place. In none of these cases has anyone deliberately littered or deliberately refused to recycle. Maybe this could be achieved by primary legislation in parliament.

(3) tell councils very firmly that they must use their powers far more sparingly and far more responsibly.

The Real Reason Behind Water Fluoridation

My idea is to alert the public to the facts that are not generally known.

Flouridation is a catch-all term which incorporates many toxic manufacturing wastes in addition to the Fluoride and is  intended to lower the general health of the nation, causing bone cancer, early development of alzheimers, lower IQ, sterility, acceptance of government's ruling without question and general apathy. (Hence the reason Hitler added Fluoride to the drinking water supplies in the concentration camps, and later Stalin also).

Cattle given the choice refuse to drink it.  In areas where water supplies are fluoridated the poison is added to the crops which increases the dosage taken in by the local people.

 

 

  

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to alert the public to the facts that are not generally known.

Flouridation is a catch-all term which incorporates many toxic manufacturing wastes in addition to the Fluoride and is  intended to lower the general health of the nation, causing bone cancer, early development of alzheimers, lower IQ, sterility, acceptance of government's ruling without question and general apathy. (Hence the reason Hitler added Fluoride to the drinking water supplies in the concentration camps, and later Stalin also).

Cattle given the choice refuse to drink it.  In areas where water supplies are fluoridated the poison is added to the crops which increases the dosage taken in by the local people.

 

 

  

Erosion of the majorty’s civil rights by the PC Brigade

Often we hear about the so called PC brigade asking for things to be changed because they MAY cause offence to some sections of our society, examples that come to mind are the removal of all images of Jesus from Christmas cards/items, and a publican asked to display another flag along with the flag (St Georges) he was flying as this may cause offence to anyone seeing just the English flag.We are in England for heavens sake, if people are offended by the above then they not the PC Brigade should object, then way we would have some idea of the number of people who are actually offended, not some view of some annonymous person. I am one of the people of is offended by the PC Brigade making changes to my way of life, without anyone asking me if I am offended by whatever they are thinking of changing.Who takes MY views into consideration?

There should be a proper government office/forum where we can go and say that something is offending us and for that office/forum look into the effect on the whole of our society that a request, if granted, would have on the society as a whole not just change something if one person in say 10,000 is offended as this means that 9,999 are not offended, so why change?

Why is this idea important?

Often we hear about the so called PC brigade asking for things to be changed because they MAY cause offence to some sections of our society, examples that come to mind are the removal of all images of Jesus from Christmas cards/items, and a publican asked to display another flag along with the flag (St Georges) he was flying as this may cause offence to anyone seeing just the English flag.We are in England for heavens sake, if people are offended by the above then they not the PC Brigade should object, then way we would have some idea of the number of people who are actually offended, not some view of some annonymous person. I am one of the people of is offended by the PC Brigade making changes to my way of life, without anyone asking me if I am offended by whatever they are thinking of changing.Who takes MY views into consideration?

There should be a proper government office/forum where we can go and say that something is offending us and for that office/forum look into the effect on the whole of our society that a request, if granted, would have on the society as a whole not just change something if one person in say 10,000 is offended as this means that 9,999 are not offended, so why change?