Flytipper fined after being caught on camera
Zheng was seen dumping waste from a van by a member of public on 22 January, who then called the police and stayed at the scene until officers arrived, Wiltshire Council said.
When confronted by police, Zheng told officers he had been paid £150 to dispose of the wood, but could not take it to the household recycling centre as he was using a commercial vehicle and would have been charged. However, when he was investigated by a council team, Zheng said he was actually paid £350 and was working as a removal person, even though he did not hold a waste carrier's licence.
Mr Smith added: "Choosing to fly-tip as the cheaper option has resulted in a heftier fine payment and a criminal record."I hope that he has learned his lesson."Zheng was initially issued a £1,000 fixed penalty notice in March but this was not paid. Part of his unpaid community work may involve litter collecting around Wiltshire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sturgeon: ‘Witch-hunt' MSPs investigating me were being directed by Salmond
Nicola Sturgeon has said she believes some MSPs who investigated the Scottish Government's handling of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond were 'taking direction' from him. The former Scotland first minister wrote in her autobiography, Frankly, that she thought either Mr Salmond or his allies were guiding some opposition MSPs on what to ask her. She accused her opponents in the special Holyrood committee of a 'witch-hunt' against her. The committee ultimately found Ms Sturgeon misled the Scottish Parliament over the Salmond inquiry. However, she said the probe that 'really mattered' was the independent investigation by senior Irish lawyer James Hamilton which cleared her of breaking the ministerial code. The former SNP leader said that while she was 'certain' she had not breached the code, 'I had been obviously deeply anxious that James Hamilton might take a different view', admitting that 'had he done so, I would have had to resign'. She said that she felt 'on trial' as part of a wider phenomenon that when men were accused of impropriety, 'some people's first instinct is to find a woman to blame'. Ms Sturgeon did admit to 'misplaced trust and poor judgment' in her autobiography, which was published early by Waterstones on Monday, having been slated for release this Thursday. She wrote: 'This feeling of being on trial was most intense when it came to the work of the Scottish Parliament committee set up to investigate the Scottish government's handling of the original complaints against Alex. 'From day one, it seemed clear that some of the opposition members of the committee were much less interested in establishing facts, or making sure lessons were learned, than they were in finding some way to blame it all on me. 'If it sometimes felt to me like a 'witch-hunt', it is probably because for some of them that is exactly what it was. 'I was told, and I believe it to be true, that some of the opposition MSPs were taking direction from Alex himself – though possibly through an intermediary – on the points to pursue and the questions to ask.' Ms Sturgeon described the inquiry, to which she gave eight hours of sworn evidence, as 'gruelling' but also 'cathartic'. MSPs voted five to four that she misled them. The politicians began their inquiry after a judicial review in 2019 found the Scottish Government's investigation into Mr Salmond's alleged misconduct was unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias. Mr Salmond, who died last year, was awarded £500,000 in legal expenses. Ms Sturgeon wrote of the inquiry: 'It also gave the significant number of people who tuned in to watch the chance to see for themselves just how partisan some of the committee members were being. 'Not surprisingly, the opposition majority on the committee managed to find some way of asserting in their report that I had breached the ministerial code. 'However, it was the verdict of the independent Hamilton report that mattered.' She said her infamous falling out with her predecessor was a 'bruising episode' of her life as she accused Mr Salmond of creating a 'conspiracy theory' to defend himself from reckoning with misconduct allegations, of which he was cleared in court. Ms Sturgeon said her former mentor was 'never able to produce a shred of hard evidence that he was' the victim of a conspiracy. She went on: 'All of which begs the question: how did he manage to persuade some people that he was the wronged party, and lead others to at least entertain the possibility? 'In short, he used all of his considerable political and media skills to divert attention from what was, for him, the inconvenient fact of the whole business. 'He sought to establish his conspiracy narrative by weaving together a number of incidents and developments, all of which had rational explanations, into something that, with his powers of persuasion, he was able to cast as sinister.' Ms Sturgeon speaks about Mr Salmond several times in her autobiography, which also has a dedicated chapter to him, simply titled 'Alex Salmond'. In it, she speaks of an 'overwhelming sense of sadness and loss' when she found out about his death, which she said hit her harder than she had anticipated. Ms Sturgeon says the breakdown in their relationship happened long before Mr Salmond's misconduct allegations. She said it had begun to deteriorate when she became first minister in 2014 following his resignation in light of the independence referendum defeat. Ms Sturgeon claims her former boss still wanted to 'call the shots' outside of Bute House and appeared unhappy that she was no longer his inferior. She also accuses him of trying to 'distort' and 'weaponise' his alleged victims' 'trauma' through his allegations of conspiracy. Ms Sturgeon claims that Mr Salmond, who later quit the SNP to form the Alba Party, would rather have seen the SNP destroyed than be successful without him. Despite her myriad claims against her predecessor, though, Ms Sturgeon said: 'Part of me still misses him, or at least the man I thought he was and the relationship we once had. 'I know I will never quite escape the shadow he casts, even in death.'
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? review – just when you thought this case couldn't get any more confusing …
In May 2024, the New Yorker published an article with the headline 'A British nurse was found guilty of killing seven babies. Did she do it?' Access to the online version of Rachel Aviv's piece was banned in the UK due to reporting restrictions, with Letby's retrial on an additional count of attempted murder then imminent. Rules aside, asking whether Letby was in fact innocent also felt taboo at the time, a pursuit for social media conspiracy theorists. Fast forward 15 months, and 'did she do it?' is merely par for the course when it comes to the case, with even experts cited by the prosecution apparently unconvinced of Letby's guilt. This new Panorama comes hot on the heels of an ITV documentary that aired earlier this month, Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?. That programme focused on holes in the evidence that was presented to the jury who found Letby guilty of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven more at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. Hers had been, said Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine, a 'deeply disturbing' trial based on flawed evidence. Claims made in the trial were roundly rubbished by a panel of specialists who reviewed the case, and by experts found by the programme makers, making the evidence sound more like a series of sad anomalies than conclusive proof of wrongdoing by Letby. In any case, one would be unlikely to come away from that programme without at least a measure of doubt about her convictions. And yet, many other doubts do persist, leading – one fears – to a continued stream of programmes about the case. This is the third instalment of Panorama that Judith Moritz has made about Letby; the first, released in 2023, was subtitled The Nurse Who Killed, another last year was named Unanswered Questions, and now, in keeping with the rising sense of uncertainty, we have Who to Believe?. Like the ITV documentary, it considers the limitations of the evidence that put the 35-year-old behind bars. Unlike that documentary, though, it also considers whether the alternative version of events put forward by experts such as Modi and Shoo Lee – who rebutted the prosecution's interpretation of his work on air embolisms – holds water. It is a muddled hour of television, in which Moritz and producer-director Jonathan Coffey (who have also written a book about the case together) describe various things as conjecture, before supplying more conjecture of their own, and ultimately concluding that it's a right old mess. It certainly wouldn't be right to take the ITV documentary – or any other for that matter – as the ultimate authority on the case. But this Panorama seems to add very little in the way of conclusive information. Take, for example, this lightly heated exchange between Moritz and Coffey, who are discussing whether or not it is significant that the prosecution's expert witness, Dr Dewi Evans, changed his mind on one of the babies' cause of death, from air pumped into the stomach to an intravenous air embolism. Moritz: 'It's not like you had a situation where [someone was] saying, this person was shot … actually, no sorry, there's no gunshot wounds at all, I've decided instead they drowned.' Coffey: 'Some people would say that's exactly what we're dealing with here.' Moritz: 'It's certainly a difficult case to get your head around.' Coffey: 'Well, some people would say it's not a difficult case to get your head around, that actually they have got their head around it and the prosecution expert evidence is all over the place.' Moritz: 'Yeah – and other people would say they got their head around it and convicted her!' It's more like a drivetime phone-in than serious investigative journalism. Clearly, Moritz and Coffey care about the case, and about finding out whether Letby has indeed been wrongfully convicted. But in an investigation remarkable for the sheer number of theories involved – and now counter-theories – the addition of counter-counter-theories is hard to compute. A long tangent into the death of one child – Baby O – and how he may or may not have sustained injuries to his liver, only underscores the lack of consensus among experts, and the possibility of falling down rabbitholes at every turn. Similarly, inflated insulin levels in Baby F and Baby L lead to wildly different interpretations depending on who is explaining it all. We are told that the immunoassay tests that were used during the trial were highly unreliable, and shouldn't have been relied on in court. And yet, we also hear that those levels of insulin just cannot be explained away. Unless, of course, the tests were wrong …? And around and around we go. In determinedly not taking any claims at face value, Who to Believe? will surely confuse viewers even more, and brings us no closer to understanding whether there is indeed a compelling alternative to the events set out by the prosecution. It concludes that Letby was either 'spectacularly bad' at her job or this was a major miscarriage of justice. Taking us right back to where we started. Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? aired on BBC One and is on iPlayer now.
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
More than 70 supercars worth £7m seized
More than 70 supercars worth £7million have been seized by police officers across London , including a pair of purple Lamborghinis, alongside Ferraris and Porsches. In a weekend-long operation, led by the Met Police and supported by the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB), up to 72 vehicles with a collective value of almost £7million were taken across the capital. New images have shown an array of flash sports cars confiscated across Hyde Park , Kensington and Chelsea, with the MIB working alongside officers to impound the extravagant vehicles. The crackdown by Scotland Yard comes amid reports of anti-social and dangerous driving, alongside drivers being a 'nuisance' across hotspot areas of London. One of the drivers of the two purple Lamborghinis had been in the country for just two hours and driving for 15 minutes when the luxury car was seized, the MIB said. Up to 75 Met police officers worked to seize the uninsured vehicles, using specialist methods such as ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition), predictive movement tracking and vehicle markers. Several other types of criminal activity were also detected throughout the operation, including individuals wanted for actual bodily harm (ABH) and criminal damage, [expletive] offenses, immigration offenses, stolen vehicles and even fraudulent insurance policies. Meanwhile, some drivers were also found to have been on the roads without a valid license, using a mobile phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt and having illegally tinted windows. Special Chief Officer James Deller from the Met Police, who was in attendance at the operation, said that the operation represented the force's commitment to tackling anti-social behavior. He added: 'This operation was set up to respond to resident, business and visitors' concerns about high-value vehicles causing a nuisance in known hotspot areas in central and west London.' SCO Deller said that the crackdown had been a 'real success' in helping to educate drivers and enforce the law, adding that the force were working to address anti-social behavior caused by uninsured drivers. Meanwhile, Martin Saunders, Head of Uninsured Driving Prevention at MIB, urged motorists to 'check their insurance policy is in place, is appropriate for their needs and to reach out to their insurer if they are unsure on any part of their policy.' He added: 'While many offenders knowingly violated the law, others fell victim to simple mistakes such as bounced payments, failed renewals or incorrect details.' Mr Saunders also confirmed that both the Met and MIB 'plan to continue enforcement and education efforts throughout the year'. A previous clampdown by the Met Police in August last year saw a haul of supercars worth £6million seized as boy racers were accused of using London as 'their own personal racetrack '. Extravagant vehicles including McClarens, Bentleys, Rolls-Royces, Ferraris and Lamborghinis were among the 60-strong collection confiscated by Scotland Yard. It came after concerns had been raised about the streets of central London becoming more like 'racetracks' - prompting officers to swoop into action. Metropolitan Police Special Inspector Geoff Tatman said: 'The Met is working to put communities first - listening to and tackling their concerns. 'This hugely successful operation has proved we are dealing with those crimes, such as anti-social driving, that is causing most distress to residents and tourists.' He insisted officers were 'doubling down on crime on the roads' as he praised the 'hard work and dedication' of Scotland Yard's volunteer special constables. Mr Titman described them as playing 'a vital role in our mission to make London safer' as they 'kindly give up their free time to help serve the community'. Council chiefs suggested similar further moves could lie ahead. Cabinet member for city management Paul Dimoldenberg said: 'People who think it is okay to use our roads as their own private racetrack late at night are not welcome in Westminster. 'The noise and dangerous driving from these boy racers is often worse during the summer, so I welcome these results from the enforcement work'. Last September, a driver pleaded with police to 'let him off' as it was his wedding day after they found he had no insurance on a £200,000 Lamborghini. The soon-to-be groom was picked up by road traffic officers following four reports that the lime-green sports car had been speeding. They ran checks on the convertible vehicle - after stopping it in Bury, Greater Manchester - which showed it did not have any damage protection. The man then tried to use his upcoming nuptials to plead with officers to spare him punishment. But Greater Manchester Police joked that as they had 'no confetti on hand', they ignored his request and 'threw six penalty points' at him instead. The officers also seized the vehicle. Meanwhile, just month it was revealed that more than 30 locations across London have been identified as the worst for anti-social behavior, theft and street crime. Some 20 town centre and high street areas now account for 10 per cent of knife crime, 24 per cent of theft person offenses and 6 per cent of anti-social behavior calls. These have been identified as 'Tier 1' regions - including town centers in Barking, Brixton , Ealing, Croydon, Woolwich, Ilford, Kingston, Romford and Shoreditch.
