Woman is fined after paying someone in good faith to get rid of her rubbish
A woman must pay more than £400 after asking someone in good faith to get her rubbish removed.
After around 20 bags of waste were dumped in a residential area in a village, Tyler Marie Richards was traced and an authority identified the rubbish as hers. The 15 black bags and four recycling bags contained household waste, and were abandoned beside a cardboard box, a plastic kennel, a black plastic bin and general loose waste near homes.
Richards, from Tonypandy, south Wales, had paid someone in good faith to have the waste removed - but the result was flytipping. The woman failed to engage with enforcement officers from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council and didn't attend a number of interviews in relation to the flytipping.
She has now been found guilty of failing to control her waste and committing an offence under Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Wales Online reports. Richards has been handed a fine of £120, costs of £255.51 (clean-up costs only) and a victim surcharge of £48 - totalling £423.51.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, led by Labour, says the removal of flytipping costs the authority hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. Councillor Ann Crimmings, who is Cabinet Member for Environment and Leisure, added: "Flytipping will not be tolerated, ever. There is never an excuse to blight our, towns, lanes, streets and villages with waste, and we will find those responsible and hold them to account.
"Our teams work hard to keep our streets and back lanes clean, and flytipping of any kind will not be tolerated. This case acts as a clear reminder to householders or businesses that if you pay someone, other than the council, to take your waste away, you should always check they have a waste carrier licence and ask for a waste transfer note. If your waste is fly tipped, you could be fined along with the individual or company you paid to remove it.
"Removal of flytipping costs hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, which should be spent on key frontline services at a time when budgets are under significant pressures.
"We will use every power available to us to hold those accountable for their actions. Many of the items we recover on our streets, towns and mountains could have been taken to a community recycling centre or collected from the kerbside at no extra cost."
A flytipper in nearby Pontypool was branded "selfish" by police after dumping carpets, backpacks, blankets, mattresses, half-empty tubs of paint, empty boxes and many other pieces of junk on a rural lane last year. Their actions blocked a road, cutting off a community for hours.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Woman is fined after paying someone in good faith to get rid of her rubbish
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council took action against Tyler Marie Richards and the woman, from Tonypandy, south Wales, was eventually fined more than £400 A woman must pay more than £400 after asking someone in good faith to get her rubbish removed. After around 20 bags of waste were dumped in a residential area in a village, Tyler Marie Richards was traced and an authority identified the rubbish as hers. The 15 black bags and four recycling bags contained household waste, and were abandoned beside a cardboard box, a plastic kennel, a black plastic bin and general loose waste near homes. Richards, from Tonypandy, south Wales, had paid someone in good faith to have the waste removed - but the result was flytipping. The woman failed to engage with enforcement officers from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council and didn't attend a number of interviews in relation to the flytipping. She has now been found guilty of failing to control her waste and committing an offence under Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Wales Online reports. Richards has been handed a fine of £120, costs of £255.51 (clean-up costs only) and a victim surcharge of £48 - totalling £423.51. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, led by Labour, says the removal of flytipping costs the authority hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. Councillor Ann Crimmings, who is Cabinet Member for Environment and Leisure, added: "Flytipping will not be tolerated, ever. There is never an excuse to blight our, towns, lanes, streets and villages with waste, and we will find those responsible and hold them to account. "Our teams work hard to keep our streets and back lanes clean, and flytipping of any kind will not be tolerated. This case acts as a clear reminder to householders or businesses that if you pay someone, other than the council, to take your waste away, you should always check they have a waste carrier licence and ask for a waste transfer note. If your waste is fly tipped, you could be fined along with the individual or company you paid to remove it. "Removal of flytipping costs hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, which should be spent on key frontline services at a time when budgets are under significant pressures. "We will use every power available to us to hold those accountable for their actions. Many of the items we recover on our streets, towns and mountains could have been taken to a community recycling centre or collected from the kerbside at no extra cost." A flytipper in nearby Pontypool was branded "selfish" by police after dumping carpets, backpacks, blankets, mattresses, half-empty tubs of paint, empty boxes and many other pieces of junk on a rural lane last year. Their actions blocked a road, cutting off a community for hours.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Gap in law could see young people ‘committing terrorist acts by weekend'
He backed the Home Office's plan to ban Palestine Action, adding it to the list of 81 organisations which are already proscribed including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. Lord Walney told peers it was 'a nonsense' that groups which have advocated causing 'damage', such as Palestine Action, 'have been able to operate freely for as long as they have'. But opposing the move, Labour former Northern Ireland and Wales secretary Lord Hain warned: 'If you start labelling people willy-nilly terrorists right across the board, you're going down a very, very dangerous route.' Lord Walney said: 'There is a gap in the law, it seems to me at the moment, where we ought to be able to place a restriction on an organisation that is committing systematic criminality in the name of a cause without necessarily branding them as terrorists.' He suggested a future law change could mean authorities do not 'end up branding young people who are going to be committing terrorist acts, probably, by the weekend' as terrorists. The independent crossbench peer, who was previously a Labour MP, later said: 'I think we have to think more in the Labour movement about working people here, because they have been systematically targeted in defence factories. They have been deeply intimidated. Lord Hain warned of going down a 'very dangerous route' (PA) 'At times, they have been violently injured, and it's totally unacceptable for the Labour movement to say, 'well that's ok, because it's in a cause'.' The Home Office's order, using the Terrorism Act 2000, will make it a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison to be a member of Palestine Action or to support it. The group claimed responsibility for a break in at RAF Brize Norton last month, when activists damaged two RAF Voyager aircraft using paint. Crossbencher Lord Carlile of Berriew, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, urged peers to 'act responsibly' by 'accepting this instrument'. Baroness Jenny Jones of Moulsecoomb moved a motion to 'regret' the Government's plan (Stefan Rousseau/PA) He said: 'Every day the police prosecute people for theft. The maximum for theft – I'm not sure if it still is, but it was seven years at one time. Practically nobody gets seven years for theft. 'Most people get a non-custodial sentence. The assumption that everybody who's prosecuted is going to be locked up for years and years and years is a misleading premise for this debate.' Lord Hain was one of three Labour rebels who backed a motion to 'regret' the Home Office's plan, which Green peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb moved. He was joined in the 'content' lobby by Lord Hendy and former Trade Union Congress general secretary Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway. 'Frankly, I'm deeply ashamed,' Lord Hain told peers. 'This Government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to Islamic State or al Qaida, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong.' Lord Hain earlier said: 'In 1969-70, I was proud to lead a militant campaign of direct action to disrupt all-white, racist South African rugby and cricket tours, and we successfully succeeded in getting them stopped for two decades. 'No doubt, I would have been stigmatised as a terrorist today rather than vilified as I was then. 'That militant action could have been blocked by this motion, as could other anti-Apartheid activity, including militant protests to stop Barclays bank recruiting new students on university campuses, eventually forcing Barclays to withdraw from Apartheid South Africa.' Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said he had previously protested. 'Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly are cornerstones in our democracy,' he said. 'I have protested. I know of many other members who've protested against various things in our lives, and we have done so in a fair and open way.' He added: 'People engaged in lawful protests do not need weapons. 'People engaged in lawful protests do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics to innocent members of the public, and people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for Nato.' Baroness Jones described a 'long and noble tradition of the use of direct action by protest movements'. She added that 'Palestine Action is not like any other group that the British Government has declared a terrorist organisation so far'. Her motion to regret was rejected by 144 votes to 16, majority 128. Peers who had stayed in the chamber afterwards called 'content' to back the order, which has also received MPs' backing in the Commons after a vote on Wednesday.
