Man fined £500 for fly-tipping after ‘wind blew cardboard out of bin'
Council officials fined a man £500 for fly-tipping after the wind blew a cardboard box out of his bin.
Martin Fielder, 47, was handed a fixed penalty notice (FPN) and threatened with a criminal record if he did not pay the fine.
However, when Mr Fielder, who became the full-time carer of his two children after giving up his job when his wife died, threatened to go to court, the fine was reduced to £100.
Mr Fielder, from Welwyn Garden City, Herts, said that high winds and foxes pushing bins over could have caused the cardboard to get out.
He had previously been told he could face up to 12 months in prison if he refused to pay District Enforcement – a private enforcement agency employed by Welwyn Hatfield borough council.
'The FPN stated that I was in breach of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 – or the offence of fly-tipping – because a box with my address on had been found 80 metres from my house,' Mr Fielder told The Guardian.
'The letter stated that if the fine was not paid within 28 days the matter would be referred to the magistrates' court, where I could go to prison for up to 12 months or receive a bigger fine, or both.'
He described the attempted prosecution as 'extortion', adding that no one would call one loose bit of rubbish fly-tipping.
The former IT specialist, whose wife died six years ago of a terminal illness, said that he had been in a 'state of anxiety' during his interactions with the enforcement agency and council.
He suggested to District Enforcement that the cardboard envelope may have ended up on the grass from strong winds the previous night.
Mr Fielder also sent pictures of foxes by his knocked-over bins and evidence of parcels going missing as evidence, which they ignored.
'I gave them three strong reasons why they couldn't assume I had done anything wrong,' he said.
The company changed the fine to a £100 littering offence, after he told District Enforcement he planned to take them to court.
'It feels very much like they have a standard process of issuing a big fine, and if you push back, they issue a smaller one instead,' he continued.
'It's tempting to pay because going to court risks an increased fine and a criminal record, but I don't want to capitulate. I haven't done anything wrong.'
Josie Appleton, the convener of the Manifesto Club, a civil liberties group, said: 'These companies are stretching the law beyond any reasonable interpretation, to enable the issuing of penalties.'
A spokesman for Welwyn Hatfield borough council told The Guardian: 'District Enforcement officers are trained to carry out enforcement in line with legal standards and the council's enforcement policy.
'Measures are in place to ensure a thorough review of disputed penalties. If a dispute remains unresolved, we will carefully assess the evidence before determining any further enforcement action.'
District Enforcement was approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Woke police chiefs whinge about underfunding when the real problem is their warped priorities
Readers of this newspaper will, throughout its long history, have been among the most ardent supporters of the police. We are traditionally pro law and order and take a dim view of rotters. It feels like that time is well and truly over. Monday's main Telegraph story, in advance of Wednesday's spending review by Rachel Reeves, which reported the concerns of senior officers that the police service is 'broken' and that underpaid and overworked personnel are leaving in droves because of funding cuts, attracted well over two thousand comments. They ranged from 'Diddums' to 'It's all your own stupid fault' with a good deal of colourful hostility in between. Honestly, you would struggle to find more derogatory remarks among the police's long-running foes at The Guardian. I noticed a similarly unsympathetic reaction a week ago when Met chief Sir Mark Rowley protested that police would have to choose which crimes to investigate if they didn't get more cash. As if the public, until now, had enjoyed a superb and rapid response to its burglaries, muggings, car, bike and phone thefts and our town centres positively thrummed with the purposeful presence of bobbies on the beat. 'Yes, Sir Mark, times must really be hard if you can only send six officers to arrest a retired police volunteer over a single tweet,' sneered one disgruntled taxpayer, perfectly capturing the mood of seething resentment. This collapse in trust is as precipitous as it is shocking. A widespread feeling has clearly taken hold that police are no longer doing the job we expect them to do, while interfering in things that are none of their damn business. The story of the London couple who were obliged last week to 'steal back' their own car after being told by police they did not know when they would be able to investigate thieves who took the Jaguar away on a flat-bed truck (but do call 101 if you find it, they were told) presents a snapshot of a frustrated public having to take the law into their own hands like a group of extremely polite, Emma Bridgewater-owning vigilantes. While many physical crimes go largely ignored, activist constabularies are doing a roaring trade in online offences. The preposterous yet sinister non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), an Orwellian development of the College of Policing back in 2014, are frequently cited by police critics, as is the clampdown on free speech which is increasingly used to suppress popular discontent about things like the annual £4.7 billion bill to keep migrants in hotels and look after them. Those of us who, for some strange reason, think it's outrageous to spend the equivalent of every single penny in tax paid by the population of Manchester on accommodating tens of thousands of young males who broke into our country, used to be called 'racists'. But I see we have got a promotion, ladies and gentlemen. According to Prevent [a counter-terrorism programme], we are no longer racists, we are 'terrorists'! If we dare to express doubts about uncontrolled immigration and lack of integration, that is. That's the same Prevent which failed to prevent Axel Rudakubana slaughtering a dance class of little girls. And which, according to a 2023 report by Sir William Shawcross, concentrates too much on the largely mythical 'far Right' and not enough on Islamist terror. The College of Policing, I am reliably informed, encourages the same delusional appeasement of the group which poses by far the biggest threat to our national security. The criminalising of the white indigenous population, running in parallel to the woke appeasement of actual criminals, goes some way to explaining this new cordial loathing of the police, I think. Unbelievably, over 60 of our fellow citizens are slapped with an NCHI every single day for 'hateful' thoughts or conduct, many of them Monty Pythonesque in their absurdity. While senior police moan about Home Secretary Yvette Cooper not winning them a big enough payout in the spending review, there seem to be adequate funds to arrest and stigmatise law-abiding people. Only this week, I got a very worried email from a reader, Carolyn, who had complained to the police about a man who has been camping for several weeks in the park where her children play. The surrounding area stinks of urine and faeces and there are scattered remnants of drug use. When Carolyn and other mums walk past they have seen the man put his hand down his trousers to play with himself. The camper's appearance suggested to her that he was an African migrant. 'Using the term 'migrant' therefore did not strike me as anything other than a fair assumption,' says Carolyn. Uh-oh. Obviously, in the bonkers world of PC policing it will now be the anxious lady who complained about a threat to her community who is warned about causing trouble. 'It would seem that any offence caused to me is secondary to the offence of Hate Crime,' Carolyn says. Correct. An officer emailed Carolyn to say that police did not have the powers to remove the tent from the park. 'With regard to the hand down the trousers,' he said, 'Many people from all different backgrounds do this as a cultural/social trend and have done for a while, we often see members of the public doing this all around the city. We will speak with him about this though and advise him of the perception this could cause. I also suggest you reframe (sic) from referring to him as a 'migrant' and making comments about 'Are we paying him to take the proverbial out of us all?'… These can be seen as derogative (sic) terms and possibly a hate crime, especially when you probably know nothing about him.' If you seek a perfect illustration of why the police service is 'broken' and officers are deserting in droves, look no further than this jaw-dropping inversion of good and bad guys. Intimidating man from alien culture seemingly exposing himself in public and peeing, crapping and doing drugs where your kids play? Completely fine, culturally appropriate, nothing to be done about it. Englishwoman suggests the man is a 'migrant' who is taking advantage of our absurdly generous system? Oh dear, oh dear – your hurty words will be taken down, Madam, and used in evidence against you. Now, it's a fair bet that many of the public-spirited young people who aspire to become police officers still think it is Carolyn's side they should be on. A rookie error, I'm afraid. 'Recruits who join the force don't realise the police are so captured,' a senior source tells me. Police retention has been a problem for a long time. It's got much worse since the higher echelons subscribed to the anti-white Critical Race Theory and adopted a witless, Leftist ideology that would have been abhorrent to their predecessors. The number of resignations in the police started to exceed the number of retirements nationally around 2023. What this means in practice, as I was told after Essex Police came to my own door on Remembrance Sunday, is that many officers now lack the experience and maturity to make common-sense decisions and bin spurious allegations of racial hatred that flatter the identity-politics obsessions of their superiors. 'It's not uncommon for uniform shifts to be about 50 per cent probationers, and they might be running with an acting sergeant barely out of his probationary period (two years) in some cases,' warns my source. The Conservatives' decision, in 2020, to lower the application age to 17 (to join at 18) as part of their training means that a lot of young people without much life experience, who don't know what they're letting themselves in for, find policing a nasty shock to the system. Once they're in, probationers have to cope with complicated, badly-designed computer systems that add hours to already heavy workloads. They have very little time to conduct inquiries and pick up more and more stressful cases, meanwhile having to deal with the aggressive, ever-more-volubly-entitled, human-rights-aware dregs of our society. After all that, if you can still muster the courage to be a first-class constable who fiercely defends the public against wrong 'uns but swears a bit and leaves violent offenders feeling they weren't treated with enough dignity then expect your Pontius Pilate of a chief constable to throw you under the Hurty Feelings bus. That is exactly what happened to Lorne Castle, a Dorset officer who has twice won a national bravery award, including one for rescuing an elderly woman from a swollen river in 2023. The 46-year-old father of three was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct after bodycam footage captured him trying to arrest a teenager who was believed to have assaulted an elderly man (the boy, who later turned out to be carrying a knife). If you watch the footage, you can experience the frightening, febrile atmosphere in which Lorne Castle was trying to carry out his thankless task. He shouted and swore, telling the lad: 'Stop resisting or I'm going to smash you.' A veteran officer tells me that 'it looked like a good arrest'. But a panel found PC Castle did not treat the teenager with 'courtesy' or 'respect', and Dorset Police said 'his shouting, swearing, finger pointing, taking hold of the boy's face and throat and suggested use of leg restraints was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate'. The force said no further action was taken against the teenager – of course it wasn't! – but he was issued with an out of court disposal for possessing the knife. I ask you, why would anybody risk phone seizures, suspensions and months of stress over complaints that usually turn out to be baseless but which see them treated like criminals? While clueless top brass in their woke ivory towers put saving their career before protecting their officers. In my book, a man of the calibre of Lorne Castle is worth more to the people of this country than every chief constable put together. So let us hear no more whingeing about underfunding leading to reduced services and driving officers away. Blame a warped sense of priorities promoted by activist police chiefs, a shameful betrayal of the British bobby and the demonisation of ordinary people for expressing legitimate fears. If the police have lost the support of Telegraph readers, then they are lost indeed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Buzz Feed
a day ago
- Buzz Feed
Taylor Swift Gets Restraining Order For Alleged Stalker
Hot Topic 🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Taylor Swift Taylor Swift was granted a temporary restraining order Monday against Brian Jason Wagner, a 45-year-old Colorado man who has allegedly visited her home several times and claimed she is the mother of his child, per court documents reviewed by Billboard. The order was signed by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Debra R. Archuleta and reportedly requires Wagner to stay at least 100 yards away from Swift and her home. It is set to expire with a June 30 hearing about a potentially more permanent restraining order. Swift wrote in her petition Friday that Wagner first visited her Los Angeles residence on July 9, 2024, and returned at least twice that month. The Grammy winner further noted that she doesn't publicly share her address and never gave it to Wagner. 'Therefore, the fact that Mr. Wagner has determined where I reside and visited the property several times, refusing to leave and claiming to need access, makes me fear for my safety and the safety of my family,' she wrote in the petition reviewed by Billboard. Swift said he once arrived 'carrying a glass bottle that could have been used as a weapon.' 'During each of these visits, I am informed that Mr. Wagner made various statements about living at my property (not true), being in a relationship with me (not true), believing I am the mother of his son (not true), and needing to see me in person,' she added in her filing. Swift's legal proceedings were only launched after two more visits from Wagner last month, however, when her staff ran a background check and learned he had a criminal record and had claimed in 'lengthy communications' from jail that he was in a relationship with Swift. Wagner allegedly even illegally obtained a California driver's license listing Swift's address as his own. The singer, who unfortunately has a lot of experience with stalkers, described his claims as 'disconnected from reality' in her filing. In 2017, 29-year-old Mohammed Jaffar entered Swift's apartment building in New York City after harassing her management company, fawning over Swift on social media and describing her security guard as a 'gatekeeper,' The Guardian reported at the time. In 2018, 22-year-old Roger Alvarado broke in and used her shower before taking a nap in Swift's bed. Later that year, another man reportedly traveled more than 1,000 miles to her Los Angeles home with ammunition, a knife, rope and gloves in his car. Swift has used facial-recognition technology to identify potential stalkers at her concerts. The singer, who recently triumphed in a yearslong fight to reclaim the rights to her first six albums, wrapped her Eras Tour in December. The effort became the highest-grossing tour of all time, and the first to earn more than $1 billion — and $2 billion — in revenue.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The insidious subtext of Trump's L.A. "insurrection" narrative
President Donald Trump is trying to justify his decision to deploy National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area this weekend by describing protesters as violent 'insurrectionists' hell-bent on destroying the city. It's a dishonest claim meant to delegitimize protest — and it foreshadows a more sinister power grab. Here's a quick overview of the events leading up to Trump's insidious intervention. On Friday, protesters took to the streets in response to a series of federal immigration raids across L.A. at places including a clothing store and areas where day laborers gather to find work. According to The Guardian's detailed timeline of the demonstrations over the weekend, those protests were 'mostly peaceful,' involving a few hundred people concentrated in downtown L.A. At times, authorities acted aggressively toward nonviolent protesters. David Huerta, the president of Service Employees International Union California, was 'arrested while apparently doing little more than standing and observing one of the immigration raids,' according to The Guardian. The LAPD used tear gas to break up a crowd after a 'tense but largely non-violent standoff' with police, per The Guardian. On Saturday, protesters demonstrated in Paramount, a small city 20 miles south of downtown L.A., where federal agents were rumored to be conducting more raids. Protesters reportedly numbering in the hundreds gathered outside places they believed to be the site of raids. According to The New York Times, some threw rocks and other objects at law enforcement vehicles, and law enforcement officials responded by tear-gassing them. As clashes with law enforcement intensified over the course of the afternoon, protesters set three fires — including one of a vehicle in a street intersection, according to The Guardian. It was at this point — early Saturday evening — that Trump decided that he wanted to send in National Guard troops to quell a 'rebellion.' And, with that, he gave away the game. Did those protests sound raucous and like the kind of thing that could escalate? Yes. Were they the kind of protests that imminently required law enforcement power beyond the vast resources of Los Angeles County and the state of California? Absolutely not. By the standards of American protests and riots, these actions were modest and contained. Yet, Trump signed a memo sending 2,000 National Guard troops to California — overriding the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. 'Let's be real about this,' Bass said at a Sunday news conference. 'This is about another agenda. It's not about public safety.' Newsom said in a statement, 'We didn't have any problem until Trump got involved,' and he called Trump's sending in the National Guard a 'breach of state sovereignty' that would only inflame the situation. Make no mistake: The real escalation here came from Trump. Trump preposterously claims that he saved L.A. from being 'completely obliterated,' when in reality he has only increased tensions between protesters and the police and made the clashes more high-profile. On Sunday — after National Guard troops were deployed — L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell observed that the protests were 'getting increasingly worse and more violent.' I would venture to guess that Trump's aggressive attempts at repression are likely to cause a surge in protest activity, both nonviolent and violent, precisely because he has turned the situation into a showdown and a show of force. And Trump's attempts to describe the protesters as mounting an 'insurrection' — a violent effort to overthrow the government — ring hollow as the protests broadly are clearly dissenting against Trump's mass deportation campaign. This is obvious from the signage and chants of the protesters and the fact that they're gathering at places associated with immigration raids to register their objections. Trump's actions are deeply alarming on a legal level. Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, described his decision to deploy National Guard troops in the manner he has as 'completely unprecedented' and noted that 'the use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort.' And New York University law professor Ryan Goodman has pointed out that in Trump's memo federalizing the National Guard, Trump includes First Amendment-protected protest in his definition of a 'rebellion' against the U.S. government. 'Such a claim would make authoritarians blush,' he said. Trump's potential future use of the Insurrection Act looms on the horizon. The rarely used law would be more dangerous than the order he just used to federalize National Guard troops, because it would expand what kinds of armed forces he could deploy and because those forces would have more expansive law enforcement capabilities under the act. As Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor at Southwestern Law School, recently pointed out for MSNBC, Trump's provocation has made that outcome likelier: "By inflaming tensions by sending in federal troops ... Trump may have created the need to invoke the Insurrection Act, thus allowing him to order not only the National Guard, but also active duty troops to police the streets of Los Angeles." There wasn't a real crisis in L.A. until Trump intervened. But that's exactly what he wanted. This article was originally published on
