Following on from yesterday's article about Nanny banning lollipop men, it seems that Nanny as something of an anti lollipop fetish.Sorrell Walsh a GCSE student was in Manchester city centre and happily munching on her 95p Twister (an ice cream on a stick), one of Nanny's hated foods, when she saw a friend of hers on the other side of the road and carelessly abandoned the wooden (biodegradable) stick on a wall.
Naughty, I agree.
Fortunately Nanny was on hand to admonish her..how is it that Nanny is able to catch such minor offences; yet rapes, murders and assaults are left unchecked?
One of Nanny's litter wardens saw that the wooden stick had been left behind, and immediately confronted Sorrell issuing her with a £75 fine.
Sorrell burst into tears, and offered to bin it. Nanny was having none of it, Sorrell was presented with her ticket stating that failure to pay could bring a court summons and fine of up to £2,000.
One of Nanny's Manchester City Council spokesman said:
"Manchester has taken a zero tolerance approach against littering over the last few years and we will continue to do so.
Individuals must take responsibility for helping to keep the city clean
and not expect others to clear up after them.
We have consistently shown that we will take action against individuals who flout the rules."
A law, and those who seek to enforce the law, can only be workable and attain people's respect if common sense is exercised.
A simple telling off by the warden, and an apology from Sorrell would have resolved this matter.
Whilst Manchester rids its streets of lollipop sticks, how is it doing on ridding its streets of drugs, gun crime and assaults?
A disproportionate response to a minor error, in my view.
FYI, title chosen especially for Bagpuss.
I agree, surely the police in Manchester should have betterthings to do.
ReplyDeleteA simple telling off by the warden, and an apology from Sorrell would have resolved this matter.
The warden probably said 'Once its written i can't cancel it'
Twats indeed although I think I'd opt for the word in its harder hitting 'adult' form.
ReplyDeleteWhat do street sweepers have to say about this? Surely it's putting them out of a job? When the streets are clean will there be a reduction in council tax or will there be a MASSIVE increase to fund the army of parasites on the firm's payroll?
Remember in the recently published "league tables" of the most dangerous places to live in England, Nottingham may have come first but Greater Manchester Police Farce easily won the team event with four of the eight top spots! You may not be safe to walk the streets without being shot/mugged/generally assaulted but that is one lolly stick that will never threaten again. Still, remember the Police Farce motto:
ReplyDelete"Protecting crime, Fighting the Public".
Thank you, Ken, for the title.
ReplyDeleteBTW and off-topic, I have discovered how to thwart TV Licensing. Just write to them and withdraw the implied right of access to your property. If one of their goons then tries to harass you, you can get them for trespass.
More info here:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1896
[rhetorical question][H]ow is it that Nanny is able to catch such minor offences; yet rapes, murders and assaults are left unchecked?[/rhetorical question]
ReplyDeleteThere is no revenue or profit to be gained in prosecuting/preventing violent crimes. Also, the risk to life and limb in the presence of armed, violent, determined felons faced by the uniformed, badged welfare recipients in whom the public safety has been entrusted outweighs the benefits accrued through prevention/prosecution. I'm sure there is a formula name that applies to this (e.g., "Ramsey's Law" or "Kelly's Postulate"?).
Sod the lolly stick, can't parents be done for lumbering kids with silly and embarrassing names?
ReplyDeleteShe may rue the day she discarded the stick for other reasons. Give it 20 years and the full 'Brown' effect and a collection of lolly sticks may be worth their weight in gold as raw material from which to construct some form of shelter for the night.
I think we should all start to look for opportunities to ticket council workers littering. Uncollected grass cutting frmo the verges comes to mind, but they might just stop cutting. Road repairs and the tons of chippings they usually leave for the traffic to to roll into the new 'surface'. Now that woudl be a good one. A ticket per stone perhaps?
Lolly sticks are the cause of OBESITY.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS EVEN WORSE THAN SMOKING.
The child probably bought the offending article from a CAPITALIST in a MOBILE VEHICLE. Thereby causing GLOBAL WARMING, oops no sorry, GLOBAL COOLING, nope sorry, CLIMATE CHANGE!!
Thanks God for Nanny, saving the world from obesity, smoking and climate change.
Nanny should have executed the little bitch for POLLUTING THE ENVIROMENT!
And used her parents for medical experiments.
Sorrell, when you were a little girl, I hope mum told you not to throw things in the street, even it meant putting them in your bag and taking them home, or at least to the nearest bin. Just because some people can't be bothered to keep the streets looking nice, no need to be like them. Sure it's upsetting, so you did what girls do; you cried. Mum or Dad will have to find the money. Maybe they will give it to you, maybe they will make you pay some, or all, of it back.
ReplyDeleteYou're growing up: act responsibly!
On the other hand, Sorrell, if you are the sort of person who does not give a flying f**k if the streets are a mess, it's going to cost you a wasted £75 every time you get caught. Seeming upset afterwards won't make a difference, sweetie, this is what will happen.
And if you really don't give a FF, you probably won't pay, anyway, will you?
dont forget this is a nanny poodle council at one time rubbish bins where on every lampost but our council thouht to remove them maybe to save money.nannys poodles best defence is to blame evrybody else but them selfs.why not. nanny nows best
ReplyDelete