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.