I see that there are reports that those "in charge" of Croydon are advising "Community Enforcement Officers" not to bother wasting time on young criminals, but to target older people.For why?
The adults will more likely be able to pay the fine!
So there we have it ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of the local law is not to keep people safe but to raise tax revenues for local councils.
Dermot Lineham, the enforcement officers co-ordinator, has sent an email that stated he was "emphatic" that his officers should not have to approach teenagers.
Officers should "focus our activities on adults who are less likely to attack us and more likely to pay fixed penalty notices...
..take care and take it easy."
Croydon Council spokesperson claimed the email had not been cleared by the council.
"This email was wrong in its instructions, had not been cleared and does not constitute council policy. The officer has since been spoken to and the NEOs have been instructed to ignore the email.
The NEOs' job is to support the police in tackling antisocial behaviour and low level criminality and in ensuring that the law is upheld. Council policy is that they will continue to carry out that role without fear or favour, regardless of the age of the perpetrators.
Neither the council nor police will tolerate antisocial behaviour of any kind and will take the necessary action to counter the misguided and destructive actions of a small minority of our population.
Clearly, we have a duty of care to all our employees and we would never ask any of them to take unnecessary risks that would place themselves in danger. But rest assured, the Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers will continue in their current roles to the full extent of their authority.
The incident, last Wednesday, where two police officers were attacked has only strengthened our resolve. The message to all young people is that if you are coming into the town centre, behave in a civilised fashion with respect for other people, or face the consequences."
Someone somewhere in Croydon is a right prat, and well deserves the "Prats of The Week award for this!
FYI, the Daily Mail asked me to comment on the story but then didn't bother using my comment..clearly I am not tabloid material!
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Regular readers will know that I mooted this as a possible policy weeks ago and despite not being Mystic Meg I may well have been right!! I suggested that enforcement officers would target adults as they were more likely to be able to pay any fine and also that, soft target adults are less likely to attack or cause problems for the officers ('Elf'n'Safety). I also suggested that Nanny could also get DNA and fingerprint samples onto her database that she would have been unlikely to get otherwise. I wonder if someone will issue an "unauthorised and not cleared by council" statement to that effect?
ReplyDeleteWelcome to Nanny's Britain.....Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
KERCHING!!
When the criminal justice system becomes little more than an organ for collecting taxes, people become less supportive of it.
Tonk
ReplyDeleteYou did indeed!
I genuflect in your general direction.
Can I say "genuflect" before the watershed?
ken
For many years our local Residents' Association has been waging war with our Carrick District Council just to get some litter and dog bins, for our grass verges to be reasonably cut and maintained, and for basic services which we supposedly pay for in our council tax. We are told continually by these useless parasitic bureacrats that there is "no money".
ReplyDeleteHowever, a few weeks ago Carrick took over the yellow line parking enforcement from the Police in our local city (Truro) and (guess what??) suddenly no lack of money to employ these over-zealous thugs who are making the lives miserable for our local shopkeepers, many of whom have had tickets since parking their vehicles outside their shops for collections, deliveries and so forth.
As Tonk says "kerching" - no lack of monies - and plenty of encouragement to 'go get' all and sundry and penalise, penalise, penalise!!
Law enforcers can't stop the hooligans getting rat*rsed at night though.
Not suitable for the Daily Mail? Take it as a compliment!
ReplyDeleteSpiv:
ReplyDeleteI agree, the councils, I am sure, see the council taxpayer as little more than a cash cow. They want the money to fund their gilt edged pensions and other benefits, but they find us an inconvenience especially when we politely request they actually use some of the money for the benefit of the local residents.
Parking has become a nightmare in most areas where the local Nanny has taken over parking enforcement. People used to knock the yellow band traffic wardens but, at least they still on the whole had a brain and used their commonsense.
Question: What is the difference between a local council enforcement officer and a terrorist?
Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist!!
Ken:
You do me too great an honour; you should know, as an ex catholic schoolboy, you only genuflect to the real presence of our Lord in the blessed sacrament:-))
Hmm. So Dermot Lineham has just been "spoken to" eh? I think his email might just be in breach of age discrimination law and therefore a primie facie offence warranting more than being "spoken to".
ReplyDeleteIt seems the much trumpeted "zero tolerance" does not extend to Nanny's own minions.
Good evidence of the long-suspected soft target approach by law enforcement agencies deserving of questions in parliament. Nothing undermines the rule of law more than unfairness in enforcing it.
Well, at least the Croydon ones seem keen!
ReplyDeleteI came across two of them who drifted into my local 'Boots' to talk to a disabled man who was waiting at the counter. As they were leaving one remarked that he couldn't be ar*ed today and he was going back for a drink and off they pedalled on their pushbikes!
Meanwhile the disabled man was busily making a rollie and the staff who had noticed were casting glances in his direction just waiting to pounce if he lit up - has anyone ever before lit up in 'Boots'? (If he had, I've no doubt the CSOs would have hot- pedalled back and officiously strode into the shop to issue him with a fine. Kerching!)
The small shopkeepers in the village in which I live have been wrangling with the local (actually not very local which is probably half the problem) for a few years now about enforcement of the 1 hr on street parking in the centre of the village.
ReplyDeleteThere are two not very large car parks off street, both mostly full most of the day. One serves the local surgery.
Those business that survive more than a year (few it seems) feel they are being compromised by the 1hr limit. I suspect that they actually suffer from the age old problem of how many handbags, shoes and fashion items you can sell away from a city centre but let's pass on that for not.
Under pressure from the Parish council the local 'authority' have agreed that they are willing to accept a longer parking period - say 2 hours which would seem to be a reasonable compromise. After all there are probably no more than 20 or 30 on street spaces anyway. And the road through the main shopping street (one way) has parking on both sides leaving just about enough room for through traffic if the standard of parking is reasonable. Tough luck if you are driving a delivery truck.
However, despite being able to implement the regime quickly when it was first introduced some years ago they now claim that it will take 2 years to reverse the regulatory process.
Why so I wonder?
The 'enforcers' have to be transported in to the village from some distance away. Absent transport they would not be here. How difficult is it to change their work patterns and save some fuel and shoe rubber?
I guess the answer to that is "How difficult do you want it to be?"
Why is it that common sense is so uncommon?
Something to do with money and power perhaps?
Grant
It’s true Tonk. You did indeed foretell that these things would come to pass.
ReplyDeleteEven if you don’t look like Mystic Meg, it all sounds very spooky nonetheless!
Ken may feel moved to genuflect but, despite being another ex Catholic schoolboy, my interests would be more practical and mundane like - do you have any feelings for tomorrow’s 2:30 at Lingfield?
Anon:
ReplyDeleteYes....With Uranus rising, I see a horse passing the post first with a little fellow sat on it's back.
:-))
Thanks Tonk!
ReplyDeleteIf it had been Neptune, I’d have been off to see my turf accountant right away.
However, I think it’s best to hold back until I’m certain I fully understand all the implications of what you’re saying.