Fixed Penalty Notice for Littering

zaksmum

I didn't know a 13 year old could be given a FPN. Is there a lower cut off age for this?

NeverEnough

brendon wrote: »

Sorry, where does it say the child was assaulted? If he dropped a sweet, he should have picked it up.

Also, it's a well known fact that children tend to lie to their parents. I'm sure the school would have intervened if they had any concern about the child's welfare.

If the warden placed a hand on the child as was the inference, that is an assault. If you drop something and are unaware that you dropped it, how then are you meant to be able to know that you dropped it in order to pick it up?

Its not a "well known fact" to me that the children I am in contact with "tend to lie to their parents" -speak for yourself and don't assume every child is the same!

If a child was forced back to the school, frogmarched by the warden, or simply steered towards the school office by a hand on the shoulder, that is an assault. And the school secretaries / admin staff may not have been aware of a problem at the time. The parents have every right to raise concerns about the treatment of their child by some nasty little jobswerth council warden.

samsmoot

brendon wrote: »

I'm sure the school would have intervened if they had any concern about the child's welfare.

Really? I'm not sure about that at all - given that the majority of schools are no more than containment and indoctrination centres and that pupil welfare is not always top of the agenda.

WTFH

Quick check, the "child" is actually a teenager, correct? It's just some people seem to confuse "young child" with a 5 or 6 year old in primary school, not a teenager in a secondary school.

Have you spoken to the school to ask for their version of the events - I mean if he was frog marched in there then the staff would have noticed, also does the fixed penalty have the name of the person issuing it? Can you contact their superiors to ask for their version of events?
Did the offence occur during school hours, i.e. when he should have been in class? (Again, hopefully that information is on the penalty, or the school can confirm it)

wealdroam

olias wrote: »

Why do peple on these forums seem to just make up their own version of events to suit their comments?

Well one reason might be because it isn't always possible to believe what the OP has told us.

The message given in the original post was that the child was frogmarched into school.

Do you believe any frogmarching took place?

I certainly don't.

Azari

wealdroam wrote: »

Well one reason might be because it isn't always possible to believe what the OP has told us.

That does not explain why people decide to come up with another fictitious scenario.

The sensible options if you do not believe an OP are to either ignore the post (possibly registering your doubt) or to discuss the scenario with which you are presented.

If someone says that they have been fined £1000 for dropping a bus ticket there is little point in having a long discussion on the rights and wrongs of being fined £50 for dropping the wrappings for a fish and chip supper for four.

But that is typical of the type of thing that happens on this forum.

SevenOfNine

This thread is a bit like playing that game Chinese Whispers. One person whispers something to the person next to them and it passes along the line, by the time it reaches the last person it bears little resemblance to what was initially whispered by the first person!

Those who think this kid must be lying (or failing to tell the whole truth) to his mother, must have raised some interesting children of their own to automatically assume that's what other children do.

Post #46 from mttyladd made me smile "If my son deliberately dropped rubbish in the street and refused to pick it up an £80 fine would be the least of his problems!"...........Yes, your son's main problem would be having a parent who made an assumption instead of bothering to ascertain the facts first. Have you got round to reading the OP's post yet?

There is some reference regarding the issue of a Notice to a juvenile on the Government site, but typically the site refers to it without specifically saying what that procedure/guidance is

Notices for littering are easy money for a Local Authority and generate plenty of income - so much better than installing lots of litter bins, which would COST them money to install and empty.

I'd sooner they spent their time issuing Notices to dog owners and smokers for fag butts and pooh.

David_Aston

There was an example of a teenage girl who was fined £100 for watching a TV without a licence.

She was baby sitting, and just watching the TV that was in the house

azari
Were the owners of the tv also fined for not having the licence?
Or possibly, she did own the house and tv, and was simply babysitting a visiting relatives child?

Azari

David_Aston wrote: »

azari
Were the owners of the tv also fined for not having the licence?

As I said, it was a long time ago - hence the inability to search the net for information - but I'm sure there was no mention of that in the article. It was, in any case, irrelevant to the point; that someone innocent of any criminal intent can be found guilty if the offence carries strict liability.

Or possibly, she did own the house and tv, and was simply babysitting a visiting relatives child?

Well, it's possible that a 15 y/o girl owns a house and babysits for the people she rents it to but it's a little unlikely and would not have made a story.

The whole point is that because of the way strict liability works, she was legally responsible - even though she was not the householder - and could thus be fined.

It made it to the newspaper(s) because, normally, someone along the line from the initial investigating officer to whoever decided to take the case to court would have said: 'Hold on a moment, this is absurd'. The didn't, the case came to court, and justice singularly failed.

Even the local Tory MP spoke out against the affair.

The thing that I couldn't understand was why the magistrates fined her £100 (the standard rate for a first offence of licence evasion at the time) and did not simply find her guilty and give her an absolute discharge.

David_Aston

"TV Licensing’s activities are carried out in accordance with specific policies and guidelines, which set out the criteria for prosecuting evaders. One of these criteria is that a person who is charged with a TV licensing offence must be an adult who resides at the address, or is the landlord or person responsible for licensing a television receiver at the premises. For example, a genuine visitor or babysitter at the premises will not be prosecuted."


This is from the current TV Licensing webpage.