Wheelie Bin Laws & The Bin Gestapo
I have heard a few concerns in the village about the introduction of the new Wheelie Bin Laws.
I, like many, mistakenly believed that we paid the Council, through our taxes, to deal with our rubbish. That WE were the paying customers and THEY were our contractor who simply did a job for us !
I am not sure how we allowed these Public Servants to become our Public Masters swamping us in a deluge of laws, punishable by criminal conviction, if we don’t bend over backwards and jump through hoops to make the job of collecting our rubbish as easy as possible for them?
It seems to me that we have all fallen asleep and woken up to find ourselves in the Soviet Republic of Wychavon!
I have raised the following questions with our local Councillor:
Anna “Wheelie Bin” Mackison
who, for those who don’t know, is also the “Executive Member for the Environment”, the Council Committee responsible for imposing all this nonsense:
1) Is there a reason why only two name stickers have been provided to each household for labelling the bins ? This seems a little odd as there are three bins. The Green Bin, The Grey Bin and the Food Caddy. Are we supposed to leave one of these three unlabelled and if so which one? Will we get a knock on the door from the Bin Gestapo if we label the wrong ones?
2) The leaflet says that residents should place their bins outside by 7:00am on the day of collection. Does this mean that residents who don’t want to get up at the crack of dawn and who instead choose to leave their bins out the night before collection day will receive a visit from the Bin Gestapo ? Can you please clarify if it acceptable to leave bins out the night before collection? It would seem harsh to deprive our pensioners of their well earned rest and drag them out of bed at 6:00am solely to meet the requirements of the draconian new bin laws?
3) It appears that there is some confusion in the Council’s think tank about whether food waste recycling is cost effective or not. One week we, the taxpayers, are to be charged for a special diesel belching van that comes and collects the food waste and takes it for recycling. Presumably the wise people at the council have decided that sending this van around to collect food waste is a good way to spend taxpayers money. However, the next week, the food waste is chucked in the back of the non re-cycling van and dumped in land fill. Presumably because the wise people at the council have decided that it is not a good use of taxpayers’ money to collect and re-cycle food waste. Either it is a good use of taxpayers’ money to recycle food waste or it isn’t. I struggle to see how it can be a good use of taxpayers’ money one week, but not the following week ?
4) On Grey Bin weeks the carefully sorted and collected food waste is to be dumped in the same landfill site as the non recyclable grey bin waste. Would it not make sense to spare the burdened council tax payers the hassle of sorting the waste on these weeks? I know that public officials generally think the citizenry exist simply to comply with their edicts but perhaps you could assure me that failure to go through the entirely pointless task of sorting food waste on grey bin weeks will not result in a knock on the door from the Bin Gestapo.
5) Under the heading of “Damaged, lost or stolen bins” we are solemnly advised that we are required to take reasonable care of the Council’s bins or we may be charged for replacements. Perhaps you could clarify the level of reasonable care expected in the prevention of having one’s bin stolen. Are we expected to keep the bin locked in a secure storage unit overnight, or perhaps deploy a private security firm to ensure that vandals do not get too close to the bin? As far as damaging the bins, are we required to stand over the Council’s contractors when they empty the bin, in order to ensure that they do not damage it through carelessness or harsh treatment. I would certainly like to know Just how much of my life the Council requires me to dedicate to the preservation of their bins, before the Bin Gestapo reach the presumably unilateral, behind closed doors, with no right of appeal, verdict that I have failed to meet their “Reasonable Care” standard.
6) Placing the wrong type of rubbish in the bin can result in the Bin Gestapo “stickering” your bin and refusing to take it away. Since such “stickerings” can eventually result in a criminal conviction, the public damage to someone’s reputation of having their bin “stickered” is not inconsequential. Can you reassure me that In the event that the Bin Gestapo “sticker” a citizens bin in error, the Council will be paying compensation for damage to reputation, defamation of character, etc ? It would seem to me that it is quite easy to make an honest error in identifying what is or is not allowed in the sacred Green Bin.
E.g. who determines the level of cleanliness that divides the “clean food cans” allowed in the Green Bin from the “dirty cans” forbidden from the Green Bin. Just how dirty does a paper item need to be before it is forbidden from the Green Bin under the wet or dirty provisions? Is a metal jar lid with a plastic coating allowed in the Green Bin ? Is a paperback book allowed in the Green Bin. Hardbacks are forbidden, but the document is silent on paperbacks, (unless wet or dirty). What about a corrugated cardboard egg box ? Allowed under the egg box provisions, but excluded under the corrugated cardboard provision. How about an unwanted mirror, alas the guidance is silent. “Thin card” is allowed in the Green Bin but no guidance is given on when thickness crosses the thin-thick divide and leads the citizen open to a public “stickering”. One man’s thick, is another man’s, “actually quite thin”. I am keen to recycle, but if I am struggling to make correct judgements about what is recyclable, what hope is there for the 83 year old pensioner whose mind may no longer be at its peak of sharpness.
Is there a process of appealing a public “stickering”, where experts can be called and the citizen may seek to clear his name. Surely the Waste Removal Engineer (Bin Man) cannot be judge jury and executioner, a man whose judgement is infallible and whose word alone is law ?
I will of course publish the replies from our councillor as and when I get them.
02/23/09, 10:49 AM |
James
I share your general concerns but don’t expect the practical reality to be quite as bad as you portray. It is true that, as usual, the local authorities have been given extraordinarily broad powers to deal with minor matters that ought to be resolved with common sense. I expect the Gestapo will be kept in check and the legal process will be reserved for extreme cases. However, we will all need to remain vigilant and ensure that the council do not get away with over-harsh application of their powers. As for 7am – I won’t do it! Although I suppose I could keep to their schedule be putiing the bins out in the early hours befor I go to bed.
Finally, we haven’t had our bins delivered yet – although I notice that both our neighbours have got them. Wychavon have never been good at doing in one journey anything that can be spun out to two.
Trouble is that anyone smart enough to organize things properly won’t take a job with an outfit as crass as a local council.
02/24/09, 8:55 AM |
Dear James,
I have always been more than happy to answer your questions, as evidenced by the other 38 emails you have sent me over the last 12 months or so. I am interested to see that you appear to have gone from ‘Mahatma Ghandi’ to someone completely different and you probably don’t recall your email to me saying the following -
‘Hi Anna,
just a quick note to say how impressed I was with the “Future of Waste Collection in Wychavon” document included in the Link magazine. I think the two weekly alternating collections with the rodent resistant waste food caddy every week is a great solution. It looks like we shall avoid the problems of smelly waste and rats that have been reported in the press when other councils have tried to force recycling through fortnightly collections! I am not slow to complain about the things that I think are wrong, so Ithought it only fair to give some positive feedback on what looks to be a very well thought out proposal.
Kind Regards,
James’ -
In total contrast, I feel your latest rendition, which it seems you have put on your own website, is nothing short of alarmist rubbish and I sincerely hope that no-one in their twilight years reads this kind of tabloid sensationalist garbage because, if they happen to be gullible enough to believe they are going to become a ‘criminal’ if they accidentally put the wrong item in the recycling, it might just cause them to worry and waste sleep at night over something that has never been suggested by Wychavon District Council or myself as the portfolio holder for this service. The so called ‘Gestapo bin laws’ you refer to have been in place ever since the sack system was introduced many years ago without any problems. Where were you James when all these poor residents were being stickered and then prosecuted?!!
Unlike your previous letters, I found myself unable to respond to your latest one directly (which will have to come from an officer of the council), because of the original content that you sent to me – I felt I had no option but to hand it to our Legal Department because of the imputations contained therein. However, I am mildly disappointed that some of the wording and suggestions you have put in your letter to me are not the same as the one you are now displaying on your website. You seem to have edited out the ‘unsubstantiated village gossip’ as you call it, but I suppose this is the ‘privilege’ of having editorial control!
I very much hope you will publish this response on your website – unedited, so that people will know there are two versions of your letter, and also to direct residents to my own Wychavon website which gives plenty of information on the new waste service and a lot more besides. However, if any resident wishes to speak to me directly about the new service I am always very happy to oblige. You should receive responses to your questions soon.
Regards
Anna Mackison
P.S. You are very fortunate to be living in Wychavon District because I think I am right in saying that we currently have the 8th lowest District Council tax in the country which we fully expect will improve further, so it would seem we are spending council tax payers money wisely.
02/24/09, 11:35 AM |
As is so often the case, when politicians present proposals they leave out all the nasty details, voter appeal it seems is more important than transparency and content. I still support weekly collection of food waste (Although not with an additional collection lorry!!)
I wonder if the following people who now have criminal records for violating the Bin Laws think it is alarmist rubbish ?
Gareth Corkhill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-561037/Father-taken-court-fined—overfilled-wheelie-bin-just-inches.html
Michael Reeves
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411864/Meet-Britains-recycling-martyr–man-criminal-record-using-wrong-bin.html
Cindy Fuller
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/11/12/criminal-record-for-north-wales-woman-over-bin-bags-55578-22233977/
Rita Liubartatie
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1009/1009269_womans_200_wheelie_bin_fine_.html
Gary Rostron
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Taken_to_court_after_wheelie_bin_fell_over&in_article_id=394940&in_page_id=34
The residents of Normabnby
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2008/06/24/anger-over-100-wheelie-bin-fines-84229-21140808/
The residents of Pendle
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/pendle/3665121.Money_for_local_roads_on_agenda/
The residents of Peterborough
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/This-wheelie-bin-could-cost.4371800.jp?CommentPage=4
Perhaps the £185,000 worth of fines levied against people for leaving their bins out too early is alarmist rubbish:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1647546.ece
The £5,000 fine for obstructing an officer of the Bin Gestapo is presumably also a myth ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2130722/Shut-the-gate-on-bin-inspectors-and-risk-a-5000-fine-and-a-criminal-record.html
As you are quite aware, there is a world of difference between what can legally be included in a private communication between a taxpayer and their Councillor and what can be published on a public website, I would have been glad to publish my letter to you in full
James
02/24/09, 1:27 PM |
James,
I have looked at all these links – of course none of them relate to Wychavon, the nearest one being
Peterborough; some of the links are no longer available to view because they have been removed; a
number were districts elsewhere in the country still using sacks; some relate to The Clean
Neighbourhood’s Act 2006, which councils have no option but to enforce if there is an
environmental/health issue involved e.g. it seems the woman in Manchester was encouraging rats
by her failure to secure her rubbish, after multiple warnings and requests for a face to face
discussion to see what the problem was for her – which she refused – and as vermin were involved
this would have been passed to the council’s environmental health department. I would not be
surprised if her neighbours had been complaining to the council for some time about her behaviour
and the increase in vermin in their locality.
I think you may find that all the fines in these cases were by ‘Fixed Penalty Notice’ which does not
involve a ‘criminal convictions’. The usual method with any environmental problem is to start by
letting the resident know there is a potential problem, then if it continues, by
investigation/discussion with the person concerned to find out what the problem is, e.g. there might
be language barriers, or the person may have some mental incapacity that is causing them difficulty
in understanding what to do, and try to resolve it with them in a mutually satisfactory way. If, after
exhausting all avenues, this doesn’t work, and the problem continues, there is the ultimate
possibility of a fixed penalty fine (still with no criminal record) or there may be a warning issued by
the council’s legal department (again with no ‘criminal record’ involved). The ultimate, after every
possible avenue has been exhausted could be prosecution. The same system applied before with
the sacks, so nothing has changed at all, and I know of only one instance in Wychavon where a
fixed penalty notice was issued to a resident, who was persistently putting her domestic waste far
away from her own property, on highway land, – which constitutes fly-tipping.
Certain of the tabloid reporters have been running an anti-council campaign on waste in general, and
wheeled bins in particular, which is a cheap and easy target, and certainly doesn’t help public
confidence during a new implementation here. Wychavon have learnt from these other places, and
we have noted that some may appear to have been overly zealous in their approach, resulting in
apologies. If you are not convinced of this, then the proof will of course be in the pudding.
It may interest you to know that a concerned resident sent me a national newspaper cutting of one
such report where the reporter was listing 5 councils (in the North and London) and saying that their
recycling percentages had gone down since introducing wheeled bins! I did my own investigation on
this and found it to be a total pack of inaccuracies, where the percentages quoted were in fact from
several years previously before these councils ever embarked on wheeled bins! I found that their
recycling had increased from 13% to 36%!
I think you have made your point about ‘criminal prosecutions’, but may I suggest you allow the
system to start and let us see how many prosecutions actually occur in Wychavon and what the
circumstances are, before making assumptions that this is going to be widespread. I would like to
put my faith in our residents that they have enough common sense to understand this simple
system, which offers a great deal of flexibility, and participate in the most effective way to reduce
the waste going to landfill and the ever rising costs involved.
I think it has been explained to you that there will not be an additional collection lorry and the
environmental benefits are much greater than at present.
I note that you have not published the full answers to the questions you raised so that residents can
judge for themselves and understand what has been said, but again, you have used your editorial
licence to paraphrase what was said and put your own spin on it. I am disappointed, because it
was not a 5-minute response.
Regards,
Anna
02/24/09, 5:19 PM |
Thanks Anna,
not editorial spin, simply cutting to the key points that would be of general interest.
As you are fully aware, in the past the Council has threatened me with legal action for publishing complete word for word correspondence. (I think the last time was when you wanted to stop me publishing a copy of your entries from the register of Councillors’ interests !).
Unfortunately, to avoid this problem with copyright infringement it is necessary to extract the content and re-present it in my own words.
If you can arrange for the Council to provide a written undertaking that they won’t sue me for copyright infringement if I publish their documents or correspondence I will of course be happy to publish the actual documents and correspondence, on this and any future issues. This would be in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act and support public scrutiny and open debate, but I doubt that I will see such an undertaking any time soon !
02/25/09, 12:50 AM |
James,
I’m afraid this is incorrect and to clarify, the law allows anyone to view my Register of Interests, and as far as Wychavon are concerned have sight of my allowances (which are published in the press and on my website), and if they wish, my expenses too (which I do not claim!). However, my personal signature is a different matter. The problem you encountered was when you took a hard copy of my declaration with my signature on it and scanned it and put it on your website, which left me at risk of data fraud or identity theft. You apologised unreservedly at the time and removed it.
This had nothing to do with copyright. There are some documents which are protected by copyright, e.g. the plans which accompany planning applications, which are all clearly stamped as being copyright without the agreement of the copyright holder – usually the architect.
The majority of District Council business is conducted in public with the public and press able to attend, e.g. Overview and Scrutiny, Executive Board, Full Council, Development Control meetings, Development Control Policy meetings, etc., etc.
Not only that, but they are advertised on the Wychavon Website together with the agenda, paperwork and minutes. Annual budgets and independent auditors reports are also available. There are categories of information which is not usually open to public scrutiny, such as tender documents with suppliers and sub-contractors which is usually commercially sensitive or those things covered by the Data Protection Act.
These days, I believe it is mostly unnecessary for anyone to use the Freedom of Information Act because the information is all freely available anyway on the website, which is the first port of call for us to keep the public informed. There is public scrutiny and there is open debate and opportunities for members of the public to come and ask questions at most meetings and receive a reply there and then. This situation has been the case throughout my terms of office.
I hope this helps to reassure you or anyone else that may not know this, that Wychavon is not a secret society, it is a publicly accountable body.
Regards,
Anna Mackison
02/25/09, 9:00 AM |
I cannot let such nonsense go unanswered, although I fear we are now straying wildly from things that relate to the Elmley Caste website:
This is the actual correspondence where the Council stopped the publication of your register of interests by the use of copyright law, after I had amended the document to remove your signature.
From: James Hickman [mailto:james@plumbworld.co.uk]
Sent: 09 February 2008 10:15
To: Marshall, Ian
Cc: Anna (Internet) Mackison
Subject: RE: Information Request
Dear Mr Marshall,
Thank you for your letter, received by email today.
I do appreciate the issue concerning identity theft and have obscured the signature on the register of interests document today.
I was under the impression that a councillor’s register of interests was a document of public record, and that I did not require either the Council’s consent or Mrs. Mackison’s consent to publish it on my website. If this is not correct please advise me and I will, of course, remove the whole register from the site immediately.
With all the current political scandal and calls for more openness in the financial affairs of public officials, e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7219040.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7219292.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7228020.stm
many local councils actually publish these registers on their own websites, perhaps this is something that Wychavon might consider?
I assume that individual councillors will resist , but it is surely in the interests of open and accountable government? There will always be a suspicion, however unfounded, that if Councillors make it more difficult to access this information then they must have something to hide !
Personally, I am against identity cards, CCTV surveillance and the descent into an ever more Orwellian world where the state demands the right to know everything about the private lives of its citizens. However, if that is the world that our public officials insist upon, then those who live by the sword must surely die by it !
(A big thank you to Councillor Mackison for resisting the latest demands to infringe what is left of our privacy by microchipping our dustbins http://wychavon.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/chips-in-bins-turned-down/ )
On the wider identity fraud issue I would like to point out a few things:
1) Perhaps the council should obliterate the signatures before sending such documents out in the first place. Any fraudster would simply be able to request their own copy of the document under the Councils publication scheme to get a copy. If the council is serious about identity theft prevention, then it really should get its own house in order !
2) The council should also consider obliterating Councillor Mackison’s signature from the documents they publish on their own website, such as the forward to the adopted plan for 2006
http://wychavon.whub.org.uk/home/wdc-planning-lp-local-plan-_for-web_.pdf
3) Finally, anyone in public office should consider signing up for a protective registration with CIFAS,
a. http://www.cifas.org.uk/default.asp?edit_id=565-85 , which offers first class protection against identity fraud.
Kind Regards,
James Hickman
The Reply I received was:
From: Marshall, Ian
To: James Hickman
Cc: Anna (Internet) Mackison
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Information Request
Mr Hickman – Thank you for your response which is helpful. My view is that you do need consent to publish the register form on your website so I would be grateful if the whole register could now be removed.
You are correct that the practices of different Councils on this issue varies. However, at Wychavon, we decided not to publish the register forms & there is no legal requirement for this.
We are mindful that some published documents have included Members’ signatures & we do now intend to take steps to remove those signatures.
Ian Marshall
From: James Hickman [mailto:james@plumbworld.co.uk]
Sent: 11 February 2008 10:28
To: Marshall, Ian
Cc: Anna (Internet) Mackison
Subject: Re: Information Request
Thanks Ian,
if you can point me to the relevant statute or case law that underpins your view on the consent requirement I will remove the document today.
Regards,
James
From: Marshall, Ian
To: James Hickman
Cc: Anna (Internet) Mackison
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Information Request
Mr Hickman – If you intend to reproduce any document, you should first get the permission of the owner ie the copyright holder. Disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act does not remove the copyright in it & therefore copyright restrictions must still be adhered to.
The law relating to copyright is governed by the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ian Marshall
The Council is clearly not as willing to share information as you suggest.
02/26/09, 2:43 PM |
James,
I understand the latest figures on data theft in the UK amounts to £1.2bn. My own incident of data theft was £3000 perpetrated by a foreigner. This was not a small amount to me, or I should think to the majority of ordinary people, and so you will perhaps understand why I felt very strongly about my signature being used for public viewing, without my permission – I appreciate though that this was a mistake on your part.
I am just as concerned about my Register of Interests, which is done directly by me as my obligation as a councillor, and it can be viewed by anyone on request by going to the Civic Centre and asking. It is a very different matter for this to be published on a private website and left unaltered by the editor because it is my responsibility to keep it up to date at Wychavon and add or remove those items that I may have or no longer have an interest in, and so that anyone wishing to inspect it will have the true picture at any given time. The publication on your website is not the official version, is currently out of date and therefore it is incorrect. It is for this reason that you were asked to remove it, not to be difficult or trying to hide anything, but to make sure that the truth is represented, not someone elses version of it.
Regards,
Anna
02/26/09, 3:19 PM |
I think I need to start a new website called James v Anna !
I would of course be a lot more convinced on the sincerity of your comments if the up to date register of Councillors interests was published on the Wychavon website. (As it is on the Worcester County Council website)
As you said earlier:
“… because the information is all freely available anyway on the website, which is the first port of call for us to keep the public informed.”
Perhaps the first port of call to keep the public informed about the things that you want to tell them.
The things that you would rather hide away are conspicous by their absence and require a special trip or a written application to the Civic Centre or in some cases a Freedom of Information Request.
If a website is the best way to make information publicly available (which it is) why is the information about Councillors interests not published on the website ?
If it is really so easy to pop down to the Civic Centre every time we want to find something out, why are you wasting taxpayers money on a website that is clearly not needed ?
Only a politician could try to justify two such contradictory positions simultaneously !
Regards,
James