Police cutbacks what a joke
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
I think it would be better if the council, and by extension the police going by some of the posts on here, asked offenders whether they felt it reasonable to report them for the offence they were committing.
I think it would be better if the council allocated their time to better things than missing no smoking stickers. Unless you feel that of all the unenforced rules and uninvestigated crimes and administrative offences in this country, missing no-smoking stickers should now become a priority. 
Just to confirm to everyone, there was no vosa present only police and council, the police did not check anything they were only there to stop the vans, only thing they checked was if we had stickers, they were not concerned about anything else, council just took photos of inside the cab, just a money making exercise ( just to confirm apart from the sticker our vans and our business is totally legal) thought I should confirm that as a few on here are doubtful
InitialDave said:
I haven't been caught for it. I'm not going to be caught for it. I think it's stupid that it exists as an offence in and of itself. It's illegal to smoke in a company vehicle, there's good arguments for why that should be the case, so fair enough. If businesses are managing to maintain adherence to that law, who cares if they don't have a sticker about it.
I don't understand how people can be so bloodyminded about the law being the law to not look at the OP's situation - a non-smoker owns a van for his business and all the employees who would be in it are non-smokers, but he must have a sticker saying no smoking or he'll be fined two hundred quid - and not see that it's more than a little inane.
There's no need for multiple layers of legal requirements to make people - already doing what you want them to do, doing the bit that actually matters - do it a specific way. This kind of excessively controlling minutiae is just annoying.
This isn't like people who are stealing things wanting the police not to deal with people stealing things. The equivalent to this would be people who are not stealing things being annoyed at it being an offence in itself for you not to be carrying a Stealing Things Is Very Naughty reminder card in your wallet.
I don’t think there are multiple levels. It is a simple enough case of failing to comply with the requirements for signage. The threat of a £150 fine, if paid promptly, is not, it seems, enough of a deterrent to enforce compliance. I don't understand how people can be so bloodyminded about the law being the law to not look at the OP's situation - a non-smoker owns a van for his business and all the employees who would be in it are non-smokers, but he must have a sticker saying no smoking or he'll be fined two hundred quid - and not see that it's more than a little inane.
There's no need for multiple layers of legal requirements to make people - already doing what you want them to do, doing the bit that actually matters - do it a specific way. This kind of excessively controlling minutiae is just annoying.
This isn't like people who are stealing things wanting the police not to deal with people stealing things. The equivalent to this would be people who are not stealing things being annoyed at it being an offence in itself for you not to be carrying a Stealing Things Is Very Naughty reminder card in your wallet.
You suggest the company is already doing what 'you' wants, but it is not. It is not complying with the requirements for signage.
I'm unaware of the detail of smoking regs, although those that pertain to my rugby club were such that no smoking signs were required on the balcony area of the main building. They were put up.
I believe that the OP is a non-smoker. To accept that anyone who is ever in the vehicle is a non-smoker is a bit of a stretch. Whether the penalties are reasonable or not is open to argument. This is not just a case of someone scratching off one of the signs. They weren't there in the first place.
Has the council better things to do? I have no idea what the intent of the council was in mounting this operation. I doubt it was to deal with vehicle signage. However, one might assume that those doing the checks were told to report anything they find. If the signs had just fallen off then one might see the justification of a warning. But never? – I think reporting is reasonable enough.
By the OP's own admission, there's that 1% that isn't covered by non-smokers.
The regs came out in 2006. There’s been time to comply. It seems to me that the OP is blaming the council (by way of the police for some reason) for something he should have been on top of.
Just want to say I did not manage to copy some of 2cvs self righteous comments but please look at previous posts
Also I may try to take this further ie to court as I am not sure the d**k was allowed to take photos of the inside of my van
Also I will not comment on any further 2cv posts
Also I may try to take this further ie to court as I am not sure the d**k was allowed to take photos of the inside of my van
Also I will not comment on any further 2cv posts
Derek Smith said:
I don’t think there are multiple levels. It is a simple enough case of failing to comply with the requirements for signage. The threat of a £150 fine, if paid promptly, is not, it seems, enough of a deterrent to enforce compliance.
You suggest the company is already doing what 'you' wants, but it is not. It is not complying with the requirements for signage.
The requirement for signage is stupid and should not exist.You suggest the company is already doing what 'you' wants, but it is not. It is not complying with the requirements for signage.
colinrob said:
Just want to say I did not manage to copy some of 2cvs self righteous comments but please look at previous posts
Also I may try to take this further ie to court as I am not sure the d**k was allowed to take photos of the inside of my van
Also I will not comment on any further 2cv posts
Do a bit of research and then quote us the law under which you would intend to take this to court. Oh go on, please.Also I may try to take this further ie to court as I am not sure the d**k was allowed to take photos of the inside of my van
Also I will not comment on any further 2cv posts
coyft said:
Boils my piss.
What a complete waste of time, resources and money. The police shouldn't be stopping people going about their lawful business, just so some jobs worth can check if you've got a sticker inside your van. What a complete and utter waste of time.
Well eventually it boils down to the fact it wasn't 'lawful business'What a complete waste of time, resources and money. The police shouldn't be stopping people going about their lawful business, just so some jobs worth can check if you've got a sticker inside your van. What a complete and utter waste of time.
coyft said:
Greendubber said:
coyft said:
Boils my piss.
What a complete waste of time, resources and money. The police shouldn't be stopping people going about their lawful business, just so some jobs worth can check if you've got a sticker inside your van. What a complete and utter waste of time.
Well eventually it boils down to the fact it wasn't 'lawful business'What a complete waste of time, resources and money. The police shouldn't be stopping people going about their lawful business, just so some jobs worth can check if you've got a sticker inside your van. What a complete and utter waste of time.
Would I be pissed off? Yes
Would I moan about falling foul of the law on the internet? Probably not
colinrob said:
TooMany2cvs said:
colinrob said:
(bearing in mind he is a butcher) he then asked for his waste disposal records, it is ilford council being support by an under resourced police looking to make some more C***s
Ohnoes! How terrible that they're checking people aren't just dumping foetid food waste...I think that combo says quite a bit, don't you?
What I still don't get, as I said on the 3rd post in on this thread, these stickers sell for £1.39 for 10 on Ebay. Just buy the f
king things and follow the law. Some battles aren't worth fighting.
10 pages of "it's not fair/what a waste of time" when 14p deals with the whole issue and you're on your way.
king things and follow the law. Some battles aren't worth fighting. 10 pages of "it's not fair/what a waste of time" when 14p deals with the whole issue and you're on your way.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I still don't get, as I said on the 3rd post in on this thread, these stickers sell for £1.39 for 10 on Ebay. Just buy the fking things and follow the law. Some battles aren't worth fighting.
10 pages of "it's not fair/what a waste of time" when 14p deals with the whole issue and you're on your way.
Why should a freeman of the land have to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!king things and follow the law. Some battles aren't worth fighting. 10 pages of "it's not fair/what a waste of time" when 14p deals with the whole issue and you're on your way.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff