Fined for Feeding the Birds

[StuartDH]

I just read this one in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...31/ixhome.html

[fbcpmike]

Also see the related stories on that page
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/nducks07.xml
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/nducks21.xml

You would think that they would be better employed dealing with the endless gobs of chewing gum on our streets.

[nightshade]

The problem is if mr/mrs politically correct make a complaint the council is bound to act on it,another triumph for the grey people, the do nothings, the silly law enforcers in our society

[StuartDH]

Yeah, you know you've got a hard life when all you can do is complain about someone feeding the birds

[John]

This has been discussed at great length on another forum and it is not as cut and dried as you think. Following was my observation on this storyline. After that is the latest to come out of this story.

After reading my thoughts then the follow on piece let me know what your thoughts are.

First my reaction

As it is it does sound outrageous, but has the property a no feeding policy that is well known, i.e notices on the wall etc.

Without all the details you can't make any judgement.

You have to realise there are places that have suddenly become infested with Rats due to the feeding (or overfeeding) of birds. This might be the case and if so I can see the need to ban the feeding of the birds.

We might not like it but sadly Rats and feeding birds go together, as many of you who feed birds in the garden will know.

Now the latest to have been reported

A couple of slight anomilies in the original report.
The couple involved were not fined for feeding the birds, but for dropping litter according to newspaper reports.
It was council official officials who issued the fine. They had monitored them for 4 days running after receiving complaints, then ambushed them.
Incidently the original post on here only mentions a "65 year old pensioner". Doesn't mention his 42 year old very young looking blonde wife. Not that this has anything to do with it, but wouldn't have the same affect if it said "Blonde bombshell" instead of "pensioner" would it.

What's your thinking now?

John

[StuartDH]

If the council are anything like the one we've got here and they want to look at litter, then maybe they should follow their own dustcarts on dustbin day.

I guess it all depends on what you consider to be litter - a can, plastic bags etc are one thing, but bread, apples, kitchen scraps could also be considered litter. Given that the couple are wildlife trust and RSPB members, I'd be surprised if the litter was the former.

If there had been signs about not feeding the birds, the council wouldn't have to issue a fine for littering, they would have fined them in conjunction with the notice.

The Telegraph story mentions the 42-year-old wife, but regardless of who it is, the complaints were about large numbers of birds, no mention of rats etc.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing would appear to be quite common and whilst working as a rural surveyor I've often come across city dwellers with second homes in the country who don't like cows, the morning chorus, duck ponds, people feeding the birds, people walking in the fields at the back of their house etc. There's probably a lot more to the story, but 4 days monitoring seems a bit of waste of time if nothing else.

[John]

The trouble is there are laws around that we must abide by. Just because you like one law and not the other doesn't mean you should obey the one you like and ignore the one you don't.

If the Council have a law stopping what this couple were doing then that really is the end of the matter regarding this case. If you then don't like that ruling do something about it, lobby your MP or whatever it takes to get the law changed.

I would rarely trust what is actually in print with any newspaper. After all they are in the business to sell newspapers. If the headline had been Pensioner fined for dropping litter I doubt whether there would have been much more than a flicker of interest. Change the title slightly to Pensioner fined for feeding birds and you have a whole new ball game. We just don't know how accurately reported this incident is.

As much as we love birds (and most of you know how much I get out to see them) you have to bow to public opinion when it affects the area you live in. If two people feed loads of birds and those birds create an area of droppings that need to be cleaned quite often then two things happen.

1. Danger to health of children
2. The cost to the taxpayer for cleaning it up.

The danger to childrens health is fairly evident if it's in an area where kids play a lot i.e parks etc.

The cost to taxpayers. How many people complain to councils that uneccessary costs seem to be eating away at the limited budgets they have. What are the councils to do. If they can stop one cost, such as the cleaning an area of bird droppings by bringing in a law, then they will do it. Can you blame them.

We also have to put things into perspective, even if we as birders don't like it. It appears that there were quite a few reported complaints about these two. Councils have to follow up those complaints if they come in on a regular basis (I'm not saying that was happening in this case), but if you have two people feeding birds and a hundred complaints to stop them then public pressure will force it to happen.

Public pressure works both ways. It can benefit birds i.e saving habitats etc, or it can go against them (as apparently in this case).

It's a delicate balance but emotive headlines and content do nothing but feed uninformed judgements on any subject, which might be the case in this issue.

John

[digi]

I suppose their enforcement officers have to do something, lets face it they chose to go after an easy target.

[John]

I had a hospital appointment today which meant I didn't have to go to work straight away. This meant I watched GMTV until it finished. The last issue they dealt with was this issue of this couple feeding the birds.

They interviewed the couple then read out a statement from the Council then spoke to the couple again. They then showed the old chap putting down the feed to the birds and it was a carrier bag full that he spreads over an area of the car park.

I have to say that after the statement from the Council, together with the couples reactions I have no sympathy for the couple whatsoever.

The Council had advised them not to do this then warned them but in the couples opinion they would do what they like because they were right and the Council and everyone else were wrong. They will continue to feed them and he will not pay the fine and is even willing to go to prison for it.

I'm sorry but laws are laws. We might think they are petty but let's put it into perspective.

There are possbly laws that we birders think ought to be used more effectively that a majority of people would think are petty, just like this case. Take eggers for instance. Most birders would love to throw the book at an habitual egg thief but the ordinary Jo wouldn't raise an eyebrow at it.

A lot of laws are relevant to some and not others. It doesn't make them petty because we don't understand them. As I said before, if we don't like a law then challenge it but I bet this law won't be challenged by anyone in the vicinity of where it happened (with possibly the exception of this couple - but even here I doubt it).

John

[Imaginos]

Just out of interest John, how much seed were the couple putting down compared to, let's say, the amount regularly spilled from grain trucks?

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I can't agree that this sort of law is not petty, when we have open landfills attracting rats & gulls (aerial rats), poorly collected urban waste, a fly-tipping epidemic & filthy streets in this country I cannot believe that fining people for putting down seed & bread in order to feed the birds really is anything other than petty. And as for a four-day surveillance, well that just strikes me as a way of avoiding some proper work.

[John]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

Just out of interest John, how much seed were the couple putting down compared to, let's say, the amount regularly spilled from grain trucks?

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I can't agree that this sort of law is not petty, when we have open landfills attracting rats & gulls (aerial rats), poorly collected urban waste, a fly-tipping epidemic & filthy streets in this country I cannot believe that fining people for putting down seed & bread in order to feed the birds really is anything other than petty. And as for a four-day surveillance, well that just strikes me as a way of avoiding some proper work.

We can all point to things that go on elswhere as a way of making something not right. This isn't a perfect world.

You can't mention landfills sites as a way of making out that what happens in a village is wrong. Each is judged on it's own merits.

At the end of the day this thread is all about a couple that have been fined, not Landfill sites or anything else like that. We are basically being asked our thoughts on it based on a newspaper story (which we all know is not the best place to get true information from).

I made my point earlier that we can't really judge without all the facts.

For the first time I had chance to make a judgement on what this thread was all about, having witnessed what the old fella and his Mrs had to say and I was not impressed.

As I have said many times before. If you don't like these laws then challenge them. If they remain unchallenged they will remain unchanged.

Likewise if you don't like what is happening to Landfills, or whatever gets you annoyed, do something about it but don't use it to counter what is happening somewhere else and totally unrelated.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular case are this couple were warned not to feed the birds. They flouted the law and flouted the authority that gave them a chance to stop it of their own accord. Their choice was to basically put their two fingers up to the Council. Now they are suffering for it.

Why should the Council be pilloried because they have worked within the framework of the Law. In fact I know some authorities that wouldn't have even warned them. They would have just fined them on the spot.

John

[StuartDH]

You're right, the law's the law, but just because a law exists, it doesn't mean that it has to be used, and when it's used, it doesn't mean that it's right or that it was used correctly.

The beauty of being able to give a fine is that if it goes unchallenged then it's assumed to be right - however, this case could still go to court, the couple could win, and then the fine and the council would be wrong. It's only a guess, but I think the law for littering was probably never intended to prosecute people for feeding birds.

Yes, we can all lobby our MPs, but it's not the law that's necessarily at fault, often it's the law enforcers 'just doing their job' .

I also think that Imaginos is right to look outside the facts of this sotry, by putting the situation in a wider context. Dog walkers fowl the streets every day, there's graffiti on walls in every town, there's fly-tipping in almost every country lane and there's litter all over the place. As a result, it is very relevant that companies can leak chemicals into the environment and only face a small fine/no fine or that landfills cause enormous rat and gull problems by comparison to a couple of people feeding birds - that's what makes this situation absurd. If it wasn't absurd, then the story probably wouldn't be getting so much coverage in variety of national newspapers, radio and TV stations.

I guess that one way or another, virtually all of us break the law on a daily basis, but the police and other authorities choose to exercise a 'reasonable' policy when applying those laws. When they're being unreasonable it usually ends up getting national press coverage. No-one would be comlpaining if this were a story about someone that lets their dog fowl the street, fly-tipping, graffiti etc, because the majority would consider that a reasonable execution of the law.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least one or two people at the council who'll now be wondering if they were being reasonable, and I bet their bosses won't be thanking them for all the unwanted attention.

[Imaginos]

I'm afraid StuDH has rather taken the words out of my mouth, but I feel I have to respond anyway.

Originally Posted by John

At the end of the day this thread is all about a couple that have been fined, not Landfill sites or anything else like that. We are basically being asked our thoughts on it based on a newspaper story (which we all know is not the best place to get true information from).

I was making an effort to put the case into context. Yes the couple were breaking the law/bylaw, but surely there are more heinous environmental crimes going on that the council & its enforcers would be better employed to counter.

Originally Posted by John

As I have said many times before. If you don't like these laws then challenge them. If they remain unchallenged they will remain unchanged.

My problem isn't with the law per se but rather with the time & effort given to prosecuting said law. Four days, FOUR DAYS of surveillance just to present a pensioner (& his 'beautiful wife' although why this should make it less of an issue I'm not sure) with a £50 fine. How many lanes were blocked by builders rubble or garden waste during this period? How many chemical or organic waste leaks went undetected?

Originally Posted by John

Why should the Council be pilloried because they have worked within the framework of the Law. In fact I know some authorities that wouldn't have even warned them. They would have just fined them on the spot.

Because this story smacks of official bullying & of a waste of time & money, rather than a serious effort to work within the spirit of the law.

[digi]

I know laws are not to be broken, but I cannot see how the council can justify 4 days spent following these people to finish up presenting them with a £50 fine.

In my area we have a country lane which is used daily by people dumping fridges, mattresses etc etc. I have contacted my council and they said they don't have the resources to react to this problem. Although then say its the farmers responsibility to get the waste removed since its in a gateway to a field which is private property.

I still think in this particular case these people were an easy target and maybe it should go to court so the full story can be heard properly.

digi

[carlj]

Anyone see the news report today, where a man took his mail, outside of his home, from the postman. As it was junk mail, promptly dumped it in a nearby litter bin. He was spotted doing this, and fined £50 for dumping household refuse!

[John]

Originally Posted by carlj

Anyone see the news report today, where a man took his mail, outside of his home, from the postman. As it was junk mail, promptly dumped it in a nearby litter bin. He was spotted doing this, and fined £50 for dumping household refuse!

The worlds gone mad, and this was only in Hinckley, only a few miles away from where I live.

John