Garbage in the UK: Politicians Torture Brits Over Garbage

Britain In The Bin
Garbage Nannies Take Over



The Nannies of Britain are never short of ideas to torture the public.

No matter how small the stature of office, politicians and their minions in the United Kingdom share a uniform desire to prove that each of them is the most trite, meddling imbecile in the land. Apparently the prestige of this distinction outweighs all else, because British politicians and public servants--if they be such--seem to conduct themselves with absolutely no discernment whatsoever.

Discernment being a trait only made worse by their bovine determination.

Cases in point.

'Thieves' stealing wheelie bins from backgardens turn out to be COUNCIL snoops searching for illegal dustbins

"When wheelie bins began to go missing from outside their homes, residents wondered whether they should call the police.

But when the thieves were unmasked, their identities proved to be something a shock.

The two men responsible were council officers assigned to secretly snoop in back gardens.

They were employed to find out which residents were using extra 'unauthorised' wheelie bins to dispose of their rubbish – and took those bins away if they considered them to be unlawful....The warden, working for Blackburn with Darwen Council in Lancashire, even used ladders to peer over garden walls on to lawns and back yards while the occupants were out. If they saw any homes with two bins for non-recyclable waste they took one away without informing the resident."

In that instant the garbage police were caught with the goods by an alert homeowner. But the story goes on to point out:

"The move is the latest draconian rubbish collection measure.

Earlier this year the Daily Mail revealed that Tory-run Plymouth Council wants families to name somebody to be in charge of their rubbish.That individual would then face £100 fines and a criminal record if rubbish goes in the wrong wheelie bins, or the bins are put out too soon or in the wrong place."

Volunteers?

If so inclined to be garbage warden for your household, read on.


Father of four taken to court and fined ... because he overfilled his wheelie-bin by just four inches

With his rubbish collected only once a fortnight, Gareth Corkhill's wheelie bin was so full the lid wouldn't shut.

And for that, the father of four finds himself with a criminal record.

Magistrates convicted the 26-year-old bus driver after hearing evidence that the lid was four inches ajar, which is against rules to stop bins overflowing.

ABOVE:
Four inches too far: Gareth Corkhill with wife Claire and son Josh

"He was ordered to pay £210 - a week's wages - after he declined to pay an on-the-spot fine imposed by the local council's bin police, who visited him wearing stab-proof vests and carrying photographic evidence of his crime."

Hmmm.

$100 per inch. And the Council thoughtfully collects only once every 20 days. Seems fair...... to the lunatics that run the asylum once known as Great Britain.

But rampant garbage crime is a unisex offense.


Mother fined £400 for leaving wheelie bin in wrong place

A young mother has been ordered to pay nearly £400 for leaving her wheelie bin in the wrong place.Holly Dutton, 26, failed to pay a £100 fixed penalty notice issued when she left the bin in an alley behind her house in Horwich, near Bolton.

Magistrates have increased the fine to £130 and added £215 in costs, plus a £15 surcharge towards a fund for victims of crime."

Not much sympathy from the man in the silly wig, there.

BTW, the fine for shoplifting in Britain is 80 Pounds.

But Big Brother does not stop at merely a searching a homeowner's backyard or tape measuring the gap of a bin cover ( instead of merely closing the same). No, these
dimwitted demagogues have gone high tech to entrap rubbish scofflaws.

Residents revolt against wheelie-bin spies

A huge revolt against wheelie-bin spy bugs is sweeping Britain, with thousands of defiant households removing the electronic devices and either dumping them or posting them back to their local town hall.The protesters are ignoring threats of prosecution for criminal damage in their anger at having their rubbish secretly monitored by council chiefs.

One of the biggest shows of defiance has been in Bournemouth, where councillors estimate that 25,000 bugs - one-third of the total - have been unscrewed.

Astonishingly, Bournemouth Council is considering replacing all the 'vandalised' bins at a cost of up to £600,000.The bugs, whose existence was revealed by The Mail on Sunday two weeks ago, are about the size of a 1p piece.

They contain a microchip that enables councils to record the weight of rubbish collected - and to impose fines if the Government brings in laws to punish people who don't recycle enough."

ABOVE: British Pitchforks carefully locked away from the hand of peasants.

The politicians of this nation of beaten sheep were not intimidated.

"But Kennet Council leader Chris Humphries said: "These bins belong to the council. They don't belong to the people who hold them. They are interfering with a bin that belongs to somebody else."

A council spokesman added: "Residents are not authorised to remove these numeric chips. The question as to whether the chips' removal constitutes criminal damage is a detailed legal issue."

One is left in wonderment of the sheer hopelessness of the situation. The citizens of this shipwreck of a country actually vote for these imbeciles.

Why? Because they have been led to believe that only the State can make decisions. Individual responsibility, the thought that welfare may not be available has become a fear greater than life itself.


Now dustmen won't take your rubbish away if wheelie bin is too heavy to pull with two fingers

"Binmen have put two fingers up to common sense by issuing an astonishing warning to council-tax payers.'If we can't pull your wheelie bin using just two fingers it is too heavy - and won't be emptied.'Bins that need three or more fingers, they claim, constitute a health and safety risk as they could fall from the lorry while being emptied."

The edict from binmen is the latest salvo in a continuing battle between householders and bureaucracy.It comes only days after the Daily Mail reported how widowed pensioner June Kay, 79, had been told to drag a 360-litre wheelie bin more than half a mile down a steep hill if she wanted it emptied.The two-finger policy was discovered by Katie Shergold in the historic market town of Warminster, Wiltshire.

ABOVE: Shergold couldn't believe it when she heard the barmy rule.

She watched in disbelief as binmen stuck a 'too heavy to move' sticker on her bin of grass cuttings, just 6ft from their lorry. Yet 5ft 4in Mrs Shergold, 26, had wheeled the bin round to the front of her house without any difficulty."

When a country is in the throes of cultural collapse, apparently small things give comfort. Like bedeviling your fellow citizens and celebrating insignificant bureaucratic accomplishment

Google has over 150,000 articles on Britain's efforts to stem the flow of garbage. The Daily Mail has over a hundred stories of the abuse perpetrated in this war. No doubt these fools have convinced themselves they are saving the planet from Global Warming or similar nonsense. The planet would be far better if the Brits shit-canned these politicians instead.

Kill the rot before it spreads.


by pat
Images:
* earthnet
* daily mail

Sources
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1057622/Thieves-stealing-wheelie-bins-gardens-turn-COUNCIL-snoops-searching-illegal-dustbins.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-561037/Father-taken-court-fined---overfilled-wheelie-bin-just-inches.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-497418/Mother-fined-400-leaving-wheelie-bin-wrong-place.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404399/Residents-revolt-wheelie-bin-spies.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024714/Now-dustmen-wont-rubbish-away-wheelie-bin-heavy-pull-fingers.html

Financial Bail-out: Govt. Interference Caused Govt. Bailout

Caution: Government at Work
Financial Problems are Government's Fault in the First Place
The Political Capitalist Different from True Capitalist





September 17 was Constitution Day. The federal government celebrated by staging the largest intervention into the private sector in history. With an injection of $85 billion of our tax dollars, our federal government now owns a majority stake in insurance giant, American International Group.

AIG should fit nicely with the two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that our government seized last week. Of course, Fannie and Freddie also came with liabilities of more than $5 trillion worth of mortgages, which are now liabilities of the U.S. taxpayers. Not to worry, the government doesn't intend to incorporate the assets or liabilities of Fannie and Freddie onto the federal books, for now.

The outgoing CEO's of the failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be leaving with a $24 million severance package, also paid for with our tax dollars. Ditto with failed giant AIG. Even though AIG shares have dropped 94 percent since Robert Willumstad, was named chief executive officer on June 15, this soon to be ex-CEO may get a $7 million exit package after a Federal Reserve take-over forces him out. Had enough yet? Hold on, there's more.

The Big Three’s chief executive officers are now in Washington, tin cups in hand. They were granted a rare Capitol Hill meeting Wednesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders to ask for $25 billion in government loans for the auto industry.

Meanwhile, Congress has just approved and sent to President Bush an $8 billion rescue package for the federal highway trust fund. Apparently its going broke, which threatens road and bridge projects in every state.

Government bailouts, in effect, use our tax dollars to reward bad behaviour, while at the same time, putting more and more private business under government control. While America's eyes are eagerly following the presidential election, our government is turning the US into a corporate welfare state. Its called socialism, and it has failed everywhere its been tried.

No doubt, these business failures will be used as a further indictment of capitalism. But, as Burton Fulson points out in his book, 'The Myth of the Robber Baron,' there are two very different types of capitalists operating in America.

The true capitalists, the market entrepreneurs, are subject to the vagaries and risks of the market and fail or succeed based strictly the age old rule of supply and demand. The political capitalists are entrepreneurs whose fortunes are not determined by market forces as much as they are by political forces.

Political capitalists, instead of relying on market forces, rely instead on politicians and the political process to further their own interests and undermine their competitors'. This appears to be the case with both AIG and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As Jennifer Rubin points out in Commentary, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "survived by manipulating, cajoling and lobbying politicians and hiring board members who were politicos (e.g. Jamie Gorelick) rather than mortgage gurus. They hired lobbyists, gave massive donations, obtained nice tax breaks and sailed below the regulatory radar screen."

Ditto for investment bank Lehman Brothers, which also failed this week. The government chose not to bail Lehman out, despite the $395,574 in campaign donations to Obama and the $145,100 to McCain. Go figure.

A selection of conservative books available.


Political fingerprints are found all over every single failed business, from the 'favorable' mortgages to politicians, to the campaign contributions, to the lack of regulatory oversight by key members of banking and regulatory committees.

As the blame game starts, as politicos start to distance themselves from the very policies that contributed to the failures, expect more of our tax dollars to be spent on CYA activities. That's liberal speak for 'plausible deniability.' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was first out of the gate, announcing the launch of an investigation of Wall Street. This should make for good theater, if you're into sound and fury that signifies nothing.

When the dust finally settles, the federal government will have ever more power over the housing industry, the mortgage industry and the banking industry. Next up will most likely be the airline industry. All justified under the rubric of protecting the American people. The question never asked is: What government program, other than the military, works?

Most American's don't have to spend millions of dollars, summon legions of experts, and study the vast intricacies of the latest politically correct theory on how the market works in order to see the obvious. Most of us know we just need to get politics, politicians and our tax dollars out of the private market, and allow it to work. Its called capitalism.

by Nancy Morgan
Right Bias.com

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article may be reprinted with attribution

MHIC: Final Round-Up

Reaction to Megan Had it Coming.

It was another cruel online charade. This was done at the expense of not only Megan Meier and her family, overall, it was set up by an opportunist who took full advantage of a very painful situation.

Was it a cruel and malicious power play? Was it an emotionally driven form of manipulation? You bet it was, on both counts.

--Maryannaville: Hoax: Read it and Weep

also what was beowolf posting that got deleted ? and what where the other things that got deleted? did beowolf ever exist? i is so confused

Enclopedia Dramatica: Megan had it coming

That's all the reaction we could find to the hoax this morning.

Expect more later as the blog may be used by those who argue the Internet is just too spooky a place without more regulations and laws. The attempt will be made to reinvent the Internet as a place where you can have as much fun as any trip to the post office or other government building.

In the "we need more laws" minds, more laws and tougher penalties for anything on the Internet will make them feel good about themselves.

It's already been used a few times as "proof" that Lori Drew is a victim.

MHIC, R.I.P.

by Mondoreb




DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page

At Least in America, We Have Free Speech, Right?

Mark Steyn highlights a right that Americans have that most of the rest of the world doesn't, Freedom of Speech. As it's enshrined in the First Amendment, most Americans are taught about it from an early age--or at least, they used to be.

Now, Americans are taught that some speech is free. Other speech is "hate" or "objectionable" or, on the internet, "spam". Especially if the person doing the labeling of the speech disagrees with it.

Americans have been lectured over the last six years that we "were out of touch" with the rest of the world, especially the European democracies. This supposed disconnect with the rest of the world was used as evidence that changes were needed.

As Steyn puts it in Dead Man Writing
[The Corner at National Review Online]:

One of the critical differences between America and the rest of the west is that America has a First Amendment and the rest don't. And a lot of them are far too comfortable with the notion that in free societies it is right and proper for the state to regulate speech.

He then goes on to list some of the countries Americans normally think of having free speech and how those countries have recently dealt with speech they considered 'disagreeable'.

* The response of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security to the Danish cartoons was to propose a press charter that would oblige newspapers to exercise "prudence" on, ah, certain controversial subjects.

* The response of Tony Blair's ministry to the problems of "Londonistan" was to propose a sweeping law dramatically constraining free discussion of religion.

* At the end of her life, Oriana Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and sundry other jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

* In France, Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other "anti-racist" groups who believed opinions held by a fictional character in one of his novels were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

* Up north, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced the other day that at least two of Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” – one federal, one provincial – had agreed to hear their complaints that their “human rights” had been breached by this “flagrantly Islamophobic” excerpt from my book, as published in the country’s bestselling news magazine, Maclean’s.

He provides a chilling look at the Canadian government's method of dealing with disagreeable, upsetting speech. He also provides for the defense of his best-selling book, America Alone, which has upset Muslims north of the border.

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness.

America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post’s national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian “human rights” tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.

As I say, I find it difficult to imagine. But not impossible. These "human rights" censors started with small fry - obscure websites, "homophobes" who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus - and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to sit in judgment on the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old "libel chill" over critical areas of public debate.

The "progressive" left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don’t know they’re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.

Hate speech, hate crimes: the whole idea that some groups or speech have a "special", extra-constitutional right to protection, oftentimes at the expense of the rest of society. That this speech, these groups need more protection than the Consitution itself can provide, is a recent one in America.

The entire category of hate crimes should offend Americans. It attempts to criminalize thought processes in a manner that smacks of political correctness and thought-policing. The criminality of murder springs from the loss of life, not from the motive. Regardless of whether a husband hates a wife or a stranger hates a minority, murder remains murder, assault remains assault, and all should be vigorously prosecuted regardless of apparent bigotry or lack of same.

Congress shouldn't expand hate-crime categories; they should eliminate them. Crimes like murder, assault, and the like don't belong under federal jurisdiction in any case. The states have jurisdiction over these crimes, unless someone can prove a violation of the Constitution, which usually applies to such crimes committed under color of authority.[1]

But surely, losing freedom of speech couldn't happen in America? Not with our First Amendment?

Think about it the next time an aggrieved group trots out the label "hate speech".

Think about this the next time a college or university disciplines, expels or suspends a student for saying something the college thinks will "foster an unfavorable environment".

Think about it the next time the NCAA disciplines a college sports team for using a Native American nickname--whether the tribe in question approved it or not.

Think about it the next time protesters disrupt a meeting, debate or speech-- conservatives are the targets at the moment, but it could be liberals in the future--by physically attacking them.

Think about it the next time some group calls on Congress or a state legislature to designate disagreeable speech as a "hate crime".

Think about it the next time Environmentalists compare any dissenting opinions, research or information that runs counter to "Global Warming" or "Man-made Climate Change" to Holocaust Denial, i.e., "hate speech".

Think about it the next time the headlines scream "Man Arrested for Child Porn" and a closer reading finds that his crime was not possessing any child porn, but images that "appeared" to be of the offending material.

And lastly, think about it VERY hard the next time you hear of a law being considered to outlaw various speech on the Internet--arguably, the freest forum left where Americans and others around the world can speak their minds.

It can't happen here in America?

Think about it.

by Mondoreb
Source: [1] Captain's Quarters - Hate Crime Expansion Dropped
[images:crystaljordan;oneyearbibleimages;thousandtyone]
Trackback




Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Smoke Regulators Go After Apartments : At What Point Will They Stop?

First, they came for the restaurants, then they came for the bars and bowling alleys, now if you live in Minnesota and are a smoker, they're after your apartment and car.

The victories of health Nazis have emboldened them to tackle new challenges. Private apartments and vehicles are their next target.

More top-level strategy for a Smoke-Free MinnesotaBy Mark Brunswick and Curt Brown, Star Tribune:

Fresh from their success winning a statewide smoking ban in bars and restaurants, Minnesota's anti-smoking advocates are ready to zero in on where you live.

One anti-smoking group will kick-start a campaign this week to encourage landlords to outlaw smoking in their buildings. While the program would be purely voluntary for now, some communities might follow two California cities by considering broader ordinances that would apply to multi-unit dwellings.

Smoke-free groups are also considering pushes to restrict drivers who smoke with kids in their cars, park users who smoke and even cigarette-dangling youth-sport coaches. Still, condos and apartments appear to be the next battleground in the state's smoking wars.

It's part of a national trend aimed at snuffing out those who light up. Chicago can now fine people up to $500 for smoking within 15 feet of beaches and playgrounds. Albuquerque nixed smoking at the zoo. Davis County, Utah, has extended its ban to golf courses and cemeteries.

The answers to this increasing regulation has led to a bizarre invention: faux cigarettes. More from the New York Post:

A new smokeless, tobacco-free, reusable cigarette may soon blow rings around the city's smoking ban.

The plastic Crown Seven electronic device, invented in China and sold online for $100, looks like a sleek cigarette holder and even glows red at one end when you take a drag.

It emits a faint water vapor from its battery-powered filter. Because it's not real smoke, the manufacturers hope the device will fly under health inspectors' radar.

Instead of tobacco, the e-cigarette contains a mix of water, nicotine, artificial smoke flavor and propylene glycol, the chemical used in fog-making machines.

As the story states, it's an answer to Nanny State regulations. But is it the right answer? At what point do people yell, "Stop"? Those cheering on the increasing reach of regulators might quiet down some when the focus changes to other areas of private life.

Regulations about private behaviors keep multiplying: smoking, diet, health. And the list goes on. It's increasingly harder for regulation advocates to disguise their actions as "caring about health".

In the beginning, it was about the health of children and others affected by second-hand smoke, that great excuse to take decisions out of the hands of people affected. Some non-smokers applauded as noxious regulations, in many cases enacted by non-elected officials, took effect.

In most cases, smokers grudgingly obliged. Now the nabobs of the Nanny State have revealed that no place is free from where they will go in search of regulatory power over people's private lives.

Anyone overweight might take notice. With Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, mandatory check ups are part of their plans for more government intrusion into private health care.

Those applauding the increased crackdowns on smoking in private living areas might not be cheering so loudly when they are required to jog to retain health care benefits.

It's clear that the power to regulate smoking in private business establishments didn't satisfy the anti-smoking forces; it seems it only made them hungrier for more rules. This need to regulate others leads to a craving for more stringent regulation.
It meets some of the criteria of "addiction".

Once zealots get the power to determine what is best for someone else, it's a hard habit to break.

by Mondoreb
& Little Baby Ginn



Back to Front Page.