Behind the Headlines 7

There's a bit of a rumble about a man who was Fined £550 - for leaving wheelie bins out. The story has made its way into the Daily Mail as an example of little bureaucrats pushing people about.

Now there are two reactions to this. A knee-jerk "But that's outrageous" and a sensible "That's really weird, there must be more to it."

There is.

Gareth Robinson has been fined £350, plus £200 court costs. But not for simply leaving a bit out for a week or so. He claims they were left outside for "two days at the most".

It does seem a bit unreasonable that the council swooped down on someone for leaving their bins out for a couple of days. Turns out- they didn't.

Reading beyond the headline shows this was not a one off occurrence. Neighbours apparently find the Robinsons' bins problematic, as there have been many complaints to the council. Mr Robinson had numerous warnings and notices about his bins before being given a fixed penalty of £60. Like the many warnings, he ignored this too.

Then he was summoned to court. He failed to appear to challenge council's actions, and was fined in his absence.

There's no mention in the news as to whether his neighbours had a quiet word, but if he's the sort of man you can approach like that, it's unreasonable to assume they didn't.

The headline seems to imply that he left his bin out one day, and had a £550 fine land on his doormat soon after. This is not the case.

A blast from above

Had to smile today. We were out in Shipley visiting a Will aid solicitor and popped into Asda. There was an announcement on the tannoy about the driver of a VW golf. Who as it turned out was parked in a parent and child space.

Well the tannoy announcer went ballistic about how selfish it was to use parent and child spaces if you don't have babies or toddlers with you. It was a rightful rant. Only hope that the owner of the golf didn't have a child in a removable baby seat, and that they had got what they truly deserved.

A rubbish post

I've got conflicting emotions about this story.

On one hand the fine seems a little petty, and out of proportion. But on the other hand the man lives in a house with a reasonable sized garden, and has been warned- several times. It seems he doesn't want to think about his rubbish beyon making sure it goes in the bin.

I don't think it's too much to ask people to think about what waste they produce when they buy their food, to be honest. Am I being too Marie Antionnette here? I don't think so. In times past we would be creative with our food. We would eat everything on our plate because it would be rude not to, and we would save and reheat the left overs. We'd be creative with our cooking. Now we just throw out anything that's 5 seconds past the useby date, and don't do anything to avoid it.

It's true our supermarket culture sells a lot of over packaged goods. Recently a columnist tried to live a plastic-free lifestyl. But there are alternatives- even in the supermarket. Meat can be bought in a simple plastic bag with a sticker. You can buy some of your veg loose and despite having a plastic window, a mushroom bag takes up less room in the rubbish to a box.

We have a very good stystem in our street. We have a fortnightly recycling collection, with which you can recycle almost everything reclcylable but only 1 in 10 houses in our street use it. It seems too much effort and something needs to be done to snap people out of their complacency.

Yes there are circumstances where fortnightly collection won't work, in high rise blocks in inner cities you have no storage space for example. But because a system doesn't work in one area doesn't mean it is universally useless. In some areas food waste is recycled weekly- putting the pressure on people to think about how much of everything else they use without causing a health hazard.

In short the man should have been fined. About £30 would have been sensible.

Sensibly drinking

Friends who've met me socially recently may have been party to a conversation about a half remembered news story about a plan to make giving alcohol to children illegal. Well I've found the story. A charity called "Alcohol concern" styling itself as a "National Agency" called for it to be illegal to give under 15 year olds alcohol because of the rise in alcohol consumption.

The consensus among the random sample of the public in on these conversations was against Alcohol Concern's proposals. We felt that kids need to be introduced to alcohol in a safe environment, under the supervision of their parents. If drink isn't some forbidden fruit, it won't get abused on the streets. And guess what, research shows we were right. Although James Graham's reaction suggests this is nothing to be smug about.

Alcohol concern seems to be to the control of alcohol, what Mediawatch UK is to taste and decency on TV, and Brake is to sensible motoring.