Whilst they are technically correct this is overzealous use of the law and by three of them, it looks like a police force with too many officers looking for easy targets.
They can’t turn up to hate crimes so gang let’s go looking for minuscule crimes that people can be tripped up on. I wouldn’t even cause it civil disobedience as it’s not a crime that’s even educated on.
They might be right and even after review the service can say they are technically right however this is not a good look and erodes trust in authority.
They were council enforcement rather than police. I suspect if she appealed she would have been let off, but some folk think then they’ll have to pay the full amount because they missed the early payment discount window, which I don’t think is the case.
Also, what’s the difference between this and pouring coffee in the kitchen sink at home? Those enforcement officers were just chancing it.
I disagree; the whole purpose of the enforcement officers is to enforce the environment act. This thread alone shows why - it seems few people are aware there are 2 totally separate water drainage systems under the roads - the clean one for rainwater drainage, and the dirty one for sewage.
People seem to think if you pour something down a rain by the side of the street it will reach the sewers - it will not; it will run with other surface water untreated into the water courses, rivers or lakes. The sewers are totally separate and drain to treatment plants where the water should be treated before being released into the water system.
Unfortunately the article skirts over that whole element of the story. Its making this woman seem like she’s a victim instead of educating herself and others.
Whilst they are technically correct this is overzealous use of the law and by three of them, it looks like a police force with too many officers looking for easy targets.
They can’t turn up to hate crimes so gang let’s go looking for minuscule crimes that people can be tripped up on. I wouldn’t even cause it civil disobedience as it’s not a crime that’s even educated on.
They might be right and even after review the service can say they are technically right however this is not a good look and erodes trust in authority.
They were council enforcement rather than police. I suspect if she appealed she would have been let off, but some folk think then they’ll have to pay the full amount because they missed the early payment discount window, which I don’t think is the case.
Also, what’s the difference between this and pouring coffee in the kitchen sink at home? Those enforcement officers were just chancing it.
I disagree; the whole purpose of the enforcement officers is to enforce the environment act. This thread alone shows why - it seems few people are aware there are 2 totally separate water drainage systems under the roads - the clean one for rainwater drainage, and the dirty one for sewage.
People seem to think if you pour something down a rain by the side of the street it will reach the sewers - it will not; it will run with other surface water untreated into the water courses, rivers or lakes. The sewers are totally separate and drain to treatment plants where the water should be treated before being released into the water system.
Unfortunately the article skirts over that whole element of the story. Its making this woman seem like she’s a victim instead of educating herself and others.