Wow! So am I! And I dont have any interest in kids right now. But I also dont make statements that are out of my experience.
Bullying?? You have got to be kidding...
sweet wrapper charge
- Thread starter jonboy739
- Start date
Currently reading:
sweet wrapper charge
Wow! So am I! And I dont have any interest in kids right now. But I also dont make statements that are out of my experience.
Bullying?? You have got to be kidding...
;(
i didnt make a im right statment more of a aint ie a question which dont need to be answerd
1/3 of a year aint much to me it aint
i didnt make a im right statment more of a aint ie a question which dont need to be answerd
1/3 of a year aint much to me it aint
An excellent result....At least now she can pay back the taxpayers' money that you were so miffed at being 'wasted' by HER decision to go to court....
Also I notice that the press reported that she received a caution so it's not like the judge thought she was innocent...Just broke.
*** Long Post Alert. Do not read if this offends. Skip to next post if this is the case ***
Time to play devils advocate here. Obviously from the article we're seeing the side of the story mainly from the person accused of littering and also the newspaper reporter themselves. However, let's take a good look at the story:
So the original offence was actually reported by a passer by? Good, I hope more people will report idiots who throw rubbish out of their car windows and that more councils will pursue them. And did this passer by actually see a baby do this or did they just see litter being dropped from the car?
Any witnesses to prove that it was actually a baby in the car at the time the litter was thrown?
Right, so an 18 month old niece was able to pick up some rubbish on a car seat and drop it out of an open window? Assuming that she was strapped into a car baby seat they tend to be quiet high up and it would be hard reach down to the real car seat below. Likewise, she was able to 'drop it from the window' - is it wise to have a window open so far down that an 18 month toddler strapped into a baby seat can reach out and drop the rubbish from it? Or if the window isn't open that far down she must have long arms. Or maybe it wasn't actually a baby who dropped the litter out of the window... :chin:
Good. Perhaps if more people did the same then our country would be a nicer place. The council followed standard procedures and issued a fixed penalty notice.
Yet she can afford to run the car and just take her niece for a drive? She can also afford to plaster herself in makeup? And if the car and its costs were paid by someone else why didn't she ask them to pay for the fixed penalty fine as well seeing as she can't afford to be financially responsible for herself?
NINE warning letters? Did Miss. Wilkinson not contact the council to try and sort the matter out after the first couple of letters? This sounds more like Miss. Wilkinson ignored the letters and just hoped it would go away...
Sounds like standard procedure. The defendant has obviously ignored all chances of sorting the matter out and leaves the council with no choice but to take it to the MAGISTRATES court.
Why? Littering is a criminal offence and is therefore normally covered in the criminal court i.e. the Magistrates court. So she just happened to 'choose' to be tried at a Crown Court, at great expense to the taxpayer? And how does a 19 year old Art student know to have it tried elsewhere? This sounds more like she had legal representation by a solicitor who was looking for loopholes, or at the very least legal advice from somewhere. Funny, she's only on £30 a week so how can she afford this?
Exactly why it should have been tried in a Magistrates court as the council originally intended. Would have been much cheaper for the taxpayer.
'She' has dropped the sweet wrapper? I thought the baby did? And this is the first mention of a 'single sweet wrapper'.
Dropping waste on the streets is inappropriate as well as an offence.
Again, exactly why it should never have got to a Crown court and should've been tried in a Magistrates court.
I disagree. I'd like to see more people hauled before the courts for littering the streets.
So after all that she WAS still cautioned over an offence committed?
Newly qualified 19 year old driver taking an 18 month old toddler for a drive? Is that wise?
Hang on, earlier on in the article it was alleged that she got the wrapper from the SEAT? If we're talking side compartments as per door pockets, the compartments are normally quite low down. How on earth can a toddler reach down that far down from a baby seat????
Again, the window was down low enough for a toddler to be able to throw a wrapper out of it?
Which by the sounds of it, you totally ignored.
Yet as mentioned, you can get the money to run the car as well as plaster makeup all over yourself. And why didn't you try and deal with the matter before it got to 10 letters and a court summons?
Not dealing with the matter before it got that far is also pathetic. And irresponsible.
Yes, because the defendant chose to go to a Crown Court instead of having it dealt with locally. Nice one.
Quite right. A law was broken.
Exactly. And who advised Miss Wilkinson to take it to a Crown Court? Obviously not the same person that told her to ignore the 9 warning letters...
There's too many discrepancies in Miss Wilkinson's story from what I can see. We have a baby strapped into a baby seat who can reach down far enough into a door pocket and pick up sweet wrappers, and a window open down low enough that the same baby can reach out and throw it out of the car. Is it wise to have a window that low down that a baby can do that? Or was there actually a baby in the passenger seat at all considering no-one other than Miss Wilkinson claims this? Maybe there was a friend of Miss. Wilkinson in the seat and the whole 'baby' scenario is a work of fiction to avoid blame...
Then we have Miss Wilkinson obviously ignoring the 9 warning letters. If she was innocent then why didn't she contact the council and explain the situation? And who exactly did give her legal advice, which must have been a bit pricey for a 19 year old student on £30 a week (yet she gets enough money from somewhere to run and own a car)?
And to top it all it gets plastered all over the papers, obviously someone is pushing/ selling the story.
With so many complaints about young people not taking responsibility for their actions this just about sums it up. I agree that the case shouldn't have gone to the Crown Court at the tax payers expense but I believe Miss Wilkinson should have been tried in a Magistrates court as originally intended. And I also believe she should have taken far more responsibility for herself by dealing with the matter long before it escalated to court action rather than being immature and ignoring it. And I don't believe her story at all...
Time to play devils advocate here. Obviously from the article we're seeing the side of the story mainly from the person accused of littering and also the newspaper reporter themselves. However, let's take a good look at the story:
Mail Online said:
So the original offence was actually reported by a passer by? Good, I hope more people will report idiots who throw rubbish out of their car windows and that more councils will pursue them. And did this passer by actually see a baby do this or did they just see litter being dropped from the car?
Mail Online said:
Any witnesses to prove that it was actually a baby in the car at the time the litter was thrown?
Right, so an 18 month old niece was able to pick up some rubbish on a car seat and drop it out of an open window? Assuming that she was strapped into a car baby seat they tend to be quiet high up and it would be hard reach down to the real car seat below. Likewise, she was able to 'drop it from the window' - is it wise to have a window open so far down that an 18 month toddler strapped into a baby seat can reach out and drop the rubbish from it? Or if the window isn't open that far down she must have long arms. Or maybe it wasn't actually a baby who dropped the litter out of the window... :chin:
Mail Online said:
Good. Perhaps if more people did the same then our country would be a nicer place. The council followed standard procedures and issued a fixed penalty notice.
Mail Online said:
Yet she can afford to run the car and just take her niece for a drive? She can also afford to plaster herself in makeup? And if the car and its costs were paid by someone else why didn't she ask them to pay for the fixed penalty fine as well seeing as she can't afford to be financially responsible for herself?
Mail Online said:
NINE warning letters? Did Miss. Wilkinson not contact the council to try and sort the matter out after the first couple of letters? This sounds more like Miss. Wilkinson ignored the letters and just hoped it would go away...
Mail Online said:
Sounds like standard procedure. The defendant has obviously ignored all chances of sorting the matter out and leaves the council with no choice but to take it to the MAGISTRATES court.
Mail Online said:
Why? Littering is a criminal offence and is therefore normally covered in the criminal court i.e. the Magistrates court. So she just happened to 'choose' to be tried at a Crown Court, at great expense to the taxpayer? And how does a 19 year old Art student know to have it tried elsewhere? This sounds more like she had legal representation by a solicitor who was looking for loopholes, or at the very least legal advice from somewhere. Funny, she's only on £30 a week so how can she afford this?
Mail Online said:
Exactly why it should have been tried in a Magistrates court as the council originally intended. Would have been much cheaper for the taxpayer.
Mail Online said:
'She' has dropped the sweet wrapper? I thought the baby did? And this is the first mention of a 'single sweet wrapper'.
Mail Online said:
Dropping waste on the streets is inappropriate as well as an offence.
Mail Online said:
Again, exactly why it should never have got to a Crown court and should've been tried in a Magistrates court.
Mail Online said:
I disagree. I'd like to see more people hauled before the courts for littering the streets.
Mail Online said:
So after all that she WAS still cautioned over an offence committed?
Mail Online said:
Newly qualified 19 year old driver taking an 18 month old toddler for a drive? Is that wise?
Mail Online said:
Hang on, earlier on in the article it was alleged that she got the wrapper from the SEAT? If we're talking side compartments as per door pockets, the compartments are normally quite low down. How on earth can a toddler reach down that far down from a baby seat????
Mail Online said:
Again, the window was down low enough for a toddler to be able to throw a wrapper out of it?
Mail Online said:
Which by the sounds of it, you totally ignored.
Mail Online said:
Yet as mentioned, you can get the money to run the car as well as plaster makeup all over yourself. And why didn't you try and deal with the matter before it got to 10 letters and a court summons?
Mail Online said:
Not dealing with the matter before it got that far is also pathetic. And irresponsible.
Mail Online said:
Yes, because the defendant chose to go to a Crown Court instead of having it dealt with locally. Nice one.
Mail Online said:
Quite right. A law was broken.
Mail Online said:
Exactly. And who advised Miss Wilkinson to take it to a Crown Court? Obviously not the same person that told her to ignore the 9 warning letters...
There's too many discrepancies in Miss Wilkinson's story from what I can see. We have a baby strapped into a baby seat who can reach down far enough into a door pocket and pick up sweet wrappers, and a window open down low enough that the same baby can reach out and throw it out of the car. Is it wise to have a window that low down that a baby can do that? Or was there actually a baby in the passenger seat at all considering no-one other than Miss Wilkinson claims this? Maybe there was a friend of Miss. Wilkinson in the seat and the whole 'baby' scenario is a work of fiction to avoid blame...
Then we have Miss Wilkinson obviously ignoring the 9 warning letters. If she was innocent then why didn't she contact the council and explain the situation? And who exactly did give her legal advice, which must have been a bit pricey for a 19 year old student on £30 a week (yet she gets enough money from somewhere to run and own a car)?
And to top it all it gets plastered all over the papers, obviously someone is pushing/ selling the story.
With so many complaints about young people not taking responsibility for their actions this just about sums it up. I agree that the case shouldn't have gone to the Crown Court at the tax payers expense but I believe Miss Wilkinson should have been tried in a Magistrates court as originally intended. And I also believe she should have taken far more responsibility for herself by dealing with the matter long before it escalated to court action rather than being immature and ignoring it. And I don't believe her story at all...
im affraid i agree
but since it was reported by a passer by she could just hate her
I dont remember who i had in my car and on what day
but since it was reported by a passer by she could just hate her
I dont remember who i had in my car and on what day
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4,883
- Points
- 860
Agree 100%
if i was poor
i would sell it even if it is detromental to whats left to my repuatation
i would sell it even if it is detromental to whats left to my repuatation
this is f-all compared to this:
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N.../2009/May/may1509-tagged-for-dropping-sweets/
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N.../2009/May/may1509-tagged-for-dropping-sweets/
OP
OP
have you not heard of legal aid? also she did not contact papers they tracked her down
So why did she ignore the 9 letters that were sent to her?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4,883
- Points
- 860
To be honest, its not hard to put them in his pocket...if he cant...he shouldn't be using them while riding his bike.
Bet neither of them will be doing it again lol
the normal pockets on the side of bike jackets are crap (think there only for putting your hands in) lost a few things out of them. but i do thing there are two sides to every story. theres nothing stopping me thinking the kid was riding like a tw@ and the copper just used the sweets as way of sorting him out
Re: 1986Uno45S' comments, personally I would say it wasn't handled very well at the outset. If a passer-by had reported the incident the best thing to have done is, either admit it, or, if as stated the driver was unaware of the child's actions; simply deny it.
She could have said that the wrapper flew in one window and out of the other or denied the event ever took place. Has anyone on here ever gone to the Police to complain about another's driving? Did it get to Court? Before I joined, I was waiting to cross a main road at a Pelican Crossing. I was with my wife and as the lights changed and the green man came on, accompanied by the bleeping sound, an elderly woman started to cross ahead of us when I realised a car was coming through on red. I pulled the lady back onto the pavement out of the path of the car.
Both Mrs. Beard and myself got a good look at the driver and I wrote the licence number within 10 seconds of the near miss. Despite both us and the other lady giving a statement to Police and the driver when questioned stating that she hadn't realised, no action was brought.
If the case had got before the Mags., how would the evidence been given? Arguably the most important witness would have been young Lyla.
Usher: "Would you like to swear on the Bible or affirm Miss?"
Lyla : "Sponge Bob Square Pants!"
Judge: "Case dismissed."
If the driver in the case I mentioned above, the driver of the car said she was unaware that the lights had changed or that anyone was crossing the road. That sounds like a pretty clear cut admission of Driving Without Due Care and Attention to me, yet the Police didn't think the case was sound enough to go to Court.
Perhaps if the Council had made sure their case was as watertight perhaps the whole situation could have been resolved much earlier. What we don't hear of very often is the Council taking a large tattooed man to court for depositing the contents of his stomach onto the pavement outside the local take-away. Perhaps this one was just considered to be an easy option.
She could have said that the wrapper flew in one window and out of the other or denied the event ever took place. Has anyone on here ever gone to the Police to complain about another's driving? Did it get to Court? Before I joined, I was waiting to cross a main road at a Pelican Crossing. I was with my wife and as the lights changed and the green man came on, accompanied by the bleeping sound, an elderly woman started to cross ahead of us when I realised a car was coming through on red. I pulled the lady back onto the pavement out of the path of the car.
Both Mrs. Beard and myself got a good look at the driver and I wrote the licence number within 10 seconds of the near miss. Despite both us and the other lady giving a statement to Police and the driver when questioned stating that she hadn't realised, no action was brought.
If the case had got before the Mags., how would the evidence been given? Arguably the most important witness would have been young Lyla.
Usher: "Would you like to swear on the Bible or affirm Miss?"
Lyla : "Sponge Bob Square Pants!"
Judge: "Case dismissed."
If the driver in the case I mentioned above, the driver of the car said she was unaware that the lights had changed or that anyone was crossing the road. That sounds like a pretty clear cut admission of Driving Without Due Care and Attention to me, yet the Police didn't think the case was sound enough to go to Court.
Perhaps if the Council had made sure their case was as watertight perhaps the whole situation could have been resolved much earlier. What we don't hear of very often is the Council taking a large tattooed man to court for depositing the contents of his stomach onto the pavement outside the local take-away. Perhaps this one was just considered to be an easy option.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,218
- Points
- 3,672
Wow im just shocked at the time wasted on such a trivial matter when there are really serious crimes given crappy soft sentences.
I'd simply deny it (even if I did do it). Its one member of the public again another with no evidence. And as said could be used as a weapon to get at a neighbour your discruntled with etc.
I'd simply deny it (even if I did do it). Its one member of the public again another with no evidence. And as said could be used as a weapon to get at a neighbour your discruntled with etc.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 16,219
- Points
- 2,029
Tis stupid. Doesnt matter how well you teach a child she is 14th months old they do what they want. My 4yr old sister has been taught well is clever but she still does stuff she knows is wrong. Part of being a child no?
If any of you saw the Croma at Brooklands you would know just how much of a car's window is within reach of a small child strapped securely in a car seat. Bunny's windows are covered on the inside with greasey handprints and other children-related muck.
I have to disagree with you Chas as I think you're over-simplifying the situation. Even if she had noticed a sweet wrapper leave the car is she supposed to stop, leaving a small child in the car to go get the wrapper? Take the child with her to attempt to retreive the wrapper (possibly from on the road)?
I have to disagree with you Chas as I think you're over-simplifying the situation. Even if she had noticed a sweet wrapper leave the car is she supposed to stop, leaving a small child in the car to go get the wrapper? Take the child with her to attempt to retreive the wrapper (possibly from on the road)?
