Cyclist fined almost £600 for ignoring Mansfield’s bike ban

ClubSmed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

Why did he even bother to stop, should have just kept going or refused to give the cockwomble warden any details.  I suspect the wardens don't have the power to detain.  Stop for the police but not for these numpties.

What exactly did this Warden do to deserve you calling them a "cockwomble" and a "numpty"?

1) They are a jobsworth warden 2) enforcing a stupid rule. They probably have other attributes, but cockwombliness and numptiness can be assumed with some confidence.

There is no indication that this warden was a jobsworth, in fact he did not fine initially which would actually indicate that they were not a jobsworth.

As for the rule itself, I do not agree with it but equally having never lived in the area and have not researched it so I do not know what sort of issues they were having to deal with that led to this order being put in place. Until either of these 2 criteria are met then I will try and keep an open mind. If, for example, they had issues with bag snatchers on bikes operating in the area then it would make as much sense as installing bollards at each end of a pedestrianised area to stop ram raiders. If they were just doing it because they are all backward and have issues because they feel children should hibernate between the ages of 12-20 and not be seen hanging out in public space on their skateboards and bikes it is another matter....

 

It's always for that latter reason, miserable misperception of 'yoof' - same as the moaning about kids pulling wheelies. Plenty of posts about it being nonsense.

I'm confident it's a bullshit rule implemented for bullshit reasons.

And we have someone who has taken a job to uphold nonsense like this, who has actually upheld this rule.

I'm confident they're a jobsworth.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

Why did he even bother to stop, should have just kept going or refused to give the cockwomble warden any details.  I suspect the wardens don't have the power to detain.  Stop for the police but not for these numpties.

What exactly did this Warden do to deserve you calling them a "cockwomble" and a "numpty"?

1) They are a jobsworth warden 2) enforcing a stupid rule. They probably have other attributes, but cockwombliness and numptiness can be assumed with some confidence.

There is no indication that this warden was a jobsworth, in fact he did not fine initially which would actually indicate that they were not a jobsworth.

As for the rule itself, I do not agree with it but equally having never lived in the area and have not researched it so I do not know what sort of issues they were having to deal with that led to this order being put in place. Until either of these 2 criteria are met then I will try and keep an open mind. If, for example, they had issues with bag snatchers on bikes operating in the area then it would make as much sense as installing bollards at each end of a pedestrianised area to stop ram raiders. If they were just doing it because they are all backward and have issues because they feel children should hibernate between the ages of 12-20 and not be seen hanging out in public space on their skateboards and bikes it is another matter....

 

It's always for that latter reason, miserable misperception of 'yoof' - same as the moaning about kids pulling wheelies. Plenty of posts about it being nonsense. I'm confident it's a bullshit rule implemented for bullshit reasons. And we have someone who has taken a job to uphold nonsense like this, who has actually upheld this rule. I'm confident they're a jobsworth.

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?
I for one do not want a Warden deciding not to enforce parking fines for cars parking on double yellows in a cycle lane because they believe it's "a bullshit rule implemented for bullshit reasons"

I have a lot of respect for Wardens, they do a job in very bad circumstances and get no recognition for it. I would like to see more Wardens out there enforcing traffic regulations and making it harder for drivers (and other road users) to ignore the rules that are there for a reason.

*Edit

I may be confusing Neighbourhood Wardens with Traffic Wardens (as I am not sure what the difference is or if there even is one)

*Edit part II

I was confusing the roles as a Neighbourhood Warden seems to deal with community wellbeing and issues fixed penalty notices for antisocial  behaviour such as dropping litter, graffiti and dog fouling. So a better analogy would be, should a Neighbourhood Warden be allowed to not enforce graffiti laws because he is a Banksy fan? My opinion is no, because it is not their role to pick and chose which rules to enforce, it is their role to enforce them. If anyone has issue with this then they should take it up with the relevent authority and not bully the person trying to make a difference to the community.

ClubSmed wrote:

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?

I don't.

I'm second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with.

The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?

I don't. I'm second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.

They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is "telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems" so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.

You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.

*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????

ClubSmed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?

I don't. I'm second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.

They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is "telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems" so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.

You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.

 

*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????

Unemployable in a proper job where you're paid to use judgement and not just follow rules belched up by fat, jealous motons.

We disagree. You've been personal. I haven't. And I'm closed-minded, self-opinionated and a bully?

You're a warden, aren't you...

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?

I don't. I'm second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.

They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is "telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems" so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.

You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.

 

*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????

Unemployable in a proper job where you're paid to use judgement and not just follow rules belched up by fat, jealous motons. We disagree. You've been personal. I haven't. And I'm closed-minded, self-opinionated and a bully? You're a warden, aren't you...

You have singled someone out and refered to them as a "little Hitler", "Genital" and "Cockwomble" and you claim that you have not been personal?

You have jumped to a conclusion without any evidence to back it up which would indicate that you are closed minded and self opinionated and your name calling of the Warden without any provocation would indicate that you were a bully. If I have confused the definition of these terms I apologise, but they are what I believe are the correct definitions at the moment and as such stand by my conclusion as to how your post portray you to be.

*Note that I have only stated how I believe your posts portray you and not directly attacked you personally as I do not know you so could not possibly comment

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?

I don't. I'm second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.

They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is "telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems" so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.

You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.

 

*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????

Unemployable in a proper job where you're paid to use judgement and not just follow rules belched up by fat, jealous motons. We disagree. You've been personal. I haven't. And I'm closed-minded, self-opinionated and a bully? You're a warden, aren't you...

No I am not a Warden, however I did (many, many years ago) go to school with someone whose father was a (traffic) Warden. They got bullied for the fact that their father was a traffic warden, no doubt because of idiotic stereotypes presented as facts from their parents. Parents with (what I assume to be) small minded attitudes like yourself, as "little Hitler" was one of the taunts used which I would assume would have been learnt from one of their parents. The end result of this small minded bigotry was that the child attempted suicide due to this bullying, not long after they moved schools. I hope that the school that they moved to had children with more open minded parents.

If a shop rule is to not give refunds it is the shop staff's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a call centres rule is to not give sensitive information out over the phone it is the telephone agent's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a bank rule is to not give loans to unemployed customers it is the bank branch staff's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a delivery companies policy is to only deliver 9-5 it is the delivery driver's job to stick to this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a train companies rule is to not allow people to travel without a ticket it is the conductor's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this

Nobody should have to face abuse for just doing their job, in person or online!!!

ClubSmed wrote:

Nobody should have to face abuse for just doing their job, in person or online!!!

But traffic wardens do a worthwhile job. Personally I've always taken their side against whinging motorists.

My complaint, however, is that there don't seem to be any of them around any more. Haven't seen one for decades.

I'm not so sure that 'neighbourhood wardens' (a New Labour initiative I believe) serve as much of a useful purpose.

What if your job is being a professional troll and bully, incidentally? Like certain media figures? Why should those whose job is to throw abuse not expect some of it back? Does your rule really apply to the likes of Katy Hopkins or Jeremy Clarkson?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Nobody should have to face abuse for just doing their job, in person or online!!!

But traffic wardens do a worthwhile job. Personally I've always taken their side against whinging motorists. My complaint, however, is that there don't seem to be any of them around any more. Haven't seen one for decades. I'm not so sure that 'neighbourhood wardens' (a New Labour initiative I believe) serve as much of a useful purpose. What if your job is being a professional troll and bully, incidentally? Like certain media figures? Why should those whose job is to throw abuse not expect some of it back? Does your rule really apply to the likes of Katy Hopkins or Jeremy Clarkson?

I couldn't agree more with your views on Traffic Wardens, and I too have noticed a decline in their numbers. Not sure why this is because with the amount of fines they give out they must surely pretty much pay for themselves? Maybe it's because no-one wants to do the job because of the abuse that they get from people who call them "Jobsworths" and "Little Hitlers"?

I too am not sure on the Neighbourhood Warden role, I have never met one and did not know such a thing existed until this thread. I have read the job description and it sounds like it could be worthwhile, and maybe a good move given the degradation of communities to give them back a voice?

On the subject of professional bullies I believe that it is fair for anyone to get back what they give out, it's basic Karma. They should not however be subject to escalated abuse or personal threats. Whilst I do not like (and detest) people like Katy Hopkins and Jeremy Clarkson, I do believe they have their place. There are people who think like them and we need people like Jeremy and Katy to bring those views to the fore so that they can be debated properly and hopefully as a result re-educate those like-minded individuals as to how things really are.

I know this is all silver lining points of view and there is a possibility that thinking this way is how we end up with people like Trump, but I am not sure that the alternatives are better.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?

I don't. I'm second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.

I don't think that issuing fines is what Hitler was most well known for...

brooksby wrote:

I don't think that issuing fines is what Hitler was most well known for...

Indeed, his lightness of foot in a foxtrot and his mastery of watercolour brushwork are still talked about to this very day.

ClubSmed wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

Why did he even bother to stop, should have just kept going or refused to give the cockwomble warden any details.  I suspect the wardens don't have the power to detain.  Stop for the police but not for these numpties.

What exactly did this Warden do to deserve you calling them a "cockwomble" and a "numpty"?

They enforced a cockwomble, numpty rule.  That shows quite clearly that they are a cockwomble, numpty.  

scouser_andy wrote:

Compare and contrast...

"A West Norfolk motorist who knocked down and killed a seven-year-old boy while talking on her mobile phone was fined just £90 and given five points on her driving licence."

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/clenchwarton-motorist-fined-90-for-cra...

Dear gods, that is bizarre and horrible. So where's the demands from Briggs, the Daily Fail and Jesse pointless Norman for all phone usage to be banned in cars?

don simon wrote:

Quote:

Mansfield District Council’s portfolio holder for safer communities, Councillor Bill Drewett, commented: “Cycling has been prohibited in the pedestrianised area of Mansfield town centre to protect pedestrians.

“There are alternative routes around the town centre or cyclists can act in a responsible fashion and get off and push their bicycles through the town centre.

Would I be correct in thinking that these alternative routes are likely to roads? Those very roads that appear on a daily basis in Road.cc's close pass articles.

But hey, we're only cyclists until election time.

The alternative route is the inner ring built back in the 70's when the idea of getting around on a bike had no place in the modern world of the Austin Allegro.

Duncann wrote:

Rather misleading headline. 

For ignoring the rules the cyclist was asked to dismount. That could have been the end of it. That it just snowballed was his own responsibility at every turn.

If he carries on like this he could end up in gaol - but it won't be for cycling in the pedestrianised zone.

And yet the order is unlawful.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/4/chapter/2/enacted

S64:

(5)A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway that is the only or principal means of access to a dwelling.

(6)In relation to a highway that is the only or principal means of access to premises used for business or recreational purposes, a public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over the highway during periods when the premises are normally used for those purposes.