Disgusted OAP finds excrement and used loo roll on his driveway

9:20am Saturday 9th March 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By James Connell

A DISGUSTED pensioner has spoken of his anger after a desperate binman defecated on his drive.

The homeowner has complained to Malvern Hills District Council after he discovered the binman’s excrement and soiled toilet roll blowing down the driveway outside his home in Ryall, near Upton.

The binman has admitted fouling the man’s drive and although he has been disciplined, council leaders say he will keep his job.

They declined to discuss the nature of his punishment but said he offered to apologise personally.

The resident reported the incident after claiming he had seen a binman twice urinate in the spot before.

He told the officer at Malvern Hills District Council “if it didn’t rain for a while it left a stain”.

The culprit fouled the drive some time before 7.50am on January 17.

The resident said the man could have asked to use the toilet at the house.

He said: “It’s pretty vile. I could almost have forgiven him if he had made sure he got back and it had all gone when I got home.”

Although it was cleaned up and disinfected, the man, who had expected the binman to be suspended, saw him doing his rounds in Kempsey a few days later.

He has written to the council demanding £1,500, based on the fact the council can fine people up to £1,000 for dog fouling.

A disciplinary investigation meeting took place at the man’s home, when council officer Danny Healey apologised to the man.

Minutes of the meeting say the issue was reported to Ivor Pumfrey, head of community services and Alex Bill, operations manager at the depot, who cleaned up the mess on the day and spoke to the crew, when one of them admitted responsibility.

At the meeting, they also assured the homeowner that they would change the binman in future so he did not have to see him.

Ivor Pumfrey, head of community services at Malvern Hills District Council, said: “As soon as the incident was reported to us we accepted full responsibility and took immediate action. The member of staff has been disciplined.

“The council has specific practices in place to ensure this sort of event does not happen but unfortunately, on this occasion, it was down to human failing on the part of the member of staff involved. We have apologised unreservedly to the customer.”

Comments(77)

Letterman says...
9:38am Sat 9 Mar 13

If this act was done by someone from the private sector, they would have been sacked. But as ever, when a council work does something abhorrent, they get away with it. The bin man should have been sacked, as should his colleagues who decide not to dismiss him. This ruling basically means council workers can continue to get away with things without suffering the consequences, whatever wrongdoing, or bad decisions, they undertake.

This just merely sums up the attitude of council workers and shows the total arrogance and disrespect they display towards the public. They really do disgust me at times.

Report this post »

TDH123 says...
10:00am Sat 9 Mar 13

"Down to a human failing" . . what a joke, the bin-man is a disgrace. We, as council tax-payers, surely do not want such foul oiks collecting our rubbish. As for the council, do they not have any standards? The bin-man should have been dismissed and reported to the police for an offence under the Public Order Act or one of criminal damage.
The bin-man, in addition to being wholly discourteous, should be dismissed as he clearly is absent of any initiative - he could have at least opened up a bin-bag, done it in there then thrown it in his rubbish wagon.

Report this post »

jabroner says...
10:58am Sat 9 Mar 13

I have found this story more hilarious to read than the chap with no chicken in his curry

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
11:18am Sat 9 Mar 13

If any one of us had done it, we would be faceing criminal charges and would be named and shamed at the court case.

Report this post »

Letterman says...
11:33am Sat 9 Mar 13

thecigarman wrote:
If any one of us had done it, we would be faceing criminal charges and would be named and shamed at the court case.
The bin man needs to be publicly named, with a photo shown in the press, so that householders can keep an eye out for him when their refuse is being collected.

Report this post »

jdg says...
11:39am Sat 9 Mar 13

the report also says that the same spot had been used twice before by binmen to urinate. What has he done to upset them or what is it about that spot ?

Report this post »

TDH123 says...
11:58am Sat 9 Mar 13

I hope that Ivor (got disgraceful employees) Pumfrey sees fit to compensate the victim in the sum of £1500, as has been sought. If it is £1000 for dog mess then £1500 seems quite reasonable for bin-man mess! I endorse the need to provide a photograph of the bin-man in question so that we can keep an eye out on bin day to make sure he does not defecate on our driveways. By the way I hope that when the mess was finally picked up from this poor mans' driveway it was placed in the correct refuse receptacle . . . is it recyclable?!

Report this post »

Maggie Would says...
12:25pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Yes, and then when he's been identified we can put him in the stocks and throw rotten veg at him.

Report this post »

DarrenM says...
2:31pm Sat 9 Mar 13

"The council has specific practices in place to ensure this sort of event does not happen"

Pardon?

Council workers defecating the street was such a problem that they had to come up with specific practices to stop it?!?!

Can the Evening News put a FOI request in to see this document?

Report this post »

mrgrumpy says...
3:04pm Sat 9 Mar 13

jabroner wrote:
I have found this story more hilarious to read than the chap with no chicken in his curry
And that about sums up the general mentality of people today

Report this post »

Illogik says...
3:30pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Must be thick.

Report this post »

M@lvernite says...
3:32pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Are they still allowed to use the term "bin-man" in this day and age? I thought the politically correct term was "refuse collector" so as not to exclude any female refuse collectors, not that I've ever seen one.

Report this post »

dr john dee says...
3:42pm Sat 9 Mar 13

So the guy had a poo......under severe intestinal pressure, he made a bad decision and has been appropriately disciplined and advised.........

Apart from the solitary sufferer, the rest of you are no better than a lynch mob - mindless pathetic bullies who become orgasmic at the prospect of a public humiliation.

You want him to lose his living and be publicly shamed? You must be very disappointed in your own miserable existence.........

Report this post »

b1ackb1rd says...
4:15pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Leave the poor guy alone, there may be circumstances that have not been made public.
Can I follow you commenters around and check that you are all as perfect as you make out?

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
4:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Lets face it anyone can be caught short .But to leave excrement and loo roll on someones drive when you have a shovel and bags to clear it up with and a bin lorry to dispose of it in is never going to be acceptable. Can you imagine if it was your drive.
If this was a private company then he would have been sacked.
If he had wanted to protect his job and his reputation then he would have cleared it up.
There is no way that this is the way an adult should behave.
You expect dog owners to pick up after their pets ,but why should other employees have to pick up after this man.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
4:30pm Sat 9 Mar 13

DarrenM wrote:
"The council has specific practices in place to ensure this sort of event does not happen"

Pardon?

Council workers defecating the street was such a problem that they had to come up with specific practices to stop it?!?!

Can the Evening News put a FOI request in to see this document?
DarrenM.
I missed that ,good point .Lets hope they keep a supply of poop a scoop bags in the vehicles from now on.

Report this post »

TDH123 says...
4:37pm Sat 9 Mar 13

b1ackb1rd wrote:
Leave the poor guy alone, there may be circumstances that have not been made public.
Can I follow you commenters around and check that you are all as perfect as you make out?
Do you really think such conduct is excusable? I am sure that one does not have to be perfect to realise that defecating on someone elses drive-way is unacceptable, disgraceful and intolerable behaviour.

Report this post »

dr john dee says...
4:41pm Sat 9 Mar 13

sarah and her chickens wrote:
Lets face it anyone can be caught short .But to leave excrement and loo roll on someones drive when you have a shovel and bags to clear it up with and a bin lorry to dispose of it in is never going to be acceptable. Can you imagine if it was your drive.
If this was a private company then he would have been sacked.
If he had wanted to protect his job and his reputation then he would have cleared it up.
There is no way that this is the way an adult should behave.
You expect dog owners to pick up after their pets ,but why should other employees have to pick up after this man.
That's just it Sarah, no-one is saying its acceptable but should his life be ripped apart over this?

This man is at the very bottom (no pun intended) of the council's food chain. He may be very bright but perhaps not.....

If you want to gripe about the council then have a go at the fat cats not some poor soul who is out in all weathers dealing with all our sh1t to earn a living.....

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
5:04pm Sat 9 Mar 13

You will have to trust me as my post revealing who it is was removed,but I know the ins and outs,no pun intended of this story.
There are hundreds of people who would do this job with pride and work really hard . Think how many people are on the dole and would dearly love employment.
But this person has choosen to use an OAPs drive as a toilet. There is no excuse and there never can be .
Yes I agree the fat cats at the top also need dealing with as they have let him keep his job.They should also be held accountable for his behaviour.
All he had to do was clean it up.
I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would do this and then walk away.
So yes I think he should loose his job and be replaced by someone with respect for others.Not only the residents but his fellow employees who had to go clean up his mess and who are horrified that this has gone unpunished.

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
5:17pm Sat 9 Mar 13

sarah and her chickens wrote:
You will have to trust me as my post revealing who it is was removed,but I know the ins and outs,no pun intended of this story.
There are hundreds of people who would do this job with pride and work really hard . Think how many people are on the dole and would dearly love employment.
But this person has choosen to use an OAPs drive as a toilet. There is no excuse and there never can be .
Yes I agree the fat cats at the top also need dealing with as they have let him keep his job.They should also be held accountable for his behaviour.
All he had to do was clean it up.
I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would do this and then walk away.
So yes I think he should loose his job and be replaced by someone with respect for others.Not only the residents but his fellow employees who had to go clean up his mess and who are horrified that this has gone unpunished.
Spot on. He should of cleaned it up. No excuses now all his fellow bin men will be labeled. Im sure they wont be happy at all.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
5:22pm Sat 9 Mar 13

No they are not very happy at all !!!!

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
5:25pm Sat 9 Mar 13

sarah and her chickens wrote:
No they are not very happy at all !!!!
I wouldent be either, he should be named and shamed, and the people defending him ought to be ashamed. Yes weve all been caught short but he should of at least cleaned it up and apologised before he got made to.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
5:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13

thecigarman wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
No they are not very happy at all !!!!
I wouldent be either, he should be named and shamed, and the people defending him ought to be ashamed. Yes weve all been caught short but he should of at least cleaned it up and apologised before he got made to.
Totally agree.
Not much else can be said. Just have to wait until he does it again. After all he was carrying a loo roll. Says a lot to me .

Report this post »

The Doosra says...
6:05pm Sat 9 Mar 13

A few contibutors on here talk an awful lot of rubbish about the workings of local government, but on this occasion I have to agree with those who say that the refuse collector in question should have been sacked. His behaviour was inexcusable.

Report this post »

goodygoody says...
6:26pm Sat 9 Mar 13

I can't understand why he didn't knock on a door in the hope of using a loo. I'm sure someone would have let him in. I would have. And now he has let himself down by doing the unspeakable. Assuming he cares of course!

Report this post »

portsmouth41 says...
6:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Maggie Would wrote:
Yes, and then when he's been identified we can put him in the stocks and throw rotten veg at him.
Yes, well it was MY drive and just to clarify, the offender only 'offered to aplogise personally' as claimed by the Council when it was suggested to him at the (secret) disciplinary hearing on 28 February that it might not be a bad idea to apologise! So, a self-serving apology of convenience at best ... sorry, no pun intended.

Report this post »

truth must out says...
6:31pm Sat 9 Mar 13

dr john dee wrote:
So the guy had a poo......under severe intestinal pressure, he made a bad decision and has been appropriately disciplined and advised.........

Apart from the solitary sufferer, the rest of you are no better than a lynch mob - mindless pathetic bullies who become orgasmic at the prospect of a public humiliation.

You want him to lose his living and be publicly shamed? You must be very disappointed in your own miserable existence.........
I agree entirely. The incident was reported and the Council took disciplinary action. Is that not enough for some people. What more do they want .....blood!!! Especially the poster who actually named him, but hides behind her anonymity.

Report this post »

portsmouth41 says...
6:34pm Sat 9 Mar 13

TDH123 wrote:
b1ackb1rd wrote:
Leave the poor guy alone, there may be circumstances that have not been made public.
Can I follow you commenters around and check that you are all as perfect as you make out?
Do you really think such conduct is excusable? I am sure that one does not have to be perfect to realise that defecating on someone elses drive-way is unacceptable, disgraceful and intolerable behaviour.
I've got an idea - perhaps I should go and do exactly the same thing in the doorway of MHDC's head office? And then offer to discipline myself in a secret manner - bet I would get away with that! - NOT

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
6:39pm Sat 9 Mar 13

portsmouth41 wrote:
Maggie Would wrote:
Yes, and then when he's been identified we can put him in the stocks and throw rotten veg at him.
Yes, well it was MY drive and just to clarify, the offender only 'offered to aplogise personally' as claimed by the Council when it was suggested to him at the (secret) disciplinary hearing on 28 February that it might not be a bad idea to apologise! So, a self-serving apology of convenience at best ... sorry, no pun intended.
Portsmouth41 on behalf of a binman horrified by all of this I would like to apologise to you.
I have myself complained to the chief executive about the handling of this matter and I suggest you contact your district councillor.
There is no excuse and the man shows no remorse.
He should have been suspended and then sacked. After all this is not his first offense .

Report this post »

jabroner says...
6:41pm Sat 9 Mar 13

mrgrumpy wrote:
jabroner wrote:
I have found this story more hilarious to read than the chap with no chicken in his curry
And that about sums up the general mentality of people today
Sorry I shall be miserable like you...

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
6:41pm Sat 9 Mar 13

In fact I have complained to all district councillors !

Report this post »

Mr Analysis says...
8:19pm Sat 9 Mar 13

LMAO is all i can do / say...

Report this post »

mrgrumpy says...
8:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13

jabroner wrote:
mrgrumpy wrote:
jabroner wrote:
I have found this story more hilarious to read than the chap with no chicken in his curry
And that about sums up the general mentality of people today
Sorry I shall be miserable like you...
Just re iterates my original comment

Report this post »

Brummie_exile says...
8:30pm Sat 9 Mar 13

The binman must have been working over time hours....time and a turd.

Report this post »

chapski75 says...
8:53pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Agree that he should be sacked. All public sector worker's should remember who pays them and that their actions and behaviours whilst at work ought to be of the standard expected of them by the public.
.
Unions have pushed up the pay for bin men (I refuse to call them refuse collectors, and other PC nonsense!), this then puts them at risk of their service being outsourced when the council requires cuts to be made, with this level of service there'll be no public outcry to keep our bin men and little sympathy either. If I were a bin man and had to still work alongside someone who had brought down the reputation of the whole team I'd be making my feelings know to the managers there. Disciplinary process is usually verbal or written warning and only dismissal for gross misconduct. This is about as gross as it gets, both in gravitas and depravatity.
.
WN please push for a follow up on this and ask the manager or the director of services to comment on the public feeling in this matter.

Report this post »

truth must out says...
8:56pm Sat 9 Mar 13

sarah and her chickens wrote:
In fact I have complained to all district councillors !
Why??? What exactly do you want...justice or revenge!!! His employers have dealt with the matter, obviously not to YOUR satisfaction.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
9:23pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Justice truth must out. If he had done it on my drive as then i would want revenge . If this is not gross misconduct and bringing the council into disrepute then what is ?
People have received the sack for far less than this. If he had done this on your drive,left it there ,owned up only when he was caught and then only apologised when he was told too and on top of that laughed about it how would you feel?
How would you feel if you had been sent out to clean up the mess ?
You are either a very forgiving person who feels that no punishment is fine, or friends with this binman ?
Either way so far the councillors seem to agree with me !

Report this post »

RogerLFC says...
9:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13

The article alludes to 'a binman' urinating in the same spot twice before. Is it the same binman that left this nasty deposit? Or a different binman? Have we got one two or three binmen relieving themselves on this drive?

Report this post »

b1ackb1rd says...
9:37pm Sat 9 Mar 13

One bloke takes a dump and you lot want to abolish the public sector! Bankers, Big Business and especially Government do this to us all on a daily basis ... But then most of you voted them in , so it's clearly One Rule ...

Report this post »

Martbux says...
10:41pm Sat 9 Mar 13

I got sacked by hwfrs for gross misconduct speeding to a shout for bringing the brigade into dis repute surely this is worse althought its not what you know it's who you know when you want to keep your job its always the same for the public sector

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
10:53pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Martbux wrote:
I got sacked by hwfrs for gross misconduct speeding to a shout for bringing the brigade into dis repute surely this is worse althought its not what you know it's who you know when you want to keep your job its always the same for the public sector
Shame on them.

Report this post »

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
8:46am Sun 10 Mar 13

Perhaps it was the "turd" binman to use the drive as a loo?

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
8:51am Sun 10 Mar 13

Martbux wrote:
I got sacked by hwfrs for gross misconduct speeding to a shout for bringing the brigade into dis repute surely this is worse althought its not what you know it's who you know when you want to keep your job its always the same for the public sector
Got it in one martbux !!

Report this post »

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
1:12pm Sun 10 Mar 13

Did the council give the binman the "turd" degree?

Report this post »

Justintime says...
2:30pm Sun 10 Mar 13

Seems very strange that the same driveway has been used for the purpose of urinating. Even if this man had a medical problem and was caught short there is absolutely no excuse for not clearing up excrement. He should loose his job for what is in effect gross misconduct, give the job to someone with a bit of respect.

Report this post »

portsmouth41 says...
5:38pm Sun 10 Mar 13

TDH123 wrote:
I hope that Ivor (got disgraceful employees) Pumfrey sees fit to compensate the victim in the sum of £1500, as has been sought. If it is £1000 for dog mess then £1500 seems quite reasonable for bin-man mess! I endorse the need to provide a photograph of the bin-man in question so that we can keep an eye out on bin day to make sure he does not defecate on our driveways. By the way I hope that when the mess was finally picked up from this poor mans' driveway it was placed in the correct refuse receptacle . . . is it recyclable?!
I'm encouraged by those who seem to agree that there should be at least a 50% premium over what MHDC themselves might charge if my dog had done this (see 'Poop Scoop' notices advising penalty of £1000).
But I wonder which officer will feel able to decide on my claim?
So far:
Initial complaint passed from chief exec's office to ..... Ivor Pumfrey
Decision not to suspend the offender ....Ivor Pumfrey
Investigator appointed by .... Ivor Pumfrey
Report submitted to .... Ivor Pumfrey
Hearing arranged by ... Ivor Pumfrey
Disciplinary panel chaired by ..... Ivor Pumfrey
Decision that I should not know the outcome of panel .... Ivor pumfrey

I don't know why this guy doesn't just come and collect my waste personally in future, so he can have the whole set!

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
8:13pm Sun 10 Mar 13

Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!

Report this post »

knick-knack says...
11:41pm Sun 10 Mar 13

Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
Misery&spooky - you really are a nasty piece of work. Fancy threatening the victim of this callous action. Have you no understanding of decency, or respect for the public that you are supposed to serve?

It is obvious that you are another council employee, and I would suggest that this threatening behaviour is worthy of an investigation in its own right.

Or do the council consider themselves to be the masters of the public nowadays and can literally sh*t on us whenever they choose?

Report this post »

Happy&merry says...
11:59pm Sun 10 Mar 13

knick-knack wrote:
Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
Misery&spooky - you really are a nasty piece of work. Fancy threatening the victim of this callous action. Have you no understanding of decency, or respect for the public that you are supposed to serve?

It is obvious that you are another council employee, and I would suggest that this threatening behaviour is worthy of an investigation in its own right.

Or do the council consider themselves to be the masters of the public nowadays and can literally sh*t on us whenever they choose?
See you have that wrong... The person I have quoted is NO victim she has jumped on the band wagon..... Correction I do not work for the council so wrong again!!! If anyone is being rude and nasty this is you.....

Report this post »

iamthebinman says...
7:09am Mon 11 Mar 13

Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
Which solicitor would be interested in following up a few WN comments? Pathetic threat!

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
7:21am Mon 11 Mar 13

Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
So its ok for this low life to crap on someones drive, slandering is when the information is incorrect or false, if shes telling the truth then there isent a problum, this person should be named and shamed. Name and shame sarah.,. i,ll sort you a good solicitor if the fool above carries out the worthless threats, we,ll sue them for a sherbet dip.

Report this post »

iamthebinman says...
7:36am Mon 11 Mar 13

Is it Empty Threat Day?

Report this post »

Happy&merry says...
7:47am Mon 11 Mar 13

iamthebinman wrote:
Is it Empty Threat Day?
Believe me no empty threat.... There very interested.... It really is sad that people speak about this person as a criminal monster.....

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
7:58am Mon 11 Mar 13

Happy&merry wrote:
iamthebinman wrote:
Is it Empty Threat Day?
Believe me no empty threat.... There very interested.... It really is sad that people speak about this person as a criminal monster.....
Whos very intrested?. There isent a solicitor in the land that would take on a case like this, unless of course the person Sarah named is not the said crapper. He should of cleaned it up the scumbag.

Report this post »

iamthebinman says...
8:17am Mon 11 Mar 13

Happy&merry wrote:
iamthebinman wrote:
Is it Empty Threat Day?
Believe me no empty threat.... There very interested.... It really is sad that people speak about this person as a criminal monster.....
Utter rot! You are living in a fantasy! This bloke will be getting on with his work knowing he got away with one! And good luck to him! Next time he will do it on a copy of the WN and bin it!!

Report this post »

Respectable says...
8:34am Mon 11 Mar 13

If you've ever travelled in India you would not be shocked by this.

We don't live in India however and standards of acceptable behaviour are very different.

I don't think I know anyone that would genuinely be ok with this on their driveway.

Not wanting to join a lynch mob or the case for the defence my only questions for this are....

Is there a council policy or procedure or risk assessment for this type of situation ?
What does the council procedure manual tell is operatives to do ?

Report this post »

portsmouth41 says...
8:47am Mon 11 Mar 13

thecigarman wrote:
Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
So its ok for this low life to crap on someones drive, slandering is when the information is incorrect or false, if shes telling the truth then there isent a problum, this person should be named and shamed. Name and shame sarah.,. i,ll sort you a good solicitor if the fool above carries out the worthless threats, we,ll sue them for a sherbet dip.
Although I am grateful for the interest shown, could I ask all correspondents to calm down a bit and bear in mind that there are two separate issues here:
First, the offence itself. I do NOT want the offender publicly hanged or even dismissed from his job.
What I DO want is a properly conducted and impartial investigation and a Council which recognises that WE ARE ITS CUSTOMERS and not some bunch called "the general public" who can be treated with such disdain. Oh, and I would like an amount of damages at least as high as I might have to pay to the Council if my dog did the same thing. Doesn't that seem fair?

Report this post »

thecigarman says...
8:49am Mon 11 Mar 13

portsmouth41 wrote:
thecigarman wrote:
Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
So its ok for this low life to crap on someones drive, slandering is when the information is incorrect or false, if shes telling the truth then there isent a problum, this person should be named and shamed. Name and shame sarah.,. i,ll sort you a good solicitor if the fool above carries out the worthless threats, we,ll sue them for a sherbet dip.
Although I am grateful for the interest shown, could I ask all correspondents to calm down a bit and bear in mind that there are two separate issues here:
First, the offence itself. I do NOT want the offender publicly hanged or even dismissed from his job.
What I DO want is a properly conducted and impartial investigation and a Council which recognises that WE ARE ITS CUSTOMERS and not some bunch called "the general public" who can be treated with such disdain. Oh, and I would like an amount of damages at least as high as I might have to pay to the Council if my dog did the same thing. Doesn't that seem fair?
Very fair indeed. Good on you.

Report this post »

Respectable says...
10:01am Mon 11 Mar 13

SPOT ON.

Report this post »

pinkfluff says...
10:27am Mon 11 Mar 13

It's LOSE not LOOSE!!!!!!!!!!

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
10:42am Mon 11 Mar 13

Crikey. Happy and merry you are connfused if wish to ring a solicitor go ahead but t is libel not slander.
I am not speaking from hearsay. He does not have a unblemished record .portsmoth41 is very generous. Indeed. But the council officials as a whole have not conducted this fairly.
Staff have been sacked and suspended for for less disgusting crimes.
Will await my solicitors letter in the post..

Report this post »

Malaky says...
11:31am Mon 11 Mar 13

The whole "ablution-gate scandal" has been badly mishandled by the council, and the manger responsible for this escalating scandal should receive a public reprimand and be cautioned about his future conduct.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
12:27pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Portsmoth41 i do agree with your right to compensation . But the officers have decided that no real harm was done. Your binman is still on your round after all.
I don't think most of us taxpayers should foot the bill for what is really an offense By the binm and the officers alone. So i do hope that it is them not us who will give you the compensation you deserve.
If they truly are sorry then they should pay.

Report this post »

Casmal says...
12:37pm Mon 11 Mar 13

portsmouth41 wrote:
TDH123 wrote:
I hope that Ivor (got disgraceful employees) Pumfrey sees fit to compensate the victim in the sum of £1500, as has been sought. If it is £1000 for dog mess then £1500 seems quite reasonable for bin-man mess! I endorse the need to provide a photograph of the bin-man in question so that we can keep an eye out on bin day to make sure he does not defecate on our driveways. By the way I hope that when the mess was finally picked up from this poor mans' driveway it was placed in the correct refuse receptacle . . . is it recyclable?!
I'm encouraged by those who seem to agree that there should be at least a 50% premium over what MHDC themselves might charge if my dog had done this (see 'Poop Scoop' notices advising penalty of £1000).
But I wonder which officer will feel able to decide on my claim?
So far:
Initial complaint passed from chief exec's office to ..... Ivor Pumfrey
Decision not to suspend the offender ....Ivor Pumfrey
Investigator appointed by .... Ivor Pumfrey
Report submitted to .... Ivor Pumfrey
Hearing arranged by ... Ivor Pumfrey
Disciplinary panel chaired by ..... Ivor Pumfrey
Decision that I should not know the outcome of panel .... Ivor pumfrey

I don't know why this guy doesn't just come and collect my waste personally in future, so he can have the whole set!
I find this deeply disturbing. As someone who used to be a union rep. in the public sector, 'though not environmental health, I would have had significant concerns if the council's disciplinary procedure allowed for the person who received the initial complaint to also chair the disciplinary panel. The person in the chair has not only to be impartial, but be seen to be impartial. Someone with prior knowledge is said to be "tainted", however honourable or not such a person may be. Such "tainting" could, in the worst case scenario, work either in favour or against the employee. If I were a union rep in this man's sector I would urgently want the disciplinary procedure amended.

With regard to the "secret" hearing, a better word would be private. Whilst I can fully understand that you, or any complainant would want to know the outcome, for hearings to be held in private is perfectly proper. In a disciplinary hearing very personal information may be discussed, even a medical record and/or other people may be involved to give evidence. It is right that this is kept confidential. The outcome of such a hearing and the action taken will depend on what the panel has heard and taken into account, so anyone not taking part will not know the context of the decision and therefore not necessarily understand it.

Whilst I find it hard to imagine what mitigating circumstances there might be for this employee, there has to be a consistent set of rules.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
3:40pm Mon 11 Mar 13

One of the issues here,and one that happy and merry would actually find worthwhile getting a solicitor for is the release of confidential info .
MHDC as the data controllers breached ACAS guidelines as always months ago when managers saw fit to release the details of this case to the public via the gossip machine at the depot.
The fact that i know details is not illegal,the fact they released them is. Something i have pointed out to them repeatedly .

Report this post »

penelope52@btinternet.com says...
4:33pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Maybe he was on antibiotics, which can do that to you at very short notice. He could at least have cleaned up after himself though - that's surely inexcusable. Still, in a few years time we possibly won't have any antibiotics that work, and this variety of being taken short should become less common. To the correspondent who said he should have knocked on a door and asked to use the loo, I'd say that many people are quite rightfully wary of letting strangers into their homes.

Report this post »

penelope52@btinternet.com says...
4:34pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Maybe he was on antibiotics, which can do that to you at very short notice. He could at least have cleaned up after himself though - that's surely inexcusable. Still, in a few years time we possibly won't have any antibiotics that work, and this variety of being taken short should become less common. To the correspondent who said he should have knocked on a door and asked to use the loo, I'd say that many people are quite rightfully wary of letting strangers into their homes.

Report this post »

hashbag says...
6:56pm Mon 11 Mar 13

I have read all the comments on this and I find some of them very perplexing indeed. Some people do not seem to be in the real world.

The report from the WN states that the binman had urinated at the address on two other occasions which begs me to ask the question.. Why did you let this chap continue to urinate after the first incident or were you accepting his call of nature. Surely a polite telephone call to the council offices the first time may/would have prevented any repeat actions. Also, a call for £1500 compensation? to me is not acceptable unless you have a sign which says "Anyone caught fouling this area will owe me £1500" Of course I can fully understand the stress this may have caused and for one moment I do not condone this mans actions but possibly this should have been dealt professionally with all parties involved and left behind closed doors.

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
8:08pm Mon 11 Mar 13

MHDC and professional !!!!!lol

Report this post »

Vertis says...
7:28am Tue 12 Mar 13

....Should of rubbed his nose in it...

Report this post »

MJI says...
8:22am Tue 12 Mar 13

Happy&merry wrote:
sarah and her chickens wrote:
Shame the pompous little man did not also come out and clean up the poo .
However he was too busy as usual investigating his own department and finding out everything was fine !!
I would like to say to Sarah and her chickens!!! How sad can you be writing on here because you have a personal issue with the council, what are you trying to achieve by getting this person in question the sack!!! Do you think for one minute how his family are feeling.... what he is done is wrong and this person is fully aware of this it was a moment of sheer madness.. This person has many years of service with a clean record this paper article is incorrect in many ways... By telling the paper this persons name you are now slandering this person which I would be very careful about this as you have no evidence only hearsay, if I see you write one more thing on here about this person you will be hearing from a solicitor. If your wondering how I know who you are I do trust me!,,,
If she named the correct person you cannot get her done for slander.
.
You see you cannot get done for telling the truth.

Report this post »

portsmouth41 says...
8:29am Tue 12 Mar 13

Well, I can't win can I?
"Hashbag" seems to think that because I did the 'decent' thing and had a word with him myself when I caught him urinating in the same spot, rather than formally reporting him, that I am somehow giving him a licence to crap there. What on earth would be next ...??
As to the comment from "casmal" I would tend to agree about the privacy of these hearings ..... except that I had been asked if I wished to attend! There is also a world of difference between the hearing being HELD in private and my being told that the outcome was "secret" and "nothing to do with me"
It was this statement by MHDC that finally caused me to give the story to the Worcester News - having kept it out of the public eye for nearly two months to allow MHDC to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. Ever the optimist, me!

Report this post »

MJI says...
8:31am Tue 12 Mar 13

If it happened to me I would video it, send to BBC and upload to Youtube!

Report this post »

sarah and her chickens says...
8:54am Tue 12 Mar 13

Don t worry portsmouth41 I know all about this case. Keep going you are in the right. You are about to get an apology from Mr.Bocok. Another attempt to cover up for the poor handling of this entire case. Don t suppose you ever asked his name? He goes under Noel Gallagher for most complaints.

Report this post »

Casmal says...
11:52am Tue 12 Mar 13

portsmouth41 wrote:
Well, I can't win can I?
"Hashbag" seems to think that because I did the 'decent' thing and had a word with him myself when I caught him urinating in the same spot, rather than formally reporting him, that I am somehow giving him a licence to crap there. What on earth would be next ...??
As to the comment from "casmal" I would tend to agree about the privacy of these hearings ..... except that I had been asked if I wished to attend! There is also a world of difference between the hearing being HELD in private and my being told that the outcome was "secret" and "nothing to do with me"
It was this statement by MHDC that finally caused me to give the story to the Worcester News - having kept it out of the public eye for nearly two months to allow MHDC to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. Ever the optimist, me!
Hi Portsmouth 41, thank you for this. This case gets more and more bizarre. There appear to be double standards operating here. I can understand if they had "only" refused to tell you the outcome, for the reasons I stated before, but to invite you, so you could have heard what was said and understood the context of any disciplinary action and then not tell you the outcome - and to say it's nothing to do with you.....well.....it just beggars belief. I would be interested to know if you went. I would also like to congratulate you on the way you have handled this whole affair. You have acted with remarkable tolerance, understanding and restraint.

Report this post »

Omicron says...
1:30pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Just after the splashpad in Gheluvelt Park opened I was walking my dog pass the Sons of Rest building. At the side of the building a mother was holding her toddler off-spring in the crouch position whilst it pooed on the grass. As I walked past I asked her if she would like a poop bag which she could use to pick the mess up afterwards. I was met with a torrent of abuse which included the words "this is a child here not a f****** dog so I don't have to pick anything up". The mess, complete with soiled paper and baby wipes, was still there the day after. To me this a sign of the times and the world we live in. So should this mother have been fined £1500?

Report this post »

hashbag says...
1:44pm Tue 12 Mar 13

portsmouth41 wrote:
Well, I can't win can I? "Hashbag" seems to think that because I did the 'decent' thing and had a word with him myself when I caught him urinating in the same spot, rather than formally reporting him, that I am somehow giving him a licence to crap there. What on earth would be next ...?? As to the comment from "casmal" I would tend to agree about the privacy of these hearings ..... except that I had been asked if I wished to attend! There is also a world of difference between the hearing being HELD in private and my being told that the outcome was "secret" and "nothing to do with me" It was this statement by MHDC that finally caused me to give the story to the Worcester News - having kept it out of the public eye for nearly two months to allow MHDC to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. Ever the optimist, me!
Portsmouth41.... I can not recall there being a mention of you speaking to the chap so if you had and he continued to do his business then possibly you should have informed the Police instead explaining 'you had warned him on a previous occasion'.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree