Pensioner gets payout over binman’s foul play (From Worcester News)

So the recipient didn't want to name the local charity so Mr Bocock took it upon himself to do so.... Last act of arrogant defiance / Harvey Smith to the victim in all of this..

The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

I ask only two questions

1. How does £1000.00 make things correct. Once the cost would only have been 1d.
2. I trust those who criticized Sarah and Her chickens for saying a payment had been made will now show some humility, and publically of her an apology.

He deserves the small payout out of principle, good on you sir for giving it to charity. The council are a law onto there own. One rule for them and another for us, if there wouldent of been the publicity in this case i doubt very much if he would of got a payout.

Correction added.
I ask only two questions

1. How does £1000.00 make things correct. Once the cost would only have been 1d.
2. I trust those who criticized Sarah and Her chickens for saying a payment had been made will now show some humility, and publically offer her an apology.

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Let someone do it on your drive, how would you react?. The council handled it all wrong from the start. If any member of the public done such a vile act they would more than likely face criminal charges. If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. The offender shouldent of done it or at least cleaned it up.

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Because Mr Bocock is a salaried executive / professional employed in public office. He should NOT get drawn into a tit for tat slanging match with the electorate... You know..take it on the chin in a professional manner kind of stuff.

Did the resident contact the WN with the information? Or was he approached by the WN for a comment after they received the information elsewhere?

surely the culprit who was responsible should have £1000 stopped out of his wages.and not the tax payer foot the bill....

Whoever started this problem (the refuse disposable officer) or the resident is open for debate, however, what the council employee did was a disgusting an unnecessary act. This employee was taken short, and unless his /her tongue had been removed, they could have asked one of the residents for permission to use their toilet. If a refusal had been one of the reasons, this act took place. It does not excuse the fact that the perpetrator did not dispose of the fouling’s as any decent individual who had been caught unaware would have done. Compensation (which has been disclosed) of £1000.00 plus the cost of the removing and sanitising on behalf of this resident in addition to the compensation will have cost the rate payer dearly. One piece of information is puzzling. Who supplied the toilet paper?

mr.meldrew wrote:
surely the culprit who was responsible should have £1000 stopped out of his wages.and not the tax payer foot the bill....

I would think that it would not be in the power of the council to deduct anything from the employee’s salary without applying to the courts for permission to do so, which would probably have cost the Council Tax Payer considerably more. With an act that is so unimaginable, one wonders what disciplinary action has been taken against this individual. His/Her actions I would think amount to gross misconduct on behalf of a council employee. This in most employment situations would have resulted in instant dismissal.

Allan Whitehead wrote:
Correction added.
I ask only two questions

1. How does £1000.00 make things correct. Once the cost would only have been 1d.
2. I trust those who criticized Sarah and Her chickens for saying a payment had been made will now show some humility, and publically offer her an apology.

The fact that MHDC are so utterley predictable in their reaction to a situation is the only point I have to make.
Instead of learning from mistakes and improving their behaviour they continue to treat the public with disdain,refuse to be accountable for their decisions and blame everyone and anything when things go wrong.
SWDP, wheelie bins,resident parking permits and staff behaviour just the most recent instances.

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Let someone do it on your drive, how would you react?. The council handled it all wrong from the start. If any member of the public done such a vile act they would more than likely face criminal charges. If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. The offender shouldent of done it or at least cleaned it up.

He plans to give some to charity.....!!!
How much would that be then?? £5 £10
...and how much will go in his back pocket.

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Let someone do it on your drive, how would you react?. The council handled it all wrong from the start. If any member of the public done such a vile act they would more than likely face criminal charges. If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. The offender shouldent of done it or at least cleaned it up.

He plans to give some to charity.....!!!
How much would that be then?? £5 £10
...and how much will go in his back pocket.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing. Lets not get from the fact here, someone messed on his drive, property that he owns. If it would of ended up in the criminal courts he would of been awarded compensation without a doubt, how many people do you read about giving all or any of there compensation to charity?. Lets face it a grand isent much for the humiliation. The guy should of cleaned it up if he was that desperate he couldent wait. NO EXCUSIS. If it was one of my workers he would of been sacked, hes lucky hes still got a job.

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Let someone do it on your drive, how would you react?. The council handled it all wrong from the start. If any member of the public done such a vile act they would more than likely face criminal charges. If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. The offender shouldent of done it or at least cleaned it up.

He plans to give some to charity.....!!!
How much would that be then?? £5 £10
...and how much will go in his back pocket.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing. Lets not get from the fact here, someone messed on his drive, property that he owns. If it would of ended up in the criminal courts he would of been awarded compensation without a doubt, how many people do you read about giving all or any of there compensation to charity?. Lets face it a grand isent much for the humiliation. The guy should of cleaned it up if he was that desperate he couldent wait. NO EXCUSIS. If it was one of my workers he would of been sacked, hes lucky hes still got a job.

Bit of a contradiction in your argument there 'cigarman'. You agree he should give it to charity then you agree he should keep it. Watch that fence doesn't blow down.

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Let someone do it on your drive, how would you react?. The council handled it all wrong from the start. If any member of the public done such a vile act they would more than likely face criminal charges. If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. The offender shouldent of done it or at least cleaned it up.

He plans to give some to charity.....!!!
How much would that be then?? £5 £10
...and how much will go in his back pocket.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing. Lets not get from the fact here, someone messed on his drive, property that he owns. If it would of ended up in the criminal courts he would of been awarded compensation without a doubt, how many people do you read about giving all or any of there compensation to charity?. Lets face it a grand isent much for the humiliation. The guy should of cleaned it up if he was that desperate he couldent wait. NO EXCUSIS. If it was one of my workers he would of been sacked, hes lucky hes still got a job.

Bit of a contradiction in your argument there 'cigarman'. You agree he should give it to charity then you agree he should keep it. Watch that fence doesn't blow down.

not at all i never said he should give it to charity at all. I said good on him. Where do i say he should give it to charity?. Havent got a fence, my garden is all open. Read my posts properly.

If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing.

Extracts of a previous posts of yours, I rest my case.

@ thecigarman,
Sir, Think that your comments are saying would be very plausible if you had, re read your comments and corrected them. Sir I am not being nasty just hoping to give you a little friendly advice.

Very glad this man has received compensation. Agree that it's a shame the binman himself didn't actually cough up, but stunned at the comments that the Pensioner shouldn't have wanted compensation due to it being taxpayer's money. After reading all of these comments I'm almost hoping the said binman will pay a visit to 'truth must out'...... Lol.

Busymum2011 wrote:
Very glad this man has received compensation. Agree that it's a shame the binman himself didn't actually cough up, but stunned at the comments that the Pensioner shouldn't have wanted compensation due to it being taxpayer's money. After reading all of these comments I'm almost hoping the said binman will pay a visit to 'truth must out'...... Lol.

Totally agree.

lord newbold....he could pay the£1000 out of his wages by consent.if he refused then sack him...

mr.meldrew wrote:
lord newbold....he could pay the£1000 out of his wages by consent.if he refused then sack him...

Dear Mr Meldrew, do you really think that someone who will defecate on someone’s drive would agree to pay a sum of one thousand pounds sterling by consent. You must accept without any court action. It would be considered blackmail by the council had they even considered the options of saying your job unless you make good what the council as agreed with aggrieved in compensation.
If the council considered it, then they had the means to dismiss this employee. I for one cannot understand why this person is still employed by the council, unless there is something we are not aware of. Which the council was aware of and totally ignored the condition of this employee. This employee may have had a medical condition, which was being ignored by his superiors. One can only assume that for this type of conduct to have taken place, and the culprit still employed by the council seems very strange indeed.

I wish he'd crap on my drive, I could do with a grand

I suspect (and I'm only pulling this out of the air) suppose the binman had some kind of medical condition such as IBS or something like that, he had made the council aware and so would be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act,If the council hadn't made adequate provisions for him they would be liable which would explain maybe why he wasn't sacked?

Does not explain why he left it there though !! Or the toilet roll

sarah and her chickens wrote:
Does not explain why he left it there though !! Or the toilet roll

Sarah,
You are correct. Really, there is no excuse for his personal behaviour.
If he did have irritable bowel syndrome.

thecigarman wrote:

Busymum2011 wrote:
Very glad this man has received compensation. Agree that it's a shame the binman himself didn't actually cough up, but stunned at the comments that the Pensioner shouldn't have wanted compensation due to it being taxpayer's money. After reading all of these comments I'm almost hoping the said binman will pay a visit to 'truth must out'...... Lol.

Totally agree.

Think you two deserve each other...!!

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

Busymum2011 wrote:
Very glad this man has received compensation. Agree that it's a shame the binman himself didn't actually cough up, but stunned at the comments that the Pensioner shouldn't have wanted compensation due to it being taxpayer's money. After reading all of these comments I'm almost hoping the said binman will pay a visit to 'truth must out'...... Lol.

Totally agree.

Think you two deserve each other...!!

You have a serious problum if you think that craping on someones property is acceptable, bet your one of those sad people who dwell on peoples misfortune, and who would be the first to cry if it happend to you. Truth must out is a bazzar name for someone whos deluded.

if he had a condition such as ibs.why is he doing this job where facilities arent readily available?and i still stick by what i say....politely ask him to reimburse the tax payer £1000 pound...

mr.meldrew wrote:
if he had a condition such as ibs.why is he doing this job where facilities arent readily available?and i still stick by what i say....politely ask him to reimburse the tax payer £1000 pound...

Full agreement.
It is all very bizarre. Not only keeping his job but leaving the mess . Its not what you know but who you know in this world.

Perhaps the poo is the missing ingredient from the Asda curry missing a certain something?

If this was not the only time the home-owner's drive had been used as a convenience, it makes me wonder if it was personal.

Is the fact that the person is a pensioner relevant ?

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

Busymum2011 wrote:
Very glad this man has received compensation. Agree that it's a shame the binman himself didn't actually cough up, but stunned at the comments that the Pensioner shouldn't have wanted compensation due to it being taxpayer's money. After reading all of these comments I'm almost hoping the said binman will pay a visit to 'truth must out'...... Lol.

Totally agree.

Think you two deserve each other...!!

You have a serious problum if you think that craping on someones property is acceptable, bet your one of those sad people who dwell on peoples misfortune, and who would be the first to cry if it happend to you. Truth must out is a bazzar name for someone whos deluded.

I don't normally comment on poster's grammar and spelling but I suggest that thecigarman makes use of his spellchecker on his computer.

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

Busymum2011 wrote:
Very glad this man has received compensation. Agree that it's a shame the binman himself didn't actually cough up, but stunned at the comments that the Pensioner shouldn't have wanted compensation due to it being taxpayer's money. After reading all of these comments I'm almost hoping the said binman will pay a visit to 'truth must out'...... Lol.

Totally agree.

Think you two deserve each other...!!

You have a serious problum if you think that craping on someones property is acceptable, bet your one of those sad people who dwell on peoples misfortune, and who would be the first to cry if it happend to you. Truth must out is a bazzar name for someone whos deluded.

I don't normally comment on poster's grammar and spelling but I suggest that thecigarman makes use of his spellchecker on his computer.

Whats wrong with you, very sad case.

truth must out wrote:
If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing.

Extracts of a previous posts of yours, I rest my case.

You rest your case, where does it say he has to give it to charity?. you want to get your head together.

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing.

Extracts of a previous posts of yours, I rest my case.

You rest your case, where does it say he has to give it to charity?. you want to get your head together.

Whether he gives to charity or not, and I think £1000.00 to a pensioner would really mean a great rebate on what his Council Tax total would have been without the compensation. If it were I, I would possibly give 20 to 50 pounds to the homeless and keep the rest, why should I be out of pocket, if it had been my drive. However, I am commenting hypothetically, but still speaking the truth.

Allan Whitehead wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?.

He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing.

Extracts of a previous posts of yours, I rest my case.

You rest your case, where does it say he has to give it to charity?. you want to get your head together.

Whether he gives to charity or not, and I think £1000.00 to a pensioner would really mean a great rebate on what his Council Tax total would have been without the compensation. If it were I, I would possibly give 20 to 50 pounds to the homeless and keep the rest, why should I be out of pocket, if it had been my drive. However, I am commenting hypothetically, but still speaking the truth.

spot on.

thecigarman wrote:

Allan Whitehead wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote: If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. He doesent have to give anything to charity the fact hes giving any at all is an admiral thing. Extracts of a previous posts of yours, I rest my case.

You rest your case, where does it say he has to give it to charity?. you want to get your head together.

Whether he gives to charity or not, and I think £1000.00 to a pensioner would really mean a great rebate on what his Council Tax total would have been without the compensation. If it were I, I would possibly give 20 to 50 pounds to the homeless and keep the rest, why should I be out of pocket, if it had been my drive. However, I am commenting hypothetically, but still speaking the truth.

spot on.

Exactly, he pays for a service that fell way below standard and he got compensated for it - end of.

If it he had been compensated by tescos or anyother organisation the other customers would be paying for it. Why get hung up on the fact its tax?!

What the council does is now an internal matter..

Good on the man for not letting this rest, the council are too successful in fobbing taxpayers off with an excuse/half hearted apology and then turning away smugly while on their way to support benefit claimants with installing a 60" TV and surround sound, and then paying compensation happily when the TV is at the wrong angle.

Also, have I read a shared view that if someone has ibs they can't access the job they want.? Ridiculous. If you read back to the original story the complainant said he would of happily allowed the man in his house to use his toilet, but I suppose we're all too British to ask so will go round pooing like dogs instead!

truth must out wrote:

thecigarman wrote:

truth must out wrote:
The recipient started it by going back to the papers again, so why shouldn't Mr Bocock have his say???
It was all about getting compensation in the first place.......!! Hope he's happy as we, the taxpayer, have to foot this.

Let someone do it on your drive, how would you react?. The council handled it all wrong from the start. If any member of the public done such a vile act they would more than likely face criminal charges. If it was all about the compensation in the first place as you suggest why is he donating it to charity?. The offender shouldent of done it or at least cleaned it up.

He plans to give some to charity.....!!!
How much would that be then?? £5 £10
...and how much will go in his back pocket.

Well, I had hoped that this story had died... but:
Firstly, the recipient (me) didn't "start it by going back to the papers" - Worcester News asked me for a comment and they got it. Reporter James Connell will doubtless confirm.

Secondly, for Mr Bocock to say that "we are disappointed that HE has chosen to reopen this matter and to divulge details of our agreement with him" is quite odd. A piece of advice for Mr Bocock - if you want an agreement to remain confidential, write a confidentiality clause into that agreement! In the present case, that would have been accepted and honoured by me. If you don't, don't be surprised if people agree to comment when questioned by the Press!
MHDC wrote the terms of our agreement and I signed it without alteration. There is nothing in it that requires the parties to keep it secret, so I didn't feel obliged or compelled to refuse to comment.

Finally, I would be glad to know what he means by "has apologised personally to the resident"?
I wouldn't know him if he walked in now! I have had one meeting with one of his officers and one with his lawyer - that's it.