Local livestock owner threatened with imprisonment over 80th birthday present
It would appear that a new decade has brought no let-up in the torrent of overbearing and frankly ludicrous actions by our Big Brother state.
Alongside the binman reprimanded for picking up rubbish, and the businessman arrested for a non-offensive email that he didn't write, we now have a popular local livestock owner threatened with imprisonment for a poster wishing him a happy 80th birthday.
As reported at Burnham-On-Sea.com,
The family of well-known local livestock owner Arthur Duckett introduced the poster over the Christmas period to wish him a happy 80th birthday.
It shows Mr Duckett and his huge steer, Field Marshall, with the caption "a little man with big bulls."
Mr Duckett received a letter from Council enforcement officer David Crowle, stating: "It is the council’s view that the adverts are detrimental to the amenity of the area and as such will seek their removal."
It asked whether Mr Duckett woud be prepared to take down the "hoardings" without the need for formal action and warned that failure to abide by regulations could lead to a £400 fine or two years' imprisonment.
Quite apart from the appalling treatment of a well-liked 80 year-old man, in forcing him to remove the poster the council is pandering to the most wretched, humourless people who are apparently incapable of appreciating a mild joke with only the slightest hint of anything that could be deemed offensive.
I have placed the poster below. If any of our readers find it offensive they can write as much in the comments, however Big Brother Watch strongly recommends that they grow up.
For those who are more offended by the treatment of Arthur Duckett, we encourage you to send an email to David Crowle at david.crowle@sedgemoor.gov.uk explaining why Arthur should be allowed to keep his poster (or words to that effect!).
By Dylan Sharpe
11 Comments
Al Shaw
13th January 2010This poster was paid for, yes? It wasn’t a piece of vandalism, as far as I can see.
If so, the actions of the council are unbelievable.
I certainly see much more offensive posters every day advertising make up, cars and the national lottery.
Time to email David Crowle, I reckon.
Els
13th January 2010What I don’t get: how is he even responsible for the poster? Clearly, his family put it up as a present to him. He is only the receiver of it, how can he be punishable even *if* it were an offensive poster (which it is not).
Kynon
13th January 2010It’s on a billboard, which is (as I understand it) a commercial advertising space, and therefore within the remit of the ASA, not the local council.
I agree with Al Shaw – I see much more offensive posters on billboards, usually the ones either promoting political parties, or as part of the ongoing campaign to brainwash everyone into thinking that everything fun is bad for you.
Jess The Dog
13th January 2010Technically this will fall under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations England 2007 (which do not apply to the Crown) and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Contravention of Regulations
30.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person displaying an advertisement in contravention of these Regulations shall be liable, on summary conviction of an oVence under section 224(3) of the Act, to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale(a) and, in the case of a continuing offence, one tenth of level 4 on the standard scale for each day during which the offence continues after conviction.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to the Crown.
From the TCPA 1990:
5) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) by reason only —
(a) of his being the owner or occupier of the land on which an advertisement is displayed, or
(b) of his goods, trade, business or other concerns being given publicity by the advertisement, if he proves that it was displayed without his knowledge or consent.
Local regulations will probably allow a right of appeal as well, either to an independent tribunal or to planning inspectors. This can be a convoluted and drawn out process.
I would expect a planning or enforcement officer to know better. Something seems odd here. The relevant files and committee papers regarding planning decisions can normally be viewed online or in the office, also releasable under FOI. I’ve undertaken this on my own behalf with regard to a flawed council planning decision (for a council development) which had noise impact on myself.
Jason Dale
13th January 2010“a person displaying an advertisement in contravention of these Regulations” well does it is the question, and if so how many others do?
Jon
15th January 2010Have sent email suggesting thay ask the complainant to get a life & Mr Crowley to find something useful to do to justify his final salary pension
Barry Wright
17th January 2010The people who have complained must be absolutely crazy. The advert in essence is not in the least bit offensive.
It can only be ‘interpreted’ as offensive if the viewer chooses to view it in that manner.
Loans
15th March 2010Some stories I read just baffle me.
Cash Loans
5th May 2010I agree with Barry myself.
PrieltSparlep
16th November 2010Следуя закону бутерброда, можно сделать вывод, что если бутерброд намазать с двух сторон, то он повиснет в воздухе. Сколько Вашему сорванцу? Шестнадцать? Да, аборт делать уже поздно… Если враг не сдается, его перезагружают! Не кидайте бычки в писсуары, мы же не ссым в ваши пепельницы КЛАВУ топтать – это вам не с ДЖОЙСТИКОМ баловаться … Шоб вы так жили, как прибедняетесь! Жизнь так коротка! Потерпи чуть-чуть! Дул такой сильный ветер, что сигареты выворачивало вместе с зубами…
President Sarkastic
6th March 2011This poster is highly offensive to me. I spend my life trying very hard to be offended at least 6 times a day. I find everything homophobic,sexist or racist and complain to the nice council people who understand the meaning of offensive and indulge me at every turn. I think Mr. Crowley should be hung up by the bulls for this.