Northamptonshire Council is going bust

Sponsored Links
So it was gasbag that was the pillock that was fined for carrying industrial waste in his van without a licence? And you believed every word he told you, so did eeyore, and mightygob? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
So far on this thread you've accused Trans of the story being untrue.
Then you've lost the ability to read in order to try and point score over me and try to insult me.
Now you think that the story is all about Gas.

Wow.

Do you ever stop to think before you write?
:rolleyes:

There is evidence out there but you are unable to provide it? :rolleyes:
I read the article. You reckon there are other articles out there (somewhere), but you will not say where? :ROFLMAO:

Why do these sources for their information have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of some people?
Why is it that some people need to be spoon fed otherwise they behave like a toddler, kicking, screaming until they get what they want?

For future reference this place is your friend. https://www.google.co.uk/
All you have to do is type in what you are looking for and you will be able to see for yourself the information you demanded. It's what people with the ability to think and fend for themselves do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is incorrect.

If you think the source is poor, its up to you to do your own homework.
I disagree. If someone claims there are other sources out there, it is up to them to provide at least one other source.
Otherwise it looks like a typical one reporter's mixed up story.

As it is, there are inaccuracies in the versions:
When he did find out his appeal was declined, he claims he asked for clarification on the cost of the fine but was on holiday when the local authority replied. Stewart could be prosecuted for failing to pay the penalty on time, but says he has no plans to settle the fine.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/02/roof...ets-van-doesnt-licence-carry-rubbish-7789816/
He was ordered to pay £300 within 14 days of May 23, when the incident occurred. He said he plans to settle the fine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...carrying-sandwich-wrappers-crisp-packets-van/

They cannot both be correct!
Sloppy journalism at its best.
 
Sponsored Links
So far on this thread you've accused Trans of the story being untrue.
A**e end's version was not true:
Jobs worths stopping commercial vans looking to fine some one for a sandwich wrapper left in there van or an empty coke can
Typical a**e end tactic. Take a little pinch of truth and wrap it around with a fantasy to suit your own narrative.

I suggest you take a calm pill, you are getting yourself into a tizzy again.
 
I disagree. If someone claims there are other sources out there, it is up to them to provide at least one other source.

No.

If you are the one saying the validity of the source is in doubt because it was a tabloid newspaper, you need to back up your evidence.
 
No.

If you are the one saying the validity of the source is in doubt because it was a tabloid newspaper, you need to back up your evidence.


Partially true is not the same as fully true.

The story did not fully support the headline
 
Sensationalised yes, but enough semblance of truth to not be fake news.

I didnt say it was fully true.


And theirin lies the problem.

It was presented as fully true . Another headline followed blindly.
 
No.
If you are the one saying the validity of the source is in doubt because it was a tabloid newspaper, you need to back up your evidence.

It is true, you have even linked the sources that say so.
Ha ha, you are the one grizzling because once again youve tried proving Transam wrong and youve been found wanting

Sensationalised yes, but enough semblance of truth to not be fake news.
I didnt say it was fully true.
The whole story is untrue,
Here is a list of Waltham Council's trade and commercial waste bags.

upload_2018-8-23_19-23-25.png


https://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s12386/13. trade waste fees and charges v10_1.pdf
The picture provided by the commercial waste carrier (without a licence) is obviously not a green bag, and obviously smaller than the smallest bag available (120 liters).
It is a total pack of lies by the culprit. If his claim was true, he would have appealed and won his appeal. Instead we got some sob story about him trying to appeal, then the council did not respond in time, then he was on holiday, then he queried the amount..... :rolleyes:

Additionally, why was he using a trade waste bag, if he had no licence to carry trade waste?
 
It is a total pack of lies by the culprit

In which case you are calling a council spokesman a liar as well:

A Waltham Forest Council spokesman said: "The waste in this case was being transported in commercial refuse bag in the trader's vehicle.

"Regardless of what the items are, if waste is being stored in a commercial refuse bag in a trader's van it is necessary that they have a valid waste carriers' licence.

"It is widely recognised as best practice for tradesmen to be licensed to avoid legal repercussions, in the event they are required to transport even small quantities of waste.
 
A**e end's version was not true:
And yet I knew exactly what story Trans was referring to so he can't be all that bad in his recollection. It was all over the press a few days ago, I daresay a lot of people heard about it. Had you had a quick google yourself, instead of disbelieving him, calling him names you'd not have made this whole thing into yet another song and dance.
 
:rolleyes: take no notice of R Bee/ himagin . He has no practicable experience . doubt he could change a light bulb with out googling :LOL:

He has not got a Scooby doo :LOL:
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top