Incentives by another name

Editor News editor I am pleased Maidstone council did extend further the suspension of litter wardens, before they were reinstated.

Your article says “officers receive no incentive,” I believe from research, however, they are set “targets” which of course is “incentive” by another name.

It is apparent these officers are told by their employers to issue a certain number of fines regardless of the circumstances.

These companies receive their share of the fines issued regardless of whether or not they are paid so very much have an incentive to issue as many as possible.

The entire system of enforcement the council use and support is utterly unjust as worryingly any one of these wardens can accost any one of us in the street and accuse us of dropping litter. It is their word against yours. Yes you can have a hearing at the magistrates’ court but whose word is the bench likely to accept – yours or the warden?

I certainly do not condone litter louts but enforcement needs be just and proper.

Only those deliberately dropping litter should be targeted not those accidentally doing so – nor those feeding wildlife.

Those we elect need listen to our concerns and employ proper measures dealing correctly with issues rather than just adopt a money-making scheme that will swell the coffers of the council at the expense of lawful citizens.

Finally, I believe I am correct in saying that the actual offence is for dropping and “leaving” litter and therefore if you were to pick it up no offence has been committed. (S87 of The Environmental Protection Act 1990, amended 2005) Robert Payne, Old Tovil Road, Maidstone.