So…Just Why Do We Pay Income And Council Tax?

Clearly, it isn’t to ensure someone performs the basics of a civilised society:

A dead dog was removed from the River Thames by a distressed volunteer after authorities left it floating for more than two weeks.

And this is Kingston! Clearly, twinned with any Third World unsanitary hellhole you care to name…

The volunteer for DogLost, a website for lost and found dogs, said she approached the RSPCA, the Environment Agency and Kingston Council but no one took responsibility, despite the body being in a busy stretch of the river near a footpath.

I guess they don’t have targets for this sort of thing?

“It could easily be a stray dog or someone’s missing pet. It could be a cruelty case. It could be anything.”

Sorry, love, the local councils are far too busy making test purchases of alcohol by underage volunteers, checking the smoking ban isn’t being flouted and putting on roadshows to help asylum seekers claim benefits and the obese to lose weight to worry about something like basic water hygiene.

And the RSPCA aren’t likely to worry about a cruelty case unless the cameras are there. You’d have been better off calling ITV or Sky first.

The RSPCA and Environment Agency both said the case was beyond their remit and was one for Kingston Council.

An Environment Agency spokesman said: “Our policy is we will remove any objects from the river that pose a flood risk. That’s as far as our remit goes.

Kingston Council said they made a plan with the Environment Agency to remove the dog but by the time they arrived it had already been done by Mrs Kelly, who disposed of it herself.

A plan?! Good grief!

The council dog warden unsuccessfully scanned the body for a microchip.

And not finding one, gave it up as a bad job.  Hey, he gets paid regardless. As do all the above, except the unpaid volunteer, who did the job her taxes are paying the useless lazy cretins to do…

8 comments for “So…Just Why Do We Pay Income And Council Tax?

  1. Mudplugger
    May 13, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Just another by-product of people working to the job description – if it ain’t in my job description, I ain’t gonna do it.

    There was a case where a council let a contract for cutting the grass on roadside verges. The contractor duly fulfilled the contract, neatly cutting and strimming all the verges with his industrial, steel-bladed kit. Unfortunately, this also stripped the bark from any trees on the verges, which killed them. But the contractor pointed to the ‘spec’ which said nothing about ensuring the survival of any trees, so he’d fulfilled the job description.

    Once you default to the absolutes of job descriptions or contracts, you’ve lost, because it’s not feasible to encompass all those ‘common sense’ aspects which infect real life. And real life is something about which few of our well-rewarded ‘governors’ know anything, not only the price of a pint of milk.

    • SteveW
      May 13, 2012 at 10:41 am

      ” But the contractor pointed to the ‘spec’ which said nothing about ensuring the survival of any trees, so he’d fulfilled the job description.” – Could the council not have pressed charges for vandalism (or whatever the tree destroying equivalent is)?

      Interesting comments Mudplugger, as I’m currently in a position where my employer is refusing to pay me for the job I actually do and is only paying me with specific reference to the initial job description (and even then they’re underpaying me with reference to the industry standard). I guess what I’m trying to say is that the blind adherence to a job description can swing both ways.

      With reference to the article itself – absolutely disgraceful, yet not remotely unexpected. A sad indictment on the state of the nation.

      • Mudplugger
        May 13, 2012 at 11:27 am

        Steve W.

        I agree, common sense should cut both ways but, in practice, either party to any agreement now feels free to play to the letter, rather than the spirit, probably indirectly encouraged by the no-win-no-fee litigation and compo culture. Good luck with your debate.

  2. Lord T
    May 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    It is jobsworth usng this excuse that cause the issues. After all it isn’t in the job spec that they have to stop if they will run over a sunbather but I bet they don’t do that.

    They should agree with him then prosecute him for criminal damage and fine him for the replacement of the trees. Being given permission to cut grass does not give permission for anything.

    This country is a mess. Keep your lists up to date.

  3. Greg Tingey
    May 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    What is this “common sense” of which you speak?

  4. May 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Actually the heart of the problem is that a council employee / contractor is told by their managers to do the job, whatever it is, in a specific fashion. Audit tells the managers what their priorities are to ensue ‘compliance’. Any public deviation from an employees instructions is met with an instant threat of ‘disciplinary action’. So employees respond with dumb insolence, as a protest at having no control over their actions.

    Been there, done that.

    • May 13, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      It’s not always dumb insolence. I’m pretty certain some of them are really that dumb.

  5. May 16, 2012 at 8:41 am

    We get such incredibly poor return for these taxes.

Comments are closed.