Different approach

Share this article

THERE was a curious difference of approach in last week’s paper.

In your views, John Searle writes about the council’s attitude with regard to fly-tipping, which seems to be just to clear up the mess but not to proceed to search for and have prosecuted the offenders.

This is on the grounds it is only “minor crime” and it would be a waste of public money (i.e. taxpayers’), despite its website claim it “takes it seriously”.

On page 31, is a report on drink driving in which it is stated that “more than 1,000 breath tests have been carried out (in Sussex since November 14) with 27 arrests being made.

That is less than three per cent arrested, or rather 97 people in every 100 breathalysed, were innocent. I am not arguing against having limits to alcohol if driving, but that such a high “failure” rate would appear to be a profligate expenditure of public money (i.e. taxpayers’).

This contrasts to the police’s approach on many other types of “minor crime”, as is frequently written in your letters page about their indifference to such.

I can vouch for that as, some years ago, some vandalism was wreaked on my garden furniture, destroying it. They couldn’t even be bothered to come out to look.

Who is right on spending public money? Who is right on minor crime? The council or the police?

Colin Maroney

Mill Road