Tuesday, 2 March 2010

The List Of ‘Human Rights’….

…gets ever longer:
After years of complaint about the garbage in Richard Wallace's garden, villagers were delighted when the council ordered him to clear it up.

But the 59-year-old bachelor refused to take the decision lying down.

He took the case first to magistrates, then to the crown court arguing that it was his 'human right' to hoard junk on his two adjacent properties.
His what..?
Yesterday he was 'walking on air' after a judge ruled in his favour.
Yes, well, he’d find it rather difficult to walk in his garden, wouldn’t he…
Neighbours, however, were incredulous. 'What about our human right to a clean environment?' said one.
You don’t have one.

Actually, neither does Mr Wallace have a ‘human right’ to make his land a health hazard either. It seems, though, that in this case the council didn’t gather enough evidence of such…
The judge said: 'We have come to the conclusion that the local authority weren't justified. The evidence does not go far enough to show Mr Wallace in his use of his property interfered with the amenity of other people who live in the locality, and we have come to the conclusion that this order should be dismissed.'
Which, rightly, didn’t please the neighbours, though they seemed to direct most of their ire at the judge instead of the council:
A horror-struck neighbour of Mr Wallace described him as the village's own 'Stig of the Dump'.

'The judge should have come and had a look at the place for himself and then he would see the rat-infested hovel we are forced to live with,' said the 49-year-old.

'Maybe he should try living next to that eyesore for a week - it is a massive health risk.'
Well, quite. But then, judges’ decisions rarely, if ever, affect them, do they. Perhaps that’s the key…

Mind you, he does seem like the neighbour from hell, and quite the loon into the bargain:
Mr Wallace said of the court battle: 'I gave it my all and it has been quite an exhilarating process. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to accumulate without people trying to get on their high horse about it.

‘People are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. I do still plan to tidy and organise the rubbish. The problem is lack of time. There are so many things one has to do living on one's own, like cooking and things. I will sort it out eventually but I would rather do it in my own time and not be coerced into it.'

As for the site being a health hazard, he said: 'I have lived here since 1961 and I haven't been to a doctor in 25 years. You hear of these young children in India who live in tips and scavenge for food and survive.'
Yes, we do. They don’t have any choice, though.

And this isn’t India….

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The mans a prat, but unless there actually is biological waste that will feed vermin, then it does seem his right to be a prat.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if Mr Wallace has a motobility scooter in his front porch?

JuliaM said...

"The mans a prat, but unless there actually is biological waste that will feed vermin, then it does seem his right to be a prat."

I'd hate to live next door to him, but, absent any public health hazard, then it's not for the aurhorities to intervene.

"Wonder if Mr Wallace has a motobility scooter in his front porch?"

Heh!

Stitch's Master said...

Unless there is a genuine health risk, I say let the man be, it's on his property. The issue for councils, is of course, that most council's bin collection policy is equally as much of a health hazard and they'd find themselves in the dock alongside Mr Wallace!