Roy Marsh, an 86-year-old pensioner, found himself facing a startling accusation: spitting. The offense, as deemed by enforcement officers, resulted in a £250 fine, a sum later reduced to £150 on appeal, yet still a burden he felt compelled to pay.
The incident unfolded during a walk near a boating lake. A gust of wind carried a leaf directly into Mr. Marsh’s face, causing him to choke. He instinctively coughed, dislodging the leaf, and the moment was swiftly interpreted as a deliberate act of littering.
“It was all unnecessary and out of proportion,” Mr. Marsh stated, recalling the encounter. He admits to calling the officer a “silly boy” in his surprise, but vehemently denies intentionally spitting. The experience has left him deeply anxious about simply going for a walk.
His wife, Anne, a retired taxi firm co-owner, expressed outrage at the accusation. “Roy didn’t spit – how many 86-year-olds do you know who go around spitting? It’s a dirty habit.” She described the officers’ actions as bullying, noting they frequently target elderly individuals.
The story gained traction when their daughter, Jane Marsh Fitzpatrick, shared her disgust on Facebook. She detailed her father’s health conditions – severe asthma and a heart condition – and emphasized the accidental nature of the incident.
Jane’s post highlighted a pattern of aggressive enforcement she’d observed. She claims officers routinely pressure elderly people into paying fines, even for unintentional littering, like a dropped item or a leaf falling from clothing.
The local council maintains that enforcement teams only approach individuals observed committing environmental offenses. They insist patrols are not targeted at any specific demographic and are non-discriminatory, closely monitoring enforcement data.
Councillor Martin Foster explained the council’s aim is to change behavior and prevent environmental crime, ensuring a clean and safe environment for everyone. However, the Marsh family’s experience raises questions about the proportionality and sensitivity of these enforcement actions.
Mr. Marsh himself points out the sheer possibility of recurrence. Returning to the same location for a news interview, he was struck by another leaf, demonstrating how easily such a situation could arise again, leaving him vulnerable to further unwarranted scrutiny.
