Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> They will call the police - seen it happen in

> Brixton. Failure to give your details is a

> criminal offence.

>

> On a sidenote, does dropping a butt down a grating

> - storm drains etc - constitute littering (I mean

> legally)?


Call the police? I guess that it's much more pleasant for the police to come to charge a litter bug than a serious crime. And for arguments sake - would the theoretical litterbug wait around for the police to come? I find it all a bit ridiculous.

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > They will call the police - seen it happen in

> > Brixton. Failure to give your details is a

> > criminal offence.

> >

> > On a sidenote, does dropping a butt down a

> grating

> > - storm drains etc - constitute littering (I

> mean

> > legally)?

>

> Call the police? I guess that it's much more

> pleasant for the police to come to charge a litter

> bug than a serious crime. And for arguments sake -

> would the theoretical litterbug wait around for

> the police to come? I find it all a bit

> ridiculous.


That's when they get the helicopters out.

When we were kids we all had the full name, address and date of birth of one of our ex-classmates (he'd moved school) memorised. If ever we were asked for our details we'd reel it off without hesitation. He must have quite the record by now.
haha, yes that's kind of what I'm getting at...I can't imagine too many people give their real name, or don't just walk off and ignore the council warden - they are not allowed to restrain you. if police are keeping them company to enforce it, then it is (IMHO) a waste of police resources.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > intexasatthe moment Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Where does dropping chewing gum come in to

> the

> > > scheme of things ? In my book a worse offence

> .

> >

> > Same fine - harder to catch though I assume as

> the

> > charmers just spit it out as they walk, so the

> > warden would have to be looking in the right

> place

> > at the right time.

>

> They'll stick it to the underneath of seats etc.

> :)

>

> What about spitting then ?


Unfortunately not - yet. Every London borough has the right to bring in a bylaw banning spitting, but only a few have done so. Can't be soon enough.

> The fines for dropping cigarettes have been around for at least a couple of years now.


Since at least 1991, by virtue of ss.87-88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/part/IV. Section 98(5A) was added in 2005, to leave no doubt:

98(5A) "Litter" includes

(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and

(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.

There are archived articles in Newsbank featuring complaints about FPNs for cigarette ends well before the 2005 amendment. I also came across and downloaded an Independent On Sunday feature article of 4 July 2003 entitled "Fighting the dirty war - What will it take to keep Britain tidy? Perhaps you'd think twice about flicking that cigarette butt out of your car window if you knew it could result in a pounds 50 penalty. JULIA STUART patrols the grimy streets of south London [southwark, to you and me] with the man they call the Enforcer". Access via http://infoweb.newsbank.com/signin/LondonBoroughSouthwark or Southwark libraries webpages, https://www.southwark.gov.uk/libraries/elibrary/emagazines-and-enewspapers (have your Southwark library card number handy).

  Quote
Unfortunately not - yet. Every London borough has the right to bring in a bylaw banning spitting, but only a few have done so. Can't be soon enough.


Lambeth may be one that has - or at least it's finding ways to fine for spitting under the existing laws.


http://www.swlondoner.co.uk/spitting-slapped-with-instant-fine-in-lambeth-in-new-tough-approach-to-antisocial-behaviour/

?80 is a day's wages for many people.


Sweepers clean the streets, so let's get some perspective...


Why are the authorities not chasing motorists who use mobile phones, drive without insurance, fail to stop at crossings etc.

(as a start)

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?80 is a day's wages for many people.

>

> Sweepers clean the streets, so let's get some

> perspective...


Sorry Angelina, but that attitude is so poor - someone else'll sweep it up so it doesn't matter, just chuck it down on the ground? Yes ?80 is a lot of money, easily avoided by hanging onto your litter until you pass a bin, it's not asking the impossible!


Agree about motorists but that's an entirely different issue dealt with by the police, not the council, and funded from an entirely different source.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'd put short odds on that but who would be his likely successor?
    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
    • And I replied: Mandelson and Trump have much in common. They are both shallow, vulgar and vain. They both fetishise wealth and power, irrespective of who holds it or how it was accumulated. They were both close friends and associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein and have moved in the same circles, as Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book allegedly confirms. Recognising another who is utterly transactional and lacking in a moral compass, there’s every chance of “Petie” fitting right in Mar-a-Largo. That Starmer couldn’t anticipate that Mandelson’s past behaviour would be problematic just proves how inept this government is.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...