£80 fine for litter dropping!
Discussion
stemll said:
andy_s said:
There is nothing 'cool' about the story, and it's really nothing to brag about, but there was no criminal damage
Yes there was, criminal damage includes temporary impairment (wall was impaired until it could be cleaned). (R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381 clean water on a cell floor, for example)IMHO, making excuses for petty types of antisocial behaviour is what has allowed the bleeding hearts to railroad criminal rights and all manner of get-out-of-jail-free cards for people who commit small crimes. If they get away with it, what makes them think twice in the future?
Lightningman said:
stemll said:
andy_s said:
There is nothing 'cool' about the story, and it's really nothing to brag about, but there was no criminal damage
Yes there was, criminal damage includes temporary impairment (wall was impaired until it could be cleaned). (R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381 clean water on a cell floor, for example)IMHO, making excuses for petty types of antisocial behaviour is what has allowed the bleeding hearts to railroad criminal rights and all manner of get-out-of-jail-free cards for people who commit small crimes. If they get away with it, what makes them think twice in the future?
Lightningman said:
... do you think it is acceptable to graffiti ...
The word "graffiti" is a noun. The associated verb is "to write", or "to spray", or many such others. The English language is replete with verbs suitable for every occasion.My favourite wall-writing is this from a Cambridge college, seen umpty-um years ago:
"GRAFFITI IS VANDALISM"
Underneath, a more educated soul had added:
"and are plural"
Streaky
SV8Predator said:
Devil2575 said:
Nothing wrong with Spanna that couldn't be sorted with a good hard punch in the face...
It wouldn't be from you though, you're struggling to punch the keyboard.I also find that punching the keyboard doesn't do much good
Knob
Could I widen the discussion slightly to address why people drop litter?
This morning I walked with my daughter around Hobs Moat Wood, the site of a medieval moated manor house in Solihull. The woods were my childhood playground back in what seems like the 1860s, but that is by the by. The beautiful oak and bramble woodland is marred by masses of litter.
Chavs? Think again: the litter included Waitrose bags and Pret a Manger sandwich wrappers, as well as the predictable cider cans and used blobbies.
Note that this is not an urban streetscape, although the woods are surrounded by urban space. How can people be so blind to their surroundings?
NB: I do not buy into "things were better in the old days" arguments, as usually they weren't, but still, WTF?
This morning I walked with my daughter around Hobs Moat Wood, the site of a medieval moated manor house in Solihull. The woods were my childhood playground back in what seems like the 1860s, but that is by the by. The beautiful oak and bramble woodland is marred by masses of litter.
Chavs? Think again: the litter included Waitrose bags and Pret a Manger sandwich wrappers, as well as the predictable cider cans and used blobbies.
Note that this is not an urban streetscape, although the woods are surrounded by urban space. How can people be so blind to their surroundings?
NB: I do not buy into "things were better in the old days" arguments, as usually they weren't, but still, WTF?
Lightningman said:
stemll said:
andy_s said:
There is nothing 'cool' about the story, and it's really nothing to brag about, but there was no criminal damage
Yes there was, criminal damage includes temporary impairment (wall was impaired until it could be cleaned). (R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381 clean water on a cell floor, for example)IMHO, making excuses for petty types of antisocial behaviour is what has allowed the bleeding hearts to railroad criminal rights and all manner of get-out-of-jail-free cards for people who commit small crimes. If they get away with it, what makes them think twice in the future?
It's not acceptable to graffiti (paint) on property that's not your own, that's fairly clear, it's illegal. Although speaking personally some good graffiti is done in 'unused' places that I find quite artistic.
But look, before your spittle dims the view of the screen, at no stage did I say it was acceptable - I challenged your 'spin' on the statement made (according to the law as I saw it) more than anything, and you've done it again - I wasn't defending him, I didn't try to justify it nor am I making excuses so why you infer that I was I've no idea except you've possibly had a descent of red-mist. I was pointing out the inaccuracy (as I saw it) of your commment.
Devil2575 said:
SV8Predator said:
Devil2575 said:
Nothing wrong with Spanna that couldn't be sorted with a good hard punch in the face...
It wouldn't be from you though, you're struggling to punch the keyboard.I also find that punching the keyboard doesn't do much good
Knob
Loved the 'it's worked for me before' hardman winky at the end of the post. Hilarious.
Breadvan72 said:
Could I widen the discussion slightly to address why people drop litter?
This morning I walked with my daughter around Hobs Moat Wood, the site of a medieval moated manor house in Solihull. The woods were my childhood playground back in what seems like the 1860s, but that is by the by. The beautiful oak and bramble woodland is marred by masses of litter.
Chavs? Think again: the litter included Waitrose bags and Pret a Manger sandwich wrappers, as well as the predictable cider cans and used blobbies.
Note that this is not an urban streetscape, although the woods are surrounded by urban space. How can people be so blind to their surroundings?
NB: I do not buy into "things were better in the old days" arguments, as usually they weren't, but still, WTF?
Because for the last 20 years people have been allowed to believe they have no personal responsibility for anything. Not to themselves, not to others and not to their environment. How many people even clean up after themselves at McDonalds for example these days? I go into Leicester city centre at 6am each weekday morning, you would not believe the mess. Occasionally I go in on a Sunday morning, then, I don't believe the mess. This morning I walked with my daughter around Hobs Moat Wood, the site of a medieval moated manor house in Solihull. The woods were my childhood playground back in what seems like the 1860s, but that is by the by. The beautiful oak and bramble woodland is marred by masses of litter.
Chavs? Think again: the litter included Waitrose bags and Pret a Manger sandwich wrappers, as well as the predictable cider cans and used blobbies.
Note that this is not an urban streetscape, although the woods are surrounded by urban space. How can people be so blind to their surroundings?
NB: I do not buy into "things were better in the old days" arguments, as usually they weren't, but still, WTF?
That is partly what annoys me about littering enforcement. It's okay stinging someone for a single fag end at 3pm in the afternoon, but where are the council enforcement 'officers' when all the students are out at 1am on a saturday night discarding the remnamts of their southern fried chicken, bottles of beer, etc.?
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 2nd September 16:23
andy_s said:
Were they being a nuisance, really? They weren't politely told anything, according to the poster.
There is nothing 'cool' about the story, and it's really nothing to brag about, but there was no criminal damage, they don't have to give details and they can't get their snowspray confiscated/disposed of involuntarily.
to which my response was: -There is nothing 'cool' about the story, and it's really nothing to brag about, but there was no criminal damage, they don't have to give details and they can't get their snowspray confiscated/disposed of involuntarily.
Lightningman said:
Setting that aside, I'd like to ask Andy_s one simple question: do you think it is acceptable to graffiti on property that is not your own? Spanna used fake snow, in an underpass (therefore, it wouldn't even have the benefit of the rain washing it off) on property that wasn't his own. No matter how you try to justify it, it is the act of an immature idiot, who rather than now realising he was wrong, came on this thread to brag about it. Andy, would you still defend him if he used fake snow on the fence of your house? How about the side of your house? How about your car? Wrong is wrong in my opinion. As a side note, fake snow is supposed to be used on windows and tends to have a warning that it can mark other surfaces (the oil and chemical content).
IMHO, making excuses for petty types of antisocial behaviour is what has allowed the bleeding hearts to railroad criminal rights and all manner of get-out-of-jail-free cards for people who commit small crimes. If they get away with it, what makes them think twice in the future?
To which you responded: -IMHO, making excuses for petty types of antisocial behaviour is what has allowed the bleeding hearts to railroad criminal rights and all manner of get-out-of-jail-free cards for people who commit small crimes. If they get away with it, what makes them think twice in the future?
andy_s said:
It's not acceptable to graffiti (paint) on property that's not your own, that's fairly clear, it's illegal. Although speaking personally some good graffiti is done in 'unused' places that I find quite artistic.
But look, before your spittle dims the view of the screen, at no stage did I say it was acceptable - I challenged your 'spin' on the statement made (according to the law as I saw it) more than anything, and you've done it again - I wasn't defending him, I didn't try to justify it nor am I making excuses so why you infer that I was I've no idea except you've possibly had a descent of red-mist. I was pointing out the inaccuracy (as I saw it) of your comment.
Please explain where I spun the story because as I read it (as you state: "as I saw it"), your comments of "Were they being a nuisance, really?" and "there was no criminal damage" gave me the impression you felt their actions weren't particularly antisocial nor anything they should be fined for ("they don't have to give details and they can't get their snowspray confiscated/disposed of involuntarily").But look, before your spittle dims the view of the screen, at no stage did I say it was acceptable - I challenged your 'spin' on the statement made (according to the law as I saw it) more than anything, and you've done it again - I wasn't defending him, I didn't try to justify it nor am I making excuses so why you infer that I was I've no idea except you've possibly had a descent of red-mist. I was pointing out the inaccuracy (as I saw it) of your comment.
As for "red-mist" and "spittle dim(ming)" my screen, I have neither a drooling problem, nor anger issues; perhaps you are transferring your own issues onto me?
IMHO Spanna was wrong to do what he did. I did not quote criminal code to you, that was another member. What I did not agree with was your position that he wasn't being a nuisance or that he should not have had to provide his name and have the spray snow confiscated; I was under the impression that what he was caught doing was covered by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and thus the enforcement officers were well within their rights to take both actions?
Lightningman said:
Please explain where I spun the story because as I read it (as you state: "as I saw it"), your comments of "Were they being a nuisance, really?" and "there was no criminal damage" gave me the impression you felt their actions weren't particularly antisocial nor anything they should be fined for ("they don't have to give details and they can't get their snowspray confiscated/disposed of involuntarily").
As for "red-mist" and "spittle dim(ming)" my screen, I have neither a drooling problem, nor anger issues; perhaps you are transferring your own issues onto me?
IMHO Spanna was wrong to do what he did. I did not quote criminal code to you, that was another member. What I did not agree with was your position that he wasn't being a nuisance or that he should not have had to provide his name and have the spray snow confiscated; I was under the impression that what he was caught doing was covered by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and thus the enforcement officers were well within their rights to take both actions?
The spin wasn't actually you, there was a bit of confusion - it was baronyx who said 'So basically, you were acting like an idiot and being a nuisance, you were politely asked to stop being a prat and you refused?' which is what I was responding too.As for "red-mist" and "spittle dim(ming)" my screen, I have neither a drooling problem, nor anger issues; perhaps you are transferring your own issues onto me?
IMHO Spanna was wrong to do what he did. I did not quote criminal code to you, that was another member. What I did not agree with was your position that he wasn't being a nuisance or that he should not have had to provide his name and have the spray snow confiscated; I was under the impression that what he was caught doing was covered by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and thus the enforcement officers were well within their rights to take both actions?
No transfer of issues, cool as a cucumber here.
My view on the law at the time was pre-2005, so I didn't know about the change in what constitutes criminal damage nor the CNE act, in light of those the ACPOs should have confiscated the cans as evidence and proceeded with detaining spanna and friend. They did not though.
My (mis)-understanding of the law meant that no offence had been committed, therefore the ACPOs didn't have a right to detain nor confiscate - I didn't say that it was right or wrong what they were doing, merely pointing out what I thought was an inaccurate spin by baronyx.
Terminator X said:
I'd tell em to Foxtrot Oscar if they attempted to fine me. I put litter in the bin btw, the principal of meddlers f
ks me off though.
TX.
1. So you agree people should not litter.ks me off though.TX.
2. But you disagree this law should be enforced.
3. Ergo, you don't mind litter in the streets so long as it's not your litter.
3. You believe you are within your rights to verbally abuse the enforcement officers and that there will be no repercussions.
4. It's 'Principle' BTW
Waspy1 said:
1. So you agree people should not litter.
2. But you disagree this law should be enforced.
3. Ergo, you don't mind litter in the streets so long as it's not your litter.
3. You believe you are within your rights to verbally abuse the enforcement officers and that there will be no repercussions.
4. It's 'Principle' BTW
I love 4. Lol.2. But you disagree this law should be enforced.
3. Ergo, you don't mind litter in the streets so long as it's not your litter.
3. You believe you are within your rights to verbally abuse the enforcement officers and that there will be no repercussions.
4. It's 'Principle' BTW
TheLordJohn said:
Waspy1 said:
1. So you agree people should not litter.
2. But you disagree this law should be enforced.
3. Ergo, you don't mind litter in the streets so long as it's not your litter.
3. You believe you are within your rights to verbally abuse the enforcement officers and that there will be no repercussions.
4. It's 'Principle' BTW
I love 4. Lol.2. But you disagree this law should be enforced.
3. Ergo, you don't mind litter in the streets so long as it's not your litter.
3. You believe you are within your rights to verbally abuse the enforcement officers and that there will be no repercussions.
4. It's 'Principle' BTW
Streaky
andy_s said:
Ah yes, the 'punch in the face' comment. Is it a proportionate response to spannas [sic] comment? Yes, it jolly well is, and I would urge you to do this with all snow-sprayers that cross your path. The police will love it.
Loved the 'it's worked for me before' hardman winky at the end of the post. Hilarious.
The punch in the face comment wasn't intended to be taken quite so literally. More a case of spanna could do with taking down a peg or two. The kind of lad who does wrong and when he gets caught gets a smart mouth rather than apologizing.Loved the 'it's worked for me before' hardman winky at the end of the post. Hilarious.
As for the second bit you couldn't be further from the truth.
streaky said:
Breadvan72 said:
My favourite graffito (singular) from HBO's "Rome" simply said "Atia fellat".
Actually, wasn't it "Atia fellat aatt"? And on the other side: "Alia amat omnes".Streaky
Can't stand litter dropping, I was always taught by my mother (along with the threat of a thick ear) if you can't find a bin, stick it in your pocket until you get home. It's the same excuse I use to the missus now as to why my car is full of empty drinks bottles and empty Magnum/Haribo wrappers 
It's one of the few things that really does boil my blood, was parking up at the chippy the other day and some chubby little oik and his mate came out, drank their can of shandy/Dandelion and Burdock and then booted the empty can down the street, despite being stood next to a bin. I was chastised by the missus shortly after but I bked the little bds on my way into to get my fish and chips (they were about 12 so I hardly needed to be brick sthouse company director, etc). Was quite amusing that they kind of stood there stunned and embarrassed that someone had pulled them up but they did then go and get it when they realised I wasn't actually joking and put it in the bin, ridiculous really.
Hardly a have a go hero moment but if a few more people took a bit of pride in their surrounding, we wouldn't need to be doling out £80 FPN's for littering and yes, fag ends count as litter imo, as does the bit of cellophane wrapper that people tear off new packets and drop as if it somehow doesn't count because it's transparent?
It's one of the few things that really does boil my blood, was parking up at the chippy the other day and some chubby little oik and his mate came out, drank their can of shandy/Dandelion and Burdock and then booted the empty can down the street, despite being stood next to a bin. I was chastised by the missus shortly after but I b
ked the little bds on my way into to get my fish and chips (they were about 12 so I hardly needed to be brick sthouse company director, etc). Was quite amusing that they kind of stood there stunned and embarrassed that someone had pulled them up but they did then go and get it when they realised I wasn't actually joking and put it in the bin, ridiculous really.Hardly a have a go hero moment but if a few more people took a bit of pride in their surrounding, we wouldn't need to be doling out £80 FPN's for littering and yes, fag ends count as litter imo, as does the bit of cellophane wrapper that people tear off new packets and drop as if it somehow doesn't count because it's transparent?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff