Driver fined £150 over apple core

[Fozziebear]

9mm said:

garyhun said:

Bang out of order IMO. Why is it OK if it's early and no one is around? You must know its wrong, surely?

I don't think it's wrong. It's only when people aren't about so I know that no-one can possibly tread in it. See my answer to a previous poster.

This is where we disagree, and if I saw you I would point out what you were doing was filthy. I often point it out to dog owners when I'm running alone the trails around my area, which are seen as ok to let dogs leave turds on. It's not acceptable to let your dog dump its load just because no one could possibly tread in it, how do you know that? I pick my dogs turds up when I walk them, even up the side of a deserted hill, it's a social responsibility of owning dogs. Btw I'm not well built or a company director, so I would bottle it if I really did see you

[9mm]

Fozziebear said:

This is where we disagree, and if I saw you I would point out what you were doing was filthy. I often point it out to dog owners when I'm running alone the trails around my area, which are seen as ok to let dogs leave turds on. It's not acceptable to let your dog dump its load just because no one could possibly tread in it, how do you know that? I pick my dogs turds up when I walk them, even up the side of a deserted hill, it's a social responsibility of owning dogs. Btw I'm not well built or a company director, so I would bottle it if I really did see you

People are welcome to point out whatever they like but I've already said that in every other scenario bar the tide out on the beach I do pick it up. So you will never encounter me leaving a pile on a trail if you're running, cycling or just out for a walk.

I can absolutely guarantee that no-one can tread in it because the scenario where turds are left is this: about 6 in the morning, tide right out but coming in, no-one in view for half a mile or more, around 400 yards to the shoreline and dog crapping just in front of the incoming tide. Not even Usain Bolt could get there and tread in it before it's washed away. Many times, I couldn't.

[Zeeky]

streaky said:

Jagmanv12 said:

So throwing bread on the local duck pond is littering as well?

Yes. Bread is not a natural food for ducks, and the crap sold in supermarkets is bad for them (and swans).

The Daily Telegraph 12 November 2009 said:

Vanessa Kelly, 26, was accosted by a council warden as she and 17-month-old Harry threw the birds scraps of bread.

She has vowed to fight the council “all the way” to have the fine revoked.

Miss Kelly visited the park in Smethwick, West Mids, on Tuesday afternoon.

She said: “The warden walked towards me and asked me to stop feeding the ducks because of complaints about children slipping over on their way to school on duck mess. But there are no health and safety signs up.

"I said fair enough, but then she started doing a fine. I asked ‘what for?’ and she said 'littering.'

The fact someone has been given a penalty for littering when feeding ducks is not evidence it is contrary to the legislation. The legislation doesn't distinguish between 'natural' food or otherwise. Littering is simply disposing of your rubbish in a public place. Feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of your rubbish. The issue of health and safety is irrelevant to the offence of littering.

[eskidavies]

What happens if you give the council warden a wrong address,how are they going to get the fine enforced,surely they cant demand I.D or proof of address,not that you may have it with you anyway,or simply just walk away and say nothing.(this obviously if your on foot and not in car so no reg no to trace back).

[streaky]

Zeeky said:

streaky said:

Jagmanv12 said:

So throwing bread on the local duck pond is littering as well?

Yes. Bread is not a natural food for ducks, and the crap sold in supermarkets is bad for them (and swans).

The Daily Telegraph 12 November 2009 said:

Vanessa Kelly, 26, was accosted by a council warden as she and 17-month-old Harry threw the birds scraps of bread.

She has vowed to fight the council “all the way” to have the fine revoked.

Miss Kelly visited the park in Smethwick, West Mids, on Tuesday afternoon.

She said: “The warden walked towards me and asked me to stop feeding the ducks because of complaints about children slipping over on their way to school on duck mess. But there are no health and safety signs up.

"I said fair enough, but then she started doing a fine. I asked ‘what for?’ and she said 'littering.'

The fact someone has been given a penalty for littering when feeding ducks is not evidence it is contrary to the legislation. The legislation doesn't distinguish between 'natural' food or otherwise. Littering is simply disposing of your rubbish in a public place. Feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of your rubbish. The issue of health and safety is irrelevant to the offence of littering.

Indeed, feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of ones rubbish, but, as you say, the Act does not distinguish between the two activities, thus it might be said that Ecclesiastes 11:1 applies.

s87 Environmental Protection Act 1990 said:

Offence of leaving litter.

(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.

Streaky

[Edinburger]

streaky said:

Zeeky said:

streaky said:

Jagmanv12 said:

So throwing bread on the local duck pond is littering as well?

Yes. Bread is not a natural food for ducks, and the crap sold in supermarkets is bad for them (and swans).

The Daily Telegraph 12 November 2009 said:

Vanessa Kelly, 26, was accosted by a council warden as she and 17-month-old Harry threw the birds scraps of bread.

She has vowed to fight the council “all the way” to have the fine revoked.

Miss Kelly visited the park in Smethwick, West Mids, on Tuesday afternoon.

She said: “The warden walked towards me and asked me to stop feeding the ducks because of complaints about children slipping over on their way to school on duck mess. But there are no health and safety signs up.

"I said fair enough, but then she started doing a fine. I asked ‘what for?’ and she said 'littering.'

The fact someone has been given a penalty for littering when feeding ducks is not evidence it is contrary to the legislation. The legislation doesn't distinguish between 'natural' food or otherwise. Littering is simply disposing of your rubbish in a public place. Feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of your rubbish. The issue of health and safety is irrelevant to the offence of littering.

Indeed, feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of ones rubbish, but, as you say, the Act does not distinguish between the two activities, thus it might be said that Ecclesiastes 11:1 applies.

s87 Environmental Protection Act 1990 said:

Offence of leaving litter.

(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.

Streaky

But how is "litter" defined?

[Zeeky]

It's given its ordinary meaning as far as I can see from the legislation. If you feed animals and they eat what you have given them I cannot see how the food could be described as litter. It isn't rubbish as it isn't being disposed of. It might be the case if you feed animals and they decide not to eat it then the food becomes litter if not collected and disposed of properly.

There are undesirable consequences of feeding wildlife and so good reasons to discourage it but I would argue that feeding wildlife is not littering as the food is not being disposed of as rubbish but deposited for the purpose of feeding animals.

[Edinburger]

Zeeky said:

It's given its ordinary meaning as far as I can see from the legislation. If you feed animals and they eat what you have given them I cannot see how the food could be described as litter. It isn't rubbish as it isn't being disposed of. It might be the case if you feed animals and they decide not to eat it then the food becomes litter if not collected and disposed of properly.

There are undesirable consequences of feeding wildlife and so good reasons to discourage it but I would argue that feeding wildlife is not littering as the food is not being disposed of as rubbish but deposited for the purpose of feeding animals.

So why isn't throwing an apple out the car window seen as feeding wildlife rather than littering?. Banana skin too.

[streaky]

Edinburger said:

streaky said:

Zeeky said:

streaky said:

Jagmanv12 said:

So throwing bread on the local duck pond is littering as well?

Yes. Bread is not a natural food for ducks, and the crap sold in supermarkets is bad for them (and swans).

The Daily Telegraph 12 November 2009 said:

Vanessa Kelly, 26, was accosted by a council warden as she and 17-month-old Harry threw the birds scraps of bread.

She has vowed to fight the council “all the way” to have the fine revoked.

Miss Kelly visited the park in Smethwick, West Mids, on Tuesday afternoon.

She said: “The warden walked towards me and asked me to stop feeding the ducks because of complaints about children slipping over on their way to school on duck mess. But there are no health and safety signs up.

"I said fair enough, but then she started doing a fine. I asked ‘what for?’ and she said 'littering.'

The fact someone has been given a penalty for littering when feeding ducks is not evidence it is contrary to the legislation. The legislation doesn't distinguish between 'natural' food or otherwise. Littering is simply disposing of your rubbish in a public place. Feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of your rubbish. The issue of health and safety is irrelevant to the offence of littering.

Indeed, feeding animals is not necessarily the same as disposing of ones rubbish, but, as you say, the Act does not distinguish between the two activities, thus it might be said that Ecclesiastes 11:1 applies.

s87 Environmental Protection Act 1990 said:

Offence of leaving litter.

(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.

Streaky

But how is "litter" defined?

As above: "any thing whatsoever". Nothing is excluded.

The test is whether it causes, contributes to, or tends to lead to, defacement.

And that's a broad test, open to a lot of interpretation.

Streaky

[Zeeky]

That's Scots law. The law is different in England and Wales.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Edinburger said:

So why isn't throwing an apple out the car window seen as feeding wildlife rather than littering?. Banana skin too.

I would say because if you feeding ducks you are expecting them to eat the food there and then so there would in effect be no residue left behind, whereas a banana skin thrown from a car is just discarding it randomly.

[mcsnaga]

I was riding my motorbike the other day and the van driver in front threw a banana skin out of his window in a built up area. I have seen fag buts thrown out that could have ended up in my face, ash flicked in my face.

I agree that an apple chucked into a countryside (as opposed to garden) hedge is a different matter, but the persistent littering of drivers and thoughtlessness when not checking for cyclists/bikers is disgusting. Half-tempted to carry some fag butts, and drop one back in their window when one is flicked out in my face. Likely to cause an accident? So is a fag butt in my face if my visor is up.

[R8Steve]

It would also seem that the arguement is also fairly one sided after a recent conversation i had with one of the BIB. I stay fairly near a football stadium and came out to the road outside my drive covered in horse st, they must have been there for quite some time as there was quite a pile! I did ask if anyone planned to come and clean it up and was told they had no legal obligation to clean it as it was bio-degradable. As annoying as it is i don't have a big issue with it and left it at that but needless to say it was still there several days later - seems a lot worse than an apple core that a bird will no doubt remove fairly promptly.

[Fozziebear]

R8Steve said:

It would also seem that the arguement is also fairly one sided after a recent conversation i had with one of the BIB. I stay fairly near a football stadium and came out to the road outside my drive covered in horse st, they must have been there for quite some time as there was quite a pile! I did ask if anyone planned to come and clean it up and was told they had no legal obligation to clean it as it was bio-degradable. As annoying as it is i don't have a big issue with it and left it at that but needless to say it was still there several days later - seems a lot worse than an apple core that a bird will no doubt remove fairly promptly.

Box it up and send it back to the boss of the mounted division for their roses?

[rewc]

I think there is an ever increasing desire by the authorities to prosecute minor transgressions. My local rag has a story of a woman who was convicted of causing her cat suffering by administering it a minor dose of paracetamol. Is there something in the UK mentality that does this? I remember from my army service small men being particularly vindictive when in power, especially lower ranks.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9973339.Pros...