Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The £390 cigarette
From the council website:
A man has been fined £390 for throwing a cigarette butt out of his car window onto the street.
The incident happened immediately outside the east Haringey depot where enforcement officers are based.
In October, an officer on his way into work witnessed a driver throw away his cigarette butt into the street. He wrote down the vehicle registration and later served a fixed penalty notice on the named driver for littering.
When this was ignored the driver was given a seven day warning letter. When this was also ignored the officer sent a seven day warning letter to the driver saying if he did not pay he may be prosecuted under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
On Monday 9 March 2009 the case was heard in Haringey Magistrates Court, and, in his absence, the defendant was fined £100 plus £15 victim surcharge and awarded costs of £275 awarded to the council.
Total fine for this case was £390.
Oh dear, should have used one of these
or maybe just kept it in his car...
A man has been fined £390 for throwing a cigarette butt out of his car window onto the street.
The incident happened immediately outside the east Haringey depot where enforcement officers are based.
In October, an officer on his way into work witnessed a driver throw away his cigarette butt into the street. He wrote down the vehicle registration and later served a fixed penalty notice on the named driver for littering.
When this was ignored the driver was given a seven day warning letter. When this was also ignored the officer sent a seven day warning letter to the driver saying if he did not pay he may be prosecuted under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
On Monday 9 March 2009 the case was heard in Haringey Magistrates Court, and, in his absence, the defendant was fined £100 plus £15 victim surcharge and awarded costs of £275 awarded to the council.
Total fine for this case was £390.
Oh dear, should have used one of these
or maybe just kept it in his car...
Tags for Forum Posts: cigarette litter, enforcement, litter
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
For me this is not about smoking or littering, this is about someone being prosecuted for something that as far as I am aware, no-one else is being prosecuted for.
Imagine if you were the only person prosecuted for doing 31mph in a 30mph zone? As much as I would like to see this done (it is a speed LIMIT after all) I think that if you only did one person and let others go it would be seen as bureaucratic persecution of that one person.
The point is, we should be more worried about some petty bureaucrat targeting us for something that others are getting away with as well. Authority needs to be fair and just, this was not an example of that.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I disagree that this is the only person fined for this. I'm afraid that when the officers went out in Crouch End and did an operation on this very thing a few months back, the attitude from members was the same. He was the only person doing this at the time but he is not the only person ever fined in Haringey for it. I would expect any person caught breaking the speeding limit to be fined.
So they are far from being the only person who has ever been fined for this. They didn't pay the fine. They were pursued for this. Rightly so , if you can ignore fixed penalty then there is no point issuing them, for this, or anything else. It simply doesn't hold water to say, we won't act on this because we can't catch every person every time they break the law. I really do object to your constant referral to the people we employ to enforce these laws as 'petty bureaucrats'
I return to my original point. When enforcement is absent, then everyone complains about how useless they are. When they act, then they are equated to nazis/communists/jobsworths/petty bureaucrats. Make up your mind. It is tedious in the extreme to hear such hackneyed arguments. The guy who sorted out the skips in my road , did a brill job, no doubt his 'victims' thought he was a jackbooted power mad petty minded council jobsworth.
-
-
So you plastered a sensational headline and a sensational victim onto the forum (cool, it's certainly generated some debate) but now you cry "actually, loads of people are being posectued (my own made up word) for this". So here I am backing down and saying that as long as they're doing it for more than one person it's OK and I do get that they have to sock it to people who don't turn up for their court appearances. My petty bureaucrat has been transformed into a sharp and dedicated employee with an A4 sheet of successful prosecutions for littering to their name.
Being made an example of by the law is unfair and unjust; a typical application of means justifying the ends. More often than not the people that find themselves examples are the nerdy ones, Socrates springs to mind, as does Gary McKinnon if you want a more local example.
Sorry, I've now hi-jacked your thread.
Down with litterbugs!
-
Permalink Reply by Danzigger on
-
When Liz posted about the Crouch End fag fines a few months ago, I was one of the people who thought it was a waste of time, ineffective etc.
However I've changed my mind now. I'm glad this bloke has received this massive fine. If he'd have had any decency, he wouldn't have chucked it out of his window.
If he'd have had an ounce of common sense, he would have paid the fine at the first warning. Or at least the second. But he didn't.
So: idiot litter lout gets fined large amount of money. Excellent news.
That it doesn't happen more often is disappointing, but that isn't a reason to complain when it happens at all. If it takes a petty petty bureaucrat to change the status quo for the better, then let's have more of them.
What is unfair and unjust is that lots of people couldn't care a row of buttons about their environment and treat it with contempt, while good people like Liz care so much that they go round picking up other peoples' litter.
-
-
John, I am glad to see that you appreciate the lengths I go to to get people to notice my posts. The rest of the wording was from the council.I was too lazy to link to the previous post on Crouch End litter louts.
I have to say though that being pursued for a fixed penalty notice on littering hardly puts him up there as a persecuted political figure. Still if he wants to claim matyrdom for his right to chuck his fag butts about then he will have one or two supporters on here, it seems.
Danzigger, as you know, the care and respect for the environment that I bang on about ad nauseum matters very much to me. I pick up litter because I want to and I hope it will make a difference. I actually think the little things do matter. Also, I am glad to hear when something has been done so posted about this.
Which doesn't mean that I don't see the bigger picture and am not critical of the lack of political will to do something to nudge people to see things differently and act in a way that enhances everyone's daily experience.
Harringay is an attractive little neighbourhood, with lovely old houses, good open spaces etc and I cannot and will not accept its despoilment as an inevitable part of life. Dumped cigs, chicken, mattresses, sofas, all part of the same mentality that needs to be persuaded to see things differently. Carrot and stick...
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Liz wrote: and you are wrong to equate this story with being anti-smoking or rather insultingly suggesting that it is a prissy crusade from an ex smoker. I'm sorry you got that impression - I don't think I wrote that ?
don't criticise people for doing what they are paid for or equate them with murderous regimes and evil dictators.
Ah but they don't.. it's clear here that they chose one person as a scapegoat.. and I wasn't personally referring to the people that carry it out .. but to 'the system' which seems to me to be getting more 'control mad' day by day..
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony on
-
I think the person chose to be the scapegoat. Had he paid the fixed penalty notice we would never have heard of it. I'm sure there are lots of these issued but this individual thought it didn't apply to him.
-
-
It is not at all clear that "they chose one person as a scapegoat." A council official seems to have decided to make an example of an offender. That is not the same thing.
And how does this story lead you to the conclusion that 'the system" (whatever you mean by that) is getting more 'control mad' day by day? Enforcing a law which is generally held to be for everyone's good, even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance is not "control madness" nor Fascist nor totalitarian. And this being an exceptional case, it quite obviously can't be seen to represent an increasing trend.
-
-
Oh course it's facist... Those who think they are 'better' pushing their 'ideals' onto others..
Example.. Is it illegal to smoke on the street ? No.. So, as long as it's not illegal, then it must be clear to the authorities that there will be butts ... So they either 1) make it illegal to smoke outside.. 2). provide bins on every lamp post & tree in every street if they want people to abide by the rules..
What is a smoker to do if he's caught short - what I mean is - when he's smoked his cigarette and at just at that moment there's no 'receptacle' for him/her to dispose of the Butt..?
BTW, I agree that is not acceptable that people should dispose of their cigarettes out of car windows.. But come on, this is a community where people are stabbed..and there are severe problems with vehicles being driven over the speed limit.. and you're and it seems the council employees are worrying about cigarette butts.. It borders on the laughable..
Cheap Spin is all it is..
As I said I'm not a smoker, but the freedom to be able to live a life without the state telling you what you have to do every five minutes is much more important.. You all seem so willing to give your freedoms up...
-
-
It's about keeping litter off the streets! The council are not imposing idealistic laws on an unwilling and downtrodden populace. Everyone would prefer their streets to be clean. The council is responsible for cleaning them. As part of that responsibility they try to prevent littering by imposing fines on those that do. That's not Facism, it's a democratic responsibility.
And why can't a smoker keep his butt in his hand until he reaches a bin? Or carry a little bag to keep butts in? People do it with dog crap. The personal freedom to drop litter wherever you like contravenes your responsibility to a society which wants clean streets.
-
-
Stephen, I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Where is the leap from enforcing a law that requires you not to throw down your litter to fascism? In fact, that word has been bandied about in this thread far too much in relation to a simple prosecution for non payment of a lawful fine. The council may be many things but they are not fascists , for pete's sake.
The press release is normal. If this had been about dog fouling would there have been the same 'horror'? Or relief that finally we find out that something is being done? I also imagine that the entire department does not just stare out of the window all day hoping to catch a stray smoker who finds himself miles from the nearest bin. They do act on lots of things, as I know from my various dealings with them. The real 'scandal is that the underlying problems of environmental crimes are not being tackled intelligently by either government or council. That is where you should direct your ire.
I repeat this has nothing to do with smoking or whether it is legal/illegal. It is legal to smoke in this country. That's a personal freedom. It is not legal to throw down rubbish which is not a new law and therefore is punishable with a fine. Your reasoning would suggest that any time you are not within sight of a litter bin, it is acceptable to dispose of your rubbish in the street. "I couldn't see a bin so I left it on a telephone cabinet, yer honour"
We do have issues over the curtailing of our freedoms in this country but enforcing the anti litter laws is not one of them. The officer in question was simply doing the job for which they are paid, not behaving like any -ist or being vindictive.
Dealing with community problems means dealing with the whole, including the minor. It is not about control but about persuasion that in order to get the big things, like a reduction in crime, the small things matter. In my experience, of 'enforcement in the class room' i.e teaching, crisis management of a community does not work, ignoring or excusing low level anti-social behaviour only causes the problem to worsen and exacerbate the problems at the top. Extending this to the wider community, recent research has suggested that crime increases in areas that show signs of neglect, such as littering, graffiti etc.
Incidentally on the topic of what to do when your cig is finished, My grandfather had the foul habit of knocking the end of his cig and putting it in his pocket, when caught short. Still he didn't chuck it down. He just wouldn't have dreamed of making a mess in the street. And I don't want litter bins on every lamp post to accommodate smokers. They have many choices already, including in this case, using his own car as an ashtray.
p.s. no it was not you that made the "prissy ex smoker crusade" remark.
-
-
The thing that got me was that the offender was driving their car at the time. So could these same enforcement officers just stand outside the Queen's Head and nick all the motorists talking on their cellphones by noting down their registration numbers? When I initially read this post it struck me that the enforcement officer must have known the driver, hence my persecution angle.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
