Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Woman fined over £900 for dropping cigarette butt
A woman was fined over £900 last week for dropping a cigarette on the pavement and failing to pay her penalty notice.
Cllr Nilgun Canver, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods,said:
"People seem to think it's ok to drop cigarette butts in the street. Well it's not ok. It costs the council a lot of money to sweep up this litter and I hope this fine will make people think twice before throwing a butt away in future."
On Thursday the 5th of August Haringey Council Enforcement Officers spotted Kristina Djemal of 13 Charmwood Road, Enfield, throwing away a cigarette in Wood Green High Road and making no attempt to pick it up.
The officers were in the middle a litter patrol exercise with local police at the time.
Djemal was advised that dropping the cigarette was a littering offence and issued her with a fixed penalty notice of £75.
Despite reminder letters being sent, the fixed penalty notice was not paid, and the case was referred for prosecution.
Although Djemal failed to turn up at court on December 1st, Tottenham Magistrates found her guilty of littering and she was fined £525.00, with full costs of £382.00. A collection order was also granted, providing for bailiffs to visit the home to collect the money.
Tags for Forum Posts: litter
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
No I was answering Liz's litter questions.. if you look back you'll see I was always talking about the '900 case'
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Stephen I'm sorry that nothing I write can ever be taken seriously by you, but I still take seriously the issue of litter. Whether you know it or not, its a big problem in London. I'm not sure how relevant to Harringay is the German experience of littering, since Germans are more law abiding citizens, including the bus fare payers, on bendys or double-deckers.
How many times has it been pointed out here that the fine for dropping the cigarette butt was £75 and not £900? I am not responsible for that confusion. I think I'd been happier than you if it'd been 10 fag droppers x £75 = £750. I think the fines are paid to the court rather than the council.
Do you think people should be able to just cock a snook at the law, i.e. to the £75 fine, which is what this woman appears to have done?
I wish the bailiffs luck in extracting the (overall) court ordered fine; somehow I don't think this woman is going to co-operate. The only unfairness here is that, given the normal toleration of littering by the council shown by inadequate enforcement, the woman probably had an expectation that the laws would not be taken seriously.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Stephen, and I was answering your point about litter, hence the reference to it. Hope that makes sense now?
I think Liz has made it clear that she doesn't distinguish between different types of littering; fag butt or lollipop stick, it's all the same to her.
I'd go along with that. Litter's litter - and in the context of this conversation it doesn't make sense to distinguish since the fine's the same whether you 'eave your butt or toss your pot.
-
-
I don't want to labour the point - but litter is not litter..
I'm not a smoker, but this mobbing of smokers does irritate me a bit. For fifty years (or perhaps even more) it was OK for cigarette smokers to put their cigarettes out where they wanted. Now, no doubt because of some nanny state decision (which I would call fascist, but all you lot seem to think is to-o-o-tally OK) to make smoking inside illegal.. causing more smokers to move onto the streets and more butts, which are suddenly termed litter.
And the laughable thing about it all is that it won't help a fig. All is does is cause quite a large majority to feel rather pleased with themselves :o( and the rest to feel like outcasts. Well Done, a real achievement in local harmony.
As I said before, I hope the self-righteous here are all lining up to pay their fines when they break bye-laws.
P.S. I can't ever remember seeing a sign in Berlin that says 'don't drop litter - penalty xx€' - If I find one I'll let you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
-
-
Stephen many things were tolerated in the past that would not be today. Restrictions on smoking are not made for the fun of it or because of fascist or Nazi sympathies. You may not be aware of it, but they are made for good Public Health reasons, especially due to the effects of secondary smoking. Indoors, your smoking rights should end where my lungs begin.
Simply because a fag butt is small does not mean it is not litter. Lots of butts outside betting shops, for example, are litter.
Well Done, a real achievement in local harmony
– you say it facetiously, but I think you are right without realising it!
If by the link to the anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany, you are trying to smear actions taken on public health by association with Hitler, it won't wash. It is a pity that the excellent work performed by German researchers was done at the time of the Third Reich. It was they who first established the link between smoking and cancer.
You have quite rightly previously spoken up for other scientific research done during the Nazi era: their advanced development of television, beating the British too it. Credit where its due.
But for the rest of the world and the tobacco lobby in particular, the knowledge about smoking and cancer was shunned simply because of the Nazi association. I wonder how many smokers died prematurely because this connection was used for nearly 50 years to taint valid scientific research?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
@Steve
I really don't think it's a question of making an example of someone, it's about having to follow things through otherwise there is no point in giving the sanction in the first place. If it becomes clear that non payment has no consequences then the system breaks down. I also think the person in question could even have stopped the process at any point by negotiation, up to as Alan suggests apologising in court.
I think Hugh's point is pertinent, there is a very big problem in this country, it needs tackling, fines are part of the armoury but I would like to see more adventurous thinking about how to change attitudes, like the deposit systems which I bang on about and which exist in Germany. Money is still the incentive but it's now a carrot not a stick.
Finally, 50 % of litter is cigarette litter, it is about litter. Cigarette butts are litter. There are bins everywhere. Many smokers use them. Lots don't. It costs a lot of money to keep streets clean. If people don't litter, costs go down. Hey money for something else. Littering smokers join the big society and put your butt in the bin. Then we can spend the money on hospitals because you may be needing them sooner rather then later.It's actually beneficial to yourself to help save the money
I really don't endorse anyone that suggests we need Singapore style justice here, and you know after many years in the city now, I've never actually SEEN anyone randomly stopped for litter either (I turned up at an advertised litter patrol) so it's not as though people are being terrorised for their littering.
-
Permalink Reply by 3ud0phocrwhor on
-
use the money the government gives you from smoke sales to clean up, you turfed us out of the pubs, you threw us out of (open) railway stations, you put stupid little ashtrays on lamp posts and then have the cheek to come up with a £75 fee if we drop a butt on the floor, i drop mine in the gutter, is that allowed? i thought that was what gutters were for. And Gum, wow, the pavements around Turnpike land are disgusting, id rather tread on a dry fag butt than some douchbags chewing gum! environmental crime? amazing how everything has a fear spin, i just thought it was called littering
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
You being turfed out of the pubs and restaurants enabled people like me to enjoy them. I have asthma, and I have a serious problem with smoking around me. What right do smokers have to pollute the air that I breathe? None. If you can keep your habit private then go ahead, but fact is, smoking affects other people, and the butts are litter. There's no other way of looking at it. They're disgusting little bits of nicotine and saliva-soaked gunk that the rest of us have to see, smell and do our best to avoid. Anyone dressing up smoking and dropping butts as a basic human right is completely absurd.
-
-
Yes Annette, I also enjoy smoke free restuarants - but why shouldn't there be the same for smokers? Here in Bln we have a restuarant ban on smoking, but there are bars for smokers and they have to display a notice that effect and those under 18 are not allowed in. Those over 18 are allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to use an establishment or not. Simarly to Porn/Sex establishments - just because some don't approve - have we the right to close them all? A rather grown up way of ordering society don't you think?
-
-
Decide for themselves? I have heard this false libertarian argument used in relation to the wearing of seat belts too:
If they want to kill themselves this way, why not let them? [i.e. equivalent to arguing there should be no law against suicide]
The difficulty for the rest of us. is that the b******s don't die straight away!
Indeed, it is this very feature of smoking that leads many tobacco users, especially the young, to conclude wrongly, that it smoking is safe. But in case they're mistaken, smokers still expect to have full access to medical facilities if their conduct leads to hospital. To what extent do these people deserve treatment for their knowingly self-inflicted injuries? Sometimes smokers have long term treatment and die lingering deaths.
In many cases, society as a whole has to pay for extended medical treatment for conditions such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. This costs money. Surely, society, via the state, has a duty to contain these costs and mitigate this waste of money.
-
-
Very strange Will.. on the one hand you bemoan Health & Saftey regulations.. and use them as a vague excuse not to build an underground station.. and then you say you want to 'encourage' people to change their habits.. a slight contradiction, which I suppose I should have expected.. Excuse me, but such language is very similar to what the n+zis used to use. I added the link to make a connection to where such 'good ideas' often end up!
@Clive I'm not sure where you get the idea that I support Nazi scientific reasearch.. I only pointed out in the past that the first TV systems were in Germany and not in the UK. Something which you now also accept. I hope you make that clear at AP.
The overall point I was trying to make was that has been an increase in cigarette butt 'litter' since the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places.
I also agree with Annette that responsibilties 'should' go 'hand in hand' with liberties.. but those who voted for the smoking ban should have also realised the knock on effects of such a ban. I've seen evidence of residential parts of the Borough where butts are not a problem. Only the places where people have been forced outside seem to be affected.
-
-
I helped to do this (Health Act 2006). By far the best thing I have achieved in my career. Smokefree legislation is simple, popular and generally observed with minimal enforcement. And it protects employees in particular from the effects of other people's smoke. And it encourages people to quit. Win win win and win.
P.S if you drop litter in the street and not in the rubbish bin, whether cigarette butts, fast food containers or anything else you are anti-social and you deserve to be fined if caught.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
