In message <l0tht4Fld44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
circus not my monkey.
If this is
wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
rules.
On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0tht4Fld44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
circus not my monkey.
If this is
wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
rules.
Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
public litter bins?
(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
that.)
On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0tht4Fld44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
circus not my monkey.
If this is
wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
rules.
Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
public litter bins?
(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
that.)
On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0tht4Fld44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
circus not my monkey.
If this is
wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
rules.
Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
public litter bins?
(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
that.)
Here we have voluntary litter pickers, who are despised by council
workers for "stealing their jobs", and have been issued with stickers by
the council saying "The this bin-bag we filled up and have left next to
this litter bin isn't fly tipping".
Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
have,
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:05:54 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l0tht4Fld44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
circus not my monkey.
If this is
wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
rules.
Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
public litter bins?
They can only be used for uncontrolled waste. Uncontrolled waste is the residual waste which is not otherwise explicitly defined in legislation as belonging to one of the categories of controlled waste or hazardous waste. The three categories of controlled waste are industrial, commercial and household waste.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/75
All three of those categories have regulations governing their disposal, and one of them is that you can't dispose of it anywhere other than via a regulated waste disposal service (which includes the council bin lorries and taking it to the tip yourself).
Basically, as far as household waste is concerned, there are only three
legal ways to dispose of it:
1. Put it in a council-approved receptacle (eg, a wheelie bin) and make the receptacle available for collection on the council's collection schedule.
2. Take it yourself from your home to an appropriate and licensed waste disposal facility. (This can be the council tip, but it can also be things like WEEE collection points run by retailers).
3. Engage someone else to collect it and dispose of it lawfully. Anyone who does this for you needs to be a licensed waste carrier.
(Another option is to find a use for it. If it's going to be re-used, rather than disposed of, then it's not waste. So you could donate, say, unwanted furniture to a charity and they can come and collect it, without needing a waste carrier licence, because if they're going to find a use for it then it isn't waste even though you no longer want it).
Taking household waste to a litter bin isn't one of the lawful means of disposal, so as far as the law is concerned it's fly-tipping.
(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like >>that.)
That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.
On 2024-01-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
Taking household waste to a litter bin isn't one of the lawful means of
disposal, so as far as the law is concerned it's fly-tipping.
I figured it would be something like that --- thanks.
So if I eat something out of a wrapper at home, put the empty wrapper
in my pocket, and drop it in a litter bin on the way somewhere, it's >fly-tipping? Whereas if I eat it on the way (either walking or in a
car) it's OK to put the wrapper in a litter bin?
(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like >>>that.)
That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not
controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal
prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.
I suspect it's intended to mean "no household waste" but the signs
were printed without legal advice.
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:22:49 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
Taking household waste to a litter bin isn't one of the lawful means of
disposal, so as far as the law is concerned it's fly-tipping.
I figured it would be something like that --- thanks.
So if I eat something out of a wrapper at home, put the empty wrapper
in my pocket, and drop it in a litter bin on the way somewhere, it's >>fly-tipping? Whereas if I eat it on the way (either walking or in a
car) it's OK to put the wrapper in a litter bin?
Technically, yes. But enforcing it down to that level is impractical, even
if it's not de minimis. If you see someone take something out of their
pocket and put it in a litter bin, there's no indication at all of where it came from originally. But if they put a bin bag of rubbish into a bin, then that is a good indication that it isn't just waste from what they have consumed while out and about.
(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like >>>>that.)
That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not
controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal >>> prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.
I suspect it's intended to mean "no household waste" but the signs
were printed without legal advice.
If it said "no household waste" then some wag would almost certainly interpret it to mean that it's OK to put commercial waste in it.
Given that very few people have any concept of "uncontrolled waste", and uncontrolled waste isn't defined anywhere (other than the fact that it isn't included any of the categories of waste), a sign which said "uncontrolled waste only" would be meaningless to most people.
"Litter only" would probably be understandable. But many people
would argue that litter isn't litter if you put it in a bin, it's
only litter if you drop it on the street. So "pedestrian rubbish
only" is probably the best compromise between legally correct and understandable.
That reminds me of the linguist Geoff Pullum's column about "THIS
REFUSE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL PRESENTATION" labels on rubbish
bags in Edinburgh (the short answer is that "illegal presentation"
means putting them out too early so the seagulls can have them them).
<https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1507>
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:26:36 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
That reminds me of the linguist Geoff Pullum's column about "THIS
REFUSE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL PRESENTATION" labels on rubbish
bags in Edinburgh (the short answer is that "illegal presentation"
means putting them out too early so the seagulls can have them them).
<https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1507>
"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start building it until the 1700s were almost over."
That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle, Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
Newmarket and Newborough.
On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even startI wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
building it until the 1700s were almost over."
That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
Newmarket and Newborough.
"New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
the others beat that?
On 22/01/2024 23:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start >>> building it until the 1700s were almost over."I wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
Newmarket and Newborough.
"New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
the others beat that?
I don't suppose you'd allow Newgrange, ~5200 years old [and so
older than Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, but no longer in the UK,
and I don't expect it was called "Newgrange" when it was built, even
in translation]?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:26:36 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
That reminds me of the linguist Geoff Pullum's column about "THIS
REFUSE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL PRESENTATION" labels on rubbish
bags in Edinburgh (the short answer is that "illegal presentation"
means putting them out too early so the seagulls can have them them).
<https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1507>
"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start >building it until the 1700s were almost over."
That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle, >Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch, Newmarket >and Newborough.
New Court at both Trinity and St Johns in Cambridge were built in the 1820's
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:23:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Here we have voluntary litter pickers, who are despised by council
workers for "stealing their jobs", and have been issued with stickers by >>the council saying "The this bin-bag we filled up and have left next to >>this litter bin isn't fly tipping".
Here, the council supplies branded blue bin bags to volunteer litter
pickers.
Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
have,
They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle >uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who >transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).
On 22/01/2024 23:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start >>> building it until the 1700s were almost over."I wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
Newmarket and Newborough.
"New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
the others beat that?
I don't suppose you'd allow Newgrange, ~5200 years old [and so
older than Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, but no longer in the UK,
and I don't expect it was called "Newgrange" when it was built, even
in translation]?
In message <envqqi1lrr7aul761veipimpengj9hie3d@4ax.com>, at 20:32:36 on
Sun, 21 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
have,
They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle >>uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who >>transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).
Circular argument here, because one of the biggest sources of the litter
they pick is discarded fast-food packaging. Next is probably discarded
beer cans etc.
Not sure what they do about discarded beer *glasses*.
Another conundrum is bikes hauled out of the river by magent-fishermen.
The council says they are "lost property" and should be reported to the >police and not as fly-tipping. The police, on the other hand, have stuck
lost property on their list of things they no longer do.
If the magnet fishermen thrown them back in the river that's breaking
the Environment Agency Byelaws. If they take them [or indeed supermarket >trolleys] away, in theory that's theft, and if they leave them on the
river bank it's fly tipping.
If a public spirited member of the public took them to the County's
waste disposal facility, would they need a carrier's licence?
On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:26:36 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
That reminds me of the linguist Geoff Pullum's column about "THIS
REFUSE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL PRESENTATION" labels on rubbish
bags in Edinburgh (the short answer is that "illegal presentation"
means putting them out too early so the seagulls can have them them).
<https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1507>
"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start
building it until the 1700s were almost over."
That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
Newmarket and Newborough.
I wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
"New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
the others beat that?
It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste. And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors, particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible for what happens to them after that.
On 2024-01-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
...
It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park
bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser >> has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the
purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste. >> And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
If I eat the takeaway in the park and take the wrapper into my house,
is it still uncontrolled waste or does it become household waste when
it's indoors?
This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can >> solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing >> them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they >> leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible >> for what happens to them after that.
Random idea: modify trademark law to allow councils to bill trademark
owners for branded litter.
One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for >drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing >vehicle on the packaging.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for >>drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing >>vehicle on the packaging.
That's an interesting scheme.
Given that litter can easily escape from bins, e.g. by the wind
blowing, or some clown tipping a bin over, or the bin liner bag
tearing, or a rubbish collector accidentally dropping something, etc
etc etc... what defence would you suggest to a registered keeper who
is prosecuted for littering when they know they properly disposed of
their rubbish?
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:19:15 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <envqqi1lrr7aul761veipimpengj9hie3d@4ax.com>, at 20:32:36 on >>Sun, 21 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers >>>>have,
They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle >>>uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who >>>transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).
Circular argument here, because one of the biggest sources of the litter >>they pick is discarded fast-food packaging. Next is probably discarded
beer cans etc.
It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park >bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser >has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the >purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste. >And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines >whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors, >particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can >solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing >them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they >leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible >for what happens to them after that.
Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer >who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they
take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household >waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the >carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it >there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.
Not sure what they do about discarded beer *glasses*.
Intact, undamaged glasses can either be returned to the premises they were >removed from, or washed and donated to a charity shop (which will generally >be pleased to have them). The person who removed the glass from the premises >is potentially guilty of theft, but since they subsequently abandoned >possession of the glass, if the finder cannot reasonably identify the >premises it was stolen from then the finder is entitled to appropriate it
and deal with it as they see fit.
Damaged or otherwise unusable glasses discarded in a public place are, like >burger cartons, uncontrolled waste and can go into a public litter bin. >Although, being fully recyclable, volunteer litter pickers are encouraged to >keep them separate and present them for recycling where possible.
Another conundrum is bikes hauled out of the river by magent-fishermen.
The council says they are "lost property" and should be reported to the >>police and not as fly-tipping. The police, on the other hand, have stuck >>lost property on their list of things they no longer do.
If the magnet fishermen thrown them back in the river that's breaking
the Environment Agency Byelaws. If they take them [or indeed supermarket >>trolleys] away, in theory that's theft, and if they leave them on the
river bank it's fly tipping.
If a public spirited member of the public took them to the County's
waste disposal facility, would they need a carrier's licence?
Legally, that would depend on how and why the bike got into the river. if
the original owner of the bike decided to get rid of it, but couldn't be >bothered to take it to the tip so just threw it in the river, then it would >be controlled waste. But if it had been stolen, and then abandoned by the >thief, it would be uncontrolled waste.
In practice, given that it would be almost impossible to tell the
difference, a prosecution for unlawfully transporting controlled waste would >be equally impossible as there would be no way to prove, to the satisfaction >of a court, that it was certainly controlled waste. So the pragmatic answer >is that any waste retrieved from a public open space is treated as >uncontrolled waste, even if there's a possibility that it might actually
have been controlled waste when dumped. So nobody will be prosecuted for >taking it to the tip without a licence.
The exception, of course, is if it's actually hazardous waste, which is a >different kettle of fish.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:15:45 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
...
It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park >>> bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser >>> has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the >>> purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
If I eat the takeaway in the park and take the wrapper into my house,
is it still uncontrolled waste or does it become household waste when
it's indoors?
That's possibly an interesting edge case for the court to argue over. But
you can put it in your own bin, of course, either way.
This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can
solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing
them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they >>> leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible >>> for what happens to them after that.
Random idea: modify trademark law to allow councils to bill trademark >>owners for branded litter.
A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed >as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it >(or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for >example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively.
One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for >drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing >vehicle on the packaging. That's sufficient evidence to prosecute the >registered keeper of the vehicle if the packaging is subsequently discarded >on the highway or in another public place (such as a car park). So the >presence of the reg number on the carton is a strong deterrent to littering.
But not all drive through operators are willing to do this. So making it >compulsory would help, a lot.
Mark
In message <69dvqilof9qrmasta9pl4mut7p4jblgjvn@4ax.com>, at 13:55:02 on
Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer >>who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they >>take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household >>waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the >>carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it >>there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.
And customers and volunteer litter pickers are supposed to know this sort of thing, how
precisely?
In message <e5d5ri9tnmcl8d4hmoqtra3jgoccu2mutg@4ax.com>, at 19:35:08 on
Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for >>drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing >>vehicle on the packaging. That's sufficient evidence to prosecute the >>registered keeper of the vehicle if the packaging is subsequently discarded >>on the highway or in another public place (such as a car park). So the >>presence of the reg number on the carton is a strong deterrent to littering.
Assuming that keeper even notices the ruse.
In message <69dvqilof9qrmasta9pl4mut7p4jblgjvn@4ax.com>, at 13:55:02 on
Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal >>bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park >>bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser >>has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the >>purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste. >>And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines >>whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
Rather than sit on the fence, if it's either a public carpark or a park >bench, is it or is it not controlled waste.
Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer >>who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they >>take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household >>waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the >>carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it >>there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.
And customers and volunteer litter pickers are supposed to know this
sort of thing, how precisely?
Intact, undamaged glasses can either be returned to the premises they were >>removed from, or washed and donated to a charity shop (which will generally >>be pleased to have them). The person who removed the glass from the premises >>is potentially guilty of theft, but since they subsequently abandoned >>possession of the glass, if the finder cannot reasonably identify the >>premises it was stolen from then the finder is entitled to appropriate it >>and deal with it as they see fit.
What if the finder *can* identify the premises on a balance of
probability it was stolen from, but is not at that instant open for
business?
The exception, of course, is if it's actually hazardous waste, which is a >>different kettle of fish.
Including a couple of summers ago a four foot long pike (don't tell him
your name) which died and floated to the surface and someone fished (see
what I did there) it out of the river and dumped it on the footpath.
Took many days to find anyone who would take responsibility for dealing
with it.
Unless that is you're seriosly suggesting that people take burgers home,
eat them and then subsequently dispose of the carton in local parks or
their places of work.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:13:41 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Unless that is you're seriosly suggesting that people take burgers home,
eat them and then subsequently dispose of the carton in local parks or
their places of work.
I suspect some people do, actually. But it's not really relevant to the litter pickers.
What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical office waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the wheelie bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also incredibly difficult to detect.
Mark
On 28/01/2024 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:13:41 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
Unless that is you're seriosly suggesting that people take burgers home, >>> eat them and then subsequently dispose of the carton in local parks or
their places of work.
I suspect some people do, actually. But it's not really relevant to the
litter pickers.
What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical
office
waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used
teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of
rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the
wheelie
bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial
waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
incredibly difficult to detect.
Mark
What about working from home? The same work related paper and teabags
are generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people
who work from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?
On 28/01/2024 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical office >> waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used
teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of
rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the wheelie >> bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial
waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
incredibly difficult to detect.
What about working from home? The same work related paper and teabags are >generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people who work >from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?
On 26 Jan 2024 12:56:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote: >>what defence would you suggest to a registered keeper who
is prosecuted for littering when they know they properly disposed ofIt's usually pretty obvious when it's just been dumped from a car.
their rubbish?
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2024 12:56:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Holland <dave@biff.org.uk> wrote: >>>what defence would you suggest to a registered keeper who
is prosecuted for littering when they know they properly disposed of >>>their rubbish?It's usually pretty obvious when it's just been dumped from a car.
I agree, but I deliberately wasn't asking about the usual case.
Did you have a sensible proposal for my question? It looks like this
scheme is shifting the burden of proof onto the innocent bin-user.
Given how often I see bits of rubbish blowing down the street on bin
day, even taking the litter home doesn't seem completely safe. On that
basis, I think declaring a loose piece of paper on the roadside as
deliberate litter seems optimistic at best.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:15:45 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
...
It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park >>> bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser >>> has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the >>> purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
If I eat the takeaway in the park and take the wrapper into my house,
is it still uncontrolled waste or does it become household waste when
it's indoors?
That's possibly an interesting edge case for the court to argue over. But
you can put it in your own bin, of course, either way.
This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can
solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing
them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they >>> leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible >>> for what happens to them after that.
Random idea: modify trademark law to allow councils to bill trademark >>owners for branded litter.
A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it (or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:50:30 +0000, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2024 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical office
waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used
teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of
rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the wheelie >>> bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial >>> waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
incredibly difficult to detect.
What about working from home? The same work related paper and teabags are >> generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people who work
from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?
It's not a situation that the legislators envisaged, possibly because the Internet was not a big thing in 1990 so the vast majority of people working from home would be tradespeople and the like (eg, plumbers) who obviously generate commercial waste in the course of their work which can't easily be passed off as domestic waste anyway. The concept of remote work for an employer, or a sole trader working primarily or solely over the Internet, wsn't really on their radar.
What that means is that, technically, any waste generated in the course of working from home is commercial waste and therefore requires a commercial waste disposal contract. In practice, the approach taken by most waste disposal authorities (certainly, by mine) is that provided the waste generated in the course of WFH is no more than would be generated by the
same person sitting on the sofa watching Netflix or reading books all day,
or engaging in typical home-based hobbies such as knitting or building a model railway, then it's de minimis and therefore below the threshold for
any enforcement action.
After all, the teabag is the same teabag whether you drink the tea while answering an email from your boss or while browsing cat videos. The local authotity can't tell, and has no need to tell unless you are somehow generating more waste than you would if you weren't working.
In that respect, it's the same as planning legislation. Technically, working from home requires planning permission for change of use. In practice, it's only ever enforced if working from home generates noticeable amounts of externally-visible work-related activity (eg, people repairing cars on their drive, or large numbers of visitors to a residential property). The law does not concern itself about trifles.
Mark
On 2024-01-25, Mark Goodge wrote:
A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed >> as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it >> (or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for >> example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively.
Well, conditions for alcohol licences can be changed (at least at
renewal time, AIUI) --- maybe that should apply to other classes of
business too.
On 29/01/2024 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
In that respect, it's the same as planning legislation. Technically, working >> from home requires planning permission for change of use. In practice, it's >> only ever enforced if working from home generates noticeable amounts of
externally-visible work-related activity (eg, people repairing cars on their >> drive, or large numbers of visitors to a residential property). The law does >> not concern itself about trifles.
Although local authorities sometimes do (concern themselves with
trifles, that is).
There was a well-publicised incident locally (which is probably why the
LA did it) of a lady running a business from home for which she bought a >professional grade Multi-Function Device. (Printer, Scanner, Document >Feeder, Multiple paper trays, etc., you get the idea.)
It could have been being used purely for home purposes but the delivery
label (from Amazon) was addressed to <Householder Name>, <Business
Name>, <Address>. The box in which the printer was delivered was placed
in the household cardboard recycling bin (blue in these parts) awaiting >collection by the LA's contractors. However, she was fined for
"Disposing of business waste in a domestic bin" or some such (fine of a
few hundred pounds from memory).
Knowing the person concerned and her business, it will have generated
quite a bit of cardboard waste, (bulk deliveries of a particular item in >cardboard boxes with the items them being sold individually for a
profit), and I imagine this had been spotted by those responsible for >collecting and emptying the bins and they checked the waste periodically
for evidence of business waste, which the delivery label for the MFD >confirmed.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:58:26 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-25, Mark Goodge wrote:
A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed >>> as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it >>> (or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for >>> example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively. >>Well, conditions for alcohol licences can be changed (at least at
renewal time, AIUI) --- maybe that should apply to other classes of >>business too.
You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing
regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be unpopular, on several different levels.
Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
significant source of litter.
On 2024-01-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And >> planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a
subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So
implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing
regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be >> unpopular, on several different levels.
Obviously takeaway operators wouldn't like it...
Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a
significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which >> is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
significant source of litter.
...but that reinforces the point that a withdrawable licence
accomplishes that goal.
On 29/01/2024 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:50:30 +0000, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2024 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate
typical office
waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used >>>> teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of >>>> rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the
wheelie
bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of
commercial
waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
incredibly difficult to detect.
What about working from home? The same work related paper and
teabags are
generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people
who work
from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?
It's not a situation that the legislators envisaged, possibly because the
Internet was not a big thing in 1990 so the vast majority of people
working
from home would be tradespeople and the like (eg, plumbers) who obviously
generate commercial waste in the course of their work which can't
easily be
passed off as domestic waste anyway. The concept of remote work for an
employer, or a sole trader working primarily or solely over the Internet,
wsn't really on their radar.
What that means is that, technically, any waste generated in the
course of
working from home is commercial waste and therefore requires a commercial
waste disposal contract. In practice, the approach taken by most waste
disposal authorities (certainly, by mine) is that provided the waste
generated in the course of WFH is no more than would be generated by the
same person sitting on the sofa watching Netflix or reading books all
day,
or engaging in typical home-based hobbies such as knitting or building a
model railway, then it's de minimis and therefore below the threshold for
any enforcement action.
After all, the teabag is the same teabag whether you drink the tea while
answering an email from your boss or while browsing cat videos. The local
authotity can't tell, and has no need to tell unless you are somehow
generating more waste than you would if you weren't working.
In that respect, it's the same as planning legislation. Technically,
working
from home requires planning permission for change of use. In practice,
it's
only ever enforced if working from home generates noticeable amounts of
externally-visible work-related activity (eg, people repairing cars on
their
drive, or large numbers of visitors to a residential property). The
law does
not concern itself about trifles.
Although local authorities sometimes do (concern themselves with
trifles, that is).
There was a well-publicised incident locally (which is probably why the
LA did it) of a lady running a business from home for which she bought a professional grade Multi-Function Device. (Printer, Scanner, Document Feeder, Multiple paper trays, etc., you get the idea.)
It could have been being used purely for home purposes but the delivery
label (from Amazon) was addressed to <Householder Name>, <Business
Name>, <Address>. The box in which the printer was delivered was placed
in the household cardboard recycling bin (blue in these parts) awaiting collection by the LA's contractors. However, she was fined for
"Disposing of business waste in a domestic bin" or some such (fine of a
few hundred pounds from memory).
Knowing the person concerned and her business, it will have generated
quite a bit of cardboard waste, (bulk deliveries of a particular item in cardboard boxes with the items them being sold individually for a
profit), and I imagine this had been spotted by those responsible for collecting and emptying the bins and they checked the waste periodically
for evidence of business waste, which the delivery label for the MFD confirmed.
On 28/01/2024 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:13:41 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
Unless that is you're seriosly suggesting that people take burgers home, >>> eat them and then subsequently dispose of the carton in local parks or
their places of work.
I suspect some people do, actually. But it's not really relevant to the
litter pickers.
What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical
office
waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used
teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of
rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the
wheelie
bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial
waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
incredibly difficult to detect.
Mark
What about working from home? The same work related paper and teabags
are generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people
who work from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?
Get a cross-cut shredder like wot I have and used to use on work-related papers (when I was working).
Let the local authority try to piece the paper back together in order to
try to prove that it was not domestic waste!
Never dispose of any envelopes, packaging, etc without first ensuring that the
recipient's name and address have been rendered totally unreadable, preferably by
shredding. For large packaging, only the bit with the address labels really needs to be
shredded.
Quite important, for reasons other than those discussed here, in this era of the rapid
home delivery.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:51:12 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And >>> planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a
subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So
implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing
regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be
unpopular, on several different levels.
Obviously takeaway operators wouldn't like it...
It would also increase the workload on local authority licensing
departments.
Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a
significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which >>> is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
significant source of litter.
...but that reinforces the point that a withdrawable licence
accomplishes that goal.
A street trading licence is, in effect, a form of rental agreement to use
the street as premises. Because street traders have much lower overheads
than operators of fixed premises, that's a reasonable expense which still allows them to typically undercut the prices of food sold from buildings.
The main issue with licensing fixed premises in the same way as street traders - that is, a short term renewable licence - is that setting up a business which operates from fixed premises is a much greater investment and a much longer term commitment than having a trailer or a van. When starting
a business from fixed premises, you need to have a reasonable expectation that you can carry on until either you decide to call it a day (or relocate) or you go bust. If there was no certainty that the licence would be renewed in three years, then the business may well be unviable. It would almost certainly make a commercial mortgage a non-starter.
In practice, therefore, licensing of fixed premises takeaways would need to be done on a similar basis to alcohol licences, which are long term and only revocable with very strong justification. From a technical perspective, that would work - pubs and bars operate to a long-term plan, and the licensing system is set up in such a way as to enable them to do so provided they adhere to the law. So a similar form of licences for takeaways would be entirely practical.
However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs
and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated - the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to make a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as
much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter" isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub,
either. But if you can't withdraw a takeaway licence because of litter, then there's no real basis left for licensing them at all.
And not all takeaways do generate a lot of litter. It's fairly uncommon to see a Dominos box by the side of the road. But there are always plenty of McDonalds and KFC wrappers. If you impose licensing on all takeaways, you're punishing them all for the infractions of a few.
Personally, I think that a better option would be to make it possible to
levy a charge on takeaways which generate a lot of litter. And add to that a requirement, as previously suggested, for drive through (or drive-thru) takeaways to print the reg number of the vehicle collecting it. Between
them, that would deal with the majority of litter. And the rest would be
much less of a challenge to clean up.
On 2024-01-30, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:51:12 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2024-01-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And >>>> planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a
subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So >>>> implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing >>>> regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be
unpopular, on several different levels.
Obviously takeaway operators wouldn't like it...
It would also increase the workload on local authority licensing
departments.
Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a
significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which
is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
significant source of litter.
...but that reinforces the point that a withdrawable licence
accomplishes that goal.
A street trading licence is, in effect, a form of rental agreement to use
the street as premises. Because street traders have much lower overheads
than operators of fixed premises, that's a reasonable expense which still
allows them to typically undercut the prices of food sold from buildings.
The main issue with licensing fixed premises in the same way as street
traders - that is, a short term renewable licence - is that setting up a
business which operates from fixed premises is a much greater investment and >> a much longer term commitment than having a trailer or a van. When starting >> a business from fixed premises, you need to have a reasonable expectation
that you can carry on until either you decide to call it a day (or relocate) >> or you go bust. If there was no certainty that the licence would be renewed >> in three years, then the business may well be unviable. It would almost
certainly make a commercial mortgage a non-starter.
In practice, therefore, licensing of fixed premises takeaways would need to >> be done on a similar basis to alcohol licences, which are long term and only >> revocable with very strong justification. From a technical perspective, that >> would work - pubs and bars operate to a long-term plan, and the licensing
system is set up in such a way as to enable them to do so provided they
adhere to the law. So a similar form of licences for takeaways would be
entirely practical.
However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs
and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially >> harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the >> case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated - >> the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to make >> a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as
much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much >> of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter"
isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub,
Really? Even broken glasses outside?
either. But if you can't withdraw a takeaway licence because of litter, then >> there's no real basis left for licensing them at all.
And not all takeaways do generate a lot of litter. It's fairly uncommon to >> see a Dominos box by the side of the road. But there are always plenty of
McDonalds and KFC wrappers. If you impose licensing on all takeaways, you're >> punishing them all for the infractions of a few.
(Like we already do to all pubs.)
Personally, I think that a better option would be to make it possible to
levy a charge on takeaways which generate a lot of litter. And add to that a >> requirement, as previously suggested, for drive through (or drive-thru)
takeaways to print the reg number of the vehicle collecting it. Between
them, that would deal with the majority of litter. And the rest would be
much less of a challenge to clean up.
Those are good ideas.
As a society we need to move away from the idea that operating any
particular business is some kind of right,
and we especially need to
institute easy legal ways to recover externalized social costs from businesses.
On 2024-01-30, Mark Goodge wrote:
However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs
and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially >> harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the >> case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated - >> the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to make >> a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as
much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much >> of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter"
isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub,
Really? Even broken glasses outside?
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:08:00 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-30, Mark Goodge wrote:
However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs >>> and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially >>> harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the >>> case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated - >>> the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to makeReally? Even broken glasses outside?
a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as >>> much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much >>> of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter" >>> isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub, >>
No. Not unless the licensing authorities have strong evidence that the quantity of broken glass is caused by drinkers getting excessively drunk,
and being served even when they are excessively drunk. Or it's caused by people getting fighty, and being served even when they are fighty.
Basically, it has to come down to a breach of the licensing laws.
On 2024-02-05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:08:00 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2024-01-30, Mark Goodge wrote:
However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs >>>> and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially >>>> harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the >>>> case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated - >>>> the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to make
a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as >>>> much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much
of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter" >>>> isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub,
Really? Even broken glasses outside?
No. Not unless the licensing authorities have strong evidence that the
quantity of broken glass is caused by drinkers getting excessively drunk,
and being served even when they are excessively drunk. Or it's caused by
people getting fighty, and being served even when they are fighty.
Basically, it has to come down to a breach of the licensing laws.
I'm surprised and disappointed by that. It seems like the sort of
thing that people who live in or go through the area ought to be
protected from.
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 12:18:32 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:08:00 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-30, Mark Goodge wrote:
However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs >>>>> and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially
harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the
case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated -
the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to make
a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as >>>>> much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much
of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter" >>>>> isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub,
Really? Even broken glasses outside?
No. Not unless the licensing authorities have strong evidence that the
quantity of broken glass is caused by drinkers getting excessively drunk, >>> and being served even when they are excessively drunk. Or it's caused by >>> people getting fighty, and being served even when they are fighty.
Basically, it has to come down to a breach of the licensing laws.
I'm surprised and disappointed by that. It seems like the sort of
thing that people who live in or go through the area ought to be
protected from.
The point is that if it's not related to alcohol consumption, then it's too distant from the licensing laws to be relevant. A tea room in Devon could suffer from customers taking crockery outside and dropping it.
Now, in reality, an excessive problem with broken glass outside a pub almost always is related to alcohol consumption, and therefore within the remit of the licensing regime. Simply withdrawing a licence would not normally be a proportionate response to that, but amending the licence to include a requirement for door staff (either all the tme or at the most prolematic times) can be. But the pub would have a potential defence that the broken glass isn't alcohol-related, if they could provide the necessary evidence.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:15:45 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,394 |