Dropping cigarette butts has cost man £515 (From Watford Observer)

Two? If this rather trivial law (In terms of effort required to enforce it compared to the nuiscance of the crime; it would actually have been cheaper to the tax payer for the enforcer to just pick up the litter and bin it) is to be enforced, why wasn't he nicked after one? It takes 5 minutes to smoke a fag, or was he smoking two at once?
This suggests a 'lurker' enforcer, wringing his hands as the offences mount up.

Failed to pay the fine.Failed to appear in court.
What chance is there of the court fine and costs being paid.

Lawrence was also ordered to pay £300 court costs and a victim surcharge of £15.


Who is the victim, nice little earner if you can get it.

Littering is a very serious problem and some of the reasons used by some include - keeps people in a job, everybody does it,there are much worse things to worry about, the throw away society / snack culture, parenting, lack of education, roundabouts and motorways don't have bins,etc.

The problem is so many have grown up in a culture where there is no shame attached to anti-social behaviour that it has become almost 'cool' to drop litter. This needs to be reversed and it does require tough action because we're in danger of always 'spoiling' those who should know better as they are old enough to smoke.

Quite right too.

Littering is a disgusting plight on our town. Caused by lazy slobs who dont care, fine them all.

The enforcer *HAS* to lurk until the potential offender has done because the offence is to *leave* the litter. If he sat there smoking a couple of fags, dropped the butt of the first one and continued to sit there smoking another, he hasn't left the first piece. He could have picked it up and disposed of it.
Harsh, but in order to serve the notice, the enforcement officer has to get his details somehow, usually by walking up and asking for them, so he has no excuse for not paying the fine. On a technical note, if you ran back, picked up the litter and put it in the bin or took it with you before you were handed the notice, would you still have committed the offence? I don't know if this has been tested in court.

holy smoke

Quite agree with a harsh sentence. I can’t stand litter everywhere there is no need for it. However he should have got 100 hours community service picking up letter as there is virtually no chance he will pay a penny of the fine. If he then doesn’t do the hours take away his liberty.

I knew the cost of smoking had gone up but......

Littering will not be solved by enforcement officials it will generate revenue for the local council and sometimes use up valuable court time but thats all, if the authorities were serious about stopping littering then they would drum it into youngsters from a young age, also the parents could be encouraged to teach their young that its not right to drop litter, my parents drummed it into me at a young age that littering was wrong and that has always stayed with me and in turn i teach my kids the same, unfortunately we have a generation with parents that dont care about teaching their kids these sort of common sense values possibly because they dont have them themseleves so with this in mind the problem will get worse over the years and the council will earn more revenue as a result.

LSC wether the law be trivial, wether there may be more important things that you think they should concentrate on the facts are this man chose to litter, chose to ignore the fine and chose to ignore the court summons. It was his own stupidity all the way from start to finish that led to this and if there was someone 'lurking' to catch him at it then all the better and give them a star for doing their job. Why are you trying to make excuses for an ignorant litterer?


Johnny, we're the victims as its our tax money that has to pay for street cleaners because idiots like that thinking they don’t have to use a bin.

Crazyfrog, it isnt for the council to drum into kids they should litter. Just like you parents did to you it’s the parents job to do that to their own. I'm fed up of parents thinking its someone elses job to bring up their kids, it seems to me more and more that parenting for many is sticking them in front of a television, then when their a little older a games console and hand held device, then expect the schools to take over, then college then the government is supposed to take over once their 16 and provide them accommodation and clothing and if things don’t work out its never the parent who couldn’t be bothered fault is it.

I know primary school teachers who every year see new kids come to school unable to do the very basic things, unable to communicate, able to pretend to be spider man or batman and with parents who want the school to teach them what they as parents should already have imparted.

Mohandas wrote:
Littering is a very serious problem and some of the reasons used by some include - keeps people in a job, everybody does it,there are much worse things to worry about, the throw away society / snack culture, parenting, lack of education, roundabouts and motorways don't have bins,etc.

The problem is so many have grown up in a culture where there is no shame attached to anti-social behaviour that it has become almost 'cool' to drop litter. This needs to be reversed and it does require tough action because we're in danger of always 'spoiling' those who should know better as they are old enough to smoke.

Follow the money.

Who gets the money from all these fines?

crazyfrog wrote:
Littering will not be solved by enforcement officials it will generate revenue for the local council and sometimes use up valuable court time but thats all, if the authorities were serious about stopping littering then they would drum it into youngsters from a young age, also the parents could be encouraged to teach their young that its not right to drop litter, my parents drummed it into me at a young age that littering was wrong and that has always stayed with me and in turn i teach my kids the same, unfortunately we have a generation with parents that dont care about teaching their kids these sort of common sense values possibly because they dont have them themseleves so with this in mind the problem will get worse over the years and the council will earn more revenue as a result.

Where's the money in education?

Nah, let them drop litter to make the council even more money.

"LSC wether the law be trivial, wether there may be more important things that you think they should concentrate on the facts are this man chose to litter, chose to ignore the fine and chose to ignore the court summons. It was his own stupidity all the way from start to finish that led to this and if there was someone 'lurking' to catch him at it then all the better and give them a star for doing their job. Why are you trying to make excuses for an ignorant litterer?"

I didn't, and wouldn't. I merely questioned why a man who committed two offences was not brought to book after the first one.
I do wish you'd stop jumping down my throat at every opportunity just because I don't like your tooth fairy guy.

I also pointed out that the response to the problem of littering, and believe me, I hate littering, is slightly out of proportion. Litter wardens must be paid minimum wage at least, so that is around £14,000 a year when you include employers costs, per warder.
Which we pay. For a third more, you could have a policeman that deals with ALL crimes, and we are currently cutting back on them.
A real copper can do you for littering, but a litter warden won't break up a fight or catch a mugger as well.
As we have a finite amount of money, what would you prefer?

@LSC, I've already given a likely explanation of his being brought to book for dropping two butts. One offence, not two.

TRT wrote:
@LSC, I've already given a likely explanation of his being brought to book for dropping two butts. One offence, not two.

Yes, you did. And it seems possible. But I don't really want my taxes spent in this fashion. I don't want to pay a man to hide in the bushes on the off chance that someone sitting around for 3 hours might not clear up his own mess.
That is fine with unlimited funds. We don't have unlimited funds. The fine in no way payed the prosecution costs.

We pay for a person to walk the streets, give them a uniform, ID and fine forms. We write to the offender, probably 3 times at least. We issue a summonds. We pay clerks, security, magistrates, heating, lighting, plumbing, secretaries, stationary.... for £500?

Mars Lander. It costs taxpayers a fortune to clear up litter and flytipping. The idea that Council's want people to drop litter is beyond laughable.

LSC. Your logic is also deeply flawed. TRT has already explained the two butts thing (somewhat unlikely the warden sat there for 3 hours between droppings). The police officer argument is also wrong. The police don't deal with 'minor offences' like littering. It's too much paperwork for too little 'gain'.

Good! There are far too many scumbags around littering the town. About time something was done about it!

WatfordAlex wrote:
Mars Lander. It costs taxpayers a fortune to clear up litter and flytipping. The idea that Council's want people to drop litter is beyond laughable.

LSC. Your logic is also deeply flawed. TRT has already explained the two butts thing (somewhat unlikely the warden sat there for 3 hours between droppings). The police officer argument is also wrong. The police don't deal with 'minor offences' like littering. It's too much paperwork for too little 'gain'.

3 hours, 30 minutes, what is the difference in principal?
And I hope you are wrong about the police. By that logic they only deal with murders and not speeding. I think you might find they treat every crime as a crime and deal with it accordingly, including littering.
I dread to think of the society you are suggesting, where the police pick and choose which crimes they pay attention to.

No. A PCC is "elected" to set policing priorities.

WatfordAlex wrote:
Mars Lander. It costs taxpayers a fortune to clear up litter and flytipping. The idea that Council's want people to drop litter is beyond laughable.

LSC. Your logic is also deeply flawed. TRT has already explained the two butts thing (somewhat unlikely the warden sat there for 3 hours between droppings). The police officer argument is also wrong. The police don't deal with 'minor offences' like littering. It's too much paperwork for too little 'gain'.

I am strongly against littering. Most people are. On a moral standing there is no argument, people should not knowingly drop litter.

As for your assertion that I think the council wants people to drop litter, you are mistaken, I don't think the council wants people to drop litter, I'm sure they would be as happy as I would be if no more litter was ever dropped.

The council do however know it's a sad fact of life that inconsiderate people do drop litter and some people will continue to do this, probably for ever.

What I am talking about is the financial side of this moral argument, and how it benefits the council coffers.

I am saying that the council are taking advantage of litter droppers to raise revenue. In that respect, dropped litter leading to large fines and penalties for late paying is something that is welcome at the council, because it is extra money to spend, once the fat commission to the litter detectives has been siphoned off.

I hope that makes my position clear.

As to the costs of picking up litter, I have no idea how much the council spends on picking up litter, but that is something we accept as a sad fact of life and we all pay taxes for that service to keep our town clean. We have paid for this service for all the time I have lived in the area, and I am sure we will continue to pay for this service until long after I pop my clogs. It's a fact of life.

Finally, as for fly-tipping, I would like to see the book thrown at fly-tippers. I have no sympathy for them at all, they are far worse than someone who drops a couple of fag butts.

This story though is about a person who dropped two tiny fag butts and got caught, not a fly-tipper, so let's talk about the proportionality of the crime. I suspect this individual, through his late paying, has ended up with a punishment in excess of, let's say, some self-confessed burglars or dangerous drivers. I don't think it was a worse crime than those, it is one of the pettiest crimes around and is pretty victimless. The penalty should therefore be a slap on the wrist, not an arm and a leg!

I too am shocked that the police in your view are allowed to choose which crimes they can be bothered to police. If that's true, then the police need to change, they are there to uphold the law. It's not a pick'n'mix service, it's a police service.

We had the same debate about a year ago when this exact thing happened.

Had the guy actually just admitted he was wrong (he was) to drop litter, paid the fine, then it's a nothing story and he keeps his £500.

I agree with LSC that enforcing this is not a profit maker. However, I do think that it is necessary and while it is not the council’s responsibility to teach kids that littering is wrong, they should definitely be making it clear to the offenders that it will not be tolerated.

What I can’t understand is why this doesn’t happen more often, especially for chewing gum. We DO also need more bins, though.

not a regular wrote:
We had the same debate about a year ago when this exact thing happened.

Had the guy actually just admitted he was wrong (he was) to drop litter, paid the fine, then it's a nothing story and he keeps his £500.

I agree with LSC that enforcing this is not a profit maker. However, I do think that it is necessary and while it is not the council’s responsibility to teach kids that littering is wrong, they should definitely be making it clear to the offenders that it will not be tolerated.

What I can’t understand is why this doesn’t happen more often, especially for chewing gum. We DO also need more bins, though.

I'll agree with you mostly apart from profit-making. All these prosecution services are already in place and funded, so any fines are "profit". This will be particularly true if the number of fines increases.

There is recent firm run by ex-army that only does litter-fines, subcontracted by councils. It is a profit making enterprise, like the Watford parking mafia, and it can be expected to bring in extra revenue to the council for its efforts.

There have been stories in the press about how councils are out to make extra revenue from easy-pickings like litter droppers.

The reason people are being fined for dropping cigarette butts is because they are easy targets.

People often smoke together in groups or in the same spot day after day if they come out of work for a smoke. It's human nature.

If the council wanted to stamp out the dropping of cigarette butts they would work out where those spots are and put a litter/cigarette bin there.

They can work out where those spots are by seeing piles of discarded cigarette butts.

Alternatively, if more interested in revenue, they can see where they are being dropped and set up a surveillance or instruct their litter police to look for potential offenders when in the area and to watch them discretely for dropping butts, then move in.

I would imagine the litter police go from drop zone to drop zone waiting for people to start smoking there and then wait for the offence to occur.

Vultures know where to find victims and circle until there are easy pickings to be had. I see parallels.

Good.
Now triple the fine and bring in some kind of corporal punishment for those dirty slobs who allow their pets to foul pavements!

LSC the role of the enforcement officer is to tackle all littering issues. This includes speaking to shops and restaurants when their overful bins create a problem and encourages pest, to home owners piling bin bags on the street in front of their houses to builders fly tipping to yes people dropping litter as they walk along. And you really think that this should be gotten rid of and palmed off onto the police?

Littering etc costs us ALL money to deal with (as well as helping to drag areas down) and I'm more than happy for the council to be pro active in tackling the issue by having a dedicated officer. I doubt if they need to do any lurking in order to see people drop litter but they are there to deal with that problem when they see it and should be applauded for doing so not complained about. The only issue I have is that they cant be everywhere at once to catch even more people in the act.

And get that chip off your shoulder LSC, I challenged your comments because I disagreed with them no other reason.


Mars, I believe the councils do have a little lee way but under the littering laws the standard fine is £75.00. By charging it the council are only following the law. But ultimately personally I couldn’t care less if the council are making money from this, if people are being big enough anti social d*cks to litter in the first place then its because of their behaviour that the council are possibly raising revenue no other. As well as a fine if they are stupid enough to ignore it and the matter ends up in court I'd get the courts to make them pick litter for 25 hours. That'll get the message across even more.

MarsLander wrote:
The reason people are being fined for dropping cigarette butts is because they are easy targets. People often smoke together in groups or in the same spot day after day if they come out of work for a smoke. It's human nature. If the council wanted to stamp out the dropping of cigarette butts they would work out where those spots are and put a litter/cigarette bin there. They can work out where those spots are by seeing piles of discarded cigarette butts. Alternatively, if more interested in revenue, they can see where they are being dropped and set up a surveillance or instruct their litter police to look for potential offenders when in the area and to watch them discretely for dropping butts, then move in. I would imagine the litter police go from drop zone to drop zone waiting for people to start smoking there and then wait for the offence to occur. Vultures know where to find victims and circle until there are easy pickings to be had. I see parallels.

MarsLander wrote:
The reason people are being fined for dropping cigarette butts is because they are easy targets.

NO. The reason people are being fined for dropping cigarette butts is BECAUSE THEY ARE DROPPING CIGARETTE BUTTS.

If this makes them an 'easy' target THEY are the ones drawing great big cross hairs accross their backs

"And you really think that this should be gotten rid of and palmed off onto the police?"

In my opinion, ALL law enforcement should be the job of the police. No private individual or company should be able to make a charge and issue a fine for a criminal act.

"I doubt if they need to do any lurking in order to see people drop litter"

He witnesses TWO cigarette butts. Even if the guy was chain smoking, that is a minimum of 15 minutes to witness both. It is also 15 minutes for the smoker to spot a Litter Warden watching. Unless, of course, he was lurking. Is that really what we want in our society?

I disagree with you on the first point and its only your assumption that the officer was 'lurking', the butts could have been dropped at the same moment.

The details arent given but you're condeming someones actions (which arent wrong anyway even if your assumption is right!) based on a scenario you have conjured up. Quality

garston tony wrote:
LSC the role of the enforcement officer is to tackle all littering issues. This includes speaking to shops and restaurants when their overful bins create a problem and encourages pest, to home owners piling bin bags on the street in front of their houses to builders fly tipping to yes people dropping litter as they walk along. And you really think that this should be gotten rid of and palmed off onto the police?

Littering etc costs us ALL money to deal with (as well as helping to drag areas down) and I'm more than happy for the council to be pro active in tackling the issue by having a dedicated officer. I doubt if they need to do any lurking in order to see people drop litter but they are there to deal with that problem when they see it and should be applauded for doing so not complained about. The only issue I have is that they cant be everywhere at once to catch even more people in the act.

And get that chip off your shoulder LSC, I challenged your comments because I disagreed with them no other reason.


Mars, I believe the councils do have a little lee way but under the littering laws the standard fine is £75.00. By charging it the council are only following the law. But ultimately personally I couldn’t care less if the council are making money from this, if people are being big enough anti social d*cks to litter in the first place then its because of their behaviour that the council are possibly raising revenue no other. As well as a fine if they are stupid enough to ignore it and the matter ends up in court I'd get the courts to make them pick litter for 25 hours. That'll get the message across even more.

Pick up litter for 25 hours?

Yes, Tony, I agree the penalty would actually fit the crime there. Good suggestion.

garston tony wrote:
I disagree with you on the first point and its only your assumption that the officer was 'lurking', the butts could have been dropped at the same moment.

The details arent given but you're condeming someones actions (which arent wrong anyway even if your assumption is right!) based on a scenario you have conjured up. Quality

I shall make myself clear. The littering was wrong, and I have no beef with the punishment, especially for ignoring the judicial system. But as a smoker myself, I know nobody drops two butts at once.
So it is a fair assertion that this took place over time.

As to my first comment, I stand by it. I'm not a big fan of fixed fines anyway, but understand the need for them in this age with so many people offending. But only the police should be able to do so.
As far as I am concerned the police (like the NHS) does not need to be 'cost effective'. Nice if it is, but not the priority.
If you sub-contract crime and punishment, then people are going to start looking at balancing the books, or even making a profit.
That way madness lies.

Bet the council won't use the money to put more bins around town, just waste it on increasing the workforce to catch more people

LSC wrote:

garston tony wrote: I disagree with you on the first point and its only your assumption that the officer was 'lurking', the butts could have been dropped at the same moment. The details arent given but you're condeming someones actions (which arent wrong anyway even if your assumption is right!) based on a scenario you have conjured up. Quality

I shall make myself clear. The littering was wrong, and I have no beef with the punishment, especially for ignoring the judicial system. But as a smoker myself, I know nobody drops two butts at once. So it is a fair assertion that this took place over time. As to my first comment, I stand by it. I'm not a big fan of fixed fines anyway, but understand the need for them in this age with so many people offending. But only the police should be able to do so. As far as I am concerned the police (like the NHS) does not need to be 'cost effective'. Nice if it is, but not the priority. If you sub-contract crime and punishment, then people are going to start looking at balancing the books, or even making a profit. That way madness lies.

I believe that the police and NHS should be given the resources they need to do the work asked of them.

However, that does not mean they should not go about their business in a cost effective manner - waste is waste - and does not mean they should be lumbered with all tasks when some of them can be done by others allowing them to concentrate on the harder issues

I see your argument, but the difficulty is where to draw the line. So I draw it that only the police can issue 'street justice', for want of a better phrase.
You are correct, I don't really want highly trained officers doling out parking fines. But I also don't like these traffic wardens who have targets to meet or even get bonuses for handing out more tickets.

It is bad enough that the police themselves have arrest targets. I'd be over the moon if I found out the police had nothing to do. That would mean there was no crime, so in fact they were doing their job superbly because criminals were so sure of being caught, they stayed home.

Sadly of course, if that ever happened they would instantly cut the numbers and the criminals would be at it again.

I agree that policing and 'law enforcement' be that fines or crimes shouldn’t be target led. The only 'target' should be to prevent crime and find the culprits when it does take place and issuing tickets shouldn’t be linked to an individuals pay.

As long as proper mechanisms are in place to ensure tickets/fines are dished out for valid reasons I still don’t see a problem with people other than the police doing it. Ultimately this chap wouldn’t have been issued a ticket in the first place regardless of if the officer lurked to see if he would or not, if the officer ever does lurk its because he will have cause to believe some wrong doing may occur and in doing so they are carrying out their job.

This is what gets me every time people complain about this type of thing, claiming its money making exercise etc. They always to a person ignore the fact that which ever authority it is would not be getting any money from fines if people werent doing wrong in the first place. People only have themselves to blame

Sorry, second line in second paragraph should have read 'Ultimately this chap wouldnt have been issued a ticket in the first place if he hadnt actually littered'

The problem as I see it, is that if you use anyone but the police it is likely to be, or become at some point, a matter of balancing the books. Especially with the modern fashion of using private companies where ever possible.

Private companies are by nature profit driven, the police are not. This is dangerous ground in my view.

Supposing I was issued a £30 ticket for something I didn't do. Even if I took the issue to court and won, it is going to cost me more than £30 to take the day off, travel to court etc so I might not bother.
The false accusation would be less likely from the police, as the fine is not the motivation for issuing the ticket.