Smoker who threw cigarette butt down drain ordered to pay £100 fine (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Smoker who threw cigarette butt down drain ordered to pay £100 fine
5:50pm Saturday 23rd March 2013 in News
By Adam Binnie, Senior Reporter
A woman has been prosecuted and fined after dropping a cigarette butt down a drain in Watford town centre.
Georgie Stanley, from Hillingdon, was issued with a fine for littering after throwing the spent cigarette end down into a drain, but did not pay it.
Because she ignored reminders about the fine, she was summoned to appear at Watford Magistrates Court on Monday, March 11.
After failing to appear in court, and with the case heard in her absence, Ms Stanley was fined £100 with costs of £250 and a victim surcharge of £15.
Part of the ‘Love Watford Hate Litter’ campaign is a zero tolerance for littering, and anyone caught dropping litter, including chewing gum, cigarettes and food, will be given a £75 fine.
Cigarette litter is difficult to clean up as the small filters can fall into grates and cracks in the pavement. It can leak toxins into the water and is also a fire hazard.
They are made of cellulose acetate, which like other forms of plastic, takes a long time to decompose.
It costs an estimated £885 million a year to clean up the 200 million cigarette butts thrown away every day by UK smokers.
Comments(76)
tuohy
says...
6:42pm Sat 23 Mar 13
Chezzie
says...
7:09pm Sat 23 Mar 13
staceyinwatford
says...
8:10pm Sat 23 Mar 13
The person who issues these fines wears a fluorescent yellow waistcoat and walks up and down Watford high street issuing fines. He is a slim Asian man (possibly Pakistani) and he works for the watford council earning money imposing fines for littering. right or wrong that's his job. lol. btw I never drop litter.
Mohandas
says...
8:34pm Sat 23 Mar 13
The idea of justice is at the very heart of a democratic society. It means that laws should apply equally to everyone and hopefully greater efforts will be made to deal with those who continue to drop litter.
The number of times I see mainly youngsters in the high streets supposedly students swearing at the top of their vocal chords in the most abominable manner without a thought for their dignity or pedestrians around them. Far too frequently they leave a trail of litter and it makes you think that "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".
LSC
says...
9:57pm Sat 23 Mar 13
Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not just one person's word against another.
Are we really going to scour the sewers for DNA on ciggie butts?
If every litter-dropper demands a day in court for the authorities to prove their case, we are going to be in a whole heap of trouble.
Added to that, as far as I know I do not have to give my personal details to anyone but a police officer; not even a PCSO. So how could they catch me unless they affect a citizens arrest (and risk an assault charge) until the police arrive who then have to go down the sewer to find the evidence?
For the record, I hate littering but I'd like answers to the above.
tramdriver
says...
9:57pm Sat 23 Mar 13
We are surely losing our sense of proportion.
gusgreen
says...
10:12pm Sat 23 Mar 13
Sascha
says...
12:06am Sun 24 Mar 13
LawAbidingCitizen82
says...
12:38am Sun 24 Mar 13
highhigh
says...
12:41am Sun 24 Mar 13
I am sure people are not obliged to give their personal information such 'officers'
Regarding the case itself, i'd bet he did not retrieve the cigarette butt at the time thus plainly turning up to court and denying his account would have saved the accused a lot of money!
John Dowdle
says...
3:36am Sun 24 Mar 13
I smoke cigars and I have always used drains to dispose the butts down into if a receptable for butts is not immediately available.
I cannot see that this action is illegal as drains are meant to be used for taking away waste water and other unwanted products into the sewers for disposal.
All the talk above like 'It costs an estimated £885 million a year to clean up the 200 million cigarette butts thrown away every day by UK smokers' raises the question as to how much revenue cigarette and other smokers pay into the Treasury in the first place?
I don't know the actual answer but I can only imagine it utterly dwarfs the costs involved in disposing of the waste by-products involved.
I think this penalty for an act which did not involve littering is incorrect. If it had been issued to me, I would have argued the case in court.
tonybucks688
says...
7:45am Sun 24 Mar 13
trebleywebley
says...
7:50am Sun 24 Mar 13
John Dowdle
says...
8:16am Sun 24 Mar 13
Even warranted police officers have limits to their powers; they can only ask for your personal details if they have a suspicion that you are engaged in a serious criminal offence. They have no more right to trespass on your privacy than any other member of the public.
Jordanw
says...
9:08am Sun 24 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
9:50am Sun 24 Mar 13
staceyinwatford wrote:How do you know this?
For readers information.
The person who issues these fines wears a fluorescent yellow waistcoat and walks up and down Watford high street issuing fines. He is a slim Asian man (possibly Pakistani) and he works for the watford council earning money imposing fines for littering. right or wrong that's his job. lol. btw I never drop litter.
National media has reported cases of "enforcers" hiding and monitoring smokers in the hope of an offence happening. One group are ex-army.
MarsLander
says...
9:55am Sun 24 Mar 13
trebleywebley wrote:What type of offence, what type of officer?
contrary to comments,a person observed committing an offence by a officer is obliged to provide his or her details.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Please provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claims.
John Dowdle
says...
10:15am Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC
says...
11:47am Sun 24 Mar 13
trebleywebley wrote:I hope you mean 'alleged' offence. And no, you do not have to give your details to anybody, but if you refuse to do so to a police officer, they have the right to detain you until identity is established, and could potentially charge you with obstructing the police. No other official has that right apart from Customs and Excise (or whatever they are called these days), and possibly the Border Control Agency, although they are usually with police anyway.
contrary to comments,a person observed committing an offence by a officer is obliged to provide his or her details.
trebleywebley
says...
11:59am Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC
says...
12:00pm Sun 24 Mar 13
But what we are discussing here is different. The law, the fact there are so few bins around, and the council spending money on an official to waste time on cases such as this. As John says; the litter was gone.
The fine in no way came close to the cost of the warden and the prosecution.
LSC
says...
12:04pm Sun 24 Mar 13
trebleywebley wrote:Well, there you have it. Littering is not an act of Parliament, it is a bye-law.
s 87 and 88 (1) Enviromental Protection Act 1990 Issued by Local Authority Authorised Officer.Many acts of parliament enforced by the council must provide for the service of statutory notices which require a person,buiseness or organisation to comply with specific legal requirements.
trebleywebley
says...
12:04pm Sun 24 Mar 13
MarsLander
says...
12:09pm Sun 24 Mar 13
trebleywebley
says...
12:15pm Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC
says...
12:20pm Sun 24 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:That is the weird thing Mars, I don't think it is. After paying the warden, the uniform, the stationary, the paperwork, the postage, the walkie-talkie, HR, payroll, line manager... and so on, I guess he'd have to take in excess of £25,000 a year in fines just to break even.
Council cash cow.
sheikhwaz
says...
12:24pm Sun 24 Mar 13
How about handing out fixed penalty fines on friday , saturday nights, in town centre's across the UK? What hypocrisy !!!!
I would love to see the reaction of those people handed these money making, barbaric notices.
LSC
says...
12:32pm Sun 24 Mar 13
trebleywebley wrote:I apologise, you appear correct. You DO have to give your name and address to a litter warden. Which I find amazing and a little frightening.
LSC The Environmental Act is an Act of Parliament.As simple as that.
However, they still cannot detain you, so you can just walk away before the real police arrive.
MarsLander
says...
12:52pm Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC wrote:I can see your point but I think this is the tip of the iceberg.
MarsLander wrote:That is the weird thing Mars, I don't think it is. After paying the warden, the uniform, the stationary, the paperwork, the postage, the walkie-talkie, HR, payroll, line manager... and so on, I guess he'd have to take in excess of £25,000 a year in fines just to break even.
Council cash cow.
It has been reported in national press about councils making money from new revenue streams, including litter fining and parking.
There is a relatively new business made up of ex-army who are employed on a results basis by councils. They wouldn't have set up this business and the council would not be using them if it did not make sound business sense to do so.
So, every time I hear a council say "we have a zero tolerance approach to littering" and then see another story about a fag butt leading to hundreds of pounds of costs and fines, all I hear is the council cash register going "ching!".
I do not litter (I am strongly against littering) and I do not smoke, but I do believe in fairness and this does not seem fair, the end result does not fit the crime.
I would be interested in knowing how many people are fined for dropping food litter, other litter, sick and urine in our town centre. My fear is that smokers are simply an easy target, and are being targeted for the cash they can bring in. And that is not fair if the law is not applied fairly.
I don't think cigarette butts should be dropped in the street, but I think there are ways and means of dealing with this issue, and this is far too heavy-handed. Whatever happened to common sense?
johnhornet
says...
1:12pm Sun 24 Mar 13
John Dowdle
says...
1:48pm Sun 24 Mar 13
All he has to do is to write out a litter penalty notice each time a leaf falls from a tree. He could spend all day, every day, writing out penalty notices.
Mind you, I am not too sure the Council would be too happy about him doing this as they would be the ones having to pay all the fines.
I am not sure local residents would be too happy about it either as it will be their council tax money which will be used to pay the fines.
Another possibility is that the Council could hire individuals to stand underneath every tree during daylight hours in order to catch the falling leaves so that Watford Council will not have to pay the fines. A great job creation scheme, if you ask me?
Of course, things could get tricky if more than one leaf falls at a time......they will have to dodge about trying to catch the falling leaves before they hit the ground or else the LEO will be on the spot issuing a penalty notice.
Again, however, I suppose the cost will be borne by Watford council taxpayers.
Perhaps the simplest thing of all would be if the LEO were told to use a small amount of discretion when considering who to issue his penalty notices to?
Right now, it seems he is intent on issuing as many notices as he can. This will end up eroding public support for what should be a simple objective, i.e. to keep the levels of litter in our town centre streets down.
MarsLander
says...
2:13pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Our council has to decide whether it wants the support of the people and to exercise a little common sense and discretion or whether it just wants our money.
I would love them to surprise me on this issue!
miked2006
says...
2:13pm Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC
says...
3:28pm Sun 24 Mar 13
The issue is litter on the streets, and this person did not litter the street.
I take your point about beaches and rivers, but do we therefore go after anyone who flushes things down the toilet? All those feminine hygene products for example?
John Dowdle
says...
3:35pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Indeed, I would dread living in a perfect world as it would not be a human world.
Mark well the story of Procrustes bed.
Sure, I cause some pollution - and so does every other person living on the planet. We all pay taxes one way or another and part of the reason we all pay taxes is so that we may receive the benefit of public services. I agree that public transport and air transport is much improved without cigarette smoke, ash and butts. But there is more and worse forms of pollution at work in our world which we do little to create. If our local authorities are unable or unwilling to deal with litter and waste removal then perhaps it is time their existence came to an end. What else are we largely paying them for?
MarsLander
says...
3:46pm Sun 24 Mar 13
After all is said and done, we pay their wages - They work for us!
Wacko Jacko
says...
4:56pm Sun 24 Mar 13
John Dowdle wrote:What an extraordinary series of quotes here from John Dowdle (and others) I thought John usually presents himself as a man of high moral standards but it seems I was wrong. What he appears to be saying here is littering is a minor problem and as we pay our council tax for cleaners, let them pick it up. Not much different from encouraging people to shoplift, or pick pockets as after all we pay the Police to catch the crims. No John your view on this as in other areas is woefully mistaken. The majority of residents in Watford take pride in their town and want to see less littering, less gum, and yes less vomitting and urination too. These 'minor' offences combine to undermine the drive to improve our town. I notice that most of the commentators are the same people who complain about crime levels in the town at night. You can't have it both ways, crime is unacceptable day or night and littering is exactly that, a crime.
What has aggravated the level of the fine and costs is the fact that the women involved was foolish enough to co-operate with the warden by providing her name and address, then failing to turn up in court when summonsed.
I smoke cigars and I have always used drains to dispose the butts down into if a receptable for butts is not immediately available.
I cannot see that this action is illegal as drains are meant to be used for taking away waste water and other unwanted products into the sewers for disposal.
All the talk above like 'It costs an estimated £885 million a year to clean up the 200 million cigarette butts thrown away every day by UK smokers' raises the question as to how much revenue cigarette and other smokers pay into the Treasury in the first place?
I don't know the actual answer but I can only imagine it utterly dwarfs the costs involved in disposing of the waste by-products involved.
I think this penalty for an act which did not involve littering is incorrect. If it had been issued to me, I would have argued the case in court.
pc49plod
says...
5:00pm Sun 24 Mar 13
The boys here at the station have mentioned to me all this huffing and puffing (excuse the pun) over a cigarette butt. From what has been said above this is obviously exercising a lot of people's little grey cells !! Pretty straight forward, the law says don't do that otherwise this will happen. She did and this is the end result. Book closed.
MarsLander
says...
5:08pm Sun 24 Mar 13
We all agree it is wrong, but many of us argue the penalty does not fit the crime.
How is that so hard to understand?
I do not always agree with John, however he is speaking a lot of sense here. That's more than can be said for Wacko and Plod, as is so often the case. They speak like councillors so a lack of common sense may be expected, sadly.
John Dowdle
says...
5:23pm Sun 24 Mar 13
I myself am studious in avoiding littering or otherwise despoiling my environmernt - after all, it is mine too.
If there is not a receptacle near to hand then I will discard small items like my cigar butts down the nearest drain cover to avoid littering the street.
As for gumming, vomiting and urinating: I long ago stopped such activities in public; I leave that sort of behaviour to the likes of Wacko to manifest.
To return to the original topic, I am still not persuaded that the woman who disposed of her cigarette down the drain is guilty of littering.
She should not, therefore, have had a penalty notice issued against her.
Simple enough for you, Wacko ? !!!!
Wacko Jacko
says...
6:31pm Sun 24 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Glad to see Plod and I are in agreement, obey the law or take the consequences. In this case the daft litterer would have avoided much grief if they had simply paid the fine (or not done the littering) in the first place. As for Winston Dowdle, it's time PC Plod paid him a visit, he's admitted repeat offences of littering with his filthy cigar butts, bang to rights, time to have his collar felt methinks.
Wacko, Plod, why not read and understand the message before responding?
We all agree it is wrong, but many of us argue the penalty does not fit the crime.
How is that so hard to understand?
I do not always agree with John, however he is speaking a lot of sense here. That's more than can be said for Wacko and Plod, as is so often the case. They speak like councillors so a lack of common sense may be expected, sadly.
MarsLander
says...
6:52pm Sun 24 Mar 13
if you lived in a country where theft was punishable by the cutting off of a hand, would you be pushing for all thefts to be punished in such a way?
I'm trying to understand if either of you have grasped the concept of the punishment fitting the crime.
Is a total of £365 really a reasonable punishment for putting a cigarette butt down a drain in 2013?
Thank god we stopped shipping convicts to Oz for stealing a loaf of bread. You'd have been in your element back then!
KAren Smythe
says...
7:11pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Please stop attempting to improve the town as I like living in the sh*thole that it is.
Yours
Marslander
MarsLander
says...
7:34pm Sun 24 Mar 13
KAren Smythe wrote:KA,
Dear Watford Borough Council
Please stop attempting to improve the town as I like living in the sh*thole that it is.
Yours
Marslander
speak for yourself, not others.
Why do you think Watford is, as you describe it in your uncouth language, a s*****le?
More importantly, if you think Watford is that bad, why do you bother to live here at all?
I think Watford could be hugely improved, particularly by a new administration and some fresh thinking, but first we have to get rid of those dopey LibDems.
I don't however see how a few cigarette butts more or less in the town is going to make a noticeable difference, and I don't see that heavily fining the population is a good way to build a healthy town.
Disproportionate punishment builds resentment of authority. Not a healthy way forward for this great town.
Mohandas
says...
7:55pm Sun 24 Mar 13
pc49plod wrote:Spot on. Some of the comments above explain why some think they are uintouchable and above the law. I'm surprised they haven't quoted their human rights.
Afternoon all,
The boys here at the station have mentioned to me all this huffing and puffing (excuse the pun) over a cigarette butt. From what has been said above this is obviously exercising a lot of people's little grey cells !! Pretty straight forward, the law says don't do that otherwise this will happen. She did and this is the end result. Book closed.
Yes more affirmative action needs to be taken and the enforcing authorities need to do more to avoid charges of picking on just smokers.
Lines need to be drawn in the sand on litter on how we dispose of our litter. There needs to be a far greater emphasis on responsibility as evidenced by the tons of unsightly litter blighting footpaths, verges, roundabouts, etc which poses real harm to everyone especially the disabled, cyclists and the blind.
Spitting may not appear to be litter but just think of the public health problems.
MarsLander
says...
8:46pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Mohandas wrote:Spitting is a horrible habit, but unless you rub it into your food or into a wound or get it on your hands and then eat something, it will almost certainly not harm you at all. Most restaurants are probably more unhygienic and dangerous than spit on the pavement, as are doorhandles and anything else you touch with your hands.
pc49plod wrote:Spot on. Some of the comments above explain why some think they are uintouchable and above the law. I'm surprised they haven't quoted their human rights.
Afternoon all,
The boys here at the station have mentioned to me all this huffing and puffing (excuse the pun) over a cigarette butt. From what has been said above this is obviously exercising a lot of people's little grey cells !! Pretty straight forward, the law says don't do that otherwise this will happen. She did and this is the end result. Book closed.
Yes more affirmative action needs to be taken and the enforcing authorities need to do more to avoid charges of picking on just smokers.
Lines need to be drawn in the sand on litter on how we dispose of our litter. There needs to be a far greater emphasis on responsibility as evidenced by the tons of unsightly litter blighting footpaths, verges, roundabouts, etc which poses real harm to everyone especially the disabled, cyclists and the blind.
Spitting may not appear to be litter but just think of the public health problems.
One piece of litter is one piece too many, but tons of it on our roundabouts and footpaths? Surely you exaggerate? And why would you exaggerate thus?
Apart from glass, can you explain how litter is a real danger to the disabled, cyclists and the blind? I've never heard of anyone being rushed to hospital from a wound inflicted by a crisp packet or a chip wrapper (with or without wooden fork)? Far less any serious (or even funny) injuries from cigarette butts.
Sorry to be dismissive, but I think a number of posters are losing the plot here. Let's try and get things back in perspective.
We have lived with litter all our lives. We all want it to stop. Right? Well who wouldn't?
So let's educate people, let's tell people to pick their litter up and for those who refuse or repeatedly litter, let's prosecute them, but then and only then, and let's make sure the penalty fits the crime.
Humanity to your fellow man and woman and a little common sense goes a long way. It's a shame those councillors posting under false names on here do not share those sentiments.
Mohandas, would you care to think about the public health problems and explain them to us? I think they are really pretty small to negligible.
Spitting is already banned, as is dropping litter. Let's use existing powers wisely and not as a stick to beat people with and extort money from them.
KAren Smythe
says...
11:09pm Sun 24 Mar 13
LSC
says...
11:20pm Sun 24 Mar 13
But might I draw attention to the fact this story has 48 comments, yet just down the page is a story of the 6 people found not to have beaten a man to a bloody pulp and broken his jaw, on our Watford streets, in broad daylight.
Ok, the law says it wasn't those six, but someone did it. He didn't break his own bones.
An attack like that is potentially life-changing; dropping a ciggie butt in a drain is not, no matter how you look at it.
Now, I agree the law is the law is the law, and if you don't enforce it, don't have it. But it does seem rather bizarre that while someone is paid to watch smokers discard butts, just up the road, in broad daylight, a man is being kicked nearly to death. Whoever did that crime STAMPED ON HIS HEAD. In a main street. In broad daylight.
Surely that raises some questions?
Or is it just me?
Anyvacancies
says...
11:51pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Mohandas
says...
11:51pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Sex education has had little impact on teen pregnancy as figures have remained unchanged over last 40 years.
The Ofsted chief has warned that literacy standards in English schools are slipping behind those of other countries, with primary pupils leaving without skills to "make their way in the modern world".
Apart from being socially unacceptable, acts of spitting in public places, which is one of biggest problems in tuberculosis (TB) control, continues unabated. In sunlight, the bacteria stay alive for 6-7 weeks, while in cold areas they live longer. This is especially harmful for people whose immune system is compromised. When a person with active TB coughs, sneezes, talks, or spits, tiny droplets containing the bacteria are released into the air and can be inhaled by people who are close by.
MarsLander
says...
12:24am Mon 25 Mar 13
KAren Smythe wrote:Not a pleasant turn of phrase but each to their own I suppose.
Once you pull your head out of your backside Marslander you'll realise existing powers dont work. Educate people? yeah right, grow up, they'll just laugh in your face and carry on as before. This is 2014 "Man" not 1969.
You seem to have missed every point I have made so I shall try to spell it out once more for you.
Try telling them first, give them a chance to put things right by picking up their litter and putting it in the bin. Not everyone is an uncouth as your good self, some people, many people in fact, will learn.
If they laugh in your face, then prosecute them.
You seem to be more interested in the money than the lesson. That's a sad reflection on what our council has become.
Mohandas
says...
8:20am Mon 25 Mar 13
We're all just focussing on the visible signs of littering but really upsets alot of users of public transport is the regularity with which people use seating as foot rests. Imagine the meltdown / furore some of you would have over someone being fined for resting their muddy boots on a bus seat.
We need a fundamental change in attitude to the way we mistreat public goods and services.
I've helped a wheel chair user and what was really disturbing having to navigate aroung dog fouling, lumps of spit on the narrow terraced streets in our town- even worse for those who are partially sighted. These soiled chair wheels then have to parked in their homes.
John Dowdle
says...
8:24am Mon 25 Mar 13
1. Spitting was banned in the past in order to stop the spread of TB. While there have been considerable gains in stopping the spread of TB, we are - once again - seeing the spread of new forms of TB from Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent which are largely untreatable due to incorrect use of antibiotics. People still need to avoid spitting.
2. Crisp packets can actually be lethal, I believe, especially some of the new coated foil ones. If an elderly person were to walk over one, I believe it is perfectly possible that their foot could simply slide over the packet, leading to them possibly losing their balance and falling. I have almost come a cropper on a couple of occasions due to these new plastic crisp wrappers.
3. I am happy to support the Council's general anti-litter campaign. I can still remember the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign, which seemed to work well in reminding people to keep our local environment neat, clean and tidy.
Instead of hectoring, badgering and threatening local residents, our local council should try appealing to our better sides to Keep Watford Tidy.
Encouragement always works so much better than coercion.
garston tony
says...
9:58am Mon 25 Mar 13
I have no sympathy for people who show no regards for others or the environment in this manner. I have even less sympathy for people that ignore fines and warnings that the matter would be taken to court. Both of these actions takes a special kind of idiot. I don’t understand how people can disagree what happened. This was self inflicted and only began in the first place due to a lazy, selfish act.
And I couldn’t care less how people are caught. If there is someone stood in a bright high viz jacket looking out for people that litter then those that are caught by the officer are even dimmer than I initially imagined.
And if this is a cash cow for the council it is only because PEOPLE ARE LITTERING!! Why do we have this culture now that encourages people not to take responsibility for their own actions?
Sometimes education on a matter is what is needed, but I'll go back to my first sentence and I would say that there is no one in this country who doesn’t know littering is wrong. Seeing as everyone is actually educated on this matter already but littering still happens then for those that litter then its quite right that their pockets are targetted as that will re inforce the lesson in a way which they will not forget.
davesol
says...
10:25am Mon 25 Mar 13
And what exactly is the problem with councils raising revenue off anti-social behaviour (if they then spend that money on improving the town)?
HornetJJ
says...
1:13pm Mon 25 Mar 13
highhigh
says...
3:22pm Mon 25 Mar 13
davesol wrote:Do you really think the revenue made through litter enforcement is spent improving the town?
For people saying that £365 is disproportionate - the fine was actually £75 (and according to the council website reduces to £50 if paid within 7 days) - the rest was for not paying it.
And what exactly is the problem with councils raising revenue off anti-social behaviour (if they then spend that money on improving the town)?
Do you also believe in aliens?
I completely disagree with littering however if I was to have an egotistical enforcement officer demanding my name and charging me £75 when I have attempted to dispose the cigarette butt (albeit not in a bin) I would become resentful of the system. Its not the way around the problem. Seems like a typical council scheme - off the mark
Angela, Watford Borough Council Comms
says...
3:37pm Mon 25 Mar 13
It's great this story has sparked so much interest. Here are a few facts:
- The council is working hard to make Watford a better place to live in. Tony, our enforcement officer, is directly employed by us, to help keep the town centre free of litter - for the benefit of residents, visitors and local businesses.
- Tony is highly visible. He works overtly (not covertly), wearing a fluorescent yellow jacket. He talks to residents and visitors and reminds them to use the bins.
- There are "Love Watford Hate Litter" posters throughout the town, regular articles in our magazine and in the local press.
- Any cases we do take to court have to be proven and the Magistrates make the decision as to guilt and any penalty. We have a 100% successful prosecution rate.
- We adhere to national legislation regarding littering. No money is made from the fines - all the income is used to fund the litter reduction work we do.
- Our campaign is working - littering is down, and bin usage is up.
Thanks
Mohandas
says...
4:31pm Mon 25 Mar 13
Like you I’m passionate about keeping our streets clean for all. I don’t know about you guys but I was brought up to take rubbish home and I sometimes pick up litter and even swept my street clean in the middle of the night after some unruly behaviour.
I think Tony garston you asked the right question ‘Why do we have this culture now that encourages people not to take responsibility for their own actions?’
Let’s all hope the action taken is noted by all those who choose to litter regardless of big signs, street campaigns education, high viz jackets, etc.
Many thanks to Marslander, John Dowdle, Anyvancacies for providing some interesting angles.
LSC
says...
10:14am Tue 26 Mar 13
I remember my mum giving me a smack on the behind in a supermarket when I was playing up. Imagine that scenario now!
If kids play up in school they are more likely to be labelled with a disorder and see a specialist (which gets them out of double maths) than be punnished.
How many convictions do you need before you get a real punnishment in the courts these days?
When people do something daft, it is always somebody elses fault for letting them or not warning them.
So dropping some litter? It must be somebody else's problem, surely? Everything else is.
garston tony
says...
10:45am Tue 26 Mar 13
LSC that’s the point I was trying to make, the culture now adays is if I do something wrong I blame it on someone else and expect sympathy from society to boot. That is why I stand and applaud the council for taking a stand on litter and making the efforts they are and couldn’t care less about the culprits feelings. Especially if they are dumb enough to let the matter go to court.
As an aside, whilst I am glad that smoking is banned in indoor public spaces am I the only one that thinks it should also be banned in the entrances to said public spaces? As much as I enjoy the smoke free air in the Harlequin (or whatever its called now) for instance I dislike having to walk through the deadly haze created by smokers 'aving a fag just by the entrances. I'm not calling for a ban on smoking outside too, just for the smokers to not be allowed to smoke where other people have to pass through or congregate.
MarsLander
says...
10:47am Tue 26 Mar 13
I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.
garston tony
says...
11:08am Tue 26 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Fair point, but they are in this country and subject to the laws of this country and ignorance is no excuse as far as the law is concerned.
We must also remember that there are a great many people who have not been brought up in the UK that are now residing or visiting here, and they may have been brought up with different attitudes to littering. I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.
JonBoy
says...
12:24pm Tue 26 Mar 13
trebleywebley wrote:ha ha how can you be committing an offence if your actions haven't been scutinised by the judiciary? Is the little hitler in the yellow jacket judge and jury?
contrary to comments,a person observed committing an offence by a officer is obliged to provide his or her details.
JonBoy
says...
12:35pm Tue 26 Mar 13
2) As was said earlier, let's see the brave man in the yellow jacket enforce this around the Pond on a Saturday night. If the council were serious they'd enforce this at all busy periods. Like the police persecuting motorists they like a soft target.
3) If some civvy accuses you of an offence and demands your name politely tell them to get lost and walk away.
4) Catch the filthy people who spit and allow their dogs to crap on the pavement how many times worse are they?
5) Well done for disposing of the butt in the drain rather than littering the street
davesol
says...
12:51pm Tue 26 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Equally there are places like Singapore which are incredibly clean and where the fine for first-time littering with a cigarette butt is far higher than the £50 charged by WBC.
We must also remember that there are a great many people who have not been brought up in the UK that are now residing or visiting here, and they may have been brought up with different attitudes to littering.
I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.
I don't see how the place that someone has been brought up has any relation to following the laws of where they are living now
lutondown
says...
1:51pm Tue 26 Mar 13
davesol wrote:Absolutely correct. Anyone who comes here need to start observing our rules, after all did they not come here for a better life? Or do we allow them to turn it into the obvious hell hole they have came from?
MarsLander wrote:Equally there are places like Singapore which are incredibly clean and where the fine for first-time littering with a cigarette butt is far higher than the £50 charged by WBC.
We must also remember that there are a great many people who have not been brought up in the UK that are now residing or visiting here, and they may have been brought up with different attitudes to littering.
I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.
I don't see how the place that someone has been brought up has any relation to following the laws of where they are living now
When in Rome....
And blow you PC brigade, I hope this post has you spinning with rage ;-)
lutondown
says...
1:52pm Tue 26 Mar 13
KAren Smythe wrote:Ha ha
Dear Watford Borough Council
Please stop attempting to improve the town as I like living in the sh*thole that it is.
Yours
Marslander
And the S hole WBC conspired to make it! Related to Boosey by any chance?
lutondown
says...
1:58pm Tue 26 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:Because it is, and the council has helped turn a nice town into clubland. And as much as I agree with litter bugs being fined, why are the many fast food shops also being pursued for the contribution they make to the tip the town centre has become?
KAren Smythe wrote:KA,
Dear Watford Borough Council
Please stop attempting to improve the town as I like living in the sh*thole that it is.
Yours
Marslander
speak for yourself, not others.
Why do you think Watford is, as you describe it in your uncouth language, a s*****le?
More importantly, if you think Watford is that bad, why do you bother to live here at all?
I think Watford could be hugely improved, particularly by a new administration and some fresh thinking, but first we have to get rid of those dopey LibDems.
I don't however see how a few cigarette butts more or less in the town is going to make a noticeable difference, and I don't see that heavily fining the population is a good way to build a healthy town.
Disproportionate punishment builds resentment of authority. Not a healthy way forward for this great town.
But I do agree the dopey Lib Dems whilst eating their cucumber sarnies are over seeing the Rutgers dumbing down of our town.
garston tony
says...
3:40pm Tue 26 Mar 13
davesol wrote:Isnt Chewing gum illegal in Singapore for this very reason?
MarsLander wrote: We must also remember that there are a great many people who have not been brought up in the UK that are now residing or visiting here, and they may have been brought up with different attitudes to littering. I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.Equally there are places like Singapore which are incredibly clean and where the fine for first-time littering with a cigarette butt is far higher than the £50 charged by WBC. I don't see how the place that someone has been brought up has any relation to following the laws of where they are living now
LSC
says...
3:41pm Tue 26 Mar 13
And we weren't the only ones doing it.
It was something to do with image and pride.
MarsLander
says...
7:02pm Tue 26 Mar 13
davesol wrote:I'd quite agree with you Davesol.
MarsLander wrote:Equally there are places like Singapore which are incredibly clean and where the fine for first-time littering with a cigarette butt is far higher than the £50 charged by WBC.
We must also remember that there are a great many people who have not been brought up in the UK that are now residing or visiting here, and they may have been brought up with different attitudes to littering.
I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.
I don't see how the place that someone has been brought up has any relation to following the laws of where they are living now
I am sure anyone visiting from Singapore would be as tidy as you could wish for in this regard and it's always nice to have visitors who respect your environment.
It's a shame therefore that we are shackled to the EU and not Singapore, because next year we can expect millions of economic migrants from the poorest countries in the EU to flood to our shores and everything I have seen and heard indicates that they are not as tidy as the people from Singapore.
We really must do something about our borders before it is too late. Leaving the EU would be the first step in doing so, and stopping benefits to migrants for the first year or two would be a good second step.
Dropping fag butts has got a lot of people's backs up. Imagine how they would feel if they knew they were paying for those fags in the first place!
MarsLander
says...
7:08pm Tue 26 Mar 13
lutondown wrote:I hadn't thought about it like that, but now you mention it, it does look like KAren Smythe is saying that, after however many years of Liberal administration in Watford, the town is now a s***hole.
KAren Smythe wrote:Ha ha
Dear Watford Borough Council
Please stop attempting to improve the town as I like living in the sh*thole that it is.
Yours
Marslander
And the S hole WBC conspired to make it! Related to Boosey by any chance?
I don't actually think that Watford is all that bad, but KAren obviously does and if that's the case then there is no-one else to pin the blame on but the LibDems who have an absolute majority in council and have had for years.
Time for a new administration, and on that point only, I am with KAren in spirit. It could only improve Watford and then maybe KAren wouldn't think it's such a s***hole.
Let's dump the LibDems at all the elections, for KArens sake!
davesol
says...
9:48am Wed 27 Mar 13
MarsLander wrote:What has the EU or immigration got to do with someone being fined for dripping litter??
davesol wrote:I'd quite agree with you Davesol.
MarsLander wrote:Equally there are places like Singapore which are incredibly clean and where the fine for first-time littering with a cigarette butt is far higher than the £50 charged by WBC.
We must also remember that there are a great many people who have not been brought up in the UK that are now residing or visiting here, and they may have been brought up with different attitudes to littering.
I recall from certain holidays seeing families just leaving their rubbish for the elements, despoiling some otherwise beautiful scenery. This was an EU country.
I don't see how the place that someone has been brought up has any relation to following the laws of where they are living now
I am sure anyone visiting from Singapore would be as tidy as you could wish for in this regard and it's always nice to have visitors who respect your environment.
It's a shame therefore that we are shackled to the EU and not Singapore, because next year we can expect millions of economic migrants from the poorest countries in the EU to flood to our shores and everything I have seen and heard indicates that they are not as tidy as the people from Singapore.
We really must do something about our borders before it is too late. Leaving the EU would be the first step in doing so, and stopping benefits to migrants for the first year or two would be a good second step.
Dropping fag butts has got a lot of people's backs up. Imagine how they would feel if they knew they were paying for those fags in the first place!
The only (tenuous) connection is your statement that "everything I have seen and heard indicates that they are not as tidy as the people from Singapore" in which case surely you would be in favour of stronger anti-littering laws?
MarsLander
says...
9:57am Wed 27 Mar 13
if we have millions of people coming to this country who have a more lax attitude to littering, then the problem will be made worse unless our lone ranger litter patroller can catch all of them.
I am in favour of strong anti-littering laws, although I am also in favour of giving people a warning first before dropping the full force of the law upon them.
Our aims are the same, it's the route we take to get there that differs.
MarsLander says...
6:33pm Sat 23 Mar 13
I had no idea dropping a cigarette butt would be so dangerous, and, although it hasn't been stated yet, could clearly lead to the end of the world as we know it.
I'm not a smoker but I do feel they are being persecuted by overzealous litter spies and the local council.
I would have thought a tap on the shoulder and a firm request they pick up the butt and dispose of it would be enough of a deterrent, but then of course it would not be such a lucrative revenue stream.
Out of interest (and mischief), where does all the revenue go from these fines, costs and victim surcharges?
It reminds me of parking wardens, who used to show common sense and then went to work for private firms on a bonus culture where the more people nabbed the more they were rewarded - common sense and doing the right thing went straight out of the window. I don't like either ethos, I prefer good old common sense, a nudge, instead of a clip round the ear.