Woman fined for dropping cigarette butt (From Watford Observer)

£340 quid for dropping a cigarette butt?

£75 fixed penalty by a council jobsworth?

A bit harsh isn't it?

Whilst I deplore littering, I do think the end result is very, very heavy handed.

Do we want a council that doles out £75 fines for the dropping of a tiny bit of litter in the street? I would prefer one that exercises some common sense over such matters.

Come on Dotty, stop collecting revenue by the back door, and what's wrong with a reprimand instead of a fine? Has all the common sense left your loony liberal administration?

This is a waste of everybody's time, especially the courts, and is a stain on the council that allowed this to happen.

As for Derek Scudder - any relation to Dick Turpin?

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he mugged people

Shame the Watford Borough Council's Officer don't use their observation skills in North and West Watford for the 'bigger than cigarette butt' rubbish up and down the roads, especially the food waste outside some of the 'shops'. At least the town centre has street cleaners.The foxes round here are so urban that they have even been known to sit on doorsteps and not move. No wonder so many domestic cats and rabbits have gone missing.

£75 is ludicrous.That's12 hours wages for a cleaner! Wouldn't it have been cheaper (and more sensible /time-saving) all round to just ask the person to pick it up!

How much would a child get fined for chewing gum or would they get a warning. Don't tell me - the fine would be put on the parents.

Does this mean I can fine the bin men when rubbish is in the road AFTER they've been round?

No - I'm not a litter lout but I am a smoker.

The following sentences were reported in the Watford Observer 14.09.12.
Stealing another person’s pedal cycle - £210.
Driving while under the influence of alchohol- £300.
Assault on a person by beating him - £250.
Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty - £175.
Stealing from McColls - £131.84.
Driving while disqualified and no insurance – £87 suspended sentence and attend programme.
Stealing from Costco - £180.
Possesion of Class B drug - £300.
Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour - £300.
Watching a TV without a licence - £275.
All of these less than £340! Where is the common sense or fairness. Why costs of £250? Sledge hammer and nut come to mind.

Beggar me!

No wonder they say smoking is bad for you! It's the crime of the century by the look of it.

What fines did all those MPs get when they were found out fiddling their expenses (despite widespread cover-up going to the very top)?

Lop sided laws are no laws at all. The Council should re-imburse the lady and apologise. A bunch of flowers would not go amiss to show their remorse.

Dotty, over to you!

It was acually a £75 fine which rose to £340 because she didn't pay it.

Clearly it's a lot of money and probably not consistent with other crimes, be it higher or lower. But at the end of the day, dropping cigarette butts and litter as a whole, especially in such a public place where let's face it there are a plethora of bins, is a smack in the face to those who are proud of their town and try to keep it clean.

Maybe we can start recouping some cleaning costs from the vomiters and gum chewers.

Reg, Yet again you have launched an attack on a certain elected individual here. Have you considered whose money it is that will be spent to clear litter up? Littering is disgusting, be it a fag end in the street, a Maccy D wrapper in the pond or fly tipping in a quiet lane. That this person chose to ignore an initial fixed penalty notice is up to them. Surely as someone who deplores waste of money you would want them to pay for the cost to we (I assume you are included in this) Council Tax payers to clean this mess up and all the legal process to get them to pay and not do it again.

If people are serious about cleaning up the town centre, perhaps they should think about the pools of blood, vomit, glass, half eaten kebabs and broken teeth that litter the place after every Saturday night.

But then these fine officials don't venture out after dark, do they?

Even the initial £75 is totally out of proportion. As listed above, driving without insurance and no licence is sometimes only £87, and that could put someone in a wheelchair for life with a danger of inadequate (or no) compensation.

Wether £75 is OTT for dropping litter or not the lady only ended up having to pay £340 because of her own gross stupidity. Stupidity initially in littering in the first place and stupidity in ignoring the fine.

Her own fault whatever way you look at it and regardless of if you agree with the amounts or not.

She only has her self to blame. No doubt she smoked more than one that day but was only caught the once.

A £75 fine is excessive, but there are signs all over Watford warning that if you drop litter you will get a £75 fine. Does anyone know how many fines have been issued? Athough excessive, it is an excellent deterrent, and we can now all see that these signs are not just symbolic threats, they do actually issue fines.

I just wonder if all the street sweepers would appreciate it if there was no more litter to sweep. After all, litter is keeping them in a job!

As someone that doesn't drop litter - and I class fag butts as litter, I think those that do should absolutely be fined. Why should my council tax be spent on having to pay street sweepers to clean up after others who are too lazy to walk as far as a bin - and there bins everywhere. Shame on you all. As for the £75 fine being too much. It's reduced to £25 if its paid within a week or two of being issued. That this woman has had to pay so much is entirely her own fault.

antday78 wrote:
As someone that doesn't drop litter - and I class fag butts as litter, I think those that do should absolutely be fined. Why should my council tax be spent on having to pay street sweepers to clean up after others who are too lazy to walk as far as a bin - and there bins everywhere. Shame on you all. As for the £75 fine being too much. It's reduced to £25 if its paid within a week or two of being issued. That this woman has had to pay so much is entirely her own fault.

Exactly.

antday78 wrote:
As someone that doesn't drop litter - and I class fag butts as litter, I think those that do should absolutely be fined. Why should my council tax be spent on having to pay street sweepers to clean up after others who are too lazy to walk as far as a bin - and there bins everywhere. Shame on you all. As for the £75 fine being too much. It's reduced to £25 if its paid within a week or two of being issued. That this woman has had to pay so much is entirely her own fault.

I don't know where you live, but there are very few bins around here.

There did used to be. But they were replaced with silly plastic ones that people set on fire. Now there are none that I can think of that aren't provided by local shops who take them in at night.

Most of the litter around here is Indian/pizza menus blown out of letterboxes when they were only half put through.
When is someone going to address that?

There is a new development just up the road from me. It isn't finished yet. Nobody lives there yet. IT HAS NO WINDOWS ON THE UPPER FLOORS YET.
But it already has front doors spewing junk mail onto the street.

Somebody fine those companies £75 a time please.

LSC wrote:

antday78 wrote:
As someone that doesn't drop litter - and I class fag butts as litter, I think those that do should absolutely be fined. Why should my council tax be spent on having to pay street sweepers to clean up after others who are too lazy to walk as far as a bin - and there bins everywhere. Shame on you all. As for the £75 fine being too much. It's reduced to £25 if its paid within a week or two of being issued. That this woman has had to pay so much is entirely her own fault.

I don't know where you live, but there are very few bins around here.

There did used to be. But they were replaced with silly plastic ones that people set on fire. Now there are none that I can think of that aren't provided by local shops who take them in at night.

Most of the litter around here is Indian/pizza menus blown out of letterboxes when they were only half put through.
When is someone going to address that?

There is a new development just up the road from me. It isn't finished yet. Nobody lives there yet. IT HAS NO WINDOWS ON THE UPPER FLOORS YET.
But it already has front doors spewing junk mail onto the street.

Somebody fine those companies £75 a time please.

I agree. If the menus are pushed all the way through your letterbox it is not a problem (they are handy sometimes), but if left poking out of of your letterbox, and is there for more than a day, it is a dead giveaway to any would be burgler that the house is unoccupied.

I am sure the police could ask takeaway restaurants to ensure their leaflets are delivered correctly to avoid this problem.

Here, we have signs saying "It is an offence to drop cigarette butts". All bins have been removed and "cigarette police" lurk in doorways waiting for tourists to offend. When spotted, the officers take the offender to a desk where they are relieved of $60. If they protest they are banged up till it's paid.
Firm but fair.

Junk mail is one of my personal hates, especially when people rant on about recycling paper.
Yes, I like a takeaway as much as anyone, but I don't need a tree-feller; no-one does in my street; there are no trees even in the gardens.
I don't need a taxi, I don't want to join a fitness club, I don't want to sell my house and I CERTAINLY don't want a clairvoyant, although you'd think they would know that already.

But all this junk comes through my door daily.
I see no reason why Post Offices, Libraries, local shops, clubs, community buildings and so on can't have racks holding these fliers.
Then people who want them can take them. The firms could pay a small fee (less than they probably pay deliverers) for a slot and we reduce paper usage by about 90% overnight, because I would estimate at least 90% of people throw this stuff away immediately when it comes through the letterbox.

If I want a local service in this day and age, I type into a search engine on the internet or use the Yellow Pages. Any firm without a website or at least a web reference is behind the times and therefore probably of no use to me anyway.

There is a slight difference between junk mail which has fallen out of someones letter box and someone deciding through sheer laziness to drop something on the floor.

Both need dealing with I agree, and its good to see a firm like McDonalds sending people out to litter pick around their outlets. Whilst they are not the ones actually dropping stuff on the floor they are responsible enough to know that their image is not helped by their wrappers floating around the street.

Maybe regards junk mail it should be collected and whoever it is for should be fined accordingly too?

But there being no bins around is no excuse for littering. Hold it in your hands till you DO see a bin, or get home or whatever.

Nascot wrote:
Reg, Yet again you have launched an attack on a certain elected individual here. Have you considered whose money it is that will be spent to clear litter up? Littering is disgusting, be it a fag end in the street, a Maccy D wrapper in the pond or fly tipping in a quiet lane. That this person chose to ignore an initial fixed penalty notice is up to them. Surely as someone who deplores waste of money you would want them to pay for the cost to we (I assume you are included in this) Council Tax payers to clean this mess up and all the legal process to get them to pay and not do it again.

Nascot,

We already pay the cost of cleaning up this, and worse mess. If the lady had not dropped her cigarette butt in the street it would have had no impact on council spending whatsoever. I therefore consider her actions had no cost implications whatsoever to you, me or the council.

Littering is disgusting, agreed. I myself have reprimanded youths in the street who have dropped things like cans in my presence. They pick them up and put them in the bin once challenged.

I think this sort of thing, peer disapproval, works well in making people think again about their actions.

The council employee could have done the same thing without issuing a fine. I would agree to fines against repeat offenders or people who get surly and abusive when challenged, however there is no information to suggest that was the case here.

I felt no need to grab the youth by the scruff of his neck and say those immortal words "You're nicked my old son" and march him off to the police station. Getting the job done was enough for me.

Bearing in mind that the council already uses our taxes, quite rightly, to employ street sweepers to clear up this type of mess, and worse, I fail to see that this lady's actions caused any additional cost to the council whatsoever. As such, a £75 fine was not in my opinion justified.

In addition I am always suspicious of fines, they just seem like a back-door, easy revenue raiser for the council to me.

Remember what traffic wardens were like in Watford before the council realised they could make money from parking misdemeanours and privatised them? They used common sense, they gave people a bit of leeway. Where are we now? Parking wardens get prizes for nobbling the most people and get sacked for not fining enough people.

I am anti fines by little hitlers. Fining should be the last resort, not the first resort.

Reg Edit wrote:

Nascot wrote:
Reg, Yet again you have launched an attack on a certain elected individual here. Have you considered whose money it is that will be spent to clear litter up? Littering is disgusting, be it a fag end in the street, a Maccy D wrapper in the pond or fly tipping in a quiet lane. That this person chose to ignore an initial fixed penalty notice is up to them. Surely as someone who deplores waste of money you would want them to pay for the cost to we (I assume you are included in this) Council Tax payers to clean this mess up and all the legal process to get them to pay and not do it again.

Nascot,

We already pay the cost of cleaning up this, and worse mess. If the lady had not dropped her cigarette butt in the street it would have had no impact on council spending whatsoever. I therefore consider her actions had no cost implications whatsoever to you, me or the council.

Littering is disgusting, agreed. I myself have reprimanded youths in the street who have dropped things like cans in my presence. They pick them up and put them in the bin once challenged.

I think this sort of thing, peer disapproval, works well in making people think again about their actions.

The council employee could have done the same thing without issuing a fine. I would agree to fines against repeat offenders or people who get surly and abusive when challenged, however there is no information to suggest that was the case here.

I felt no need to grab the youth by the scruff of his neck and say those immortal words "You're nicked my old son" and march him off to the police station. Getting the job done was enough for me.

Bearing in mind that the council already uses our taxes, quite rightly, to employ street sweepers to clear up this type of mess, and worse, I fail to see that this lady's actions caused any additional cost to the council whatsoever. As such, a £75 fine was not in my opinion justified.

In addition I am always suspicious of fines, they just seem like a back-door, easy revenue raiser for the council to me.

Remember what traffic wardens were like in Watford before the council realised they could make money from parking misdemeanours and privatised them? They used common sense, they gave people a bit of leeway. Where are we now? Parking wardens get prizes for nobbling the most people and get sacked for not fining enough people.

I am anti fines by little hitlers. Fining should be the last resort, not the first resort.

You do speak sense. However, do you really think this youth now puts all his litter in bins because someone told him to pick up a can?

I'd be fairly certain this woman isn't going to litter again in a hurry.

We live in a society where unfortunately too many people take things for granted and don't care about their community and fines or jail time really are the only effective deterrents.

And regarding your point about revenue-raisers: revenue has to be raised. That's a fact. And it's either going to come from fines (for people that HAVE done wrong - large or small), raised taxes or job/service cuts.

Indeed the woman's dropped cigarette butt would have been cleaned up during routine sweeping, but that's like saying "well, the roads are going to need repair whether or not I drive on them... I'll skip the road tax this year".

How much do the Bin Men get fined when they drop rubbish behind them? How much did the two families on my road who turned it into a tip for two weeks get fined? The answer is NOTHING!

seems like the system need to get their priorities right. My friend got attacked in town centre by 5 men, absolutely clear footage on cctv, unprovoked, he had to spend the night in hospital. They each got a £15 fine. ???

Who says the fine has to be proportional to the offence? Its supposed to be a deterrent.

I'm sure all of us here wouldnt dream of littering but there are plenty of anti social morons who do, if they hear about this type of thing then hopefully it'll make them think twice about their dirty lazy habit.

The fine may seem out of proportion to other crimes committed etc. but that does not make the fine wrong just the other 'sentences'.

garston tony wrote:
Who says the fine has to be proportional to the offence? Its supposed to be a deterrent.

I'm sure all of us here wouldnt dream of littering but there are plenty of anti social morons who do, if they hear about this type of thing then hopefully it'll make them think twice about their dirty lazy habit.

The fine may seem out of proportion to other crimes committed etc. but that does not make the fine wrong just the other 'sentences'.

The punishment should fit the crime.

It doesn't.

Am I the only one fed up with our rulers levying fines on us for the least little thing?

A couple of hours community service in connection with the town's litter would be a more appropriate penalty than a fine and costs.

Sorry but I don’t think littering is the 'least little thing' and it does cost all of us money, or at least those of us who pay their taxes. The fine is also not just a punishment but a deterrent, if people are stupid/lazy/selfish enough to litter then if caught they have no one to blame but themselves. Once fined then its even more stupid to ignore the matter and get taken to court.

I have no sympathy with this person or anyone else who litters and gets caught (I just wish everyone WAS caught) and even less sympathy for people who ignore warnings that they are going to be taken to court. There is NO excuse for deliberate littering, none at all.

If you want to look at the 'bigger picture' litter on the streets promotes the impression of a town in decay which promotes other anti social behaviour such as graffitti, petty vandalism etc. which in turn promotes larger crimes such as theft, burglary, muggings etc. which in turn promotes bigger crimes and so on. It is well documented and proven that if you tackle the 'little' things then that has the knock on effect of preventing bigger crimes being committed. Ignoring 'little' things Reg encourages bigger things.

John Howard I would agree that community hours on a little patrol would probably do wonders in stopping individuals littering again too.