Safe Speed Forums

Ah! So she was waiting for the green waste collection rather than allowing her sandwiches to go to landfill

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Get a grip!!!!

Is anyone else having a deja-vu moment - we had pretty much the same discussion over the "Wotsit Incident" not so very long ago...




So if I'm eating a sandwich whilst sat on a bench in the town centre and, due to the crumbly nature of the bread, some crumbs or even small chunks of bread were to fall to the ground, would I be littering? It's not deliberate, but the end result is exactly the same. What about if, having finished my sandwich, I get up and brush the crumbs off my trousers or t-shirt? That's now deliberate, but what alternative would the local authority suggest? Maybe they'd like me to carry a small vacuum cleaner or one of those sticky rollers normally used for removing pet hair from clothing? Where do you draw the line and say one act is littering but another is not littering, when the quantity and content of the stuff being dropped to the ground is identical in both cases?




Throwing an apple to the ground, where the ground is pavement, would I suspect be considered littering by most people. Throwing an apple to the ground, where the ground is the undergrowth beneath a bush, would I suspect not be considered littering by most people. It's not just about what you throw, where it's thrown also needs to be taken into context. Throw a load of bread onto a pond/river when there are no birds around and you could argue it's littering, but do the same when the water is teeming with birds and a charge of littering would seem highly unfair (assuming there's no by-laws prohibiting bird feeding at that spot).

So, in this case, someone drops a few crumbs next to a group of pigeons, with a genuine and entirely realistic expectation that the crumbs will, in very short order, be removed by the birds. Irrespective of your feelings towards people who feed wildlife, threatening someone with the full force of the anti-littering rules for what is a truly minor infringment (if you choose to believe dropping a few crumbs does count as littering) seems to be an entirely heavy-handed and quite over the top reaction.




I'd agree with that if targetted at the places where feeding wildlife genuinely does cause problems, but I don't think the potential problems from feeding pigeons in a town centre are comparable to those you've highlighted from feeding seagulls or wild ponies.




Hmm. The pigeons were already there, so her actions didn't entice them into the area, thus any risk of danger from their presence doesn't appear to have been heightened by her actions. Dropping a few crumbs of bread doesn't increase the level of danger unlike, say, dropping a banana skin. Fair enough, she may have broken the law, but if she did then it's no different to someone briefly exceeding the limit by 1mph.




I'd certainly like to think they would - petty and mindless applications of the rulebook should be ridiculed and challenged whenever they occur, no matter who is the victim of such official stupidity.

_________________
Chris

As odd as it sounds, I understood willcove’s point hence I didn't pass comment. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he referring to the real spread of disease/attacks from vermin; however, the pensioner’s contribution to this was infinitesimally small. Besides, it might be possible for the birds to fish the food back out from the bin, if not that then the landfill.......

She was fined for ‘littering’, not endangering the public; it was the pitiful excuse of what passes as council wardens who spouted the vermin argument in an attempt to justify their jobs!

I reckon this should put things in perspective!

http://www.break.com/index/meteor_hits_earth.html

That's the sickest part. After the event

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The articles here, here, here, and here describe some of the consequences of feeding the birds (gulls in these cases). The articles here and here describe some of the problems associated with pigeon plagues. In all cases, the problem exists because the birds are attracted to the ready supply of food.

These incidents build up. If several hundred people per day drop a few crumbs each the bird population will increase to take advantage of the freebies. Instilling into the population the need to avoid feeding problem species (like gulls and pigeons) is fundamental to reducing the problem. The existing anti-litter laws are adequate for this. Part of the reason for legislation against litter is to prevent encouragement of vermin. Plagues of pigeons are vermin, so it seems entirely appropriate that legislation drafted partly to prevent the encouragement of vermin should be used against that miscreant. IMO, the only failing here is the lack of education. (This isn't a major issue in London right now, so I suppose education won't happen until it is. )

The pidgeons were only there because of the actions of people like her. If nobody dropped crumbs the pidgeon population would go elsewhere and not congregate expectantly where people eat their sandwiches.

Where I live, this is a serious problem. Most of the locals know better than to feed the pests. However, the tourists come down here every year, feed the shitehawks and then have the gall to complain when the paint on their car is ruined by droppings, or their darling little Jessica had a cone of chips snatched out of her hand. You hear them in the pubs etc. complaining about how the birds are ruining the place, but they can't put two and two together to see that they're the cause of the problem.

According to some articles I've read, gulls have already started to be a problem in London and are set to become a problem in every major conurbation in the country (including Nottingham, where this all started). More Hitchcock-esque scenes are reported each year - in extreme cases people are killed - and it all starts by a few (thousand) individuals "innocently" feeding the birds.

_________________
Will

If feeding birds is the problem, then that is what should be made illegal, with clear signs and fair warnings given. They shouldn't mis-use littering laws when no litter has been left.

Exactly.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (s.87) states that litter is ‘anything that is dropped, thrown, left or deposited that causes defacement, in a public place’. Now food thrown to attract birds meets that definition (IMO) twice: once when the food itself is left, and once following its passage through the birds. Also, any scraps not taken by the intended birds would remain to encourage rats etc.

To determine whether littering laws (actually, Environmental Protection laws) have been misused, one should consider the objectives of those laws. Hopefully, we'd all agree that protecting the public from health hazards and vermin infestations are significant objectives of those laws. Feeding of birds can result in health hazards and a rise in the population of vermin, so use of those laws in respect of bird feeding is entirely appropriate.

Whether the application of those laws was too heavy-handed is another matter. Personally, I believe that it was. IMO the pensioner concerned should have been warned and only fined on a second offence. I agree entirely with the general feeling that the jobsworths are taking over and we need more pragmatic enforcement. But the fact remains that bird infestations are a real problem that should be addressed (although the best way to do that is probably education first and enforcement second).

_________________
Will

Dead skin cells meet this definition. EVERY human discards dead skin cells every second of every day. This is where most of the dust in your house comes from.

Who's going to hand themselves in?

Nooooo!!! Alock, don't give these mumpties even more reason with which to fine us!!

Besides, "anything that is dropped", that's somewhat vague; if you drop a laptop bag for example, then by definition that's littering; If the council deposits a ticket to my car, then by definition, it's littering;for the ticket has been deposited, defaces,and is in a public place.

The food is not ‘left’, it is instead offered in the knowledge that it will be taken away. No defacement is caused or intended.


That’s a tenuous link. What about people who feed the birds from hanging baskets from their own gardens? Would that also amount to littering?


This is the only way in which the definition for littering can be met; however, I strongly suspect that wasn’t so in the case of the pensioner.


I would agree, but the law is very technical and specific (look at the recent cases where prosecutions for speeding were in error); either she littered or she didn’t. To my knowledge, encouraging the spread of vermin via the offering of food, in a public place or otherwise, is not an offence; even if it was then she should have been fined for that only!

@wayneo: I suspect that the involuntary act of desquamation won't be covered under the EPA!


It is dropped, thrown, left, or deposited in the hope (but not with the sure knowledge) that it will be taken away. You'd have the same degree of certainty that an apple-core would be taken away by feral species and I suspect that you'd consider throwing an apple-core on the pavement to be littering.


It would not because the food would not be dropped, thrown, left, or deposited in a public place.


AFAICT the EPA doesn't give any consideration to whether or not wildlife is expected to take up the food and just depositing it is enough for the offence to be committed.


Perhaps a separate offence of feeding vermin should be created but until that happy day AFAICT there is only the EPA and the offence of littering with which to bring the miscreants to task. AFAICT, that legislation covers that offence in the context of one of the principles of that legislation and so its use is entirely appropriate to the situation. However, even though ignorance is normally not a defence, I'd like to see a little discretion used and first-time offenders warned. IOW educate first and only punish persistent offenders

_________________
Will

So do the council prosecute the birds for littering then?

Political Correctness nonsense yet again.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Political correctness? I suspect that not many would consider prosecuting someone for doing something known to contribute to injury and even death of others to be "political correctness".

_________________
Will

No. the birds were present, hungry and pecking at the food, hence it’s reasonable to expect the food will no longer cause defacement, the offence of littering cannot even be considered to be complete unless the pensioner had left the area before the food was taken up. The difference between that and throwing an apple core away on a pavement is that one won’t see a hint, let alone proof, of feral collection - this is ignorance (at best).


That’s not the point. I believe you brought up that point (pigeon poop) as littering by proxy (that’s the way I read it). The fact that the food (to be turned into poop) was offered in a public or private place is irrelevant.

Can I assume you are also against the feeding of swans/ducks in public ponds?


Meaning it’s not clearly defined. Cue Nick £reeman to win another case.


Heh, you’re not biased at all are you


OK, what if the pensioner literally handed (or by other means such that the crumbs didn’t land on the ground, say with use of paper which will be taken away) the birds the crumbs in a public place? Unless the law of vermin feeding is clearly specified, it is completely ineffective in the context you describe.

Almost an impeccable argument Willcove, were of course it not for this.

"In seaside towns we have made their lives a bit easier. There have been changes to cliff-top habitats and gulls have spotted chimney pots as their next best bet".

So it wouldn't matter if you fed them, they are already there and they are protecting young, we've encroached ourselves on them.

"Inevitably all the gulls are doing is protecting their own young, which is the same as any human would do"

Indeed it would suggest with this piece that the main culprit is not little old ladies throwing food to to pidgeons, but that the Council has failed to solve a problem about which it has known for years.

"dustbin day as an excuse for a feast, pecking bags open and leaving waste strewn over the road"

Life is not as simple as posting a few press cuttings chap.

And chucking bread into a river, as bait when fishing, is that littering too?

You know as well as me (well, I hope you do) it's the intent with which an act is done that should be measured. Was she feeding the birds or was she wilfully littering. There is a huge distinction.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Of course, wayneo, you omitted the reports that when displaced from the cliff tops they only move to urban settings because of the ready source of food. That said, I question that there have been significant man-made changes to cliff-top habitats in Cornwall, where the problem is possibly most acute. We certainly haven't built on the cliff tops at the nesting sites and any changes there have been have resulted from natural causes (like erosion). No, the reason why outdoor public areas are beset with pigeons and gulls is because of those who feed them.

_________________
Will