Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Jun 14, 2026 10:04

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 15:57 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
AFAICT, the offence of leaving litter is defined in the EPA 1990 section 87, which is the same section of the same act under which the injunction was made. Thus it would seem that they were prosecuted for littering. Specifically, littering by feeding birds as opposed to (for example) emptying an ashtray onto the pavement.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 16:05 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I saw some self-enforcing signs in Australia...
Image

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 19:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
willcove wrote:
A quick search of the Internet shows several who've received fines. However, the major case law now is those who've been awarded ASBOs and injuctions under the EPA for feeding birds. For example, in 2003 Judge David Brunning issued an injunction under the EPA against Donald and Carol Booth banning them from further feeding of birds. The injunction expires some time in 2008. North of the border in 2005, Kircaldy Sherrif's Court issued an ASBO against Jean Smith forbidding her from feeding birds anywhere in Fife.

Hopefully, those will do.

Thanks Willcove. This is the first chance I’ve had to look at those cases (I wasn’t going to let your search go to waste).

Donald and Carol Booth:
These two were bound over by Section 81, sub section five of the Environmental Protection Act; this act specifically deals with problems of nuisance. From reading the related articles it would seems these two really were a nuisance so the injunction is deserved – not because they were feeing birds but because they were feeding hundreds, perhaps thousands of them daily :shock: resulting with complaints (subsequently upheld) from their neighbours.

Jean Smith:
Again, she faced action over the number of birds she was feeding which were subsequently becoming a nuisance to her neighbours, not because she was feeding birds. In her case, it is interesting to note that “Environmental health officials tried to resolve the issue by suggesting Mrs Smith feed the birds away from her house at an open area close to the River Forth”. She is still allowed to feed birds.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.090s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]