Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Other people using my skip
4,043 views
Skip to first unread message
Doc Insanity
Jul 30, 2012, 6:05:31 PM7/30/12
to
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if so, what?
I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if so, what?
I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
Dr Zoidberg
Jul 31, 2012, 2:20:03 AM7/31/12
to
"Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c026afe0-7f4b-4d88...@googlegroups.com...
> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
It's guaranteed to happen every time there's a skip.
> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed
> an offence and if so, what?
> I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed
> people think.
>
interest.
Best bet is to only get the skip delivered when you are ready to fill it
straight away to minimize the opportunity for dumping.
--
Alex
Sara
Jul 31, 2012, 2:35:03 AM7/31/12
to
In article <jv7tac$k29$1...@dont-email.me>,
And as soon as you do fill it, be prepared for someone else to arrive
with a truck asking if they can go through it for anything they'd like
to take.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
with a truck asking if they can go through it for anything they'd like
to take.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
Dr Zoidberg
Jul 31, 2012, 2:45:02 AM7/31/12
to
"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:saramerriman-F412...@news.eternal-september.org...
any harm
--
Alex
Roland Perry
Jul 31, 2012, 2:55:03 AM7/31/12
to
In message <c026afe0-7f4b-4d88...@googlegroups.com>, at
23:05:31 on Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
skips. On the other hand, if you took the extra stuff out of the skip
and left it on the roadside, that's even more likely to be fly-tipping
(by you).
--
Roland Perry
23:05:31 on Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
>committed an offence and if so, what?
Could be fly-tipping I suppose, if the legislation applies to private
>If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
>committed an offence and if so, what?
skips. On the other hand, if you took the extra stuff out of the skip
and left it on the roadside, that's even more likely to be fly-tipping
(by you).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Jul 31, 2012, 3:05:11 AM7/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:05:31 +0100, Doc Insanity put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if so, what?
Yes, it's a form of fly-tipping if done without permission.
The skip company is a licensed waste disposal operator, and waste can only
be placed in the skip in accordance with that licence. The company is
authorised to grant permission to their customers to place appropriate
waste in the skip, but that permission does not extend to non-customers or
those not granted permission by the customer. So anyone who doesn't have
permission from the skip company or the hirer to put waste in the skip is
not acting in conformance with the skip company's licence, and therefore is
acting illegally.
In practice, it would be very unlikely for action to be taken against a
householder putting a bin bag of domestic waste, or an unwanted chair or
whatever, into a skip. But if the dumper is a commercial organisation that
is seeking to evade the need to pay for disposal of their own waste, then
prosecution is more likely. Here's an example of where that happened:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/47096/rubbish-dumper
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
>I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if so, what?
The skip company is a licensed waste disposal operator, and waste can only
be placed in the skip in accordance with that licence. The company is
authorised to grant permission to their customers to place appropriate
waste in the skip, but that permission does not extend to non-customers or
those not granted permission by the customer. So anyone who doesn't have
permission from the skip company or the hirer to put waste in the skip is
not acting in conformance with the skip company's licence, and therefore is
acting illegally.
In practice, it would be very unlikely for action to be taken against a
householder putting a bin bag of domestic waste, or an unwanted chair or
whatever, into a skip. But if the dumper is a commercial organisation that
is seeking to evade the need to pay for disposal of their own waste, then
prosecution is more likely. Here's an example of where that happened:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/47096/rubbish-dumper
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
RobertL
Jul 31, 2012, 3:55:02 AM7/31/12
to
On Monday, July 30, 2012 11:05:31 PM UTC+1, Doc Insanity wrote:
> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this? If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
and what is the legal position if you take their rubbish out and stand it on the road beside the skip?
> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this? If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
Robert
Peter Crosland
Jul 31, 2012, 5:20:02 AM7/31/12
to
--
Peter Crosland
GB
Jul 31, 2012, 5:20:34 AM7/31/12
to
>> And as soon as you do fill it, be prepared for someone else to arrive
>> with a truck asking if they can go through it for anything they'd like
>> to take.
>>
> That never bothered me particularly - it clears space and doesn't cause
> me any harm
the stuff in the skip for passers-by to take whatever they want. At
least, I would have said that until that ridiculous Tesco case a year
ago where a woman was prosecuted for taking some defrosted meat out of a
skip.
BTW, round here, I often see skips covered with a tarpaulin at night -
to stop people putting stuff in, rather than take it out.
Syd Rumpo
Jul 31, 2012, 4:00:04 AM7/31/12
to
doors. Somebody took these - no problem.
The next day, somebody put them back.
Cheers
--
Syd
Ken
Jul 31, 2012, 6:40:03 AM7/31/12
to
In article <5017a267$0$1141$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, GB
<NOTso...@microsoft.com> writes
I believe it is normal for the skip company to make rules about filling
the skip to no higher than a prescribed line. If people go on a treasure
hunt, what is likely to happen is that the contents are rearranged to
the detriment of the person hiring the skip.
--
Ken
<NOTso...@microsoft.com> writes
the skip to no higher than a prescribed line. If people go on a treasure
hunt, what is likely to happen is that the contents are rearranged to
the detriment of the person hiring the skip.
--
Ken
Nightjar
Jul 31, 2012, 4:25:14 AM7/31/12
to
On 31/07/2012 07:20, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>
>
tightly whenever you are not using it usually avoids the problem.
I started doing that when I had one in front of one of my factories and
someone who came onto my land to do a bit of skip diving managed to
prick their finger, then complained to both the Police and the Health
and Safety Executive. The police officer was not amused by having to
attend as a result of what he, rightly IMO, viewed as a time wasting
complaint. HSE were happy with an emailed photo showing that the skip
was not accessible from any public right of way and the decision to fit
a cover.
Colin Bignell
Jethro_uk
Jul 31, 2012, 5:00:05 AM7/31/12
to
and the builders put up a wire fence around the skip in both cases.
Doc Insanity
Jul 31, 2012, 6:55:02 AM7/31/12
to
Roland Perry
Jul 31, 2012, 7:15:13 AM7/31/12
to
In message <e0640a6f-1ddf-4694...@googlegroups.com>, at
11:55:02 on Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
are almost certainly being part-paid through the salvage value of the
scrap. Whether that means they'll sell items to people, is more about
cash-handling issues than property rights.
--
Roland Perry
11:55:02 on Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>Anything that has been apparently discarded can be taken by somebody
>unless you are still exerting control over it - hence at my local
>recycling centre, it informs you that you cannot remove items AND
>that the employees will enforce that policy.
That's slightly different, because the operators of the recycling centre
>unless you are still exerting control over it - hence at my local
>recycling centre, it informs you that you cannot remove items AND
>that the employees will enforce that policy.
are almost certainly being part-paid through the salvage value of the
scrap. Whether that means they'll sell items to people, is more about
cash-handling issues than property rights.
--
Roland Perry
Doc Insanity
Jul 31, 2012, 7:25:04 AM7/31/12
to
Sara
Jul 31, 2012, 7:35:02 AM7/31/12
to
In article <jv7uoc$quk$1...@dont-email.me>,
Oh me either, as long as they leave it tidy. I was just saying that it's
one of the things that almost inevitably happens.
--
Sara
Peeps squeaks, Billy is not very wise and as for Armageddon...
Oh, and Maia seems to think I'm the devil
one of the things that almost inevitably happens.
--
Sara
Peeps squeaks, Billy is not very wise and as for Armageddon...
Oh, and Maia seems to think I'm the devil
Adam Funk
Jul 31, 2012, 7:50:03 AM7/31/12
to
Mike Bristow
Jul 31, 2012, 7:55:02 AM7/31/12
to
In article <5017a267$0$1141$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>,
scooter in a skip, and took it (presumably thinking the same thing
as you).
Unfortunatly for him, drunken fools had lobbed it in the skip "for
a laugh", and the person who took it from the skip was prosecuted
for theft.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Quite so. I would say that there is implied permission from the owner of
> the stuff in the skip for passers-by to take whatever they want.
ISTR a case years and years ago of someone who found a battered
> Quite so. I would say that there is implied permission from the owner of
> the stuff in the skip for passers-by to take whatever they want.
scooter in a skip, and took it (presumably thinking the same thing
as you).
Unfortunatly for him, drunken fools had lobbed it in the skip "for
a laugh", and the person who took it from the skip was prosecuted
for theft.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Roland Perry
Jul 31, 2012, 8:40:02 AM7/31/12
to
In message <b140ca67-4530-441d...@googlegroups.com>, at
12:25:04 on Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
centre *I* am not exerting any further control over it. The operators of
the recycling centre are, which is analogous to the skip's contents
having control exerted over it by the skip hire company.
What might be interesting to explore is when the recycling centre's
control starts, is it when you drive into the place, when you remove it
from your car, or when you place it in a receptacle. In other words if
you saw something tasty in another person's car could you take it off
them (with their permission) or not?
--
Roland Perry
12:25:04 on Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>> >Anything that has been apparently discarded can be taken by somebody
>> >unless you are still exerting control over it - hence at my local
>> >recycling centre, it informs you that you cannot remove items AND
>> >that the employees will enforce that policy.
>>
>> That's slightly different, because the operators of the recycling centre
>> are almost certainly being part-paid through the salvage value of the
>> scrap. Whether that means they'll sell items to people, is more about
>> cash-handling issues than property rights.
>
>> >Anything that has been apparently discarded can be taken by somebody
>> >unless you are still exerting control over it - hence at my local
>> >recycling centre, it informs you that you cannot remove items AND
>> >that the employees will enforce that policy.
>>
>> That's slightly different, because the operators of the recycling centre
>> are almost certainly being part-paid through the salvage value of the
>> scrap. Whether that means they'll sell items to people, is more about
>> cash-handling issues than property rights.
>
>It's not different actually Roland, as the case law demonstrates.
It is different, because when something has been left at the recycling
centre *I* am not exerting any further control over it. The operators of
the recycling centre are, which is analogous to the skip's contents
having control exerted over it by the skip hire company.
What might be interesting to explore is when the recycling centre's
control starts, is it when you drive into the place, when you remove it
from your car, or when you place it in a receptacle. In other words if
you saw something tasty in another person's car could you take it off
them (with their permission) or not?
--
Roland Perry
GB
Jul 31, 2012, 8:50:44 AM7/31/12
to
> It is different, because when something has been left at the recycling
> centre *I* am not exerting any further control over it. The operators of
> the recycling centre are, which is analogous to the skip's contents
> having control exerted over it by the skip hire company.
the skip's contents once they lift the thing onto their lorry. Until
then, the householder has control and can put stuff in or out to his
heart's content, and can allow passers-by to take what they want.
>
> What might be interesting to explore is when the recycling centre's
> control starts, is it when you drive into the place, when you remove it
> from your car, or when you place it in a receptacle. In other words if
> you saw something tasty in another person's car could you take it off
> them (with their permission) or not?
theirs. There's no requirement on visiting the dump to leave anything
there at all. And if you say take your spare wheel out to get at
something, the spare wheel remains yours.
Dr Zoidberg
Jul 31, 2012, 10:20:02 AM7/31/12
to
"RobertL" <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aee18f08-beb9-44a7...@googlegroups.com...
people's rubbish off your property and back into the street.
--
Alex
Robin Bignall
Jul 31, 2012, 12:35:02 PM7/31/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:35:02 +0100, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
seeing what they can pick up.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
wrote:
town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
seeing what they can pick up.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Neil Williams
Jul 31, 2012, 1:25:02 PM7/31/12
to
Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
> town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
> day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
> cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
> they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
> seeing what they can pick up.
The Swiss do that as well.
> In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
> town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
> day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
> cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
> they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
> seeing what they can pick up.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Zapp Brannigan
Jul 31, 2012, 3:35:10 PM7/31/12
to
news:b140ca67-4530-441d...@googlegroups.com...
What case law are you referring to, specifically?
Doc Insanity
Jul 31, 2012, 3:45:02 PM7/31/12
to
Zapp Brannigan
Jul 31, 2012, 7:40:03 PM7/31/12
to
news:6be6005d-1f6b-4b3a...@googlegroups.com...
recall the precedents you're referring to I would be interested, please.
> On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:35:10 UTC+1, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> > It's not different actually Roland, as the case law demonstrates.
>>
>> What case law are you referring to, specifically?
>
> I can't remember the name of the case(s) off the top of my head.
Then I'm afraid you've fallen short of making your case. If you happen to
>>
>> What case law are you referring to, specifically?
>
> I can't remember the name of the case(s) off the top of my head.
recall the precedents you're referring to I would be interested, please.
Zapp Brannigan
Jul 31, 2012, 7:45:02 PM7/31/12
to
"Neil Williams" <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:796410410365448014.612812we...@news.individual.net...
> Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
>> town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
>> day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
>> cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
>> they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
>> seeing what they can pick up.
>
> The Swiss do that as well.
Mainly surplus gold bars, I suppose?
>
>> In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
>> town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
>> day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
>> cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
>> they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
>> seeing what they can pick up.
>
> The Swiss do that as well.
Neil Williams
Aug 1, 2012, 2:35:02 AM8/1/12
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> Mainly surplus gold bars, I suppose?
Given the price of stuff it might as well be.
> Mainly surplus gold bars, I suppose?
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 4:40:01 AM8/1/12
to
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 00:40:03 UTC+1, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6be6005d-1f6b-4b3a...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:35:10 UTC+1, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >> > It's not different actually Roland, as the case law demonstrates.
>
> >>
>
> >> What case law are you referring to, specifically?
>
> >
>
> > I can't remember the name of the case(s) off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> Then I'm afraid you've fallen short of making your case. If you happen to
>
> recall the precedents you're referring to I would be interested, please.
As opposed to Roland who relied on no cases at all???
> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6be6005d-1f6b-4b3a...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:35:10 UTC+1, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> >> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >> > It's not different actually Roland, as the case law demonstrates.
>
> >>
>
> >> What case law are you referring to, specifically?
>
> >
>
> > I can't remember the name of the case(s) off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> Then I'm afraid you've fallen short of making your case. If you happen to
>
> recall the precedents you're referring to I would be interested, please.
Hibbert v McKiernan
Williams v Phillips
Woodman
Lordgnome
Aug 1, 2012, 5:00:06 AM8/1/12
to
On 31/07/2012 17:35, Robin Bignall wrote:
>
> In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
> town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
> day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
> cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
> they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
> seeing what they can pick up.
This wonderful system was in place and worked very well on Anglesey.
>
> In France this is actually encouraged by the authorities. In the small
> town where my ex lives (in dept. 78 Yvelines) the council sets aside one
> day a month when you can put anything reasonable outside (beds,
> cupboards and wardrobes, an old mower, a fridge, a settee etc...) and
> they will take it away. On the evening before, many people tour around
> seeing what they can pick up.
Sadly the council decided to end it when builders would sneak in to the
villages and fill the things with commercial waste.
Les.
Roland Perry
Aug 1, 2012, 8:00:05 AM8/1/12
to
In message <b130a0d5-e95e-4e8d...@googlegroups.com>, at
09:40:01 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
their recycling centre (because I happened to read it a couple of weeks
ago to make sure I knew what they would and wouldn't accept).
--
Roland Perry
09:40:01 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>As opposed to Roland who relied on no cases at all???
We don't need "cases", I'm going by what my county council publish about
their recycling centre (because I happened to read it a couple of weeks
ago to make sure I knew what they would and wouldn't accept).
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
Aug 1, 2012, 8:20:02 AM8/1/12
to
cases without outlining what those cases were about.
For example
Hibbert - theft of golf balls from a golf club, a case from 1948
Williams v Phillips - a case from 1957 about dustmen stealing goods from
dustbins. Held, the items remain the householder's property till taken
away at which point they become the corporation's property
R. v Woodman - a case from 1974. Theft of scrap from a disused and
fenced site. The owner of the land did not know of the existence of the
scrap, but it was held that his knowledge was immaterial and the goods
could nevertheless belong to the landowner.
A person stealing goods from a skip might argue with some force that he
was not dishonest because he believed that nobody would object to the
removal of those goods. This would then be an issue for the jury.
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 9:20:03 AM8/1/12
to
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 9:25:02 AM8/1/12
to
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 13:20:02 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 11:15:16 AM8/1/12
to
news:cf16021a-63ae-4bd4...@googlegroups.com...
The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a twofold
test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a twofold
test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
Roland Perry
Aug 1, 2012, 11:15:24 AM8/1/12
to
In message <cf16021a-63ae-4bd4...@googlegroups.com>, at
14:25:02 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
{etc}
Can you PLEASE sort out your postings, they are virtually unreadable.
--
Roland Perry
14:25:02 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Doc Insanity <docin...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
{etc}
Can you PLEASE sort out your postings, they are virtually unreadable.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Aug 1, 2012, 11:50:02 AM8/1/12
to
GB
Aug 1, 2012, 11:50:09 AM8/1/12
to
>>> A person stealing goods from a skip might argue with some force that he
>>> was not dishonest because he believed that nobody would object to the
>>> removal of those goods. This would then be an issue for the jury.
>>
>> Which apparently totally contradicts Williams v Phillips!
>
> The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
> ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
> Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a twofold
> test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
> behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
> conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real contradiction.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
>
"would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
behaviour to be dishonest"
If it helps at all, I can tell you that my wife and I are a pretty
>>> was not dishonest because he believed that nobody would object to the
>>> removal of those goods. This would then be an issue for the jury.
>>
>> Which apparently totally contradicts Williams v Phillips!
>
> The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
> ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
> Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a twofold
> test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
> behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
> conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real contradiction.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
>
"would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
behaviour to be dishonest"
ordinary, rather staid, middle-class couple. We always cross the road to
see if there's anything good been left in a skip, and we do not think we
are being dishonest. If the skip is in a driveway, we will generally ask
permission, but if it's in the road we do not bother.
Lieutenant Scott
Aug 1, 2012, 11:20:03 AM8/1/12
to
--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com
Hit the button marked 'STOP' with remaining hand.
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 11:20:03 AM8/1/12
to
Lieutenant Scott
Aug 1, 2012, 11:25:03 AM8/1/12
to
Barber: "Your hair is getting gray."
Customer: "Try cutting a little faster."
Lieutenant Scott
Aug 1, 2012, 11:25:03 AM8/1/12
to
Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive".
Lieutenant Scott
Aug 1, 2012, 11:30:03 AM8/1/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:00:05 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:05:31 +0100, Doc Insanity wrote:
>
>> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this? If I hire a skip and
> and the builders put up a wire fence around the skip in both cases.
All this means is the lobber must have a degree in javelin or shot put.
Avoid messes.. Remember to cover cat before microwaving.
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:05:31 +0100, Doc Insanity wrote:
>
>> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this? If I hire a skip and
>> someone puts their rubbish in it, have they committed an offence and if
>> so, what? I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what
>> other informed people think.
>
> Slightly OT, but a couple of houses nearby had some building work done,
>> so, what? I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear what
>> other informed people think.
>
> and the builders put up a wire fence around the skip in both cases.
All this means is the lobber must have a degree in javelin or shot put.
Avoid messes.. Remember to cover cat before microwaving.
The Todal
Aug 1, 2012, 12:45:09 PM8/1/12
to
On 1/8/12 16:20, Doc Insanity wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 16:15:16 UTC+1, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
> On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 16:15:16 UTC+1, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>> "Doc Insanity" <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> A person stealing goods from a skip might argue with some force that he
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> was not dishonest because he believed that nobody would object to the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> removal of those goods. This would then be an issue for the jury.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Which apparently totally contradicts Williams v Phillips!
>>
>>
>>
>> The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
>>
>> ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
>>
>> Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a twofold
>>
>> test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
>>
>> behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
>>
>> conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real contradiction.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
>
> Well it does contradict those cases, I just didn't explain on what grounds. I certainly didn't imply those cases were decided on the objective definition of dishonesty.
>
Can you please try to trim your posts so that we don't get yards of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> was not dishonest because he believed that nobody would object to the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> removal of those goods. This would then be an issue for the jury.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Which apparently totally contradicts Williams v Phillips!
>>
>>
>>
>> The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
>>
>> ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
>>
>> Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a twofold
>>
>> test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
>>
>> behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
>>
>> conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real contradiction.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
>
> Well it does contradict those cases, I just didn't explain on what grounds. I certainly didn't imply those cases were decided on the objective definition of dishonesty.
>
quoted material and a single sentence from you at the bottom?
I don't think it would be right to reject a post for excessive
length/quoting, but it does sometimes discourage people from actually
reading your contribution. And your contributions are of great value.
Roland Perry
Aug 1, 2012, 12:50:09 PM8/1/12
to
In message <op.widbiwbkytk5n5@i7-940>, at 16:20:03 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012,
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> As opposed to Roland who relied on no cases at all???
>>
>> We don't need "cases", I'm going by what my county council publish about
>> their recycling centre (because I happened to read it a couple of weeks
>> ago to make sure I knew what they would and wouldn't accept).
>
>Councils make up rules as they go along. They're not necessarily enforceable.
No-one has suggested that waste which has come into the possession of
the disposal organisation belongs to anyone other than them.
I agree that the rules of what you can and can't dispose of at the
official sites, and in what quantities, do seem to be a more variable
feast.
--
Roland Perry
Lieutenant Scott <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> As opposed to Roland who relied on no cases at all???
>>
>> We don't need "cases", I'm going by what my county council publish about
>> their recycling centre (because I happened to read it a couple of weeks
>> ago to make sure I knew what they would and wouldn't accept).
>
>Councils make up rules as they go along. They're not necessarily enforceable.
the disposal organisation belongs to anyone other than them.
I agree that the rules of what you can and can't dispose of at the
official sites, and in what quantities, do seem to be a more variable
feast.
--
Roland Perry
John Briggs
Aug 1, 2012, 12:55:02 PM8/1/12
to
On 01/08/2012 16:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
> You'd think doors could be a standard size. My doorways are 2 inches
> higher than EVERY door in B&Q etc. I had to mail order them.
It might be cheaper to reduce the size of your doorways.
>
> You'd think doors could be a standard size. My doorways are 2 inches
> higher than EVERY door in B&Q etc. I had to mail order them.
--
John Briggs
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 1:40:03 PM8/1/12
to
<snip surplusage>
>> > Which apparently totally contradicts Williams v Phillips!
>>
> The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
> ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
> Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a
> twofold
> test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
> behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
> conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real
> contradiction.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
>
> Well it does contradict those cases, I just didn't explain on what
> grounds. I certainly didn't imply those cases were decided on the
> objective definition of dishonesty.
Perhaps I should have given a clearer explanation- my point was that
dishonesty was not in issue in any of the above cases, just who owned the
property for the purposes of the law of theft. It was either assumed or
proved that the taker was being dishonest in their actions, the issue being
whether there was an actus reus, as opposed to a mens rea. For information,
I think the current law is expressed in Parker v British Airways Board
[1982], which conducted a review of all these cases, and attempted to codify
the point. See http://www.luyulei.net/cases/09_02-Parker-v-BAB.html
So we can't rely on those old cases for assistance on the point of
dishonesty.
So I still don't see any contradiction.
>> > Which apparently totally contradicts Williams v Phillips!
>>
> The old cases cited above don't really deal with dishonesty, they discuss
> ownership of property, but then the test of dishonesty is now that in R v
> Ghosh (1982), which is later than both the above cited cases. It's a
> twofold
> test: (1) would ordinary people applying ordinary standards consider this
> behaviour to be dishonest, and (2) did the defendant realise that his
> conduct fell outside those standards? Hence there is no real
> contradiction.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh
>
> Well it does contradict those cases, I just didn't explain on what
> grounds. I certainly didn't imply those cases were decided on the
> objective definition of dishonesty.
dishonesty was not in issue in any of the above cases, just who owned the
property for the purposes of the law of theft. It was either assumed or
proved that the taker was being dishonest in their actions, the issue being
whether there was an actus reus, as opposed to a mens rea. For information,
I think the current law is expressed in Parker v British Airways Board
[1982], which conducted a review of all these cases, and attempted to codify
the point. See http://www.luyulei.net/cases/09_02-Parker-v-BAB.html
So we can't rely on those old cases for assistance on the point of
dishonesty.
So I still don't see any contradiction.
steve robinson
Aug 1, 2012, 1:50:02 PM8/1/12
to
Doc Insanity wrote:
> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
> committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts about
> it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
Yes in general terms its called fly tipping
> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
> committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts about
> it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
steve robinson
Aug 1, 2012, 1:50:27 PM8/1/12
to
Doc Insanity wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 10:20:34 UTC+1, GB wrote:
> > >> And as soon as you do fill it, be prepared for someone else to
> > arrive
> >
> > >> with a truck asking if they can go through it for anything
> > they'd like
> >
> > >> to take.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > That never bothered me particularly - it clears space and doesn't
> > > cause
> >
> > > me any harm
> >
> > least, I would have said that until that ridiculous Tesco case a
> > year
> >
> > ago where a woman was prosecuted for taking some defrosted meat out
> > of a
> >
> > skip.
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, round here, I often see skips covered with a tarpaulin at
> > night -
> >
> > to stop people putting stuff in, rather than take it out.
householder/ contractor / business or the waste removal contractor.
> On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 10:20:34 UTC+1, GB wrote:
> > >> And as soon as you do fill it, be prepared for someone else to
> > arrive
> >
> > >> with a truck asking if they can go through it for anything
> > they'd like
> >
> > >> to take.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > That never bothered me particularly - it clears space and doesn't
> > > cause
> >
> > > me any harm
> >
> >
> >
> > Quite so. I would say that there is implied permission from the
> > owner of
> >
> > the stuff in the skip for passers-by to take whatever they want. At
> >
> >
> > Quite so. I would say that there is implied permission from the
> > owner of
> >
> >
> > least, I would have said that until that ridiculous Tesco case a
> > year
> >
> > ago where a woman was prosecuted for taking some defrosted meat out
> > of a
> >
> > skip.
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, round here, I often see skips covered with a tarpaulin at
> > night -
> >
> > to stop people putting stuff in, rather than take it out.
>
> Anything that has been apparently discarded can be taken by somebody
> unless you are still exerting control over it - hence at my local
> recycling centre, it informs you that you cannot remove items AND
> that the employees will enforce that policy.
Rubbish in a skip is not discarded its the property of either the
> Anything that has been apparently discarded can be taken by somebody
> unless you are still exerting control over it - hence at my local
> recycling centre, it informs you that you cannot remove items AND
> that the employees will enforce that policy.
householder/ contractor / business or the waste removal contractor.
steve robinson
Aug 1, 2012, 1:55:02 PM8/1/12
to
GB wrote:
>
> > It is different, because when something has been left at the
> > recycling centre I am not exerting any further control over it. The
> > operators of the recycling centre are, which is analogous to the
> > skip's contents having control exerted over it by the skip hire
> > company.
>
> My understanding is that the skip hire company only have control over
> the skip's contents once they lift the thing onto their lorry. Until
> then, the householder has control and can put stuff in or out to his
> heart's content, and can allow passers-by to take what they want.
>
>
>
> >
> > What might be interesting to explore is when the recycling centre's
> > control starts, is it when you drive into the place, when you
> > remove it from your car, or when you place it in a receptacle. In
> > other words if you saw something tasty in another person's car
> > could you take it off them (with their permission) or not?
>
> The obvious answer is that whilst it is in their car, it is still
> theirs. There's no requirement on visiting the dump to leave anything
> there at all. And if you say take your spare wheel out to get at
> something, the spare wheel remains yours.
The operative word allow , most skip surfers dont bother asking.
>
> > It is different, because when something has been left at the
> > recycling centre I am not exerting any further control over it. The
> > operators of the recycling centre are, which is analogous to the
> > skip's contents having control exerted over it by the skip hire
> > company.
>
> My understanding is that the skip hire company only have control over
> the skip's contents once they lift the thing onto their lorry. Until
> then, the householder has control and can put stuff in or out to his
> heart's content, and can allow passers-by to take what they want.
>
>
>
> >
> > What might be interesting to explore is when the recycling centre's
> > control starts, is it when you drive into the place, when you
> > remove it from your car, or when you place it in a receptacle. In
> > other words if you saw something tasty in another person's car
> > could you take it off them (with their permission) or not?
>
> The obvious answer is that whilst it is in their car, it is still
> theirs. There's no requirement on visiting the dump to leave anything
> there at all. And if you say take your spare wheel out to get at
> something, the spare wheel remains yours.
The operative word allow , most skip surfers dont bother asking.
John Briggs
Aug 1, 2012, 2:00:04 PM8/1/12
to
fly tipping on private land - and it becomes the responsibility of the
landowner. If the skip is on public land - then arguably it shouldn't be
there.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Aug 1, 2012, 2:00:18 PM8/1/12
to
On 01/08/2012 18:50, steve robinson wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish in a skip is not discarded its the property of either the
> householder/ contractor / business or the waste removal contractor.
Such diffuse ownership doesn't help matters.
> householder/ contractor / business or the waste removal contractor.
--
John Briggs
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 2:10:02 PM8/1/12
to
Perhaps I should have given a clearer explanation- my point was that dishonesty was not in issue in any of the above cases, just who owned the property for the purposes of the law of theft. It was either assumed or proved that the taker was being dishonest in their actions, the issue being whether there was an actus reus, as opposed to a mens rea. For information, I think the current law is expressed in Parker v British Airways Board [1982], which conducted a review of all these cases, and attempted to codify the point. See http://www.luyulei.net/cases/09_02-Parker-v-BAB.html
So we can't rely on those old cases for assistance on the point of dishonesty. So I still don't see any contradiction.
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 2:15:01 PM8/1/12
to
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 18:40:03 UTC+1, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
Perhaps I should have given a clearer explanation- my point was that dishonesty was not in issue in any of the above cases, just who owned the property for the purposes of the law of theft. It was either assumed or proved that the taker was being dishonest in their actions, the issue being whether there was an actus reus, as opposed to a mens rea. For information, I think the current law is expressed in Parker v British Airways Board [1982], which conducted a review of all these cases, and attempted to codify the point. See http://www.luyulei.net/cases/09_02-Parker-v-BAB.html
So we can't rely on those old cases for assistance on the point of dishonesty.
So I still don't see any contradiction.
Well that case (which I'm well aware of) from memory speaks about the issue of exerting control, which is precisely the point I was making!
Perhaps I should have given a clearer explanation- my point was that dishonesty was not in issue in any of the above cases, just who owned the property for the purposes of the law of theft. It was either assumed or proved that the taker was being dishonest in their actions, the issue being whether there was an actus reus, as opposed to a mens rea. For information, I think the current law is expressed in Parker v British Airways Board [1982], which conducted a review of all these cases, and attempted to codify the point. See http://www.luyulei.net/cases/09_02-Parker-v-BAB.html
So we can't rely on those old cases for assistance on the point of dishonesty.
So I still don't see any contradiction.
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 2:20:03 PM8/1/12
to
But is it an actual offence? If the skip is on private land, then it is fly tipping on private land - and it becomes the responsibility of the landowner. If the skip is on public land - then arguably it shouldn't be there.
Why shouldn't a skip be on public land? Most skips are put on the road. The contractor is meant to be a cone by it, which often they don't, but it's perfectly otherwise.
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 2:45:02 PM8/1/12
to
news:90a512b8-4249-4f42...@googlegroups.com...
-----
To convict, an actus reus and accompanying mens rea must be proved- I think
we can agree on that. If the property does not belong to another, there is
no actus reus, but the import of the decided cases is strongly that all
property belongs to someone. The defendant's belief as to its ownership then
comes into play, and if he can say "I honestly didn't believe it belonged to
anybody" and the prosecution fail to convince a court or jury that this is
not the case (within Ghosh), he is entitled to an acquittal. So the
circumstances of the taking, and the defendant's state of mind, are going to
be somewhat intermingled as regards determining guilt or innocence.
But the prosecution still have to prove "belonging to another", prima facie,
before the case even gets to the jury.
If they can't do that, the defendant has no case to answer. Issues of
dishonesty always end up before a jury, in my experience, because it's not
usually something a judge is expected to rule upon.
To convict, an actus reus and accompanying mens rea must be proved- I think
we can agree on that. If the property does not belong to another, there is
no actus reus, but the import of the decided cases is strongly that all
property belongs to someone. The defendant's belief as to its ownership then
comes into play, and if he can say "I honestly didn't believe it belonged to
anybody" and the prosecution fail to convince a court or jury that this is
not the case (within Ghosh), he is entitled to an acquittal. So the
circumstances of the taking, and the defendant's state of mind, are going to
be somewhat intermingled as regards determining guilt or innocence.
But the prosecution still have to prove "belonging to another", prima facie,
before the case even gets to the jury.
If they can't do that, the defendant has no case to answer. Issues of
dishonesty always end up before a jury, in my experience, because it's not
usually something a judge is expected to rule upon.
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 2:50:02 PM8/1/12
to
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:97eSr.278024$Nc1.1...@fx33.am4...
says that (in the case of refuse collection) it's the householder's property
until collected, then ownership passes to the local authority . I don't see
a distinction to be drawn between a dustbin and a skip, so it should be
fairly clear IMO who should be named in any charge as the owner.
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 2:55:02 PM8/1/12
to
Norman Wells
Aug 1, 2012, 3:00:06 PM8/1/12
to
to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another
shall be guilty of an offence"
Mark Goodge
Aug 1, 2012, 3:30:10 PM8/1/12
to
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:00:04 +0100, John Briggs put finger to keyboard and
typed:
If the skip is on a public highway, then it will have a permit allowing it
to be there. At least, it should; if it doesn't then the skip company
and/or their customer will be in danger of prosecution.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
to be there. At least, it should; if it doesn't then the skip company
and/or their customer will be in danger of prosecution.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Adam Funk
Aug 1, 2012, 3:35:02 PM8/1/12
to
On 2012-08-01, John Briggs wrote:
> On 01/08/2012 16:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>
>> You'd think doors could be a standard size. My doorways are 2 inches
>> higher than EVERY door in B&Q etc. I had to mail order them.
I suspect that doors come in a few standard sizes *now* but builders
> On 01/08/2012 16:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>
>> You'd think doors could be a standard size. My doorways are 2 inches
>> higher than EVERY door in B&Q etc. I had to mail order them.
in the past used a wider range.
> It might be cheaper to reduce the size of your doorways.
Mark Goodge
Aug 1, 2012, 3:35:17 PM8/1/12
to
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:00:06 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Where's the deception in fly tipping?
typed:
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 3:40:02 PM8/1/12
to
"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:uZeSr.315817$Hs3.1...@fx08.am4...
obtaining the services (bearing in mind cases such as R v Sullivan and R v
Laverty on the latter point)?
Roland Perry
Aug 1, 2012, 3:45:02 PM8/1/12
to
In message <uu0j18d7h3genasdd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
20:35:17 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
opportunity to charge you a fee.
--
Roland Perry
20:35:17 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another
>>shall be guilty of an offence"
>
>Where's the deception in fly tipping?
Failing to tell the skip renter you are doing it, so that he has an
>>"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another
>>shall be guilty of an offence"
>
>Where's the deception in fly tipping?
opportunity to charge you a fee.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Aug 1, 2012, 4:00:06 PM8/1/12
to
supposed to its fly tipping.
A skip can be placed on public land
Doc Insanity
Aug 1, 2012, 3:20:01 PM8/1/12
to
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 20:00:06 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception, contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence"
Well, everyone else can see that it clearly isn't!
It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception, contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence"
Norman Wells
Aug 1, 2012, 3:45:02 PM8/1/12
to
someone else's skip for them to pay for their disposal.
Ben Harris
Aug 1, 2012, 4:05:02 PM8/1/12
to
In article <uZeSr.315817$Hs3.1...@fx08.am4>,
2006 instead.
[1] Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006, and the Fraud Act 2006
(Commencement) Order 2006
--
Ben Harris
Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>John Briggs wrote:
>> On 01/08/2012 18:50, steve robinson wrote:
>>> Doc Insanity wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>>>> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
>>>> committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts about
>>>> it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
>>>
>>> Yes in general terms its called fly tipping
>>
>> But is it an actual offence? If the skip is on private land, then it
>> is fly tipping on private land - and it becomes the responsibility of
>> the landowner. If the skip is on public land - then arguably it
>> shouldn't be there.
>
>It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception, contrary
>to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which
... was repealed in 2007[1]. You might want to look at the Fraud Act
>John Briggs wrote:
>> On 01/08/2012 18:50, steve robinson wrote:
>>> Doc Insanity wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>>>> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
>>>> committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts about
>>>> it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
>>>
>>> Yes in general terms its called fly tipping
>>
>> But is it an actual offence? If the skip is on private land, then it
>> is fly tipping on private land - and it becomes the responsibility of
>> the landowner. If the skip is on public land - then arguably it
>> shouldn't be there.
>
>It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception, contrary
>to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which
2006 instead.
[1] Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006, and the Fraud Act 2006
(Commencement) Order 2006
--
Ben Harris
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 4:10:03 PM8/1/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1080PKVG...@perry.co.uk...
operative deception, as is usually construed, and indeed required, within
the ambit of any fraud-based offences. That's just pushing the meaning of
"deception" beyond reason.
Mark Goodge
Aug 1, 2012, 5:30:02 PM8/1/12
to
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:45:02 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
I don't think that counts as deception in law. Deception usually means
deliberately misleading someone in some way, eg in order to persuade them
to permit something they would not otherwise permit. Simply doing something
you are not permitted to do in a way that isn't noticed by anyone isn't
deception.
deliberately misleading someone in some way, eg in order to persuade them
to permit something they would not otherwise permit. Simply doing something
you are not permitted to do in a way that isn't noticed by anyone isn't
deception.
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 5:55:02 PM8/1/12
to
news:RDfSr.317582$Hs3.3...@fx08.am4...
If so, how does that operate (in a Sullivan/Laverty sense) so as to induce
the victim to provide the service?
A deception cannot be operative if the victim is unaware of its existence.
R v Laverty [1970] 3 All ER 432
R v Sullivan [1945] 30 Cr App R 132.
the victim to provide the service?
A deception cannot be operative if the victim is unaware of its existence.
R v Laverty [1970] 3 All ER 432
R v Sullivan [1945] 30 Cr App R 132.
Zapp Brannigan
Aug 1, 2012, 6:40:02 PM8/1/12
to
"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.widbqccoytk5n5@i7-940...
> My doorways are 2 inches higher than EVERY door in B&Q etc. I had to mail
> order them.
Quite impressive that they fitted through the letterbox, really.
> order them.
Neil Williams
Aug 1, 2012, 6:50:02 PM8/1/12
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> Quite impressive that they fitted through the letterbox, really.
:)
> Quite impressive that they fitted through the letterbox, really.
My old 1995ish built flat had 7 foot doorways, which as I am 6' 4" and thus
entirely capable of whacking my head walking under a doorway if I "bounce"
at the wrong time I thought was quite good, and had wondered if it was a
new standard.
Any other vaguely modern house I have been in has had them 6' 6" high, as
they are in my current 1970 built house.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Norman Wells
Aug 1, 2012, 6:25:02 PM8/1/12
to
to be taken away and any contents disposed of. The normal commercial
practice, which you know full well about, is only to provide such a
service for money. You have no intention of paying any money for it.
You remain anonymous. You have no authorisation to place anything in
the skip.
Under the present law, which is the Fraud Act 2006 that is dishonest and
it fulfills all the requirements of Section 11. It's an offence of
obtaining services dishonestly.
Norman Wells
Aug 1, 2012, 6:25:02 PM8/1/12
to
Ben Harris wrote:
> In article <uZeSr.315817$Hs3.1...@fx08.am4>,
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2012 18:50, steve robinson wrote:
>>>> Doc Insanity wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>>>>> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
>>>>> committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts
>>>>> about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
>>>>
>>>> Yes in general terms its called fly tipping
>>>
>>> But is it an actual offence? If the skip is on private land, then it
>>> is fly tipping on private land - and it becomes the responsibility
>>> of the landowner. If the skip is on public land - then arguably it
>>> shouldn't be there.
>>
>> It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception,
>> contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which
>
> ... was repealed in 2007[1]. You might want to look at the Fraud Act
> 2006 instead.
Quite so. Section 11 applies.
> In article <uZeSr.315817$Hs3.1...@fx08.am4>,
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2012 18:50, steve robinson wrote:
>>>> Doc Insanity wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this?
>>>>> If I hire a skip and someone puts their rubbish in it, have they
>>>>> committed an offence and if so, what? I have my own thoughts
>>>>> about it, but I'd like to hear what other informed people think.
>>>>
>>>> Yes in general terms its called fly tipping
>>>
>>> But is it an actual offence? If the skip is on private land, then it
>>> is fly tipping on private land - and it becomes the responsibility
>>> of the landowner. If the skip is on public land - then arguably it
>>> shouldn't be there.
>>
>> It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception,
>> contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which
>
> ... was repealed in 2007[1]. You might want to look at the Fraud Act
> 2006 instead.
Zapp Brannigan
Aug 1, 2012, 7:05:02 PM8/1/12
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uu0j18d7h3genasdd...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:00:06 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard
> and
> and
>>It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception, contrary
>>to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
>>
>>"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another
>>shall be guilty of an offence"
>
> Where's the deception in fly tipping?
Deception might not be the right word, but in the context of JoL's Ghosh
>>to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
>>
>>"A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another
>>shall be guilty of an offence"
>
> Where's the deception in fly tipping?
Test I think that it's "dishonest". You've paid a significant fee for
disposal of a certain volume/weight of waste, and I am 'stealing' some of
that purchased commodity by throwing my old cooker in the skip during the
night.
Maybe the deception is misrepresenting my cooker as being your waste?
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 7:55:01 PM8/1/12
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
news:jvccjm$dd$1...@dont-email.me...
but no deception as far as the skip hirer is concerned, after all, he hasn't
been persuaded to part with anything on that basis since he knows it's not
his cooker. The hirer's only loss would appear to be some of the space in
his skip, but am not convinced that these actions amount to an appropriation
of any property within section 4 of the Theft Act 1968.
The skip operator doesn't really care whose property is in the skip; he just
disposes of it. So he is not the victim of any offence, that I can see.
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 7:45:02 PM8/1/12
to
news:u_hSr.604767$%k.26...@fx20.am4...
So not actually by deception then. Glad to see you've actually read some
law, for a change.
However, the offence under section 11 depends on services being made
available "on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for
or in respect of them" - there's nothing in the recited facts that would
expressly or impliedly make a dumper liable for payment to the hirer of the
skip. Anything else would be pure speculation.
Section 11(2) only makes sense if the subsections (a) (b) and (c) are read
conjunctively[1], so all elements must be proved to confer criminal
liability, and I'm sure you are aware that penal statutes must be construed
strictly and to the favour of the defendant.
So, sorry, I think your premise fails as there is no actus reus of an
offence under section 11.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/11
All the above, of course, assumes that the dumper is being dishonest, within
R v Ghosh, and that is debatable- but if there's no actus reus, there's no
need to consider mens rea.
[1] = as if "and" appeared between each subsection.
law, for a change.
However, the offence under section 11 depends on services being made
available "on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for
or in respect of them" - there's nothing in the recited facts that would
expressly or impliedly make a dumper liable for payment to the hirer of the
skip. Anything else would be pure speculation.
Section 11(2) only makes sense if the subsections (a) (b) and (c) are read
conjunctively[1], so all elements must be proved to confer criminal
liability, and I'm sure you are aware that penal statutes must be construed
strictly and to the favour of the defendant.
So, sorry, I think your premise fails as there is no actus reus of an
offence under section 11.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/11
All the above, of course, assumes that the dumper is being dishonest, within
R v Ghosh, and that is debatable- but if there's no actus reus, there's no
need to consider mens rea.
[1] = as if "and" appeared between each subsection.
Message has been deleted
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 1, 2012, 8:20:03 PM8/1/12
to
"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:32gj189dmv0nbvpag...@4ax.com...
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Wed, 01 Aug
>
> By dishonestly placing waste in a skip not hired by them, the
> fly-tipper is dishonestly obtaining the service.
But not by deception, since there's no false representation.
Mark Goodge
Aug 2, 2012, 3:00:05 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:05:02 +0100, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Absolutely, I entirely agree that it's dishonest (at least, it is if the
person doing the dumping has any awareness that he should not be doing it).
But it's not deceptive in the sense used by law (and, in particular, it
isn't applicable to the revelvent offence under the Fraud Act for reasons
already shown by JoL).
>Maybe the deception is misrepresenting my cooker as being your waste?
Again, no, because misrepresentation and deception are not the same thing
in this context.
This is all somewhat moot, though, because fly-tipping isn't prosecuted
under either the Theft Act or the Fraud Act, but under the Environmental
Protection Act. And that does make it an offence to dispose of waste where
you are not permitted to. As I said in an earlier post, it's unlikely that
an ordinary householder would be prosecuted for dumping a bin liner full of
rubbish, or an unwanted fridge, into someone else's skip, but when the
offender is seeking to avoid the need to pay for commercial waste disposal
then prosecution is far more likely. See, for example, this case:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/47096/rubbish-dumper
and typed:
person doing the dumping has any awareness that he should not be doing it).
But it's not deceptive in the sense used by law (and, in particular, it
isn't applicable to the revelvent offence under the Fraud Act for reasons
already shown by JoL).
>Maybe the deception is misrepresenting my cooker as being your waste?
in this context.
This is all somewhat moot, though, because fly-tipping isn't prosecuted
under either the Theft Act or the Fraud Act, but under the Environmental
Protection Act. And that does make it an offence to dispose of waste where
you are not permitted to. As I said in an earlier post, it's unlikely that
an ordinary householder would be prosecuted for dumping a bin liner full of
rubbish, or an unwanted fridge, into someone else's skip, but when the
offender is seeking to avoid the need to pay for commercial waste disposal
then prosecution is far more likely. See, for example, this case:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/47096/rubbish-dumper
Roland Perry
Aug 2, 2012, 4:15:03 AM8/2/12
to
In message <vgjSr.957035$jg3.3...@fx23.am4>, at 00:55:01 on Thu, 2 Aug
2012, Janitor of Lunacy <zo...@zonk.com> remarked:
have been aware not to place in the skip.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Janitor of Lunacy <zo...@zonk.com> remarked:
>The skip operator doesn't really care whose property is in the skip; he just
>disposes of it. So he is not the victim of any offence, that I can see.
He could be fined if it contains prohibited waste, which the hirer would
>disposes of it. So he is not the victim of any offence, that I can see.
have been aware not to place in the skip.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Aug 2, 2012, 4:25:02 AM8/2/12
to
change."
Now it's your turn. Where does 'deception' or 'false representation'
appear in Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, which I thought we were all
agreed, is now the law?
The criterion there is 'by a dishonest act'.
Norman Wells
Aug 2, 2012, 4:35:02 AM8/2/12
to
Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
> news:jvccjm$dd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uu0j18d7h3genasdd...@news.markshouse.net...
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:00:06 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to
>>> keyboard and
>>
>>>> It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception,
>>>> contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
>>>>
>>>> "A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from
>>>> another shall be guilty of an offence"
>>>
>>> Where's the deception in fly tipping?
>>
>> Deception might not be the right word, but in the context of JoL's
>> Ghosh Test I think that it's "dishonest". You've paid a
>> significant fee for disposal of a certain volume/weight of waste,
>> and I am 'stealing' some of that purchased commodity by throwing my
>> old cooker in the skip during the night.
>>
>> Maybe the deception is misrepresenting my cooker as being your waste?
>
> That's an implied representation as far as the skip operator is
> concerned, but no deception as far as the skip hirer is concerned,
> after all, he hasn't been persuaded to part with anything on that
> basis since he knows it's not his cooker. The hirer's only loss would
> appear to be some of the space in his skip,
Maybe even all of it. It's perfectly possible.
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
> news:jvccjm$dd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uu0j18d7h3genasdd...@news.markshouse.net...
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:00:06 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to
>>> keyboard and
>>
>>>> It is obtaining a service (ie disposal of waste) by deception,
>>>> contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978, which says:
>>>>
>>>> "A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from
>>>> another shall be guilty of an offence"
>>>
>>> Where's the deception in fly tipping?
>>
>> Deception might not be the right word, but in the context of JoL's
>> Ghosh Test I think that it's "dishonest". You've paid a
>> significant fee for disposal of a certain volume/weight of waste,
>> and I am 'stealing' some of that purchased commodity by throwing my
>> old cooker in the skip during the night.
>>
>> Maybe the deception is misrepresenting my cooker as being your waste?
>
> That's an implied representation as far as the skip operator is
> concerned, but no deception as far as the skip hirer is concerned,
> after all, he hasn't been persuaded to part with anything on that
> basis since he knows it's not his cooker. The hirer's only loss would
> appear to be some of the space in his skip,
> but am not convinced that
> these actions amount to an appropriation of any property within
> section 4 of the Theft Act 1968.
without paying for it, namely the disposal of his waste. The relevant
Act for that is the Fraud Act 2006, specifically Section 11.
> The skip operator doesn't really care whose property is in the skip;
> he just disposes of it. So he is not the victim of any offence, that
> I can see.
the skip, for the disposal of any waste he puts in it. He's entitled to
fill the whole of that space with his own waste. If someone else wants
to use any of that space, first they should ask permission, otherwise
it's dishonest, and second they could reasonably be asked for a
contribution to the skip hire cost. To dump stuff anonymously and
without permission, expecting that stuff will be disposed of without any
cost, is clearly an attempt to obtain that service dishonestly.
Norman Wells
Aug 2, 2012, 4:45:03 AM8/2/12
to
principle. Waste disposal, especially by skip, costs money. If you
want to dispose of waste in that way, you have to pay for it. That's
well understood among normal, honest people. If someone came along
overnight and completely filled an empty skip that you'd hired, the only
reasonable course of action the hirer could take would be to have the
skip taken away and emptied, and replaced with a new one, at new cost.
If the dumper could be identified, are you saying he could not be
successfully sued for recovery of the cost?
If he could, and I think it's absolutely clear that he could, then any
dumper is liable for payment to the hirer of the skip for the disposal
of whatever he puts in it.
> Section 11(2) only makes sense if the subsections (a) (b) and (c) are
> read conjunctively[1], so all elements must be proved to confer
> criminal liability, and I'm sure you are aware that penal statutes
> must be construed strictly and to the favour of the defendant.
>
> So, sorry, I think your premise fails as there is no actus reus of an
> offence under section 11.
else for disposal without cost to himself.
The Todal
Aug 2, 2012, 5:20:02 AM8/2/12
to
someone puts refuse into someone else's skip this is a "dishonest act".
There may be many people who believe (albeit mistakenly) that it is
reasonable to add a few items to a skip, and for that matter reasonable
to throw away an item of rubbish in someone's wheely bin as they walk
down the road.
The Fraud Act 2006 (which does seem to have replaced the deception
provisions in the Theft Act, I think) has section 2 "fraud by false
representation" which is a closer equivalent.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
Roland Perry
Aug 2, 2012, 5:45:03 AM8/2/12
to
In message <a7uus3...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:20:02 on Thu, 2 Aug
2012, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>There may be many people who believe (albeit mistakenly) that it is
>reasonable to add a few items to a skip, and for that matter reasonable
>to throw away an item of rubbish in someone's wheely bin as they walk
>down the road.
Although putting something in someone else's wheely bin, on bin day
after they've left for work, is more of an offence against the council,
in practice. Until they start weighing people's bins. At which point
presumably it's good for a householder to have more, rather than less,
in their recycling bin.
--
Roland Perry
2012, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>There may be many people who believe (albeit mistakenly) that it is
>reasonable to add a few items to a skip, and for that matter reasonable
>to throw away an item of rubbish in someone's wheely bin as they walk
>down the road.
after they've left for work, is more of an offence against the council,
in practice. Until they start weighing people's bins. At which point
presumably it's good for a householder to have more, rather than less,
in their recycling bin.
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
Aug 2, 2012, 6:00:06 AM8/2/12
to
nearby wheely bin while walking down the road. I would probably expect
the owner, if he saw me, to complain that it's his bin even if there was
plenty of room in it. Whether that makes me "dishonest" is, well, a
matter for the jury.
Whether it is a skip or a wheely bin, the perpetrator may think "by
doing this, I don't force anyone to pay more money so it can't matter".
I am not saying that this is lawful behaviour, only that "dishonest"
must be assessed by reference to the beliefs and motives of the perpetrator.
Jethro_uk
Aug 2, 2012, 6:10:03 AM8/2/12
to
>
> It doesn't depend on the recited facts, but just on the general
> principle. Waste disposal, especially by skip, costs money. If you
> want to dispose of waste in that way, you have to pay for it. That's
> well understood among normal, honest people. If someone came along
> overnight and completely filled an empty skip that you'd hired, the only
> reasonable course of action the hirer could take would be to have the
> skip taken away and emptied, and replaced with a new one, at new cost.
> If the dumper could be identified, are you saying he could not be
> successfully sued for recovery of the cost?
>
> If he could, and I think it's absolutely clear that he could, then any
> dumper is liable for payment to the hirer of the skip for the disposal
> of whatever he puts in it.
there was an article in the local paper about some residents who lived
near a station and shops, who deliberately left their wheelie bins by
their front wall so that the late-night takeaway crowd could use them
rather than just throwing the litter on the ground. It was rather
successful IIRC ....
Roland Perry
Aug 2, 2012, 6:20:03 AM8/2/12
to
In message <a7v18f...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:00:06 on Thu, 2 Aug
believe it's OK to lie? (And are quite unashamed when found out).
So in their own frame of reference it isn't dishonest, just normal
business practice? Does it merely have to be "known to be untrue" as
assessed by an average jury member?
--
Roland Perry
>I suppose there may be times when I've put some food wrappings in a
>nearby wheely bin while walking down the road. I would probably expect
>the owner, if he saw me, to complain that it's his bin even if there
>was plenty of room in it. Whether that makes me "dishonest" is, well, a
>matter for the jury.
>
>Whether it is a skip or a wheely bin, the perpetrator may think "by
>doing this, I don't force anyone to pay more money so it can't matter".
>I am not saying that this is lawful behaviour, only that "dishonest"
>must be assessed by reference to the beliefs and motives of the
>perpetrator.
On a more general note, how does this work when some people clearly
>nearby wheely bin while walking down the road. I would probably expect
>the owner, if he saw me, to complain that it's his bin even if there
>was plenty of room in it. Whether that makes me "dishonest" is, well, a
>matter for the jury.
>
>Whether it is a skip or a wheely bin, the perpetrator may think "by
>doing this, I don't force anyone to pay more money so it can't matter".
>I am not saying that this is lawful behaviour, only that "dishonest"
>must be assessed by reference to the beliefs and motives of the
>perpetrator.
believe it's OK to lie? (And are quite unashamed when found out).
So in their own frame of reference it isn't dishonest, just normal
business practice? Does it merely have to be "known to be untrue" as
assessed by an average jury member?
--
Roland Perry
Janitor of Lunacy
Aug 2, 2012, 6:25:03 AM8/2/12
to
news:iVqSr.529032$2z2.4...@fx19.am4...
So it's an attempt now, is it? Let us not go into the law of attempts, which
is even more fraught with grey areas.
is even more fraught with grey areas.
GB
Aug 2, 2012, 7:40:02 AM8/2/12
to
> The operative word allow , most skip surfers dont bother asking.
>
I accept that, but you can allow something by implication. For example,
you don't need to have a sign on your garden gate allowing the postman
to deliver your letters.
GB
Aug 2, 2012, 7:50:03 AM8/2/12
to
On 01/08/2012 19:55, Doc Insanity wrote:
> This case law assumes a new importance in the modern age, what with paparazzi and data scavengers raking bins.
>
I have the impression that the bin scavenging has stopped for some
reason. At least there was a news article in the local rag about a chap
who lived in Stanmore (?) and made a good living from it, then gave it
up because he thought it had become illegal. It sounds to me like it's
always been illegal (unless you intend to return the rubbish after
photocopying it).
> This case law assumes a new importance in the modern age, what with paparazzi and data scavengers raking bins.
>
I have the impression that the bin scavenging has stopped for some
reason. At least there was a news article in the local rag about a chap
who lived in Stanmore (?) and made a good living from it, then gave it
up because he thought it had become illegal. It sounds to me like it's
always been illegal (unless you intend to return the rubbish after
photocopying it).
GB
Aug 2, 2012, 8:00:06 AM8/2/12
to
> Whether it is a skip or a wheely bin, the perpetrator may think "by
> doing this, I don't force anyone to pay more money so it can't matter".
> I am not saying that this is lawful behaviour, only that "dishonest"
> must be assessed by reference to the beliefs and motives of the
> perpetrator.
usually put it in the nearest wheelie bin. Leaving aside my feeling that
this is totally honest, surely on an objective basis it is, too? The
litter is the council's waste to dispose of, and it must cost them less
to collect it in a wheelie bin than to send someone round to sweep it up.
Ian Smith
Aug 2, 2012, 8:30:03 AM8/2/12
to
them of a proportion of their allowance.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Message has been deleted
GB
Aug 2, 2012, 8:50:10 AM8/2/12
to
about that before throwing in the odd Mars bar wrapper, which must weigh
quite a few milligrams. I obviously would not fill up their bin with
rubbish.
De minimis non curat lex applies?
Ian Smith
Aug 2, 2012, 9:15:03 AM8/2/12
to
the lid sits completely shut under its own weight. If it's held (even
slightly) raised by the contents, you risk the bin not being emptied.
The rules say it won't be emptied, the binmen sometimes do, sometimes
they don't.
> De minimis non curat lex applies?
no more than one chocolate bar wrapper in each bin. I've had quite
large quantities of rubbish (a carrier-bag full on one occasion, and
half a portion of fish with a large quantity of chips and all the
wrappers on another) deposit themselves in my wheely bin.
'Litter' as a definition is not necessarily de minimis.
Roland Perry
Aug 2, 2012, 10:00:06 AM8/2/12
to
In message <slrnk1kv6...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 14:15:03
on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
and plastic recycling bin, the whole bin load is likely to be rejected.
--
Roland Perry
on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> I've had quite
>large quantities of rubbish (a carrier-bag full on one occasion, and
>half a portion of fish with a large quantity of chips and all the
>wrappers on another) deposit themselves in my wheely bin.
And if the fish and chips (aka food waste) is discovered in a cardboard
>large quantities of rubbish (a carrier-bag full on one occasion, and
>half a portion of fish with a large quantity of chips and all the
>wrappers on another) deposit themselves in my wheely bin.
and plastic recycling bin, the whole bin load is likely to be rejected.
--
Roland Perry
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages