Good!

Report abuse

I think this fine is way over the top. He should have been asked to litter pick the area instead

Report abuse

It is good that people are being prosecuted for littering but the level of the fine is outrageous!

Report abuse

more

Report abuse

Sniper rifles on the rooftops would be more useful. See a litter lout, take him out. Our land will soon be much more pleasant. Except for the rotting corpses of course, but you cant have everything.

Report abuse

Andrew Finch said:

“…they are societys (sic) dregs”.

I for one applaud this prosecution, but a) the fine is hugely disproportionate and b) I look in my Thesaurus and the entry “society’s dregs” is followed by “those who post needlessly inflammatory comments, with poor punctuation, and who usually need their computer confiscated. Antonym = winja”.

Report abuse

winja……. A tad bit confrontational, but this is a quick posting site not an
English lang/lit/gram/punc etc class.So pop of and winja some where else.

Report abuse

Donald, the fine is set proportionate to declared income and designed to hurt. This guy probably earns a good wage. Someone on benefits, for instance, may have been stung for a fraction of this amount. A Premiership footballer, by comparison, may have paid £3k for the same offence.

Report abuse

Aside from this – what about introducing financial incentives for people picking up litter? I regularly pick up litter, especially when on approach to a bin on a regular walking route. Am happy to do it without reward and others should be to but perhaps an incentive for a bag of rubbish collected and handed over? It’s amazing the difference you can make just walking down the street doing it…several people’s rubbish dropping can be undone in moments. Just a thought.

Report abuse

If the fine had been acknowledged and disputed at the 1st instance that would have knocked of £75.00 straightaway – they can’t increase the fine for non payment if it’s disputed – other costs would still stand if you lost the dispute

Peter @ 16, I can assure you it has not been proportionately to income – for a start if there’s no court attendance or acknowledgement of the debt there can be no assessment of income

Report abuse

Andrew Finch said:

“winja……. A tad bit confrontational, but this is a quick posting site not an
English lang/lit/gram/punc etc class.So pop of and winja some where else.”

The prosecution rests, your Honour. No further questions.

Report abuse

He could have paid a £75 fine.

He chose not to pay it.

If he thought that he shouldn’t be fined, he had the opportunity to have his day in court and plead his case.

He chose not to turn up.

He was therefore found guilty and fined £150 (Not £465).

The extra £315 was for costs and the “victim surcharge”.

I think it’s only right that if someone is given the opportunity to pay a fixed penalty or have their day in court, and refuses to do either then they should, if found guilty, pay the costs that the public incurs as a result.

Report abuse

The council may have issued a fixed penalty ticket and then written to him three times asking for payment. The Court may have issued a summons to appear and the court issued a fine plus costs plus victims surcharge. But did the litter dropper give his real name and address? The council official cannot torture the real name and address from anyone nor arrest you if you have no ID on you.

Report abuse

This man had every opportunity to pay the basic fine. Not only does he not care in the slightest about his environment but he chooses to ignore the legal responsibility on him to deal with the fine – either by paying it or opting for court. He then chooses to ignore the subseqent summons – serves him right. He should have just paid the ticket – or even better still not dropped the litter in the first place. He only has himself to blame and lets hope he has learnt something from his ‘experience’….

Report abuse