Clean Glasgow Campaign ‘zero tolerance enforcement teams’ - Page 3

poprock · 24th May 2007, 1:41pm

Glasgow City Council is launching zero tolerance enforcement teams in support of their Clean Glasgow campaign.

From Thursday 24 May, highly visible uniformed enforcement officers will patrol the city's streets targeting people and potentially businesses that break the law by littering, fly tipping, spraying graffiti, throwing chewing gum and cigarette ends on the street or allowing their dogs to foul pavements and parks.

The officers will punish offenders with on-the-spot £50 fixed penalty notices.

For more information on the Clean Glasgow campaign, visit www.glasgow.gov.uk

So, erm, aye. That’s today. Poor buggers’ll be wandering about in the rain in their shiny new...

Click here to read the entire entry

baz bowski · 25th May 2007, 12:32am

im all for this. i fuckin cant stand people who drop litter. its so fuckin lazzy and shows they have no pride in the city they're from

enviromental protection act 1992 has always been there as you know. however any time a police officer forwarded a crime report to the PF it was red penned. deamed to be a waist of time and money to both the city and police.

the power has now from the police which is a good thing, they can now use there resources on things like CRIME. they done the same thing with parking tickets. police no longer issue parking tickets. thats down to traffic wardens. agian freeing police to deal with more serious things

but just coz police are nop longer dealing with it doesn't mean there isn't a problem because clearly there is. the city is a fuckin mess.

if people drop litter then they deserve what they get. simple

MarkMono · 25th May 2007, 2:03am

Let he who is without sin talk the first shite.

**djtoast** · 25th May 2007, 3:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

Now, what your saying their toast, I dont do that so its not my problem. And I think your being really silly and immature, because if we take that to its logical conclusion our whole society fallls to bits, we all pay tax for things we dont directly benifit from or like

You're misunderstanding me. I don't have kids, but I'm glad there are schools. I don't expect Communist Russia to invade my house any time soon but I agree we need an army in case they do.

And yes I'm happy to help fund bins with little bits to stub out fags. But even if we double, triple, quadruple how many there are, there'll always be occasions when there isn't one handy. In that situation, the fact that you choose to smoke doesn't mean that other people should have to see your crap discarded on the ground, no matter how much you want an excuse for what I see as laziness.

Here's one example of why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

As for the binge drinking, I never said you did, I said "it pays your wages", which i'd say is hard to argue with, I think. And theres nothing wrong with that, unless, you want to get on your high horse about how you shouldn't need to care about other unhealthy habits. Its how our society works, we all put up with other peoples habits, some we like, some we dont. And sometimes SHOCK HORROR our taxes might pay for something relating to them.

I never said a word about unhealthy habits other than insofar as they affect me; I don't wanna breathe in cigarette smoke because it's deeply unpleasant to the point of painful, and detrimental to my health, but that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. We don't put up with habits indiscriminately, especially when they're illegal (like littering, say).

I honestly can't fathom your point about "binge drinking" - yes my income is related to alcohol sales, but what makes you describe it as "binge drinking" rather than "drinking" I'm not sure. And in any case, I didn't say I shouldn't need to care about the consequences of other people's unhealthy habits, I'd be just as offended by empty Yakult tubs strewn about the city centre!

As for the phrase "high horse" - that's a funny one people use to try to negate often legitimate criticism.

"Pfft, how about that Myra Hindley, always murdering children..."
"Ach get off your high horse, it's not like you've never had a parking fine"

Um...

This has become silly, but really trying to justify dropping cigarette butts is a non starter. You can decide you don't care that other people have to see them, but you can't really decide that they shouldn't object to them.

MarkMono · 25th May 2007, 10:44am

I'm all for tossing them into the gutter. especially joint butts which are utterly biodegradeable.

I must say though, your link between litter and passive smoking seems extremely tenuous. Its surely an entirely separate issue from people tossing their cigarette butts into the street.

If there exists a link at all its that the authorities are cracking down on a small, twatty problem because they're too incompetent/unable to actually do anything of genuine worth.

Neil. · 25th May 2007, 11:51am

As I tried to point out earlier, the fact that a cigarette is onfire makes it different from other forms of litter. You can't say put it in your pocket until there is a bin near by, its not lazy, I always look for the most sensible place possible. I tried to point out that more smoking bins might help and you hit out with the classic "I dont smoke, why should I care".

I've been trying to point out that its not a very logical stanse but all you've been able to come back with is the old classic "BOOOO smoking is bad!!!!11". You seem to generally accept the point that as a society we accept and support things we dont neccasarily do, agree with, and with things that are often bad for society, I.E binge drinking (which is why I brought that up....) but smoking is different, why, I dont know.

You will of course reply with a post on how evil smoking is, and how all smokers should all be cast to the hounds.

Anyway, i've tried to be sensible and reasonable with this, but I dont think your interested in being reasonable, smoking is obviously TOO EVIL!

**djtoast** · 25th May 2007, 12:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

As I tried to point out earlier, the fact that a cigarette is onfire

No, a cigarette is, not a cigarette butt. I suggested putting it out, then dealing with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

You can't say put it in your pocket until there is a bin near by, its not lazy,

Yeah, you could if you stood with your foot on it for sixty seconds, after which it wouldn't be on fire any more, just dirty and minging. So the same reason you at that point don't wanna put it in your pocket is the same reason I don't wanna see it on the ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

I always look for the most sensible place possible. I tried to point out that more smoking bins might help and you hit out with the classic "I dont smoke, why should I care".

I didn't say that at all. I said nobody, whether they smoke or not, should have to see your discarded cigarette butts.

Actually, what I originally said was

Quote:

the fact that you choose to smoke doesn't mean that other people should have to see your crap discarded on the ground

and before that

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

I understand that dogs produce excrement, but it shouldn't become a problem for other people.

I'm not speaking selfishly here, litter (and graffiti, and fly tipping...) affects everyone who sees it and everyone who pays for it to be cleaned up.

And I agreed more smoking bins would help, I just said they wouldn't solve the problem entirely.

And I offered another solution, which you've ignored, but since a picture is worth a thousand words,

From less than two quid, or less than half the price of a packet of fags.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

I've been trying to point out that its not a very logical stanse but all you've been able to come back with is the old classic "BOOOO smoking is bad!!!!11".

Where?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

You seem to generally accept the point that as a society we accept and support things we dont neccasarily do, agree with, and with things that are often bad for society, I.E binge drinking (which is why I brought that up....)

but things are still governed by rules to (in theory) prevent one person's actions annoying other people. If you play your music loudly at 3am, the rozzers will knock. If you piss in the street after a binge drinking session, you'll get lifted. If your dog craps on the steps of a police station and you don't clean it up... If you litter...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

but smoking is different, why, I dont know.

Not at all. You're perfectly entitled to smoke, with some restrictions (petrol stations, inside public buildings...); you're just not allowed to drop cigarette butts. Simple, I thought

- this thread started around the point that it is illegal, whether or not that's inconvenient for people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil.

You will of course reply with a post on how evil smoking is, and how all smokers should all be cast to the hounds.

Anyway, i've tried to be sensible and reasonable with this, but I dont think your interested in being reasonable, smoking is obviously TOO EVIL!

You're kinda arguing with yourself rather than me here.

My argument goes like this:

1) dropping cigarette butts is littering.

Everything else you've conjured up is your own version of my side of the argument.

I've done worse things than dropping cigarette butts but it's better rather than trying to defend antisocial actions, to acknowledge them and make an attempt to rectify behaviour, no?

Sheesh.

MarkMono · 25th May 2007, 1:14pm

In theory society has rules?

Please clarify, I'm actually a little embarassed for you here.

poprock · 25th May 2007, 1:26pm

I think you’ve misinterpreted there Mark. Toast wrote; “to (in theory) protect”, not “governed (in theory) by rules”.

I guess meaning that the rules exist to protect, wether they work or not.

MarkMono · 25th May 2007, 5:46pm

I wouldn't even go as far as to say that they exist to protect.

I'm will aware that some regard my view as cynical.

nevali · 25th May 2007, 6:41pm

No, often they don't, but they're supposed to… hence the “in theory”.

Neil. · 25th May 2007, 7:22pm

I'll go back to the original point, because quite frankly replying point by point to that post is a less than interesting way to spend a friday night.

What you said in the your original post about irritated me, because, instead of wanting to be practical about a solution to people dropping fags, which no matter what puritanical anti smoking spin you want to put on it is a slightly different problem to crisp packets and such, you came out with a really childish statement.

I cant be bothered with that sort of attitude from someone who does come of as inteligent. Those little key ring things are good, and if I ever start smoking again i'll probably get one, but, having more of those bin ash tray efforts would also make life more pleasant for people that smoke and people that dont.

"why should I/we care" helps no one and solves nothing. Your keyring idea, would have been a far better reply to begin with, and if you had put it in the main body of the post I might have noticed it.......

MarkMono · 26th May 2007, 10:05am

Take it no-ones up for just flicking your fag butts into the gutter then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevali

No, often they don't, but they're supposed to… hence the “in theory”.

Should've been clarified then.

I'm still a little dubious over exactly whose 'theory' is being discussed here.

endless psych · 26th May 2007, 11:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by baz bowski

if people drop litter then they deserve what they get. simple

Don't knock littering it might help you dodge the draft one day. Of course there could be the occassional uncomfortable encounter with father rapers but such a thing is to be expected.

**djtoast** · 26th May 2007, 2:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkMono

In theory society has rules?

Please clarify, I'm actually a little embarassed for you here.

When you patronise someone, spell things correctly or they'll be a little embarrassed for you.

I didn't say that; your paraphrase isn't the semantic equivalent of my phrase. As Tony explained, I said that society [definitely] has rules, and that these [in theory] modify our behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Should've been clarified then.

Mo and Tony seemed not to struggle with this; I'm honestly not sure what you're missing so I'm not sure I can clarify anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I'm still a little dubious over exactly whose 'theory' is being discussed here.

In general anyone who at any stage made up a rule with the expectation that it would have some effect, and in particular anyone involved at any stage in determining that dropping litter in Glasgow would have some potential legal ramification, on the basis that that might help prevent it.

I think you're maybe looking for more meaning than I intended.

The Continental · 26th May 2007, 3:06pm

So what kind of powers do these people have? Can they stop you if you tell them to fuck off and walk away? Will they alert the police if you don't comply? I dunno how this is gonna work.

Right you. Dropped that fag. £50 fine.

What fag

The one i just saw you drop.

Nope

Look give me your details so I can issue you this fine.

Nope

Right we'll see what the police have to say about this.

Ello ello ello.

This man dropped a fag butt and is now refusing to help me take 50 sheets off him

Is this true

Nope

Noise Action Week's coming up and all. What a bonanza.