Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just to play devil's advocate, I can imagine a number of scenarios where it might end up there through no fault of her own. Seems an odd item to flytip when it would be less effort to cut up and throw in the recycling. Obviously, if she did tip it hope she gets a sanction but there are alternative explanations...

really?


so owner disposes of her rubbish and someone moves it? What scenarios are there that explain an item dumped on a street rather than being disposed of correctly?


I had an upstairs neighbor who thought that - because we were having bonfires - thought she could throw her rubbish from her window into my garden.


I pulled her up about it as it included letters with her name on and very disgusting personal items.


I aksed her if she really thought my other half should pick up her used women's items. I guess the fact that I bumped into her when out and asked her in front of other people properly shamed her. It stopped and she won't look me in the ye any more.


There are people who don't think/ can't think/ don't care.

Fallen off a bin lorry/skip? Paid someone to take it away who then dumped it? Someone asked for the box (I've sometimes been asked for large boxes by people wanting them for moving etc) then decided they didn't need it and dumped it?


Quite possibly it is a straightforward case of dumping, though again, why carry a cardboard box a significant distance to dump it when it could be cut up and put in the recycling in minutes? Just suggesting alternatives before we get the pitchforks and burning torches out...

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Someone asked for the

> box (I've sometimes been asked for large boxes by

> people wanting them for moving etc) then decided

> they didn't need it and dumped it?


I once worked at a company with distinct branded boxes. We were forbidden from taking used ones home (for moving etc) as they would occasionally be dumped and the company would get hassled about it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Do you have a link to this? The only one i could find was on the 24th July
    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...