Laminated notices on lamp posts etc.

[Nigello]

The council puts the bright yellow ones up often, but never removes them.

Residents and local businesses, schools etc tape them to trees, posts, fences etc and never remove them.

All of them look tatty after a while, but the people who put them up never think of that.

So, if you do put up a notice saying 'happy birthday Marjorie' or 'baby yoga classes this Sunday', please take them down afterwards. Or, if you are like me, rip them down yourself. You can also post them back to the offender, like St John's and St Clement's school, whose tatty laminates for their Christmas fair of five or more weeks ago are still hanging around.

[Green Goose]

Well done! I agree with all you say but I am somewhat less tolerant. I believe in direct action in all cases. I check every Council notice for validity and take them down immediately they have expired. It's not a big issue.

All other posters attached to street furniture are illegal fly-postings and are in contravention of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) and the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980). You are within your rights to take direct action.

If the fly postings are of a commercial nature, I tear them down immediately and report them for possible prosecution after I have thoroughly researched who is responsible and how they can be contacted. I pass this on to the authorities as they may not always make the effort to do thorough research.

If I cannot remove them immediately, I deface them with a permanent marker with the words "Scam" or "Rip-off". I find a cheap side- cutter is very effective at cutting through plastic ties.

If it's about missing cats or dogs I ignore them for 3 days - after which the animal has either returned home or has gone to meet its maker. After that they come down.

I have found that a zero tolerance policy has a significant deterrence value. It's like graffiti, if you deface the artist's handy work immediately, they very soon give up.

GG

[macrobana]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> All other posters attached to street furniture are

> illegal fly-postings and are in contravention of

> Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) and

> the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980). You are within

> your rights to take direct action.

>

Which part of the legislation gives you this "right"?

[The Minkey]

"If it's about missing cats or dogs I ignore them for 3 days - after which the animal has either returned home or has gone to meet its maker. After that they come down."

Jobsworth of your own life, lol.

[Sue]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

>

> If it's about missing cats or dogs I ignore them

> for 3 days - after which the animal has either

> returned home or has gone to meet its maker. After

> that they come down.

>

xxxxxx

Great.

Many animals are found after a far longer time than that.

I hope you feel very happy that you might have been responsible for some animals never being reunited with their owners.

[tiddles]

Agree with Sue re animal notices - please just leave them up!! somebody has taken the time to try and alert as many people as possible to their missing pet, and they do NOT return within your stipulated time. If you actually trawl thro the lost and found section, you will see that many animals take MUCH MUCH longer to be found (in sheds etc).

I am really horrified by your behaviour. I understand wanting to minimise street litter, but you overstep the mark.

[Huggers]

The council is already going around swiftly fining ordinary people for advertising their little fetes and local shows with 'unauthorized' notices, do you really want to collaborate with this municipal oppression?

[DulwichFox]

A pet owner has been warned he could be fined ?1,000 after he put up missing cat posters in his local neighbourhood.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155753928

Not sure of the policy in Southwark. But certainly people have been fined.

Fox.

[Green Goose]

macrobana Wrote:

> Which part of the legislation gives you this

> "right"?

Every responsible citizen has an obligation to prevent crime and to curtail an on-going crime.

Casting a blind eye to abuse or criminality just leads to more wrong doing and more serious criminality. That's the price of tolerance and Liberalism.

A zero tolerance policy is highly effective in reducing crime - as borne out by results in New York.

GG

[Chillaxed]

Do you wear an appropriate uniform or costume when you are curtailing these crimes? Could I be so bold as to suggest a dull grey suit, black leather shoes and a pocket protector?

[the-e-dealer]

I bet Goose Green has CCTV on his/her neighbour's and a glass to the wall. Every possible infringement logged in a big black book.

Also probably reads everyone's mail and listens to phone calls. Or is it a wind-up?

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> macrobana Wrote:

>

> > Which part of the legislation gives you this

> > "right"?

>

> Every responsible citizen has an obligation to

> prevent crime and to curtail an on-going crime.

>

> Casting a blind eye to abuse or criminality just

> leads to more wrong doing and more serious

> criminality. That's the price of tolerance and

> Liberalism.

>

> A zero tolerance policy is highly effective in

> reducing crime - as borne out by results in New

> York.

>

> GG

[Green Goose]

Chillaxed Wrote:

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

> Do you wear an appropriate uniform or costume when

> you are curtailing these crimes? Could I be so

> bold as to suggest a dull grey suit, black leather

> shoes and a pocket protector?

Nah, something much less formal for regular patrols. That's me in Photo1.

At weekends however I make a special effort, as I have my mate with me. Here's us last week in Photo2

GG

[Chillaxed]

Nice response GG, touch?!

[Cora]

I like signs around the place, makes me feel part of a community....and of course people should take them down afterwards but doesn't make the notices themselves offensive.

[Ridgley]

I agree with Cora I don?t have a problem with posters as long as it taken down after the event. There more pressing things in life then worrying about a poster.

[the-e-dealer]

You Plonker gooseGreen!

[edcam]

How unpleasant Green Goose.

[Nigello]

Typical laissez-faire, cuddly-wuddly reax from a fair few ED residents. How can you like bedraggled, rainwater-filled, dirty signs and how can you tolerate the selfishness and laziness - for that it what it is - of those who put them up and don't take them down.

If they are up for a week or so, fine, but after the event, they should be taken down. To leave them up is the same as saying 'not my problem guv, someone else can clean up after me'.

[the-e-dealer]

Would you ban chewing gum too?

[Green Goose]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Would you ban chewing gum too?

Singapore did and you wont see any flyposting there either. It's a much cleaner and more attractive living environment E.D.

GG

[Green Goose]

Ridgley Wrote:

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

> I agree with Cora I don?t have a problem with

> posters as long as it taken down after the event.

> There more pressing things in life then worrying

> about a poster.

How about it when it costs you money?

What sparked my interest in "managing" flyposting was the thesis a friend did on the subject some years ago. Fascinating - particularly in terms of the differing responses that it generates amongst people and institutions.

Singapore has massive fines and custodial sentences.

Leeds and Liverpool are tolerant (possibly because of cash constraints) with the result you see in photos 1 & 2.

B.T. use special textured coating on their junction cabinets whch now stops this kind of thing Photo 4

Southampton had a problem which prompted a campaign - photo 5.

Tower Hamlets tried a different approach by pasting a "CANCELLED" sticker over each poster for events. Photo 6

Etc, etc

The other observation she made was that there was a direct correlation between flyposting, graffiti and crime levels

Removing flypostings (and chewing gum) costs the council money and that money comes out of our own pockets - irrespective of whether you are tolerant, intolerant or laissez-faire

[*Bob*]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> Singapore did and you wont see any flyposting

> there either. It's a much cleaner and more

> attractive living environment E.D.

I believe oral sex is also illegal without intercourse, it has one of the world's highest execution rates - and homosexuals are routinely burned at the stake.

Just a few more of the fine Singaporean laws that we here in ED would do well to emulate - for a better society.

[Chillaxed]

Bob, is 'stand-alone oral' really illegal? I'm at work so prefer not to Google it.

[the-e-dealer]

Just Wondered - Deciding where to send you !

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Would you ban chewing gum too?

>

>

> Singapore did and you wont see any flyposting

> there either. It's a much cleaner and more

> attractive living environment E.D.

>

> GG

[*Bob*]

Hugenot?