i understand that completely, and can see why that would be law.
yet the culprit says
I noticed three men, enforcement officers, chasing me, and they stopped me immediately.
being chased by three men in uniform would be intimidating
while i get the reason for the law, there is clearly a threshold of volume which is acceptable and indeed of the substance which applied.
500 ml of waste oil, or even cooking oil bought from a Tesco Metro opposite the bus stop is much more serious than a mouthful of coffeeâŚbut given the officers spotted the âcrimeâ they will have seen
1 - the small amount
2 - it came out of a coffee cup
the wording in the article is
which makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
but people pour coffee granules onto their garden (myself included) as a fertiliser so what difference does it make if it is coffee itself?
coffee, and certainly a mouthful is not likely to pollute land or water, quite the opposite so it seems the threshold for the substance and volume was never metâŚ
Yeah, thatâs certainly not the right attitude, Iâd say!
Itâs just an OTT thing thatâs happened which has made headlines. Some badly training enforcement bods have taken a step too far.
The way youâve quoted the law there would be clear that coffee wonât be likely to pollute land or water. Certainly no more than rain run-off from a road already does!
I donât know what the threshold is but youâre right that the volume is likely insignificant, although every contribution will increase concentrations in the environment.
Itâs not just the coffee itself, milk is a marine pollutant (again not really a problem at those volumes). Iâm not sure about caffeine, a quick google came up with a couple of research papers that suggest it could be a problem for some marine life, but there wasnât a lot on it.
Just because thatâs what she said doesnât mean thatâs what happened.
CEOâs tend to operate in 3âs due to the violence and aggression they face doing their jobs. Probably what the council made the point of supporting their actions in the statement.
If they needed to âchaseâ then they might not have been close enough to see what was poured initially and were stuck in the mindset of âweâve stopped you now so must continueâ and âletter of the lawâ blah blah.
We actually have this cracking leather armchair in our room. Which I think everyone in my room has at one point slept in, (boozy lunches, BIG sandwiches and small children have all been to blame.)
And other camps will be under more pressure now that Crowborough and Cameron Barracks wonât be available. This will effect cadets over a wide area, not just those whoâve used these sites in the past. Itâs a challenge for the 2030 goal of increasing cadet numbers as camps are great for retention.
