People of a not so certain age when
discussing current social mores will sometimes use the phrase, "in my
day" to describe changes which in their opinion are for the worse for each
of us as individuals and for us all as "society"; the entity for
which Maggie T doubted the existence.
Aged relatives who lived through the
horrors of World War 2 on active service and the Blitz at home have described
to me [and I presume others can claim similar discussions] that if not
"law" but certainly "order" was encouraged if not enforced
by individuals be they family, neighbours, bus conductors, train guards or park
rangers to name a few. Unless there was direct violence or a risk of such,
admonishment from such individuals was enough to oil the wheels of public
civility and avoid confrontation with most people including rowdy teenagers
most of the time. Street tidiness was a job for local
authorities and street cleaners were a common sight keeping the environment
clean and tidy and also providing low level employment for those who would
otherwise be unemployed or unemployable. A clean and tidy neighbourhood has
been shown to reduce disorder especially low level disorder which can blight
many lives. The "zero tolerance" concept pioneered in New York City
is a direct result of this thinking.
The Keep Britain Tidy Campaign began in
1954 as an initiative of the National Federation of Womens` Institutes. Some
might remember the iconic posed picture of Margaret Thatcher tidying up in
Trafalgar Square. The Litter Act of 1983 consolidated all previous legislation.
Prosecutions for littering are brought under section 87 - Offence of Leaving
Litter - of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The offence is:
"A person is guilty of an offence
if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which
this section applies and leaves it.” However, a person convicted of this
offence could be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500 (a level 4 offence on the
standard scale). Current criminal prosecutions are conducted by local councils
under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2006.Prison awaits those who refuse to pay the fine or are guilty of culpable neglect in not paying.
And that was why Natasha McCabe who left a refuse bag in the street ended up at Manchester Magistrates` Courts. She had pleaded guilty to failing to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice of £80. In the end her littering cost her a total of £319.
It is indeed a sad reflection on our
conduct when the criminal law must be applied to such basic anti social
behaviour. Singapore has the reputation of being the world`s cleanest city. In
1992 Corrective Work Orders were introduced as an alternative to fines up to
S$1,000 [£500] for littering and offenders were required to wear distinctive
clothing whilst cleaning streets for a specified number of hours.
There is a vociferous lobby which would dearly like to do away
with short custodial sentences. At a stretch, to coin a phrase, they would
relax their opposition for violent offenders being removed from society. But
generally even when prison is a last resort for the oft quoted council tax
defaulters or similar they refuse to acknowledge the need for the final
sanction of loss of liberty. Those holding such opinions are
often “green” in their approach to society`s problems and their attitude to
litterers is unforgiving. What then must the courts do to an offender in this
regard who refuses or neglects to pay the fine imposed after conviction or in
absence for ignoring a fixed penalty notice? Are those who consider such
sentencing inappropriate able to impose their own solution in such cases?
Perhaps they would have him treated as a naughty boy.
Without entering into
any religious context the original precept for the individual and
society to rub along with minimal friction is to do to others what one would
ask them to to do to oneself. And that includes taking one`s rubbish home to
dispose of carefully [including cigarette ends]
No comments:
Post a Comment