Bird feeding littering FPN

HillStreetBlues

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

sheramber

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

HillStreetBlues

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

Who saw him "leave it"?

sheramber

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

Who saw him "leave it"?

The two witnesses saw him drop it and saw the HE did not make any attempt to pick it up.

Another entity,  the birds, picked it up. 

If a person dumps an old chair in the countryside and environmental health pick it up, that person still dumped it. 

The OP’s father is quite at liberty to go to court with your  argument and take their chances.

Okell

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

Who saw him "leave it"?

The two enforcement officers.  Their statements will be evidence just as statements of a police officer would be.

The OP's father is welcome to ignore the FPN and run the risk that the council will take him to court.

If the council does prosecute the court might decide that he did not "leave" the bread for the purposes of the legislation, or they might decide that he did.

Personally I wouldn't take the risk as I think he's more likely to be convicted than acquitted.**

Appealing to local councillors or the local MP won't help.  And appealing to the local papers might reveal that more people approve of the ban on feeding pigeons than are opposed to it.


**  I think this case is different from other s87 litter threads I've contributed to where I've suggested that OPs ignore FPNs.  In those cases there was no evidence at all that the OPs had left anything.  The only evidence councils had was somebody's name and possibly address on a piece of litter.  But no evidence that the person with that name who lived at that address had left it there.  Here I think the OP has left it.  But I could be wrong...

HillStreetBlues

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

Who saw him "leave it"?

The two witnesses saw him drop it and saw the HE did not make any attempt to pick it up.

Another entity,  the birds, picked it up. 

If a person dumps an old chair in the countryside and environmental health pick it up, that person still dumped it. 

The OP’s father is quite at liberty to go to court with your  argument and take their chances.

What's the time limit to pick something up? Not picking something up straight away isn't the same as leaving it.

I'm sitting on a bench and throw my old coat on the floor, can I be done for littering? I say no as I haven't left it, I'm still sitting on the bench.
Someone then nicks that coat, could I then be done for littering as I failed to pick up the coat that was no longer there? I say no.

The issue I see is they didn't wait for him to leave, and then check what he left behind.

user1977

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

Who saw him "leave it"?

The two witnesses saw him drop it and saw the HE did not make any attempt to pick it up.

Another entity,  the birds, picked it up. 

If a person dumps an old chair in the countryside and environmental health pick it up, that person still dumped it. 

The OP’s father is quite at liberty to go to court with your  argument and take their chances.

I'm sitting on a bench and throw my old coat on the floor, can I be done for littering? I say no as I haven't left it, I'm still sitting on the bench.
Someone then nicks that coat, could I then be done for littering as I failed to pick up the coat that was no longer there? I say no.

I would agree. But nobody has left (or not left) a coat, have they? It's rather more plausible that there was no intention to pick up the bread than pick up a coat.

HillStreetBlues

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

sheramber said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

The person dropping the bread did leave it, in that they didn't pick up what they had dropped.

You can't leave something that's not there,  where's the evidence?

Two witnesses who saw him do it. 

Who saw him "leave it"?

The two witnesses saw him drop it and saw the HE did not make any attempt to pick it up.

Another entity,  the birds, picked it up. 

If a person dumps an old chair in the countryside and environmental health pick it up, that person still dumped it. 

The OP’s father is quite at liberty to go to court with your  argument and take their chances.

I'm sitting on a bench and throw my old coat on the floor, can I be done for littering? I say no as I haven't left it, I'm still sitting on the bench.
Someone then nicks that coat, could I then be done for littering as I failed to pick up the coat that was no longer there? I say no.

I would agree. But nobody has left (or not left) a coat, have they? It's rather more plausible that there was no intention to pick up the bread than pick up a coat.

I agree it's certainly more likely that someone might leave a bit of bread than might leave the coat,  but then that's what might happen rather than what did happen.
The OP's father stayed on the bench, so the fine issue is based of might have happened when he finally  left the bench.

Aylesbury_Duck

This was discussed when someone was fined for dropping a cigarette butt.  Their argument was that they dropped it onto the floor prior to picking it up and putting it in a portable receptacle.  It didn't sound very plausible.  Neither does dropping bread with the intention of picking it up again if birds don't eat it.

Marvel1

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

I think I'd try and get the local paper or TV news to take it up

Probably best not as may end up on say Facebook and the comments that follow.