old cable after a job

[ban-all-sheds]

Scenario #1: An electrician goes to a residential property to do some work, installs whatever is necessary, and throws the cable clippings, burned out or damaged socket, and so on into a box, which he then loads in his van, takes home, and dumps into his own domestic bin at home. So according to the legislation, he's supposed to pay for a waste carrier's license.

Scenario #2: The electrician does exactly the same job, and ends up with exactly the same scrap in the same box, but he leaves it at the premises for the customer to dispose of. The customer duly dumps the whole lot into his own domestic bin. No waste being transported, so no carrier's license needed.

In both cases exactly the same waste ends up going into a domestic bin. So why is an extra fee needed in one case but not the other?

The answer is there in the question you asked.

I've highlighted the significant differences, as you don't seem to understand that it's about the carrying of waste.

Actually, in Scenario 1 he's probably not allowed to put it in his bin at home.

I was just pointing out that there could be cases in which the "person," in the legal sense, could be dependent upon the situation.

And likewise so does the "person" who needs the licence. It's not complicated.

How does it do that? How does merely having this waste carrier's license prevent somebody from still dumping stuff anywhere and everywhere if he's so inclined?

Paper trails should he ever get stopped, and stop & search is the whole point of the legislation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But it's all right to "defraud other tax payers" by leaving exactly the same waste at the houses visited for the patients to dispose of along with their own household waste?

If it counts as legitimate waste which the patient may dispose of then it's the patient's to dispose of.

But I'm out of here - you and John are up to your usual tricks of trying to pick holes in legislation, which you'll always have the opportunity to do because no legislation is ever going to meet your utterly unrealistic standards for what you think makes sense and is consistent.

Feel free to carry on whining to each other about it, or better still feel free to leave the country and go and live somewhere where life is a complete free-for-all, then the Control of Pollution (Amendment Act) 1989 won't be such a worry to you, and the pair of you will be able to stop fretting about it and rest easy.

Bye.

 

[Paul_C]

I've highlighted the significant differences, as you don't seem to understand that it's about the carrying of waste.

That's the whole point: The difference between the two scenarios is that in one case the waste is being transported to another location first. In both cases it will end up in the same place.

Actually, in Scenario 1 he's probably not allowed to put it in his bin at home.

Probably? But if that's so, then it just highlights more absurdities: It's fine for the waste to go in the bin at the house where the work was done, but not for the electrician to take it with him and dump it in his own bin, even though it's all heading to the same place, and may even be collected by the same truck in some cases?

How does it do that? How does merely having this waste carrier's license prevent somebody from still dumping stuff anywhere and everywhere if he's so inclined?

Paper trails should he ever get stopped,

What paper trails? If somebody is bent on dumping the scrap illegally, then how is having this permit going to stop him, any more than it will stop anybody else doing it without the carrier's license? In either case, the person either gets caught or he gets away with it.

and stop & search is the whole point of the legislation.

On that, I have no doubt.

But it's all right to "defraud other tax payers" by leaving exactly the same waste at the houses visited for the patients to dispose of along with their own household waste?

If it counts as legitimate waste which the patient may dispose of then it's the patient's to dispose of.

But according to you, it's then somehow defrauding the tax payer for the nurse to take it away and dispose of it in a way which will result in it ending up in exactly the same place, unless she (or her employer) has a waste carrier's license.

But I'm out of here - you and John are up to your usual tricks of trying to pick holes in legislation, which you'll always have the opportunity to do because no legislation is ever going to meet your utterly unrealistic standards for what you think makes sense and is consistent.

Is it unrealistic to expect the legislation to make some sort of sense and for it to be clear as to what it is actually mandating?

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse," is a line that's heard often. So how exactly is anyone supposed to abide by "the law" when it's written in ways which are ambiguous and unclear? (Such as what is even defined as "waste" in this particular case.)