PHEW!

[securespark]

The food packaging though, clearly has not been generated as a result of work for a customer.

 

[Brigadier]

I would relish my day in court and appeal to the judges common sense.

I'd half-expect you to be back in court shortly afterwards, appealing the parking ticket you'd have almost certainly got during the first appearance

 

[Johnny Allround]

It’s all about revenue. Chas approval what a load of Bollywood. Licensed waste carriers approval what a load of Bollywood it’s just added costs to the tradespeople that want to do it right. Can’t tell you how many jobs we have lost because we can’t compete with waste costs. Then when you find out you’ve been undercut by our travelling community it all makes sense.

 

[noseall]

Yeah, I remember that story

Do you remember the bit where the council found trade waste in his van as well as the bag of food rubbish that was (misleadingly) the only photo published.

Nope thought not. Bunch of Daily Mail gullible twonks.

 

[securespark]

Really? I do not, will not, have not and never will read the Daily Fail. In fact, I have adblockers which mean the DF pages are blocked to me.

I only ever read the story in the paper version of the Metro. But, having just read reports from 7 different newspaper websites, none of them suggest the waste in question was anything other than food packaging.

Have you got proof the authorities found any other waste on the van?

Has anyone ever told you don't need cheap insults to construct an argument?

 

[noseall]

Have you got proof the authorities found any other waste on the van

Lol.

The Daily Mail insult was aimed at those that rushed out and got themselves a WCL based upon the weak story. Gullible twonks.

 

[securespark]

That photo of "the other waste items" (which I have seen before) does not prove anything. Are those items waste? Are they in a bag?

When does a snippet of cable or a short piece of roofing felt or a nearly used tin of paint or an offcut of wood (you get the idea) transition from "stock" or "materials" to "waste"??

 

[noseall]

That photo of "the other waste items" (which I have seen before) does not prove anything. Are those items waste? Are they in a bag?

When does a snippet of cable or a short piece of roofing felt or a nearly used tin of paint or an offcut of wood (you get the idea) transition from "stock" or "materials" to "waste"??

I don't make the rules boyo, nor do I agree with them. If you fell for the story, then bad luck.

 

[fillyboy]

State of the inside of my wifes car she ought to have a fukin waste license.

 

[noseall]

That photo of "the other waste items" (which I have seen before)

Really? You didn't mention it in your first post...​

Yeah, I remember that story. This story proves that these rules are more about revenue generation. It is quite obvious that the waste is not commercial. They are basically saying that if the non-commercial waste was in a (say) Tesco carrier bag, he would have been

Lol.

 

[securespark]

Fell for the story? What does that mean?
You could argue there is no waste in that picture and the onus is on the Council to prove in court that there is commercial waste in that picture.
The materials present are not necessarily waste and the bag of food packaging is not commercial waste just because it's in a "commercial" bag.... Give me strength!

 

[securespark]

Really? You didn't mention it in your first post...​

My humble apologies Guv. It won't happen again.​

 

[noseall]

That photo of "the other waste items" (which I have seen before) does not prove anything. Are those items waste? Are they in a bag?

Stop digging holes boyo, the waste was never about the sandwich wrappers. But you fell for it.

 

[noseall]

not necessarily

Lol.

 

[securespark]

Stop digging holes boyo, the waste was never about the sandwich wrappers. But you fell for it.

Not digging holes at all. I don't know why you think I am.
It's a simple case. If anyone is accused of breaking the law or contravening regulations, it has to be proven. The Council allege he was carrying commercial waste without a licence. They took a picture of that commercial waste. If the fine was contested in a court of law, the Council would have to produce evidence of the commercial waste. That picture is not evidence of commercial waste.