Government upgrades drones, deploys joystick tweakers to catch illegal dumpers

The UK government is pulling together an elite squad of drone operators to crack down on the scourge of fly tippers and unauthorized dumpers across this ever less green and pleasant land. The top drawer cadre of joystick jockeys will "track down illegal dumps from the air," the Environment Agency said, as part of a "major …

[Headley_Grange]

The first thing they should do is to make the council, EPA and/or government responsible for the cost of cleaning it up. At the moment if someone dumps waste then the landowner is responsible for cleaning it up and the EPA will suddenly find the resources to hassle them to get on with it. The costs can be bankrupting for the landowner. If the authorities were responsible for cleaning it up it would give them an incentive and a genuine cost/benefit case to invest in better enforcement.

[Anonymous Coward]

One day I noticed a load of old truck tires had been dumped in a stream which was the official border between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I phoned the Notts authority, "not their problem, contact Derby." So I phoned Derby's authority. "Not our problem, contact Notts."

The tires are probably still there, several years on, slowly degrading and polluting the stream.

[cd]

Get a group together and put half on each side?

[martinusher]

You touch them then they're yours. Moving them out of the stream will be classed as 'illegal dumping'.

You have to think like a bureaucrat. Their thought process isn't "How do we solve this problem?", its "How do we make this problem go away?" and, of course, the most effective way to do that is to shift responsibility to someone else.

[Doctor Syntax]

Informing them separately gives them the chance to do this. Assuming you've got a paper trail forward it all to thel ocal papers.

Email the CEOs (or equivalent of both in the same email showing both addresses suggesting they sort it out between themselves. If you still get finger pointing emails forward the whole thread to the local papers.

[nobody who matters]

If they were in Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire, they would have been tyres ;)

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I once heard a similar story from a retired policeman, involving a canal which was the boundary between his patch and the next one, and being called to a report of a body floating. One poke with a pole, and the problem was solved.

[Goodwin Sands]

@Headley_Grange

>make the council, EPA and/or government responsible for the cost of cleaning it up

Nooooo! That'd just be an invitation for scumbags everywhere to buy a field, dump 1000's ton of rubbish in it, then call the authorities and say they don't know who did it and expect the authorities to clean it all up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Crooks won't spend buckets of money creating a paper trail which leads back to them if they can just victimize an innocent landowner instead.

If government makes it policy to protect and help innocent landowners who report illegal dumping promptly, then those landowners have incentive to put up cameras and catch the dumpers. Cameras are cheap. Live-piloted drones are expensive.

The problem won't be solved without more eyes looking out for the countryside. Better those cameras be run by landowners than Big Brother finding another excuse for surveillance drones buzzing overhead.

[Doctor Syntax]

Trail cameras would be my solution but by the council. The council or police would find it hard to initiate a prosecution from the landowner's cameras and the only alternative would be for the landowner to go to the expense of suing, hoping to recover the cost of clean up but risking getting no return.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the local council wants to place and operate them, even better. I suspect many landowners would welcome the help and be eager to do their part, just so long as they don't get hit with the bill for cleanup. Wouldn't even take that many. Most properties can be unmonitored but even a few cams make illegal disposal into an unsustainable business model.

If cooperation in stopping the problem relieves the landowner of liability, then the government will find itself with a lot more allies. Otherwise, what is a victimized landowner to do? Pay a big, fat bill, or perhaps just hire a cut-rate crook to haul the rubbish away, tip it somewhere else, and make it someone else's problem?

[Doctor Syntax]

Like I said. By the local council.

[nobody who matters]

"The council or police would find it hard to initiate a prosecution from the landowner's cameras"

Not in the least, there have alredy been several prosecutions resulting from photographic evidence provided by farmers or landowners.

The law doesn't seem to have a problem with using evidence from private CCTV, dashcam footage or any other type of clear evidence of breaking of the law for taking up a prosecution, so I don't really see any reason why evidence from a landowner's camera should be considered inadmissable?

[Doctor Syntax]

Yesterday's Times has a report about a farmer whose previous attempt at prosecution failed leading to problems with the criminal gangs responsible.

[Goodwin Sands]

@Anonymous Coward

>put up cameras and catch the dumpers

You're not actually serious are you?

There are approx 45 million acres of countryside in the UK (not that illegal tipping only takes place in the countryside of course) and you're saying the solution is to put up cameras? Well how many cameras do you think that would be? And then, after covering the UK in 100+ million cameras it occurs to you that the villains doing the dumping can hide their faces and reg plates and/or nick the cameras.

The better solution (and prob only solution) I suggest is the EA, the police, and the courts, each get their lazy buck-passing look-the-other-way job's-worth arses kicked. Laws sufficient to tackle the problem all exist. What's needed is aforementioned organisations need to get serious and use those laws.

[Doctor Syntax]

The scale of some of the dumping we've seen isn't just a one off. Once activity is spotted that's the time and place to install cameras. You don't need 100million+, you need one or two where you're likely to catch a return visit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The logical starting point are dump sites which are repeatedly abused and conveniently located. Raising risk levels and time costs undermines the dumpers' fast money business model. This, in turn, pushes up the cost to those hiring illegal dumping crews, making illegal disposal comparatively less attractive. Concealing reg plates is inherently suspicious; dumpers will have to avoid more than one camera. When missing one can get you caught, the crook's paranoia level spikes.

Fly tipping is too easy to get away with and the crooks know it. Raising the bar will have a meaningful impact. The pros will have to scout more sites for hidden cameras. The amateurs will screw up, get caught, be named and shamed in the news, and contribute to the perception that people do end up in jail for botched dumping. The mere perception that the law is actively and effectively enforced does cut crime.

[nobody who matters]

"If government makes it policy to protect and help innocent landowners who report illegal dumping promptly, then those landowners have incentive to put up cameras and catch the dumpers. Cameras are cheap."

Some landowners have already been doing this - in the absence of any evidence of who is doing the dumping, it is the landowners responsibility (and cost) to clear the mess up. Cameras can be very helpful in revealing who is doing the tipping, and gives the landowner at least a possibility of getting them prosecuted and maybe something back towards the clear-up costs.

[nobody who matters]

"......an invitation for scumbags everywhere to buy a field, dump 1000's ton of rubbish in it, then call the authorities and say they don't know who did it and expect the authorities to clean it all up"

That is what they are already doing, but finding ways of obfuscating the true ownership.

[Anonymous Coward]

@nobody who matters

Really? Any details of where and when that has happened that you know of?

[nobody who matters]

You not been reading the news recently ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't they just tip it on someone else's property, removing any risk that they'll be landed with a fine and still have to clean it up?

[nobody who matters]

Small scale fly-tippers do just dump the waste on someone elses land.

However, if you have tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of tonnes of waste to get rid of, it is a bit difficult to just chuck it behind someone elses hedge; you need your own site, preferably a bit 'hidden from view'. . This is basically the story behind the very well publicised illegal dump at Kidlington, Oxfordshire. From the news stories about it, all the evidence suggests that the field was bought for the specific purpose of dumping, and the papertrail to the actual owner has proved to be long and convoluted and makes it difficult to actually pinpoint who the true owner actually is.

[elsergiovolador]

Self-inflicted

Councils make rubbish disposal difficult and then they act surprised people choose the path of least resistance.

Not excusing the fly-tippers. Just make it easy to dispose of rubbish instead of filling the pockets of foreign tax avoiding corporations who make drones and other mumbo jumbo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Self-inflicted

We were moving house within six weeks and had an old king size mattress to dispose of. The local council bulk collections dept said the earliest they could pick it up would be four months hence! Don't think our house buyer or the council would have liked it left on the kerb outside the house for that length of time. Struggled to find anyone to take it away. No wonder there is so much illegal dumping when they make it so hard to get rid of stuff legitimately.

[sedregj]

Re: Self-inflicted

I spent 20 mins with a knife, pliers and a small bolt cutter to turn a large mattress into smaller bits that I took to the tip in my car.

Job done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Self-inflicted

I would have done similar at one time of the day, unfortunately my heart is knackered, so can't tackle most of the DIY jobs I would once have taken in my stride.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Self-inflicted

Not every one is able bodied and it's easier to slip a tenner to someone to "take care of it".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Self-inflicted

It wasn't even possible for us to hire a man with a van to take it to the local tip, as the tip don't allow vans there, only domestic vehicles. So any such man with a van offers would undoubtedly have been to illegally dump it. In the end a relative with a large people-carrier took it away for us to a tip near their home, thirty miles away! Councils are going out of their way to encourage illegal dumping.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Self-inflicted

If you hire someone with a van for waste disposal, they will take it to a commercial waste site, which is why disposing of things this way is expensive, and if you find someone to do it cheaply, they are almost certainly going to dump it where they find a convenient field gate open :(

[munnoch]

Re: Self-inflicted

I had a kitchen worktop fitted and the boys who did it offered to dispose of the old one. What will you do with it I asked? Oh, we'll just chuck it in someone's front garden on the way home... Completely blaise as if that was normal behaviour. Which apparently it is... I cut it up and took it to the tip myself.

[Like a badger]

Re: Self-inflicted

Councils make rubbish disposal difficult and then they act surprised people choose the path of least resistance.

Most of the waste in question is business waste, and its not difficult at all to find private contractors to take that away (even if the council are willing to collect it, it's still chargeable for business waste).

Unfortunately, because landfill tax is £130 a tonne some of these contractors are either charging the landfill tax and keeping it, or splitting the "saving" with the business. The more traditional itinerants who do small domestic jobs and fly tip the waste aren't a significant part of this "huge illegal tips" problem, although they are also a tax evading nuisance.

So the problem here is that the policy morons of Defra have intentionally made it really expensive to legally dispose of business waste, because in their vacant little brains businesses have control over how much waste they generate. They've given inadequate thought to the consequences of this, and here we are. And with government's customary stupidity they've doubled the much lower "inert materials" landfill tax. Whilst that's "only" now £8.65 a tonne, this becomes a big burden on things like civil engineering, further compounding the already ludicrous costs to build anything in Britain.

It's all part of the policy of both Labour and Tories over the past twenty years, of taxing their way to prosperity.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Self-inflicted

This inert landfill waste from my bridge building project, your honour? Surely you have been misinformed. That's clearly my public garden project!

[PRR]

Re: Self-inflicted

> landfill tax is £130 a tonne

Bizarre. That's $175US. On the other side of the sea, dump fees are $180/ton, essentially the same.

[steelpillow]

Re: Self-inflicted

> Councils make rubbish disposal difficult.

In large part because they cannot afford to provide free disposal like they used to. Which, of course, is due to ever-tightening laws and ever-falling funding from Westminster.

Imagine a world in which local councils are enabled to resource all their mandatory duties.

"Imagine there's no waste dump

"It's easy if you dream

"No smell next to us

"Beside us, only green

"Imagine all the MPs

"Voting for the way"

-- Apologies to John Lennon

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Self-inflicted

In large part because they cannot afford to provide free disposal like they used to

I am not sure if you heard of something called Council Tax.

Somehow councils have money to spend on mates vanity contracts...

[steelpillow]

Re: Self-inflicted

Clearly you have never worked for or with a Local Authority. Council Tax is far more rigidly controlled by the rulebook than it used to be. For a long period increases were capped well below the rate of inflation, while central subsidies were cut, cut and cut again. Raising Council Tax to a sustainable level had/has to be subject to a local referendum - and you can guess the risk of spending a small fortune to be told, no you can't. Just what a Councillor needs in their CV when it comes to re-election. No, councils today must survive through unsustainable selloff of assets, unsustainable borrowing, and/or cutting essential services until they break. Many (mine included) are busily implementing all three strategies. Sure, some make it worse with vanity decisions, but hey, we're talking human nature here - if the ship is sinking, why not stash the champagne and caviar in your lifeboat while you still can?

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Self-inflicted

Council Tax is far more rigidly controlled by the rulebook than it used to be

Haha good one. Country is in institutional decline, corruption is essentially legal and nobody gives a flying toss about some rulebooks.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Self-inflicted

All the more reason for councils to concentrate on what matters to their taxpayers, like rubbish collection and potholes, and not waste money on virtue signalling support for things that have nothing to do with local government.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Self-inflicted

The problem is that a huge chunk of council spend (abnout 65%) is legally mandated. Adult and youth social care, SEND provision, libraries (hard to believe given how many are closing) are a few examples. As pointed out earlier they can't raise council tax by more than about 5% without a referendum which they are unlikely to win because all those people who want potholes filled, bobbies on the beat, better rural bus services,...., etc want them free, not by actually paying more council tax.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Self-inflicted

The problem with council spend is that nobody is checking what they spend it on exactly. Money goes to agencies who pocket the bulk of it and then spend as little as they can get away with for provision of services. So you have situation where council spends fortune on social services, but workers doing the job have little clue about what they are supposed to do and barely make minimum wage, meanwhile agency owners oversee the business from Dubai or other hell hole laughing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Self-inflicted

The Unions refuse to let councils employ expensively competent people to do a good job, insist they pay the same crap they negotiated for the useless council workers. So councils contract expensive agencies to bring in the expensive workers. Only, the agencies bring in more useless droids to ensure the money hose never ends.

None of the players comes out of this smelling of roses. Every one an asshole who would rather be the big fish in a dying pond than a small fish in a thriving inland sea.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Self-inflicted

"In large part because they cannot afford to provide free disposal like they used to."

Clearing up the fly-tipping is probably costing them more than making legal disposal easier.

[steelpillow]

Re: Self-inflicted

Clearing up the fly-tipping is probably costing them more than making legal disposal easier.

> I'll believe that when it happens. They'll be whining for Government subsidies until enough rots into the ground they can afford the last bin liner full.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Self-inflicted

Drones are PR puff and being seen to be doing something.

The excellent BBC report of this the other day confirmed councils and EA all knew about these active dumps from multiple reports by the public. They had just done cock all about but.

Much culpability to last Tory administration for slashing budgets - esp. hobbling the EA from doing their job.

A sorry list of the useless, Brexiteer’s and industry shills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Environment,_Food_and_Rural_Affairs

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Self-inflicted

A sorry list of the useless, Brexiteer’s and industry shills.

By Brexiteers, I'm assuming you mean the Remnants? Those that supported the EU and their landfill taxes, waste 'reduction' and recycling diktats that created the mess we're literally in? 25m or so homes, each soon to get a standardised, color co-ordinated set of 'recycling' bins. Then armies of waste inspectors to ensure targets are being met, and fines issued. Simpler solution would be to just have central waste sorting sites and incinerators to convert phsyical garbage into energy to produce virtual garbage in AI bit-barns.

[UnknownUnknown]

Re: Self-inflicted

Recycling and ‘bins’ should have been standardised across the UK. Instead - like most ‘local democracy’ faux choice - it’s just generated several hundred differing provisions of the same service across the UK, slashed non-statutory green bins service and statutory food waste collection- that depending on where you live can or can’t go in the green bin.

Fucking madness.

[Andy Non]

Too much crippling bureaucracy involved

On TV recently, they showed a massive (organised crime) illegal dump that had been filling up for over a year, and during all this time the environment agency were aware of the situation but failed to act in a decisive manner, instead doing more "investigations" and progressing the matter through legal avenues. In short, they did sod all to stop it. Can't understand why the cops didn't just arrest the truck drivers going there on a daily basis and charge them and shut down the site straight away. There is "due process" and "doing feck all".

Drone footage is useless unless it is acted upon. The environment agency already knows were most of these illegal dumps are, local residents are quick to report them. This just sounds like a gimmick or more toys for the boys.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: Too much crippling bureaucracy involved

>On TV recently

Suspect you're thinking of this 13 min C4 news film broadcast couple of months ago.

When watching it do note the caravans / mobile homes and the ponies and there's your clue as to what sort of scumbag it is that's running the two dumps in the film and many/most of the similar illegal dumps up and down the country.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Too much crippling bureaucracy involved

"....they showed a massive (organised crime) illegal dump that had been filling up for over a year, and during all this time the environment agency were aware of the situation but failed to act in a decisive manner,...."

The Environment Agency seem to be pass-masters at heel dragging. Always lots of hot air and no action - unless the guilty party is a farmer; then they are on it like a shot!

An organisation that has repeatedly proved beyond all doubt that it is not fit for purpose, but which, if replaced by another body or its reponsibilities transferred to other departments, would simply see the same people who are running the EA move over to the new set-up, and the heel dragging would continue uninterrupted.

[Bertieboy]

Make any vehicle used to dump illegal waste subject to seizure and the problem will soon disappear!

[Goodwin Sands]

>Make any vehicle used to dump illegal waste subject to seizure

Already can. Became law thirty years ago.

[Like a badger]

Having the powers means nothing if they don't use them. If they actually did this it would stop the problem. A company or owner-operator who has his 32 tonne 8x4 Scania tipper seized by the authorities will learn quickly, and word will get around amongst drivers.

"I hear Connor's had to walk home again, second time for him. Fuck knows who'll employ the eejit now".

[Headley_Grange]

They do use them but no one finds out. The press and internet will spend days showing the huge dump of material but the reports of the prosecution of the perps and crushing of their vehicles doesn't make the front page. The huge dump in Kidlington by the Cherwell was in the national papers for 3 days. They've arrested people for it but you have to search Google to find those reports cos they're in the local papers, not the nationals, and if they end up in prison with their vehicles crushed then it won't make the national press. And if the EPA started advertising their successes on the popular web channels they'd get ripped to shreds for wasting public money on gimmicks instead of spending it on catching the bad people.

[Headley_Grange]

This press release was released 19 Feb 26

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/serial-waste-crook-forced-to-pay-over-14-million-for-widespread-illegal-dumping

I haven't seen this in any of the national news outlets I follow online. A quick search shows it in the local press but not the nationals.

[Doctor Syntax]

I thought I'd seen that one on the Beeb site.

<Checks>

Ah, yes. Here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy8qkl7ypqo

[Anonymous Coward]

"Varun Datta, 36, was handed a four-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months."

"He must also pay £1.1m, reflecting the financial benefit from his crimes, plus £100,000 in compensation and £200,000 in prosecution costs."

So he has to surrender his ill gotten gains, pay £300k more, and won't spend a single day behind bars, after being one of the few tippers unlucky enough to get caught?

This, folks, is exactly why illegal dumping is a problem. Waste criminals don't think they'll get caught and don't truly fear the consequences if they do.

Let's call what he did exactly what it is: organized crime.

[Andy Non]

Which begs the question, Why isn't this happening? They'd shut down all these illegal dumps overnight if all the scumbags trucks were seized.

[wiggers]

One small problem, there's no shortage of trucks..

[Andy Non]

There soon would be and drivers would be less interested in such work if they knew they would end up with a stint at his majesties pleasure and heavy fines. There would just need to be a concerted effort by law enforcement to crush the problem instead of ignoring it.

[Doctor Syntax]

There's a sortage of free trucks. Stealing somebody else's wouldn't be a good solution to being stopped either. It would just lead to jail time.

[munnoch]

And ban the driver from that class of vehicle for 5 years.

[Doctor Syntax]

Meanwhile Kirklees, in their infinite wisdom, are shutting the skip sites several days a week.

[JT_3K]

That's ok. There's a comment above talking about how hard councils have it, how tightly controlled budgets are and the woes of being held from growing Council Tax. It suggests woe is the life of a councillor and nobody could achieve given circumstances and lack of funds.

Evidently they didn't have to listen to Barry Sheerman talking about the cable car he wanted to put in at Castle Hill, watch the 20yrs it took for someone to muster the backhander significant enough to build the Kingsgate, endure the dual farces of the old Huddersfield Leisure Centre and the Technical College site, the inability to push brownfield development over the hilarity of the loss of wildlife about to befell Kirkheaton (again, I'm guessing due to brown envelopes), watch as Kirklees went from one of the most progressive and successful at recycling to 20yrs of "unable to recycle Tetrapak" under a short-sighted contract or the time a councillor, on public record, referred to constituents as "dickheads" for complaining about woeful gritting. But no, no, it's not their fault they're continually making poor decisions.

[Doctor Syntax]

There was a case reported recently where paperwork was dumped. Addresses were traced and it turned out householders some distance away had put it in their recycling bins so it was the council, via their contractors, who contrived to enter it into the fly-tipping chain.

[Paul Hovnanian]

"paperwork was dumped. Addresses were traced"

Sounds like the plot of Alice’s Restaurant Massacre.

"Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that garbage."

[Doctor Syntax]

They had enough people all saying the same thing and it was obviously stuff that would have gone into the recycling bin. No dodging the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it Easy

Yank here.

Illegal dumping isn't really a problem on this side of the pond. We make it easy to dispose of things properly, whether that's something bulky which is conveniently picked up, or toxic stuff (oil, tires, pesticides, CFL bulbs, etc) which shouldn't be hidden in regular trash going to the landfill. People shouldn't have to cut up mattresses, furniture, construction supplies, etc and slip them bit by bit into the bin.

Proper trash disposal is a public good. Isn't that why folks pay taxes? A stiff "landfill tax" may be well-meaning but it creates this perverse incentive to trash the countryside. Just charge people for disposal upfront because "you've already paid for it, might as well dispose of things properly."

Landfill taxes don't cause people to create less trash. We already have incentive to not needlessly throw away stuff we paid good money for. Do they really think a landfill tax will make me not want to throw a mattress out? Hell no. If I paid good f'in money for a mattress then I don't want to throw it out unless that's my only option.

[Like a badger]

Re: Make it Easy

Just charge people for disposal upfront because "you've already paid for it, might as well dispose of things properly."

We wish.

That sort of thinking is beyond the arseholes who become British politicians, or the feeble minded who become policy officers and come up with ideas like a landfill tax. Their thinking is "Putting things in landfill or incinerating them is WRONG. If we make it much more expensive to throw stuff away, less stuff will be thrown away because it is so expensive". You can't cure stupidity like that.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Make it Easy

You seem to have this idea that dumping stuff should be cheap. It’s not. It all has to go somewhere, and while we spent half the nineties shipping our waste to turkey, Indonesia and other places under the guise of “outsourced recycling” that’s no longer legal.You can burn it but no wants an incinerator built near them. So there’s a cost to get rid of stuff, and that’s as it should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Make it Easy

And that is why your whole country is turning into a dump.

But I guess you like it that way, so it'll keep happening.

Meanwhile, if I want to get rid of a mattress, I put it out beside the trash can and the city takes it away for free. Trash gets picked up every week, recycling every other week. And illegal dumping is not a problem here at all.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Make it Easy

Quite honestly, no council in the UK could afford to do what you describe. They’re all broke.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Make it Easy

You seem to have this idea that dumping stuff should be cheap.

I don't think it should cost me. I don't want to generate tonnes of trash, but it's the classic case of socialising the problem. Back in the good'ol days, I could buy a couple of pounds of bacon and it'd be wrapped in paper. Now, I have to buy a few hundred grams (50% water!) in a peelable (it's not) plastic package where the plastic foil might have to be seperated because one part of the plastic isn't recycleable. Or rubbish becomes 'contaminated' if food containers aren't washed first before putting in the trash. And we're supposed to be saving water, not wasting it washing garbage.

It's all very bizarre. Some years ago, I looked into building a CHP plant to serve a new housing development that conveniently enough, was being built across the road from the council tip. Which faced objections. Those came from people who were just fundamentally opposed to CHP waste incineration, or the council because it might mess up their recycling targets. They didn't like my suggestion that garbage was simply being recycled into heat and electricity. But there were some more genuine concerns, eg incineration can produce furans, which can be nasty. But avoidable with modern incinerators.. Or just reducing the problem at source. So those can come from inks, so we could regulate packaging to make it burn cleaner.

But such is politics. A fair chunk of my domestic waste comes from the Post Office & others fly-tipping junkmail through my letterbox, despite a notice on the door politely asking for no flyers or junk mail. At least most of that I can deal with by simply putting unaddressed mail back in the Post Office's recycling points.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Make it Easy

"..... rubbish becomes 'contaminated' if food containers aren't washed first before putting in the trash. And we're supposed to be saving water, not wasting it washing garbage"

I'm afraid that I find the idea that you should throw out food containers still contaminated with food extremely peculiar.

I agree that we probably shouldn't be using fresh potable water for washing food containers, but there are plenty of alternatives - washing the containers up last thing after washing the dishes for a start (that is where people aren't using a dishwashing machine), using recyled bath/shower water or using rainwater from a suitable water butt attached to a downpipe are options that the majority of the population probably have.

[martinusher]

Re: Make it Easy

Based on what I hear from my brother in the UK the fundamental problem is that there's all sorts of regulations dictating what you can't do and few programs to help you do things correctly. If you're a big contractor then you accommodate waste as part of your business but a small operation or a homeowner finds waste disposal difficult, inconvenient and expensive. Adding drones to the enforcement mix just adds yet more complexity to the pile -- I'd guess the incentive to do this is its fun and profitable whereas just making disposal convenient and relatively inexpensive is beyond the capabilities of (UK) government.

[DS999]

"Illegal dumping" has a different meaning where I live

Also in the US. Here the problem is people dumping their trash into a dumpster own/leased by someone else. Businesses that don't want to pay for one surreptitiously toss their trash into that of a neighboring business. There was a restaurant recently that got in trouble for dumping in the dumpster of a neighboring restaurant. They'd save all their trash until late at night (they were also a bar) after the restaurant had closed, and dump it in the other dumpster only on days after it had been collected so what they added was not noticeable (i.e. not coming close to overfilling it) The neighboring restaurant would end up overfilling it with their own trash before the next pickup because of all that extra, couldn't understand why when they didn't believe their trash volume had increased, so they installed a camera in the alley and took the video to the police.

The other problem is college students at lease turnover week - the last week in July since all the apartment leases start Aug. 1. Everyone's dumpster is overflowing before long so if yours is overflowing then you put your trash into the one belonging to the building next to you, and so on. Plus a lot of stuff is left on the curb, theoretically placed there to be picked up "for free" (and I'm sure some of the nicer stuff probably is) but the city ends up having to collect all the ratty old couches and mattresses no one wants. Not sure if they charge it back to the owner of the building it is in front of or just eat the cost, probably the latter.

I did a bit of this when I was traveling for my independent consulting work - I'd fly out Monday morning and fly back Thursday night but my neighborhood's trash pickup by the city is Wednesday mornings. I could take my recycling to one of the collection points in the city so that was taken care of, but I'd have a kitchen sized trash bag once a month or so (I was only living in my house 3 1/2 days a week) So when the bag got full I'd drop it in an apartment building's dumpster on my way to the airport. Since I was leaving for the airport as early as 5am there were no witnesses :) I could have taken it to the county landfill with no fee but that would be nearly an hour round trip for one small bag, and I didn't relish the idea of keeping it around for months until I had a carload lol

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: "Illegal dumping" has a different meaning where I live

"I could have taken it to the county landfill"

Lucky you. It's a profit center for my town. I used to handle my own trash. Hauling a couple of cans to the transfer station* every month for about $10. But then the town figured that they could make garbage service mandatory and charge what they wanted. $250 per ton with a $40 minimum charge. Every time there is an opportunity for comment, I always mention that they charge much more than the competition (the gully behind some hobo camp). Rate increases are deemed necessary for "essential services"**.

*A facility where we (or the city trucks) toss our garbage into semi truck trailers. Who take it to the dump, which is not accessible to the general public.

**Cleaning garbage out of hobo camps. For free.

[Doctor Syntax]

When I lived at High Wycombe there was a different solution. make the recycling centre really the recycling centre. There were a number of traders operating there who would go through anything that looked promising on the basis that people will dump stuff rather then give it to a charity shop or try to sell it second hand. I guess the traders were paying for their pitches there. The only problem was to make sure you only had junk in your boot because the moment you opened up there's be somebody diving in. Is that still the case? BTW the name of the dump was High Heavens.

Lisburn where we lived previously hadn't been quite as well organised but stuff could have been picked up from there. I once saw a whole pile of marble but table tops there - I doubt they were there long before they were collected.

Moving from there to Kirklees and there were notices up forbidding bin diving, at least at the main Huddersfield site.

[Michael Hoffmann]

Oh, I first hoped they were talking Hellfire armed drones with lingering capability. Catch them in flagranti delicto.

So they can take care of those bogans who regularly dump their shit 500m(!) before the tip, because they can't be arsed to bring it the rest of they way when they're told of the fees (which is free if you live in the shire, but they come from who knows where)

[Robin Bradshaw]

Performative Nonsense

All of the large scale illegal dumps that have made the news recently had been reported to the Enviroment Agency who then did nothing. Drones arent going to fix this as finding the dumps was never the problem.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: Performative Nonsense

Finding the dumpers is. Hence the drones. Although covering the area with (reasonably secured) wildlife cameras would do as well.

[Pascal Monett]

"crack down on the scourge of fly tippers and unauthorized dumpers"

Congratulations. What is the next step ? Cracking down on smokers throwing away their cigarette butts ?

That is definitely disgusting, but I don't think anyone needs a government division to control it.

What's the next step ? Drones patrolling the sidewalks to control that people don't insult each other ?

The laws in place should already be sufficient to solve the problem. Enforce them properly, then you can dream about increasing surveillance.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: "crack down on the scourge of fly tippers and unauthorized dumpers"

"The laws in place should already be sufficient to solve the problem."

They are.

"Enforce them properly"

There's the problem. You can't enforce the laws if you can't identify who's breaking them.

"then you can dream about increasing surveillance."

The surveillance is to make that identification although I don't think drones are the best method.

[MortyCapp]

France has been using drones for year to track un-registered and illegal private swimming pools.

Love technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Windsor Park

Plenty of room for fly tipping.

They’ve been hosting garbage there for years.

Andy is gone now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Arm the drones with missiles

and don’t hesitate to use them.