As time goes by I often seem to find myself asking the question, “Is it just me?” The most recent occurrence was yesterday while reading a news article about a guy in Swansea who has been fined £200 for putting the wrong type of recyclable waste in his recycling sack. If you’re not aware of the story, it seems 28 year old Michael Reeves was caught out because he put paper (junk mail apparently) in the sack intended for bottles and cans.
You may not have any sympathy with Michael. You might perhaps take the line that at 28 he should know the difference between glass or metal and paper and you’d be right of course, he should.
But doesn’t it seem a trifle odd to you that Michael was found guilty of “contaminating” the other items put out for recycling in his bottles and cans sack by including some paper waste? It certainly seems odd to me. It’s the act of so called “contamination” that concerns me.
I’ve had a brief look at the City of Swansea recycling information web page at http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1019 and although there are lists of what is acceptable for recycling and guidelines of what the council would like you to do, there is no mention of the removal of paper labels from bottles, jars or cans. This leads me to believe that by the council’s own yardstick, the contents of virtually all bottles and cans recycling sacks in the Swansea area must be contaminated by virtue of at least some of the contents having paper labels.
So how much has it cost to bring Michael Reeves to court? How much valuable time has been wasted following the legal process to its full and final conclusion? Will the case against Michael prevent others in the Swansea area and beyond from “contaminating” the contents of their bottles and cans recycling sack? Finally, were the contents of the sack actually contaminated by the inclusion of the paper item, given the very high probability that said contents contained items with paper labels? I ask you, is it just me?
At least Michael wasn't guilty of something like this: I could understand his prosecution if he had been.
