back to article Men charged with theft of free newspapers

Two men have been charged with theft for allegedly helping themselves to bundles of free newspapers from London Bridge railway station. The two South London men are said to have pinched bundles of the London Evening Standard, a freesheet, edited by former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, that is handed out to …

          1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

            spot fine of GBP80 for emptying the remains of her drink of coffee down a street drain

            Was it Starbucks? If so, then the sentence was laughably light.

            I guess not. The word "coffee" was used, not "laughably-undinkable, burnt water masquerading as coffee".

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "polluting a water course"

            The story about the woman pouring coffee down the drain is rather distorted. She was ticketed for littering by council enforcement officers, who were overstepping their authority and are no doubt incentivised to issue as many tickets as possible. The ticket was (eventually) rescinded on appeal.

            Watercourse pollution offences are not dealt with by means of on-the-spot fines.

          3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            "Apparently it is not allowed to dispose of household waste in a public litter bin."

            So why is it legal for marketroids to dispose of non-household waste in my letter box?

          4. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            In England a man was successfully prosecuted for a related offence. He would read his home snailmail on the way to work - and put any unwanted items in a litter bin en route. The local council tracked him down through the addressed items. Apparently it is not allowed to dispose of household waste in a public litter bin.

            A woman was recently given an on the spot fine of GBP80 for emptying the remains of her drink of coffee down a street drain - before putting the disposable cup in a litter bin. Her alleged offence was "polluting a water course".

            [[CITATION REQUIRED]]

            1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Chris, you're saying that all street drains never go into the sewage system? I knew some didn't, but I assumed the majority did.. Learn something new every day !

              1. Kiwi
                Boffin

                Chris, you're saying that all street drains never go into the sewage system?

                Here in NZ most street drains go straight to the nearest stream. It's illegal to wash your car in your drive in many areas, because the chemicals in the washing and the stuff you wash off go into waterways (washing on your lawn is OK though). It's also illegal to have stormwater runoff pipes (eg from your roof guttering) going into sewers.

                The reasoning being basically that storm water should be fairly clean, and doesn't need any further processing. Sewer water however has to be treated, and it's an expensive process. You don't want any unnecessary water going into the system because every drop has to be paid for.

                Thanks to some weird and wonderful drain work on a friend's place before he got the property, we've been learning lots about what is and isn't legal with this stuff. Council looks for illegal connections by pumping smoke into the sewer system, and looking for what leaks above ground in the street. If all is connected properly the smoke won't be seen, but an illegal tap (or broken pipe) will let the smoke out.

                1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
                  Thumb Up

                  Here in NZ most street drains go straight to the nearest stream. It's illegal to wash your car in your drive in many areas, because the chemicals in the washing and the stuff you wash off go into waterways (washing on your lawn is OK though). It's also illegal to have stormwater runoff pipes (eg from your roof guttering) going into sewers.

                  Funnily enough, my main knowledge on the subject was from a New Zealand(*) fly-on-the-wall programme, where they followed environment agency staff. They called in on one company which was washing equipment outside their property, and the drain outlet was straight onto a beach just down the road.

                  It makes sense to have this sort of setup - I just assumed that as in most of the UK, there is no handy river or stream nearby, the sewage system was used... Thinking about it further, though, it would probably smell a bit!

                  (*) I *think* it was NZ, but it could have been AU.. Sorry!

          5. Kiwi
            Trollface

            Her alleged offence was "polluting a water course".

            BP or Starbucks sludge coffee?

            Either case I be seeking far more than a mere fine. That sort of pollution needs making an example out of!

            (Assuming a normal roadside drain, she should point out that the person who gave her the ticket was likely driving a car, which deposits tyre rubber and other solid waste materials on the road, which when it rains get washed into the gutter, thus they're also pollution said watercourse)

        1. tedleaf

          Yes,it's a crime to remove stuff back out of public rubbish/litter bins,once you place something in one it becomes the property of the local authority or their contractor,its the same law as covers the removal of things from skips,even if you have "permissions" of the original owner,it's theft,you need to get consent from both the old owner and the owner of the skip,I had it all explained to me by a police solicitor when I was a regular skip diver,you removing an item permanently from someone else,who may have an income source for that item.

          It even means you cannot remove even a bucket of soil from a skip full,even if the whole lot is going to landfill..

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            > Yes,it's a crime to remove stuff back out of public rubbish/litter bins,once you place something in one it becomes the property of the local authority or their contractor

            Nice theory from that solicitor, but last I checked it was me paying the rubbish company for the service. Nowhere in the contract does it say that they get to keep what they take.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Surely London commuters only read the Daily Mail or Express for their daily dose of "THOSE FUCKING IMMIGRANTS" or some crap?

        You don't know much about London, I assume.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          He said commuters, not residents :P

  1. 0laf

    Eek

    Have been guilty of this when I'm doing painting in the house. Grab a handful of metros, property papers etc.

    1. SkippyBing

      Re: Eek

      You're going down you slag!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Eek

        Learn to speak properly. Everyone knows it's "you're going daahrn you slaaaaaaag!"

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Eek

          Learn to speak properly. Everyone knows it's "you're going daahrn you slaaaaaaag!"

          I say! You must be from the wilder parts of London old chap! We don't have language like that round here[1] you know! One must have standards..

          [1] NNW London. Where I was dragged up. With a Middlesex postcode..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Eek

      Have been guilty of this when I'm doing painting in the house. Grab a handful of metros, property papers etc.

      It may be worth finding a different source for your DIY advice.

      In general, painting is done with brushes and rollers - much easier to get a good result.

      :)

  2. Redstone

    Nothing is 'free'

    whatever their motivation, by taking the whole stack, the thieves have stolen circulation from the paper: eyeballs on the paper is what attracts the advertising revenue that pays to keep the publication going.

    No circulation means no income which leads to lost jobs. So not a 'victimless' crime if it were allowed to continue.

    1. SkippyBing

      Re: Nothing is 'free'

      Probably a cunning plan by the editor to boost circulation by having large amounts taken from various stations.

      1. Fihart

        Re: Nothing is 'free'

        "Probably a cunning plan by the editor to boost circulation by having large amounts taken from various stations."

        Shrewd comment. When working in ad agency with a client who was a magazine publisher I brought a meeting to a standstill by suggesting that instead of running an ad campaign to boost circulation we simply spent the money buying copies of the magazine and dumping them. Wasn't too surprised to some years later see a skip/dumpster near a publishing house full of current copies of a consumer mag.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "buying copies of the magazine and dumping them"

          I guess this is akin to fraud, advertiser in the magazine won't be happy if they knew their ads were only seen by rats in the bins...

          1. Kiwi
            Coat

            Re: "buying copies of the magazine and dumping them"

            I guess this is akin to fraud, advertiser in the magazine won't be happy if they knew their ads were only seen by rats in the bins...

            That's not a very nice way to talk about all those rail commuters!

        2. PhilipN Silver badge

          Re: Nothing is 'free'

          That's the music business. Countless examples but one worth mentioning is how Brian Epstein made sure his new charges named the Beatles sold minimum 10,000 singles of their first release.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nothing is 'free'

          Nothing new except for the dumping.....I remember someone telling me that his boss had formed a company in the seventies which bought copies from the distributor of a publication that his then employer produced. Then this new company distributed them for free to hairdressers and barbers near the offices of those companies who were advertising that month. Boosted circulation numbers and the visibility of the mag apparently

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nothing is 'free'

      eyeballs on the paper is what attracts the advertising revenue that pays to keep the publication going

      And is that a good thing, for a rag "edited" by a failed politician with no relevant journalistic expertise, and written by a skeleton staff doing desk journalism? Note also that it is majority owned by a dubious Russian oligarch, with a 25% shareholding by the owners of the Daily Mail.

      I might add that in terms of second order crimes that you're alluding to, how about aiding and abetting littering? The free rags cost huge amounts to clear up from abandoned papers on the underground, trains, buses, and even off the street. When the Evening Standard pays for the costs of collecting and recycling its ordure then they may have a case for complaining about people "stealing" its papers.

      And a final observation, good to see that the Met (apparently) have got sufficient manpower to investigate this and take it to charge. If there's a complaint to them they are required to investigate and that's fair enough, but they've obviously got time on their hands if they have chosen to charge people over this trivia. I would have thought there's a lot more pressing concerns that they should spend their time on.

    3. aenikata

      Re: Nothing is 'free'

      You could say there's a victim, the problem is defining it as a crime. Not all actions with undesirable effects are (or should be) crimes. If you declare something free and present it for people to help themselves, then I see little scope for declaring a crime if someone takes more than one, unless you have specifically indicated a '1 per person' limit. The real winners here, as always, are the lawyers arguing each side of the case.

    4. peter 45

      Re: Nothing is 'free'

      Yep.

      'Free' is not the same as 'worthless' or 'without value'. Just how many commentators on here don't realise this is outstanding.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nothing is 'free'

        Just how many commentators on here don't realise this is outstanding.

        You must be new here. Not being sensible is part of the fun!

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Nothing is 'free'

        "'Free' is not the same as 'worthless' or 'without value'. Just how many commentators on here don't realise this is outstanding."

        I think you're missing a couple of points here. One is that commentards are free to apply their own evaluations of the said rag and do find it to be worthless other than as a raw material. The other is that if the papers are offered to be taken away free of payment without clearly displayed T&Cs than it becomes difficult to characterise taking away large numbers as theft.

    5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Nothing is 'free'

      "No circulation means no income which leads to lost jobs. So not a 'victimless' crime if it were allowed to continue."

      I think you just made the use of ad-blockers a criminal offence!

  3. Pen-y-gors

    Possible reasons

    1. They're agents of the Maybot wanting to cover up leaked info about a 0-day in her kernel

    2. They're typical Sarf Londoners, i.e. live in sub-standard housing and want them to insulate their flats before winter comes

    3. They're actually homeless and want the bundles to construct a sort of paper igloo to live in.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Possible reasons

      2. They're typical Sarf Londoners, i.e. live in sub-standard housing and want them to insulate their flats before winter comes

      Well, it's no more flammable than the cladding used on their flats..

      1. Frederic Bloggs

        Re: Possible reasons

        You're partly right, in fact if you simply make your hovel out of the complete newspapers (i.e not separating them into sheets and scrumpling them up) it is actually considerably more fireproof than that polyethylene cladding. With the bonus of not having much in the way of cyanide fumes to breath in as you emerge out of the smouldering pile.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Possible reasons

          Agreed. Fastest way to put out my open fire is to lob a whole Evening Standard on, rookie error. Needs careful scrunching first.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Possible reasons

            "Agreed. Fastest way to put out my open fire is to lob a whole Evening Standard on, rookie error. Needs careful scrunching first."

            What about if I used aluminium oxide paste as a bonding agent to hold the papers together?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Possible reasons

              What about if I used aluminium oxide paste as a bonding agent to hold the papers together?

              It would stick to the wall before catching fire..

            2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

              Re: Possible reasons

              What about if I used aluminium oxide paste as a bonding agent to hold the papers together?

              It would be significantly more flameproof. You were probably thinking of iron oxide and aluminium powder, which are the ingredients of thermite. Bonus points for knowing that aluminium is highly flammable if you can get it hot enough to melt the oxide layer, which is another reason a sandwich of polyethylene between sheets of aluminium is really not fire proof.

    2. spacecadet66

      Re: Possible reasons

      As to point #3, people sleeping rough know that a couple of scrunched-up newspapers down the shirt and trousers are surprisingly good insulation on a cold night.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A public service

    Removing gutter trash

  5. Simon Harris
    Coat

    Stealing free newspapers?

    Standards have really fallen these days...

    ... off the back of a lorry.

  6. Alan Sharkey

    Why is this in El Reg? Seems a bit pointless. I assume there is no other tech news to report.

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      I knew you'd come to read this because of its definitely-tech-related headline so I wrote it as a personal gift to annoy and irritate you today.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Now *that* has made my Monday, hahaha :)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Of course if you'd really wanted to annoy and irritate him you'd have put in something other than the 'Bootnotes' section?

      3. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

        so I wrote it as a personal gift

        So long as I don't get the police knocking on my door saying it is not really a gift and I'm being charged with theft.

  7. Mr Dogshit

    All they have to do

    is say they only borrowed the "newspapers" and intended to bring them back.

    The definition of theft is to permanently deprive someone of their property.

    Mr Justice Dogshit

    1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

      Re: All they have to do

      This is all about quantifying.

      I can just imagine the Defence solicitor standing up and ask "is it ok for me to take this one free paper?"

      The next question will be ""is it ok for me to take two free papers?"

      The next question will be ""is it ok for me to take three free papers?"

      "How about four free papers?"

      etc.

      At what point do you draw the line, and why there, at that particular point? Oh I can imagine a good defence lawyer in his element, particularly if he/she has an audience (aka jury).

      If they "borrowed" them, the converse questions are "how long is it acceptable to borrow them for?"

      "One minute?"

      "Two minutes?"

      etc.

      and "at what point can I remove all copies from view without problem?" My local Waitrose has a big pile of Friday Standards by the door on Saturday morning.

      Those that live in London will probably be aware that The Standard is not produced once, and that's it, it is rolled out often as at least two different editions with different headlines as news gets updated. So the "Final" is not always the final version, there's often a "Final Extra". Depending on who you are you could argue that bulk removing old copies was a good thing (if you're a commuter looking for the latest).

  8. Test Man

    It never ceases to amaze me how sad people can get, I mean taking bundles of a FREE newspaper? Why?

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      It never ceases to amaze me how sad people can get, I mean taking bundles of a FREE newspaper? Why?

      Because they get money when taken in bulk to commercial paper recycling centres..

  9. Dieter Haussmann

    they probably wanted it to line their faeces laden nest.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon