Odd laws

[Hope]

Odd laws - and not all archaic!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36389585

Wha' you think?

[Shaker]

This one banning drying washing outside is the most obnoxious of the lot:

The idea behind the rule at the luxury location is to prevent peoples' smalls fluttering in the breeze, which could detract from the look of the estate.

The developers, though, did fit every home with a washer-dryer to help the enforcement of the covenant.

So some brain donor thought it better to install umpteen notoriously energy-thirsty tumble dryers rather than allow clothes to dry for free with nothing more than sunshine and the breeze.

Genius move there.

[Rhiannon]

I'm staggered that doesn't fall foul of energy efficiency laws for new developments.

[Brownie]

The no-washing-hanging-out rule has been in place in lots of estates and apartment blocks for aeons.  They don't all tumble dry, they have laundry rooms which are usually quite warm where things can be hung up until dry, the tumbling is just a finishing off to make the laundry softer.  I'm sure lots of us do that when the weather is bad, maybe we don't have quite so much room  , but the idea of everything being dried in a tumble drier, wet from the washing machine, is very eco unfriendly.  It would take forever, domestic tumble driers do not have the capacity nor the power of those in professional/industrial laundries (including laundrettes).

[L.A.]

Some silly-bugger brought in a law forcing shops to charge 5p for a plastic bag.

[jeremyp]

Some silly-bugger brought in a law forcing shops to charge 5p for a plastic bag.

I was sceptical about that one, but, on the whole, it seems to be working out fine.

[Rhiannon]

There was a load of daft rules about it being ok to give bags for free if they had certain food in them, but retailers have taken no notice as far as I can tell and charge anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34346309

[L.A.]

I was sceptical about that one, but, on the whole, it seems to be working out fine.

Organised people who go out to do a planned shop generally take their own heavy duty bags - that's fine, but those of us who are less than well organised or end up doing an unplanned shop often don't. In the past we received free lightweight bags that were useful as mini bin liners or just for collecting general rubbish. Now we have to pay for a much heavier bag that seems too good to use as a rubbish sack, but you end up with so many of the sodding things that that's what they become - with the result that I estimate I am now sending roughly twice the weight of plastic to landfill as before.

[Shaker]

I was sceptical about that one, but, on the whole, it seems to be working out fine.

Not for me it isn't, for much the same reasons that L. A. has just mentioned. The bin in my kitchen is one of that kind that attaches to the inside of a cupboard door, a plastic frame over which you hook the handles of a carrier bag so that the bag itself forms the bin. That's as good as useless now.

And the notion behind all this - that fewer plastic carrier bags is helpful to the environment - is, given the untold tons of pollution pumped into the world every single day by countries such as China, laughable.

[Rhiannon]

The biggest myth is the idea that cotton bags are greener. They aren't, unless they are made from recycled fabric.

I usually remember my decent bags (the 10p ones) but when I don't I take the 5p ones which do work well as bin liners, as LA says.

[ippy]

There was a load of daft rules about it being ok to give bags for free if they had certain food in them, but retailers have taken no notice as far as I can tell and charge anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34346309

My mother was a Victorian, literally and she thought clothes needed to be aired as she called it, in effect the house had various clothes hanging up every where especially in inclement weather; I'm sure this airing period lasted for about three weeks per washed item and as I had two sisters living at home at the time this airing involved a copious amounts of knickers hanging about everywhere as well as a load of the other stuff.

I can remember thinking when I left home there would be no way I would ever live anywhere and have all of this washing hanging around, nor is there now or ever will be again anywhere around where I have to live as long as I am able to do something about it.

I'm always in trouble for putting washing, when dry, away it drives me potty and reminds me of my lovely mother  with her endless piles of washing hanging everywhere around the house.

I occasionally see there are still some people have those clothes airers that can be pulled up to the ceiling on a pulley, how anyone can live with those bloody things I've no idea, whenever I see one of them it passes through my mind how much I would like to gently smash the bloody thing up and carefully set light to the wooden hanging rails etc, other than that I don't mind them at all.

This post of mine could be an explanation for some of my behaviour in later life, I've had to suffer so much at the hands of my mother's washing when I was a youngster; sympathetic replies only please. 

ippy

[jeremyp]

Organised people who go out to do a planned shop generally take their own heavy duty bags - that's fine, but those of us who are less than well organised or end up doing an unplanned shop often don't.

Yes, I fall into the second category too. So what normally happens is I get charged an extra 5p or 10p on a shopping trip where I might have spent £20 or £30 or about 0.25%

In the past we received free lightweight bags that were useful as mini bin liners or just for collecting general rubbish. Now we have to pay for a much heavier bag that seems too good to use as a rubbish sack, but you end up with so many of the sodding things that that's what they become - with the result that I estimate I am now sending roughly twice the weight of plastic to landfill as before.

Or you could shell out the 5p and still have the small lightweight bags.

My nearest supermarket is a Morrisons who apparently made £3 million on the 5p bags last year, all of which went to charity.

http://www.morrisons-corporate.com/cr/our-carrier-bag-savings-in-the-uk/

[Shaker]

Or you could shell out the 5p and still have the small lightweight bags.

Why should we have to?

[jeremyp]

Why should we have to?

Sorry, which clause is it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that entitles us to free shopping bags? I can't seem to find it.

[floo]

Odd laws - and not all archaic!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36389585

Wha' you think?

Really weird!

[Rhiannon]

The very very small market town nearest to me has about seven or eight shops, all of which have charged 20p for carrier bags for years, long before the law changed. Shoppers choose from three local charities to give their donations to. Mine usually goes to the local badger group.

[Shaker]

Sorry, which clause is it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that entitles us to free shopping bags? I can't seem to find it.

Hyperbole much? It has nothing to do with the UDHR. We all had free carrier bags until recently*. Every shopper seemed perfectly happy with that state of affairs.

* I don't mean that some shops didn't already charge for bags before the law change - Aldi always did, I believe, and no doubt plenty of others; however, there was always a choice to shop at those places or not.

[Rhiannon]

The annoying thing is that it's designed to prevent bags going into landfill, but they tax the ones that do biodegrade the same as the ones that don't.

[L.A.]

The annoying thing is that it's designed to prevent bags going into landfill, but they tax the ones that do biodegrade the same as the ones that don't.

That was at the back of my mind - instead of introducing this stupid law, they could have taken measures to encourage the use of biodegradable bags.

[Rhiannon]

Well if you want to be cynical you could look at it as a way of forcing the funding the charities that pick up the slack from government cuts.

[L.A.]

Well if you want to be cynical you could look at it as a way of forcing the funding the charities that pick up the slack from government cuts.

I suppose that the extra funds will allow them to build their telemarketing teams to hound the old and vulnerable.

[jeremyp]

Hyperbole much? It has nothing to do with the UDHR. We all had free carrier bags until recently

As a courtesy, not a right.

Every shopper seemed perfectly happy with that state of affairs.

Of course they were: something for nothing.

I honestly don't understand why people are complaining about this: it adds a trivial amount of money to your weekly shopping bill and you have the choice not to pay for them by bringing your own bags with you. Against that, it is providing serious money to charities and a serious reduction in the usage of these bags.

[Shaker]

I suppose that the extra funds will allow them to build their telemarketing teams to hound the old and vulnerable.

... or, indeed, anybody.

[jeremyp]

That was at the back of my mind - instead of introducing this stupid law, they could have taken measures to encourage the use of biodegradable bags.

It still costs energy to make biodegradable bags.

[L.A.]

I honestly don't understand why people are complaining about this: it adds a trivial amount of money to your weekly shopping bill and you have the choice not to pay for them by bringing your own bags with you. . . .

Because it's an unnecessary, and I would argue counter-productive, interference with the free market. If a trader want's to charge for a bag that's fine, if they feel it is a useful marketing strategy to give away free bags - that should be fine!