What is your stand on reserving seats using using Tissue in the Food Court etc.

[CYRN]

1. Cleaners and Public

I'm not disputing that the cleaners can make the decision whether to clean or not, I'm saying that should the cleaner take the tissue paper away, and it is not considered to be an offence, then a member of the public can also take the same tissue paper away without being considered as committing an offence.

Being a cleaner does not give you special immunity against offences, even if they relate to cleaning.

The law mandates that the place be kept clean, but does not give any authority to anyone to say that "Hey I was complying with the law by keeping the place clean, so I threw away your S$1,000,000 cash envelope with your name/address written on it)". I think you got the two confused.

Hence if you take the view that the cleaners can take it away, under that same view, you cannot now say that the members of the public commit offences by taking it away. As said in the previous post, you can't have one or the other. There is no special defence from being a cleaner. See my post above again for more elaboration.

2. SBS

Okay, no issue, so long as it was clarified.

3. Tissue on Cleared/Uncleared Tables

I acknowledge that the law is there, and the judges interpret the law. However the judges cannot add their own vision into the law if the law clearly spells out otherwise.

What is important is that you did not answer my question on what happens if a tissue paper is used to reserve a seat on an uncleared table.

4. Who Decides?

Finally, to address your last points - we don't need a tissue paper act, the EPHA is sufficiently wide to cover tissue paper left around.

As for who decides, sorry, the cleaner is not the one who decide s whether the object left is in the possession of someone. It is the Judge or Prosecutor (when assessing whether to prosecute) who decides. Hence, your point about the cleaner being given the power to decide, is wrong.

Since the cleaner has no greater power, defence or immunity than a member of the public, both are considered to be in the same class. What is food for the goose, is food for the gander. Hence, if a cleaner will not be prosecuted for throwing away a tissue paper used to reserve seats, a member of the public will not be either.

OIC... got your point now.

Let me summarise, this is not a counterpoint but like to check if we are on the same footing before we go in circle again.

1. The tissue pack isn't identified, therefore, by strict interpretation of the law, it can be defined as un-possessed.

1.a. The tissue also therefore can't be treated like "S$1,000,000 cash envelope with your name/address written on it"

2. Cleaners, in the eyes of the law, is the same as public. Therefore whatever the cleaners have the right to do, so does the public.

2.a. The cleaners cannot make a judgment call if the tissue is under-possession or un-possessed, but a public can assume either way. And in your case, you can assume it as un-possessed, based on s/n 1.

3. The law is there and the judge interprets the law, no allowances if the law clearly spells out otherwise.

3.a. EPHA defines littering as any "(a) deposit, drop, place or throw any dust, dirt, paper, ash, carcase, refuse, box, barrel, bale or any other article or thing in any public place" therefore everyone is liable since everyone have, at one time or another, shed hair and skin in public place.

4. DPP will be the one to decide to prosecute or not

4.a. Hence, if a cleaner will not be prosecuted for throwing away a tissue paper used to reserve seats, a member of the public will not be either.

 

[CYRN]

The lorry and motorcycle analogy as you aptly put it, goes to show that in a confrontation, the tissue paper reserver would already start at a disadvantage compared to the tissue paper taker. Which was one of my points in the first place.

this I acknowledge.

 

[CYRN]

Well, so far I don't see anyone sharing the same view as you regarding the cleaners, the EPHA, their immunity to prosecution in the name of cleaning etc.

Hmm, for the fallen strand of hair thing, if the hair "falls" rather than being "deposited, placed, etc", it would fall outside of the EPHA.

Yeah... I'm alone on this side. :cry:

But I learn something new... something can "fall" out of EPHA.

As for a particular act being harder to prosecute than another, actually the answer is no. There is no legal concept that says that this Act (ie the Penal Code) is harder to prosecute than another act (EPHA).

So long as all elements in that Section are satisfied, the offence is made out.

tot there's something like "prove beyond doubt" thingy when applying the penal code? Or does it also applies to EPHA. In that case, the onus is on you to prove beyond doubt that the item is un-possessed... and if so, who can you charge for littering. :think:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

Yeah... I'm alone on this side. :cry:

dun cry over a packet of tissue lah, cry over something more substantial- like a bowl of noodle after queueing for 0.5hr! :bsmilie:

u & Vince tok so chim, i oso dunno wad to say. but if cleaners need that level of knowledge for fear of being prosecuted for throwing a packet of tissue, they must be a very special breed of cleaners. :bsmilie:

nx time i see tissue packet i just sit on top of it, owner come just return loh. :sweatsm:

 

[velasco]

nx time i see tissue packet i just sit on top of it, owner come just return loh. :sweatsm:

if you continue doing that, you will forever have sore eyez

k lame and no link :sticktong

 

[CYRN]

dun cry over a packet of tissue lah, cry over something more substantial- like a bowl of noodle after queueing for 0.5hr! :bsmilie:

u & Vince tok so chim, i oso dunno wad to say. but if cleaners need that level of knowledge for fear of being prosecuted for throwing a packet of tissue, they must be a very special breed of cleaners. :bsmilie:

nx time i see tissue packet i just sit on top of it, owner come just return loh. :sweatsm:

heeheehee... mi and vince juz havin fun lah. I tink when lawyers read this thread... they laugh until cannot fight cases liao.

umm...tissue usually on table hor... you dun "sit" on it :sweat::sweat:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

if you continue doing that, you will forever have sore eyez

k lame and no link :sticktong

i kept their tissue packet warm for free. like some restaurants, but i dun think the staff sit on the warm towels... :bsmilie:

heeheehee... mi and vince juz havin fun lah. I tink when lawyers read this thread... they laugh until cannot fight cases liao.


umm...tissue usually on table hor... you dun "sit" on it :sweat:

oh? if on the table den i use my tray or bowl or plate to cover it loh.

"2 guys went to court to settle over a packet of tissue!" :bigeyes:

 

[CYRN]

"2 guys went to court to settle over a packet of tissue!" :bigeyes:

I'm waiting for the day this happens. :bsmilie:

Interesting to see how it develop in court.... altho, I feel that most likely, it will get thrown out. :think:

 

[vince123123]

Thanks

1. Yes - although i won't say "strict interpretation of the law" but that is going by how things are likely to be interpreted.

1a. Yes, which is why the Act has separate illustrations for cases wher the owner can be identified vs those where there is no identiifcation.

2. Most definitely yes, although for greater accuracy, I will say that "If the cleaners are not deemed to commit an offence by doing act A, members of the public would likewise not be deemed to have commited an offence by doing the same act A".

2a. Nope, thats not what I said. I'm saying that both the cleaner and the public have equal standing as far as what they do is concerned.

3. Yes, judges are supposed to interpret law, not make law (although sometimes judges in UK try to make law when they think the law is wrong).

3a. Shedding hair or skin is not likely to fall under the EPHA because in my view, depositing, dropping, placing and throwing do seem to refer to active acts, rather than unintentional omissions. This is of course just my view. I would think it is ridiculous for the AG's chambers to prosecute someone for shedding hair, as opposed to intentionally dumping hair.

4. Yes.

4a. That is most likely the case, although the DPP can decide to prosecute one set of people and not another for the same offence. That is his call. The problem later would be if there is a public furore, then the DPP will have to justify why he prosecute one and not the other; with proper legal basis and not just "I think cleaners are doing their job but the public fella is trying to be funny".

OIC... got your point now.

Let me summarise, this is not a counterpoint but like to check if we are on the same footing before we go in circle again.

1. The tissue pack isn't identified, therefore, by strict interpretation of the law, it can be defined as un-possessed.

1.a. The tissue also therefore can't be treated like "S$1,000,000 cash envelope with your name/address written on it"

2. Cleaners, in the eyes of the law, is the same as public. Therefore whatever the cleaners have the right to do, so does the public.

2.a. The cleaners cannot make a judgment call if the tissue is under-possession or un-possessed, but a public can assume either way. And in your case, you can assume it as un-possessed, based on s/n 1.

3. The law is there and the judge interprets the law, no allowances if the law clearly spells out otherwise.

3.a. EPHA defines littering as any "(a) deposit, drop, place or throw any dust, dirt, paper, ash, carcase, refuse, box, barrel, bale or any other article or thing in any public place" therefore everyone is liable since everyone have, at one time or another, shed hair and skin in public place.

4. DPP will be the one to decide to prosecute or not

4.a. Hence, if a cleaner will not be prosecuted for throwing away a tissue paper used to reserve seats, a member of the public will not be either.

 

[vince123123]

The basic rule is that for criminal offences, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This applies to any criminal offence, not only those prsecribed under the Penal Code.

Hence, any other offence, such as those in the EPHA, also would require "beyond reasonable doubt" to be made out.

Your last sentence sounds confusing - possession is a concept relating to theft, and not littering. Not sure why both are mentioned in the same sentence.

Yeah... I'm alone on this side. :cry:

But I learn something new... something can "fall" out of EPHA.

tot there's something like "prove beyond doubt" thingy when applying the penal code? Or does it also applies to EPHA. In that case, the onus is on you to prove beyond doubt that the item is un-possessed... and if so, who can you charge for littering. :think:

 

[vince123123]

Actually, I don't see any reason why lawyers will laugh at what is clearly a substantiated discussion on the law. Nothing funny here

Actually, i always thought people put tissue on the chair. Putting on the table is an even weaker case for reservation than a chair as used and unwanted, or half used tissue packets are more likely to be found on the table than the chair.

If I were acting on the side of the tissue paper reserver, I'll advise them to put the tissue on the chair rather than the table.

heeheehee... mi and vince juz havin fun lah. I tink when lawyers read this thread... they laugh until cannot fight cases liao.

umm...tissue usually on table hor... you dun "sit" on it :sweat::sweat:

 

[CYRN]

To answer the following quote and the preceding exchange between CYRN and velaso, actually I will pick up tissue papers left behind even when I merely pass by the seats to buy food (ie I already have a seat). I do not merely wait for a situation where I need a seat before I will pick the tissue up and throw it away. Of course, should I need a seat, and a tissue paper is there, sure its fair game as well, whether I need the seat or not.

Hence, your theory on trying to take advantage of the situation does not always apply.

Actually, I don't see any reason why lawyers will laugh at what is clearly a substantiated discussion on the law. Nothing funny here

Actually, i always thought people put tissue on the chair. Putting on the table is an even weaker case for reservation than a chair as used and unwanted, or half used tissue packets are more likely to be found on the table than the chair.

If I were acting on the side of the tissue paper reserver, I'll advise them to put the tissue on the chair rather than the table.

Now you realli sound confusing....

If you actually pick up tissues from the seats... mabbe it's really litter... or mabbe the tissues really fell from the ex-patron's pocket. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

How did you form the opinion that I'm confused? Or are you saying that I sound confusing (to others reading) but am not confused? I'm confused.

Anyway, the second quote is merely to say that tissues left on tables are more likely to be construed as litter than tissues left on seats.

The first quote just says whether I'm buying food or not, I'll pick up the tissue packet - hence defeating the insinuation that I only pick it up to benefit myself (by stealing a seat).

Now you realli sound confusing....

If you actually pick up tissues from the seats... mabbe it's really litter... or mabbe the tissues really fell from the ex-patron's pocket. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

Actually, I don't see any reason why lawyers will laugh at what is clearly a substantiated discussion on the law. Nothing funny here

Actually, i always thought people put tissue on the chair. Putting on the table is an even weaker case for reservation than a chair as used and unwanted, or half used tissue packets are more likely to be found on the table than the chair.

If I were acting on the side of the tissue paper reserver, I'll advise them to put the tissue on the chair rather than the table.

it was in response to my post... maybe not funny to u, but maybe headline grabbing.

"... as the saga continues, the tissue tussle is now heading to high court!" :bsmilie:

yeah, i always tot reserving a seat, put tissue on chair that is more common. thanks for the advise. hee....

 

[CYRN]

Your last sentence sounds confusing - possession is a concept relating to theft, and not littering. Not sure why both are mentioned in the same sentence.

You started it leh... on one hand you say it's "un-possessed" so that there isn't a case of theft... on the other hand, you say the fella "litter".

 

[CYRN]

How did you form the opinion that I'm confused? Or are you saying that I sound confusing (to others reading) but am not confused? I'm confused.

Anyway, the second quote is merely to say that tissues left on tables are more likely to be construed as litter than tissues left on seats.

The first quote just says whether I'm buying food or not, I'll pick up the tissue packet - hence defeating the insinuation that I only pick it up to benefit myself (by stealing a seat).

You sound confusing lah.

You sounded like you really picking up litter loh.

 

[CYRN]

it was in response to my post... maybe not funny to u, but maybe headline grabbing.

"... as the saga continues, the tissue tussle is now heading to high court!" :bsmilie:

:bsmilie::bsmilie:

I wonder if any media will pick this thread up. :think: :bigeyes:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

:bsmilie:

I wonder if any media will pick this thread up. :think: :bigeyes:

that'll be amusing.:sweatsm: maybe foreign media looking for quirky side of Sg? :think:

 

[CYRN]

that'll be amusing.:sweatsm: maybe foreign media looking for quirky side of Sg? :think:

first... bubble gum... now tissue packs...

.... wat's next. :think:

:bsmilie:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

first... bubble gum... now tissue packs...

.... wat's next. :think:

:bsmilie:

during 7th month, the 1st row of chairs must remain empty! :devil: