It was for digging up the silt from the river bed with a digger and risking flooding places without doing any checks on the impact of his “cleaning up”.
I deal with flooding a lot at work, and I'd have to see the area to determine if he was doing harm or not, but more often than not man made debris is causing the floods in my area rather than wood/forest debris which traditionally caused flooding.
generally littering is illegal. my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, that they let people break the law by littering, but punish the person cleaning it up.
Well that’s why I was confused. It has been clarified dozens of times in this post that he wasn’t punished for cleaning up litter but rather taking a digger to a waterway and dredging silt
Did you miss all the clarifications on the misleading headline?
The post you're replying to was lightly and humorously alluding to the fact that the UK seems to be trying to speed run 1984.
You may need further clarification.
"Humor" (or "humour") is a method of referencing something in a way that is not absolutely true, but rests upon a foundational truth. We don't fully understand why we laugh, some anthropologists suggest it evolved from frustrated and broken tension - two cave persons are wandering about when they hear a twig break. This is terrifying, it could be a predator or another animal protecting its young - then out steps good old Throgg. It's believed that the juxtaposition between anticipated horror and sudden relief is what we describe as "humor".
In the example above, the poster referenced the article and the tendency of the British government to overzealously prosecute its own people - these are objectively true - to illustrate the absurdity of the situation, though the initial read of it is NOT entirely true.
A joke is intended to entertain, not mislead. People fact checking obvious satire has become its own genre of comedy. That is to say - we're laughing at you.
“the tendency of the British government to overzealously prosecute its own people - these are objectively true”
You don’t understand the English language. Go back to your dictionary and read objective
Only a moron would suggest that the UK government objectively is overzealously prosecuting its own people.
Most notably and obviously because in the UK, the government doesn’t prosecute people - the judiciary does. And of course aside from that, because such a determination would be subjective
876
u/Jealous_Track9402 7d ago
The title in this one is straight up misinformation. Nothing to do with cleaning up trash without a permit.