Fuel Protest Planned [Archive]

Skatiechik

25-04-2005, 09:19

Originally posted by Patchy
At least there may be a bit less environmental damage from pollution for a few days if these undemocratic blockades go ahead. I'm in favour of tax on petrol as those of us who drive are causing pollution, but I would like to see the government spending some of the tax on subsidising public transport.

Better start stocking up on eggs and tomatoes, as well as petrol.

Remember that some of us don't get a choice and have to drive the car, public transport isn't an option for me and I am only a poorly paid student :mad: So fuel increases affect me a great deal.

Also remember the higher price of petrol/diesel, also means the cost of good will go up as it will be costing the logistics firms more to deliever goods.

Ousetunes

25-04-2005, 09:23

Originally posted by Skatiechik
and I am only a poorly paid student :mad: So fuel increases affect me a great deal.

If you're a poorly paid student, then the question would be: can I afford to run a car? Granted, public transport is a joke, but I'm always amazed by how many students drive cars, some who live within 1/2 mile of University itself.

Cyclone

25-04-2005, 09:33

the environmental issue is a good point. But by levying this very high rate of tax the government hobbles our economy when compared to other less environmentally concerned (because that's the real reason, right, not tax revenue) countries, such as most of europe.

Of course if that argument wasn't just a cynical ploy to keep generating more tax revenue from drivers then green issues would be on the labour and conservative manifestos...

Skatiechik

25-04-2005, 09:43

Originally posted by Ousetunes
If you're a poorly paid student, then the question would be: can I afford to run a car? Granted, public transport is a joke, but I'm always amazed by how many students drive cars, some who live within 1/2 mile of University itself.

Except I don't, I live 40miles down the road and work off-campus, involving an hours drive on the motorway each morning and evening :gag:

Ousetunes

25-04-2005, 09:47

Fair point Skatiechik!!!!! An hour's drive on any motorway - HORROR! (Especially if you're coming from Nottingham; that section up to Sheffield is a nightmare.)

But, y'know what? I got to Cornwall in 4 hours a month back.

Albeit, setting off at 3.50 in the morning:clap:

Greenback

25-04-2005, 09:55

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
How much tax do farmers pay on their fuel? Am I mistaken in thinking they are permitted to use a much lower tax threshold diesel fuel?

Red diesel is taxed at 3p a litre compared with 46p a litre for standard road fuel diesel. The EU spends around $100billion annually subsidising farmers, meaning that developing nations lose out on around $24billion a year.

If I was a farmer, I'd either be working hard on making my business sustainable, or keeping my head very low indeed.

I definitely wouldn't be shouting the odds about government taxation levels, while at the same time stealthily digging my hand deep into the public's pocket.

The gall of some of these people is frightening.

Skatiechik

25-04-2005, 10:00

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Fair point Skatiechik!!!!! An hour's drive on any motorway - HORROR! (Especially if you're coming from Nottingham; that section up to Sheffield is a nightmare.)

But, y'know what? I got to Cornwall in 4 hours a month back.

Albeit, setting off at 3.50 in the morning:clap:

I dread to think what speed you were travelling at, it normally takes me on average 7-9hours to get down to Cornwall. :)

Ousetunes

25-04-2005, 11:04

I wasn't going too fast. It's just that I have never seen the motorways so deserted - I think it's the best journey I've ever made! I stuck to about 70-80 with just one or two sessions touching a ton. There were roadworks on the M42 and they were littered with cameras, so I slowed right down.

Infact, I counted four cars overtaking me by the time I reached Bristol. We got to Port Isaac, just down from Tintagel in 4 hours 15 minutes.

If only it was like this more often....,

A.B.Yaffle

25-04-2005, 16:06

Originally posted by Greenback
Red diesel is taxed at 3p a litre compared with 46p a litre for standard road fuel diesel. The EU spends around $100billion annually subsidising farmers, meaning that developing nations lose out on around $24billion a year.

If I was a farmer, I'd either be working hard on making my business sustainable, or keeping my head very low indeed.

I definitely wouldn't be shouting the odds about government taxation levels, while at the same time stealthily digging my hand deep into the public's pocket.

The gall of some of these people is frightening.

Perhaps some of the protesters have other motives rather than just objecting to the price of fuel. Last time they did this more banners seemed to mention the word "hunting" than "fuel".:)

Carl_5

25-04-2005, 19:15

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-4961758,00.html

^^^No need to rush to the shops anymore, protest failed

claycraft

25-04-2005, 19:53

Originally posted by Greenback
Blocking the Queen's highway (I'm referring to the go-slow parades).

What right have these people got to stop me, as a payer of road tax, from getting to my place of work at which I earn my living?

As a fellow petrol head and King of the Road Greenback I agree that non should get in my way:evil::wink: but wouldn't you rarther pay less for the fuel you burn getting to your place of work? :loopy:

Don't mention road tax as we know how many £££'s of that goes back in tarmac :evil:but thats another matter:rant:

coyleys

25-04-2005, 21:14

Originally posted by nightrider
Last time (well the time before last) it snowed in sheffield I couldnt buy bread for 2 days (either because it couldnt be delivered or people were panic buying). What the hells a fuel blockade gonna do to our supply lines? Guess I had better start stocking up now...

I've just aquired 25 gross of baked beans, so every one click on Ebay, no time wasters please

Greenback

26-04-2005, 07:58

Originally posted by claycraft
As a fellow petrol head and King of the Road Greenback I agree that non should get in my way:evil::wink: but wouldn't you rarther pay less for the fuel you burn getting to your place of work? :loopy:

I would. But then again, cars are cheaper to buy than ever before (in relative terms), much more fuel efficient than ever before, and last longer than before. According to this report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,611320,00.html

"relative to rising real incomes, the cost of motoring has fallen by 30% since 1964."

redrobbo

26-04-2005, 11:06

So the bockage amounted to about 15 tractors going round in circles on a traffic island. Hilarious. In fact, it's even funnier to know that they have craigmason's "total support". :loopy: :hihi:

Cyclone

26-04-2005, 11:22

Originally posted by Greenback
I would. But then again, cars are cheaper to buy than ever before (in relative terms), much more fuel efficient than ever before, and last longer than before. According to this report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,611320,00.html

"relative to rising real incomes, the cost of motoring has fallen by 30% since 1964."

in 2000 when the price for a litre of fuel was probably about 60p. It's now 85p. Which is a 40% rise. Where does that leave the 30%, I don't know because I can't say what proportion of the running cost is petrol alone, but I suspect we're probably back at 1964 levels.

Berberis

26-04-2005, 12:04

These fuel protesters get my full support.

If all the tax from fuel was either used to maintain the roads, subsidise public transport or go towards helping to limit the environmental damage caused, then people would be more supportive.

We could even use the cash to subsidise the British motor industry in research for more fuel efficient cars!

Greenback,
Where the anti (Iraq) war protests illegal then? People where walking in the streets and "going slow" should they have all been arrested for blocking the highways because you're sat at the back bibbing your horn!

Greenback

26-04-2005, 12:08

Originally posted by Cyclone
in 2000 when the price for a litre of fuel was probably about 60p. It's now 85p. Which is a 40% rise. Where does that leave the 30%, I don't know because I can't say what proportion of the running cost is petrol alone, but I suspect we're probably back at 1964 levels.

It's not perfect data, it is a little out of date. But I'm not sure about your figures... I would have guessed it was around the 65p mark in 2000, and last time I went to fill up i think it was 83p-ish.

Cyclone

26-04-2005, 12:10

i was only guessing. The best i've seen in the last few days was 82p in Edinburgh and 84p in Sheffield or Birmingham. Averages are probably at least a few pence higher once you take into account the south and motorways.

foxy027

26-04-2005, 20:43

Originally posted by kathythebean
You're going to protest against fuel? Isn't that a little bit silly?

As apposed to sitting back and doing nowt!

t020

26-04-2005, 21:29

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I imagine the hard of thinking will be out in force for this one.

Not at all. It's the hard of thinking that just go along and accept the fact that we pay a ridiculous amount of tax on fuel compared with virtually any other country in the whole world. The do-ers will go out and do something about it. I applaud the planned fuel protest.

Chicago

26-04-2005, 21:53

A friend of mine trades oil futures in the US and he is predicting a price of $10 /US gal on unleaded gasoline by 2010. Current average price for unleaded gasoline and diesel is around $2.50 /US Gal or 38p /L.

He cites increased global oil demand from emerging economies (especially China and India) as the primary impetus. This will by all means impact everyone.

Little known fact- the Toyota Prius can be made into a plug-in hybrid. If you drive less than 60 km per day, you may save money plugging in.

http://www.calcars.org/

I'm not sure what the kw/hr prices are in Sheffield....

Happy driving! :)

Longcol

26-04-2005, 22:37

Interesting that BP have posted a 29% increase in profits.

Perhaps not all increases in petrol price are due to taxation?

Greenback

27-04-2005, 07:19

Phanerothyme

27-04-2005, 09:19

Originally posted by t020
Not at all. It's the hard of thinking that just go along and accept the fact that we pay a ridiculous amount of tax on fuel compared with virtually any other country in the whole world. The do-ers will go out and do something about it. I applaud the planned fuel protest.

Why don't you go out and join it, or would that require too larger a commitment on your part?

Perhaps we should abolish all taxes and make contributions to the public pocket entirely voluntarily?

If you want to protest against fuel prices, then surely a good capitalist way of doing so would be to not buy any.

Organising and supporting mass blockades aimed at extorting the government to bend to your will is such an old hat leftist trade union idea, and it doesn't work.

Even if the tax on petrol were frozen, the prices will still continue to rise.

And if a fuel blockade actually threatened the well-being of the rest of the nation, as a successful one surely would, the government would have no qualms whatsoever in removing the blockades by any means necessary.

Thankfully it seems the planned farmer's blockade ended up as a few hard of thinking types driving their tractors around a remote roundabout, wasting precious fuel that they pay minimal tax on...

Phanerothyme

27-04-2005, 09:21

Originally posted by redrobbo
So the bockage amounted to about 15 tractors going round in circles on a traffic island. Hilarious. In fact, it's even funnier to know that they have craigmason's "total support". :loopy: :hihi:

and t020's! :P

Cyclone

27-04-2005, 09:45

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

If you want to protest against fuel prices, then surely a good capitalist way of doing so would be to not buy any.

of course the government is onto a winner with that one. We can't stop buying fuel because there is no viable alternative. They can basically tax it almost as heavily as they like and there is no legitimate response the public can make.
The fuel protests had a positive effect the last time they occured, I don't see why the situation is so different now.

Phanerothyme

27-04-2005, 12:20

Originally posted by Cyclone
of course the government is onto a winner with that one. We can't stop buying fuel because there is no viable alternative. They can basically tax it almost as heavily as they like and there is no legitimate response the public can make.
The fuel protests had a positive effect the last time they occured, I don't see why the situation is so different now.

With a general election coming up - which party is promising to lower fuel duty I wonder? 'No legitimate response' - omg.

Who suffers most from a fuel blockade?

Why should the government not have recourse to military intervention in order to restore supplies of fuel vital to the country's continued existence? They would have my full support in doing so should the need ever arise.

Perhaps those of us who were unhappy with the price of water in Sheffield might decide to cut off the supply until their demands were met - and that would presumably constitute legitimate protest?

What next?

Cyclone

27-04-2005, 12:28

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
With a general election coming up - which party is promising to lower fuel duty I wonder? 'No legitimate response' - omg.

Who suffers most from a fuel blockade?

Why should the government not have recourse to military intervention in order to restore supplies of fuel vital to the country's continued existence? They would have my full support in doing so should the need ever arise.

Perhaps those of us who were unhappy with the price of water in Sheffield might decide to cut off the supply until their demands were met - and that would presumably constitute legitimate protest?

What next?

If the government suddenly slapped a 400% tax on water what response do you think there would be?

I think your prediction of the collapse of life as we know it due to fuel protests and blockades might be a slight exaggeration.
If petrol is so vital then we are at the mercy of a collection of petroleum companies. They could easily cut off the supply and hold the country to ransom...

Elections only come around once every 4-5 years, and not many people vote on one issue alone, if that is the only recourse then the country is in a sad state of affairs.

27-04-2005, 12:32

Originally posted by craigmason
Good for them they get my TOTAL SUPPORT:thumbsup: i no many farmer's and the struggle they face to pay the bills the last thing they need is the price of fuel to go up like it has :mad: they don't pay this on the continent so why do we have to pay this much :mad:

I thought farmers were some of the favoured few who could buy extremely cheap diesel, that you and I can't buy.

t020

27-04-2005, 18:19

But we already pay more tax on fuel compared with almost every other country in the world. It should not be increased further. The amount of tax currently earned through this is much more than is used for funding roads. The government should perhaps use some to support the development of hydrogen fuel and building new roads. Hydrogen is pollutant free so the environmentalists can have nothing to say about it - everyone can drive around in their own, non-polluting cars on a grossly expanded road network that will easily cope with demand. Problem solved.

Phanerothyme

27-04-2005, 20:29

Originally posted by Cyclone
If the government suddenly slapped a 400% tax on water what response do you think there would be?

A higher incidence of disease. People would use less. Also in the long term, a far greater efficiency of use and recycling. Why?

I think your prediction of the collapse of life as we know it due to fuel protests and blockades might be a slight exaggeration.
If petrol is so vital then we are at the mercy of a collection of petroleum companies. They could easily cut off the supply and hold the country to ransom...

Elections only come around once every 4-5 years, and not many people vote on one issue alone, if that is the only recourse then the country is in a sad state of affairs.

No-one can get any petrol, and what, the country doesn't grind to a halt?

Tell me more...

That's the beauty of privatising national industries, as now the state no longer has control over the production or price of its national energy assets. The oil companies do have the state over a barrel (ho ho). Yes they could easily do what you say, but just how likely is that, and what motive would they have for doing so? If anything it is the government that would like leverage over the oil companies and not vice versa.

If you really want to demonstrate against fuel taxes then do what everyone else does, and march on parliament.

If you want to change fuel tax policy, then you need to do two things
a) start a long time ago
b) expend your energies with motorist lobbyists and interest groups who will doubtless be campaigning for the same thing.

Frankly I think your chances are zilch because once the fuel tax escalator (tory invention, eyethankewe) had been going a while, the government were on to such an ever increasing source of revenue, that they could doubly claim was 'environmental', it was too much income to be given up without having to close 100 hospitals or unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear weapons.

Anyone cutting fuel duty suddenly needs to cut some other part of their budget to balance the books.

And its not a small amount either.

In these cases I think the law of "sorry, but tough" applies. Just get a more economical car...

edit
--
Originally posted by t020
...non-polluting cars on a grossly expanded road network that will easily cope with demand. Problem solved.

No, what you then have is a beautiful country paved over so that people can drive all over it. Lovely. Nice vision of England there. Just hold that thought.

t020

27-04-2005, 21:41

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

No, what you then have is a beautiful country paved over so that people can drive all over it. Lovely. Nice vision of England there. Just hold that thought.

It is isn't it? National Parks would remain protected of course, but otherwise - more roads and bigger roads.

redrobbo

27-04-2005, 22:04

Originally posted by t020
But we already pay more tax on fuel compared with almost every other country in the world. It should not be increased further. The amount of tax currently earned through this is much more than is used for funding roads.

A few basic errors in this post.

Fuel tax is not being increased. Fuel prices are increasing for entirely different reasons - see previous post from Chicago.

Fuel tax is not solely used for funding roads.

Phanerothyme

27-04-2005, 22:11

Originally posted by t020
It is isn't it? National Parks would remain protected of course, but otherwise - more roads and bigger roads.

You don't think all these new roads will fill up with cars, just like the motorways did? Or do you believe that a constantly increasing number households with access to a constantly increasing number of cars is somehow sustainable - even if they are all hydrogen powered?

Greenback

27-04-2005, 22:17

Originally posted by t020
It is isn't it? National Parks would remain protected of course, but otherwise - more roads and bigger roads.

A vision that tugs right at the heart strings...

But why bother protecting national parks? Squirrels don't pay road tax.

Cyclone

28-04-2005, 07:33

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You don't think all these new roads will fill up with cars, just like the motorways did? Or do you believe that a constantly increasing number households with access to a constantly increasing number of cars is somehow sustainable - even if they are all hydrogen powered?

the number of cars is rising anyway. Burying our head in the sand and not building more roads just means that the roads we have will be even more congested.
The actual % of land covered by road is incredibly small, something like 0.1% (very vague figure from memory).

Since fuel now has VAT added on top, an increase in the base price also means increased revenue for the government. The tax should at the very least be a simple flat rate, thus it wouldn't exaggerate any change in oil prices.

As to our way of life collapsing, I must have missed it happening during the last fuel protests, what were the symptoms of this catastrophic collapse?

Greenback

28-04-2005, 08:17

Originally posted by Cyclone
the number of cars is rising anyway. Burying our head in the sand and not building more roads just means that the roads we have will be even more congested.
The actual % of land covered by road is incredibly small, something like 0.1% (very vague figure from memory).

I believe that research has shown that building more roads simply means more cars end up filling them up. It doesn't do anything to relieve congestion, it just means more people will drive. What the government should be striving to do is getting people who have alternative methods of transport open to them off the roads.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Since fuel now has VAT added on top, an increase in the base price also means increased revenue for the government. The tax should at the very least be a simple flat rate, thus it wouldn't exaggerate any change in oil prices.

Such a move will not do anything to change the fact that fuel prices will continue to rise in the future, wherever or however the government chooses to collect its tax revenue.

Cyclone

28-04-2005, 08:40

Originally posted by Greenback
I believe that research has shown that building more roads simply means more cars end up filling them up. It doesn't do anything to relieve congestion, it just means more people will drive. What the government should be striving to do is getting people who have alternative methods of transport open to them off the roads.

What the research has shown is that new roads are filled up, yes I agree. What they haven't bothered to study is what happens when they don't build any new roads. I expect the number of cars increases just as fast and the old roads become increasingly congested. Neither way solves the problem, but one keeps up with it and the other tries to ignore it.

Such a move will not do anything to change the fact that fuel prices will continue to rise in the future, wherever or however the government chooses to collect its tax revenue.

It would do something, it would mean that as oil prices rose the % of the price we pay that was tax would fall and income to the government would stay level. The rate of the increase would be less in this scenario than with a % tax added on top and as the overall % of tax fell people would have less ammunition to blame the government for the prices.

t020

28-04-2005, 11:02

t020

28-04-2005, 11:03

Originally posted by Greenback
A vision that tugs right at the heart strings...

:lol: :hihi: It got you as well, did it?

t020

28-04-2005, 11:04

Originally posted by redrobbo
A few basic errors in this post.

Fuel tax is not being increased. Fuel prices are increasing for entirely different reasons - see previous post from Chicago.

Fuel tax is not solely used for funding roads.

Firstly - I never suggested fuel tax is being increased (although Brown has only temporarily halted tax increases). The fact is though, it needs to be REDUCED since we pay such an alarmingly high rate already.

Secondly - it should be.

kirky

28-04-2005, 11:10

Originally posted by xafier
after finding a dodgy mate who's a farmer or sailer :?

plenty of dodgey sailors about...usually in dempseys:D but back to the point,what a waste of time,people just fill their cars up the day before or the day after,i spend about 30 quid a week on petrol,whether i fill up on monday or friday i still spend the same amount and travel the same distance so where's the point in protesting,the petrol company is still gonna get their 30 quid out of me...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Phanerothyme

28-04-2005, 23:35

Originally posted by t020
Yes it is sustainable. There's an upper limit to the amount of cars that can be owned in the UK. My proposed system would have sufficient capacity to cope with every single person over 17 being on the road at the same time. It's all good. :)
Would that be every single person over 17 on the road at the same time moving at speed, or at a total standstill.

Can you suggest an average speed that these motorists will be travelling at on an idealised road network?

t020

28-04-2005, 23:38

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Would that be every single person over 17 on the road at the same time moving at speed, or at a total standstill.

Can you suggest an average speed that these motorists will be travelling at on an idealised road network?

It was, as you probably know, part tongue in cheek. The main point is that there IS an upper limit to car usage defined by the population. The road network should have sufficient capacity to deal with this at peak hours and, at present, it doesn't.

Chicago

29-04-2005, 04:38

Just want to add my 2 pence...

Urban sprawl and poor public transportation increase the demand for cars and fuel. A good way to fix this is by:

1. Limiting urban sprawl though active lobbying to limit expansion boundaries.

2. Improving public transportation infrastructure, adding extra para-transport services and tightening regulation of private providers.

If a fuel tax increase is to be implemented:

1. Make sure that the funds are earmarked for public transit improvements and subsidies instead of going into the common fund.

2. Offer tax rebates to offset the tax increase for car owners who can prove that their car is a necessity as opposed to a luxury.

3. Advertise the heck out of these improvements and get people to take the bus or train.

Just some thoughts....

:thumbsup:

Belle

29-04-2005, 08:22

Originally posted by Cyclone
As to our way of life collapsing, I must have missed it happening during the last fuel protests, what were the symptoms of this catastrophic collapse?

Yes, odd that, I wonder where you were?

Because it really was terrible.

There were shortages of food because shops and supermarkets could not deliver produce to themselves.

Emergency vehicles were struggling, even though they were given priority with supplies. Women in labour and old people with dodgy hips etc were having to go in ambulances where a car trip to the hospital would have been okay normally, because they had no fuel, thus using up valuable ambulance time.

Schools had to close because teachers could not get to work, which meant that lots of workers who could have perhaps walked to work, had to stop home to look after their children.

So some offices and factories had to close too.

Old people were not getting their meals on wheels dinners...

When you cut off fuel, you cut off the transport network and everyone who needs to go anywhere for any reason.

My view is that this protest has nothing to do with fuel and everything to do with making voters cross with the Labour government so that they will vote Conservative.

The timing is hardly an accident

The man who ran the campaign five years ago stood subsequently as a Tory candidate.

Go figure

Cyclone

29-04-2005, 08:37

funny thing though is that our way of life survived, the country didn't implode, explode or plode in any other way. It was a few days of disruption which didn't herald the end of civilisation as we know it and we all got on with our lives afterwards...

Belle

29-04-2005, 08:46

Originally posted by Cyclone
funny thing though is that our way of life survived, the country didn't implode, explode or plode in any other way. It was a few days of disruption which didn't herald the end of civilisation as we know it and we all got on with our lives afterwards...

But that is only because the protestors stopped and the fuel distribution got underway again

I think the police were involved somehow

If it had gone on for longer it would have done permanent damage.

Greenback

29-04-2005, 08:47

Sure, but the point is that it is a dunderhead, pointless protest in the first place.

Fuel prices will never, and can never, come down, no matter how many hypocritical Countryside Alliance ("Less taxes, less intereference with the countryside! More subsidies from the city to sustain the countryside!") hooligan-types decide to behave illegally.

If the tax burden on fuel was lowered, the deficit would simply have to be made up somewhere else. There would also be more traffic on the roads, more pollution (meaning the government wouldn't hit binding emission targets) and within a shorter amount of time, due to increased demand, oil prices would get back to where they are now in any case.

Cyclone

29-04-2005, 09:10

maybe the government should invest some of the massive amounts they make from fuel (and the amount goes up everytime the oil price goes up, which I'm sure makes GB habby) into cleaner and cheaper fuels. LPG, bio-diesel, research into hydrogen power cells and production etc...
Rather than it's current hypocritical stance.

redrobbo

29-04-2005, 09:31

Originally posted by Greenback
Sure, but the point is that it is a dunderhead, pointless protest in the first place.

Fuel prices will never, and can never, come down, no matter how many hypocritical Countryside Alliance ("Less taxes, less interference with the countryside! More subsidies from the city to sustain the countryside!") hooligan-types decide to behave illegally.

If the tax burden on fuel was lowered, the deficit would simply have to be made up somewhere else. There would also be more traffic on the roads, more pollution (meaning the government wouldn't hit binding emission targets) and within a shorter amount of time, due to increased demand, oil prices would get back to where they are now in any case.

Well argued Greenback. Says it all about these futile, pointless protests. :thumbsup:

kirky

03-05-2005, 13:46

Originally posted by craigmason
just to let everyone no there is a fuel protest planned for 3rd may when there will be oil refinery blockades and go-slows :clap:

how did it go? not heard owt about it.

nightrider

03-05-2005, 17:35

Originally posted by kirky
emptying all the blue bins would be a start they are forever leaving them for stupid reasons,my misis put a plastic container in once by mistake...it was only resting on the top and could easily have been removed but instead they left the whole bin.

Yes, I have problems with this. The pick up of the bin is so infrequent that mine quickly fills up (since we only get one between 2 flats and 1 house!!!) and I cant put anything in. I am getting so fed up with mounds of paper in the house I may just throw it in the normal bin (I dont have a car so I cant take it to a recyling center).