Top 10 names for Sutton's 11 tonne litter mountain

Sutton Guardian: Sutton Council leader Ruth Dombey in front of Sutton's rubbish mountain Sutton Council leader Ruth Dombey in front of Sutton's rubbish mountain

There has been a huge amount of interest in the 11-tonne mountain of rubbish which was dumped in the middle of Sutton High Street by the council last week.

It was not quite as big as Everest, but like any significant landmark, the Sutton Guardian decided it needed a name which best suited its unique character and charm.

So we asked our @SuttonGuardian Twitter followers for suggestions - and here are the best of the bunch (in reverse order for dramatic effect).

THE TOP 10:

10. THE LEANING TOWER OF PIZZA

Thanks to Adrian Short who may have been hungry while coming up with that.

9. FIRST CRAP-ITAL CONNECT CALLING AT WASTE SUTTON

By John Evans. Not really appropriate for a mountain but we like the effort to keep it local.

8. MOUNT EWW-JI

Like Mount Fuji - geddit? The author of that one has asked to remain anonymous (probably sensible).

7. MOUNT DOOM-BEY

By Sutton Guardian Assistant Editor Matt Watts - the kind of genius that brings together Sutton Council leader Ruth Dombey with a fictional volcano from The Lord of the Rings.

6. MIKE'S PYLE

Not by Sutton Guardian chief reporter, Mike Pyle, whose surname sounds like 'pile' and brought this important story to our readers.

5. BROKE-BAG MOUNTAIN

By Yours Truly.

4. THE LITTER HORN

By Kris Witherington.

3. MOUNT BINMANJARO

By Ali Masoud, one of our best sub-editors (and you can see why!)

2. BIN NEVIS

Again by Kris Witherington - this man really lives up to the 'Wit' in his surname!

1. MOUNT TRASHMORE

By Glen Ocsko - so simple, so elegant, and makes us all wonder which four political leaders' faces would adorn such a monument.

Can you think of a better name for the council's anti-litter mound? Leave a comment below or email digitalmedia@london.newsquest.co.uk.

JOIN US ON FACEBOOK

 

TODAY'S TOP STORIES

 

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:56pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Niki R says...

If we are going for Trashmore I nominate the faces of the four horsemen of the incinerator apocalypse- John Drage, Monica Coleman, Ruth Dombey and John Leach.
If we are going for Trashmore I nominate the faces of the four horsemen of the incinerator apocalypse- John Drage, Monica Coleman, Ruth Dombey and John Leach. Niki R

7:40pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Binsanity says...

Ruth saying, "bugger, I know the high street buggy's here somewhere, call out the home guard". But don't panic.
Ruth saying, "bugger, I know the high street buggy's here somewhere, call out the home guard". But don't panic. Binsanity

9:23am Thu 13 Feb 14

tony Shields says...

cost of this stunt is rising as suttons over staffed press dept are saying this is costing £4500 but conveniently forget that the daily charge is in fact £11,500 for clearance so the day actually costs £16,000.
A great waste of money from the money wasting experts.
cost of this stunt is rising as suttons over staffed press dept are saying this is costing £4500 but conveniently forget that the daily charge is in fact £11,500 for clearance so the day actually costs £16,000. A great waste of money from the money wasting experts. tony Shields

12:06pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Bill UKIP C&W says...

and of course I still await the FOI request for the breakdown of the £4 million cost of 'street litter'.

Your readers may like to read an email I have sent to CEO Niall Bolger on this, see below..

"I am told that the latest stunt in piling rubbish in the High Street is aimed at reducing the overall cost of the £4 million cost of collecting and disposing of street rubbish.

I have a FOI request in on the breakdown of this figure, I am hoping that this can be expedited asap as it really is a matter of public interest for the local elections and we in UKIP believe this to be a LibDem cynical use of public money to promote a political agenda. Having specific answers from the council’s public servants will aid the political process and delay will hinder it. Please put this in context to my previous concerns already notified to you.

So, with that in mind, would you be good enough to confirm or deny that the savings that could be achieved will be by making people redundant? I suspect that capital outlay on vehicles and other such items would not be disposed of, as they could be needed in subsequent years, would that be correct?

I assume that disposal charges may decrease if rubbish is reduced, what kind of reduction are you aiming for? How can you be sure that subsequent years savings can continue thus justifying the cost of the stunt?

I am aslo assuming that ancillary costs e.g. support costs would also not be affected, would they? If they are, how do you envisage those saving? More redundancies?

In short please outline where and where not savings will be made, I am particularly interested in whether or not employees face losing their jobs.

I will keep you posted on any reply received.
and of course I still await the FOI request for the breakdown of the £4 million cost of 'street litter'. Your readers may like to read an email I have sent to CEO Niall Bolger on this, see below.. "I am told that the latest stunt in piling rubbish in the High Street is aimed at reducing the overall cost of the £4 million cost of collecting and disposing of street rubbish. I have a FOI request in on the breakdown of this figure, I am hoping that this can be expedited asap as it really is a matter of public interest for the local elections and we in UKIP believe this to be a LibDem cynical use of public money to promote a political agenda. Having specific answers from the council’s public servants will aid the political process and delay will hinder it. Please put this in context to my previous concerns already notified to you. So, with that in mind, would you be good enough to confirm or deny that the savings that could be achieved will be by making people redundant? I suspect that capital outlay on vehicles and other such items would not be disposed of, as they could be needed in subsequent years, would that be correct? I assume that disposal charges may decrease if rubbish is reduced, what kind of reduction are you aiming for? How can you be sure that subsequent years savings can continue thus justifying the cost of the stunt? I am aslo assuming that ancillary costs e.g. support costs would also not be affected, would they? If they are, how do you envisage those saving? More redundancies? In short please outline where and where not savings will be made, I am particularly interested in whether or not employees face losing their jobs. I will keep you posted on any reply received. Bill UKIP C&W

1:10am Fri 14 Feb 14

Michael Pantlin says...

Photo caption could read Bless This Mess.
Photo caption could read Bless This Mess. Michael Pantlin

12:13pm Tue 18 Feb 14

emelem says...

name a pile of trash that has supposed "character and charm"??

sigh......
name a pile of trash that has supposed "character and charm"?? sigh...... emelem

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree