The recycling workd. The recycling stream was there and the glass got recycled. The particpants did not protect their part of the stream but the glass was evidently valuable enough to steal.
I guess the question is, was the glass valuable because it could be resold for monies or was the glass valuable because there was an artificial value made by bottle/glass deposits?
CS, surely you jest.
The recycling worked for the thief, not for the people paying for the recycling stream to exist, and who were supposed to derive the economic benefit of the recycling.
No one can say that taxpayer subsidy of theft is recycling that works.