PDA

View Full Version : Waste not want not.." in the public interest"


Krystal n chips
29th Jan 2014, 04:22
You do have to wonder as to why this has been described as being "of significant public interest".....33 worth, allegedly, of food taken from a skip, and subsequently returned, presumably to the same skip, should have attracted such a fervent effort from the C.P.S to prosecute....

Three charged with stealing food from skip behind Iceland supermarket | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/three-charged-vagrancy-act-food-skip-iceland)

Airey Belvoir
29th Jan 2014, 04:29
In trying to click on the link I get a big, big red warning from McAfee telling me that I really, really don't want to go there as the site is dangerous!


About par for the course for the Gruniad http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


Anyway.....if the stuff is in a skip then, per se, it has been abandoned as "junk" and ownership passes from the person or organisation that has deemed it worthless enough to throw it out. There really ought not to be any prosecution.


However, generally, it's not the worth of an item that is important it is the principal. So if theft has been committed then it ought not to matter whether the item is worth 1p or a million squid.

sitigeltfel
29th Jan 2014, 05:54
Lets look at this scenario.

They take the food home and then eat it. They get serious food poisoning, are hospitalised and incapacitated. Later, they try to sue the supermarket for "poisoning" them.
The whole episode will have cost the supermarket, the judicial system and the NHS a small fortune.

That is one of the main reasons why supermarkets take action against skip scavengers.

ORAC
29th Jan 2014, 07:17
Skipping and The Law (http://comescavenge.wordpress.com/tag/dumpster-diving/)

Lon More
29th Jan 2014, 07:27
as ORAC's link shows, "theft by finding". It's getting more and more common in the UK as the poor get poorer. Whole web sites and forae devoted to it. The concencus is, ask before you take anything, The problem seems to be that people take stuff out the bins bit leave lots of rubbish strewn about,

Don't see how anybody could sue the shop. Because nothing was purchased there was no contract therefore no basis for that.

Andy_S
29th Jan 2014, 07:37
Don't see how anybody could sue the shop. Because nothing was purchased there was no contract therefore no basis for that.

Never underestimate the extent of the "no blame" culture.

The shop would be accused of not displaying prominent written health warnings. Or failing to dispose of the items in a secure manner, i.e. making it too easy for the poor perps to recover.......

There's always a justification.

Dash8driver1312
29th Jan 2014, 07:48
Just my tuppence, forum becomes fori, not forae...unless anyone else wants to jump on me for that!

UniFoxOs
29th Jan 2014, 08:09
"of significant public interest"

Translated from CPS-speak into English - an easy conviction because we've got them dead to rights.


OTOH "Not in the public interest" means "We haven't got enough evidence and can't be arsed to get more."

MagnusP
29th Jan 2014, 10:17
Dash8, I'm wearing my jumping shoes. :p

My Latin dictionary has the plural as fora. :ok:

axefurabz
29th Jan 2014, 10:43
Dammit! That was part of my contingency plan if things turn bad What? Latin??? Jeez, you must be expecting things to get bad!

tony draper
29th Jan 2014, 11:02
Didn't they used to nick people for stealing heat? ie peeps sleeping rough beside Hotel vent gratings and such to stay warm in the winter.
Wouldn't happen nowadays of course,they would fence it off and charge em rent.
:uhoh:

Dont Hang Up
29th Jan 2014, 11:16
Actually the CPS said "we feel there is significant public interest in prosecuting these three individuals".

That is not the same as saying "these lot need to be in prison". What they are actually doing is creating a test case. If the accused are acquitted then it suggest the law should be re-examined. Clearly in the public interest.

Fareastdriver
29th Jan 2014, 11:26
If you make it legal there will be crowds around the bins looking for free groceries.
It happens in LA. Past sell by, dented cans etc..

cockney steve
29th Jan 2014, 11:54
A Tesco store in Failsworth, has regular stock-purges....stuff is dramatically reduced, then reduced again, about 2 hours later.

They always seem to do it on the same days at the same time. A fair group of people seem to shop regularly at that time and hang about waiting for the person with the "reduction pricer" to appear.....they then descend like a swarm of locusts.

It's arguable that the reductions give away more than they need, OTOH, I've bought stuff I normally wouldn't , simply because it's cheap -enough to throw away if I don't like it.
Asda seem much more random and smaller discounts, initially, before reducing to "10p" to clear balances.....local Tesco seems to think that 20p discount will make me buy some manky lettuce /tomatoes/ bananas.... I don't know how much they throw away, but I find the practice immoral......I understand the need to not undermine their full-price sales,but the dog-in-a-manger "can't make a profit, so no-one's having it" attitude stinks.
AIUI Sainsbury's continuously stock-cleanse....I went there once and bought several packs of sausages at ~1/2 price (straight into the freezer at home!) I continued to go round the store and spent more than i otherwise would.


Perhaps some of the wet-behind the -ears management is missing a trick here?...we used to call it a "LOSS LEADER " Today, a lot of business' survive that were built on the back of that. but the knowall graduates insist on re-inventing the wheel.

airship
29th Jan 2014, 12:29
Presumably, the Iceland store was responsable for whatever initial charges were involved. And were / are still pursuing charges in support of any CPS case?

There's a huge debate to be held over what and how supermarkets etc. dispose of unsold foods in general, but probably not here and now... :sad:

But IMHO, it's somewhat disingenious for the CPS (or anyone) to consider "whatever was stolen" out of a skip or garbage container and "destined for a land-fill" somewhere to be of any "value". It was all "garbage", from the moment that Iceland employees placed the food into the containers. The use of that term "garbage" should equally apply to the charges.

By all means, charge them with "trespass" or similar, but let's cut-out all talk of "theft" forthwith. Unless of course, the Crown intend to send the offenders to Australia... :rolleyes:

What a great (and mis-directed) waste of HM public resources spent in somehow "defending the miserable actions of large food retailers (and their lobbies) when disposing of unsold food"... :mad: :sad:

UniFoxOs
29th Jan 2014, 13:30
Didn't they used to nick people for stealing heat?

Don't know about that, but a few centuries ago I lived in Brighton, and remember an article in the Argus about a guy prosecuted for "Stealing a hot bath, the property of the Grand Hotel"

Apparently this non-resident walked into the hotel and had a bath. They got a conviction, but I don't know what proof they could bring in court - I assume there were no witnesses, and the physical evidence had gone down the plughole!

Curious Pax
29th Jan 2014, 13:38
I'm slightly surprised that supermarkets don't donate food that would otherwise be binned to local food banks and homeless shelters - I'm sure the recipients would be happy to sign a waiver. A lot of the sell by dates are pretty arbitary anyway - in our house we mostly use smell and appearance to decide whether we use something after the date has gone past, and I don't think we suffer any more stomach problems than anyone else.

Perhaps footballers could help with distribution, following the fantastically-named Angel Rangel's example: Angel Rangel distributes Subway's leftovers (http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/19/angel-rangel-appeals-to-twitter-followers-for-help-in-feeding-swanseas-homeless-3358178/)

RedhillPhil
29th Jan 2014, 15:24
So, let me get this fixed in what I laughingly refer to as my mind.
If I dress in a black blanket, stand on a street corner with others of a like mind and shout that all homosexuals should be stoned and soldiers should be beheaded I get a few policemen standing around making sure that no-one attacks me.
If however, I collect someone else's rubbish I'm going to get taken to court.
Yeah right.

MG23
29th Jan 2014, 16:03
I'm slightly surprised that supermarkets don't donate food that would otherwise be binned to local food banks and homeless shelters - I'm sure the recipients would be happy to sign a waiver.

Probably.

But would courts accept such a waiver? 'Ah, but Mr Ambulance-Chaser has brain damage from drinking meths for twenty years, and didn't really understand what he was signing,' etc.

The supermarkets have nothing to gain other than some minor publicity, and millions to lose. So they have absolutely no reason to do so.

Krystal n chips
29th Jan 2014, 16:32
" A Tesco store in Failsworth, has regular stock-purges....stuff is dramatically reduced, then reduced again, about 2 hours later

I think, in legal terms, and given that I am not unfamiliar with Failsworth, this is usually referred to as..... burglary and shoplifting......;) :D

malcolm380
29th Jan 2014, 16:47
Datum plural is Data, so Forum plural is Fora, surely?

VP959
29th Jan 2014, 17:02
Usual Grauniad fuss over nothing, they've now updated it: Prosecutors drop case against men caught taking food from Iceland bins | UK news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/29/prosecutors-drop-case-men-food-iceland-bins?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487)

The CPS aren't going to prosecute, and I very strongly suspect they never really were.

Krystal n chips
29th Jan 2014, 17:25
"Usual Grauniad fuss over nothing, they've now updated it.

The CPS aren't going to prosecute, and I very strongly suspect they never really were "

Oh dear, another sad case of engaging keyboard, the equivalent of gob it seems, before brain.

If the CPS were not originally going to prosecute, does it not seem strange ( clearly not I suppose ) that the article...you have read the article completely I assume?.....contains a rather large chunk of text from the CPS regarding why they have reversed their original decision ?.

Curious Pax
29th Jan 2014, 18:18
Apparently the store is next to the local nick. I suspect that a couple of the boys in blue saw the 3 guys coming out of Iceland's yard with a holdall, and saw the prospect of an easy collar. The fact that they ended up being charged with a pre-Victorian vagrancy offence after 19 hours in clink suggests that straws were being clutched at. I'm surprised that the CPS went along with it in the first place, but perhaps they too saw it as an easy plus on the stats.

If the words of the Iceland chief exec are taken at face value then the fuss in the papers this week was the first that they had heard of it, and they (I think correctly) judged that there was better PR in disowning the whole thing. Once they did that then I think the CPS decided that the chances of a jury convicting had just sailed out of the window, and did the decent thing.

The Nip
29th Jan 2014, 18:52
While there are some undoubtedly people who are in need of food banks, it is the definition of poor that is used.

Taking an example of those people on benefits st, they still have mobile phones, smokes, drink, mod cons and some are very well dressed. Not to dismiss those who pay for drugs.

I would guess there are a few on here that grew up without if money was short.

airship
29th Jan 2014, 18:56
Curious Pax wrote: I'm slightly surprised that supermarkets don't donate food that would otherwise be binned to local food banks and homeless shelters...

What? Admit to selling their customers these foods earlier the same day, yet "binning it all" later the same evening...?!

Like I said earlier, the whole subject deserves it's own thread. It's a disgrace to humanity. In an age when ordinary folk are prohibited from feeding pigeons (they're a public nuisance), the authorities defend throwing food "fit for human consumption" into bins. When some admittedly small minority of human-beings might need recourse to foraging in bins in order to survive from day to day. Distasteful at best, perhaps scandalous from the view-point of "disabused writing from Tunbridge Wells"...

Funny that, I always imagined that the next apparition of JC might have been in the guise of a supermarket manager: "It might not be fish, but there's enough here to feed 5,000. Come 'n' get it...?!" :sad:

skydiver69
29th Jan 2014, 19:56
Apparently the store is next to the local nick. I suspect that a couple of the boys in blue saw the 3 guys coming out of Iceland's yard with a holdall, and saw the prospect of an easy collar. The fact that they ended up being charged with a pre-Victorian vagrancy offence after 19 hours in clink suggests that straws were being clutched at. I'm surprised that the CPS went along with it in the first place, but perhaps they too saw it as an easy plus on the stats.

If the words of the Iceland chief exec are taken at face value then the fuss in the papers this week was the first that they had heard of it, and they (I think correctly) judged that there was better PR in disowning the whole thing. Once they did that then I think the CPS decided that the chances of a jury convicting had just sailed out of the window, and did the decent thing.

I can quite easily see how they would have been in custody for 19 hours.

If they were arrested at night they would have been bedded down until someone (singular) took on the handover the following morning at maybe 8 or 9 am. They'd then have to go to Iceland to get both a statement (meaning that the store staff would have known about the offence), an estimate of the value of the items 'stolen' and CCTV, which would take 1 - 2 hours. Separate solicitors might have been requested for all three suspects meaning three lots of pre interview disclosure and pre interview solicitor/suspect chats. You're probably looking at 1 to 1 1/2 hours per interview. As they seem to have been arrested for burglary a decision from CPS would be required so a file would have to be prepared, then wait maybe one hour for the CPS to pick up the phone plus another hour whilst they go through the statement/s and interview notes. They then decided to charge 'found on enclosed premises' so the PC would then have to go away and build the charge before charging each individual suspect.

If they'd been arrested during the day a lot less time would have been needed.

gunbus
29th Jan 2014, 21:50
It seems that the CPS is dropping the case
BBC News - Iceland food bin theft case dropped by CPS (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25950761)#

VP959
30th Jan 2014, 06:49
Oh dear, another sad case of engaging keyboard, the equivalent of gob it seems, before brain.

If the CPS were not originally going to prosecute, does it not seem strange ( clearly not I suppose ) that the article...you have read the article completely I assume?.....contains a rather large chunk of text from the CPS regarding why they have reversed their original decision ?.

We're talking about a newspaper report here, not a document from the CPS. A journo wrote what he thought about the CPS in the original article, based on hearsay that he/she had picked up; there was no official information released by the CPS at that time, neither would one expect their to be in a criminal case, where such information would be sub-judice from the moment that charges were laid. The CPS only responded AFTER this paper had made a fuss over sod all, as in all probability charges would almost certainly not have been brought, especially as Iceland had already advised the CPS that they didn't want to pursue the case.

Anyone who believes what they read in the newspapers to be fact really needs their bumps felt, as none of them tell the whole truth about anything. If they did they'd sell fewer copies, as in reality the truth isn't what the majority of the newspaper-reading public want; they often seem to want to feel outraged, or titillated, by what they read in the papers.

The Grauniad panders to the wishes of it's readers, just like every other newspaper, and reports stories with a slant that is intended to cause its readers to feel annoyance with "the Establishment" a lot of the time. Like other newspapers, much of what is printed in this newspaper has to be taken with a large pinch of salt, as anyone who has been the subject of extensive reporting by any newspaper will know (and I write this from personal experience, having been the subject of a couple of full page spreads in one of the bigger nationals, including a large cartoon, supposedly of me). My experience has been that journos do the very bare minimum of checks before going to press - although I was the subject of their attention they chose to get the story material from acquaintances, without checking with me as to the accuracy of any of it.

Erwin Schroedinger
30th Jan 2014, 06:50
If you steal frozen food from Iceland, does that make it hot?

ShyTorque
30th Jan 2014, 07:00
No, just a bit soggy.

A bit like this story. I sense the disappointment in the PPRuNe outrage crew now that the story has fallen flat.

We'll done to Malcolm Walker for popping their balloon. Freezer jolly good fellow,,,,