Bolitics The New Condem Government

[colhint]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. What do you think reality is in this case.?

 

When I mentioned emea and the US, That still covers the uk

[Kingfisher]

I worked in a supermarket once, on nights. In fact it was my job to waste food that could not be sold after midnight. You can go to any supermarket yard up and down the country at 6am and you will find a weeks worth of perfectly good food in the bins. Occasionally a yoghurt pack might be leaking and the contents might look mankey, but it will be perfectly edible food. Nobody would take a soggy box of cakes that smelt of bleach.

I think the motivation here is Iceland not wanting people to take the free stuff but buy from the shop. It's a bit heartless and just leaves a bad taste (pun intended) in my mouth.

It was my line of work for 20 years, not in the Supermarket as such but the distribution network. I sold and implemented systems all over emea and the US. So yes I have seen all that and more. And I also agree that few would take a box of cakes dripping with bleach. But would someone pick up a lettuce not noticing the broken glass amongst the leaves, or a bunch of celery not noticing the slug repellent, or a piece of good old smelly gorgonzola, and not really notice the ammonia from l'oreal hair colours that had spilled on it.

And if any of these things happened once would they then say, Oh well just my luck, its not really fair to take a big supermarket to court over

Nobody would take loose food from the bin IMO, when there are loads of packaged items sealed in plastic. I can see Iceland using your argument, but it doesn't wash with me. Edited January 28, 2014 by Kingfisher

[colhint]

Are you sure no one would? Not one person?

[Xann]

Btw, we're probably the centre of some meta-analysis workflow diagram on the desk of a poor, unfortunate NSA subcontractor now (courtesy of the proximity of the words 'nest, enemy and burning', and the image location link in your previous post).

 

You've added NSA, upping the ante with tritium and capacitor.

 

That'll definitely get some attention somewhere.

[Kingfisher]

Are you sure no one would? Not one person?

Chilled items like meat or dairy are more of a concern to health, if they were out of the chiller for a while.

But anybody could get a dodgy belly from food legitimately bought. I think you have to prove it was Iceland's fault with a receipt and the sell by date? Obviously you won't have a receipt.

Bad PR for Iceland I'm afraid. Way to heavy handed.

[blandy]

Quite astonishing.  While the unrepentant, blatant, serial criminality of bankers is rewarded with bonuses each bigger than the collective pension pots of the inhabitants of an average street, three guys who take discarded food from a skip are being prosecuted for theft.

 

The CPS claims there is significant public interest in taking forward the prosecutions.  I'd say there would be a slightly more significant public interest in prosecuting the bankers.  And having some personnel changes in the CPS.

I think there is " significant public interest in taking forward the prosecutions", to be honest. I think I would be (as a member of the public) significantly interested to see a jury verdict of "innocent" given, should they go to trial.

It would be good for 2 reasons, if not 3 - firstly because on the face of it someone removing rubbish, using it to feed themselves and thus saving waste, saving landfill and basically doing something useful with it ought not to be a crime anyway.

secondly because as you say, there are far more deserving targets for police time and thirdly due to the enormous embarrassment it woud cause to the jobsworths.

Perhaps it might kind of re-align the way we treat "waste" food anyway. 

I know a number of shops/chains actually give their out of date produce to charities for the homeless and so on. Co-op do, as do Waitrose and a few others. It's a scandal how much is wasted.

 

That said, Iceland is a bit down market, so maybe the rozzers thought they were a lower class of people than those who root round M&S bins, and so must just be guilty anyway.

[snowychap]

I know a number of shops/chains actually give their out of date produce to charities for the homeless and so on. Co-op do, as do Waitrose and a few others.

Do they? All?

Waitrose's commitment is to 'divert all waste food from landfill' in order to generate energy. I'm not particularly aware that the 'fresh' produce that happens to be out of date from them or the coop ends up 'on the plates' of the needy, always, rather than (via the bins) in the hands of some company whose 'energy recycling' efforts go to reaching the targets set by the various companies.

Of course, there will be occasions and situations where they do 'donate' packaged sarnies and so forth to soup kitchens and out and about charity workers to distribute. This would appear very far fetched from an organized and intended distribution of the 'just out of date' food to poor parishioners when it may otherwise be lumped into 'wastage' figures.

[blandy]

Yes, but far from all.

Waitrose gives food to various causes and the co-op works with local and national charities, particularly one called Fareshare.

The law doesn't allow charities to redistribute food that's past its sell by/best before date, so shops giving them that stuff is forbidden. It tends to go for animal feed, or energy generation, or landfill which is a total waste.

Other food that is contaminated or genuinely not fit for human or animal consumption for other reasons, can't be re-distributed either and there's limited opportunity to effectively use it.

But even after all that, there's a fair old chunk of stuff that is perfectly fine that is currently just sent to landfill when it could be used for positive good. That some shops and charities are moving or have moved in that direction is a good thing, IMO.

The whole freecycling thing isn't just about homeless people though, there are dedicated scavengers who just do it to live for free, in terms of food, because they can. And why not.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Yes, but far from all.

Waitrose gives food to various causes and the co-op works with local and national charities, particularly one called Fareshare.

The law doesn't allow charities to redistribute food that's past its sell by/best before date, so shops giving them that stuff is forbidden. It tends to go for animal feed, or energy generation, or landfill which is a total waste.

Other food that is contaminated or genuinely not fit for human or animal consumption for other reasons, can't be re-distributed either and there's limited opportunity to effectively use it.

But even after all that, there's a fair old chunk of stuff that is perfectly fine that is currently just sent to landfill when it could be used for positive good. That some shops and charities are moving or have moved in that direction is a good thing, IMO.

The whole freecycling thing isn't just about homeless people though, there are dedicated scavengers who just do it to live for free, in terms of food, because they can. And why not.

 

What, how very dare they not conform and become obedient consumers, Don't they understand whats good for them, all those corporations working hard for their benefit and they show their appreciation like that.

[peterms]

Yes I know they do, but they have ordering mechanisms in place to keep that to a minimum as best they can.

Retailers have been under pressure to act after Tesco admitted it generated 28,500 tonnes of food waste at its stores and distribution centres in the first six months of last year alone.

The chain said two-thirds of bagged salad was thrown out, either in-store or by shoppers, and 40% of apples were wasted.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/29/rivals-follow-tesco-reveal-amount-food-waste

The ordering systems are not as effective as they are made out to be. Or maybe the system is potentially effective, but it depends on staff inputting a target stock level which minimises waste, rather than which maximises sales. Whichever, the outcome is clear.

[chrisp65]

I can vouch that the local Waitrose does on an ad hoc basis occassionally phone charities and offer food. Most notably they recently massively over estimated the local appetite for sprouts and satsumas. They just somehow managed to be massively overstocked (by that, I mean they would only give it to someone that could organise their own van!) so the food was fresh and in date and clearly going to be rubbish within a few days.

 

The sad truth was, there's not a lot anyone could do with sprouts - they require forward planning, a cooker and a basic knowledge of cookery and were not a great hit.

[peterms]

Anyway, I'm tired of all this talk about food banks and people taking food out of skips.

 

Let's look on the bright side!

 

Demand for Scottish castles is rising!

 

The market for chauffeur-driven cars is booming!

 

Let's celebrate success, not dwell on the misfortune of a few million people who simply couldn't be arsed to start their own private equity firm.

[MakemineVanilla]

Quite astonishing.  While the unrepentant, blatant, serial criminality of bankers is rewarded with bonuses each bigger than the collective pension pots of the inhabitants of an average street, three guys who take discarded food from a skip are being prosecuted for theft.

 

The CPS claims there is significant public interest in taking forward the prosecutions.  I'd say there would be a slightly more significant public interest in prosecuting the bankers.  And having some personnel changes in the CPS.

 

I have to say that it is a beautifully executed headline and story by the Guardian, designed perfectly to excite the sensibilities of all Guardianistas.

 

It certainly worked with me.

 

The stroke of genius was the 'obscure section of the 1824 Vagrancy Act', which suggests that it is the sort of law which need not concern us.

 

Of course, when you follow up the Act, (the Guardian at least provide the link), you quickly find that the law is not so outdated and obscure as we are led to assume.

 

Its the law which stops people selling 'dirty' pictures in the street, or beggars seeking sympathy by exhibiting their mutilations and is what makes open urination in the street illegal.

 

It is the law which keeps people from invading your garden and sleeping in your shed, or looking for stuff they think you could do without.

 

These guys broke the law when they climbed over the wall to get access to the food.

 

So, although I agree with these guys circumventing the capitalist system by liberating waste food, they need to do it within the law.

 

They could get 3 months in a house of correction but they will probably get a fine, if found guilty.

 

More interesting, is that when you read the law, it seems, by the stuff about beggars exhibiting their wounds, that it was written specifically to deal with the problem of soldiers returning Britain after the Napoleonic wars, who were treated appallingly.

 

Nothing changes does it.

[Jon]

 

Quite astonishing.  While the unrepentant, blatant, serial criminality of bankers is rewarded with bonuses each bigger than the collective pension pots of the inhabitants of an average street, three guys who take discarded food from a skip are being prosecuted for theft.

 

The CPS claims there is significant public interest in taking forward the prosecutions.  I'd say there would be a slightly more significant public interest in prosecuting the bankers.  And having some personnel changes in the CPS.

 

I have to say that it is a beautifully executed headline and story by the Guardian, designed perfectly to excite the sensibilities of all Guardianistas.

 

It certainly worked with me.

 

The stroke of genius was the 'obscure section of the 1824 Vagrancy Act', which suggests that it is the sort of law which need not concern us.

 

Of course, when you follow up the Act, (the Guardian at least provide the link), you quickly find that the law is not so outdated and obscure as we are led to assume.

 

Its the law which stops people selling 'dirty' pictures in the street, or beggars seeking sympathy by exhibiting their mutilations and is what makes open urination in the street illegal.

 

It is the law which keeps people from invading your garden and sleeping in your shed, or looking for stuff they think you could do without.

 

These guys broke the law when they climbed over the wall to get access to the food.

 

So, although I agree with these guys circumventing the capitalist system by liberating waste food, they need to do it within the law.

 

They could get 3 months in a house of correction but they will probably get a fine, if found guilty.

 

More interesting, is that when you read the law, it seems, by the stuff about beggars exhibiting their wounds, that it was written specifically to deal with the problem of soldiers returning Britain after the Napoleonic wars, who were treated appallingly.

 

Nothing changes does it.

 

"Police returned the items to the Iceland store".

 

Who no doubt just then threw them back in the skip.

 

Would be funny, if it wasn't so sad and indicative of modern hardship, waste and 'law' enforcement.

[peterms]

More interesting, is that when you read the law, it seems, by the stuff about beggars exhibiting their wounds, that it was written specifically to deal with the problem of soldiers returning Britain after the Napoleonic wars, who were treated appallingly.

That's exactly what it was brought in for, though no doubt there were already existing concerns about other people begging and making the place look untidy.  I was once at a meeting about street homelessness in London where a senior policeman was making that point, and noting that this was the legislation he was expected to use against street homeless people.

[snowychap]

The law doesn't allow charities to redistribute food that's past its sell by/best before date, so shops giving them that stuff is forbidden.

Why would the law intervene to prevent a charity redistributing food that is past its best before date (as long as it still complies with the General Food Regulations and Food Safet Act) rather than its use by date?

It's perfectly legal to sell something after its best before date (as above), isn't it?

None of this ought apply to unpeeled fresh fruit and veg, either, unless it has been given a use by date which it doesn't need.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

More interesting, is that when you read the law, it seems, by the stuff about beggars exhibiting their wounds, that it was written specifically to deal with the problem of soldiers returning Britain after the Napoleonic wars, who were treated appallingly.

That's exactly what it was brought in for, though no doubt there were already existing concerns about other people begging and making the place look untidy.  I was once at a meeting about street homelessness in London where a senior policeman was making that point, and noting that this was the legislation he was expected to use against street homeless people.

 

 

There is a very pleasing symmetry about the use of that law because after the war ended in 1815 the country was in debt and there were large numbers of unemployed including many soldiers and sailors.

 

(Edit) In 1820 Great Britain had a debt ratio of 259% of GDP.

 

It would seem that the nine years it took them to draft the law would be just enough time for the ruling classes to forget the celebrations and the sacrifices, and to start cracking down on the broken men who returned after the war.

 

They started with the vagabond 1824 act and finessed it with the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which was specifically designed to cut the cost of supporting the increasing number of poor. The workhouses were part of that solution.

 

So it can be seen that the Tories cutting benefits in modern times is a repeat of the exact same policies, and the 19th Century values, they love to glorify.  

Edited January 29, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[Risso]

 

 

Quite astonishing.  While the unrepentant, blatant, serial criminality of bankers is rewarded with bonuses each bigger than the collective pension pots of the inhabitants of an average street, three guys who take discarded food from a skip are being prosecuted for theft.

 

The CPS claims there is significant public interest in taking forward the prosecutions.  I'd say there would be a slightly more significant public interest in prosecuting the bankers.  And having some personnel changes in the CPS.

 

I have to say that it is a beautifully executed headline and story by the Guardian, designed perfectly to excite the sensibilities of all Guardianistas.

 

It certainly worked with me.

 

The stroke of genius was the 'obscure section of the 1824 Vagrancy Act', which suggests that it is the sort of law which need not concern us.

 

Of course, when you follow up the Act, (the Guardian at least provide the link), you quickly find that the law is not so outdated and obscure as we are led to assume.

 

Its the law which stops people selling 'dirty' pictures in the street, or beggars seeking sympathy by exhibiting their mutilations and is what makes open urination in the street illegal.

 

It is the law which keeps people from invading your garden and sleeping in your shed, or looking for stuff they think you could do without.

 

These guys broke the law when they climbed over the wall to get access to the food.

 

So, although I agree with these guys circumventing the capitalist system by liberating waste food, they need to do it within the law.

 

They could get 3 months in a house of correction but they will probably get a fine, if found guilty.

 

More interesting, is that when you read the law, it seems, by the stuff about beggars exhibiting their wounds, that it was written specifically to deal with the problem of soldiers returning Britain after the Napoleonic wars, who were treated appallingly.

 

Nothing changes does it.

 

"Police returned the items to the Iceland store".

 

Who no doubt just then threw them back in the skip.

 

Would be funny, if it wasn't so sad and indicative of modern hardship, waste and 'law' enforcement.

 

 

As stated above, I imagine the main problem was that they broke into commercial premises to get into the skip.

 

If I put my bin out on the road, I wouldn't be too concerned about somebody going through it.  They wouldn't find much other than dirty nappies and empty dog food tins, but whatever.  If I found somebody going through my bin while it was in my back garden though, that would be a different matter entirely.

[Kingfisher]

If they were hungry and just wanted what you had thrown out, would you feel any compassion towards their plight? Or would you jus want them off your property and arrested?

[Risso]

If they were hungry and just wanted what you had thrown out, would you feel any compassion towards their plight? Or would you jus want them off your property and arrested?

 

If I was the manager of a supermarket or restaurant, I'd do what I could to ensure that surplus food was distributed to deserving causes as much as possible.  If I found somebody going through my bins at my home, it'd be hard to know what their intentions were, so would make sure they desisted by whatever means possible.  Different scenarios entirely.