63 3 mins 8 yrs

Some people may remember the fruit-cake loudmouths and other loonies when they were publishing their extreme concern over the amount of food which is allegedly wasted from the nation’s kitchens, fridges and tabletops. We were admonished because of our proclivity for eating only part of whatever was cooked, and then gaily throwing the remainder into overflowing dust-bins. Where these people got their statistics and records from, was not disclosed, but they seemed pretty concerned with something which is, and was, really none of their bloody business.

Which brings me to today’s small rant, which is obliquely on the same thing, which is of course food which, for one reason or another, is ditched, thrown, or simply discarded. Seems as though a branch of Iceland, a British frozen-food and vegetable retailer, was known to ditch varying quantities of food into a dumpster located in the delivery yard at the rear of the store. One solid citizen phoned the police when seeing three guys climb over the rear wall, believing a robbery was taking place, but it wasn’t a normal theft; the dumped food was the target of the intrepid trio, as they were arrested with the proceeds of this violent attack on civilization, namely tomatoes, mushrooms, cheese and Mr. Kipling’s cakes.

The Crown Persecution Prosecution Service was asked to consider dropping the case, but the CPS responded this month that the case would go ahead, because “we feel there is significant public interest in prosecuting these three individuals”. The Law which forms the basis of this action against these men stems from 1824, and the charge reads “being in an enclosed area, namely Iceland (Store), for an unlawful purpose, namely stealing food”.

Now my question simply is, should these men have just been warned and set free; or should they even have been charged over the taking of food which had already been dumped, destined for landfill? Should the Majesty of the Law be arraigned against three men who were simply trying to feed themselves with food rejected by its legal owner?

UPDATED

The case against three men accused of stealing food from bins outside an Iceland store has been dropped by prosecutors.

Paul May, William James and Jason Chan were arrested in Kentish Town, north London, in October.

The men denied charges brought under the 1824 Vagrancy Act.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Iceland had made representations that “affected our assessment of the public interest in prosecuting”.

I bet they made bloody representations! Just think of the negative impact on their stores already! Bloody CPS; f***ing useless!

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

63 thoughts on “Tea, vicar? Scones? Mr. Kipling’s cake?

  1. Now that is truly pathetic. Who are they stealing from? Good luck to them. I know that they may be technically trespassing but I think it a bigger moral “crime” to let food go to waste.

    An even more serious point is sending the message that this is in the same vein as actually stealing from the shelves at Iceland.

  2. Didn’t the US dump millions of tonnes of grain into the ocean a while back to keep the grain prices high?

    And the mobsters at Brussells are not that much better ..

    EU’s butter mountain is back

    By Stephen Castle

    BRUSSELS — Two years after it was supposed to have melted away for good, Europe’s “butter mountain” is back.

    Faced with a drastic drop in the price of dairy goods, the European Union is to buy 30,000 tons of unsold butter at the taxpayers’ expense – reviving one of the abiding symbols of Europe’s generous farm subsidy system.

    While the butter piles up in cold storage, more than three times that amount in skimmed milk powder will also accumulate in warehouses on the EU’s tab.

    The collapse in the price of dairy products has also prompted officials to announce that they will resume subsidies for the export of a range of goods

  3. There’s a discount supermarket chain over here that dumps its excess prouduce in bins everyday and then douses that excess producewith bleach rendering it inedible.

    That seems petty and unnecessarily malicious.

  4. Paul McMahon, on January 29th, 2014 at 6:47 PM Said:

    There’s a discount supermarket chain over here that dumps its excess prouduce in bins everyday and then douses that excess producewith bleach rendering it inedible.

    That seems petty and unnecessarily malicious.

    Maybe Paul, but the European Union has a directive no doubt on Supermarkets selling products past the ‘sell by date’

  5. However, I do find it repulsive that food banks are not allowed to take any of these out of date products.

  6. Maybe Paul, but the European Union has a directive no doubt on Supermarkets selling products past the ‘sell by date’

    I don’t know about any EU Drective concerning out of date food Harri but, in any case, it’s not being sold.

  7. I don’t know about any EU Drective concerning out of date food Harri but, in any case, it’s not being sold.

    We can be dam sure it’s a directive from someone, registered foodbanks should be allowed access to excess supermarket food, instead of destroying it all.

  8. Registered foodbanks should be allowed access to excess supermarket food, instead of destroying it all.

    Absolutely they should although I suspect that it’s down to company policy rather tha EU bureaucracy.

  9. Over here it’s a depressingly common site to see people searching bins for discarded food 🙁

  10. Paul McMahon, on January 29th, 2014 at 7:11 PM Said:

    Over here it’s a depressingly common site to see people searching bins for discarded food

    I know, I witnessed it a lot in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, I must admit I have not seen any of that where I live, but no doubt it is prevalent. I have noticed that foodbank volunteers are now common place outside some supremarkets.

  11. In Spain somewhile back, was there not a local Mayor who led a group of villagers to the local supermarket and emptied the lot without paying?

    Not too sure I agree with that one.

  12. Destroying food that others could benefit from is IMO wicked – very very wicked.

    Just on the main post :-

    Some people may remember the fruit-cake loudmouths and other loonies when they were publishing their extreme concern over the amount of food which is allegedly wasted from the nation’s kitchens, fridges and tabletops. We were admonished because of our proclivity for eating only part of whatever was cooked, and then gaily throwing the remainder into overflowing dust-bins. Where these people got their statistics and records from, was not disclosed, but they seemed pretty concerned with something which is, and was, really none of their bloody business.

    What on earth is wrong with people being concerned about things that are none of their bloody business. Threads are posted here and we comment on them about loads of things that are none of our bloody business. It is totally legitimate to comment about how a lot of food wasted by throwing it out.

  13. However, like Robin Hood, Mr Sánchez Gordillo’s politics has seen him fall foul of the law. The land appropriations he encourages are illegal, as are the supermarket raids

    .

    If that catches on, I can foresee problems.

  14. If that catches on, I can foresee problems

    No shit Sherlock 🙂

    He has reportedly survived two assassination attempts by right-wing extremists.

  15. Aileen,

    1) because the statistic about family wasted food seems to be made up. Ever been concerned about being investigated for a crime you didn’t commit? You should be.

    2) because once they get inside your home, you are not safe. Ever thought a subversive thought. They will find you and destroy you.

  16. 1) because the statistic about family wasted food seems to be made up. Ever been concerned about being investigated for a crime you didn’t commit? You should be

    Which has got what do do with

    What on earth is wrong with people being concerned about things that are none of their bloody business.

    ? – Which was my question.

  17. What on earth is wrong with people being concerned about things that are none of their bloody business.

    Curtain twitchers

    H.L. Mencken — ‘Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy

  18. So? Why shouldn’t people twitch their curtains? Why shouldn’t Puritans be allowed to worry about people being happy?
    Live and let live = After all they are not making children passive smoke.

  19. “So? Why shouldn’t people twitch their curtains?”

    Because it makes you go blind !

    Or am I thinking of something else 😉

  20. Why shouldn’t Puritans be allowed to worry about people being happy?

    Live and let live

    How does that work then 😉

  21. Live and let live = “you should tolerate the opinions and behaviour of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own”

    So? Why shouldn’t people twitch their curtains? Why shouldn’t Puritans be allowed to worry about people being happy?

    ?

  22. Pardon

    That makes no sense, in fact it makes about as much sense as this ..

    Live and let live = “you should tolerate the opinions and behaviour of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own”

    So? Why shouldn’t people twitch their curtains? Why shouldn’t Puritans be allowed to worry about people being happy?

    ?

    Puritans are intolerant.

  23. Not rocket science Harri. Live and let the Puritans live.

    Precisely, now if someone would just explain that non-rocket science to those puritans and twitchers.

  24. Harri

    If one pops up I will but you are the one who seems to have a problem understanding that live and let live applies to curtain twiching and to letting people worry about what they want to,

  25. As Aileen states ‘It’s hardly rocket science’ so my question is this

    Do you think it just might be within the realms of possibility or probability to actually bring up your own healthy children without the aid of the absolute intolerance of those ‘twitchers & puritans’?

  26. We’re all curtain twitchers. I don’t believe anyone who says they are completely uninterested in gossip/scandal/other peoples private lives.

  27. If one pops up I will but you are the one who seems to have a problem understanding that live and let live applies to curtain twiching and to letting people worry about what they want to,

    Absolutley, I am not the one ‘enforcing’ or forcing those twitchers and puritans to live how I think they should live, let them get on with it, It’s just a pity those twitchers & puritans dont show the same amount of tolerance.

  28. You are the one showing intolerance of people doing what they like with their own curtains and what they worry about.

    Not everyone can be trusted to bring up children properly, including not smoking in cars that they are in, unless some outside pressure, including legal, is put on them.

  29. A puritan living by the moral code ‘Live and let live’ … I just can’t see that happening to be honest, that’s why they are puritans in the first place 😉

  30. Aileen, on January 30th, 2014 at 11:09 AM Said:

    You are the one showing intolerance of people doing what they like with their own curtains and what they worry about.

    I refer you to my 11.07 post

  31. Absolutley, I am not the one ‘enforcing’ or forcing those twitchers and puritans to live how I think they should live, let them get on with it, It’s just a pity those twitchers & puritans dont show the same amount of tolerance.

    Oh yeah? Then why the difficulty in applying live and let live to curtain twitching and to worrying? Why all the ??? and that makes no sense to the very obvious point that live and let live applies to that, specifically twitching curtains and worrying.

    Colm

    We’re all curtain twitchers. I don’t believe anyone who says they are completely uninterested in gossip/scandal/other peoples private lives.

    I think that they are a few exceptions. The extreme narcissist is only interested in other people to the degree that in could impinge on him. But I would tend to agree that most of us are.

  32. The problem now is those ‘Curtain twitchers & Puritans’ run fake charities high powered Quangos, and rule the roost, what they say .. goes.

    We have to live our lives how they see fit, not as we see fit.

    But no worries, there is no slippery slope, just ‘progressiveness’ 😉

    I am sure those puritans have a cut off point and one day they will wake up and say, no more control, ‘enough is enough’ 😉

  33. Engaging in debates such as these, on ATW and elsewhere, is a form of ‘cyber curtain-twitching’. 🙂

  34. Harri

    I refer you to my 11.07 post

    and I’d refer you back to the many more going ?/that makes no sense in response to comments specifically applying live and let live to curtain twitching that you seem to have a problem with – or why bring it up in the first place.
    It is very strange to complain about puritans worrying about stuff or twitching their curtains as opposed to them stopping or even trying to stop you doing something. Real thought police stuff going on there!

  35. Oh yeah? Then why the difficulty in applying live and let live to curtain twitching and to worrying? Why all the ??? and that makes no sense to the very obvious point that live and let live applies to that, specifically twitching curtains and worrying.

    They are not worrying, they are ‘enforcing’

    I am worrying about them worrying about what the rest of us not really worried about, and then when they worry it ends up as ‘enforcement’ 😉

    If all they did was worry, I would not worry about any of them .. not in the slightest.

  36. It is very strange to complain about puritans worrying about stuff or twitching their curtains as opposed to them stopping or even trying to stop you doing something. Real thought police stuff going on there!

    I refer you to my 11.19 post

    Try and tell a puritan to ‘live and let live’ .. they would faint ;-0

  37. Seimi, on January 30th, 2014 at 11:18 AM Said:

    Engaging in debates such as these, on ATW and elsewhere, is a form of ‘cyber curtain-twitching’.

    Yup, and it’s all voluntary and free will stuff .. none of it is ‘enforced’ but don’t let the puritans know or things could change 😉

  38. They are not worrying, they are ‘enforcing’
    I am worrying about them worrying about what the rest of us not really worried about, and then when they worry it ends up as ‘enforcement’ 😉
    If all they did was worry, I would not worry about any of them .. not in the slightest.

    Again then why all the ??? and that doesn’t make sense comments about applying live and let live to puritans twitching their own curtains and worrying ?

    Your 11.19 doesn’t explain it as your response was to comments about them worrying.

    Try and tell a puritan to ‘live and let live’ .. they would faint ;-0

    Try to tell Harri that he should live and let live re puritans worrying about stuff or twitching their curtains and he doesn’t understand it.

  39. Try to tell Harri that he should live and let live re puritans worrying about stuff or twitching their curtains and he doesn’t understand it.

    I refer you back to my comment of 11.19

    They are not worrying, they are ‘enforcing’

    I am worrying about them worrying about what the rest of us not really worried about, and then when they worry it ends up as ‘enforcement’

    If all they did was worry, I would not worry about any of them .. not in the slightest.

    Live and let live … eh puritans

  40. Your 11.19 does NOTHING to explain why you came out with all that ??? and “that doesn’t make sense” in response to applying live and let live to puritans worrying and twitching curtains AS OPPOSED to any comments about live and let live applied to puritans enforcing anything – as there were no comments about applying live and let live to puritans enforcing anything.

  41. as there were no comments about applying live and let live to puritans enforcing anything.

    The like banning stuff,

    Just because I commented and you refuse to understand it, your problem, you made the confusing statement about puritans and live and let live, now if we are talking about something not making any sense .. then frankly that just about tops the lot

    Aileen a slack day at work eh 😉

    Me too.

    Look, if you really want the last word (I have worked that one out sometime ago)

    Over to you if it makes you feel any better 😉

  42. So either Harri still doesn’t understand that live and let live applies to puritans worrying about stuff and twitching their own curtains.
    Or he does now understand it but is not admitting that he was wrong and that it does actually make sense.

  43. Aileen, on January 30th, 2014 at 11:39 AM Said:

    So either Harri still doesn’t understand that live and let live applies to puritans worrying about stuff and twitching their own curtains.
    Or he does now understand it but is not admitting that he was wrong and that it does actually make sense.

    Ye Gods, you really are one confused puppy

    Ooops, another post on its way 😉

    What part of ‘I dont care what Puritans and twitchers’ do in private or wherever, let them get on with it, live and let live, I will enforce nothing on them, absolutely nothing, now if those puritans could just possible extend me and others the same courtesy .. now Aileen what part of that rather simple explanation do you not get, I could always type slower if you prefer 😉

    You are trying to get all clever about it and frankly it’s having absolutely no effect.

  44. And Harri just rolls his eyes and sighs ..

    So either Harri still doesn’t understand that live and let live applies to puritans worrying about stuff and twitching their own curtains.

    They can worry all day long seven days a week, all year long for the rest of their lives, it’s of no concern of mine ‘Live and let live’ I say .. but it when those same folk attempt to enforce those worries it’s a different story.

    Now Aileen you are an intelligent woman, surely for the love of all thing Holy you can work this comment out, or are you just being bloody minded and awkward, if it helps your pride, okay I surrender 😉

  45. Lets recap

    My comment was

    So? Why shouldn’t people twitch their curtains? Why shouldn’t Puritans be allowed to worry about people being happy?
    Live and let live = After all they are not making children passive smoke.

    followed by Harri

    How does that work then

    followed by me

    Not rocket science Harri. Live and let the Puritans live. They are their curtains.

    Pardon
    That makes no sense

    Harri
    .

    you made the confusing statement about puritans

    Harri I don’t think that you are a bad person but if you are that easily confused there is no point in discussing anything with you. I wish you and your family well but I will not be repeating the experience.

  46. Harri I don’t think that you are a bad person but if you are that easily confused there is no point in discussing anything with you. I wish you and your family well but I will not be repeating the experience.

    Not so fast there, you missed this bit out,but you already know this ..

    So either Harri still doesn’t understand that live and let live applies to puritans worrying about stuff and twitching their own curtains.

    They can worry all day long seven days a week, all year long for the rest of their lives, it’s of no concern of mine ‘Live and let live’ I say .. but it when those same folk attempt to enforce those worries it’s a different story.

    What part of that do you not understand, its not rocket science.

  47. Harri I don’t think that you are a bad person but if you are that easily confused

    Aileen I also dont think you are a bad person (why would I?) but you really are easily confused and find it very difficult to accept when they have made an error.

    Live and let live and puritans, not the best of bed partners.

  48. One last go

    I understand all of it but it does not explain why YOU were going ?? and “it makes no sense to a comment about applying Live and let live to puritans worrying about stuff and twiching their curtains. Which was NOT saying live and let live to them enforcing anything.

    Harri also seems not to understand the concept of EITHER the word at the start of what he quoted.
    Now I’m off to lunch and Harri can stay confused or not.

  49. One last go

    I understand all of it but it does not explain why YOU were going ??

    Going where?

    Pardon.

  50. Harri, on January 30th, 2014 at 12:16 PM Said:

    Now I’m off to lunch and Harri can stay confused or not.

    That would a be NOT then.

Comments are closed.