Stealing food from supermarket dustbins.
Discussion
CPS say there is 'significant public interest' in prosecuting 3 men who stole about £30 worth of discarded food. I'm struggling to see what this 'public interest' is - surely some kind of caution (and the supermarket improving their security) is a more sensible approach to take.
"Three charged with stealing food from skip behind Iceland supermarket"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/thr...
"Three charged with stealing food from skip behind Iceland supermarket"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/thr...
Public interest because there's been a growing interest in this kind of thing over the past few years. It's difficult because yes, supermarkets should do more to stop throwing out so much food, but at the same time it IS trespass and if someone managed to hurt themselves (i.e. falling off the wall head first while climbing over it and breaking their neck) then they could potentially sue the supermarket, as the land owner, for damages.
Personally I think that homeless charities should be allowed to sign a document stating that they won't sue if someone gets sick, and in return supermarkets donate their one-day-out-of-date food to them.
Personally I think that homeless charities should be allowed to sign a document stating that they won't sue if someone gets sick, and in return supermarkets donate their one-day-out-of-date food to them.
Pesty said:
If they throw it away as I'm concerned it's not theft. Waste of time and money.
That may be what you think but under UK law you are wrong. Taking stuff from someone's bin is theft.Amongst other things, if people were allowed to eat food from bins there would be huge problems under the good old "health and safety" heading. Food is either fit to eat or not fit to eat - it can't be both at the same time.
I think I remember a girl on 'Come dine with me' prepared her meal using skipped produce. She was a bit of a soap dodger but I think everyone agreed the meal was fine.
As for this case there is no public interest IMO and it's a complete waste of time and money. Iceland threw it away, some poor people got to eat for free and less stuff went to landfill. A victimless 'crime'.
As for this case there is no public interest IMO and it's a complete waste of time and money. Iceland threw it away, some poor people got to eat for free and less stuff went to landfill. A victimless 'crime'.
I have a very personal experience with this [dumpster diving] and I'm amazed more people don't do it. Everyone who does it is aware of the risks and these guys got caught. If they get a small fine they will probably be quids in through months of free food.
Of course the pros know Iceland is not the place for a good score.
Of course the pros know Iceland is not the place for a good score.
I used to live in an apartment and a Tescos (Express) bins were in our car park. People used to climb over the security gate to get to the bins. They would then go through the bins and make a huge mess, leaving things they didnt want on the floor around the bins, which Tesco would take ages to clean up.
In other words, I'm not a fan. There should be a better way of distributing this kind of food.
In other words, I'm not a fan. There should be a better way of distributing this kind of food.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Amongst other things, if people were allowed to eat food from bins there would be huge problems under the good old "health and safety" heading. Food is either fit to eat or not fit to eat - it can't be both at the same time.
What if it's fit to eat but marked not fit to eat? I think that's the problem.Many items are marked with a best before date purely for marketing purposes, to churn stock, and for colour and texture reasons. The example I heard was vinegar, which generally has a best before date of about a year from manufacture, despite the fact that it's good for about 5 years.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Pesty said:
If they throw it away as I'm concerned it's not theft. Waste of time and money.
That may be what you think but under UK law you are wrong. Taking stuff from someone's bin is theft.Amongst other things, if people were allowed to eat food from bins there would be huge problems under the good old "health and safety" heading. Food is either fit to eat or not fit to eat - it can't be both at the same time.
It is dumped simply because of one reason - a 'labeling' system that gives a BBD or SBD.
sooperscoop said:
What if it's fit to eat but marked not fit to eat? I think that's the problem.
Many items are marked with a best before date purely for marketing purposes, to churn stock, and for colour and texture reasons. The example I heard was vinegar, which generally has a best before date of about a year from manufacture, despite the fact that it's good for about 5 years.
Quite. Even most yogurt is fine to eat (if it's been refrigerated and unopened) a month or so after use-by date.Many items are marked with a best before date purely for marketing purposes, to churn stock, and for colour and texture reasons. The example I heard was vinegar, which generally has a best before date of about a year from manufacture, despite the fact that it's good for about 5 years.
Pints said:
sooperscoop said:
What if it's fit to eat but marked not fit to eat? I think that's the problem.
Many items are marked with a best before date purely for marketing purposes, to churn stock, and for colour and texture reasons. The example I heard was vinegar, which generally has a best before date of about a year from manufacture, despite the fact that it's good for about 5 years.
Quite. Even most yogurt is fine to eat (if it's been refrigerated and unopened) a month or so after use-by date.Many items are marked with a best before date purely for marketing purposes, to churn stock, and for colour and texture reasons. The example I heard was vinegar, which generally has a best before date of about a year from manufacture, despite the fact that it's good for about 5 years.
You are correct, it is a 'labeling' system purely for marketing and rotation of stock etc.
As a simple example, XYZ supermarket dumps 50 unsold XYZ sliced bread loaves this evening.
Why?
The tag at the end of the wrapped loaf states: Best Before 28-01-2014.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bread. But labeling says it has to go.
On the packaging: STORAGE - can be frozen on day of purchase. Use within one month.
That bread is perfectly edible for another four weeks if frozen.
MentalSarcasm said:
Public interest because there's been a growing interest in this kind of thing over the past few years. It's difficult because yes, supermarkets should do more to stop throwing out so much food, but at the same time it IS trespass and if someone managed to hurt themselves (i.e. falling off the wall head first while climbing over it and breaking their neck) then they could potentially sue the supermarket, as the land owner, for damages.
Stopping this crap is what's in the public interest.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff