It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Woman Arrested After Taking Thrown Out Food

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Ufokrazy
These things only happens in the West, specifically the U.S.

Well, it did happen in a western nation but not the USA. This is a UK law, not a US law.

If the food was in the trash, it may have been contaminated. If the food had made anyone sick, the retailer could have seen sued for not disposing of the food properly.
Laws in the UK are different so I do not know but in the United States a law was passed in 1996 called the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act, to allow unused food to be donated to those in need.
Maybe UK should consider passing a similar law to prevent this from happening in the first place.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by Ironclad

I once accidently dropped my keys in the trash dumpster. You mean I could have been arrested for that. Does this happen in the USA as well? Can you actually get in trouble of theft by finding here? That is ridculous.
I believe that if a person finds something whether it be in the garbage or on the street that person takes on the liablity themselves.
If a person gets sick due to the food being bad then it was not the stores fault. Now if the stored poured bleach on the food that would be a different story. That would be fraud. It is not criminal to throw something away but once you intentionally "poison" something than that is when it becomes wrong.
Ethically speaking if the food is good then the food should be donated. If it is spoiled it should be marked as such.
edit on 13-2-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:25 AM
I used to work at a fast food place and at the end of the day, if anything was left, we were forced to throw it all away, and were not allowed to take it home.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by tom502

I used to work at a [Chinese] restaurant, as well as Italian, and they both encouraged me to take home as much of the leftover food as I wanted.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:05 PM
I think it needs to be stated again that this happened in the UK, not the USA.

Being a dumpster diver with 20 years experience, you have to pick your dive spots appropriately. The local law enforcement agency is going to question all suspicious behavior. It has become harder to dive here where I live, but probably still easier than a big city. Since 2001, it has become more arduous than ever. Too many paranoid police officers with guns "protecting" the homeland from terrorists. Too often than not they end up harrassing passive citizens with no foul intentions.

I found a book in 1989 called "The Art and Science of Dumpster Diving". I love that book...maybe it's out there somewhere in cyberland. This publication is Highly recommended because of it's practical introduction to the practice of dumpster diving.

Dumpster Diving is alive and well, you just need to refine a technique and the proper equipment and attire.

As for the "theft by finding" law? is an oxymoron, "theft" and "finding" are impossible to logically link together. It's like saying, "car accident by horseback". It makes no sense.

Great thread btw...


posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by tom502

I used to work at a [Chinese] restaurant, as well as Italian, and they both encouraged me to take home as much of the leftover food as I wanted.

I have noticed most asian restaurants do this. They will not waste food and prefer to give it away free rather than throw it out. There is a place across the street from me that does breakfast and lunch only and if I go there at 2:30 (30 mins to close) they will load me up with everything they have left, more than I could possibly eat, for $2. There are also some other places near by that give the homeless free meals in exchange for taking out their garbage or unloading a delivery.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:18 PM
Whoever wrote that law is insane and should be put away somewhere safe to keep them out of polite company.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:24 PM
It's Texas what do you expect? Maybe they'll give her the chair.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM

Originally posted by wantsome
It's Texas what do you expect? Maybe they'll give her the chair.

My geography isn't that hot but the last time I checked the united kingdom was not in Texas...

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by kimsie

Actually, it's not ridiculous at all. It is in fact (in the UK, possibly elsewhere too) called 'Common law'.

Of course, we are all bound by common law, and that doesn't mean that one can 'get away' with any crime they wanted to, by simply withholding their name.

It doesn't work like that.

It does mean though, that the distinct and very real language used by legal people, police etc. (called legalese) cannot be used to entrap you or cause you to enter into a legal 'contract' by deception, using legalese.

Often times, most people have not got a clue about common law, or what the implications and ramifications are if you answer what sounds to you like a perfectly reasonable and simple question like "Can you confirm you are Mr. or Miss Bloggs?".

There is a lot more to this, and honestly, i'm not really knowledgeable to any real degree.

If you're interested though, here are some links for you - they'll provide much better information than i can offer at this time.

I HEREBY PLACE ON RECORD of all persons that I, John James Harris after said lawful process have entered into Lawful rebellion, which is my right under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and therefore have become, from this 1st day of May 2008, a Freeman of England within the Freedom of Common Law.

Without doubt, this is the most important article I have ever written. It is a personal record of how events and people have inspired and guided me towards what I firmly believe is now the only effective, non-violent strategy left for humanity if we are to avoid enslavement by a tiny, but powerful, Criminal Global Elite

In the year 1215 the first of our constitutional rights were set down on paper, it was called the Magna Carta, this was basically an oath from the crown (King or Queen) to uphold the rights of the people set down in it and to look after the peoples best interests, in return for the crowns promise to the people they agreed to be ruled by the crown, so it was a contract between crown and people basically, and it became the law.

The crown had to uphold the rights and common law as did the people, not to cause death, harm, or loss to another, or be fraudulent in your contracts (in other words be honest and true).

In 1689 the bill of rights was set down on paper, this basically sealed all the rights given in the Magna Carta plus a few more, both documents contain our UK common law written down and formed our law.

There's a few to be going on with.

I'm not 100% sure, but there may be an outside chance this 'common law' applies to Americans too.

This was enacted before the founding fathers left to create the American colonies, and at some point during the preamble to the war of independence, all Americans were officially known as 'Englishmen' who knows, perhaps there is an historical loophole that covers Americans who may still be (stay with me) 'Englishmen', in respect of common law.

It's a long shot, but you never know.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by kimsie

Often times, most people have not got a clue about common law, or what the implications and ramifications are if you answer what sounds to you like a perfectly reasonable and simple question like "Can you confirm you are Mr. or Miss Bloggs?".

I've heard of this "legalese" before but know nothing about it. Can you expand on this example and explain the ramifications of answering such a question? I'd be interested to hear more about it.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:43 PM
Bunch of hypocrites. This society preaches a lot but doesn't follow it...

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by john_bmth

Sure John.

If you go to any of the three links on my previous post, i'm sure you'll learn a lot more about this, but the little i know about it (and it really isn't much at all) goes like this:

The U.K. is a legal corporation. It's a company..a business. All of our political parties, and the politicians that work for them are legal businesses and all are registered and listed as such in Companies house, the business registration body in the U.K.

As wacky as that sounds, it's the absolute truth. It's not a theory, it's a checkable fact.

Even the police themselves are a registered business. A corporation.

If a 'police-officer', as opposed to a 'police-man or police-woman' (which is different and has a distinction in regards common law Vs corporate law), asks you to identify yourself by either suggesting to you that you are 'Mr. Bloggs (or whatever) or Miss Bloggs, and having you confirm that you are indeed a 'Mr', then you immediately become subject to corporate law and legal proceedings, and are deemed to have effectively waived your common law rights, by agreeing (by confirming you're a Mr.) to be bound by the jurisdiction of the corporate police 'officer' and 'officers' of the court.

Basically, a police 'officer' is a corporate enforcer..literally employed to enforce corporate, not common law. Whereas a police 'man' (or woman) is employed to uphold common law.

And since we have a Birth certificate issued at birth, we have unknowingly given our consent (at birth) to be bound by corporate law, unless specifically stated otherwise, and provided none of the tacit consent to be bound by corporate law is given (by affirming you are Mr. so and so, or agreeing to 'understand' a police officer, or standing up in an English courtroom for any reason other than to enter and leave).

In legalese (actually English words and phrases, but when spoken in a legal context, mean *completely different things* to what the same words and phrases would ordinarily mean, to ordinary people), by agreeing that your name is prefixed by the legalese word 'Mr', you are agreeing in actuality that you are a subject of corporate law, and not common law. In reality, if your name is Joe Bloggs - and the police officer asks if he could see Mr. Joe Bloggs, he/she would in effect, be asking to see your birth certificate, that created the artificial, corporate entity known as Mr. Joe Bloggs.

When you were born, you were not called Mr. Joe Bloggs. You were the separate and sovereign entity known as Joe Bloggs. To enrol Joe Bloggs into the corporate entity of the United Kingdom, a fake persona was created if you like, and called Mr. Joe Bloggs, this creation (in legal terms) is actually your birth certificate! It is Mr. Joe Bloggs, you are just Joe Bloggs.

So you see, if you admit to being Mr. Joe Bloggs, you are claiming that you are the corporate entity, not the sovereign entity under common law, and you then become subject to corporate proceedings such as search, arrest, detention, and all the rest of that side of things, and of course, you become subject to the corporate 'punishment schemes', such as fine, prison, service, whatever.

Don't think though that you can do as you please under common law - you cannot. Crimes are still crimes and still attract punitive measures, similar to the corporate system. You are still breaking the law if you murder or deliberately harm, steal, commit fraud etc. etc....but you would be breaking common law.

As i say, i really don't know enough about this to be 100% confident in the accuracy of my knowledge, and hence the information posted here, but it's more or less right. But with a simple 'Mr.' being the difference between being treated as a Freeman, under the Magna Carta (1215 AD) and The Bill of Rights (English Constitution 1689 AD), and not being subject to unlawful statutes and acts, as a corporate subject - being 'more or less right' isn't anywhere near good enough is it!

Best to do some research for yourself really, but that's the gist of it.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

It is a truly sad world we live in where people would rather throw 3000lbs of food away rather than donate it. I will however say this, the owners and workers are not to blame for this. We live in a world where if someone finds food in your trash, eats it, and gets food poisoning than you are held liable for the contaminated food.

I know that TIm Horton's here used to donate a lot of food at the owners request but that stopped after someone gor sick from the old food.

So unless there are laws that protect the owner who throws out their food why should they be liable to help others when there is a chance of contamination and a lawsuit. It doesn't make sense from a business perspective.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:23 PM
If the power went out and the food was going to go bad and they had no way to save it.The first thing that should have happened is the owners should have donated the food to the neighborhood or a shelter.And any one else that mite want it or need it.And if someones hungry you feed them if you can.That's being human.What happened here is just ridiculous and inhuman.Barbaric, Is there something in the water that's making people nuts?Maybe fluoride makes some people crazy.Anyway this kind of crap has to stop.Like Ron Paul said that's the kind of thing they did in the dark ages.It's tyranny,Defend Freedom, V for Victory,Peace!

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by Equinox99


It's a crying shame really isn't it? Millions of people are starving to death around the world...we have politicians and celebrities pandering to the public guilt - strings about environmentalisms and conservation almost continually...yet, hundreds of thousands of tonnes, who knows - possibly millions of tonnes, of perfectly edible and nutritious foods are deliberately destroyed and wasted on a routine's not just insanity, from a humanist perspective, it's such a wicked and bloody minded policy.

That food could be sorted, rotten or suspect items removed, inspected by a certified health inspector if need be, and passed onto numerous charities involved with helping to feed those without the ability to feed themselves.

And those among people who hold their noses, and exclaim their disgust and disdain at the idea of foodstuffs having come from a refuse many germs and putrid organisms do you think clamber all over the food when it's being grown in the field? How many tonnes of animal manure was spread over it? How many bugs left droppings over, around and inside it?

So, you know...if you are feeling a little freaked out about stuff in germ ridden bins, just remember there are equally as many germs or sources for germs to have a go at your 'nice clean food' out in the field it grows in, so relax. Just inspect it and wash it and use common sense.

Most of it is perfectly fine, and could be put to very good use.

I'd prefer society didn't preach conservation and war on waste, while throwing thousands of lorry loads of food away to rot every year. Then asking the public to dig deep into their charitable pockets, to help feed the worlds hungry...?!

Am i missing something? Isn't the price of a group of food inspector's wages, and a regional facility where 'waste food' can be sorted and checked, worth the mountains of food thrown away and what good could be done with it?

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by Screwed

The star is well deserved Dim!
The humanity was stripped away long ago, and the fan is spooling
up right now.
This began in the Soviet Union after WW2 and the rest of the world
will soon fall suit, as the hunger becomes king. I wouldn't want to be
the arresting officers when they become surrounded by a much
larger hungrier gang of 'little people'.
The oligarchs think they are the top of the food chain -- wrong.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:13 PM
You know what is more sickening,supermarkets such asTesco, Asda's etc,fling out ths amount of food everyday. Yet there is people up and down the UK going hungry. Competely disgusting.

It is the same With Clothes companies, they throw out tons of clothes rather than give them to homeless help centres.

Mind you I am not surprised,Society in the UK only think of themselves nowadays, and no one else.

Lets hope this is flung out of court,or the judge or jury take pitty on this woman.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by tom502

I used to work at a [Chinese] restaurant, as well as Italian, and they both encouraged me to take home as much of the leftover food as I wanted.

There ya go....they weren't from a wasteful society...and they understood that leftovers should be shared with those that do not have what others have. Hope you accepted their offer when you needed it.

This idea of being arrested for dumpster diving, which btw does get you in trouble in the US as well is one of the most wasteful and sad ways to treat those that could use what is being thrown out.

As for the food behind the Tesco, the woman was not going to get sick, that's a cop out. When people eat out of a dumpster, it's because they are hungry...but they are NOT stupid. If it looks like the food has been there for any length of time, if it has an odor, or if it's buggy...I'm sure one would have the common sense not to eat it.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:43 PM
You know what else should be happening, it should be TESCOS whom is appearing in court for flinging ot that amount of food in the first place, not this woman whom,was obviously hungry.

It so annoys me when companies like tescos,package thier products too much, chuckout that amount of food, when some of it is probably still eatable.

But no some woman who probably thought,it was christmas with all that food in the dumpster,is arrested and charge,A Complete Joke.

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in