http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/02/473823.html?c=on#c264699

everyone a favour, how stupid they are & the cps, ridiculous,
in my experience even courts now throw these cases out & getting fed up with stupid unfair politically biased prosecutions.
"Right, she's a politico is she, ok boys throw the book at her, urrr, "

go on,go on,go on

Never heard of such an offence. Can one use it against local authorities who start loading up collections of spare placards, flags, canes etc at a demo on their refuse wagons before the organizers have a chance to collect them?

All 3 links you provide refer to Sasha Hall, 21 as a woman. Somehow you managed to less respectful to her than the Telegraph, Daily Mail and the Essex Chronicle.

The title has been edited to read woman.

Thanks freedom foodie; I tried to see if someone had put this up already but couldn't find it before. james, what are you talking about? And IMCista, I think you've completely missed the point. Do you really think I went out of my way to disrespect her? I really don't think she cares whether she's referred to as a girl or woman; there's much more important things to consider in this case!

I'm sure the IMCista didn't think you had gone out of your way to disrespect her. But it's casual use of language, discriminatory jokes and so on, that encourage discriminatory acts.

We've no idea what term she prefers, which is why you should by default use the more respectful one that relates to her age. Girls grow into women. Boys grow into men. I think it unlikely if she were male you'd call her a boy, unless she was the age of a boy.

It doesn't matter whether there are more important things (that's a good excuse I've heard in a variety of really fucked up situations!).

Daily Mail 1.
Indymedia 0

Same thing almost happened to me and a mate at the back of Tescos opposite the coach station in Bristol.
The bins were full of perfectly edible apples, bread, cow juice and other bits including pork chops that were still in date. We must of been spotted on a CCTV because a shop assistant came out and demanded we put the food back in the bin.
We walked off saying, 'No thanks'
Anyway we couldn't carry the milk first trip so my mate waited on round the corner while I popped back only to discover a cop besides the bin with his note book out taking details from the shop assistant.
So I left the milk.
Despite the obvious waste of food there's the effort and energy consumption transfering this food to a land fill. Then there's the use of police time in this unuseful way.
Plus it meant we had no need to shop lift so again saving tescos money.

But what really got me was those pork chops - still in date until the end of closing some 4 hours away still. They could of been sold for 10p. At least then that pig would not of suffered and died in vain.

Tescos is really fecked up.

she aint quite the 1st to be nicked for it - i got accosted at m&s in bristol and charged after refusing to accept a caution. After 10 weeks of having to sign twice a week at the pig shop it was dropped in court, i suspect the same'll happen in this case

Many people find it disrespectful to be called girl/woman/lady/man/boy, etc. without being asked, so calling her a girl might be no more disrespectful than calling her a woman. I'm 23 and don't feel offended or discriminated against if someone calls me a girl. If anyone is really that bothered by other people's use of words regarding this person, why don't you ask her how she'd like to be referred to. Otherwise stop distracting from the point and let's think of a way of dealing with this stupid policing, harassment and attempted prosecution of people accused of stealing something a company obviously doesn't want anyway.

A friends of mine got busted by racist cops in a dawn raid an a Kafkaesque seizure of 1 and a half loaves. They erred against charges of theft by finding' and pushed bull shit charges of assault that only got dropped at the first court diet.

The way things are going with the benefits system, we can expect "skipping" to become a wider practice soon enough.

- hmm, I dunno, maybe because asking each individual person what they prefer to be called would be massively impractical, and we have therefore developed a way of splitting people up according to gender and age when we refer to them? As has already been pointed out, you would say "a 21 year old man" not "a 21 year old boy", therefore if you are reporting on someone of that age who identifies as female then it is polite to call them a woman and not a girl. The IMCista isn't distracting from the point, they are just explaining why they changed the title so chill out.

"I am well aware of the incredible attitude of so many companies such as Tesco when it comes to food."

Whilst I think that the amount of food thrown away by all supermarkets is absurd we mustn't act like the bosses of Tesco and co like throwing stuff away. They would rather have a longer shelf life so they have more chance of selling it and don't have to pay to dispose of it. The use-by date is generally decided by the manufacturer, though certain foods, such as eggs and poultry, actually have their use-by dates regulated by government agencies. Lots of things get a use-by date added to them when they don't actually need one but as it is an offence to alter or remove a date mark if you are not the manufacturer, packer or EC seller originally responsible for marking the food (see FSA website on the subject) the supermarket can't do anything about that and is thus obliged to throw away the food when it reaches that date. If we want supermarkets to not throw as much away then it's the manufacturers and packers that need to be less pedantic about date marking things that don't need to be marked - that way the supermarket would buy less as it lasts longer and would have more chance of being sold, and less would be thrown away. Of course, this would also mean the manufacturer would sell less and make less money - anyway, what I'm saying is, you need to look at who benefits most from having people throw away food, it's not the supermarket, they've already paid for it, why would they want to throw it away?

The charge of theft by finding is not new or strange, but the logic of it is that it should apply only to something identifiable which a person has LOST. If you find a wallet in the street you're supposed to hand it in to the cop shop, rather than pocket the money and chuck the wallet away.

However, for it to be theft at all you have to intend to permanently deprive the owner of it (Theft Act, 1968). Tescos had irresponsibly deprived themselves of this stuff by dumping it in the street, thus committing an offence. How strange that the cops were not interested in pursuing the offender, rather than someone who had ameliorated their offence by taking some of the dumped food away.

Anyone would think the police have a political bias in favour of offenders such as Tescos, but obviously that can't be right, can it?

"Tescos had irresponsibly deprived themselves of this stuff by dumping it in the street, thus committing an offence."

So if I start eating an apple, change my mind, and put it in the compost, I'm irresponsibly depriving myself of it and thus committing an offence?

No

"So if I start eating an apple, change my mind, and put it in the compost, I'm irresponsibly depriving myself of it and thus committing an offence?"

No, troll, but if you dump it in the street you are littering, which is an offence. Also there are often by-laws about blocking the footpath with bags of rubbish.

Although to be fair in this case, judging by the photo in the Daily Mail, it wasn't dumped in the street but at the back of the shop on their own land.

"Although to be fair in this case, judging by the photo in the Daily Mail, it wasn't dumped in the street but at the back of the shop on their own land"

So, Anon, your comment is what is known in the waste disposal industry as 'crap'.