Why would this be theft by finding?
tinyurl.com/6xjfu3v
I assume it must be that Tesco are claiming that they hadn't actually thrown it away.
|
There was a famous guy in the fens who had a special shed where he would *mature* things he'd found. He said the longer they were the in the shed the more they became his!
The shed security was interesting. It was made entirely of doors so no-one could ever work out which one you went in.
|
|
More to this than meets the eye, I think, especially as it is the Daily Mail! First thing that strikes me is that it is the odd that the police knew who had taken the stuff and where she lived. Was she the only person who took any, did someone follow her home and then report her. Are Tesco preferring charges or are the police acting on their own initiative?
|
Actually it's reasonably obvious. If Tesco's did not allege theft and gave the stuff away, they would be liable to prosecution if food poisoning resulted.
'Offender' broke the 11th commandment really by getting caught.
|
>> Actually it's reasonably obvious. If Tesco's did not allege theft and gave the stuff away,
>> they would be liable to prosecution if food poisoning resulted.
Surely not, they must be able to actually throw stuff away (rather than actively give it away), and not be liable for prosecution.
|
>> More to this than meets the eye, I think
It will be interesting to see what happens. It's quite possible that the circumstances were such that she is guilty of theft - and also quite possible that she was not.
|
If you throw rubbish away, does it actually remain your property?
I suppose that, if it did, you could then claim that somebody who took it (apart from the people you expect to take it - i.e. the refuse collectors) was taking it without your permission.
Even if that is the case (and I am only guessing), I don't see how this can be in the public interest (albeit that, ye, there is probably more to it than has been reported).
|
Although the report says it was taken from 'the street', perhaps it was actually round the back where there's technically no public access?
Seems a bit petty as presented in the story (as intended I guess).
|
Another thread here re "Dustbin Taliban" contains the following post
"I returned an hour later with the second load to find the chest of drawers standing at the front of their portakabin 'on sale' to anyone who wanted to buy it.
I objected, but was told I wasn't allowed to make that choice as they were allowed to 'sell' any item left at the tip.
If anyone had wanted it, I would have happily given it to them, I just didn't want those jobs worths to make money out of it."
Knowing the Elf and Safety nonsense I guess Tesco could be sued if somebody took thrown out food, ate it and then got food poisoning! I think M&S used to spoil thrown out stock by spraying it with purple dye.
|
The goods were bagged and put outside the front of the store.
They clearly belong to Tesco, or at least, clearly did not belong to this woman.
She took the goods with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of then by eating them.
It would be just the same had she taken a bicycle from outside the shop with no intention of returning it.
I think the offence of theft is made out, but she will get a little sympathy from magistrates and the weedy penalty they would have imposed will be even weedier.
Last edited by: Iffy on Fri 11 Feb 11 at 09:55
|
>> The goods were bagged and put outside the front of the store.
>>
>> They clearly belong to Tesco, or at least, clearly did not belong to this woman.
Iffy, at what point would they no longer belong to Tesco or would they, in theory, always belong to Tesco, even when they had been taken away by the refuse collectors?
|
...Iffy, at what point would they no longer belong to Tesco or would they, in theory, always belong to Tesco, even when they had been taken away by the refuse collectors?...
That is an interesting point, and one I don't have a definitive answer for.
The crucial point here is the goods do not belong to the woman, and she knows they don't.
I believe people have been done for stealing from wheelie bins, which tells me your rubbish still belongs to you at that point.
The law is not always good at common sense, but common sense suggests rubbish can no longer be yours after the binman lifts the wheelie bin and tips it into his wagon.
A secondary point in the Tesco case is the goods were not clearly rubbish, as I understand it.
They were not in a bin, or in the store's refuse area.
The stuff was in bags outside the front of the shop.
For all the woman knew, the stuff could have been put there for collection by someone who had just bought it.
|
>> ...Iffy, at what point would they no longer belong to Tesco or would they, in
>> theory, always belong to Tesco, even when they had been taken away by the refuse
>> collectors?...
>>
>> That is an interesting point, and one I don't have a definitive answer for.
I've been having a bit of a read elsewhere. I've not seen anything definitive, but have seen it suggested that, in fact, you do retain ownership of stuff you throw out, and are just signalling your intention to let the refuse collectors dispose of it, rather than giving up your ownership rights or transferring them to the collectors.
As I say though, I haven't seen anything definitive with any reference to the common law or statutory basis for this.
|
As I understand it they would belong to Tesco until the refuse collectors took them, when they would become the property of the local council.
Having worked for a LA in the past I can tell you that scavengers who raid council tips and the like are an expensive PITA with the mess and damage they cause. I wouldn't be surprised in this case if the various people who helped themselves left the stores neatly piled bags of rubbish open and strewn everywhere.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 11 Feb 11 at 10:19
|
>> It would be just the same had she taken a bicycle from outside the shop
>> with no intention of returning it.
But what ifthe biike was clearly abandoned, rusting frame, bent wheels etc and it was 'raided' for spares?
The answer I guess is the same.
|
...The answer I guess is the same...
I think so.
The big problem she has is she knew the goods were not hers.
It matters not who they did belong to, or their value.
Practically, someone raiding a knackered old bike for spares is unlikely to attract police attention, but that doesn't meant the offence of theft has not been committed.
|
>> The goods were bagged and put outside the front of the store.
>> They clearly belong to Tesco, or at least, clearly did not belong to this woman.
Which is it, then? "They clearly belong to Tesco", or "clearly did not belong to this woman"?
>> She took the goods with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of then by
>> eating them.
"The owner" is quite possibly unknown.
>> It would be just the same had she taken a bicycle from outside the shop
>> with no intention of returning it.
No, it wouldn't.
|
...No, it wouldn't...
FT,
The goods were not hers, she took them, it's theft.
Now what part of that sentence don't you understand?
|
>> FT,
>>
>> The goods were not hers, she took them, it's theft.
>>
>> Now what part of that sentence don't you understand?
The sentence may be correct - we'll have to see. That she took things knowing them not to be hers does not mean that "it's theft". You can look it up on the 'net, if you like. Your ignorance of the law is quite amusing.
|
...Your ignorance of the law is quite amusing...
Really?
And this from the clown who is going to cross-examine a witness next time he's called onto a jury panel.
The simple definition of theft is the intention to permanently deprive another.
Magistrates, like the rest of us, are essentially simple folk, so I have an idea which way this one will go.
But hey, hopefully you'll be there to set everyone straight.
|
>> ...Your ignorance of the law is quite amusing...
>>
>> Really?
Yes.
>> And this from the clown who is going to cross-examine a witness next time he's
>> called onto a jury panel.
Now, as well as being wrong, you are being gratuitously rude. I really am glad that you're not a policeman.
>> The simple definition of theft is the intention to permanently deprive another.
Your simple ideas might not apply in this case. Why not go away and look up the law. Making silly statements does not help you.
|
>> And this from the clown ...
Please stop the personal insults towards other C4P members.
|
...And this from the clown ...Please stop the personal insults towards other C4P members...
But it's OK for another member to call me 'ignorant' and 'silly' is it?
Each of the terms is hardly insulting, but calling someone ignorant or silly is at least as insulting, if not more so, than calling someone a clown.
|
Isn't it rich? Are we a pair? Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air.
Send in the clowns.
|
Iffy, although I used a snippet from your post, my comment was directed not only at you, but others too.
There are one or two members of this forum who have over-inflated ego's and think nothing of belittling and picking on other people, along with name calling, etc.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of banter between people, but sometimes it gets out of hand.
The naughty step beckons.
Vx.
ps, this wasn't solely directed at you either.
|
>> The naughty step beckons.
I was contemplating earlier today a request to the mods for a 'polite & respectful' sticky.
Nothing wrong with a robust challenge to those we disagree with but words like 'idiot' & 'stupid' directed at other forumers have become too common in the last week or two.
I
|
>> ...No, it wouldn't...
>>
>> FT,
>>
>> The goods were not hers, she took them, it's theft.
>>
>> Now what part of that sentence don't you understand?
I think a source of confusion, might be the question of whether they were owned by anyone. It It seems that they probably are, whether it is Tesco or the collector they have been left for.
It would seem that it isn't simply taking something that doesn't belong to you, it is taking something that actually still belongs to somebody else.
|
|
Items put into rubbish skips belong to the skip owner/collector, and removal of said items is theft.
|
>> Items put into rubbish skips belong to the skip owner/collector, and removal of said items
>> is theft.
That's possibly, but not necessarily, true.
|
FT are you just being awkward for the sake of it?
ive had skip divers and i can tell you they are thieves and do leave stuff scattered and would be prosecuted if caught
your mam should have learnt you that what isnt yours you cannot take
|
>> FT are you just being awkward for the sake of it?
No, I am being accurate.
>> your mam should have learnt you that what isnt yours you cannot take
She would have been wrong to make such a blanket statement.
|
|
Go on then, FT, educate us instead of tantalising us.
|
|
You can't steal what isn't anybodys.
|
>> You can't steal what isn't anybodys.
Indeed. But what makes you think that rubbish falls into that category?
|
It was Tesco's bin
It was Tesco's food
It was on Tesco's property.
Therefore it was Tesco's.
That's not quite the same situation as:
a) Authorised waste put into a skip. The waste belongs to the skip owner, because the previous owner has given it to him by placing it in the skip.
b) A householder puts waste in a council-provided wheelie bin. Presumably by the same analogy the waste belongs to the council.
c) A householder puts waste into his own personal bin, placed in a position in a manner indicating that the council is authorised to collect it. Perhaps the householder continues to own it until it is emptied by the council?
In all the above situations, someone, in theory, owned the waste, so presumably it would be theft to take it.
But what is the law if something has been clearly abandoned in an area to which the public has a right, eg a highway or a public car park? Can it ever be theft to take something that no one owns?
|
The news is not complete!
Supermarkets can't throw away wasted food for public consumption! I have been told by supermarket staffs many times that they can't see expired/wasted food to customers and those must be destroyed (in reality store staffs take them home). (This is in response to my question of whether they'd sell me just expired items at a reduced cost.)
Usually these stuffs are kept at a place which is not accessible by common public (still within premise).
If someone gets it from there, it would indeed be stealing.
|
|
I meant "sell" in my post instead of "see"
|
>> It was Tesco's bin
>> It was Tesco's food
>> It was on Tesco's property.
I do not know. In the newspaper article indicated:
"Dozens of people could not believe their luck after the outlet of the supermarket giant bagged up thousands of pounds of spoiled stock and left it out in the street."
|
RE: "But what is the law if something has been clearly abandoned in an area to which the public has a right, eg a highway or a public car park? Can it ever be theft to take something that no one owns? "
I seem to remember hearing something on Radio 4 about it not being possible to be charged with theft by removing something that had been abandoned by its owner?
|
Tesco will claim it had not been dumped or abandoned. In truth it was probably destined for a recycling* company that Tesco use
If this was the case, it was theft.
*pig food
|
Charging people for stealing from skips seems to be a common habit of the police when they cannot get known criminals for anything else.
I think there's more to this story than the Mail admits.
|
"I think there's more to this story than the Mail admits."
Possibly the large amount taken as indicates it was for re-sale rather consumption. Supermarkets take a dim view of their products being sold on market stalls etc.
Incidentally leaving property in public areas does not mean that you no longer own the property. You can only transfer ownership by gift or sale. The food still belongs to Tesco until picked up by waste disposal company. It is effectively given to them. Even if you abandon a car by the side of the road it still belongs to you.
|
basically since this lady didnt give tesco a waste removal certificate as she wasnt registered as a waste transfer operative then she stole the goods
the next people to get involved could be enviromental health and even tesco wont want them involved if they can help it
|
...I think there's more to this story than the Mail admits....
The woman originally approached her local paper to complain of police heavy-handedness.
Now let's just speculate she also made that complaint to the officers at the time of her arrest, to put it colloquially, she was a bit of a handful in the police station.
They were bound to charge her with something.
|
>> Now let's just speculate she also made that complaint to the officers at the time
>> of her arrest, to put it colloquially, she was a bit of a handful in
>> the police station.
Failed the attitude test?
That fits.
|
This is a coincidence.
Earlier this week we went to a local supermarket and when we came out with our trolley there, in the empty car space next to ours, was an unmarked white cardboard box. I picked it up and opened it, to find it contained a lovely Bakewell-type tart, fresh from the store bakery. There was no-one around - I had a good look - and someone had obviously put it down while loading their car and forgotten it. I weighed up taking it into the store and handing it to the usually unhelpful reception desk people, but decided no-one would bother coming back for it. So we took it home and ate it - and extremely nice it was too. But I've been feeling guilty ever since...
|
Your name will also go on the list! What is it?
|
>> Your name will also go on the list! What is it?
There's only one possible response to that.
Don't tell him, Mike.
|
Not only un felon de patisserie........he's eaten the evidence !
Ted
|
|
If you get to prison for this, not likely, give me your address. I'll send you a file with a cake in it!
|
|
IF (big IF) it was legal for her to take it and it became hers, the amount and what she did with it isn't relevant, I think
|
|
Iffy - the primary component of theft is: 'dishonestly appropriates'. 'Permanently deprives' is somewhat secondary. 'Theft by finding' isn't on the books. The terminology is generally used to describe theft whereby the finder cannot claim the defences (without looking them up they amount roughly to taking reasonable steps to find the owner). The most frequent example of this type of 'theft' is the practice of removing clothing left outside charity shops overnight. Arguably it's far more difficult to locate an owner in these cases and it is not necessarily the charity shop at that stage as the clothes have not been reduced into their possession. It's somewhat easier to locate the owner of the food at Tesco. I suspect that if the CPS are going to go ahead with this one there will be more that we don't know about this particular case plus a leaning by the CPS on a stated case, or cases.
|
...the primary component of theft is: 'dishonestly appropriates'. 'Permanently deprives' is somewhat secondary....
Both components would seem to be present here.
"Theft by finding" are not words I would use.
Similarly there is no charge of 'shoplifting', it's theft.
But when the celebrity walks out of Harrods food hall with a jar of coffee, it will be reported he's been charged with shoplifting.
Not strictly speaking true, but more descriptive of the alleged offence.
|
I remember once, when visiting a Lidl, on the shelf provided to pack your shopping was quite a big pile of sliced bread and other things.
The check out girl said take what you want, it's free.
Now before the snobs jump in and say Lidl bread is worth nothing anyway, it was perfectly good bread whose sell by date had maybe expired that day, I cant remember.
Interesting to contrast that with Tesco, a mega company known for its sharp practise when it comes to buying up land to stop competitors opening stores. Their prices are a rip off as well !
|
|
All this "waffle" (pun intended!) about using the "correct" terminology for the "crime", and then they can still charge you for the offence of "shop-lifting" !!! - who the heck has lifted a shop?!!!!
Last edited by: devonite on Sat 12 Feb 11 at 00:56
|
|
Why are under-age car thieves called "Joy riders"? They aren't riders and they don't usually bring much joy!
|
|
It has been suggested that she,on finding the items,should have taken them to the local police station-and collected them thirty days later,if not claimed.
|
|
Even that advice is out of date jc. Most forces won't take property in. Keep it yourself, let the police know and if someone comes in they'll put the 2 parties in contact. Of course, you may have had to find a suitable disposal method if it was going off... burp.
|
More on the original subject tinyurl.com/4gx853k
(Link to the Guardian in case anyone's queezy about it)
|
|
A very well reasoned article, I thought. It seems that the lady caught Tesco or the police on a bad day!
|
That's a bit different, isn't it! From "the supermarket giant bagged up thousands of pounds of spoiled stock and left it out in the street" to "found a bin outside Tesco overflowing with food".
It's interesting that a Google for "sasha hall tesco" for the past 24 hours produces a number of very similarly worded results. Agency stuff, I assume.
|
Theft by finding - Fenlander
