Archive for February, 2011
Now that isn’t a title of a blog post I ever thought I’d be writing nor is it the punchline to a horrific gag.
A small story only picked up my one of the nationals (depressingly it was the Daily Mail) says that a man who had sex with someone who didn’t consent has been found not guilty by a jury at Guildford Crown Court because he was too pissed to realise that it wasn’t his girlfriend. Haydor Khan from my old stomping ground of Farnham went into the wrong room at a hotel and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with a person whom he believed was his partner, however it wasn’t and when the accused realised this he fled the scene.
Now first things first. I have always lived under the belief that being drunk is no excuse for bad behaviour, whether it is criminal behaviour or just being an asshole. No-one forces you to get drunk so if you act like an ass then you have no excuses. Secondly even if this was his girlfriend, having sex with someone whilst they are asleep and haven’t consented is as far as I’m aware rape is it not?
What this does though is set a very dangerous and worry precedent that the ‘being too drunk to notice’ defence is actually plausible and can hold up in a Court of Law. Now obviously I didn’t hear all the evidence and no doubt there was more to this case than has been published but on the surface whilst it does seem like a genuine case of mistaken identity, the being drunk defence is scary. Now if you don’t know what you are doing then you can use that defence and in theory it should be successful. If you drunkenly punch a bouncer but say you thought it was your mate and he wouldn’t mind then bang – you should in theory have a solid defence.
My last point. He wasn’t so drunk that he couldn’t get it up and in my knowledge (I said knowledge not experience there – an importantly distinction to make) then that isn’t being too drunk to not realise who you are sleeping with. Still, what do I know? The jury found him Not Guilty and that as they say is that.
I suspect most people haven’t noticed the lack of blogging this week, in fact I suspect no-one has. Still I thought I’d write a blog about being ill now that I’m on the verge of victory with a late-round knock-out.
Last Friday I had a bit of a scratch throat but nothing to be overly concerned about but then came Saturday and oh my word. I was meant to be going to The Valley to watch Charlton Athletic v Exeter City with a couple of mates, then meet a friend in London to catch-up and had plans for Sunday as well. I woke up and wasn’t feeling great and then suddenly my throat decided that retching was the best plan and some of the stuff that was continually coming up was just plain wrong. I tried to drink water and that wasn’t a goer either, that was coming up like everything else. Really not a good situation at all. I thought it was just a cold or early stage man-flu. Turns out it was neither.
I got a sinus infection and it was in the sinus between my nose and eye thus causing blurred vision in my right eye, shall we say concerning? The infection was causing lots of bad things but all manageable enough as I work from home so don’t have to worry about going out and infecting others. Headaches due to blocked sinuses, earache, eye ache as the sinus running underneath my eye was extremely tender. I couldn’t even really lie on my right hand side as it was hurting my face. Add this to the usual overdose of thick disgusting yellow phlegm coming out of everywhere.
It got so worrying that I even went to the docs for the first time in eight years. I’m one of those people who just refuses to go unless there is something seriously wrong. However the doc said I had nothing to worry about, the blurred vision isn’t abnormal in a sinus infection depending on where the infection is buried. She had a look at my eyes and saw nothing wrong with them so just told me not to worry and that as the infection goes the vision will return to normal within a few days. Phew.
So here we are a week later. The virus is still knocking about but is on its last legs I do believe. I blew out the most disgusting stuff late last night which I think came direct from the home of the virus. A couple of times my ears have popped in the past day or so but still not fully clear and the sinus underneath my eye is still tender but not as bad as it was yesterday. The end is in sight and hopefully over the weekend I’ll get back to 100%. That means a return to more pointless blogging. Oh Yes.
So there you have it. I’ve been ill. It sucks. I have seen so many things I’ve wanted to blog about but never fancied sitting at the computer and banging out a blog post. Sitting around sulking and moaning seemed like a much beter use of my energies.
We get horror stories all the time. Those of us with a passing interest in US Justice shudder whenever we hear the name Mike Nifong, the man who single-handedly tried to put three men inside on rape charges he knew full well weren’t true to ensure he kept his job as a District Attorney as he was up for re-election. Yes a man tried with all his might to ruin people’s lives for his own career. He is an evil man and the fact that he only ever spent one day in jail is nothing short of disgusting.
Anyway on to the latest story that has just left me sitting here shaking my head is belief. Two judges in Pennsylvania were sending kids to a private prison and receiving kickbacks for every kid they sent to the detention facility. So basically for every kid they sent down they got a big fat reward cheque for their actions. Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan were the two men behind the scandal known as the Cash For Kids Scandal and the trial is finally over nearly two and a half years after prosecutors first rumbled their scheme.
Between them they are believed to have pocketed the best part of $3million over the years for doing this. The sad thing is because of how the case was conducted prosecutors weren’t able to convince the jury that they had on purpose judged too harshly and therefore Ciavarella got off on 27 of his 39 counts meaning that he could be out in 13 years instead of the minimum 157 that he was facing. Conahan has pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and is expected to be sentenced shortly along with Ciavarella. Conahan is expected to face twenty years whilst Ciavarella is expected to receive slightly less.
Here is a video recounting some of the trials and tribulations that these judges have put people through for no good reason. Kids have killed themselves because of what these judges were doing.
The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.
If we can’t believe that judges will sentence criminals fairly then there is something extremely wrong with the system, certainly when it comes to children. I will blog on my thoughts about raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 another day, which the Lib Dems are proposing but even teenagers sometimes do not need to see the inside of a prison cell to be scared straight. Many teenage crimes are done for attention and lashing out. Criminalising them will only reenforce what they already think, that society doesn’t give a damn or has already given up on them. That is a blog for another day.
Today this blog is about people in high authority ruining lives just for a few dollar bills. People look at the USA and believe that it is the greatest democracy on Earth. Well I’m sorry folks but that’s horse shit. The United States of America is the land of the free but only if you grease the wheels. It is as corrupt as many other places but no-one ever wants to believe it. I’m just thankful that I don’t live there.
I ask this question due to many members of the Lib Dem party not holding core liberal values. They do you believe that everyone is equal and they do not believe in human rights. I know several Lib Dem members who are raging feminists and believe that women are the superior gender and should be judged as such. They are not fighting for equality but they want to redress the balance of history. Not sure if they also believe that white people should be slaves to black people for a couple of centuries as well as whenever I bring that up they say I’m being stupid and extreme – even though it’s actually the exact same premise but using racism instead of sexism as it’s backdrop but ho hum.
Then the human rights issue. There are some that believe that once you have engaged in criminal activity then you lose your human rights. This will always be a grey area as we all have slightly different Points of View on this. I myself believe that even if you have infringed someone elses human rights then you should still have yours. It’s not a popular opinion and I’m sure if something bad happened to me or a family member I’d have urges want whoever had done a terrible act on them or me (murder/rape etc…) hung, drawn and quartered. I suspect though this isn’t unusual. So as it stands I sit outside looking in and can voice a balanced opinion.
For example if a burglar goes into someone elses property then I see that as a grey area. Should the burglar be shot dead a la in the Tony Martin case? No they shouldn’t unless it was in legitimate self-defence. Should the owner of a property be able to beat up a burglar whose broken into their home? On that I am slightly more open-minded. Getting a kicking when in that situation isn’t excessive. So if a home owner caught a burglar and gave them a kicking before the police came then I’d possibly turn a blind eye to that. Balancing the human rights of two people with two different plans in direct confrontation to one another though.
I think/hope I’ve proved that there is no hard and fast answer to this. If you believe in Human Rights to any degree you’ll know there are occasions where someone’s rights are in direct conflict to another person’s. This is not easy.
So on to the big debate that sprouted up yesterday – the sex offenders register. Should sex offenders ever be allowed off the sex offenders register? Do they deserve a chance to be declared rehabilitated or once they’ve committed a crime then they have to live by different rules for the rest of their lives? Is that against their Human Rights or has the fact they’ve done the crime mean that they don’t deserve some Human Rights for the rest of their time on this Earth?
For me the answer is no. If we do not believe in rehabilitation then why bother? Just lock up anyone who is guilty of a crime and throw away the key as it were. Like anything there are different levels of crime and different levels of people committing the crime. There are some bad bad people out there who will always be a danger to others. They should not – and never will – come off the sex offenders register. There are those whose crimes are one-time mistakes. Look at former Chelsea coach Graham Rix who slept with a 15 year-old he met in a club, she said she was 18. He went to jail over this. Some may say that is deservedly so but if someone tells you they are of legal age and are in the night club then do you really need proof of ID before sleeping with someone? Are young people who sleep with slightly younger partners who are under the age of consent really sex offenders? You could have two Year 11 students sitting their GCSE’s and one might be of legal age the other not – is the older one really performing a sex crime?
Last year I read of the case of Tony Washington. I implore anyone with ten minutes to spare to read the full report behind the link. For those who don’t have the time or don’t care the short version is he was convicted of having sex with his sister. He is on the sex offenders list for life. If that’s all you need to know then so be it but there is a whole lot more to the story. Like most crimes there is something deeper rooted behind the crime. This young man is not a danger to anyone and never was or never will be. Yet his whole life has been shaped and there is nothing he can do about it.
The line between right and wrong can seem to clear and distinct but sometimes it isn’t.
On the case of sex offenders and whether they should never have their case reviewed, that to me is illiberal. I believe in second chances and that some people can change. Those who do not and are a risk to society should stay under the strict laws that govern not only sex offenders but also anyone else who is a risk to the general public. However every case and every person is different. It should be up to trained individuals to decide each case, not one blanket law that encompasses everyone. That is not fair and it is not proportionate.
Some will say that the victim has to live with it for the rest of their lives so why shouldn’t the perpetrator of the crime? Well people who commit these crimes do have to live with it for the rest of their lives. They have the memories and many have the deep remorse. Nothing will ever change that. Victims though are free to move on with their lives whereas those who commit these acts are not – even when they have paid their debt to society.
I know this is not an easy one folks but I believe in the individual and that individuals deserve second chances in life. Make the criteria strict. Make sure the onus is on being 100% sure that the person in question is no longer any risk to the general public but they deserve that chance. That is the liberal way.
The way I see it is that liberals believe that we are all unique but that we are all equal. We all make mistakes in life, some a lot worse than others but some small ones may have ramifications beyond comprehension. Look at every case individually and assess everyone based on the evidence in front of them. That is the best way and that is the liberal way. Do not cast everyone with the same dye as that is authoritarian, which is distinctly illiberal.
So to answer the question in the title. No you don’t but it sure does help. Many policies the Liberal Democrat Party put forward has liberalism at its fundamental core. You generally join a political party because you believe in its goals and aspirations. If you don’t then you have to ask yourself why do you? Yes you won’t agree with everything a political party but when it comes to the core elements that you disagree with then it seems to me as though there might be a problem.
Still what do I know? (not a lot) and with that – this ramble is over.
So here we are a fortnight or so since Andy Gray was dismissed by Sky and Richard Keys followed him out of the door They are working together over on talkSPORT with a daily 10-1 show that is probably rather interesting. I will admit to not having listened to it but I think they’ve found a good home there and it was a great coup by the broadcaster to bring them on board but enough about them. This ramble is about what Sky have done to replace the face and one of the voices of Sky’s football coverage.
Presenting wise we’ve seen a three-headed monster of David Jones, Ed Chamberlain and Jeff Stelling. Ben Shephard has not really been asked to step up and this says a lot. I have always been a Ben Shephard fan but watching him on Goals on Sunday last Sunday it was cringing. He would interrupt guest Big Sam Allardyce all the time and not let him finish his point. Pretty shocking for a trained journalist certainly when you consider Chris Kamara sitting alongside him was never guilty of that. Bn Shephard has talents but he needs to learn (in my opinion) that people want to listen to the guests on a show and not the presenter. Just calm down and you’ll be great as you do ask good questions but seem to keen to answer them yourself.
So this leaves us with three and no surprise that Jeff Stelling is involved to some degree. Jeff is a class act but doesn’t want to build up a big portfolio of live football because of his Soccer Saturday and countdown commitments. If Jeff were to become the new face of football on Sky Sports then no-one would complain but I don’t see it going that way. So that leaves us with two.
And from those two I think I’m leaning on Ed Chamberlain’s side. I think he seems more at ease than David Jones (whom I’ve always liked) and I’m very interested to see how Ed develops over the next few weeks. David Jones I’d think has the inside track long-term if they hire in-house but after a couple of EPL weekends I think Ed is looking great. I still think they should go outside and bring in James Richardson but we’ll see what they do in the summer.
Replacing Andy Gray though has not been impressive with so far Alan McInally, Glenn Hoddle and Ray Wilkins all being asked to step up to a co-commentator role that they just aren’t suited for. Ray Wilkins did the Milan v Spurs game last night and just wasn’t great. Terrific studio pundit and I like him a lot in that role but I didn’t think he added any real insight sitting up on the gantry. Hoddle put his foot in his mouth and that won’t have gone down well in Sky and as for Alan McInally, another pundit I like but not sure he brings anything to the gantry. I’d still love Chris Kamara to be brought back as he was great on the football league a few years back.
Sadly great co-commentators are hard to find in football when you consider the likes of Craig ‘every ref is an idiot – every time’ Burley, ‘Mark ‘I like to complain at everything’ Bright and Chris ‘Whinges a lot’ Waddle are all getting a lot of live work on big fixtures. Jim Beglin is the best one out there but not sure Sky will go out and hire him. Much more likely to keep trying ex-pros to see which ones work and give you real insight during a game.
So replacing Keys doesn’t look like an issue but replacing Andy Gray still looks like something Sky have to worry about.
We all have guilty pleasures in life. Whether they be chocolate and ice cream, long bubble baths, Jimmy Choo shoes or trashy TV. Everyone that knows me will know that trashy TV is something that I’ll watch. You can’t get trashier than Take Me Out on ITV1. For me it is easy Saturday night TV and if I’m out the Sky+ box goes into record mode. I’m not missing an episode of this show. My mate Dickie went to a recording of the show (Show 11 – so not this weeks but next weeks show) and I lambasted him for not inviting me. It also means I know who may well get a date this week…
Anyway on to the point of my blog. For those of you who’ve never seen it, first of all where have you been? Out having social lives I suspect and not sitting in alone watching trashy TV with a chinese. Ok so I don’t have a life… Moving swiftly on. For those of you who haven’t seen it basically four men a show will come out and try to get a date with one of 30 ladies on the show. These ladies range in age probably from early 20s through to shall we say late 40s. The ladies if they don’t like a man will turn their light off. They get three chances to do this. At the start after just seeing him, after seeing a video about him and then after the third round which is either the guy doing something to impress them or a video by family or friends (usually stitching them up). After this if there are any lights left on then he has a date. If there are more than two he has to turn off the lights of all the girls he doesn’t want to take on a date except two, then he’ll ask a question to them and they’ll come out with corny Blind Date answers and he’ll pick on to go on a date.
Sounds complicated but it is about as simple a viewing as you can get.
I enjoy it for a variety of reasons. I have heard before that people have turned their lights off before due to the fact the guy shared a name with a dog they once had or an ex. Are you really telling me that someone wouldn’t even entertain the notion of going on a date with someone due to their name? Apparently so. Also silly things like ‘he has big ears’ or ‘I don’t like his shoes’. Now call me thick but that’s shocking. Just come out and say ‘you’re not my cup of tea’ or something, don’t make up a terrible excuse. When people are ruling out potential dates for those reasons then I can see why some of these girls are single.
Also as an aside I seem to have learned from this show that if you are a Cage Fighter then you are more attractive than if you are a geek. Whodda thunk it? Also reading out poems doesn’t go down well – even if you only get to spurt out one line. Last week we saw a crossdresser on the show and seemingly women don’t go for men who like to be women – well not in public on national TV anyway. It was reported in the newspapers that he was actually gay. I’m just glad none of the women kept their light on in the end as that would not have been a good experience.
On to the stars of the show – the single ladies. We obviously only get a very brief snapshot of their personalities on the show but over the course of the series you start to get some sort of feeling for what they are like. Some of them you can see why they are single whereas some of them you just wonder if every guy that ever meet is a moron and can’t see how potentially awesome they are? Again I’ll put in the caveat that we only see that snapshot of their personality but still you do wonder.
Some of the ladies come across very differently to others and I won’t say a bad word about any of them – except one – Elle. I just don’t understand why she went on the show. She was on for two seconds, got a date and basically was a complete bitch throughout the date. Did she just go on to be on TV hoping she might get some publicity from it? That is the only reason I can think of. Some of the other girls or a bit too picky or come across a bit too desperate (anyone who watches the show will know who I mean there) but they all seem nice enough. Amongst the single ladies it surprises me just how low some of their confidences are.
Now I’ve been single an eon – my confidence is pretty darn low when it comes to women but I’m not going on any TV shows. To go on the show you surely must have some confidence deep down. Yet I get the sense of some of them that they really don’t believe in themselves and think that a guy will always pick someone else over them and that makes me sad that people think that way. Look I’m probably not one to talk but beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and if you read any forums you’ll see everyone having a different opinion about who is the nicest and who they would take on a date. So there is plenty of hope for us all!
I shall sum up this ramble on the show by having a quick word about who in my opinion come across as the ones I would like to date the most. We’ll start with someone who has left the show on a date and is still with the guy, Dawn. Dawn always seemed nice and on her date when she was worried about being and I quote ‘fat’ I just sat there and thought, ‘you are fine – you have nothing to worry about’. Gorgeous smile and face. Comes across as nice and without a doubt attractive. Delighted she has found something special on the show. Next up is Carol. Carol nearly got a date a few weeks ago but the idiot chose Elle instead. He knew he’d made a mistake straight away but such is life. Carol doesn’t come across as to clichéd or desperate. Happy to wait for someone she likes. Very attractive and down to earth. What more could a guy want? She got a date last week so we’ll see how that went on Saturday.
And lastly there is Jo Jo. What is there to say about Jo Jo? To describe her using her own favourite expression she is ‘mint’. One of those people who is drop dead gorgeous without even knowing it. She looks around at other women and sees them all as great and at times you get the feeling that she thinks she can’t compete. She has probably had her light turned off more than anyone (except Lucy) and I suppose it must sap at the moralé. However not only is she stunning she seems like a regular lass and not a prima donna. Someone that you would take home to meet the family without even blinking about what they might think. Any guy would be lucky to take her out and hopefully after seeing the positive feedback she’s getting on forums etc… she’ll realise that.
I’m sure there are others but they are the three that stand out. Stacey seems like a good egg, Heidi has her charm and Lucy, well even I think that she tries a little bit too hard but still.
And there we go. First of all – no I’m not ever going to apply for the show – I would get no lights left on and would only get some Paddy Loving and secondly I do respect any guy or girl who does go on Take Me Out as it must be quite a weird and unnerving environment. Big props to you all for helping keep five million of us entertained every Saturday Night.
Just a quick blog about on my hobbies in the summer – fantasy baseball. I am already locked into four leagues for this season and with Yahoo allowing eight per Yahoo ID this year then the possibility of me playing more is high. I’m in one dynasty, one keeper, one re-draft h2h and one re-draft roto. I am the current champion of the UK MLB Division 1. Not too shabby although my other teams didn’t have great years back in 2010.
So on to the dynasty league as this team is already sorted. The keeper I’m in the middle of the offline draft – we are in Round 17. The dynasty roster is 25 man, 6×6 scoring (OPS and Holds the extra stats), a $280million budget with mL rosters as well. I’m well under-budget and have no closers but the rest of the roster isn’t too shabby. I’ll drop Begine Molina and pick up a FA Util guy when the season starts as they’ll be no debt – the same with Jesse Litsch.
Let me know your thoughts on my roster.
C: John Jaso – 3/4
C: Jorge Posada – RFA – 1/10
1B: Adam Dunn – 2/21
2B: Brian Roberts – 2/12
3B: Aramis Ramirez – 3/15
SS: Tsuyoshi Nishioka – 4/5
CI: Justin Morneau – RFA – 1/22
MI: Alcides Escobar – 1/12
CF: Josh Hamilton – 1-$8
OF: Austin Jackson – 1-$1
OF: Matt Holliday – RFA – 3/26
OF: Curtis Granderson – 1/18
OF: Curtis Beltran – 3/12
Util: Bengie Molina – 1/4
SP: Carlos Zambrano – 1/6
SP: Gavin Floyd – 1/3
RP: Koji Uehara – 3/1
RP: Rafael Soriano – 3/6
P: Ian Kennedy – 4/4
P: Ricky Nolasco – 2/10
P: AJ Burnett – 1/6
P: Phil Hughes – 1-$8
P: Brian Matusz – 1-$1
BN: Jesse Litsch – 1/1
BN: Jake Peavy – 5/5
Dollars Spent: $221m
Contract Years 50/50
A terrific victory for the home side as after 18 long days the people of Egypt have forced out their dictator and whilst the future remains clouded in mystery hope has been restored. If you cut the head off then the body will fall. When the figure-head of a political regime is tole it is time then it is over. Last night it seemed as though he would cling on to power until the last possible moment but with a million people spilling on to the streets today then the army knew it was time and have told the President it is time to go.
Obviously we now have to watch what the military do as they will rule for a period believed to be between two months and two years. Will the military allow fair and free elections? You have to think they will because they have seen what the people are willing to go through to get what they want. Now is the time for democracy to take hold but will democracy comes uncertain times. However that should not matter to the rest of the world. Tonight is a night to rejoice that voices were heard and there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
This just shows that the way things are aren’t how they always have to be. If people bind together then they can achieve great things. Toppling a political regime those non violent means and not at the ballot box must be one of the hardest things to do for any group of people, so to show such resolve and vigour to see this through to the end is quite breathtaking. To see them willing to go through hell to free their people is enough to bring you to tears.
Celebrate Egypt. You have earned the right.
One final point I want to post is the amount of people who are likening Egypt’s dictatorship to the coalition saying that if Egypt can topple a dictator in 18 days then the people of the UK can do the same with regards to the coalition government. I find this pathetic and quite frankly disgusting. As far as I’m aware we had full and free elections. More people voted for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats than did Labour and all sorted other parties. These people have been oppressed and have not been allowed a voice. We aren’t and we had our voice. What the country said may not be everyone’s cup of tea but to liken the two is deplorable.
I suspect many of you will have read the widely reported article this morning that Forest Green Rovers have banned red meat from the ground in an attempt to promote healthy living amongst their fans. The ban on players eating red meat has been running for a few weeks but now it is being spread to the fans. the BBC News version of the story is here.
It is certainly an interesting decision by the owner, who coincidentally is a vegan who has made his millions running green electricity company Ecotricity. He says that is will promote healthy living and will move the club further along in their ambitions to become a green company. What is doesn’t do though is promote choice. Surely he could bring in this food and give those interested the option to eat greener and give up their Half Time burger or hot dog with onions. He says that he believes it is a step-forward for the club whereas we all know it is in fact a step backwards. More choice is the future. Less choice is the past. (Vote Yes to AV).
What I’m interested to see is how this affects attendances at Forest Green matches and also what away fans will think if they didn’t know the news before making the trip to the aptly green named ‘The New Lawn’ where they play their home games. Will fans take this lying down or will there be an uprising against the owner? Will home attendances suffer as casual fans stay away? Is the Half Time meat pie vital to the football afternoon or evening to some fans?
Many questions but it’s a bold step by this man. One that is admirable but also lamentable. I suspect many fans will now stream out of the ground at Half Time and go to the nearest burger van. If you are a burger van owner that has a pitch near to this ground then your Matchday profits are going to go through the roof. This will undoubtably lose money for the club, the question though is will it lose enough money to concern the millionaire owner? Somehow I doubt it.
Sometimes I shake my head. Sometimes I tut. Sometimes I roll my eyes and sometimes I do all there. Then though there are times when I am just well and truly flat-out disgusted and dismayed. A story in my mother’s hometown caught my eye and made me feel this way. Woman charged with theft for taking food Tesco threw out.
So a woman got arrested, charged and faces court and a criminal record for taking food out of a bin. Is this the world we live in? Who endorsed this stupid law? What pathetic cop decided that it was worth his or her time (maybe I’m being harsh on the bobby) but my wrath for the CPS knows no bounds. At what point is this ‘in the public interest?’ I’ll answer that. It isn’t. No-one with any form of brain cell gives a stuff about if someone takes food out of a bin. No-one. So is it worth putting a citizen through the court system at the cost of the tax payer? Not on your nelly.
So there is a crime ‘theft by finding’ and doing some research on it there have been cases where people have been arrested by police when handing in things that they have found. Seriously. So if you find something it is safer to leave it than to be a good citizen and hand it in. Bet this isn’t the ‘Big Society’ that David Cameron wants.
Back to this case. I’m pretty sure the moment a company or a person puts something in a bin then they have waived their claim to whatever they have thrown away. Therefore the thing thrown away has no owner and therefore cannot be theft. Maybe I’m just being thick but this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I know companies do dump food out and believe that their bins are part of their property. This is where I contest the law as that’s bull. I think trespass laws are even more apt than theft laws. I don’t know the lay of the land of this supermarket and whether the accused had to go on to property to get the food or not and that is the only caveat. If she didn’t have to go on to Tesco property then what is wrong with it?
Whatever the case though is this really in the public interest? Of course it isn’t. Another good solid job by the CPS…