You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the >produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the
produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Mark
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the
produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the
produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Mark
On 13/03/2025 05:53 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>> not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the
produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people
routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US
brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Sourmash, Kentucky and bourbon whiskeys are all one can readily think of.
OK, there are some California wines around, but not everyone likes their sweeter taste (as compared to French, Spanish, Italian or even Chilean products).
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
On 13/03/2025 21:37, JNugent wrote:
On 13/03/2025 05:53 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the >>>> produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals >>>> such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people
routinely buy in British supermarkets. Practically everything else -
even if it's a US brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Sourmash, Kentucky and bourbon whiskeys are all one can readily think of.
OK, there are some California wines around, but not everyone likes
their sweeter taste (as compared to French, Spanish, Italian or even
Chilean products).
I suppose most computer sales might enrich American companies in one way
or another. I doubt if there will be a campaign to boycott Apple or
Dell. I am surprised that so many people have remained on "X" formerly
known as Twitter. Charities that should have a social conscience seem to think that they need it to reach the people they want to help or whom
they want to get donations from.
On 13/03/2025 17:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>> not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the
produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people
routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US
brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
So maybe the main items would be Jack Daniels and Jim Beam and similar.
I don't know much about whisky, rarely drink it, but people I know who
enjoy their whisky won't drink anything that isn't single malt scotch.
Is there really an appetite for American bourbon whisky or is it just
the advertising that sells it with the promise of phoney wild west
nostalgia?
There's also Californian wine, but maybe a wine snob would say it can't
be better than French or Italian wine.
On 13/03/2025 21:37, JNugent wrote:
On 13/03/2025 05:53 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>> not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the >>>> produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals >>>> such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people
routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US >>> brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Sourmash, Kentucky and bourbon whiskeys are all one can readily think of.
OK, there are some California wines around, but not everyone likes their
sweeter taste (as compared to French, Spanish, Italian or even Chilean
products).
I suppose most computer sales might enrich American companies in one way
or another. I doubt if there will be a campaign to boycott Apple or
Dell. I am surprised that so many people have remained on "X" formerly
known as Twitter. Charities that should have a social conscience seem to think that they need it to reach the people they want to help or whom
they want to get donations from.
On 13/03/2025 03:26 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
What is meant by "boycott"?
Construed correctly, declining to buy a certain product, which is all
that a boycott entails, is hardly a crime.
There are a few origins which there are things I won't buy, though there
is no need to bring this to the attention of the supermarket management.
Or did your use of the term imply some other action which might be illegal?
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
On 13 Mar 2025 at 21:34:52 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 03:26 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
What is meant by "boycott"?
Construed correctly, declining to buy a certain product, which is all
that a boycott entails, is hardly a crime.
Apparently it is antisemitism to boycott Israeli goods, or goods produced in Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and falsely marked as produce of Palestine. And it is apparently illegal for public bodies, including councils to do this.
In America there are laws against individuals participating in boycotts initiated by foreigners.
So in America it is a crime, in the UK only if you are councillor or other public official.
There are a few origins which there are things I won't buy, though there
is no need to bring this to the attention of the supermarket management.
Or did your use of the term imply some other action which might be illegal?
On 13 Mar 2025 at 17:53:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy >> in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US
brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
I was just looking at some rice in packets. One of the enormous advantages of >Brexit seems to be that we no longer have to worry about the origin of >foodstuffs because it is no longer on the labels. One packet says "imported", >the other says nothing about origin at all.
On 13 Mar 2025 20:49:10 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Mar 2025 at 17:53:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US >>> brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
I was just looking at some rice in packets. One of the enormous advantages of
Brexit seems to be that we no longer have to worry about the origin of
foodstuffs because it is no longer on the labels. One packet says "imported",
the other says nothing about origin at all.
Unprocessed commodities sourced in bulk, such as rice, are typically not labelled with a country of origin because the contents of the packet could, literally, come from anywhere and everywhere. Your single packet of rice could contain grains from multiple countries, depending on what was cheapest at the time the food company bought a container load. Although the USA isn't going to be one of them.
Manufactured and non-commodity foods, though, do still generally have to specify the country of origin on the label, and in some cases there are precise rules about how that must be stated. Brexit hasn't significantly changed that.
Mark
On 13/03/2025 10:22 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Mar 2025 at 21:34:52 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 03:26 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>> not to come back?
What is meant by "boycott"?
Construed correctly, declining to buy a certain product, which is all
that a boycott entails, is hardly a crime.
Apparently it is antisemitism to boycott Israeli goods, or goods produced in >> Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and falsely marked as produce >> of Palestine. And it is apparently illegal for public bodies, including
councils to do this.
I've never been fond of Jaffa oranges and I'm not really aware of any
other Israeli export products *except* for a brand of guitar strings (c.
40 years ago) called "Londoner" (I'm not joking). The strings wereOK and reasonably priced. But where are they these days?
In America there are laws against individuals participating in boycotts
initiated by foreigners.
This is surreal. A law against not buying something? Even if you keep
your mouth shut?
I never buy Nissan cars. How would anyone know whether I was boycotting
them (OK, an extreme example to make the point)?
So in America it is a crime, in the UK only if you are councillor or other >> public official.
Interesting. When the local authority was controlled by Labour for a
while, they banned South African wine in the members' bar. Then, when
South Africa changed its system of government, they stopped buying
anything but South African wine!
[To: Ottavio:]
There are a few origins which there are things I won't buy, though there >>> is no need to bring this to the attention of the supermarket management.
Or did your use of the term imply some other action which might be illegal?
Apparently it is antisemitism to boycott Israeli goods, or goods produced in >Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and falsely marked as produce >of Palestine.
And it is apparently illegal for public bodies, including
councils to do this.
In America there are laws against individuals participating in boycotts >initiated by foreigners.
So in America it is a crime, in the UK only if you are councillor or other >public official.
On 13 Mar 2025 at 17:53:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as
the produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's
cereals such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy
ingredients. Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of
fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people
routinely buy in British supermarkets. Practically everything else -
even if it's a US brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Mark
I was just looking at some rice in packets. One of the enormous
advantages of Brexit seems to be that we no longer have to worry about
the origin of foodstuffs because it is no longer on the labels. One
packet says "imported", the other says nothing about origin at all.
I believe country of original labelling is still required.
However, I'm fairly sure I've bought food in one of the large
supermarkets with no country of origin on the packaging.
On 13/03/2025 17:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>> not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the
produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals
such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people routinely buy >> in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US
brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Mark
So maybe the main items would be Jack Daniels and Jim Beam and similar.
I don't know much about whisky, rarely drink it, but people I know who
enjoy their whisky won't drink anything that isn't single malt scotch.
Is there really an appetite for American bourbon whisky or is it just
the advertising that sells it with the promise of phoney wild west
nostalgia?
There's also Californian wine, but maybe a wine snob would say it can't
be better than French or Italian wine.
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
Does this harm the products in some way, or make them more likely to
fall off the shelves? Or does it just make them look a bit odd?
It's possibly not criminal damage.
On 13/03/2025 03:26 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
What is meant by "boycott"?
Construed correctly, declining to buy a certain product, which is all
that a boycott entails, is hardly a crime.
There are a few origins which there are things I won't buy, though there
is no need to bring this to the attention of the supermarket management.
Or did your use of the term imply ?
On 14/03/2025 13:38, Pamela wrote:
I believe country of original labelling is still required.
However, I'm fairly sure I've bought food in one of the large
supermarkets with no country of origin on the packaging.
'Produce of more than one country' honey, even before Brexit.
On 14/03/2025 14:28, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 14/03/2025 13:38, Pamela wrote:
I believe country of original labelling is still required.
However, I'm fairly sure I've bought food in one of the large
supermarkets with no country of origin on the packaging.
'Produce of more than one country' honey, even before Brexit.
Honey is one of the products that is subject to significant levels of
fraud and counterfeiting! Bulk honey supply chain is seriously corrupt.
Some of it at the cheaper end of the market isn't even produce of bees!
It is one of the most counterfeited food products in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/09/nine-in-ten-honey-samples-from-uk-retailers-fail-authenticity-test
There is also a narcotic variety based on the pollen of rhododendrons
and related species (aka mad honey). Known since antiquity and arguably
one of the first chemical weapons used in warfare (Mithridates).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayanotoxin
Op 13/03/2025 om 21:34 schreef JNugent:
On 13/03/2025 03:26 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
What is meant by "boycott"?
Construed correctly, declining to buy a certain product, which is all
that a boycott entails, is hardly a crime.
There are a few origins which there are things I won't buy, though
there is no need to bring this to the attention of the supermarket
management.
Or did your use of the term imply [Ottavio's snip] ?
How can one possibly imply "some other action which might be illegal"?
On 13 Mar 2025 22:22:16 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I suspect that a lot of opposition to halal meat
is more about disguised anti-Islam sentiment than genuine concern for animal welfare.
On 13 Mar 2025 at 21:52:47 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 21:37, JNugent wrote:
On 13/03/2025 05:53 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>>> not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the >>>>> produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals >>>>> such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that people
routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US >>>> brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Sourmash, Kentucky and bourbon whiskeys are all one can readily think of. >>>
OK, there are some California wines around, but not everyone likes their >>> sweeter taste (as compared to French, Spanish, Italian or even Chilean
products).
I suppose most computer sales might enrich American companies in one way
or another. I doubt if there will be a campaign to boycott Apple or
Dell. I am surprised that so many people have remained on "X" formerly
known as Twitter. Charities that should have a social conscience seem to
think that they need it to reach the people they want to help or whom
they want to get donations from.
We'd have to buy Chinese designed computers (which don't seem to be available)
to avoid paying for American patented chips and intellectual property, but I believe Lenovo is not actually an American firm.
On 14/03/2025 14:28, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 14/03/2025 13:38, Pamela wrote:
I believe country of original labelling is still required.
However, I'm fairly sure I've bought food in one of the large
supermarkets with no country of origin on the packaging.
'Produce of more than one country' honey, even before Brexit.
Honey is one of the products that is subject to significant levels of fraud and
counterfeiting! Bulk honey supply chain is seriously corrupt.
Some of it at the cheaper end of the market isn't even produce of bees!
It is one of the most counterfeited food products in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/09/nine-in-ten-honey-samples-from-uk-retailers-fail-authenticity-test
On 13/03/2025 22:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Mar 2025 at 21:52:47 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 21:37, JNugent wrote:
On 13/03/2025 05:53 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Wine and spirits are probably the only US products that peopleYou may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products >>>>>>> coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>>>> not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the >>>>>> produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals >>>>>> such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients. >>>>>> Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>
routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US >>>>> brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Sourmash, Kentucky and bourbon whiskeys are all one can readily think of. >>>>
OK, there are some California wines around, but not everyone likes their >>>> sweeter taste (as compared to French, Spanish, Italian or even Chilean >>>> products).
I suppose most computer sales might enrich American companies in one way >>> or another. I doubt if there will be a campaign to boycott Apple or
Dell. I am surprised that so many people have remained on "X" formerly
known as Twitter. Charities that should have a social conscience seem to >>> think that they need it to reach the people they want to help or whom
they want to get donations from.
We'd have to buy Chinese designed computers (which don't seem to be available)
to avoid paying for American patented chips and intellectual property, but I >> believe Lenovo is not actually an American firm.
Indeed it is not.
Set up by a small group of Chinese engineers who managed to receive a blessing from Mao
Tse-tung.
From the grave presumably.
That seemed to help .
Its largest shareholder is the Chinese Government.
--
Sam Plusnet
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:22:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Why would they be kicked out?
I doubt if many products on our supermarket shelves are labelled as the >>produce of the USA. Tesco sometimes sells overpriced children's cereals >>such as Lucky Charms or Froot Loops full of unhealthy ingredients.
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
Wine and spirits
are probably the only US products that people routinely buy
in British supermarkets. Practically everything else - even if it's a US >brand name - is manufactured here or in the EU.
I'll have a look at a few labels the next time I do the weekly shop.
Mark
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices.
Some Tescos also stock it at a slightly more reasonable price.
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap
prices.
Some Tescos also stock it at a slightly more reasonable price.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in
US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap
prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI.
US bases have a PX or BX, the name depending on which branch apparently.
The US serviceman I knew personally some years ago always referred to the
PX. Commissaries are separate and operate under different financial rules.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active US service >personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap prices.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:47:36 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
Does this harm the products in some way, or make them more likely to
fall off the shelves? Or does it just make them look a bit odd?
It's possibly not criminal damage.
It is intended to lead to reduced sales of the particular product - I
don't know if that could be classed as criminal damage.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:08:50 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:47:36 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
Does this harm the products in some way, or make them more likely to
fall off the shelves? Or does it just make them look a bit odd?
It's possibly not criminal damage.
It is intended to lead to reduced sales of the particular product - I
don't know if that could be classed as criminal damage.
So a follow up question is how far can you prosecute actions : intended
to lead to reduced sales of the particular product ?
For example, I have enough money to but a Tesla. If I wish. However by
not buying one, I am "reducing the sales of Tesla". Is that actionable ?
Is it actionable if I publicise the fact that I am (rather unreasonably) refusing to buy a Tesla ?
And possibly beyond the remit of this group, but could I be liable under
any US laws for ostentatiously refusing to buy a Tesla ? With a footnote
that his most excellent Muskness has already threatened legal action
against companies that choose not to advertise on Twitter.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:10:41 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Depends on how ostentatious you are. If you stand outside a tesla
factory with a large sign saying dont buy tesla shit, f**k musk, you
might see yorself hauled off by some angry muskovites on some charge.
And seeing how so much of tesla components have to be imported, musk has
only himself to blame for supporting trumps trade wars.
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in >>> US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap
prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI.
Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
US bases have a PX or BX, the name depending on which branch apparently.
The US serviceman I knew personally some years ago always referred to the
PX. Commissaries are separate and operate under different financial rules.
All the US bases I'm familiar with in US and UK have commissaries.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active US service
personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in >>>> US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheapNobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices. >>>>
prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI.
Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that
they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
That is false. A US base may have a Commissary store but according to my >information some smaller bases do not.
Joint bases hosting both US and UK personnel may have both NAAFI and >Commissary stores but they are separate and as far as I can tell this is >rare.
US bases have a PX or BX, the name depending on which branch apparently. >>> The US serviceman I knew personally some years ago always referred to the >>> PX. Commissaries are separate and operate under different financial rules. >>All the US bases I'm familiar with in US and UK have commissaries.
How many have a NAAFI as you originally claimed?
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active US service >>> personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my information is that >other family are not, nor are friends.
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely given that
the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in >general.
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar >>>>> 2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in >>>>> US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheapNobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>>US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices. >>>>>
prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI. >>>
You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that
they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but
the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk).
That is false. A US base may have a Commissary store but according to my
information some smaller bases do not.
I suppose it depends on the size of the base. Some small ones might
expect users to go to the next nearest big one (which might be only a
few miles away).
Joint bases hosting both US and UK personnel may have both NAAFI and
Commissary stores but they are separate and as far as I can tell this is
rare.
It sounds like that might be possible.
US bases have a PX or BX, the name depending on which branch apparently. >>>> The US serviceman I knew personally some years ago always referred to the >>>> PX. Commissaries are separate and operate under different financial rules. >>>All the US bases I'm familiar with in US and UK have commissaries.
How many have a NAAFI as you originally claimed?
I didn't. See above.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active US service >>>> personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my information is that >> other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be accompanied by the serviceman.
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely given that
the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in
general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an
impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an
impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
On 16/03/2025 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
If it requires an effort to place the correct way, then by definition it
is criminal damage.
On 16/03/2025 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:The display of goods in a supermarket is a carefully researched topic,
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
and is important to the shop since it can have an affect on the bottom
line (I assume).
Turning a tin or tins upside down could be said to harm that display and
thus the shop's sales.
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up the right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as well
as the particular item being hard to identify.
On 2025-03-17, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/03/2025 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
<snip>
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
If it requires an effort to place the correct way, then by definition it
is criminal damage.
What definition are you using in order to come to that conclusion?
On 2025-03-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then >>>>> I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so >>>> or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up the
right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as well
as the particular item being hard to identify.
All true, but none of it is an argument that the item is damaged.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:10:41 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:08:50 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:47:36 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
Does this harm the products in some way, or make them more likely to >>>>fall off the shelves? Or does it just make them look a bit odd?
It's possibly not criminal damage.
It is intended to lead to reduced sales of the particular product - I
don't know if that could be classed as criminal damage.
So a follow up question is how far can you prosecute actions : intended
to lead to reduced sales of the particular product ?
For example, I have enough money to but a Tesla. If I wish. However by
not buying one, I am "reducing the sales of Tesla". Is that actionable ?
Is it actionable if I publicise the fact that I am (rather unreasonably)
refusing to buy a Tesla ?
And possibly beyond the remit of this group, but could I be liable under
any US laws for ostentatiously refusing to buy a Tesla ? With a footnote
that his most excellent Muskness has already threatened legal action
against companies that choose not to advertise on Twitter.
Depends on how ostentatious you are. If you stand outside a tesla
factory with a large sign saying dont buy tesla shit, f**k musk, you
might see yorself hauled off by some angry muskovites
on some charge.
And seeing how so much of tesla components have to be imported, musk has
only himself to blame for supporting trumps trade wars.
however it was amusing to see trump promoting tesla by supposedly buying
1, perhaps they hope all the MAGA tribe will follow suit, and revive
tesla flagging sales, which would be ironic seeing how trump has
cancelled all bidens green initiatives on alternate energies and
electric cars.
On 14 Mar 2025 at 00:22:49 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 10:22 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Mar 2025 at 21:34:52 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 03:26 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>> not to come back?
What is meant by "boycott"?
Construed correctly, declining to buy a certain product, which is all
that a boycott entails, is hardly a crime.
Apparently it is antisemitism to boycott Israeli goods, or goods produced in
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and falsely marked as produce
of Palestine. And it is apparently illegal for public bodies, including
councils to do this.
I've never been fond of Jaffa oranges and I'm not really aware of any
other Israeli export products *except* for a brand of guitar strings (c.
40 years ago) called "Londoner" (I'm not joking). The strings wereOK and
reasonably priced. But where are they these days?
In America there are laws against individuals participating in boycotts
initiated by foreigners.
This is surreal. A law against not buying something? Even if you keep
your mouth shut?
I never buy Nissan cars. How would anyone know whether I was boycotting
them (OK, an extreme example to make the point)?
Yes, even in America conspicuous consumption is only socially, not legally, mandated. But the legislators are probably right in thinking that boycotts don't work well if you are not allowed to publicise them. Another example of free speech only if you say the right thing
On 2025-03-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then >>>>> I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so >>>> or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up the
right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as well
as the particular item being hard to identify.
All true, but none of it is an argument that the item is damaged.
On 17 Mar 2025 at 08:41:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-03-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then >>>>>> I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past >>>>>> where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may >>>>> amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so >>>>> or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the >>>>> legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of >>>>> the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>>>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :) >>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its >>>> physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up the >>> right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as well
as the particular item being hard to identify.
All true, but none of it is an argument that the item is damaged.
No but it is an argument that the shop is damaged. I agree it seems
unlikely to be accepted, but it is a logical argument.
On 2025-03-16, miked wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:10:41 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:08:50 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:47:36 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
Does this harm the products in some way, or make them more likely to >>>>> fall off the shelves? Or does it just make them look a bit odd?
It's possibly not criminal damage.
It is intended to lead to reduced sales of the particular product - I
don't know if that could be classed as criminal damage.
So a follow up question is how far can you prosecute actions : intended
to lead to reduced sales of the particular product ?
For example, I have enough money to but a Tesla. If I wish. However by
not buying one, I am "reducing the sales of Tesla". Is that actionable ? >>> Is it actionable if I publicise the fact that I am (rather unreasonably) >>> refusing to buy a Tesla ?
And possibly beyond the remit of this group, but could I be liable under >>> any US laws for ostentatiously refusing to buy a Tesla ? With a footnote >>> that his most excellent Muskness has already threatened legal action
against companies that choose not to advertise on Twitter.
Depends on how ostentatious you are. If you stand outside a tesla
factory with a large sign saying dont buy tesla shit, f**k musk, you
might see yorself hauled off by some angry muskovites
+1
on some charge.
And seeing how so much of tesla components have to be imported, musk has
only himself to blame for supporting trumps trade wars.
however it was amusing to see trump promoting tesla by supposedly buying
1, perhaps they hope all the MAGA tribe will follow suit, and revive
tesla flagging sales, which would be ironic seeing how trump has
cancelled all bidens green initiatives on alternate energies and
electric cars.
He also claimed boycotting Tesla is illegal.
On 16/03/2025 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:The display of goods in a supermarket is a carefully researched topic,
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being
asked
not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
and is important to the shop since it can have an affect on the bottom
line (I assume).
Turning a tin or tins upside down could be said to harm that display and
thus the shop's sales.
(I look forward to some of those people who pick an item off of the
shelf, only to later dump it elsewhere when they change their mind,
being prosecuted for criminal damage - that'll learn 'em!)
On 17/03/2025 08:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:I think there is case law that placing a black bag over a speed camera
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products >>>>>>> coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone >>>>>>> caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and >>>>>>> being asked not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way
then I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the >>>>>> past where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of
the word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may >>>>> amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does
so or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon >>>>> the legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as
the owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an
impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
owner, then the necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be >>>>> "an impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible.
:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter
its physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually
damage it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up
the right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as
well as the particular item being hard to identify.
All true, but none of it is an argument that the item is damaged.
is criminal damage. The physical nature of the camera is not changed in
any way, but its use is clearly impaired.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that an upside-down pack of breakfast
cereal is impaired, but maybe there'll be a case, and we'll find out!
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar >>>>>> 2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" in >>>>>> US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap >>>>>> prices.Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>>>US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices. >>>>>>
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI. >>>>
You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that
they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but
the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk).
If you had said that US bases have a Commissary that has a function similar >to a NAAFI on a UK base then there would be no issue, but you did not.
There was no need to mention NAAFI at all, it just introduced unnecessary >concepts that obfuscate the issue. It would have been simpler to just give >the Commissary its correct name and say it sells US products at reduced >prices.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active US service >>>>> personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my information is that >>> other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be
accompanied by the serviceman.
So the others are not eligible to shop there in their own right as I said.
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely given that >>> the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in
general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I have no difficulty penetrating the fog created by the casual disregard
for accurate use of terms as the discussion so far clearly shows.
I would prefer it if the fog were not created in the first place. Although >pointing out the errors seems to have little effect on the fog generator,
it may help other readers to see that there is fog and to help them
penetrate it.
In message <vr7kfq$2ncij$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:48:26 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar >>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar >>>>>>> 2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or "Commissarie" inNobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>>>>US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices. >>>>>>>
US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap >>>>>>> prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI. >>>>>
You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that >>>> they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but
the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk).
If you had said that US bases have a Commissary that has a function similar >> to a NAAFI on a UK base then there would be no issue, but you did not.
There was no need to mention NAAFI at all, it just introduced unnecessary
concepts that obfuscate the issue. It would have been simpler to just give >> the Commissary its correct name and say it sells US products at reduced
prices.
I can understand how you mis-read it that way, but mis-read it you did.
... keep digging, snipped.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active US service
personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my information is that >>>> other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be
accompanied by the serviceman.
So the others are not eligible to shop there in their own right as I said.
Please point out where you used the words "in their own right" (whatever that's supposed to mean).
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely given that >>>> the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in >>>> general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I have no difficulty penetrating the fog created by the casual disregard
for accurate use of terms as the discussion so far clearly shows.
I would prefer it if the fog were not created in the first place. Although >> pointing out the errors seems to have little effect on the fog generator,
it may help other readers to see that there is fog and to help them
penetrate it.
I dispelled the fog you created, so stop digging. Really, stop digging.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr7kfq$2ncij$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:48:26 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar >>>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar >>>>>>>> 2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or >>>>>>>>"Commissarie" inNobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>>>>>US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices. >>>>>>>>
US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap >>>>>>>> prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI.
Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that >>>>> they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but >>>> the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk).
If you had said that US bases have a Commissary that has a function similar >>> to a NAAFI on a UK base then there would be no issue, but you did not.
There was no need to mention NAAFI at all, it just introduced unnecessary >>> concepts that obfuscate the issue. It would have been simpler to just give >>> the Commissary its correct name and say it sells US products at reduced
prices.
I can understand how you mis-read it that way, but mis-read it you did.
... keep digging, snipped.
Please point out where you used the words "in their own right" (whatever
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active >>>>>>>US service
personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my information is that
other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be
accompanied by the serviceman.
So the others are not eligible to shop there in their own right as I said. >>
that's supposed to mean).
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely given that >>>>> the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in >>>>> general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I have no difficulty penetrating the fog created by the casual disregard >>> for accurate use of terms as the discussion so far clearly shows.
I would prefer it if the fog were not created in the first place. Although >>> pointing out the errors seems to have little effect on the fog generator, >>> it may help other readers to see that there is fog and to help them
penetrate it.
I dispelled the fog you created, so stop digging. Really, stop digging.
I am not the one using terminology inaccurately.
I do not take orders from you.
We both know that you will never accept that anything you have written is
in any way incorrect. That does not make what you write correct.
On 16/03/2025 19:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:The display of goods in a supermarket is a carefully researched topic,
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming >>>>> from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then
I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past
where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may
amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so
or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the
legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of
the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its
physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
and is important to the shop since it can have an affect on the bottom
line (I assume).
Turning a tin or tins upside down could be said to harm that display and
thus the shop's sales.
(I look forward to some of those people who pick an item off of the
shelf, only to later dump it elsewhere when they change their mind,
being prosecuted for criminal damage - that'll learn 'em!)
On 17/03/2025 08:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught >>>>>>> doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked >>>>>>> not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then >>>>>> I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past >>>>>> where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the
word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may >>>>> amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so >>>>> or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the >>>>> legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the
owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of >>>>> the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>>>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :) >>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its >>>> physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage
it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up the >>> right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as well
as the particular item being hard to identify.
All true, but none of it is an argument that the item is damaged.
I think there is case law that placing a black bag over a speed camera
is criminal damage. The physical nature of the camera is not changed in
any way, but its use is clearly impaired.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that an upside-down pack of breakfast
cereal is impaired, but maybe there'll be a case, and we'll find out!
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general, comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to
draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning
of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The
coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was
no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this
might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a penalty under the Act.
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent
in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200
in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that
the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An
indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be
an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or permanent loss of quality or value.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for
the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have
been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case
of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products
upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Apologies that I'm late to the thread. However, I have read all the
posts prior to replying. Having done so, rather than going through the thread with a scattergun making numerous follow-ups to the various
replies and likely duplicating a lot of information, it is easier, (for
me at least), to make a single post that collects my thoughts together
in a logical and (hopefully!) coherent manner.
I do not claim to be the ultimate arbiter of the matter, nor is what I
write below worth any more than anything anyone else has had to say on
the matter.
That said, it is worth pointing out that the following is studied, (in reasonable depth), as part of the syllabus for all law courses of which
I am aware.
So, here's my thoughts, for what they're worth (Ed: nothing!):
As I say, to my mind, there is sufficient evidence to support a charge
of criminal damage, but I welcome contrary opinions that are suitable evidenced.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/1
[^2] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/208.html
On 2025-03-17, GB wrote:
On 17/03/2025 08:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2025 at 19:59:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-03-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 23:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-13, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products coming
from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone caught
doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and being asked
not to come back?
Just turning it upside down? Unless that damages it in some way then >>>>>>> I would think "nothing". Although there have been cases in the past >>>>>>> where things that are not "damage" in the English meaning of the >>>>>>> word turned out to be "damage" in the legal meaning.
WP says:
"Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may >>>>>> amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so >>>>>> or not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the >>>>>> legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the >>>>>> owner) ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of >>>>>> the value or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the
necessary damage is established."
If turning it upside down makes it less saleable, then that could be "an >>>>>> impairment of the value or usefulness of the [property] to the
[supermarket]" ? It's a bit thin, but not completely implausible. :) >>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_damage_in_English_law
I would suggest that turning something upside down does not "alter its >>>>> physical nature" (unless, again, doing so does indeed actually damage >>>>> it.)
I think it is borderline. You would need to pay someone to turn it up the >>>> right way otherwise your shop would look neglected and messy, as well
as the particular item being hard to identify.
All true, but none of it is an argument that the item is damaged.
I think there is case law that placing a black bag over a speed camera
is criminal damage. The physical nature of the camera is not changed in
any way, but its use is clearly impaired.
I'm surprised that's not a more serious offence, since it's
interfering with law enforcement.
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general,
comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to
draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human
silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning
of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The
coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry
cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was
no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this
might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a
penalty under the Act.
That seems pretty conclusive that turning a product upside down is
*not* criminal damage. It is difficult to imagine damage that is
any more minor than that!
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent
in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for
causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and
inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200
in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to
property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that
the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
Again that seems conclusive that this is not criminal damage. There is
no cost to the supermarket to turn the item(s) the right way up again.
If it happens, it will be the existing already-paid-for staff doing it.
If the policeman's cap had not been jumped on but had merely been
turned upside down do you really think a prosecution would have been
brought at all, let alone resulted in a conviction?
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An
indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be
an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Again this suggests not criminal damage.
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an
impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or
permanent loss of quality or value.
And again! There is no "impairment of use" in an upside down product on
a shelf.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal
damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the
property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
And again... it is difficult to imagine anything that more closely fits
the description of "superficial alteration or aesthetic harm" than
turning something upside down!
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for
the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have
been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case
of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products
upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
It's funny, your own conclusion is that it is criminal damage, and yet
your argument that it is so has made me more convinced that it is not.
On 2025-03-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general,
comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to
draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human
silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning
of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The
coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry
cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was
no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this
might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a
penalty under the Act.
That seems pretty conclusive that turning a product upside down is
*not* criminal damage. It is difficult to imagine damage that is
any more minor than that!
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent
in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for
causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and
inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200
in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to
property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that
the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
Again that seems conclusive that this is not criminal damage. There is
no cost to the supermarket to turn the item(s) the right way up again.
If it happens, it will be the existing already-paid-for staff doing it.
If the policeman's cap had not been jumped on but had merely been
turned upside down do you really think a prosecution would have been
brought at all, let alone resulted in a conviction?
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An
indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be
an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Again this suggests not criminal damage.
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an
impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or
permanent loss of quality or value.
And again! There is no "impairment of use" in an upside down product on
a shelf.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal
damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the
property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
And again... it is difficult to imagine anything that more closely fits
the description of "superficial alteration or aesthetic harm" than
turning something upside down!
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for
the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have
been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case
of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products
upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
It's funny, your own conclusion is that it is criminal damage, and yet
your argument that it is so has made me more convinced that it is not.
On 18 Mar 2025 at 14:06:55 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-03-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general,
comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to >>> draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human
silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning >>> of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The
coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry
cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was >>> no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this
might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a >>> penalty under the Act.
That seems pretty conclusive that turning a product upside down is
*not* criminal damage. It is difficult to imagine damage that is
any more minor than that!
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent >>> in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for
causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and
inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200 >>> in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to
property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that
the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
Again that seems conclusive that this is not criminal damage. There is
no cost to the supermarket to turn the item(s) the right way up again.
If it happens, it will be the existing already-paid-for staff doing it.
If the policeman's cap had not been jumped on but had merely been
turned upside down do you really think a prosecution would have been
brought at all, let alone resulted in a conviction?
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An
indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be >>> an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Again this suggests not criminal damage.
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an
impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or
permanent loss of quality or value.
And again! There is no "impairment of use" in an upside down product on
a shelf.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal
damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the
property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
And again... it is difficult to imagine anything that more closely fits
the description of "superficial alteration or aesthetic harm" than
turning something upside down!
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for
the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have
been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case
of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products
upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
It's funny, your own conclusion is that it is criminal damage, and yet
your argument that it is so has made me more convinced that it is not.
The weak point in your argument is that as the repair work is done by
staff already employed then it costs nothing.
If you could show it took negligible time then you might have an
argument, but half an hour every day rapidly adds up. Perhaps if one
person turned half a dozen things upside down that would be truly
negligible, but if a team do it every day, or several times a day,
to hundreds of items I think your argument breaks down.
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Apologies that I'm late to the thread. However, I have read all the
posts prior to replying. Having done so, rather than going through the thread with a scattergun making numerous follow-ups to the various
replies and likely duplicating a lot of information, it is easier, (for
me at least), to make a single post that collects my thoughts together
in a logical and (hopefully!) coherent manner.
I do not claim to be the ultimate arbiter of the matter, nor is what I
write below worth any more than anything anyone else has had to say on
the matter.
That said, it is worth pointing out that the following is studied, (in reasonable depth), as part of the syllabus for all law courses of which
I am aware.
So, here's my thoughts, for what they're worth (Ed: nothing!):
To my mind, turning products upside down in a supermarket is almost
certainly criminal damage contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971 [^1] ("the Act").
According to the Act:
"(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
The basic offence has four elements and I've used AR or MR after each to indicate whether each element is part of the actus reus or the mens rea:
The person must:
(1) destroy or damage (AR);
(2) property (AR);
(3) belonging to another (AR);
(4) intending or being reckless as to the damage or destruction of
property belonging to another (MR).
I'll work through each of those in turn, with reference to case law to explain why I believe a case for criminal damage is made out in the
instant case.
The items are not being "destroy[ed]" so there is no need to discuss
that further.
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general, comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to
draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning
of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The
coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was
no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a penalty under the Act.
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent
in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200
in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that
the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be
an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or permanent loss of quality or value.
A caveat is that common sense must be used when considering the issue of damage. In Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48, D removed a metal
scaffold bar from a neighbouring site during which it was scratched, something the prosecution claimed amounted to criminal damage. It was
held that damage is a question of fact and degree. Not all physical alterations to property constitute criminal damage. The scaffold bar
may have been scratched but the scratch did not affect the bar's utility
or value as it did not impair its functionality or usefulness. Therefore
it was not considered criminal damage.
However, the court was clear that dismantling the scaffolding could have amounted to criminal damage, (as could the dismantling of any structure
or barrier), if it impaired the usefulness of the barrier. The court's focus was on loss of function, which is a broader interpretation of
damage - covering not just physical harm but also temporary or permanent impairment of value or utility.
Whilst the Court held that the scratch itself was not criminal damage,
it note that had the charge focused instead on the removal or
dismantling of the barrier a conviction could have been upheld. In
short, the stronger case could have been made had the defendant been
charged with dismantling the barrier rather than scratching the pole.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for
the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have
been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case
of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
Turning them to the second element of criminal damage, namely
"property". There is no doubt that the products are property of a
tangible nature and are not excluded in section 10(1) of the Act.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that the property in question meets the definition of "belonging to another".
Which brings us to the mens rea. Is there an intention, recklessness or both as to the destruction or damage and as to the fact that the
property belongs to another?
The protesters cannot claim they believed, albeit mistakenly, that they
own the items they are turning upside down meaning there is no scope for considering it.
Helpful in the case of the supermarket produce inverters is Seray-wurie
v DPP [2012] EWHC 208 (Admin) [^2] in which D wrote in marker pen on
parking notices. To establish intention it had not been necessary for
the prosecution to prove more than D's intentional act of writing on the notices, it was necessary to prove at least recklessness as to whether
damage might be caused, but there was no requirement to show
recklessness as to whether that damage constituted damage in law.
In short, in the instant case, if they know that turning the products
upside down is going to cause the store inconvenience and cost in time
and / or money in turning them back the right way up, or were reckless
as to whether this would be the case, then they have demonstrated the necessary mens rea.
As I say, to my mind, there is sufficient evidence to support a charge
of criminal damage, but I welcome contrary opinions that are suitable evidenced.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/1
[^2] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/208.html
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Apologies that I'm late to the thread. However, I have read all the
posts prior to replying. Having done so, rather than going through the thread with a scattergun making numerous follow-ups to the various
replies and likely duplicating a lot of information, it is easier, (for
me at least), to make a single post that collects my thoughts together
in a logical and (hopefully!) coherent manner.
I do not claim to be the ultimate arbiter of the matter, nor is what I
write below worth any more than anything anyone else has had to say on
the matter.
That said, it is worth pointing out that the following is studied, (in reasonable depth), as part of the syllabus for all law courses of which
I am aware.
So, here's my thoughts, for what they're worth (Ed: nothing!):
To my mind, turning products upside down in a supermarket is almost
certainly criminal damage contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971 [^1] ("the Act").
According to the Act:
"(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
On 13/03/2025 15:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You may or may not be aware of a recent trend to boycott products
coming from the USA in supermarkets.
What possible law infringements can be envisaged towards someone
caught doing so in UK, apart from obviously getting kicked out and
being asked not to come back?
Apologies that I'm late to the thread. However, I have read all the
posts prior to replying. Having done so, rather than going through the thread with a scattergun making numerous follow-ups to the various
replies and likely duplicating a lot of information, it is easier, (for
me at least), to make a single post that collects my thoughts together
in a logical and (hopefully!) coherent manner.
I do not claim to be the ultimate arbiter of the matter, nor is what I
write below worth any more than anything anyone else has had to say on
the matter.
That said, it is worth pointing out that the following is studied, (in reasonable depth), as part of the syllabus for all law courses of which
I am aware.
So, here's my thoughts, for what they're worth (Ed: nothing!):
To my mind, turning products upside down in a supermarket is almost
certainly criminal damage contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971 [^1] ("the Act").
According to the Act:
"(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
The basic offence has four elements and I've used AR or MR after each to indicate whether each element is part of the actus reus or the mens rea:
The person must:
(1) destroy or damage (AR);
(2) property (AR);
(3) belonging to another (AR);
(4) intending or being reckless as to the damage or destruction of
property belonging to another (MR).
I'll work through each of those in turn, with reference to case law to explain why I believe a case for criminal damage is made out in the
instant case.
The items are not being "destroy[ed]" so there is no need to discuss
that further.
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general, comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to
draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning
of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The
coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was
no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a penalty under the Act.
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent
in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200
in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that
the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be
an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or permanent loss of quality or value.
A caveat is that common sense must be used when considering the issue of damage. In Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48, D removed a metal
scaffold bar from a neighbouring site during which it was scratched, something the prosecution claimed amounted to criminal damage. It was
held that damage is a question of fact and degree. Not all physical alterations to property constitute criminal damage. The scaffold bar
may have been scratched but the scratch did not affect the bar's utility
or value as it did not impair its functionality or usefulness. Therefore
it was not considered criminal damage.
However, the court was clear that dismantling the scaffolding could have amounted to criminal damage, (as could the dismantling of any structure
or barrier), if it impaired the usefulness of the barrier. The court's focus was on loss of function, which is a broader interpretation of
damage - covering not just physical harm but also temporary or permanent impairment of value or utility.
Whilst the Court held that the scratch itself was not criminal damage,
it note that had the charge focused instead on the removal or
dismantling of the barrier a conviction could have been upheld. In
short, the stronger case could have been made had the defendant been
charged with dismantling the barrier rather than scratching the pole.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for
the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have
been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case
of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
In short, in the instant case, if they know that turning the products
upside down is going to cause the store inconvenience and cost in time
and / or money in turning them back the right way up, or were reckless
as to whether this would be the case, then they have demonstrated the necessary mens rea.
As I say, to my mind, there is sufficient evidence to support a charge
of criminal damage, but I welcome contrary opinions that are suitable evidenced.
On 2025-03-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Mar 2025 at 14:06:55 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, whilst the meaning of "damage" might seem
straightforward, there is no statutory definition and no general,
comprehensive common-sense definition which is where differences of
opinion are likely to exist meaning we are best referring to case law to >>>> draw relevant lessons.
In Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330,
CND protestors used specially mixed paint that was water soluble and
would be washed away by rainwater within a matter of days to etch human >>>> silhouettes on the pavement to mark the fortieth anniversary of the
bombing of Hiroshima.
The CND protesters submitted that there was no damage within the meaning >>>> of A v R [1978] Crim LR 689.
In A v R, A, a juvenile, had spat on a police officer's rain jacket
during the course of being escorted from one location to another. The >>>> coat was used as evidence and had a faint mark where the spit had
supposedly landed. The prosecution case was that the coat needed dry
cleaning and that it had been rendered imperfect as a result of the
mark. The issue in A v R was whether the coat had been rendered
imperfect or inoperative in line with the wording in the Act. The
appeal against A's conviction was allowed as it was found that there was >>>> no case to answer. There had been no attempt made by the officer to
clean the rain jacket and if there had been, it could have been wiped
with a damp cloth, which would have more than likely removed the mark
with no stain remaining and no permanent damage. It was held that this >>>> might have been different had the material been more delicate.
Ultimately, it was such minor damage that it was not enough to trigger a >>>> penalty under the Act.
That seems pretty conclusive that turning a product upside down is
*not* criminal damage. It is difficult to imagine damage that is
any more minor than that!
All of which sounds like good news for the CND protesters. However,
before the rain could wash away the silhouettes the local authority sent >>>> in a team of cleaners who used high pressure washers to clean the
pavement, washing away the markings. The protesters were convicted for >>>> causing criminal damage and subsequently appealed.
In this case, it did not matter that the silhouettes would be washed
away by the rain. There had been damage as there had been expense and >>>> inconvenience caused to the local authority. In this decision, the
court followed the Australian case of Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SARS 200 >>>> in finding that "damage" may be used in the sense of "mischief done to >>>> property". ("Temporary functional derangement" of a policeman's cap,
caused by being jumped on, was considered to be damage.) The fact that >>>> the damage could be remedied where such a remedy cost money seemed to
provide sufficient evidence as to the damage caused in this case.
Again that seems conclusive that this is not criminal damage. There is
no cost to the supermarket to turn the item(s) the right way up again.
If it happens, it will be the existing already-paid-for staff doing it.
If the policeman's cap had not been jumped on but had merely been
turned upside down do you really think a prosecution would have been
brought at all, let alone resulted in a conviction?
All of which means that damage does not need to be irreparable. An
indicator of damage may be that time and / or money is required to
restore the property to its original condition, (per Hardman).
Conversely, where little effort and no expense is required, this will be >>>> an indicator against a finding of damage (per A v R).
Again this suggests not criminal damage.
Which leads to the conclusion that damage may result where there is an >>>> impairment of use, even though there is no obvious physical damage or
permanent loss of quality or value.
And again! There is no "impairment of use" in an upside down product on
a shelf.
The principle from the Morphitis ruling is that to qualify as criminal >>>> damage, it must affect the usefulness, value or normal function of the >>>> property, not just cause a superficial alteration or aesthetic harm.
And again... it is difficult to imagine anything that more closely fits
the description of "superficial alteration or aesthetic harm" than
turning something upside down!
All of which leads to the conclusion that the best course of action for >>>> the shop's concerned is to instruct staff to rectify products that have >>>> been turned upside down immediately upon spotting them thereby
demonstrating inconvenience and incurring costs thus making out a case >>>> of damage per Hardman. Similarly, in my opinion, turning the products >>>> upside down affects their usefulness as supported by Morphitis.
It's funny, your own conclusion is that it is criminal damage, and yet
your argument that it is so has made me more convinced that it is not.
The weak point in your argument is that as the repair work is done by
staff already employed then it costs nothing.
It's not the strongest part of the argument to be sure, but it's not
a "weak link" inasmuch as each of my points above are separate reasons
that stand alone and if any of them are correct then it's not Criminal Damage.
If you could show it took negligible time then you might have an
argument, but half an hour every day rapidly adds up. Perhaps if one
person turned half a dozen things upside down that would be truly
negligible, but if a team do it every day, or several times a day,
to hundreds of items I think your argument breaks down.
Sure, it could well be that turning one product upside down is not
criminal damage, but if a team of people turned every product in
the store upside down then it would be. And there would then of
course have to be some point in-between those two extremes where it
went from "not Criminal Damage" to "Criminal Damage".
It will be interesting to see if any supermarkets affected by this
protest decide to test the matter in court. I wasn't even aware of it
being a thing until it was mentioned here. So few US made products are
on local UK supermarket shelves that it will be very hard to tell.
I expect it could be quite newsworthy if it happened. I can't see a jury
of their peers convicting anyone for this offence in the current
political climate with Trump, but I suppose magistrates might.
On 18/03/2025 16:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Sure, it could well be that turning one product upside down is not
criminal damage, but if a team of people turned every product in
the store upside down then it would be. And there would then of
course have to be some point in-between those two extremes where it
went from "not Criminal Damage" to "Criminal Damage".
Fine. But if this _was_ a case of one person, turning a single item
upside down[1], then we would not be here discussing this.
In message <vr9s9b$oq14$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:13:47 on Mon, 17 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr7kfq$2ncij$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:48:26 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar >>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:If you had said that US bases have a Commissary that has a function similar
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar >>>>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar >>>>>>>>> 2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit. >>>>>>>>>>US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or >>>>>>>>>"Commissarie" in
US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap >>>>>>>>> prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to use NAAFI.
Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie.
You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that >>>>>> they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but >>>>> the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk). >>>>
to a NAAFI on a UK base then there would be no issue, but you did not. >>>> There was no need to mention NAAFI at all, it just introduced unnecessary >>>> concepts that obfuscate the issue. It would have been simpler to just give >>>> the Commissary its correct name and say it sells US products at reduced >>>> prices.
I can understand how you mis-read it that way, but mis-read it you did.
... keep digging, snipped.
Please point out where you used the words "in their own right" (whatever >>> that's supposed to mean).
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active >>>>>>>>US service
personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my information is that
other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be >>>>> accompanied by the serviceman.
So the others are not eligible to shop there in their own right as I said. >>>
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely given that
the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in >>>>>> general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I have no difficulty penetrating the fog created by the casual disregard >>>> for accurate use of terms as the discussion so far clearly shows.
I would prefer it if the fog were not created in the first place. Although >>>> pointing out the errors seems to have little effect on the fog generator, >>>> it may help other readers to see that there is fog and to help them
penetrate it.
I dispelled the fog you created, so stop digging. Really, stop digging.
I am not the one using terminology inaccurately.
I'm afraid you are (that one).
I do not take orders from you.
No-one expects you to, but I'm trying to help prevent you making even
more of fool of yourself in public.
We both know that you will never accept that anything you have written is >>in any way incorrect. That does not make what you write correct.
Nor does it automatically make things I write incorrect. That would be a >commonplace logical fallacy.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:07:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <cf58jLaXnS2nFAlk@perry.uk>:
In message <vr9s9b$oq14$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:13:47 on Mon, 17 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr7kfq$2ncij$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:48:26 on Sun, 16 MarI am not the one using terminology inaccurately.
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar >>>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:If you had said that US bases have a Commissary that has a
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar >>>>>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that >>>>>>> they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at >>>>>>>>>>>extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or >>>>>>>>>>"Commissarie" in
US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap >>>>>>>>>> prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to >>>>>>>>>use NAAFI.
Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie. >>>>>>>
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but >>>>>> the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk). >>>>>
function similar
to a NAAFI on a UK base then there would be no issue, but you did not. >>>>> There was no need to mention NAAFI at all, it just introduced unnecessary >>>>> concepts that obfuscate the issue. It would have been simpler to just give
the Commissary its correct name and say it sells US products at reduced >>>>> prices.
I can understand how you mis-read it that way, but mis-read it you did. >>>>
... keep digging, snipped.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active >>>>>>>>>US service
personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same.
Servicemen, veterans, families and friends.
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my >>>>>>>information is that
other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be >>>>>> accompanied by the serviceman.
So the others are not eligible to shop there in their own right as I said.
Please point out where you used the words "in their own right" (whatever >>>> that's supposed to mean).
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely >>>>>>>given that
the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in >>>>>>> general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I have no difficulty penetrating the fog created by the casual disregard >>>>> for accurate use of terms as the discussion so far clearly shows.
I would prefer it if the fog were not created in the first place. Although
pointing out the errors seems to have little effect on the fog generator, >>>>> it may help other readers to see that there is fog and to help them
penetrate it.
I dispelled the fog you created, so stop digging. Really, stop digging. >>>
I'm afraid you are (that one).
I do not take orders from you.
No-one expects you to, but I'm trying to help prevent you making even
more of fool of yourself in public.
If what I post makes me look foolish then that is my problem. If what I
write does not make me look foolish in the eyes of anyone else who is
reading then you may see me as someone you would wish to silence.
We both know that you will never accept that anything you have written is >>>in any way incorrect. That does not make what you write correct.
Nor does it automatically make things I write incorrect. That would be a >>commonplace logical fallacy.
I did not suggest that everything you write is incorrect. If that is a >conclusion that you reached from what I said then your logic is faulty.
In message <hbrjtjljsjo75ave4bbrals6q7jjd2dg85@4ax.com>, at 22:25:51 on
Tue, 18 Mar 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:07:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <cf58jLaXnS2nFAlk@perry.uk>:
In message <vr9s9b$oq14$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:13:47 on Mon, 17 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr7kfq$2ncij$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:48:26 on Sun, 16 Mar >>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:I am not the one using terminology inaccurately.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr6rbh$22env$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:39:29 on Sun, 16 Mar >>>>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:If you had said that US bases have a Commissary that has a
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vr3o66$3dva0$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:02 on Sat, 15 Mar >>>>>>>>> 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:You said the base will have a NAAFI and then parenthetically added that
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vqv6eq$3k4oa$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:59:48 on Thu, 13 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>
Nobody likes Hersheys chocolate which has the aroma of fresh vomit.
US servicemen do. Shops near US bases sell it at
extortionate prices.
One wonders why, because the base will have a NAAFI (or
"Commissarie" in
US-English) selling a very wide range of US products at very cheap >>>>>>>>>>> prices.
NAAFI serves UK forces. US personnel would not be eligible to >>>>>>>>>> use NAAFI.
Yes, which is why said the Americans would use the Commissarie. >>>>>>>>
they are called Commissarie (sic) in US-English.
You have mis-parsed it. It has what is in British English a NAAFI (but >>>>>>> the people using, call it a "Commissarie")
cf "That road on the base has a pavement (in US-English, a Sidewalk). >>>>>>
function similar
to a NAAFI on a UK base then there would be no issue, but you did not. >>>>>> There was no need to mention NAAFI at all, it just introduced unnecessary
concepts that obfuscate the issue. It would have been simpler to just give
the Commissary its correct name and say it sells US products at reduced >>>>>> prices.
I can understand how you mis-read it that way, but mis-read it you did. >>>>>
... keep digging, snipped.
Eligibility to shop in either extends to more than just active >>>>>>>>>> US serviceServicemen, veterans, families and friends.
personnel but I am not sure if the eligibility is the same. >>>>>>>>>
Dependents of active duty military are eligible but my
information is that
other family are not, nor are friends.
Your information is wrong, I'm afraid. Modulo the 'others' need to be >>>>>>> accompanied by the serviceman.
So the others are not eligible to shop there in their own right as I said.
Please point out where you used the words "in their own right" (whatever >>>>> that's supposed to mean).
I would expect Hershey Bars to be in the Commissary
Yes, like I said earlier.
You said they would be in the NAAFI which I find very unlikely >>>>>>>> given that
the US personnel likely to want them are not eligible to shop there in >>>>>>>> general.
Has the fog cleared yet?
I have no difficulty penetrating the fog created by the casual disregard >>>>>> for accurate use of terms as the discussion so far clearly shows.
I would prefer it if the fog were not created in the first place. Although
pointing out the errors seems to have little effect on the fog generator,
it may help other readers to see that there is fog and to help them >>>>>> penetrate it.
I dispelled the fog you created, so stop digging. Really, stop digging. >>>>
I'm afraid you are (that one).
I do not take orders from you.
No-one expects you to, but I'm trying to help prevent you making even
more of fool of yourself in public.
If what I post makes me look foolish then that is my problem. If what I
write does not make me look foolish in the eyes of anyone else who is
reading then you may see me as someone you would wish to silence.
I'm just trying to improve the signal to noise ratio.
We both know that you will never accept that anything you have written is >>>> in any way incorrect. That does not make what you write correct.
Nor does it automatically make things I write incorrect. That would be a >>> commonplace logical fallacy.
I did not suggest that everything you write is incorrect. If that is a
conclusion that you reached from what I said then your logic is faulty.
You've slipped in an "every" in front of "thing", there.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:59:07 |
| Calls: | 9,799 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,575 |