Posting it, are you kidding me?

Posted it from a government computer!
Like that was going to conceal his identity?
Hide it from his wife?
Whatever the reasoning, no I.Q. problems here!

 

Wow. That takes a special kind of stupid. Doing it, stupid. Filming it, stupid. Posting it, are you kidding me?

But they're in love.

 

No. My primary concern is that charity food providers already have a better health record than, "compliant distributors"

Not everywhere they don't! Even under the best conditions it's bound to be a 'hit and miss' proposition (at best) sans oversight...

you want them to lower their standards to be "on Par" with compliant distributors or quit entirely.

I want them to be subject to enforced responsibility and answerablity! - The mere fact of "Google's" failure to (readily) expose the magnitude of the (often tragic) difficulties corollary to un/under regulated food distribution (i.e. 'food shelves', 'pot lucks', etc...) stands as ample testimony to the abysmal state of documentation, oversight, etc...

While 'mendicants can't be choosers' might make a 'snappy' slogan - I feel it's a bit mean spirited...
It is my assertion that even 'the poor' deserve the basal protections enjoyed by other members of society!

That sounds worse than, "Let them eat cake." It sounds like, "Let them starve."

And I would say that my 'sentiment' might best be 'translated' as: "let them eat food as opposed to rubbish!"

I worked in this county for 40 years, lacking 16 of the 17 licenses required by law. I never had a complaint filed against me in 40 years because I refuse to live down to government standards. Even when I did a legal job and passed inspection, I would wait until the inspector left and add extra performance and safety equipment to bring the job up to my standards. That has a lot to do with why I'm not comfortably wealthy, but I demonstrated that I was, and am, willing to pay that price for the integrity associated with my name.

I hear that! I, for instance, find many 'provisions' of the NEC to be daft - even dangerous! -- Even so I wouldn't want to see 'class specific' regulation... And yes! I wholeheartedly concur with your intimation that licensure requirements have got right out of hand in many areas of commerce, trade, industry and, indeed, avocation...

As regards safety of donated food products - It seems to me the programs whereby non-perishable foods are donated at the supermarket (having never left the premises) thence transported to reputable organizations for distribution, represent a wholly 'workable' system in that most of the 'compliance burden' is painlessly born by the vendor (i.e. the supermarket) -- As previously stated, such seem to be a growing 'trend' - I genuinely hope so! - For although I've been sufficiently fortunate to have never 'gone hungry' for want of funds - As a human being I can but imagine concern with potential foodborne illness, etc.. would only serve to exacerbate an already intolerable situation

Very best regards
HP

 

ust how long do you think things(canned goods) sit in a warehouse before being sent to a store? Why do you think stores have such good sales in late summer on canned vegetables, when harvest season starts? I can tell you don't do your own shopping or cooking.

My sentiment is merely that if it's 'too old' for the 'East Side' It's 'too old' for the 'South Side'

I can tell you don't do your own shopping or cooking.

Uggg! What a thought! -- Even I cannot abide my own cooking! -- That said, I seem to manage reheating my coffee sans perpetration of widespread WIFI outages

Do you pay attention on Federal or state votes on welfare for low or no income people? It's consistently the GOP that is totally against any further help but for reducing the help we give now. And at the same time are for welfare for big agriculture. This is the one reason for me I can no longer vote(in most cases) Repub. This attitude they've gone to of,"I've got mine and you should have got yours", no matter what the others circumstances in life. There are more things in the lives of people than just boiling it down to, "you're just a loser and don't/never wanted to work and just want a handout."

+1000 -- With the qualification that, IMO, the problem is that we no longer have 'Republicans' and 'Democrats' -- But, rather, conservatives and leftists (neither of whom have the merest regard for -nor even concept of- basic human rights).

Not to insult you or start a war, but from the way you talk (not the words you use), are you sure your first name isn't Marie? You come across as saying, "let them eat cake".

Please see my response (#1503) to @#12 's post

Very best regards
HP

 

Los Angeles, Ca. borrowing money because they are in the hole by $245 million this year. 94.6% of that was payouts for just 3 lawsuits.
https://www.rt.com/usa/373268-los-angeles-borrow-millions-lawsuit/

A few more of these and the local governments might look into reducing police misconduct?
Maybe not. All the payouts come from taxing the local citizens. It doesn't hurt the people in government. It doesn't hurt the police. Only the citizens are punished for the misbehavior of the police.

 

My sentiment is merely that if it's 'too old' for the 'East Side' It's 'too old' for the 'South Side'

Ha ha! HP cuz now you're doxing yourself abt living in Chicago once! If I did that I'd be toast so now you can't totally blame me for your TMI troubles!

Even I cannot abide my own cooking!

HP you can sure say that again! I'd rather have a MacDonald's crawler burger with a side of bot flies followed by a cane toad in the hole for desert!

I seem to manage reheating my coffee sans perpetration of widespread WIFI outages

HP you might say that but you went over a year totally oblivious that problem was right there in your house and you're electronics savvy so I say there's no excuse!

are you sure your first name isn't Marie?

Shortbus I say that could be cuz sometimes HP loses her head when she's on abt equal protection under the law

 

I want them to be subject to enforced responsibility and answerablity! -

More regulation will fix an undocumented number of failures?
More regulation didn't fix the restaurant industry, and they have plenty of documentation.

I disagree with the idea that more laws and regulations will fix the failures of a huge number of unorganized, decentralized, charitable activities. The first thing that will accomplish is to take the, "free" out of, "free food" and the second thing that will accomplish is to shut them down entirely, taking the, "food" out of, "free food". This sounds like another on the list of, "No good deed goes unpunished." What it really is, is another on the list which included bootleg whisky, designer drugs, and fake ID. People like you want to control people helping people, but you can't. It will just become another part of the black market.

You can't pass enough laws to stop hunger. You can't pass enough laws to remove all risk from anything. You can't pass enough laws to stop people from helping each other. Pass all the laws you want. We aren't listening and we aren't obeying.

 

People like you want to control people helping people

Nope! -- I wish to prevent a handful of ignoramuses from ruining it for everyone! -- Food safety is far too vital to be offhandedly 'cast to the four winds' -- Troubling though some may find it - It truly is the result - as opposed to the thought - that counts!!!

More regulation didn't fix the restaurant industry, and they have plenty of documentation.

Then I suggest you imagine the result sans regulation! -- Better yet - take some time out and tour a few regions lacking such oversight -- I'm here to tell you - it gets worse -- Much worse!

Hey @#12 -- I've twice drawn attention to a nearly ideal solution -- To wit...

As regards safety of donated food products - It seems to me the programs whereby non-perishable foods are donated at the supermarket (having never left the premises) thence transported to reputable organizations for distribution, represent a wholly 'workable' system in that most of the 'compliance burden' is painlessly born by the vendor (i.e. the supermarket) -- As previously stated, such seem to be a growing 'trend' - I genuinely hope so!

A single regulation (act) restricting donations to non-perishables 'direct from supermarket shelves' and hey presto! Problem solved! --- Such programs offer well founded confidence in product quality/safety to the recipients, convenience for the donors (which, as a practical matter, 'translates' to more donations!) and very 'light' oversight to the distributors (charities) owing to the non-perishable nature of the stock! -- Nobody need 'go hungry' and nobody need fear (or face) death or disease owed to tainted food! --- Best of all, said programs are entering the mainstream (where not already established)! -- You needn't take my word for the level of participation - merely have a gander at the donation bin at any participating market!

In closing, I'm bound to say I cannot pretend to understand why you (or anyone) would belabor this discussion with steadfast advocacy for acceptance of items of dubious origin/history when a safe, working alternative exists? Is it, perchance, by way of 'punishing' me for my erstwhile display of 'silver spoon-ism'

Best regards
HP

 

Ha ha! HP cuz now you're doxing yourself abt living in Chicago once! If I did that I'd be toast so now you can't totally blame me for your TMI troubles!


HP you can sure say that again! I'd rather have a MacDonald's crawler burger with a side of bot flies followed by a cane toad in the hole for desert!


HP you might say that but you went over a year totally oblivious that problem was right there in your house and you're electronics savvy so I say there's no excuse!


Shortbus I say that could be cuz sometimes HP loses her head when she's on abt equal protection under the law

Well... You're certainly in 'top form' today! --- Things would be mighty dull around here without you, gal!

All the best
HP

 

You can't pass enough laws to stop hunger. You can't pass enough laws to remove all risk from anything. You can't pass enough laws to stop people from helping each other. Pass all the laws you want. We aren't listening and we aren't obeying.

Sure enough, you are a libertarian.

 

A single regulation (act) restricting donations to non-perishables 'direct from supermarket shelves' and hey presto! Problem solved!

Not knowing how it works in your area, I can say that's not how it works here. People don't just stop in with a box or bag of food to donate. It is either paid for by an organization(charity, etc) and shipped to the "pantry"(what they are called here) by a distributor. This is for canned, boxed or other commercially available food. Although in the summer months they do accept home grown vegetables from individuals gardens. And there are people locally that like to garden that plant extra for this. Even some local grocery stores sell the home grown vegetables too.

There are local stores available that sell "scratch and dent" canned goods.

 

And there are people locally that like to garden that plant extra for this. Even some local grocery stores sell the home grown vegetables too.

Ditto here. Most of the farmers selling at the farmers' market grow far more than they can sell. They can choose the highest quality for sale, and then donate as much as they have time and energy to pick. Sell the best, donate the rest. Imposing any silly rules on them would dry this up in a flash.

 

I've twice drawn attention to a nearly ideal solution

Are you fighting to stop people from delivering canned goods to the food bank with their own hands?

In closing, I'm bound to say I cannot pretend to understand why you (or anyone) would belabor this discussion with steadfast advocacy for acceptance of items of dubious origin/history

Nobody advocated foods of dubious origin. Around here, nobody walks into a food bank and presents a home baked casserole or last week's potato salad. People donate canned goods, grocery stores contribute milk, and the day-old bread store sends day-old bread. I don't know why we need more laws to prevent that.

If you have problems with people bringing road-kill to the local food bank, don't eat the road-kill.

 

As someone who did consume food of dubious origins (Russia of late 80s early 90s was not a pretty site), here are a few comments:

- milk products and eggs are the dangerous ones in terms of expiration dates and even milk can be stretched (boil it) but do not risk sour cream or yogurt. Definitely not expired eggs.
- canned goods expiration dates are pretty arbitrary (they are all ar itrary) and most can be eaten if not far past.
- the issue here arose most likely because of some litigation in the states (that is ususally how everything gets started). I think I looked into this before. Once a store that provided "auestionable" food gets sued, they would make sure they do not get sued again.
- i fully stand by personal responsibility and nonregulations in these matters especially if these are items offered to people for free to do their own cooking with. If it is a soup kitchen, oversite is needed (same as in restaurants) to make sure that it is not a source of public infections.

re standards - they are all at a minimim and become a default ceiling for most people. It is a terrible situation.

 

the issue here arose most likely because of some litigation in the states

The issue arose here because this is the War on Cops Thread and the Tampa, Florida police arrested 7 people for giving food to homeless people. There was not even a suspicion of bad quality food. The arrests were done to try to make homeless people go away from a sporting event where tourists might see them. Then Hypatia's Protege decided to talk about the Public Health Concerns that didn't happen, eventually evolving into a claim that somebody advocated food of dubious origin and/or quality, which also didn't happen.

 

Yes, I agree. To get back on topic, same actions by police were seen in Vancouver prior to 2010 Olympics. They even introduced a law where the police would have the power tp force people into shelters. As a result many homeless took a ferry across Georgia Straight to Victoria.

 

The issue arose here because this is the War on Cops Thread and the Tampa, Florida police arrested 7 people for giving food to homeless people. There was not even a suspicion of bad quality food. The arrests were done to try to make homeless people go away from a sporting event where tourists might see them. Then Hypatia's Protege decided to talk about the Public Health Concerns that didn't happen, eventually evolving into a claim that somebody advocated food of dubious origin and/or quality, which also didn't happen.

Thanks, I was having trouble figuring this one out.

 

Thanks, I was having trouble figuring this one out.

Where it went off the rails for me was the cry, "There oughta be a law!" There are already laws against poisoning people, confirmed by HP in post #1461: "responsible parties prosecuted". The restaurant industry lives or dies by those laws, and they poison an average of 70 people per day.

Then #12 says:
How many people could one feed for free after paying for even a few regulations, inspections, certifications, insurance, etc. that a retail store pays?

HP interpreted this as advocating hazardous food.

Her response: "IMO, you've identified an excellent argument for prohibition of 'lay grocers', etc... To wit: inability to afford compliance with safety regulations..."

My post did not suggest an inability to afford safety. It suggested that one can't pay special fees and keep the food Free.
And that's when the bridge collapsed and the train fell into the chasm.

Edit: I thought I cleared up this idea that if you don't pay the State, you can't do quality work. I did unusually good quality work for 40 years and didn't pay the State for most of the jobs. Was I too subtle?

 

I think the most relevant issue to this thread is the fact that local politicians used police as paid thugs to clean up the town's appearances. The cops were put in a difficult situation by their bosses. They probably should have done their homework on the law before taking action. Now the lawyers will have a field day sorting it out. The taxpayers will end up paying through the nose for the politicians' desire to "look good". Lose-lose for everyone but the politician.

 

local politicians used police as paid thugs

I'm sure that by now, you know that's not a stretch for the Heroes in Blue. It's not like they had to go to acting classes to memorize their script. What's odd about this is that they usually criminalize the homeless because they can't defend themselves. This time they targeted people who literally have enough money to give it away. These arrests mean they will be giving their money to lawyers (and the State) instead of people who desperately need it.

I'm curious about how this will turn out. The court invalidates the law that says you must buy a permit to give your food to a stranger? Jury Nullification? Validate the State's right to kick 'em while they're down?

Oh! I got it! Arresting people with money is more profitable! Win, lose, or draw, it's gonna cost a bundle.