It was getting tough in 2006 and the workhouse still threatens us in 2011

Frugal_Dreamer

ceridwen wrote: »

There you go - job done. No innocent parties hurt and end of problem...result.

I think many of us will have been on the receiving end of theft - and then we know, in practice, what its like and how upsetting it is.

The first (yes I DID say "first":() time a break-in happened to me my first reaction (as a pretty dyed in the wool "liberal" thinker at that point) was sheer astonishment. The astonishment was because I honestly (in my naivety - well in my defence I WAS young at the time) thought that thieves only stole from rich people or at least the obviously fairly wealthy. It had simply never occurred to me that someone would steal from someone as poor as myself - because I obviously didnt have enough (never mind surplus). The accommodation I was living in was such that no-one/but no-one would have lived there by choice. It was obviously such low standard accommodation that anyone living there was only doing so because they were so poor. The thief clearly didnt care - they broke in anyway. That was sure one BIG wake-up call. I've had other thefts since - so it wasnt even a one-off...theres clearly a lot of them out there:(:(.

I've also had jewellery (of a type that might well have sentimental value) stolen when I lost it in the street. I knew pretty much exactly where I had lost that jewellery and left a reasonable period of time and then went and asked for it back at the local police station. Only - it HADNT been handed in. The person who found it had stolen it. It was worth a little bit - but not that much - and the thieves must have known it might have sentimental value - but didnt give a darn about that.

**************************

Re the foragers code - I've read it "set down in stone" in more than one book I have on this and certainly usually been told it by professional foragers. I think - over the years - it has been more "set down in stone" because of two factors that wouldnt have affected our ancestors:

- theres just so many more of us (I've had more than one Professional forager and book saying "You cant have 60 million people foraging". Part of the reason why Britain is WAY WAY over sustainable population level is because there simply isnt enough wild food around for us all to take what we please - even though our ancestors probably were able to in the less-populated country they lived in....). My oldest foraging books dont mention it - but the modern ones ALL do.

- the problem has been compounded by the fact that WAY more of our countryside is no longer available to forage in (ie because its been built on).

Between the two factors there is a lot less food and a lot more people wanting it. I was a forager myself (self-taught) years before it became fashionable and am far from happy that its now become so fashionable. So "fashion" is another thing that is making it difficult.

How do you know no harm was done? Let's hope the thief did not give the milk to a baby or young child...

What hope is there for society when we start to do things like this?

3v3

Frugal_Dreamer wrote: »

How do you know no harm was done? Let's hope the thief did not give the milk to a baby or young child...

What hope is there for society when we start to do things like this?

You raise an interesting point!

Lavandula

3v3 wrote: »

You raise an interesting point!

Agree also..

Moving on..........

After watching Jack Hargreaves on You Tube I have managed to string my red onions into 3 large bunches that will last well into the winter. One is hanging in the kitchen and the other 2 are hanging in the shed. I am very pleased how the onions grew this year (from a packet of sets bought in £land).

We are eating salads from the garden most days and I have more courgettes than I know what to do with! Most things have done well this year apart from the brocolli (caterpillars I think!!)

Will go blackberry picking again at the weekend;)

mardatha

As far as I know the Gulf Stream has moved or slowed down, and this is one of the reasons the weather is so bad now. Went to the shops and got some chelsea buns for me, library for a pile of books for me, and went to the farm supplies for corn for the poor bloody chickens. So we are all happy.
Got a murder whodunnit set in Shetland and will sit down by the fire later on and get stuck into that. Also thinking of getting out the knitting... might need more socks for this winter eh
Re these riots etc, I now feel so glad I joined all these survivalist sites. Some of them are seriously mad yes, but many more are like me, ordinary people with a niggling feeling of something coming that it would be wise to prepare for.

rachbc

I'm off for my first lot of blackberries tonight as noticed they are starting to ripen here. I also noticed an apple tree on my run route so i shall be watching that to see when its ready, as well as working out how the heck to get the fruit from the 40 ft comice near work!

I;ve signed up to urban havest to do some cummunal/ organised collecting of unwanted/ unpicked fruit too

ceridwen

Frugal_Dreamer wrote: »

How do you know no harm was done? Let's hope the thief did not give the milk to a baby or young child...

What hope is there for society when we start to do things like this?

<puzzled smilie> x 10

Did you read that post closely? It stated that the milk was stolen from outside Kitties mothers house - ie it would have been on the doorstep of Kitties mother.

Its obvious that she was entitled to do what she pleased to her OWN property on her OWN territory.

If the thief then fed some of the milk to a child - then the thief would be the person who made that child ill (and not the innocent victim of crime = which lets get it quite clear was Kitties family). The child would be perfectly okay if the thief had got that milk in the "proper way" (ie buying it from a shop or the like).

I dont suppose the thief thought for one minute about how they were literally taking the food out of the mouths of Kittie and her siblings (ie they were children at the time).

Since when did criminals have more rights than ordinary honest people?

Looks forward to having a detailed explanation as to why it would apparently be Kittie's mother that had made anyone else the thief had given the milk to ill. From where I'm standing it is very very clear indeed it would have been the criminals fault - their thieving and their thieving alone would have been responsible for anyone they gave the milk to getting ill.

I dont understand why anyone would stick up for a thief????

PaddyPaws

ceridwen wrote: »

<puzzled smilie> x 10

Did you read that post closely? It stated that the milk was stolen from outside Kitties mothers house - ie it would have been on the doorstep of Kitties mother.

Its obvious that she was entitled to do what she pleased to her OWN property on her OWN territory.

If the thief then fed some of the milk to a child - then the thief would be the person who made that child ill (and not the innocent victim of crime = which lets get it quite clear was Kitties family). The child would be perfectly okay if the thief had got that milk in the "proper way" (ie buying it from a shop or the like).

I dont suppose the thief thought for one minute about how they were literally taking the food out of the mouths of Kittie and her siblings (ie they were children at the time).

Since when did criminals have more rights than ordinary honest people?

Looks forward to having a detailed explanation as to why it would apparently be Kittie's mother that had made anyone else the thief had given the milk to ill. From where I'm standing it is very very clear indeed it would have been the criminals fault - their thieving and their thieving alone would have been responsible for anyone they gave the milk to getting ill.

I dont understand why anyone would stick up for a thief????

Well put Ceridwen! I was trying to work out how to word a similar response. I cannot believe that anyone thinks its ok to steal, and the 'poor' thief shouldn't suffer some punishment or strong deterrent.

Frugal_Dreamer

ceridwen wrote: »

<puzzled smilie> x 10

Did you read that post closely? It stated that the milk was stolen from outside Kitties mothers house - ie it would have been on the doorstep of Kitties mother.

Its obvious that she was entitled to do what she pleased to her OWN property on her OWN territory.

If the thief then fed some of the milk to a child - then the thief would be the person who made that child ill (and not the innocent victim of crime = which lets get it quite clear was Kitties family). The child would be perfectly okay if the thief had got that milk in the "proper way" (ie buying it from a shop or the like).

I dont suppose the thief thought for one minute about how they were literally taking the food out of the mouths of Kittie and her siblings (ie they were children at the time).

Since when did criminals have more rights than ordinary honest people?

Looks forward to having a detailed explanation as to why it would apparently be Kittie's mother that had made anyone else the thief had given the milk to ill. From where I'm standing it is very very clear indeed it would have been the criminals fault - their thieving and their thieving alone would have been responsible for anyone they gave the milk to getting ill.

I dont understand why anyone would stick up for a thief????

I am not in anyway sticking up for thieves. To knowingly poison something knowing that someone else will drink it, is in my opinion wrong. Simple as that.

*Chattie*

as you are very close to retirement age I'm sure you must have heard of scrumping in your youth or did one not allow such things to happen in your "safe" area of middle England?

*Chattie*

Frugal_Dreamer wrote: »

I am not in anyway sticking up for thieves. To knowingly poison something knowing that someone else will drink it, is in my opinion wrong. Simple as that.

similar to suggesting fruit is sprayed with goodness knows what in my opinion