shoplifting nonsense

[????]

They won't Regalia cos poooor poooor old downtrodden workers and nasty capitalists etc etc

[zeban]

'When will business people be allowed to get fair play?'

When they go through the correct procedures!

[????]

Ha Ha ha

[Jeremy]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> don't we hold the innocent until proven guilty rule sacrosanct

> in this country?

What further proof do you want?

[puzzled]

the picture of the thief was removed not because of anything on this forum (that would be ridiculous) but because we only keep such pictures on display for a limited length of time, after which their effectiveness diminishes. rest assured that when the next crook comes in, we shall display him in the window as well, in between goose-stepping up and down the shop.

[Loz]

Puzzled - are you connected with Celestial? You might want to jump to this thread...

[KeyboardWarrior]

If I was a shop owner I would display whatever I wanted in my shop window. The shopkeeper surely reserves the right to serve who he wants, and does not want.

[Loz]

KeyboardWarrior Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If I was a shop owner I would display whatever I

> wanted in my shop window.

Whatever a shop owner wants to display, eh? So if he was to put up a large picture of you with the word 'rapist' underneath you would support his right to do this? I don't think so.

> The shopkeeper surely reserves the right to serve who he wants, and does

> not want.

I don't recall anyone making any argument otherwise.

[zeban]

Thank you Puzzled for proving me right!

Definitely check out that thread above

[Gimme]

Public stocks on Goose Green containing red-handed shoplifters. With supplies of mushy tomatoes provided by a hag with warts on her nose. That's what we need.

None of this new fangled pictures of shoplifters in windows nonsense...

[Huguenot]

It's fairly safe to say that if the shoplifter sued that they would also open themselves up to prosecution for shoplifting. If they haven't sued then it's a pretty good guess that they're worried about being found guilty.

The comment about putting signs up saying 'rapist' is as usual completely facile, as is the comment that a shopkeeper can put anything in the window. Why are people trying to win arguments about something that didn't happen? I mean, are you grown adults or school kids?

[regalia]

Gimme run for government, I guarantee you my vote!

[Huguenot]

I don't think a bit os social humiliation is unreasonable with criminals.

Whilst the stocks may be a little unusual I can't see why we shouldn't have local websites to identify miscreants alongside the nature of their crimes. If that could extend to banning them from shops and pubs so much the better.

For justice to be effective it must both be seen to be done, and have appropriate consequences.

[RosieH]

Yes Huguenot, fine. But once they've been found guilty, no? Not before they've even seen a policeman.

[ianr]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KeyboardWarrior Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > If I was a shop owner I would display whatever wanted in my shop window.

>

> Whatever a shop owner wants to display, eh? So if he was to put up a large picture of you with the

> word 'rapist' underneath you would support his right to do this? I don't think so.

Introducing the notion of 'supporting' a right just complicates matters. Why not just stick to the question of whether or not the right exists?

On that question I think the onus is on you, for whatever meanings of 'right' you intend, to show that the right does not exist.

[Thomas Micklewright]

good idea, good to see name a shame for crimes like shoplifting.

[Huguenot]

Sorry RosieH I have no intention to wind you up, I hope you'll forgive me for the argument that I'm about to follow.

The police are nothing but an administrative arm of the state, and the state is partly if not totally administrated by the people in a democracy.

If the people choose to administrate local investigations according to the letter of the agreed national law, they are totally within their rights, morally, socially, and pragmatically to do so.

This is not to say that they can administer local justice, which is largely ridiculed mainly due to emotional engagement, but they are entirely entitled to explore and commit miscreants to trial.

You may call this a kangaroo trial, but it's the essence of our society. It's also legal.

In this particular 'shoplifter' debate, no crime has been committed by any party until the miscreants have been brought to a jury of their peers. Whilst this seems scary, the reality is that most of the time most people are sensible enough to agree that.

There is no way of legislating otherwise.

Instead of fearing this, we should commit time and energy to educating our peers about both rights and responsibilities.

[Loz]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > KeyboardWarrior Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > If I was a shop owner I would display whatever

> wanted in my shop window.

> >

> > Whatever a shop owner wants to display, eh? So

> if he was to put up a large picture of you with

> the

> > word 'rapist' underneath you would support his

> right to do this? I don't think so.

>

> Introducing the notion of 'supporting' a right

> just complicates matters. Why not just stick to

> the question of whether or not the right exists?

>

> On that question I think the onus is on you, for

> whatever meanings of 'right' you intend, to show

> that the right does not exist.

If I follow this correctly, you are asking me to show that the right does not exist for a shopkeeper to display whatever they want in their window?? Of course it doesn't. On another thread we are discovering that wearing a T-shirt with 'B****cks to Blair' can get you arrested.

Whilst the police were not involved, the recent case at Westfield seems rather relevant.

As far as my post goes, it's just a case of using extrapolation to extremes to show the fallacy in a person's argument. It's not always applicable or relevant, but in this case I think it did the job quite nicely.

[Horsebox]

Gimme Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Public stocks on Goose Green containing red-handed

> shoplifters. With supplies of mushy tomatoes

> provided by a hag with warts on her nose.

Will the tomatoes come from Pretty Traditional or Sainburys?

If the former, will they be roughly chopped, drizzled with extra virgin and served on toasted, garlic rubbed, slightly stale sourdough?

[ianr]

Loz wrote:> If I follow this correctly, you are asking me to show that the right does not exist for a shopkeeper to display whatever they want in their window??

No, I'm saying that the onus is on you, in any instance, to show why they do not have that right.

What propositions do you want us to infer from your adduced examples, and how do you think they apply to the OP case?

[Huguenot]

I don't want to argue from other side of the fence ianr, but the law in question is libel.

Libel can only be proven after the fact, and defence relies on the initial allegation, whether positive or negative, to be proven accurate. That's unusual to the UK, in the US it needs to be proven to have had malicious intent.

There is no law that stops anyone saying anything, or publishing it in their shop window. There are a number of laws that can punish you in hindsight - for example inciting racial hatred, or in this case defamation.

There are varying degrees of punishment for this, some involving long stretches in jail.

However, these cases would involve a plaintiff. A plaintiff would likely need an opportunity for successful defence. That makes this an unusually effective form of social justice if the miscreants knows themselves to be guilty.