shoplifting nonsense

[Sue]

huncamunca Wrote:

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

who would in their right

> mind ask the filth for legal advice ?

xxxxxxx

Because they might give you an accurate answer?

[thebestnameshavegone]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Seeing as presumably the only people effected by

> this are the theives, I don't see the problem.

>

> The photos are a clear warning that if you steal,

> your photo will be put up. If you don't want your

> photo there, don't steal stuff.

>

> If anyone is guilty of presenting a certain race

> in a negative light, it is the criminals

> themselves.

If I could be arsed, I'd take the shop in question down quite easily through a bog-standard data protection writ.

This is just vigilantism by a different name.

[Huguenot]

"If I could be arsed, I'd take the shop in question down quite easily through a bog-standard data protection writ"

Yar yar yar right, coz you're so cooooool it hurts.

Why would you want to do that? I mean, really, what is wrong in your brain that you think that's a bright idea? The shop is the victim here. They are simply asking help to identify someone to support their enquiries into an alleged incident.

Is it possible that you are such a piece of work that you see their victimhood as a weakness, and you want to have a go too?

I forget, of course, you are so, like, cooooooooooooool.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Hugo - they were not asking for help for anything. They plastered a big picture of someone on their window and condemned them as a theif.

[Huguenot]

If they weren't a thief then they can sue for defamation.

If they are a thief then it's right and proper that they should receive the ignominy and disgrace that goes with that.

Social pressure will have a lot greater deterrent on crime than prison sentences.

In earlier less mobile societies crime was kept at bay by the tight social connections that existed. The anonymity of big cities has allowed social pressure to be eroded and crime to flourish.

All credit to the shopkeeper for making a stand.

It might not be a decision I'd take myself, but unlike some I cannot even remotely see the justification for trying to punish the shopkeeper.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> "If I could be arsed, I'd take the shop in

> question down quite easily through a bog-standard

> data protection writ"

>

> Yar yar yar right, coz you're so cooooool it

> hurts.

>

> Why would you want to do that? I mean, really,

> what is wrong in your brain that you think that's

> a bright idea? The shop is the victim here. They

> are simply asking help to identify someone to

> support their enquiries into an alleged incident.

>

> Is it possible that you are such a piece of work

> that you see their victimhood as a weakness, and

> you want to have a go too?

>

> I forget, of course, you are so, like,

> cooooooooooooool.

?

Grow up.

Don't know what your problem is, but as I say, it's just vigilantism - yes theft is wrong, but so is displaying photos of 'thieves' in a shop without their permission - not just morally, but from a legal point of view.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

No 'innocent until proven guilty' in Hugoland!

[cate]

Wasn't there something on here about this being done with the approval of the police? Perhaps the film was watched and it was shown that this person had stolen something?

[ImpetuousVrouw]

If they haven't been convicted then how can this be correct?

[zeban]

Thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

'it's just vigilantism - yes theft is wrong, but so is displaying photos of 'thieves' in a shop without their permission - not just morally, but from a legal point of view.'

I absolutely completely agree with you. If the person was seen after the theft took place then why not keep the image for the shopkeepers and shop staff only so that they know to watch out for the person if they come in again.

Then if they commit another act of theft they can take the correct procedure to either ban them from the shop or arrest them. But putting their picture up in a window isn't right at all.

[Huguenot]

So what about Crimewatch? Clearly not illegal. What about Police photofits published in newspapers? Clearly not illegal.

Neither of these issues involves convicted felons, but you don't mind them?

It's just a load of wishy washy ideological tosh. The crims are laughing at you.

[martin]

is this who i thought i knew who it was but was actually somebody called sue, but was really somebody called kimzy or daintydaisy even - and all that thing of gifting/purchasing from the forum and reselling again?

:-S

confused

frightened even!

[zeban]

Huguenot, Crimewatch puts up pictures of people who have committed serious/dangerous crimes and pose a threat/danger to the general public and thus must be found and found urgently.

I'm not denying shop theft is a crime but it doesn't fall into the same category as a serious/dangerous crime (I'm talking about shop theft not theft in general btw) so I can't see any other reason for putting up their picture in the window other than vigilantism which goes against the idea of the law and is therefore wrong.

[Huguenot]

I can understand your point zeban, but technically there is no difference between seeking out shoplifters to help with enquiries than it is to seek out armed robbers or issue photofits of muggers.

Both haven't been convicted, both have the opportunity to sue for defamation.

Similarly there's an important difference difference between a vigilante and neighborhood watch - that after identifying the perpetrator vigilantes try and employ physical punishment outside the law.

I take it the shopkeeper isn't recommending that the alleged crim should be attacked? I can't see the police signing this off. In other words he isn't a vigilante.

All in all I think we'll find the shopkeeper is completely within the law, completely within their rights, and understandable in their frustration - what's more I'm betting the evidence is completely incontrovertible.

[pk]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I can understand your point zeban, but technically

> there is no difference between seeking out

> shoplifters to help with enquiries than it is to

> seek out armed robbers or issue photofits of

> muggers.

i haven't seen the poster and i am guessing you haven't either but people on here are saying that it labels people as thieves it is not the police asking for help with their enquiries (as crimewatch is) - you don't see a difference?

>

> Both haven't been convicted, both have the

> opportunity to sue for defamation.

do you really think that someone wrongly portrayed as a criminal should have to go to the hassle and expense of suing for defamation if they haven't done anything wrong? it's nonsense

>

> Similarly there's an important difference

> difference between a vigilante and neighborhood

> watch - that after identifying the perpetrator

> vigilantes try and employ physical punishment

> outside the law.

being a vigilante doesn't require the employment of physical punishment according to any definition that i've read

>

> I take it the shopkeeper isn't recommending that

> the alleged crim should be attacked? I can't see

> the police signing this off. In other words he

> isn't a vigilante.

>

> All in all I think we'll find the shopkeeper is

> completely within the law, completely within their

> rights, and understandable in their frustration -

> what's more I'm betting the evidence is completely

> incontrovertible.

why are you betting the evidence is completely incontrovertible and the shopkeeper completely within their rights when you haven't seen the evidence or the poster?

[louisiana]

I've done work in companies where certain unauthorised individuals have tried repeatedly to gain access to the premises i.e. getting past security. These firms take images from the reception CCTV and post them in staff areas e.g. the kitchens. The idea being that everyone should keep their eyes peeled for those individuals. It can be handy to know what they look like in case they get past security and you encounter them in the building.

In the case of the shop, it would seem to be useful for *staff* to have handy access to images of suspect individuals. It is staff that will be watching and on the lookout, and who will need to take action if the individual is encountered. I'm not sure though that showing such images to the public, on the other hand, achieves much. (After all, shoppers are going to be looking at things, not at the faces of other shoppers.) I suppose there's an outside chance that some member of the public will ID the individual concerned... Maybe the main effect is to put off other shoplifters.

A small anecdote: I often buy wine from a well-known local wine shop. I'm there maybe once a week, but I'm not a big spender and have only very occasionally had mixed cases delivered home for special occasions, so I'd imagine they don't know me well even though I've been a customer since it opened. One day, a little tired and frazzled, as I was standing at the till end of the counter and paying for my (two or three?) wines and packing my wines into my own bag on the counter, I accidentally picked up another bottle that was standing right next to my own bottles on the counter. I think it might have been a bottle of champagne or prosecco (that sort of bottle, and I do sometimes buy prosecco). Not sure why it was there - maybe a bottle belonging to another customer who was waiting to pay? Anyway, I had not paid for that bottle, yet I was in the process of putting it in my bag. I was in automatic mode, just moving the bottles towards my bag, with my brain on autopilot. I caught myself in the act - 'this is prosecco, you haven't bought prosecco' was what I think was being processed by my brain - and returned the bottle to the counter before it hit my bag, and made a joke of it to the person who was serving me. Very embarrassing. Thinking about it, I'm sure someone could have thought I was actually intending to half-inch the bottle (they don't know me well), and could provide a segment of CCTV, or provide some stills, that showed me swiping an identifiable bottle from the counter that it could be proved I had not paid for (by going through till receipts and what I had paid for). Would the complete CCTV show that I returned the bottle to the counter of my own free will, having suddenly realised what I was doing? I'm not sure that CCTV demonstrates thought processes very well, especially if there is video only and no audio.

This is obviously very different from someone going through racks or shelves or whatever and putting things in their bag or wherever without going to the till. But I'm just saying that CCTV may not always tell the whole story very clearly, especially if there is no sound. That's why you'd probably want the police to take a look at any footage before using it, as they will be aware of the pitfalls.

PS I am still a good customer of this shop. But this event of a year or more ago does stick in my brain.

[cate]

At the very least, the picture of the 'shoplifter' might keep them out of the shop in the future. I imagine that is the reason it is there, not for someone to make a citizen's arrest.

[zeban]

Louisiana, I absolutely completely agree with you. What about people with kleptomania? People who make mistakes? People with mental health issues?

Why do you think shops employ security guards Huguenot? They see it as their duty and their duty alone to deal with theft in their stores. Just because this is a small business it doesn't mean that they can decide to use other ways to deter shoplifters ie.shaming the person publicly to potentially deter them from doing it again. Whether this 'works' or not this isn't the way you do things and definitely is not the correct legal procedure.

Perhaps the police thought it was a good idea to do it because they would prefer not to deal with it themselves-less work for them, that certainly wouldn't surprise me. The police are not the people you ask about the law funnily enough, look at all of the unlawful things police officers have done over the years. It's a solicitor you need to ask and I've no doubt they would have said that that isn't the lawful procedure for deterring or catching a theif.

[Sue]

zeban Wrote:

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

The police are not the people you ask about the law funnily enough, look

> at all of the unlawful things police officers have

> done over the years. It's a solicitor you need to

> ask

xxxxxxx

I once used a solicitor who was subsequently found guilty of fraudulent practices and ended up in prison, so I don't think you can use this argument :))

Some bad apples in every profession, I'm afraid.

Perhaps a lawyer on the forum would like to comment on the legality or otherwise of Celestial displaying the photo in the window, rather than everybody making assumptions.

[Huguenot]

If you think smallholders can afford security staff zeban, you're on a totally different planet.

There are indeed exceptions, the odd funny moment, the odd mentally unwell.

But the massive massive massive majority are just thieves.

Shopkeepers aren't ferrari driving bankers or faceless government bureaucrats. They're people just like you, with a limited income or a bank loan, that search out stuff elsewhere and import them into the local community as a service - from which they generate a small profit.

When shoplifters strike they are literally stealing food from the mouths of the shopkeeper's children.

It's pathetic example of the crisis in english society that the local community isn't up in arms in defence of their local suppliers. Instead they're whinging about extraordinary exceptions that they feel 'prove' their case. Idiotic.

[zeban]

Huguenot I was wondering where you had gone!

All of your points above are obvious, I know who my local shopkeepers are thank you and I do defend them.

I've never argued that they don't have a right to protect their shops but I argued that publicly putting pictures up of 'thieves' in my opinion is wrong. Like I said ages ago it's absolutetly right that the staff are aware of the person and have a picture up in their staffroom so that if they re offend they can be officially banned or arrested. You don't need a security guard to do this.

Huguenot, I don't always hold English society in high esteem myself and I'm very well travelled so I can also see the pitfalls in this country BUT I still prefer it to societies that still have the death penalty. But I guess there you have low crime rates and low taxes so I think Singapore suits people like you very well. Personally I found it the most dull and cultureless country in Asia. Give me Japan anyday.

[Huguenot]

Lol, comparing photos of shoplifters to the death penalty is about as close as I've seen to a Godwin without quite crossing the line ;-)

Sorry you find me Singapore dull and cultureless. I'm not quite sure of the relevance to this debate, but are you suggesting that exposing shoplifters for being thieving blighters will make the UK dull and cultureless? Letting thieves get away with it because they're part of some cheerful cockney local colour seems to be a weak argument.

I honestly think that you've got so bogged down in the 'principle' of this argument that you've lost any sense of perspective. They were shoplifting, they got exposed. They'll be socially embarasssed and somewhat chastened. It's hardly disproportionate.

The likelihood of this being a middle-class whoopsie or mentally disabled is invisibly small.

Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.

[zeban]

'The likelihood of this being a middle-class whoopsie or mentally disabled is invisibly small.'

You don't know that. That's your assumption. And that's my point.

[zeban]

And pray tell me what does mentally disabled mean? In my opinion it seems to suggest an inability to function in society due to being short of mental possibilities.

I was and always have been talking about mental illness. There's a massive difference between people who are mentally disabled eg. people with Downs Syndrome, and people who are mentally ill eg. people with depression, eating disorders etc.

Most mentally ill people are extremely intelligent, they wouldn't steal because they can't differentiate between right or wrong- they're more aware of the majority of people the differences between right or wrong. Certain behaviours are merely a symptom of the distress they are feeling inside. Kleptomania is an example of this, OCD, self harming, etc. That's what makes it even harder for the people who do suffer.

How can you tell if someone suffers from a mental illness? You can't. It's invisible. And 1 in 4 people will suffer from a mental illness in their life. It's nothing to be ashamed of. In fact those that I've met have been some of the most interesting and intelligent people I've ever met.

So IF this was the case with that person I would think it's a shame that publicly embarassing that person is seen as necessary. The shop could be more discreet.

[huncamunca]

if the filth have given the nod, then the shop must feel confident they can go ahead - I would sooner place my faith in legal advice from Rose West than the plod, but hey ho... but this in no way removes the opportunity for a subsequent civil action - which it 99% likely to succeed given the evidence needed for such a victory.

If a complaint is made, then the cops will act on it & aforementioned tat vendor will have to pull whatever they have on display

This isnt a polemic on retail bloodsuckers & their deluded but willing victims, nor is it a defence of thievery - if you want to publicly defame someone who has not been convicted of the offence, then you leave yourself open to action - and quite rightly so.