shoplifting nonsense

[Huguenot]

If they're sufficiently mentally ill that they can't recognise that theft is a crime then they're probably not going to be too bothered about their photo in the window.

[Huguenot]

Yes you do leave yourself open for action, and one of the key defences for libel/defamation is truth.

I suspect both the plod and the shopkeeper are aware of this, and have sufficent proof before posting to make a civil action 99.9% likely to fail.

If the plaintiff takes action then they expose their identity and open themselves for prosection on a shoplifting charge. If they are convicted then the libel action's over. QED.

[huncamunca]

Your reduction is facile & rather out of touch with how the system works Im afraid- the filth would be unwilling to press charges for a number of reasons, but basically, this wouldnt even go to the CPS for consideration.

I am surprised that a business would not employ a lawyer to advise them of the utter stupidity of their approach - its like shorting puts - little upside and lots of downside exposure.

The likelyhood of a libel action is pretty remote to be fair but it is a consideration that any business should take on board

Vigilante action , no matter how morally justified it may seem, is a dangerous game

[Huguenot]

It's no more vigilante than Crimewatch or a newspaper photofit.

The CPS thing is a red herring. If it was a first-time shoplifting offence the police would likely issue a "Penalty Notice for Disorder" without needing to go to court. If the alleged crim refused to pay it would be their choice to go to court, not the CPS.

If the defendant agreed to pay, he's admitting guilt in the eyes of the law, and the libel case couldn't be pressed.

Basically, there's nothing illegal about this unless it's proven to be false. I suspect the recommendation of plod is that the evidence is incontrovertible.

With all that in mind, I celebrate the public humiliation of thieves.

[zeban]

Now there's a surprise!

[puzzled]

the miscreant is a professional.she came equipped with detagging equipment and is known to other shopkeepers. apparently she usually operates as part of a pair

[zeban]

I don't get it then at all. I'm guessing they must have already been prosecuted before if they operate in that way and would already be banned from the shop/other shops. And if all the shopkeepers know them then a picture up now seems even more pointless. Unless they're still trying to steal from the same shops they've been caught in already which seems pretty stupid.

[anabonbon]

Today I saw a little girl shoplifting at the thrift store with her Mom (presumably).

She whispered, 'here, put this watch in the bag' and did this with a couple of items and with very little shame.

I chose not to say, 'Little girl, it's not okay to steal and be dishonest, and it adds more ugliness to the world', regretfully,but I was quite shocked and didn't fancy a scene in the charity shop nor feel like being righteous today. Don't know why I mentioned it- I guess it's a pretty regular way of life for some folks.

[huncamunca]

.

[Sue]

anabonbon Wrote:

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

> Today I saw a little girl shoplifting at the

> thrift store with her Mom (presumably).

> She whispered, 'here, put this watch in the bag'

> and did this with a couple of items and with very

> little shame.

> I chose not to say, 'Little girl, it's not okay to

> steal and be dishonest, and it adds more ugliness

> to the world', regretfully,but I was quite shocked

> and didn't fancy a scene in the charity shop nor

> feel like being righteous today. Don't know why I

> mentioned it- I guess it's a pretty regular way of

> life for some folks.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What charity shop has watches for sale?

If you saw people shoplifting, why didn't you say something to an assistant?

[puzzled]

zeban. stupid and pointless are words for you. endlessly sniping and bitching and pontificating. it is no fun being robbed and even less when a pillock like you complains when a shopkeeper tries to stop it happening again.

[zeban]

Puzzled you are strange. You put a post up giving very limited information, and an unclear point of view on your behalf. Then you wait two pages in which given the limited information you gave a number of people wondered whether this is ok as they assumed this could have been a mistake etc on the part of the person. ONLY THEN do you write that the thieves are well known to the community, and part of a gang who deliberately shoplift- which if had been known at the start would obviously have led the thread in a different direction.

I know it's no fun being robbed. I had my house broken into and robbed, I lost everything and felt completely violated and scared which took a long time to get over. But am I paranoid that everyone is out to get me now? no. Have I thought about seeking revenge? of course, especially as it turned out he was my ex next door neighbour who did it, and I'm sure is still living in the same place. But I never actually would, what's the point? What goes around comes around.

From the above post I am thinking you are the shopkeeper who puts the pictures up and just wanted to see the reaction of the locals. Then when you don't like a certain reaction you resort to name calling and belittling. What you are doing is vigilantism in my eyes and in other peoples eyes whether you agree or not. Do I understand it? yes. Do I condone it? no. I think as decent people it's not right to lower yourself to their level- and as awful a cliche it is, two wrongs don't make a right. I also like to look up to my local shopkeepers as good moral citizens who are role models to the community so I feel they have a duty to keep personal vendettas away from their businesses. But hey it's your shop, your life, your choice so do what you want.. just don't complain if some people don't agree with you.

[pk]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> If you think smallholders can afford security

> staff zeban, you're on a totally different

> planet.

>

but wrongly accused day to day folk can afford to bring defamation actions?

> There are indeed exceptions, the odd funny moment,

> the odd mentally unwell.

>

> But the massive massive massive majority are just

> thieves.

and it's for shopkeepers to decide who's in which pot? or assume guilt?

> If they're sufficiently mentally ill that they can't recognise that theft is a crime then they're probably not going > to be too bothered about their photo in the window.

so no one else needs to look out for their rights?

> It's no more vigilante than Crimewatch or a newspaper photofit.

but they don't say: 'this person is a criminal' (unless they've been convicted) and the shop does from what people have said

[Bicep_Builder]

OH LORDY WE CAN'T GO HURTING SHOPLIFTERS FEELINGS WHATEVER CAN WE DO WHAT A PICKLE

[Loz]

Bicep_Builder Wrote:

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

> OH LORDY WE CAN'T GO HURTING SHOPLIFTERS FEELINGS

> WHATEVER CAN WE DO WHAT A PICKLE

Ever thought of applying for the job as chief headline writer for the Daily Mail?

[Bicep_Builder]

Oh golly look someone's opinion which isn't cringingly neo-liberal, he must be a daily mail reader.

[Loz]

Well, on the bright side, you've found the release for your caps-lock.

[Bicep_Builder]

I don't know how computer savvy you are dear but there is no 'release' to find for caps lock.

[Huguenot]

pk you're basing your argument on a fallacious premise.

The shoplifter wasn't targeting the mentally ill, nobody was refusing them their rights, and you don't know what it said on the poster so you've made up the worst thing possible to support your argument.

It's not sensible to base social policies around the possible occurence of unlikely scenarios.

You still get out of bed in spite of the fact the sky could fall on your head, and cross rail will still be built despite the fact that it could expose a Quatermass style alien that slaughtered half the capital.

Thieves in the UK are thriving in anonymity, and thumbing their nose at the community as they steal the wallets. Extending prison sentences is neither practical nor effective.

Historically public exposure and social humiliation have proven effective deterrents. Nothing wrong with giving them a go, and it's certainly not illegal if the publicity is accurate.

[pk]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> pk you're basing your argument on a fallacious

> premise.

>

> The shoplifter wasn't targeting the mentally ill,

> nobody was refusing them their rights, and you

> don't know what it said on the poster so you've

> made up the worst thing possible to support your

> argument.

>

> It's not sensible to base social policies around

> the possible occurence of unlikely scenarios.

>

> You still get out of bed in spite of the fact the

> sky could fall on your head, and cross rail will

> still be built despite the fact that it could

> expose a Quatermass style alien that slaughtered

> half the capital.

>

> Thieves in the UK are thriving in anonymity, and

> thumbing their nose at the community as they steal

> the wallets. Extending prison sentences is neither

> practical nor effective.

>

> Historically public exposure and social

> humiliation have proven effective deterrents.

> Nothing wrong with giving them a go, and it's

> certainly not illegal if the publicity is

> accurate.

i try to raise specific questions about specific things that you've said to make clear where i think that you're talking rubbish but rather than try to answer/explain, you roll out the same old sort of pompous, self-righteous guff

you're not stupid, so why is that?

[Huguenot]

pk, I did that because your questions are deliberately couched in hypothetical terms about an incident that did not occur. How can I possibly address them except in hypothetical terms?

The balance of evidence in this case was that this was a serial shoplifter caught on camera in the act of stealing.

The law needs to find a balance between protecting the innocent and identifying and punishing the victims of crime. The shopkeeper is entitled to use reasonable means at their disposal to find justice, and putting a picture in the window meets these 'reasonable' criteria.

Yes, there might be the odd mentally ill person, just as there are miscarriages in justice all the time. However, I consider your hypothetical scenarios involving penniless blind one-legged black geriatrics with alzhemiers to be completely out of proportion with the reality of shoplifting.

In the vast majority of cases, shopkeepers are fine outstanding citizens supporting their community, and shoplifters are scumbags. Let's make decisions based on this simple truth, eh? Quite simply your priorities are wrong.

I don't believe that we should shut down the entire legal system because of the Birmingham Six.

[pk]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> pk, I did that because your questions are

> deliberately couched in hypothetical terms about

> an incident that did not occur. How can I possibly

> address them except in hypothetical terms?

>

> The balance of evidence in this case was that this

> was a serial shoplifter caught on camera in the

> act of stealing.

>

> The law needs to find a balance between protecting

> the innocent and identifying and punishing the

> victims of crime. The shopkeeper is entitled to

> use reasonable means at their disposal to find

> justice, and putting a picture in the window meets

> these 'reasonable' criteria.

>

> Yes, there might be the odd mentally ill person,

> just as there are miscarriages in justice all the

> time. However, I consider your hypothetical

> scenarios involving penniless blind one-legged

> black geriatrics with alzhemiers to be completely

> out of proportion with the reality of

> shoplifting.

>

> In the vast majority of cases, shopkeepers are

> fine outstanding citizens supporting their

> community, and shoplifters are scumbags. Let's

> make decisions based on this simple truth, eh?

> Quite simply your priorities are wrong.

>

> I don't believe that we should shut down the

> entire legal system because of the Birmingham Six.

there's so much in here that's guff/deliberarely misrepresenting others that i really can't be bothered to point it all out as you'll obviously ignore it and go on saying that i said things that i haven't

but the bit i can't resist is the 'balance of evidence in the case' bit - have you actually seen any evidence? of a single offence, let alone a series?

perhaps you are actually just a bit thick after all

[Bicep_Builder]

I honestly can't work out who's winding up who in this thread.

[Huguenot]

No pk, it's just that you don't think shoplifters should be upbraided, you don't think women who let their kids crap on the street should be criticised, and you don't think that victims of assault should seek out witnesses to their attack.

Somewhere you've completely lost the plot.

I can't be bothered to discuss this with people who put their hands on their ears and sing 'la la la' because they're frighteneed of having to take social responsibility for the good of our society.

I can believe that you think you're being morallly upstanding, but really you're just running away from the problem.

[pk]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> No pk, it's just that you don't think shoplifters

> should be upbraided, you don't think women who let

> their kids crap on the street should be

> criticised, and you don't think that victims of

> assault should seek out witnesses to their

> attack.

>

i've not said any of those things, but i guess i am not surprised that you can't be bothered to try to understand anything that doesn't suit your stance