shoplifting nonsense

[Loz]

The police (with the help of both past and present governments) are a little too keen to somehow 'get' those people that they cannot pursue under normal law. This sort of thing, the taking down of the FITwatch site, control orders are all trying to work around the normal rule of law.

The latest came today with the new of a new domestic violence initiative, where 'abusers' can be made to leave their homes for up to four weeks. Why did I use quotation marks around 'abusers'? Because these measures can be used even if there was not enough evidence to charge a suspect. Can't prove the charge, but can order them to leave their home??

I think the same is happening in the shoplifting case. Police haven't got the evidence to charge these people, but want to 'get' them anyway.

It's getting to be a bit too much like 'Life on Mars' round here for my liking.

[david_carnell]

I'd suggest the evidence is there Loz, it's more the police haven't identified the culprit or lack the resources to investigate. Sadly, this low level crime often goes unsolved....much like bike theft.

Even more reason why fair-minded citizens should carry this forward themselves.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

>

> Even more reason why fair-minded citizens should

> carry this forward themselves.

Frankly, that one sentence alone sends one hell of a chill down my spine. Scary.

[david_carnell]

Why, Loz?

I'm not advocating tracking this women down and putting her in stocks. In fact, beyond keeping an eye out for your own personal safety and property, I've advocated no action at all.

Except for what the shop keeper has already done and should be applauded for.

Presumably you also think this thread is wrong and should be deleted for defamation? Have you reported it to Admin?

[huncamunca]

And in the next hot topic - how should the EDD deal with the customer who touched the french stick before buying ?

A) garotted on grove vale

b) drowned in a canal like a hessian sack of unwanted kittens

c) Stoned to death on Goose Green

d) any of the above, as they are shopkeepers and answer to no law except Gods

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well done snork. You have invented a new crime. (touching a French stick) and invented a whole host of punishments to match

Shopkeepers get anything but a free ride as this forum is witness to. But you go ahead and fantasise if you must

Seriously, does balance never enter your thoughts?

[david_carnell]

Touching a french stick in the ED Deli.....is that an Iraq War allegory?

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Why, Loz?

It was the whole (rather scary) notion of 'fair-minded citizens'. Who is the selector of who and the arbiter what is fair? It's all very 'people like us' and 'people like them'.

I don't want to see citizens - fair minded or otherwise - doing what they (often mistakenly) think is 'right' because the law is apparently lacking. It is just not a good path to take and will certainly end up at a dark place. It's how that paediatrician's office got attacked because the local 'fair-minded citizenry' couldn't tell the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician (and more bizarrely, didn't stop to consider why on earth a paedophile would have an office with a brass plaque).

> Presumably you also think this thread is wrong and

> should be deleted for defamation? Have you

> reported it to Admin?

If I was admin I'd have seriously considered redacting the reg number from the thread. I would say that the OP went about it the wrong way and he/she was quickly and correctly advised to report the matter to the police.

I've never understood why a crime they have witnessed is worth reporting to a forum but not the police - especially when they had the reg plate of the vehicle. Maybe they hoped that a bunch of 'fair-minded citizens' would sort the matter out for them!?

[huncamunca]

Publicly branding someone as a criminal without anything legal to back up the accusation is wrong.

everything else on this thread is a diversion.

[huncamunca]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Touching a french stick in the ED Deli.....is that

> an Iraq War allegory?

try it tomorrow and report back. Build it into your saturday schedule, inbetween queing at William Rose & Pretty traditional.

[Loz]

Here's a non-crime of touching an American stick...

 

[david_carnell]

huncamunca Wrote:

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

> david_carnell Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Touching a french stick in the ED Deli.....is

> that

> > an Iraq War allegory?

>

> try it tomorrow and report back. Build it into

> your saturday schedule, inbetween queing at

> William Rose & Pretty traditional.

I'm a bit pushed for time as it happens. My Guardian Angels (East Dulwich Branch) have our AGM to discuss where the new village stocks are going to go.

In the meantime, try not undermine community spirit with your own brand of cynical myopia.

[huncamunca]

Basic human rights - its political correctness gone mad innit

Im outta this thread for good, I cant keep up with you Kerrrrazzy guys

[Bicep_Builder]

Because you don't even know what 'human rights' are?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=european+convention+on+human+rights

Now, try and quote from an article and explain how 'human rights' are being violated in this instance.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

How about this bit:

ARTICLE 6

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

* (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

* (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;

* © to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

* (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

* (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

[Bicep_Builder]

Except that in this instance nobody is being punished in a court of law, it's one person distributing evidence on his property. If he was jailing them in his cellar you'd have a point, but they aren't, so you don't. 'Basic human rights' describe relationships between state and citizen, not inter-citizen relations (ordinarily).

[ImpetuousVrouw]

But we have handed the monopoly of violence to the state in the expectation they regulate the relationships betwenn citizens. If we want to take that role back, then we would have to put up with far more gangsterism and control of communities by the powerful.

If we want to continue to allow the state to control punishment and crime, then we need to ensure the police are properly funded and trained and allow them to do their job.

You seem to be advocating something in between, where someone with access to a shop window can abuse their position in the community to bypass the normal checks and balances of the judicial system to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner.

You may think that being accused of a crime and having your picture displayed on a window is not punishment, but I disagree. How many people would not consider that to be degrading and humiliating if it happened to them?

[Bicep_Builder]

'Role in the community'? Certainly not. They're exercising their right to bar people from the shop due to them suspecting [the person pictured] to be criminals, and displaying their evidence in the window of said shop. My point was that saying that 'this is a violation of basic human rights' is completely ridiculous.

Do you not think the [accused] would appeal to the authorities in the instance of their innocence?

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Banning them from their premises is proportionate, sticking a picture of someone on their window and calling them a thief is not.

[Loz]

Unsurprisingly, I'm with IV on this. Human rights would be infringed if a) the people in question have not been found guilty in a court of law and b) the police have given this is OK. At that point the state - and thus the Human Rights Convention - would be relevant.

[Bicep_Builder]

I honestly don't get what the argument opposing the actions of the shop owner are anymore; an ambiguous moral list of condecensions or some kind of human rights lawsuit. It seems to me it's hard to work out who's being 'disproportionate' ITT...

[cate]

No pictures of purported shoplifters in Celestial's window today.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Glad to hear it.

I hope in future, if they have evidence of a crime being committed in their shop they give that evidence to the police and let them do their job.

[Bicep_Builder]

You're assuming that they didn't and the police would have acted on it. Which they quite possibly wouldn't have.

[Loz]

So the police wouldn't have acted upon it, but would have given the OK to plaster their photo's up in the store?

In my best Jeremy {axman voices: Yeeeeeeeeaaaasssss...