shoplifting nonsense

[Huguenot]

I think the thing that really stands out on behalf of the shopkeeper, is that none of his critics seem able to address the task at hand.

His critics talk about 'vigilantism', mobs and pitchforks, accusing people of being paedophiles, violations of human rights - a completely disproportionate escalation of the case at hand.

As a society we don't call the police if our kid bullies someone in the playground, or steals a quid from your wallet, we consider this a parochial issue and mete out our own justice proportionately to the crime. We 'imprison' them in their bedroom for the night, we 'fine' them their pocket money, or we dish out 'corporal' punishment with a slap round the legs.

Society is unwilling to be taxed to the point that the police have sufficient resources to pursue shoplifters.

As a society we've drawn a line about what is 'social' justice, and what needs to go through the courts. Shoplifters are ubfortunately on the same side as misbehaving children. If you don't accept this then I'd like to see you marching on Westminster demanding more taxes.

The shopkeepers response to this is not disproportionate, he has neither imprisoned, fined or dished out corporal punishement. Instead he's exposed the perp to public ridicule.

So please, stop tossing out these grandiose statements about human rights, stop coming out with crap about paedos, and get with the programme. Not only are you likely to be hypocrites concerning your own children, but you sound absolutely ridiculous.

[Sue]

cate Wrote:

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

> No pictures of purported shoplifters in

> Celestial's window today.

xxxxxxxx

It hasn't been there for some time, they're probably fed up with the ridiculous flack they've been getting on this thread.

[cate]

I don't look in their windows often so hadn't noticed. How often have they been doing this?

[Loz]

His critics talk about 'vigilantism', mobs and pitchforks, accusing people of being paedophiles, violations of human rights - a completely disproportionate escalation of the case at hand.

Oh, please. Do you misrepresent people's views on purpose or do you just have comprehension difficulties? Stop conflating side comments as direct criticism of the shopkeeper in question. They're not - and if you descend to needing to do that it's probably because your argument is poor. Put your own arguments forwards. Twisting other peoples comments to try and make something out of them they are not is just disingenuous.

The shopkeepers response to this is not disproportionate, he has neither imprisoned, fined or dished out corporal punishement. Instead he's exposed the perp to public ridicule.

Alleged perp, thank you. And people on here disagree that that is a proportionate response and have said so. What exactly is your problem? You seem to claim that 'society' is on your side, but when the members of the same society say differently we should sit down and shut up? Strange view of society. I suspect the shopkeeper has taken down the photos as the public response has not been supportive. In that case, there's your 'society' view.

So please, stop tossing out these grandiose statements about human rights, stop coming out with crap about paedos, and get with the programme.

When police (allegedly as we only have the third hand view of the shopkeeper comments to confirm this) start working outside the rule of law it is a human rights issue. It's nothing to do with the shopkeeper.

And since when have you defined the programme, anyway? I suspect it would be a badly thought out programme if we did let you.

Shoplifters are ubfortunately on the same side as misbehaving children.

No, you're being silly now. Shoplifting is theft, pure and simple and costs businesses over ?4 billion per year. It's not in the same league as misbehaving children by a long chalk. It is in the same league as thieves and should be put through the courts properly. End of.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you've got CCTV evidence of someone committing a crime, it's not unreasonable to use it to identify the culprit. This may mean appealing to the public in the form of posting the images. It's basically what Crimewatch has been doing for years. If the individuals had been identified and there was evidence of their involvement in a crime, presumably they would have been prosecuted.

[Huguenot]

I don't think you read the thread Loz, here's huncamunca equating pictures of shoplifters with mob revenge on paedophiles:

"Theres a bloke down the street, been seen outside the school twice - ive got a pic of him - is it OK to plaster the local lamposts with his mugshot and declare him a peadophile? Obviously hes nevr been convicted or arrested for this offence, but Im assuming from the replies to this thread that we are all up for a bit of this...yes?"

I don't need to 'twist' that, and I'm not being disingenuous. Or how about zeban who said that on the basis of my views about shoplifters, she didn't want to live in Singapore because of the death penalty? Why don't you ask her why she chose to conflate the two issues?

Neither am I saying that society is on my side, I'm saying that society refuses to pay the taxes required for a police force to adequately pursue these petty criminals. There is no realisitic likelihood that shoplifters "should be put through the courts properly". On that basis either the crimes go unaddressed and proliferate, or they're addressed at a more social level.

Anything else is wishful thinking.

Your views about 'human rights' clearly play well to the gallery, but they bear no relation to the real world, where Civitas estimates that for every 1,000 thieves, only 2.2 are actually convicted.

The programme isn't one that I've created, it's the programme that has been created by our society, where to population is simply not willing to fund pursuit or convictions for petty crime.

In that scenario there's two choices, either the rather harmless identification of offenders in shop windows, or sticking your head in the sand because of the 'injustice of it all'.

[Loz]

I don't think you read the thread Loz, here's huncamunca equating pictures of shoplifters with mob revenge on paedophiles:

"Theres a bloke down the street, been seen outside the school twice - ive got a pic of him - is it OK to plaster the local lamposts with his mugshot and declare him a peadophile? Obviously hes nevr been convicted or arrested for this offence, but Im assuming from the replies to this thread that we are all up for a bit of this...yes?"

I don't need to 'twist' that, and I'm not being disingenuous.

OK, you're being thick then. :)) This came from your comment "His critics talk about 'vigilantism', mobs and pitchforks, accusing people of being paedophiles, violations of human rights - a completely disproportionate escalation of the case at hand." When you put the two side-by-side then you can see how you shifted the context to try and make a completely invalid point. This is what tabloids do: strawman arguments.

Huncamunca's point was valid: you cannot, in a fair society, leave upholding the rule of law to the citizen at any level. It is vigilantism. He is using extrapolation to make a point. You are twisting it to make him sound like he is "equating pictures of shoplifters with mob revenge on paedophiles", when he is not and never did. Can't you see that?

[Huguenot]

Work that one past me again Loz - you're saying that because I suggested that some people were being disproportionate, huncamunca decided to prove he wasn't by actually being disproportionate?

Besides which, you're not correct. What prompted me to talk about disproportionate response was zeban's equivalence test between the shopkeeper and the death penalty, the suggestion that shoplifters were defenseless mentally ill people (supported by pk), the assertion that "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."

Personal vendetta? Really?

That's what prompted my query about disproportionate response.

And I'm afraid you're just wrong on citizens being the wrong people to uphold the law. It is wholly and completely the responsiblity of citizens & society to uphold the law, we merely engage a police force to address those crimes of such significance or organisation that only a highly organised force can deal with them.

As is so clearly obvious that I'm bored with having to repeat it, we encounter legal transgressions every day in vast numbers, but the majority of people will be lucky to call the police once every five years.

If you need an adult version of that - think about drink driving. It wasn't the illegality of the practice that eventually curtailed it, it was a heavily orchestrated campaign to make it socially unacceptable.

Let's make shoplifting socially unacceptable shall we? And that starts at home... with the citizen.

[Loz]

Work that one past me again Loz - you're saying that because I suggested that some people were being disproportionate, huncamunca decided to prove he wasn't by actually being disproportionate?

You really need to understand the difference between extrapolation and disproportionality.

If you need an adult version of that - think about drink driving. It wasn't the illegality of the practice that eventually curtailed it, it was a heavily orchestrated campaign to make it socially unacceptable.

Let's make shoplifting socially unacceptable shall we? And that starts at home... with the citizen.

I agree with the example, but you are confusing upholding the law with social acceptability. There is a huge (and very significant) difference between social pressure convincing someone that they shouldn't drive drunk versus an active campaign to 'name and shame' alleged, unconvicted drink drivers or similar.

What we have seen, though, is it seems to be socially unacceptable to hang pictures up of people and accuse them of crimes they have not been convicted of. And hooray for that. Note that no one took the law into their own hands to make this happen - that is the difference between citizen imparting social acceptability versus any clumsy attempt to try to uphold the law.

And you must hang around with a different set of people than me, but I never thought shoplifting was socially acceptable! The people I know consider it pretty damned unacceptable.

[Huguenot]

I'm not aware of a consensus or even a majority on this thread that consider the shopkeeper to have done anything socially unacceptable. I can't be bothered to count numbers, but I reckon it was about even.

It's sad, but since we don't have the police resources to target these miscreants, arguing against low level shop-related publicity is in effect arguing that nothing should be done at all.

I believe that hanging this rather trivial matter on some elevated 'human rights' principle is allowing intellectual whimsy to overcome pragmatism in the real world.

[Loz]

I'm not aware of a consensus or even a majority on this thread that consider the shopkeeper to have done anything socially unacceptable. I can't be bothered to count numbers, but I reckon it was about even.

I never claimed a majority (though I suspect there is one). I said that the shopkeeper took them down, hopefully as a result of your much-lauded social unacceptability. Social acceptability does not always have to be a function of the majority opinion, it just needs to win be the right argument.

It's sad, but since we don't have the police resources to target these miscreants, arguing against low level shop-related publicity is in effect arguing that nothing should be done at all.

Doing nothing at all can sometimes be better than doing the wrong thing. Otherwise you get to the "Something must be done - this is something: it must be done" crap.

And anyway, I don't quite believe that shoplifting is as ignored by the police as much as you think. I've seen them rock up to Sainburys PDQ quite a few times.

I believe that hanging this rather trivial matter on some elevated 'human rights' principle is allowing intellectual whimsy to overcome pragmatism in the real world.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Letting some human rights violations through just means that more go next time - the thin end of the wedge and all that. Who cared that the police were needlessly hassling photographers? What's a few hobby photographers in the bigger picture anyway? Luckily, enough people stood up to voice their concern to have the policy (almost) changed. You might consider that 'intellectual whimsy', I see it as an important lesson that human rights have to be respected.

Human rights would only come into play if (and I must say we've never had this confirmed) the police did OK this exercise. Then it would no longer be a trivial matter at all.

[zeban]

Hi Huguenot, I wasn't conflating the two issues at all, I simply meant that I would question your opinion on any issues regarding human rights given that you've chosen to live in a country where they still have the death penalty.

[Sue]

Bloody hell, can't this thread be moved somewhere else?

:-S

[Huguenot]

It seems an irrational argument zeban, I could argue that I question your opinion on human rights given that you live in a country that is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 innocent civilians to satisfy your insatiable gluttony for oil.

Or I might not, recognising that the only politics you are personally responsible for are your own. ;-)

[Huguenot]

Incidentally, before you take the moral high ground on behalf of the UK, please do be aware that only 30% of UK citizens are against the death penalty - so the only thing that prevents the UK having the death penalty is the rejection of democratic mandate by a tyrannical political elite.

(I'm actually against the death penalty myself, just not against the social humiliation of petty criminals. I can distinguish between them.).

[Apple Bobber]

Hi All,

May I say that with all the lovely bars and places to go in ED that you should all GET OUT A BIT MORE :)-D

Yours

Apple Bobber

[Loz]

Ok Apple Bobber - we'll do the thinking and you do the drinking.

Actually, I can do the thinking and the drinking. I am just soooo multi-talented... :))

[Bicep_Builder]

Apparently not...

[Loz]

Stick with the drinking BB.

[Damian H]

If the alleged shoplifter had been confronted by staff, had run off and the staff had pursued the alleged shoplifter out of the shop crying "Stop, thief!" without having secured a criminal conviction through due process would we be talking about her rights being violated? After all, she would be branded a thief without any proper trial having taken place.

That scenario is similar in principle to what was described in the OP of this thread - the only differnce is that the situation in the OP was after the event, whilst the situation I describe here would be in the moment. The similarity is that both are attempts to identify and accost an individual in order to be able to take formal legal action against them.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is a concept that is designed to frame the approach of the criminal justice system to its activities. It is a fine concept but I do not believe it has ever been mandated that it apply to the opinions formed by the ordnary Joe or Jane on the steet.

[new mother]

Fascinating how much attention is given to the rights of the thief as opposed to those of the shopkeeper and his customers, who presumably pay more to compensate for insurance claims or stock losses.

I haven't read the whole thread. Did anyone get into "it isn't their fault, they've had a difficult upbringing" excuse? This one really makes me mad - it is a gross insult to the people who HAVE had a difficult upbringing but have tried their damnedest to get out of it and who we should be supporting at every level.

I digress.

[Loz]

new mother Wrote:

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

> Fascinating how much attention is given to the

> rights of the thief as opposed to those of the

> shopkeeper and his customers, who presumably pay

> more to compensate for insurance claims or stock

> losses.

The shopkeeper has the right to report the matter to the police. They can also ban the person from entering their shop. What other rights would you give them?

> I haven't read the whole thread. Did anyone get

> into "it isn't their fault, they've had a

> difficult upbringing" excuse? This one really

> makes me mad - it is a gross insult to the people

> who HAVE had a difficult upbringing but have tried

> their damnedest to get out of it and who we should

> be supporting at every level.

I agree entirely.

[Sue]

new mother Wrote:

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

> I haven't read the whole thread. Did anyone get

> into "it isn't their fault, they've had a

> difficult upbringing" excuse? This one really

> makes me mad -

xxxxxxx

No, nobody got into that, so why bring it up?

[SeanMacGabhann]

new mother

noone is giving rights to thieves - the question is human rights and whilst I'm disagreeing with pk and huncamunca on this particular thread, it's not a trivial issue

I love how you got mad about something that didn't happen on here as well

Lastly I would say that being poor doesn't excuse bad behaviour, but that is NOT the same thing as saying a society can predict that bad behaviour will rise or fall depending on how the poor are treated.

[ianr]

Loz Wrote:

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

> The shopkeeper has the right to report the matter to the police. They can also ban the person from entering their

>shop. What other rights would you give them?

PACE 1984 s24A, as amended:

"Arrest without warrant: other persons

(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant?

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;

(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant?

(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if?

(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and

(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question?

(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(b) suffering physical injury;

© causing loss of or damage to property; or

(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him."