shoplifting nonsense

[Administrator]

Anything related to East Dulwich businesses post it in here.

The most frequently broken rules which result in the removal/editing of ads:

- Do not type the subject title in capital letters

- Businesses must truthfully state they are based in East Dulwich and include their trading address. Failure to do this results in a deleted post. Multiple failures and/or lying results in a ban.

- There has to be a connection to East Dulwich e.g. Someone from Madrid offering their holiday villa in Madrid gets deleted.

- Do not repetitively post about you services offered, this includes continuously offering your services to people with "I've PM'd you mate" and "I can do that for you" messages.

- Businesses can advertise once for free. Read the terms of use before posting.

- False recommendations are illegal and action will be taken against those who try it on.

- Suspicious / multiple recommendations about a tradesmen will be removed.

Unfortunately we do not have time to check up on a lot of ads to find out where companies are based or to tell them not to post about their plastering/building/van/photography/nannying/plumbing/cleaning services everyday. We do try and contact them but there is sometimes just too many of them for us to cope with, so all we can do is remove their post.

Please refer to the Terms of use http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,11 for more.

Thank you.

[puzzled]

one of the trendy shops in lordship lane occasionally puts pictures from the cctv of shoplifters in the window all with the approval of the police. a few days ago they had new one of a black woman nicking coats.apparently two women have been in accusing the shopkeeper of racism! they have recently pictured a white guy stealing perfume. the shop is probably merely thiefist

[Narnia]

Seems like a good idea to me. May discourage them from returning to the area. How is it possibly racist? Beats me.

[chattylady]

Narnia, maybe the shoplifters are from the area........

[Narnia]

Maybe they will shoplift elsewhere then chattylady.....

[concita]

Good idea, we hope all other shops do the same.

[pk]

doesn't anyone think that it's open to abuse? should a shop owner really get to play judge and jury?

[Sue]

If the CCTV clearly shows someone shoplifting, how is the shop owner playing judge and jury?

The evidence is right there to see!

I'm all for displaying these pictures, people who steal from shops just mean prices are higher for everyone else.

[pk]

Sue Wrote:

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

> If the CCTV clearly shows someone shoplifting, how

> is the shop owner playing judge and jury?

>

>

because they are assessing the evidence and in my view it isn't for them to do so - that's why we have a legal system

who knows whether in practice any CCTV does show someone shoplifting in relation to the pictures displayed?

[Sue]

pk Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If the CCTV clearly shows someone shoplifting,

> how

> > is the shop owner playing judge and jury?

> >

> >

> because they are assessing the evidence and in my

> view it isn't for them to do so - that's why we

> have a legal system

>

> who knows whether in practice any CCTV does show

> someone shoplifting in relation to the pictures

> displayed?

xxxxxxx

Because - and I'm making assumptions here - the CCTV showed someone removing an item from its place in the shop, the person left the shop, and the item was found to be missing.

If the police have been involved and are happy for the pictures to be displayed, then that's good enough for me.

[DulwichFox]

CCTV in shops have very poor definition.

People being displayed in shop windows from CCTV footage

are likely to be misidentified.

We have all seen on TV programmes that show CCTV footage

which it would be almost impossible to identify a person.

By all means show the footage to the Police.

I feel it is not right to display these pictures befor a person has been

positivly identified and charged.

[ianr]

The publication of visual images of someone, or of allegations against them, doesn't give that person a criminal record, or entitle anyone to fine, imprison or recover damages from them. Think, for example, of the recent cricket-fixing allegations.

There are risks in publishing anything which people take to be defamatory of an identifiable person.

There's a risk that I was wrong in substance, and that they will sue for damages.

There's a risk that I was right in substance, and that they will sue for damages.

[davidh]

I believe that neighbouring shops also know this woman. the police have a dvd of the woman stealing. they are fully behind the posters in the windows.

[DJKillaQueen]

.

[Loz]

It goes to show that CCTV does not deter criminals, though.

[ianr]

> It goes to show that CCTV does not deter criminals, though.

It goes to show that it does not absolutely deter all criminals (allegedly).

It does not go show that some criminals have not been deterred.

It does not go to show that some criminals will not be deterred in the future.

[Loz]

Hmmm. If I owned a shop and went to great expense to put a large picture of a policeman up in the shop and it still suffered from shoplifting, what would I conclude? Well, I could say that:

- It goes to show that my large picture of a policeman does not absolutely deter all criminals (allegedly).

- It does not show that some criminals have not been deterred by my large picture of a policeman.

- It does not go to show that some criminals will not be deterred in the future by my large picture of a policeman.

And all of it would be logically indisputable.

Or I could conclude that my large picture of a policeman was a waste of money.

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Hmmm. If I owned a shop and went to great expense

> to put a large picture of a policeman up in the

> shop and it still suffered from shoplifting, what

> would I conclude? Well, I could say that:

>

> - It goes to show that my large picture of a

> policeman does not absolutely deter all criminals

> (allegedly).

> - It does not show that some criminals have not

> been deterred by my large picture of a policeman.

> - It does not go to show that some criminals will

> not be deterred in the future by my large picture

> of a policeman.

>

> And all of it would be logically indisputable.

>

> Or I could conclude that my large picture of a

> policeman was a waste of money.

xxxxxxx

You could also compare levels of shoplifting before and after you displayed the large picture of a policeman, assuming all other things remained the same.

You could also compare levels of shoplifting in similar shops in comparable areas which did and

did not display a large picture of a policeman.

Your conclusion that the picture was a waste of money does not follow logically from what you have said.

[Loz]

Well, you've introduced a different set of logic from Ianr's Sue. But I'll run with that, too.

If I did a study of shops that took such measures and found that shoplifting had dropped by 25% in three months, I'd be rather pleased. If it found it then returned to the same old level after six months, I'd then be miffed. And if I discovered that shops that install these measures take, on average, 57 years to get a return on investment, I'd really question this whole picture of policemen or cctv or whatever lark and deduce it was a bit of a con.

And if I then found out that governments did a study of similar measures in public places and they found it was pretty damn ineffective overall, then at that point I would conclude we've all been taken for a ride. A half a billion pound ride at that.

CCTV - it may not reduce crime, but at least you get to watch the highlights of your mugging afterwards...

[silverfox]

Puzzled is a good name for this thread because I'm puzzled.

What is the trendy shop? If it's doing such a public service why are you so frightened to name it?

Have the 'shoplifters' been convicted?

pk is correct: "who knows whether in practice any CCTV does show someone shoplifting in relation to the pictures displayed?2

[louisiana]

... if they haven't wiped the footage first. (very common)

[JohnL]

Home Bargains does it ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6041510/CCTV-images-of-shoplifters-shown-on-retail-chains-website.html

http://www.tjmorris.co.uk/crimebusters/

No store in LL though :)

[Sue]

silverfox Wrote:

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

>

> What is the trendy shop? If it's doing such a

> public service why are you so frightened to name

> it?

>

xxxxxxx

It's Celestial.

Don't know whether the picture is still displayed in their window, but it certainly was.

ETA: Celestial is in Lordship Lane, next to Green and Blue if my memory is right.

[*Bob*]

Celestial? I didn't realise there was anything worth stealing in there.

[cate]

They have expensive perfume.