pk

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is certainly possible the parents > have done wrong, but there is no real evidence to > suggest it. there's no dispute that they went out with their mates for a drink and a meal and left their children in an unlocked room out of sight and some distance away - it that's not 'wrong' i'd say it's at least foolish and reckless that's not to say i don't have sympathy for them

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckhamboy already explained why you were > wrong.... the issue isn't whether Sainsbury's can > enforce but if they actually would bother. but there may also an issue over whether they can in practice enforce if they don't know who their agreement is with - any contract would be formed with the driver (not the registered keeper) so unless they know who the driver is they can't enforce it this is why if you get a letter asking for money in relation to e.g. overstaying at morrison's in peckham if you ignore it it goes away

tog_in_sox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > My point about BG? Yup despite putting more than > $38 billion into his charitable foundation his > current worth still stands at $54bn. Hence my > question towards the end of my last entry. This > man and his wife are irrefutably doing amazing > things for the betterment of millions of people > BUT he still has at least $16 bn of his own or > perhaps $54 depending on how the foundation is > accounted for. I'm inclined to let him off the > hook but how much do you think he's managed to > avoid in the 23 yrs he's been a billionaire? as part of the 'giving pledge' that BG and Buffett have initiated they've both publicly pledged to give away most of the wealth (Buffett's said 99%) i see that zuckerberg recently made a pledge too tho it's not legally enforceable i don't think, i'm pretty impressed by what they've done/are doing http://givingpledge.org/

if it's important to you to find out whether she was telling lies or running a scam why not knock for her at the address she gave - at least you'd be able to find out whether that bit is true or not?

i reckon that if you're heavyweight champion of the world (or one of them) and you've actually got a bit of 'personality' then you should win - step up David Haye

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My favourite smiley has always been >:D thought it was a michievious thumbs up. But oh the > horror when today I found out what it really > means. Certainly explains a few things! :-$ it might look like 'the finger' and be called 'the finger' but when i suggested in the past that it was 'the finger' people such as smg told me it wasn't 'the finger' here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,160299,160307#msg-160307

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yet and yet ? this isn?t upturning some > ?innocent until proven guilty? principle. i think that it certainly goes against this principle > If I haven?t stolen froma shop and my picture is > up I?ll have a quiet word with the owner abou the > confusion but you might not know? or by the time that you found out someone like carnell might have been all over the place (as a 'responsible citizen') telling people (based on no evidence) that you're a thief and that as such you might do 'other crime' and s**t sticks > and let?s be honest this isn?t a likely scenario ? they aren?t going to put up pictures of > people they THINK they have seen stealing) it may or may not be likely but it's certainly possible - as with any other group i am sure that some shopkeepers have personal vendettas or jump to invalid conclusions when they're upset (e.g. by having stuff stolen). Not all shopkeepers are honest or rational all the time think that i'll probably try to call it a day for me on this thread now

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot, carnell and I all on the same page here? > Wow i agree 'wow' - none of you seem to believe in what is one of the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system = innocent until proven guilty (as in by a court, after considering evidence from both sides, rather than as determined by the victim) and all of you seem to be happy to pass on hearsay like you've actually seen some evidence yourselves!

Bicep_Builder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >i haven't come up with 'ridiculous hypotheticals' > > > > You really have. care to point any out (you know, based on anything that i've actually written)?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As with pk, you need to come up with ridiculous > hypotheticals to justify your position. > > This thread is about a shopkeeper suffering from > serial shoplifting with the perp caught on camera > in the act of stealing. They've discussed this > with the police who agreed on a particular course > of action. > > In the delirium of misguided principle you've > ignored the facts, diminished the real victim, and > elevated the perp to some sort of misrepresented > angel. > > Lost. The. Plot. you really don't care what anyone else says do you? i haven't come up with 'ridiculous hypotheticals' but you like to pretend that i have; i haven't said that i think all the things you like to say i think (and considered thought on what i have said doesn't imply i do) but you pretend i have so that you can take the highground of 'moral' and 'social responsibility'; you haven't got access to any 'facts' or 'evidence' (you haven't shared any) but you like to pretend that you have and you constantly refuse to answer any questions about what you've said (even when they flow directly from things that you have said)- isn't it you social responsibility to educate the ignorant? and you're expectionally arrogant and exceptionally rude head.up.own.a**e

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

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

john clarke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > we're looking for any witnesses who saw the > incident who's 'we'? are you police?

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 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

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?

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy, PK is very chippy and argumentative. > She? obviously doesn't like people being described > or pictured at all - see my post on Disgusting > Litterer. i don't think that it's right to describe people in detail and then label them criminal or disgusting lazy mares (for dropping a tissue when changing a baby, and then picking it up) without giving them a chance to respond (as would happen e.g. in court before you were labelled a criminal) you never did answer my question as to why you felt it was necessary to describe the litterer in so much detail on that thread - care to answer now?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If someone has been incorrectly accused, they can come forwards and > take the appropriate action. Let's see if that > happens. what are you talking about?

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you saying, pK a shopkeeper is not intelligent > enough to make a judgement? i am sure that some shopkeepers are, some aren't some might have personal venedettas, some are probably criminals or fraudsters themselves (just like the population at large - there'll be some good egss and some wrong 'uns, some bright and some stupid ones). i certainly don't assume that because they're a shopkeeper they can always be trusted in every respect and should be entitled to brand others as criminals in relation to the specific shop (and keeper) in questions - i've no personal experience

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seeing as presumably the only people effected by > this are the theives, I don't see the problem. > you don't see a problem in publicly calling people theives when they (presumably) haven't been tried and convicted? is it for a shopkeeper to decide who is and isn't a thief? (although, i wonder whether in fact the posters go so far as to brand people thieves so explicitly or whether they actually go for 'we wish to talk to' these people approach instead) > > If anyone is guilty of presenting a certain race > in a negative light, it is the criminals > themselves. ?

as with so much on here, who knows what's true? - could be none of it, could be some of it. i don't know anyone involved so i've no reason to believe anyone in particular (or anyone at all)

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?

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

EDDORDC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why did you not check with your neighbour before making the OP? probably because if he went round and said 'i've noted that "the driver of Royal Mail van LB05 LLJ has just now -- 1320, Saturday 16 October -- hopped out of his vehicle, walked briskly to [your] door and... has not rung, has not knocked, has only pushed a slip of paper through the cache-sexe on the letterbox and pootled off again" can you tell me what he delivered?' they'd probably tell him it was none of his business and to p**s off (quite rightly) and as for not ringing or knocking being odd - it's what my postman does everyday when he delivers letters thanks for your useful contribution tho EDDORDC - good to have someone with relevant knowledge contributing

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1468