shoplifting nonsense

[huncamunca]

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 ?

[Loz]

huncamunca Wrote:

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

> 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 ?

Too good for him. It's pitchforks and torches at dawn...

[Huguenot]

"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?"

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.

[zeban]

Puzzled, you've disappeared!

[intexasatthe moment]

There was a picture of a woman displayed in Celestial recently .

Can someone who actually saw the picture describe what the woman in it was doing ?

I did see it and as far as I could tell it just showed a picture of a woman standing next to a rack of clothes .

Underneath the picture it said " This woman is a shoplifter "

Maybe I missed some important detail - were there tag cutters in her hand or something ?

And puzzled - do you know for certain that the shopowner had discussed this action with the police and that they had approved it ?

[pk]

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

[The Minkey]

There's only one way to settle this..

[Sue]

Pistols at dawn :))

[Loz]

Pitchforks at dawn! (tu)

[Sue]

And then post both their photos up in a window on Lordship Lane :))

[huncamunca]

I have edited this as I felt it got personal & thats not my aim

[Bicep_Builder]

>i haven't come up with 'ridiculous hypotheticals'

You really have. The owner of that shop has assessed evidence and decided that the best way of deterring shoplifters is to put up a picture of the culprit in his window. If that person was innocent, I'm willing to bet that they'd either confront the shopowner and/or inform the police. As it stands, it appears they have not done either. God knows why you're trying to attack the shopowner instead of the thief. Somehow you're trying to put the actions of the shopkeeper up there with witch hunters. It is completely barmy.

[Loz]

Unless the person is a convicted shop lifter, it is a witch hunt.

Your argument is no different to huncamunca's, if you say "We'll plaster this person's picture up as a suspected paedo. It'll be alright - he'll complain if we are wrong."

[SeanMacGabhann]

In theory, it?s the same argument but in practice it?s a bit different

For a start who is the ?we? in the example putting up a sex-offender?s picture? In the shoplifting case it?s very clear who the ?we? and the ?why? is ? it?s also a good sanity check as a shopkeer wants business so will do all he/she can to get customers in ? I can?t see them putting up a picture on a whim. And even if the person in a picture is innocent? not much is likely to happen to them is it? ?didn?t I see your picture in the newsagents?? ? ?yeah but I think the newsagent doesn?t like me because I kept taking my dog in? or whatever?

In the more extreme example, even if the ?we? was the victim of a sex-offender and the photo was genuine, the likely public reaction would likely lead to further illegal activity and disorder.

[KidKruger]

Not quite the same.

I don't think you'd see incensed mobs dragging a person out of his flat, beating them half to death and setting their car on fire because he/she'd nicked a lampshade from the local trinket shop (or posters in a window had mistakenly alleged so).

Vastly different extremes of potential final outcome.

[pk]

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)?

[david_carnell]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> There was a picture of a woman displayed in

> Celestial recently .

> Can someone who actually saw the picture describe

> what the woman in it was doing ?

> I did see it and as far as I could tell it just

> showed a picture of a woman standing next to a

> rack of clothes .

> Underneath the picture it said " This woman is a

> shoplifter "

> Maybe I missed some important detail - were there

> tag cutters in her hand or something ?

> And puzzled - do you know for certain that the

> shopowner had discussed this action with the

> police and that they had approved it ?

The picture used may not have been one that captured her stealing as perhaps those shots didn't reveal her face.

I would hazard that the shop keeper having viewed the footage and seeing the women steal then chose a frame that best captured her theiving features for all to see.

Despite my liberal pinko credentials, I'm with Hugenout here. This is not the thin end of the wedge that will unquestionably lead to burning witches. This women IS a thief. She was caught red handed on film. If she has an excuse, such as mental illness, I assume she would come forward and say so (or her carer would).

If she is a thief she may also resort to other crime. Therefore it is in the public interest that we are all alerted to her and not merely the staff who work in the shop. If I saw her in another shop I would alert staff that she may be liable to steal from them. That is being a responsible citizen.

I want to address the causes of crime. I believe in rehabilitation over punishment. But that does not mean we turn a blind eye or wring our hands to this sort of behaviour in our own neighbourhood.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Huguenot, carnell and I all on the same page here? Wow

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I'm not.

So can we ask the Inland Revenue to start publishing pictures of everyone who evades their tax or sticks it in offshore tax havens?

If we are going for public exposure, let's not just concentrate on the vulnerable.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Not sure who you are classifying as vulnerable here IV

You live up that way - spend a day with Nisha behind the counter or the guys in Red Apple and you will see who the vulnerable really are

I'm for publishing lists of tax avoiders too btw - but that isn't what we are talking about.

[pk]

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!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Pk

Funnily enough, I would normally be taking the same stance as you on matters like this. And having being embroiled in a recent argument with Huguenot myself I know what it?s like to have one?s words twisted to mean something one didn?t say

And yet and yet ? this isn?t upturning some ?innocent until proven guilty? principle. These people aren?t in jail on a shopkeepers say so. They aren?t even going to be prosecuted. It?s simply one of the few available defences shopkeepers have.

If I have stolen from a shop and they put my picture up I?ll probably avoid that place

If I haven?t stolen froma shop and my picture is up I?ll have a quiet word with the owner abou the confusion (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) and we can clear it up

[pk]

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

[plimsoul]

in general:

i think tax avoiders should be named and shamed every day including companies that hide money away etc... so consumers can chose to spend where more of the revenue goes back into the UK. hence why top shop and more do not enjoy any of my business ... but as stated above this is different.

in this situation:

call me NAIVE but the police would not sanction using pictures unless they had a clear idea that this was going on and the picture of them stealing the goods is maybe not the most representative. this is is surely comparable to when going to a police station and there are old fashioned wanted posters. or are 'wanted in connection with' posters also not correct?

hell yeah if i had my pic put up and i'd stolen nothing i'd be 'outraged from south east london' but last time i checked the police don't like spending their time dealing with 'outraged from anywhere' but instead helping the shop owners. again remind me how woefully naive i am when it comes to the met dealing with shoplifting.

for gods sake they're not kettling these people :o

[david_carnell]

And for those concerned about data protection, there is an exemption in the DPA for administration of justice and prevention of crime, so I would presume the shopkeeper would be protected by that.

Defamation action could be pursued if case is wrongful however.