Jump to content

shoplifting nonsense

puzzled

By puzzled
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Huguenot

Huguenot

Posted
Posted

Okay Loz, I totally accept your point of view. It has a righteous precision that belies logical denial.


I take that on the chin.


I'm just not convinced that it reflects any realistic social relevance.


Life is full of grey areas, standing tall on ethics is like expecting the tide to turn because I posited my throne on the sand.


I'd be able to argue your position with all enthusiasm. It's a margin call.


I can't because at some level I reject the idea that the 'authorities' are responsible for my society. I belive that 'we' are. We need to grasp that, welcome that, stop asking the 'authorities' to be responsible for our relationships and welcome getting on with each other.


There are bound to be mess ups, but they're icomparable with the social benefit.

ianr

ianr

Posted
Posted

Heard on Radio 4 this morning -- an allegation of corruption against Fifa officials, an allegation of perjury against the main prosecution witness in the Ali Dizaei case, all against people who've not been convicted.


Why don't the BBC just stop this vigilantism and witch-hunting, respect people's human rights, and leave this stuff to the police to deal with?

Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted
The shop haven't published people's names, addresses, or any other personal details (or have I missed something). All they have done is put up CCTV images in the window, presumably in an appeal for information. This doesn't infringe anyone's human rights. Is it being suggested that CCTV images shoudln't be used to identify suspects of crime?
Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> No way Sue, at stake are some key issues.

>

> I note that investigative journos at Panorama have

> unveiled untoward happenings at FIFA.

>

> According to Loz, this should never have been

> broadcast.

>

> Thoughts?


I think that you are confusing vigilantism with the concept of a free press. If they do it correctly, Panorama will go through the evidence in very careful language. For instance, they will not say "he accepted a bribe", they will just note that "he accepted payments" and have the evidence to back it up.


If the Beeb gets it wrong then they will almost certainly have a very large writ heading their way.

SeanMacGabhann

SeanMacGabhann

Posted
Posted

isn't that the same prinicple as the shopkeepers tho' Loz?


If I thought it would lead to vigilate-ism I wouldnt support it. But what it does do is shine a light into a dark and murky area and sends a message to a lot of would-be shoplifters. It won't lead to any violence against persons

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I'm not sure why you are bringing loony left into this discussion


Quite. Especially when our most ardent left-wing poster is supporting the shop on this occasion. Not all issues are clear-cut left vs right.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> No way Sue, at stake are some key issues.

>


xxxxxxxxxx


Maybe, but it's quite clear after seven pages that you're never going to agree on them, so it's just Groundhog Day every day on this thread :))

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

To an extent Sean. Journalist makes allegation and shows the evidence. Shopkeeper apparently does the same. If either get it wrong they will be sued for a lot of money.


So you could successfully argue that the shopkeeper is doing the same thing as Panorama. But then comes the question of intent - I would question what the shopkeeper hopes to achieve. What was the outcome they hoped for? If you argue, "to stop said individuals from nicking stuff from his/her shop" then the same would be achieved by banning those people from the shop. The shop in question is not large and I doubt there is more than a few people in there at any one time so this is quite achievable. So why put the posters up? What else did he/she want to get out of this? If you start getting to any suggestion of retribution of any sort you get into some worrying territory.


Earlier, rahrahrah asked, "Is it being suggested that CCTV images shouldn't be used to identify suspects of crime?". The answer is absolutely not - if the shopkeeper put up the posters with "do you know this person, please tell us who they are", then I would know the shopkeeper's intent and how they want me to react. But why would any shopkeeper put up a poster with "this person is a shoplifter"? What is their intent? How do they want me to react?


Compare this with Panorama. What is their intent? How do they want me to react? Answering those questions will give you this difference between the two situations.

SeanMacGabhann

SeanMacGabhann

Posted
Posted

I would suggest/argue/think that there is quite a difference between banning someone from a shop and having a picture of those that have been banned/stolen


Say you are one of the newsagents/small grocers along LL. These are small places, which if a shoplifter so chooses, he/she can be in and out of in seconds before a shopkeeper has time to say ?oi you, you?re barred?. And that?s assuming everyone who might be behind the counter is aware of everyone who is barred


It also means the shoplifter can just avoid that shop, for a while anyway


Put yourself in the mind of a shoplifter for a second. You remember the good old days when you could just get barred. But now your picture is in the windows of shops, it?s not such a good idea anymore is it. You are a free man/woman, walking around. Noone is putting you on trial or curtailing your freedoms ? but you don?t feel so invisible any more


(come to think of it, I?m sure I have been in pubs which have had pictures of banned punters on display before, and these displays have been shared amongst pubs in the area)

Damian H

Damian H

Posted
Posted

If the shopkeeper and police believe that the full CCTV evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction, IF they were aware of the identity of the alleged shoplifter, then would the picture not be serving as a request to help identify the alleged offender in order that they can be brought through a formal process of justice?


Is that not what happens, as has already been suggested, on Crimewatch and in those circumstances when newspapers print montages of people wanted by the police in relation to football violence - the latter usually taken from CCTV?


Recently, after the student riots at Millbank, the press published a picture of a student who it was believed may have been responsible for throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof that narrowly missed seriously injuring police officers. That individual had not been identified, interviewed, arrested or charged let alone convicted at the time. I believe that as a result of his photograph being published he has been identified, arrested, interviewed and is on bail pending charges or something like that for offences including his ludicrous haircut being an offence against public taste and decency.


Had it not been for the press publishing the photograph (presumably they felt they had sufficient evidence to back up their claim that he was responsible) the individual in question might never have been identified or subject to a formal, appropriate and proportionate investigation.

ianr

ianr

Posted
Posted

From the letters page of the latest Private Eye (No.1276):


"PPS The police have just issued pictures of the most wanted students in the UK in connection with the riot. Unfortunately, two of them are architects from our office which was under siege at the time in 30 Millbank. We have had a great deal of fun today at their expense. One of them was heard to comment, "How can I be a violent student? I'm wearing a pullover"."


(If anyone would like to discuss the propriety of clue 12 across in the PE crossword, please PM me.)


Cf also, re vigilantism

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

Loz Wrote:

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

> OK, Sean point taken. How about a compromise?

> The shopkeeper could put up their poster, with

> picture and caption "this person is banned from

> this shop". It's factual, so no libel or false

> accusation. It achieves your aims without any

> sniff of vigilantism.

>

> Solved!


xxxxxx


Except I think Celestial was trying to find out who the person was, not just banning them from their shop

Damian H

Damian H

Posted
Posted

ianr Wrote:

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

> From the letters page of the latest Private Eye

> (No.1276):

>

> "PPS The police have just issued pictures of the

> most wanted students in the UK in connection with

> the riot. Unfortunately, two of them are

> architects from our office which was under siege

> at the time in 30 Millbank. We have had a great

> deal of fun today at their expense. One of them

> was heard to comment, "How can I be a violent

> student? I'm wearing a pullover"."

>

> (If anyone would like to discuss the propriety of

> clue 12 across in the PE crossword, please PM

> me.)

>

> Cf also, re vigilantism



Obviously mistakes can be made so care must be taken.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...