The ED mummy who picked clean the pile outside the MIND shop

[Moos]

Keef Wrote:

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

> EDmummy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Not me...but I am not sure whether to take

> > offence, Snorky! Is this defamation?

>

>

> Have absolutely no gripe with you EDmummy, but

> were you being serious here? Frankly, if I bag up

> stuff for a shop, then walk it down there, and

> they're shut, then I would feel no guilt leaving

> it outside. I would be properly pissed off if

> someone took stuff from the bag, not through need,

> but because they fancied it. In my book, it's them

> who are scum, not me for leaving the bag,

Keef, I think edmummy was jokingly referring to the title of the thread and to her own moniker. Not sure how snorky knew it was a 'mummy' but no doubt he has his methods.

[jimmy two times]

I'm not sure what a 'superchav' is, as described by Mike, but I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be seen dead inside a charity shop let alone stealing from outside of one.

[Mikecg]

You obviously don't know any chavs JTT.

[jimmy two times]

Really Mike...enlighten me to your definition of a chav ?

[Mikecg]

There's no point in doing that, it doesn't add value or worth to anything a bit like the comment I suppose. I just disagree with bagging in general. I know some people could not care less about it but I just think it's a bit orf if you get what I mean.

[jimmy two times]

You're right mate. We don't want to go round trying to decipher the definition of a chav....that would be shallow ;-)

[pitflaps]

it's also illegal:

http://www.kent.police.uk/Your%20Area/East%20Kent/East_Kent_news/Herne_Bay_charity_sh.html

[Mikecg]

It would, but hohum such is life.

[Mikecg]

Good work pitflaps, Nice handle.

[Keef]

Moos, fair play, you're probably right about EDMummy's post.

[dulwichbloke]

macroban - That submission from any prosecutor would make for an interesting hearing! If the stuff is dumped with knowledge that it was not being accepted in that form as a donation, it is being dumped. I can't see how the person dumping the goods would retain any form of title. On your analysis, the person who dumped the stuff could bring a civil claim against people taking the goods, in conversion - or even against the charity shop for breach of bailment if they negligently allowed the stuff to be nicked?! I somehow doubt that argument would fly very far.

[TarahC]

My old housemate did this once, came home pleased as punch about her vintage lace bedspread she'd picked up from outside a charity shop and didn't realise why we were so annoyed with her!

[flapjackdavey]

indiepanda Wrote:

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

> Agree it's bad that anyone would stoop to stealing

> from a charity shop - but don't most have signs

> outside begging people not to leave their

> donations outside for precisely that reason?

>

> If people wants to ensure their donations make it

> to the people who need them rather than getting

> stolen, then waiting till the shop is open to drop

> them off is a good idea.

agreed

[Strawbs]

Snorky why didnt you go up to her and let her know you thought what she was doing was wrong? People wont stop unless they are told..

[FatherJack]

Many years ago the charity Sense put a bag through my letterbox saying they would collect a couple of days later, a

common practice I'm told. Anyway they didn't collect on the agreed day and I left the bag outside, it was hidden in alcove.

A guy delivering leaflets (Safeway supermarket specials! Thats how long ago!)rummaged through the bag and took a leather jacket. I gave chase but couldn't find him. I contacted the police and as the jacket was in a MARKED charity bag, this was a crime of theft. It annoys me to this day but now I always deliver to the charity shop myself and ONLY when it's open. And no this isn't always convenient.

[snorky]

It was one of thhose instances where about 5 minutes later you realise what you have just seen and think ...wait there!.......the pretty much new family car with kids seats in the back/ the JAGS sticker , all fooled me . I intially though she was was leaving stuff as I approached, then realised the was stripping the piles and loading her wheels up.I have verbally assailed a couple of people in the past I musts admit and used language that if far far too fruity for a family site like like this

[Mikecg]

You said like twice, but you dont like anything.

[Domitianus]

Indiana Wrote:

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

> Peckham Rose - I agree that it's very low when

> people rifle through the charity bags and take

> stuff but my point is that it wouldn't happen if

> people didn't dump their litter there in the first

> place.

>

> They are not technically stealing as it's just a

> load of bags on a pavement.....the shops always

> ask people not to leave bags out of hours as by

> the time they open it's either ruined by rain or

> all the good stuff has been taken and they have to

> deal with the litter.

>

> Why can't the people return when the shop is open

> and give their bags to the staff instead of

> leaving a load of litter for them to deal with!

Someone may already have addressed this point but I will stick my oar in anyway. Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and it must have been known to the culprit) was that ownership of the goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was being passed over to MIND. For someone to take property that clearly had been donated to another party (and was therefore the recipient party's property) is without question theft.

I recently had a parcel stolen from outside my house because the postman had decided to leave it on my doorstep rather than fill in one of the little collection cards and return it to depot. I have previously asked for the Royal Mail not to do this in case stuff was stolen/spoilt. Are you trying to say, just because it was left outside my house when I had asked that it should not be, that that wasn't theft?????

[Domitianus]

Can I also add (and I think I posted about it here a couple of years ago) that a similar incident happened outside the St Christopher's charity shop and I did challenge the thief. She looked very embarrassed and told me to mind my own business. I believe I told her I would be sure to mind my own business if I ever saw her being mugged in the street or saw someone breaking into her car!

[snorky]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Can I also add (and I think I posted about it here

> a couple of years ago) that a similar incident

> happened outside the St Christopher's charity shop

> and I did challenge the thief. She looked very

> embarrassed and told me to mind my own business.

> I believe I told her I would be sure to mind my

> own business if I ever saw her being mugged in the

> street or saw someone breaking into her car!

Had the same experience and was asked " is it yours ? "

I wish I could say I came out with an urbane Wildean response , but just came out with a Haddockian tirade of propa abuse that ensured they scuttled back into their wheels and scarpered. probabaly to come back 5 mins later when I has passed of course.

[snorky]

PS how long til the SLP takes this tale onboard and conducts a vox pop on charidee shop theivery ,on the mean streets of ED ?

[pk]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and it must have been

> known to the culprit) was that ownership of the

> goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was

> being passed over to MIND.

but the charity has said that they don't want stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, if i come and leave my junk outside your house, does it become yours and your problem? the intention of the owner is surely not enough, does the recipient not need to agree that they want it?

[Domitianus]

pk Wrote:

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

> Domitianus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and

> it must have been

> > known to the culprit) was that ownership of the

> > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was

> > being passed over to MIND.

>

> but the charity has said that they don't want

> stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, if

> i come and leave my junk outside your house, does

> it become yours and your problem? the intention of

> the owner is surely not enough, does the recipient

> not need to agree that they want it?

Irrelevant! Possession is still that of MIND. I didn't want my parcels left out in the street but I sure as h**l wanted my parcels! The fact that they had been deposited contrary to my instructions didn't entitle anyone to come along and pinch them. Same goes for MIND.

[Keef]

but the charity has said that they don't want stuff left on the pavement

Yes, that's because they know that there are scumbag thieves around!

[pk]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> pk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Domitianus Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention

> (and

> > it must have been

> > > known to the culprit) was that ownership of

> the

> > > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter)

> was

> > > being passed over to MIND.

> >

> > but the charity has said that they don't want

> > stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier,

> if

> > i come and leave my junk outside your house,

> does

> > it become yours and your problem? the intention

> of

> > the owner is surely not enough, does the

> recipient

> > not need to agree that they want it?

>

> Irrelevant! Possession is still that of MIND. I

> didn't want my parcels left out in the street but

> I sure as h**l wanted my parcels! The fact that

> they had been deposited contrary to my

> instructions didn't entitle anyone to come along

> and pinch them. Same goes for MIND.

but possession was not that of mind - presumably these things were on the street?

the mail analogy really doesn't work

also, as you say you wanted your parcels (thus surely agreeing that the intent of the recipient is important) , mind have stated that they do not want stuff left on the street

as i asked above, if i came and left my junk at your house (say in the same place as your parcels) would it become yours?