Drive off after fuelling.
Discussion
Theophany said:
DonkeyApple said:
Yes but no. The purpose of retaining non pre-pay pumps is to force consumers into the corner shop to buy additional produce. It is 100% a commercial decision based on their business model. If they wish to maximise profit margins further then they need to employ additional security. Except, the cost of that clearly outweighs the savings it would create, which is why they don't. This doesn't mean that a private enterprise should then be able to use taxpayer resources to enhance their margins on such a model.
Yes it is a criminal act but one that deliberately sanctioned by the enterprise as it is a byproduct of greater profit.
That private enterprise pays tax, such as rents for their forecourts, so shouldn't they be entitled to the taxpayer funded services that entails? Or does selling cans of Red Bull above RRP negate that? If so most independent corner shops don't qualify for any protection against shoplifters...Yes it is a criminal act but one that deliberately sanctioned by the enterprise as it is a byproduct of greater profit.
Your post shows that you have neither read what has been written properly or understood some very elementary business practice.
simoid said:
DonkeyApple said:
Thankyou4calling said:
What if I go into a restaurant with 6 mates and gorge myself on food and boll inter before walking out without paying?
I'd imagine the police would get involved and I can't really see how it's much different for fuel theft.
If it weren't it'd be happening an awful lot more I reckon.
Does that business deliberately make 'runners' possible because it makes them more money?I'd imagine the police would get involved and I can't really see how it's much different for fuel theft.
If it weren't it'd be happening an awful lot more I reckon.
No. And they also take as much action as possible to prevent this loss of revenue. It is a different business model.
Theft is a f
king crime for fk sake. Dishonestluy appropriating something that isn't yours. It disgusts me that anyone thinks the police shouldn't be involved when we're talking significant money here (ie not some penny chews, gallons and gallons of fuel.) As someone else said - if they get away with £50, £60, £70 of fuel what else will their conscience tolerate next? I recall a Derren Brown show (the Heist?) where he got people to "rob" a security van and the first part of the training was to get them to walk out of a shop with a packet of chewing gum.
No one has said it is not theft. No one has said it should not be policed to the full extent of the law.
DonkeyApple said:
Please try reading. You might then actually understand the mild point that is being made and the rather important distinction.
Your post shows that you have neither read what has been written properly or understood some very elementary business practice.
I understand the 'point' fine. I just disagree with it because I think it's wrong and did so in a not entirely serious manner. A default reaction to that of condescension is rather OTT.Your post shows that you have neither read what has been written properly or understood some very elementary business practice.
My apologies for upsetting your delicate sensibilities, sir.
ORD said:
DonkeyApple said:
It's not remotely flawed. The other retail outlets firstly have no choice and so secondly they pay for barriers to prevent people leaving without paying such as security staff etc.
I'm afraid my logic is perfectly correct as to why petrol stations run the business model that they do and that it is their choice to chase greater profit. It isn't the job of taxpayer funded police to enforce this profit model but that of private security.
You usually talk moderately good sense, but you have completely lost the plot on this one. Some kind of anti-business Corbynite nonsense seems to have poisoned your otherwise sound mind I'm afraid my logic is perfectly correct as to why petrol stations run the business model that they do and that it is their choice to chase greater profit. It isn't the job of taxpayer funded police to enforce this profit model but that of private security.
Supermarkets too use a high theft risk model because it makes them greater profits. I expect that your place of work uses fairly leaky security because that is better as regards convenience to employees (another deliberate commercial decision that maximizes profits). Yet the supermarket and your place of work are no less entitled to the protection of the police when someone defrauds them.
If you take the decision to spend less on house security and more on beer, are you disentitled to help from the police when someone breaks in and nicks your socks?
Very shoddy reasoning, DA, and unlike you.
It's not loony left politics, it's about understanding business models and suggesting that companies do not exploit taxpayer resources to directly inflate their profits as a result of a deliberate model.
It's common sense and no one would agree otherwise apart from maybe Dinald Trump and the screaming spastics of NPE.
DonkeyApple said:
It's not loony left politics, it's about understanding business models and suggesting that companies do not exploit taxpayer resources to directly inflate their profits as a result of a deliberate model.
The one that always amazes me is the apparent indifference of credit card companies to card fraud. They seem to shrug their shoulders and treat it as "shrinkage" in the same way as the local newsagent who loses a few Mars bars.DonkeyApple said:
ORD said:
DonkeyApple said:
It's not remotely flawed. The other retail outlets firstly have no choice and so secondly they pay for barriers to prevent people leaving without paying such as security staff etc.
I'm afraid my logic is perfectly correct as to why petrol stations run the business model that they do and that it is their choice to chase greater profit. It isn't the job of taxpayer funded police to enforce this profit model but that of private security.
You usually talk moderately good sense, but you have completely lost the plot on this one. Some kind of anti-business Corbynite nonsense seems to have poisoned your otherwise sound mind I'm afraid my logic is perfectly correct as to why petrol stations run the business model that they do and that it is their choice to chase greater profit. It isn't the job of taxpayer funded police to enforce this profit model but that of private security.
Supermarkets too use a high theft risk model because it makes them greater profits. I expect that your place of work uses fairly leaky security because that is better as regards convenience to employees (another deliberate commercial decision that maximizes profits). Yet the supermarket and your place of work are no less entitled to the protection of the police when someone defrauds them.
If you take the decision to spend less on house security and more on beer, are you disentitled to help from the police when someone breaks in and nicks your socks?
Very shoddy reasoning, DA, and unlike you.
It's not loony left politics, it's about understanding business models and suggesting that companies do not exploit taxpayer resources to directly inflate their profits as a result of a deliberate model.
It's common sense and no one would agree otherwise apart from maybe Dinald Trump and the screaming spastics of NPE.
The vast bulk of any saving to the fuel station is bound to be passed on in lower fuel prices. Profit is influenced primarily by the effectiveness of competition. A saving made by the fuel station ends up mostly in our pockets, which is a very good reason for the police to not give two s
ts that the risk-taking behavior of the fuel station contributes to a thefts. We all benefit from risk-taking where it reduces costs (including time costs).It is your "saving or increased revenue to seller = profit to seller" assumption that is Corbynite (i.e. economically illiterate and anti-business).
DonkeyApple said:
simoid said:
DonkeyApple said:
Thankyou4calling said:
What if I go into a restaurant with 6 mates and gorge myself on food and boll inter before walking out without paying?
I'd imagine the police would get involved and I can't really see how it's much different for fuel theft.
If it weren't it'd be happening an awful lot more I reckon.
Does that business deliberately make 'runners' possible because it makes them more money?I'd imagine the police would get involved and I can't really see how it's much different for fuel theft.
If it weren't it'd be happening an awful lot more I reckon.
No. And they also take as much action as possible to prevent this loss of revenue. It is a different business model.
Theft is a f
king crime for fk sake. Dishonestluy appropriating something that isn't yours. It disgusts me that anyone thinks the police shouldn't be involved when we're talking significant money here (ie not some penny chews, gallons and gallons of fuel.) As someone else said - if they get away with £50, £60, £70 of fuel what else will their conscience tolerate next? I recall a Derren Brown show (the Heist?) where he got people to "rob" a security van and the first part of the training was to get them to walk out of a shop with a packet of chewing gum.
No one has said it is not theft. No one has said it should not be policed to the full extent of the law.
"There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods"
I can only assume you are drunk. This is theft of fuel. Theft is a crime. The police investigate crimes, end of. The fact that people who deliberately do drive offs are in most cases of a wider criminal disposition only underlines the point.
You called it wrong first time.
DonkeyApple said:
Again, think it through. You are getting all distressed and on your high horse because you have not understood the nuance of what has been said.
No one has said it is not theft. No one has said it should not be policed to the full extent of the law.
Sorry I've made the classic mistake of reading what you posted:No one has said it is not theft. No one has said it should not be policed to the full extent of the law.
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
(Thanks and apologies to CS Garth who pointed this out)Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
Edited by simoid on Sunday 29th November 13:36
My wife works in a retail shop. They budget about 3% for stock loss. It's not built into their business plan, other than to accept it's a retail shop fact of life that that is about the average loss they suffer across the board from their shops. They DO prosecute ANYONE caught shop lifting.
speedyguy said:
Mrs Speedy did a drive off at the local Shell garage she uses fequently recently 
Within 2 days a threatening letter off the local BIB (Cheshire) full of the usual inaccuracies arrived
She contacted CC company to check and the card had been used but transaction not verified by the fuel station or something. The guy at the petrol station recognised her as a frequent customer anyway to vouch for her story.
Unfortunately she hasn't been jailed for it yet
After seeing the last smiley i had to read it to make sure i hadnt misread it, I thought it would be ablut your MILWithin 2 days a threatening letter off the local BIB (Cheshire) full of the usual inaccuracies arrived
She contacted CC company to check and the card had been used but transaction not verified by the fuel station or something. The guy at the petrol station recognised her as a frequent customer anyway to vouch for her story.
Unfortunately she hasn't been jailed for it yet
simoid said:
Do you mean the police told you to ignore the service station who were still chasing you for money? 
I suppose the majority of people who do fill up and fk off will have fake plates or stolen cars or whatever - with technology these days it would be silly to do it in one's own registered, insured, legal car.
Yeah.I suppose the majority of people who do fill up and f
k off will have fake plates or stolen cars or whatever - with technology these days it would be silly to do it in one's own registered, insured, legal car.simoid said:
DonkeyApple said:
Again, think it through. You are getting all distressed and on your high horse because you have not understood the nuance of what has been said.
No one has said it is not theft. No one has said it should not be policed to the full extent of the law.
Sorry I've made the classic mistake of reading what you posted:No one has said it is not theft. No one has said it should not be policed to the full extent of the law.
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
(Thanks and apologies to CS Garth who pointed this out)Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
Edited by simoid on Sunday 29th November 13:36
At no point has anyone suggested that it isn't a crime nor should it go unprosecuted!!!!!!
Ozzie Osmond said:
DonkeyApple said:
It's not loony left politics, it's about understanding business models and suggesting that companies do not exploit taxpayer resources to directly inflate their profits as a result of a deliberate model.
The one that always amazes me is the apparent indifference of credit card companies to card fraud. They seem to shrug their shoulders and treat it as "shrinkage" in the same way as the local newsagent who loses a few Mars bars.ORD said:
The main effect of having drive through fuel stations is to make the process faster and more convenient for motorists (a saving to us).
The vast bulk of any saving to the fuel station is bound to be passed on in lower fuel prices. Profit is influenced primarily by the effectiveness of competition. A saving made by the fuel station ends up mostly in our pockets, which is a very good reason for the police to not give two sts that the risk-taking behavior of the fuel station contributes to a thefts. We all benefit from risk-taking where it reduces costs (including time costs).
It is your "saving or increased revenue to seller = profit to seller" assumption that is Corbynite (i.e. economically illiterate and anti-business).
I'm really not seeing where politics fits into any of this, Ord. The vast bulk of any saving to the fuel station is bound to be passed on in lower fuel prices. Profit is influenced primarily by the effectiveness of competition. A saving made by the fuel station ends up mostly in our pockets, which is a very good reason for the police to not give two s
ts that the risk-taking behavior of the fuel station contributes to a thefts. We all benefit from risk-taking where it reduces costs (including time costs).It is your "saving or increased revenue to seller = profit to seller" assumption that is Corbynite (i.e. economically illiterate and anti-business).
The reason a petrol station will fit automated pumps is to either increase through flow of consumers, so increase revenue, or it is to reduce staff costs so increase margins.
It has absolutely bugger all to do with saving us time.
Automated pumps will be most commonly used where the forecourt sales space is larger than the shop floor, so the revenue focus is on maximising fuel sales rather than shop sales, or where there is a tremendous captive market such as a supermarket, where there is also less upside to bringing people who have just shopped into your shop. Or in places where staff costs are high etc.
A petrol station is a twin commercial outlet of both the forecourt and the store and depending on where it is located and what type of customer demographic it has along with the size differential (ergo revenue differential) between the two commercial outlets will determine the need for processing fuel buyers as swiftly/cheaply as possible versus forcing as many consumers as possible into the shop to very expensively process their fuel payment, slow down fuel transaction rates in exchange for increased spending in the shop.
That's exactly how the fuel vending model operates.
At the same time, a large chunk of 'runners' will probably be accidental and these will be relatively easy to trace and recoup and of those which are deliberate, overt acts of thefts just why should the police be expected to turn up to such a theft? What can be achieved?
And that's before we even get to the point that these are criminal acts only made possible by the business model, yet not deemed significant enough to hire private security or change the payment process?
DonkeyApple said:
<snip>
And that's before we even get to the point that these are criminal acts only made possible by the business model, yet not deemed significant enough to hire private security or change the payment process?
perhaps becasue in the past the police were happy to expend time and effort on dealing with the negligent behaviour of site operators and their total lack of a strategies to mitigiate / ameloirate the the risk s and loses without recourse to criminal law ... And that's before we even get to the point that these are criminal acts only made possible by the business model, yet not deemed significant enough to hire private security or change the payment process?
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 30th November 13:21
Blimey. I trust you go around with an armed guard to ensure that you don't get robbed. If you don't, it's your fault if you get killed and the police should ignore it. Negligent.
The same goes for anyone who leaves an expensive car parked on the road. Just asking for it to be stolen. Negligent.
What a world!
The same goes for anyone who leaves an expensive car parked on the road. Just asking for it to be stolen. Negligent.
What a world!
Had a peculiar taste of this, I use a distant garage about once a month, went in a couple of weeks ago, cashier told me last time I was there I gave them the wrong pump number and they charged me for £15.00's worth when I took a full tank, about £60's worth.
I was pretty stymied by this, how do I know what I used a month ago? Anyway, checked petrol bills on the bank account and I actually paid £23, about my usual amount, so that was wrong. Suspect a scam, but it's an odd thing to say to a customer.
Also I hadn't seen the guy on the till there before, so how would he know me?
I said surely they had the CCTV tapes and there was my reg. number if they had a query. Never heard anything else.
Very odd. Haven't been back.
I was pretty stymied by this, how do I know what I used a month ago? Anyway, checked petrol bills on the bank account and I actually paid £23, about my usual amount, so that was wrong. Suspect a scam, but it's an odd thing to say to a customer.
Also I hadn't seen the guy on the till there before, so how would he know me?
I said surely they had the CCTV tapes and there was my reg. number if they had a query. Never heard anything else.
Very odd. Haven't been back.
Chuck328 said:
UK345 said:
I remember years ago i went for a part time job working in a Shell garage. I was told that i would need to get the details of the car that does the bilking or i would need to pay for the amount they stole. Needless to say, i done one shift and jacked it.
Really????? 
I didn't last long, but the owner made the local papers when another employee took him to court for lost wages......she won
Quinny said:
Chuck328 said:
UK345 said:
I remember years ago i went for a part time job working in a Shell garage. I was told that i would need to get the details of the car that does the bilking or i would need to pay for the amount they stole. Needless to say, i done one shift and jacked it.
Really????? I didn't last long, but the owner made the local papers when another employee took him to court for lost wages......she won
Many years ago we ran a few of the franchise stalls at Wembley Stadium. If you didn't make the staff solely responsible for the end of day stock take then you would always discover that there was no stock and not much money at the end of the day. They would shovel everything out to mates.
A mate who still runs these types of enterprises reckons that profits are much better now he only employs Poles and no English. Which is a bit sad.
As a practice it's going to put off the smarter, honest worker which is a downside but it was essential to avoid an absolute fleecing by gerzers who were a little bit waaaay.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff