Letter from Police
Discussion
Bill said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
eldar said:
I can't decide if you are lazy, paranoid or unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions.
Amazing!I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
So you don't want police to take pre-emptive action to prevent car theft by warning people who might not be aware that they're leaving clues for the scrotes? Because you feel you're sufficiently aware of the risks. And this, you feel, is the best way to reduce your insurance premium. or we could make the enitre population responsible for the actions of a few, that the authorities refuse to deal with.
Shuvi Tupya said:
Amazing!
I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
I think you're a bit delusional, we don't all have our own personnal copper following our every movement waiting to pounce on anything we do ever so slightly wrong that may cause a theft.I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
In specific areas where theft from vehicles is more prevalent then they are doing their duty and advising people to take a little more care, that's all. After all it's far easier to spend anextra 10 seconds removing your SatNav from the windscreen than coming back to a broken car window, ringing the police, waiting for them to turn up, giving a statement, dealing with SOCO, getting your car fixed, getting a claim registered on your insurance, losing 2 years NCD, seeing your premiums rise and the list goes on & on & on.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Wasting time and money sending out letters making people feel they are to blame for (potential) crime, is insane. It will nor reduce crime. It will just possibly make one or two individuals less likely to be an actual victim. The criminals will simply target someone/thing else.
The thing is, if there's no "someone else / thing" to target or it's too difficult then guess what the problem starts to be eardicated at source. Mr GrimNasty said:
What stops crime is catching and effectively punishing criminals.
Like life imprisonment for murder, that certainly stopped murders outright
I mean look at the USA, they've got the death penalty for murder and they've never had to use it have they.Oh........
Mr GrimNasty said:
But then that is harder than sending out condescending letters. Where does it stop? Send a letter to everyone with a posh car telling them to sell it because their ostentatious display is inviting criminals to their house to nick their keys? Make it illegal to go out in public with a flash watch?
Nope, but if they are leaving the keys in the car with the engine running, what should the police do? Walk past and wait for the crime to be reported so that they can then solve it?Mr GrimNasty said:
This sort of letter shows exactly how the police (or rather their masters) have got their priorities all wrong, exactly why they have lost the trust of the public and alienated them.
What you mean is - you got caught for speeding 25 years ago and are still bitter & twisted about it instead of accepting that you were in the wrong. In fact by your assertion that proper punishment is required, should you have got a 5 year ban?Mr GrimNasty said:
Hell next time just send a PCSO around the block smashing all car windows with 'goods on display' and take them back to the station for safe keeping. Start breaking into people's houses if there is a half open window? Oh yes, they've already started doing that! It is a mad mad world.
They have always pushed open windows shut if they see it on an empty house. Is anyone suggesting the smash windows on houes or cars? Nope, the police are advising caution to someone to avoid them becoming a victim.scenario8 said:
To make it easier for the Police to recognise you do not wish them to waste their resources trying to educate you that you may be inadvertantly exposing yourself to a higher risk of being the vicitm of crime, may I suggest you print and attach to your windscreen an A4 sized piece of paper stating
"EXPENSIVE AND EASILY SOLD VALUABLES INSIDE - OWNER AWARE OF THE RISK"
Thus the Police would know you do not wish to be made aware of the risk and thus the Police would not attempt to make contact to you proactively.
Job done.
Brilliant"EXPENSIVE AND EASILY SOLD VALUABLES INSIDE - OWNER AWARE OF THE RISK"
Thus the Police would know you do not wish to be made aware of the risk and thus the Police would not attempt to make contact to you proactively.
Job done.
Pothole said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
14-7 said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
eldar said:
I can't decide if you are lazy, paranoid or unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions.
Amazing!I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
The option is yours but the police are trying to get crime down and people leaving items on display in cars are an open invitation to a thief.
No we can't do that either.
A mate of mine had the entire interior of his car stolen once. it was worth over £2000 and the silly bugger just left it on display, sitting in his car. He deserved it really.
R1 Loon said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
Amazing!
I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
I think you're a bit delusional, we don't all have our own personnal copper following our every movement waiting to pounce on anything we do ever so slightly wrong that may cause a theft.I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
I want the opposite.
I agree though, it would appear i am delusional.
The reason for all this theft is not because the police can not cope. They catch them and the courts do bugger all. That is why there is an issue, it is not because people own things of value it is because low lifes know they can take these things, repeatedly.
Edited by Shuvi Tupya on Sunday 21st November 14:54
This is specific to Shuvitupya
There are two broad descriptions of theft in terms of the reasons it happened. The first is opportunistic, the second is organised.
Opportunistic theft is where something happens because it is so easy and far too tempting. Organised, on the other hand, is far more thought through and where the hardened criinals are.
If the Police are trying to remove the opportunistic aspect, then it frees up time, as the Opportunists are less likely to commit a crime if it involves too much effort or risk. This free time can then be spent catching the Organised aspect eg the people who stole your mates car interior.
Courts are far more liely to take a stronger stance when they are presented with a proper case, rather than being swamped by the Opportunists who we could all help to eradicate with a bit of thought.
There are two broad descriptions of theft in terms of the reasons it happened. The first is opportunistic, the second is organised.
Opportunistic theft is where something happens because it is so easy and far too tempting. Organised, on the other hand, is far more thought through and where the hardened criinals are.
If the Police are trying to remove the opportunistic aspect, then it frees up time, as the Opportunists are less likely to commit a crime if it involves too much effort or risk. This free time can then be spent catching the Organised aspect eg the people who stole your mates car interior.
Courts are far more liely to take a stronger stance when they are presented with a proper case, rather than being swamped by the Opportunists who we could all help to eradicate with a bit of thought.
Shuvi Tupya said:
I don't really see the difference. If someone steals from me, i want them thrown in jail whether they have mates that steal with them or not.
Theft is theft, punish the criminals.
And therein lies the crux of the problem.Theft is theft, punish the criminals.
By failing to take reasonable care of your property then you are inviting crime to happen. A good test would be for you to leave £50 on a table in the next establishment you visit.
It will probably be taken and not handed in at least 75% of the time. This is opportunistic crime and is more prevalent at this time of year when funds are tight and the kids are expecting the latest Xbox PS4 thing. However, would the 75% that would take the £50 also mug you for that while you were sat at the table? Highly unlikely IMO, as that would be more organised crime (ie thought through action)
Some of the 75% may move on to the next establishment to see if there's £50 lying around unattended, but if they find none, then they have not committed a crime and do not deserve punishment, unless you believe in "Thought Police" which would be a bit counter to your previous arguments.
Some of the 75% may progress to more serious crime in time. However, if they are seeing a high detection rate due to the Police actually having time to investigate then that may deter them.
Shuvi Tupya said:
I have a feeling all that might change if we started PUTTING THEIVES IN PRISON.
So you think there are no thieves in prison?What about other crimes that definitely have people in prison as a result of them commiting the crime. Have those crimes suddenly stopped?
As said earlier,we sent thieves to the other side of the World a few centuries back, yet bizarrely it still apears to be happening
Shuvi Tupya said:
I have a feeling all that might change if we started PUTTING THEIVES IN PRISON.
OK, I've had enough, so here's a Parliamentary paper relating to the total UK prison population.If you don't want to read it all, here's a summary
- There are 71,080 prisoners in total
- This figure is up from a low of c10,000 during WW2
- Since the early 1990s the prison population has almost doubled.
- 19635 prisoners (28% of the convicted population) is due to theft & handling, burglary or robbery
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/li...
R1 Loon said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
I have a feeling all that might change if we started PUTTING THEIVES IN PRISON.
So you think there are no thieves in prison?What about other crimes that definitely have people in prison as a result of them commiting the crime. Have those crimes suddenly stopped?
As said earlier,we sent thieves to the other side of the World a few centuries back, yet bizarrely it still apears to be happening
All the theives are well known to the police, they seemingly arrest them weekly and everyone is know's everyone elses name.
Are you suggesting that if all those guys were in prison, theft would be as bad as it is? Even if it left the occasional chancer to get away with the occasional crime, it would be far better than having thousands of career theives roaming about!
R1 Loon said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
I have a feeling all that might change if we started PUTTING THEIVES IN PRISON.
OK, I've had enough, so here's a Parliamentary paper relating to the total UK prison population.If you don't want to read it all, here's a summary
- There are 71,080 prisoners in total
- This figure is up from a low of c10,000 during WW2
- Since the early 1990s the prison population has almost doubled.
- 19635 prisoners (28% of the convicted population) is due to theft & handling, burglary or robbery
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/li...
I don't understand. What kind of moron would leave valuables clearly on display in their unattended car?
Yes, we should live in a world where people don't steal your stuff. But we don't, and to expect that to be the case is plain naive. To then assess the situation by claiming criminals shouldn't have opportunity to steal your s
t because they should be in prison is not clever.
At least the Police were being helpful.
Yes, we should live in a world where people don't steal your stuff. But we don't, and to expect that to be the case is plain naive. To then assess the situation by claiming criminals shouldn't have opportunity to steal your s
t because they should be in prison is not clever.At least the Police were being helpful.
Mr GrimNasty said:
R1Loon - your response is nothing short of moronic. Once you start suggesting you can eradicate all potential temptation for the criminal minded, there really is no point reading your garbage any further is there!
Excellent, so I paraphrasing this what you really mean is:Mr GrimNasty said:
R1Loon - your response is nothing short of the most insightful post on here in a long time. Once you start suggesting you can eradicate some temptation for the criminal minded, you have an excellent point and I was previously unable to see this as I am a close-minded individual unable to see beyond the end of my nose, I won't read any further. Instead, I'll get back to the Mail on Sunday, where they agree with my views and blame everything on those bd East Europeans who've also stolen all our jobs and benefit money.
d East Europeans who've also stolen all our jobs and benefit money.Shuvi Tupya said:
One thing everybody has assumed, is that i would be stupid enough to leave valuables on display.
I have only had two cars broken into, and each time it was for the sound system.
In which case those crimes were more organised than opportunistic, as it will take tools & equipment to get what they want. As such, had the Police not been tied up on opportunistic crime, then they may have been able to invest more time & recource on your case and solve it.I have only had two cars broken into, and each time it was for the sound system.
Shuvi Tupya said:
I suggest you watch on eof those 'cops' prgrammes on telly.
All the theives are well known to the police, they seemingly arrest them weekly and everyone is know's everyone elses name.
Are you suggesting that if all those guys were in prison, theft would be as bad as it is? Even if it left the occasional chancer to get away with the occasional crime, it would be far better than having thousands of career theives roaming about!
I take it there's reason you chose not to answer my questions or look at the hard evidence I provided. Unfortunately I'm not one of these low IQ numpties who believes a sensationalist TV programme, edited for entertainment value is a fair reperesentation of real-life. However, as I do enjoy watching these from an entertainment perspective, rather than frothing at the mouth, would you do me the courtesy of readig the parliamentary paper I provided a link to, you maight be surprised.All the theives are well known to the police, they seemingly arrest them weekly and everyone is know's everyone elses name.
Are you suggesting that if all those guys were in prison, theft would be as bad as it is? Even if it left the occasional chancer to get away with the occasional crime, it would be far better than having thousands of career theives roaming about!
You continue t miss the key point. Police resource is limited, as most of us don;t want to pay another 10-20% in tax to fund a limitless police force. As such if 1000 crimes are committed, then they will be spread thinner, than if only 10 were committed. If you feel that you don't want to support this, then remain blinkered in your views and continue to be a pat of the problem.
R1 Loon said:
You continue t miss the key point. Police resource is limited, as most of us don;t want to pay another 10-20% in tax to fund a limitless police force. As such if 1000 crimes are committed, then they will be spread thinner, than if only 10 were committed. If you feel that you don't want to support this, then remain blinkered in your views and continue to be a pat of the problem.
It is not being blinkered, it is having a different viewpoint.if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Shuvi Tupya said:
It is not being blinkered, it is having a different viewpoint.
if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Or they'd just be replaced by the next bunch of scrotes who were just too slow to get the easy pickings last time.if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Unless you look at removing the easy pickings then there will always be another generation waiting in the wings. Few of the criminals about now are the same ones from 50 years ago and the same will be true in 50 years time.
This discussion is never going to end, you seem hellbent on ignoring the different triggers for crime and obsessing with dealing with the effect rather than the cause. Locking them up is one of many different things that need to be done, simply focussing on this exclusively does no more than fill up prisons and create a nice little vacuum for the next bunch to slip into. No doubt you'd want thes elocked up, then we go through the cycle again.
Of course to succeed in your way, you'd need a limitless cap on resource and members of the public willing to pursue this to the death, sonething you ironically don't seem happy to do, as you only report it to the ploice for a crime reference number.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff