DEATH Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13599837 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 This included £10,205 in legal aid costs and £3,961 for an interpreter. Big business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I wonder if she waited till the prawns were BOGOF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I wonder if she waited till the prawns were BOGOF? I thought supermarket prawns were always 'bog of'... 'Poison peril of mucky prawns': http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3353263/Sewage-and-pesticide-danger-from-prawns-sold-in-UK-says-TV-docu.html PRAWNS sold in Britain are pumped with a banned pesticide while being farmed in waters containing sewage, a shock TV investigation will claim tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I thought supermarket prawns were always 'bog of'... 'Poison peril of mucky prawns': http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3353263/Sewage-and-pesticide-danger-from-prawns-sold-in-UK-says-TV-docu.html Tip - only buy Greenland, Icelandic prawns, then Norwegian in winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It is a point of principle thing. Whilst on paper it costs a lot more for law and order to deal with it, if they dont, then it is a big green flag to others who might take a bit more than they pay for. If that happens, then the true cost of not doing this now and again on that principle, becomes apparent. It isnt just the price of the prawns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'm sure town centre shop lifters only got a police visit for stealing more than £100 worth of stuff. (ok caught stealing...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 This included £10,205 in legal aid costs and £3,961 for an interpreter .Another lucrative buisness in the uk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buccaneer Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It is a point of principle thing. Whilst on paper it costs a lot more for law and order to deal with it, if they dont, then it is a big green flag to others who might take a bit more than they pay for. If that happens, then the true cost of not doing this now and again on that principle, becomes apparent. It isnt just the price of the prawns. This theory only works if the prosecution serves as a deterrent. Judging from the scale of the 'shrinkage' that retailers constantly suffer it is doubtful if it does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cock-eyed octopus Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 " ...what about those Dublin Prawns? Never touch prawns. do you know they float outside sewage outlet pipes treading water with their mouths open - they LOVE IT!!' ...Aren't prawns an aphrodisiac? I wouldnt put it past them!" Apologies to V. Wood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The police should hacve been allowed to give her a good hiding then let her go, if she did it again, another hiding this time do her husband too. This country is being run for bankers, lawyers and politicians. Time this was changed before the 60million get really really annoyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 This theory only works if the prosecution serves as a deterrent. Judging from the scale of the 'shrinkage' that retailers constantly suffer it is doubtful if it does Yes, they dont seem to follow through properly on this sort of stuff. I often wonder why more stores dont do something like Argos, where all the stock is behind the counter. A better way would be some sort of retina ID system like on Minority report, which allows you to identify and stop known pilferers. Shame we dont have that technology yet, it would save us a fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzMosiz Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It is a point of principle thing. Whilst on paper it costs a lot more for law and order to deal with it, if they dont, then it is a big green flag to others who might take a bit more than they pay for. If that happens, then the true cost of not doing this now and again on that principle, becomes apparent. It isnt just the price of the prawns. Spot fine would've been more cost effective! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Why would a £6.99 theft go before a jury in the Crown Court?! It should have been up before the mags, so no legal aid, a quick 30 min trial, slapped wrist, off you go. The CPS must be loons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The details are rather scant in this case. It appears there was no evidence ( Habeus Prawnus) so curious why it was pushed. I was accused of stealing once in Asda . . . I was told by another shopper, but they never produced the informant. After voicing my indignation to store security, calling the manager and making a 'scene' at check-out, they gave me £50 voucher. It's possible store security is outsourced, so the firm will want to make a number of 'arrests' to justify their fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Tip - only buy Greenland, Icelandic prawns, then Norwegian in winter. Let me know when a cheap portable DNA testing kit becomes available so I can check their provenance. ...DNA tests revealed almost a fifth of Tesco's "responsibly sourced" cod from the "Pacific" were caught in the Atlantic, where stocks are endangered. Tesco blamed "incorrect information by our supplier". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel in w9 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 This must be why they chop off your hand for shop lifting in Saudi Arabia. A bit more of a deterrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 ...DNA tests revealed almost a fifth of Tesco's "responsibly sourced" cod from the "Pacific" were caught in the Atlantic, where stocks are endangered. Tesco blamed "incorrect information by our supplier". Let me know when a cheap portable DNA testing kit becomes available so I can check their provenance. Since Fukushima, I think any reference to the Pacific will soon disappear from packaging. 'Atlantic Prawns' will become the thing to nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Let me know when a cheap portable DNA testing kit becomes available so I can check their provenance. Um, I usually find reading the label is simpler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 If you nick a bag of prawns that costs £6.99 when they are on a BOGOF offer does that mean you should only be charged with stealing something worth £3.49 and a half pence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 If you nick a bag of prawns that costs £6.99 when they are on a BOGOF offer does that mean you should only be charged with stealing something worth £3.49 and a half pence? No, because you only nicked one bag. But if you nick two you still only get charged with nicking £6.99. Stands to reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 If you nick a bag of prawns that costs £6.99 when they are on a BOGOF offer does that mean you should only be charged with stealing something worth £3.49 and a half pence? You could claim you were collecting the prawns for someone who forgot to take their free bag. The supermarket would be certain to have at least one transaction where someone bought a single bag and didn't notice the offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europbaron Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 No, because you only nicked one bag. But if you nick two you still only get charged with nicking £6.99. Stands to reason? So the correct policy is to nick one and pay for one and immediately get a refund on the paid for bag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 something fishy here, but the scales of justice are seen to be in balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 So the correct policy is to nick one and pay for one and immediately get a refund on the paid for bag? No, the correct policy when shoplifting is to buy one legit and keep the receipt then nick loads more one at a time and just show the receipt if challenged. When you got enough return one of them for a refund. Sadly our criminal classes are so dumbed down these days they can't figure this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.