« Still a quagmire in occupied country | Main | It's Friday so no German Jokes »


BBC NEWS Shopowner angry over 'let offs'

A shop owner has criticised the law after claiming he caught 300 thieves - but saw only nine convicted.
Steve Lord, owner of Hill Shop and Videos in Stroud, fitted 12 CCTV cameras after losing 30,000 of goods.
Despite giving police pictures of shoplifters, Mr Lord says the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is reluctant to pursue cases.
A CPS spokeswoman said she could not comment on individual cases but added: "Where there is evidence we prosecute."
Mr Lord said: "Unfortunately the CPS deem it, in many cases, to not be in the public interest to prosecute these people."

I rang my local Crime Reduction Offier yesterday (didn't they used to be Crime Prevention? have they given up?) about the new venture and putting CCTV in to the public area to catch any scrotes who want to disprupt my persuit of profit. I got no encouragement or advice on crime prevention, all I got was alecture on the Data Protection act and how I must keep back up copies of films, put notices up etc or I would be breaking the law. And that sort of lawbreaking is much easier to investigate than stopping spotty youths in Burberry hats who have no sense of meum and teum.

And no wonder we have a government which has promoted "The philosophical assimilation of meum and teum,..(which).., must of necessity be followed by their practical confusion, resulting in the sanction of theft, robbery, &c".


The police said, "the final decision to prosecute ultimately rests with the Crown Prosecution Service." For this attempt to pass the blame to hold water, the police must show that they did all that they could to further a prosecution. Did they, for example, even charge the toe-rags? Assuming that they did, and that all necessary administration details were completed correctly, the CPS should be able to explain why the 'public interest' is not best served by locking them up. Could it be that the CPS are even more clue-free than the police? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.)

Post a comment