to think that those who buy stolen good are...

[HelpMeGetOutOfHere]

one of the lowest people in society? Bloke at work today boasting bout his new ps4 he brought for £200 last night. No box no cables, so obviously stolen, I said as much and he shrugged his shoulders.

I hope that the ps4 locks up when connected and he can't play it. To knowingly buy something that has been stolen is awful. It shoes a complete lack of morals. What about the person its been stolen from? Some poor kid whos parents can't afford to replace it, and aren't insured. Or even if its from a multi millionaires house its still disgusting.

Apparently my thinking is skewed because I've been burgled twice and know the devastation that it can cause, regardless of insurance status. Its not just the missing items is the trauma of having some unkown rifling through your belongings and removing your safe haven

the idea that stolen from a shop is ok because of nasty capitalism is the definition of entitled

Entitled in what way? What exactly do you think I think I am entitled to?

I just can't get all bothered about some shops losing a bit of money when the entire way that wealth and goods are distributed is so out of whack with anything approaching fairness. And in a world where war criminals are lauded and people who profit on the back of sweatshop labour are given seats in the House of Lords, there are bigger fish that need dealing with sharpish than a junkie stealing a bit of steak to order. Sure, they're running a number and are doing not very nice things. But so are lots of people who will never have to worry about getting a criminal record despite shafting many more people than your average shoplifter could ever dream of. As for staff getting a hard time from management, that is surely down to bad management and poor employer/employee relations? Anyone with half a functioning brain should surely know that the person responsible for theft is the thief themselves, not any member of staff.

I'm guessing that there is a more elegant way to present class war, rather than put to forward a defence of pilfering the stationary cupboard.

It's not class war. It's just saying that lots of people have got a number going. Only some of them will get into trouble for it and the ones that have status in the form of wealth and power on their side are not those who will get in trouble. Despite the fact that their 'number' is more damaging, in societal terms, in human terms, than someone nicking stuff out of a shop.

It is, well, how it is.

I had a friend who brought a stolen ps3 earlier this year, who once he connected to the Internet whilst playing a game was traced by the police and got it taken off him.

I wonder what a repent and suffer in proportion to thy crime-size, mighty or minuscule, justice system would look like. The current caveat is that only the elite produces judges and public representatives capable of administrating the system itself. And, obviously, a system can't judge, expose or punish its own administrative and wealth-creating class without collapsing.

If I write it out carefully enough I might even believe it myself.

Incidentally, British kings used to put forward a similar argument. And, when they were, in several instalments, made subject to British laws themselves, things did indeed go badly for them, (as it had done previously when they were subject to Papal decrees).

There might actually be a perfectly good argument for keeping the elite outside the law.

What, you mean in case the proles take it into their heads to start a revolution and then they all end up being sent to the gulags?

Personally, I would just feel really uncomfortable having something that was stolen in my house. I wouldn't feel like I properly 'owned' it, almost as if I had actually stolen it myself because I would know it did really belong to someone else :/

Even if it was something stolen from a shop, I would still not really feel like it was mine. If I'm going to spend my money on something I don't want to feel any guilt about it. I can sort of understand, though not condone, the buying of stolen goods but I would never do it.

Handling stolen goods gets you a much longer sentence than theft!

Your colleague is a criminal.

Because the elite and the executive made from it, is in charge of the country during a crisis. And, there will be a series of things which the executive does in order to extricate itself and the country alongside it.

Tony Blair argues pretty much the same thing when asked whether or not he is a criminal. Richard Nixon tried something similar, but he screwed his defence up. I suspect that had he been speaking to a senate hearing and not a reporter that he considered a lightweight, he'd have made a better job of it. He was well enough versed in the arguments.

Tony Blair was actually who I had in the forefront of my mind when I referred to war criminals.

I do think it would be interesting if we actually started getting these sons of bitches and holding them properly to account for their actions. It will never happen, of course, but there is always the possibility that doing so will result in a better society where the people in charge aren't just getting away with everything.

I think you can hold a leader to account if he crosses the line between an executive and a general, and actually orders battlefield policy. Or at least the Hague tries. Milosevic would have been a test, had he not argued himself into an early grave. Some commentators had remarked on the success that he was having in court. But, if a leader simply makes the executive decisions that his office is supposed to make (regardless of what the public thinks of them) then it's hard to see what can be done about it. The public can try to reduce executive power later.

Abraham Lincoln did discuss battlefield policy with his generals. So, I don't know which defendant will bring that point up in court, in the Hague, or what legal standing it would have if he did.

You can make excuses as long as you like and you can blame whoever you like but people that steal or handle stolen goods are still scum thieves.

I can't believe anyone is deluded enough to think there is nothing wrong with stealing from shops.

Well this has certainly enlightened me as to how other people think.

The guy is a Pratt of the highest order and you take anything he says with a huge pinch of salt. However if it is stolen then I hope he does get caught and an example made of him. Luckily I don't have to work with him he just comes into the office once a day to drop off time sheets and work notes.

I wouldn't buy something that had been knicked. My brother had his shed burgled and all his fishing stuff pinched. He was in tears - it was horrible. I hate fucking thieves and everyone who enables them - and bleating on about how Oh, bankers are much worse is totally missing the point.

You shouldn't have crossed through the scum bit Boring, you were bang on.
I noticed the bit about the staff being held up and threatened by these scum were conveniently ignored and only the bit about the nasty capitalists who had the utter cheek to work hard and grow a business deserving to be robbed from used in the argument?
I hope he gets caught too, although he has probably been robbed himself paying £200 for half a PS4. Thick as well as scum.

DoraGora, so you think the reason that the elite are never (or at least rarely) called to account is just to protect us? Not asking if you believe it, you understand, just asking if that's the reason.

It's interesting; I'd never thought about it that way before.

Milosevic was very well received I agree, considering what the fucker had done.

YouAreBoring, I just find it interesting that there are people who do much worse things who are lauded and feted and invited to be after dinner speakers.