to believe stealing from Fortnum and Masons is just as bad

[longfingernails]

as stealing from a corner shop?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976526/Give-shoplifters-softer-sentences-steal-stores-Labour-MP-David-Lammy-says-luxury-shops-Fortnam-Mason-absorb-losses.html

David Lammy thinks otherwise... but really, would we expect any else from such an all-round ?

It's certainly a better class of shoplifting.

Anyway, the argument is sound. Just as it's a worse crime to thump an 87-year-old great-grandmother with brittle bones than it is to wallop a 24-year-old bouncer with a steroid habit and multiple black belts.

Yanbu - stealing is stealing.

So perceived 'class' of the store makes stealing ok?

Or, 'luxury' of the store makes stealing ok?

Does luxury mean higher profit/turnover for the store (higher priced goods)?

So which store would be able to absorb the losses better - F&M or (ftse listed co) Tesco?

Yanbu.

Though, if you're going to risk prosecution for theft it might as well be for something a bit snazzy, I suppose.

Professional shoplifters go for cheese, meat and razors apparently, for the resale value.

One could posit that someone stealing a pint of milk and a packet of eggs from a corner shop is more likely to be doing so out of hunger / inability to pay, whereas someone stealing a magnum of champagne from Fortnums, or a pair of cufflinks from Harrods, is more likely to be motivated by a desire to resell / profit.

ie, stealing from Fortnus or Harrods is worse.

But then, it's possible to make an argument for anything.

So if it is felt that someone can afford it, it is ok or less serious to steal from them?

Excellent.

Where's my balaclava, the people over the road have a HUUUUUUUGE house. They're rich. The impact on them will be minimal. They can afford it.

Shops can absorb losses but they don't absorb losses. We all pay because of the sticky fingered. Every time I buy something it is more expensive because theft is factored into pricing. It is so irresponsible to basically be saying look at your potential victims, decide which of them you think can take the hit. ffs.

And who decides what the impact is anyway? Surely the victim of the crime is the one who has the right to say what impact the crime has. Not to have that determination made by others.

That 87yr old grandma with brittle bones might have a fuck you attitude and give them a good going over with her brolly and that 24 yr old steroid addicted bouncer might have terrible anxiety and be unable to leave the house.

You can't look at people and decide for them how crime against them impacts them.

No matter how he puts it, there are those who will only hear it's ok to steal if who you're stealing from can afford it.

I think it is probably worse to steal from a small independent business rather than fortnum and masons because the former will have more of an affect on the business, which is more vulnerable anyway. That said I still think both are wrong.

What if you REALLY needed the fois gras and biltong though?

FenellaFelloriick

You're being silly, no one said it is OK to steal from someone because they're rich they said it's less bad. Surely that's obvious.

Imagine stealing a brand new TV from a little old lady who had saved up her pension for two years to buy it and couldn't afford insurance so wouldn't be able to replace it compared to stealing it from someone who had 5 TVs and home insurance. Both cases are completely morally wrong but the former is even more wrong than the latter in my mind because it will have more of an impact. (Stealing from rich people still has an impact - it's inconvenient, it can make them feel unsafe etc. just less of an impact in general).

Lammy is the twat who blamed IKEA for not having "enough cheap goods on sale" when they opened a new store in his constituency and there was a near riot when the bargains ran out. What he knows about business could be written with a broad nibbed pen on the back of a postage stamp and it would still be all wrong.

Odd Socks:

What is the motivation for stealing the telly? Presumably to sell it on. The same motive ( to make an easy profit at someone else's expense, rather than, you know, actually work and earn some money) in both cases. Why should the first attract a different sentence?

I disagree. I actually said ok or less serious and was making the point, as extremely clearly summed up in the final sentence of my post that what I was saying was that "No matter how he puts it, there are those who will only hear it's ok to steal if who you're stealing from can afford it."

I do not agree that that is silly. I think it is true and valid.

The courts have to take into account factors like this when deciding sentence (where sentence isn't fixed by law). After a person is convicted the court will not sentnece until his his lawyer has submissions on mitigation (and the prosecution may respond). These submissions address things like motive, extent of involvement, remorse and - you'll be disappointed to learn - impact on the victim and are used to decide how severe the sentence is. YABU!

Because it had a worse affect. Attempted murder or GBH carries a worse sentence than a similar assault that didn't end up with anyone dying. Courts often taken into account the affect on the victim when they pass sentence (that's why they have victim impact statements).

Ugh sorry typos! Still too early!

I thought it was silly that you were implying that "less serious" meant "totally ok" to steal from rich people since no one had claimed that it was at all acceptable. I don't think it's ok to punch anyone in the face but to punch a little child would be worse than a big song adult. Both are clearly repugnant.

Alhough I shouldn't have said "silly" because it's rude and you were making a valid point....I blame lack of sleep.

It's Chanel and LV this afternoon then for me.

I can't help what you inferred but I was very clear what I was saying.

How people who want to steal will interpret saying that posh shops can or should absorb losses and it's better to steal from them. They will hear that it's ok. They already justify their actions. This only helps!

That deciding what impact a crime has is not as simple as can they afford it.

What else? Oh yeah, shops don't absorb losses. They make us all pay.

Yeah, silly made me want to poke you with a big stick but I haven't had enough coffee yet. I'll come get you later.

The purpose of victim impact statements is to give victims the illusion that they are involved in the court process. They do not affect sentence. Think about it - should the sentence be increased because someone can make an articulate and emotive statement? What about murder, where one victim is part of a large and loving educated family who can provide a detailed emotionally charged statement/one victim is a homeless person with nobody to make such a statement at all. Why should the sentence be any different?

Stealing is just as wrong, no matter where. I'm gobsmacked that one of our elected representatives thinks there are degrees of stealing and some types of theft are more acceptable than others.

Or perhaps I shouldn't be.

Stealing is wrong end of.
Burglars and shop lifters don't go through a " oh, who can I steal from that can afford it?" Thought process before committing crimes, they go for easy targets or stuff they know they can sell.
Stealing from Harrods is in some ways worse than stealing from Lidl because people stealing from posh shops will be doing it to sell on and are likely to be part of an organised gang.
David Lammy is a muppet

This - "Victim statements... do not affect sentence" - is false! Impact on victims is specifically mentioned in the criminal sentencing guidelines as being something the court must take into account. Victim statements are presented to the court when it considers sentence and will be one element that the court takes into consideration when assessing severity.

see pp 4-6 on this document: www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/overarching-principles-seriousness-definitive-guideline/