Bit victim blamey? And putting being attacked equal with being an attacker?

[JustBeyond]

That's my opinion, what do you think?

www.facebook.com/dorsetpolice/photos/a.718756231475885.1073741828.568402286511281/1618761368142029/?type=3

How drunk is too drunk to
-walk back home on your own

• being able to accurately judge if the other person has consented
• to drive a car?

I don't know about you but after a pint of so of beer, you can't drive a car. But I certainly wouldn't see that as being drunk enough to make walking on my own dangerous, like the falling into the river bit, or drunk enough to not realise I'm raping someone...

The main reason for locking them is because of it did get nicked insurance would look for any reason not to pay out...

Really? I'd have thought that for most people the main reason for locking stuff up is so it doesn't get nicked in the first place. Some things are irreplaceable and compensation from the insurance company doesn't really make it better.

Very good question marg. where's the magical limit of "too much"? One beer? Tipsy? Drunk but not falling over drunk?

Look of someone is going to break into a house or a car they are going to break into a house or a car.

Locked or not they don't have the ignition keys so the intention was already going to be hot wiring. Do thieves really let something like a locked door foil them? Not like you can Google or you tube how to get into a car is it

They aren't going to give up cos the doors locked if a car has a high street value.

Same as no one's going to get some mates together a vehicle together turn up to a house they picked months ago as they know the old lady inside is pretty much deaf and the only it messes are likely to be the local druggies who wouldn't go to the police anyway and say "ooops doors locked let's go home"

It's why it's called breaking and entering.

The lock is really the only thing that stands between insurance pay out or no pay out.

Pushing the problem onto someone else is not prevention.

If an area or person was chosen as a result of the fact that area is renowned for being one where police couldn't catch a cold or the victims likely to be someone who couldn't go to the police or they know the cameras have been broken since 2003 then the reasons for the crime are there regardless of who you push it onto

And again a poster is not helpful in the slightest. It's just lazy.

Makes people feel better thinking they have done something when it's a meaningless bit of paper and does nothing to help anyone

When I have to do the school run and can't find my keys to lock up, I don't worry any more than usual that my house will be broken into. I worry about the insurance not paying up.

It's rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship basically.

Never mind handing out life jackets or building a better boat. Let's just look busy

You're right in that it is just a poster, but this won't be the extent of the police's response to their Christmas campaign. This poster will also have been created by a civilian member of staff not an officer.
It is likely that there will be increased police presence in hotspot areas, but like everything else these days budgets are massively stretched and they simply can't afford to cover everything.
It is not a police officer's fault that someone goes out and commits a crime. It is no one elses fault apart from the offender themselves.

So you just lock doors in your home for insurance? You only lock them when you are out? Never when you are in? People don't worry that someone may invade their home and do more than steal things? Yes of course people can and do beat locks and alarms - these things can be a deterrent which is why people use them. If they were that worthless there really would be no demand. They do have a success rate, but like anything - not perfect.

And as mentioned - many don't lock things up just or even because insurance demands it. Some things insurance can't replace, insurance sometimes doesn't even come close to replacing original items sometimes, some things like bikes may not be worth insuring. Some people can't afford insurance- but still lock their doors/cars/bikes.

Bodies/items - a crime is a crime. A victim a victim (some crimes more severe of course.) Some people really react badly to a home invasion - even if not physically attacked. It can be life changing. The point remains - these people are victims of crime. We don't wave victim blaming banners when advised to lock up. Although it seems we do pretend we only lock up for insurance purposes....

I'm not pretending. I am no more afraid of a random someone coming in my house and murdering me in my sleep than I am of a plane crashing onto my house. I'm certainly a lot more concerned that my house will catch on fire during the night. Because I'm able to understand what the chances are logically of each thing happening.

Insurance purposes still apply when you are in the house and asleep btw.

And I didn't say "people only lock for insurance", I used a real life example of me only thinking of the insurance.

I think this is a prime example of why the poster is valid;
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-38357737