Ever had trouble with car thieves?

Tony

Brilliant

One can but dream.

Regards

Mick

If only

I really can't agree with killing the miscreant.
But I can agree with maiming them permanently. I had my own car stolen while far from home.

It all comes down to the chances of being caught while stealing your car. Cars could have been made thief-proof decades ago. The argument against was that the manufacturers didn't want to be faced with several million idiots (except you) who had locked themselves out in difficult situations. The bottom line is that most human beings are total idiots. You are paying for their weakness by having a car with an invitation written in large letters on the doors.
Just as there are those who leave their engines running and the windows wound down while visiting a shop. Isn't it tempting to just get behind the wheel and rev the engine and sound the horn while rocking backwards and forwards like a big kid? Of course they'd never see the joke!

Reminds me of one of the Robocop films (second one I think). The film has some bits where it shows a news program and it shows a commercial either before or after the news program. Anyway one of the ads they showed was a guy breaking into a car and when he trys to start it he gets automatically locked into the seat (some sort of bar comes round him) and then electrocuted.

I seem to recall seeing footage of anti theft devices on cars in South Africa which involved flame throwers designed to incinerate would be car thieves.

A quick google came us with this:

quote:

South Africans are fighting back. As the problems worsened and more temperate responses failed to have appreciable effect (educating drivers about how to spot trouble and avoid confrontations, installing conventional anti-theft devices on vehicles), more drastic measures have taken their place. In 1999, it's possible to get your car equipped with the latest in personal security weapons -- a driver-operated flamethrower called The Blaster.

The $650 device is built into the car doors, and is operated by pushing a button beside the foot pedals. It sends a man-high fireball from the car, engulfing the hijacker without endangering passengers or damaging the car's paint job.

I guess this gave a new meaning to a "Hot Hatch"

I have suffered from car thieves. The annoying consequence for me was that my insurer treated my claim as if it was an own goal and at renewal time I ended up paying a higher premium to reflect my claims history. In addition I lost out as my insurance company and the gap cover insurer could not agree on the value of my stolen car and I ended up £1,000 out of pocket.

B

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Cars could have been made thief-proof decades ago. The argument against was that the manufacturers didn't want to be faced with several million idiots...

actually the argument against is what we're seeing more of these days now that new cars are rather difficult to steal.
If they can't steal your car in the time honoured fashion then they'll either put a gun to your head and 'ask' for the keys or break in to your house to try and find the spares.

quote:

If they can't steal your car in the time honoured fashion then they'll either put a gun to your head and 'ask' for the keys or break in to your house to try and find the spares.

Yup, + they will go for the house that isn't alarmed...

And when all the houses are alarmed will they stop?

...and when your society is so fortified and barricaded will you then stop hating the poor?

So 'the poor' are all car thieves?

Sorry Guvnor. Just an honest troll.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Sorry Guvnor. Just an honest troll.

A poor but honest troll?

You're going off-topic Nime.

Until we find an effective way with dealing with drug abuse, however that may be, the problems of car crime and burglary will not go away.

We don't live in a world where we can leave our doors unlocked, as much as we would like to. But people need to take responsibility for their actions e.g. the CPS when they mark off incidents, Courts when sentencing, the police who are under a duty to investigate incidents properly and fairly, and victims who do need to in some case, act responsibly with their own proerty, and finally those that witness such incidents shoudl come forward in the knowledge that they too will be looked after free of threat or intimidation.

The above does happen in some cases. It does not in others. It ought to in all cases.

You can berate me all you wish, but when you look at how the judicial system deals with low level crime...

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Until we find an effective way with dealing with drug abuse, however that may be, the problems of car crime and burglary will not go away.

I can think of a few effective ways... whether we want to pay the price, not just in monetary terms, is a different question.

John,

I could not agree more....

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

You can berate me all you wish, but when you look at how the judicial system deals with low level crime...

andy c!

From memory, the Act of Settlement 1701 established judicial independence in England; making Parliament the supreme law making body; establishing the tenure of judges in return for the judges judging according to the laws passed by parliament.

So, your comment ought to be aimed at the lawmakers instead of the "judicial system" perhaps?

quote:

So, your comment ought to be aimed at the lawmakers instead of the "judicial system" perhaps?

Not at all. Ask yourself what is the maximum penalty for theft of/ from motor vehicle on indictment? What is the maximum penalty for burglary? Who decides on the imposition of these penalties? Not the law makers, but the policy makers who decide on cost/human rights/proportionality actually.

andy c

Ask myself?

What I see is a policeman making comments critical of the judiciary on a public internet forum. You are as entitled to your opinions as anybody else but I suggest you consider your position.

Judges are given latitude in sentencing by lawmakers because it is impossible to cover every exigency with raw legislation.

What is a "policy maker" ?

Deane

And why shouldn't a policeman be critical of the judiciary? The judiciary in this country sucks. I am critical of the police but to be fair to the likes of andy c he is let down and let down badly by his masters (whoever they be) and especially the politicians.

quote:

What I see is a policeman making comments critical of the judiciary on a public internet forum. You are as entitled to your opinions as anybody else but I suggest you consider your position.

Thanks for the advice, Deane. My comments are my own, and do not reflect those of whom I work for. There are chief constables who have been critical of the judiciary in the past. I am not going to be gunned down for personally suggesting that in some cases the sentencing criteria could be flawed.

Oh, and whilst you are at it, I was not just critical of the judiciary. Re-read my post. You will note that I said sometimes its got right, and sometimes its got wrong.

What would you have me do? Bury my head in the sand and pretend everyhting is fine?

You suggest by your comment you feel I overstepped the mark?

In case you missed it:

quote:

We don't live in a world where we can leave our doors unlocked, as much as we would like to. But people need to take responsibility for their actions e.g. the CPS when they mark off incidents, Courts when sentencing, the police who are under a duty to investigate incidents properly and fairly, and victims who do need to in some case, act responsibly with their own proerty, and finally those that witness such incidents shoudl come forward in the knowledge that they too will be looked after free of threat or intimidation.

The above does happen in some cases. It does not in others. It ought to in all cases.

quote:

What is a "policy maker" ?

Laws are written and passed. They contain what the actual legislation is, and also the maximum sentences available etc. then criteria is set in place for 1st time offending, and scales are put in place to deal with persistent offenders etc. Who puts these scales in place? I think you will find its not the house of lords.

The organisation I work for expects me to be honest and fair in dealing with investigations. Its linked to human rightsand other legislation. Deane, we have discussed this before. I have no secret to hide re this, and have been honest.

quote:

Judges are given latitude in sentencing by lawmakers because it is impossible to cover every exigency with raw legislation.

So are magistrates, and they deal with far more of the low level either way/summary only crime we are talking about. They, as other agencies, also sometimes get it wrong, don't they?

quote:

You can berate me all you wish, but when you look at how the judicial system deals with low level crime...

Andy,

You kept your occupation secret for a while and I understand why you did this. I also understand your reasons for subsequently making it clear in this very public domain. I doubt that anyone here is actually berating either you personally or the police in general.

I would regard it as a truism that most burglaries and car thefts are drug-related. The solution to that particular problem may not lie with the judiciary, detection or even sentencing of convicted offenders at all, but with a massive shake-up in how we tackle the question of addiction to narcotics...

If we can at least legalise (and tax) the use of drugs currently in the B category, we may yet address the issue of those starting off on class B drugs moving to the A category simply because those selling B tend to push their clients onto A.

The 5 series Naim gear is class B; the Classic and 500 series is class A. The upgrade potential is only there because the same dealer is offering the entire range.

andy

You are not a policeman in the jurisdiction I live in so my comments are out of order.

Consider though, that judges may not respond to your criticism or any criticism. Consider why this might be.

Deane

quote:

Consider though, that judges may not respond to your criticism or any criticism. Consider why this might be.

History shows that when judges wish to 'make comment', they do so. There is nothing wrong in having an honesty policy, the clever bit is in knowing what to say then when to say it.

quote:

You are not a policeman in the jurisdiction I live in so my comments are out of order.

If I were, would that alter your stance, either personally or professionally?