Money Moral Dilemma: Is pick and mix nibbling theft?

keith26

carlgriffiths1 wrote: »

Doesn't it depend on how the Pick n Mix is charged for? At some of them you fill the bag with what you want and then weigh it. you are then given a printed sticker showing the charge which you have to pay at the till. so even if you or your "robbing" friend eat a few you are still paying for them a few minutes later.

isn't the legal definition of theft something along the lines of "having the intention to permanently deprive the true owner of his/her rights in connection with the said item"?

if so, you intend to pay and as such have not committed theft.

However, if you are steady handed enough to cradle the bag of sweets on the weighing scales so you get a cheaper sticker, that is another matter!!

Your definition of the theft act is rubbish and how would you pay if youve already eaten them? As a copper it is theft which everway some of you lot may see it and I find it worrying that so many, who would consider themselves honest, would act like that, says a lot about society doesnt it....

gaily

tryfive wrote: »

I think you'll find that EATING (whatever it is) is generally quite an effective means of permanently depriving the store of it!

Not difficult to prove intention there either!

If that were to be the case, just to lower the whole tone of this debate, I'd make sure I'd checked out the ladies before leaving - that way, the food would still be on the property - albeit in another form. With the length of soem of these films nowadays, it's not too far fetched!

But, no, I'm not condoning the practice, just being obtuse!!

ghol26

I couldn't believe my eyes in Asda (Arrowe Park) on Tuesday, saw a woman walking down the fruit aisle quite merrily munching on an apple!! Quite how she was planning on paying for that I'll never know. Now surely THAT'S theft!:rotfl:

carlgriffiths1

keith26 wrote: »

Your definition of the theft act is rubbish and how would you pay if youve already eaten them? As a copper it is theft which everway some of you lot may see it and I find it worrying that so many, who would consider themselves honest, would act like that, says a lot about society doesnt it....

I am not one to take things personally ....BUT...

you make reference to the state of society in your post. Yet you still find it socially acceptable as an upstanding citizen and protector of society to criticise another person's contribution to a moral dilemma and dismiss the same as "rubbish".

Hmmm, what does this say about the state of our society's protectors?

Also, it is clear from my original post that i did not claim to have the exact definition of theft. The part of the sentence that said "something along the lines of" would imply that i do not claim to be an expert.

My definition was -

"having the intention to permanently deprive the true owner of his/her rights in connection with the said item"

The ACTUAL legal definition according to the Theft Act (as amended) is -

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

Personally i do not think that my attempt was bad - it has the key words in there such as intention, permanently, deprive. Plus i think if you read both definitions it is quite clear that the underlying principles are the same.

I certainly do not think that my attempt as a lay person is, as you nicely say, "rubbish".

Furthermore, I would like to point out another concern that I have (as obviously this is the appropriate forum for doing so). Besides my newly developed concerns over the state of our society's protectors and their views of society I am very concerned that you appear to have overlooked the facts contained within my post.

You are as a policeman aware that your job relies heavily on facts and evidence! However your comment of "how would you pay if youve already eaten them?" is worrying.

I made clear reference in my post to the example of a pick and mix set up where you bag up your sweets, weigh them, print off a sticker with the price, stick it to the bag and then proceed the person at the checkout. IF, between the act of printing off the sticker and paying at the checkout, i open that bag and eat one or more sweets that Sir is how i can pay for sweets that i have already eaten.

the facts are quite clear and in these circumstances i think res ispa loquitor applies don't you?

Case closed Your Honor!!