JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

sookipeaspud wrote: »

Once the Ipod connects to the internet, APPLE / Itunes will record the IP address of the user. Apple could provide the IP address of the device to the police who will be able to execute a warrant (if granted by the magistrates) to enter the property and seize the said Ipod.

The OP will have to provide details of the purchased Ipod and if not then the registration details of the Ipod in question. There MUST of been some sort of registration to sync the Ipod to a computer.

Once the police have a warrant they can smash down the door if necessary to get the Ipod.

I was told this by a friend at my local pub who has a retired uncle from the police.


Thanks,

that makes not one iota of difference.It Is not some sort of homing beacon that sends out a signal when it is lost or stolen - It is just a hard disk drive.Nothing more nothing less. I hook my ipod up to about 3 different computers during the day let alone when i take it round a friends house. It does not send a signal from the ipod to say where it is or whose it is so your friends friends uncle policeman friend has told you wrong.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Pollycat wrote: »

Yes, peachyprice, I CAN see why that would make SOME people sceptical of the OP's version of events.

However, I may be being naive but the OP's detailed version of what was said on the cctv (information passed onto her from her son) makes me tend to believe her version.

I don't know why the OP hasn't answered the question about sound but I DO know that some posters have hounded the OP quite agressively about updates and answers to questions..

Maybe that's why she's not answered.

We have not hounded her at all Polly.. its been a fair few days since this thread was started so yes, we would like some answers to our questions. Thats kind of how this place works. You have a problem - you ask about it on here. People answer with more questions to the OP then they answer back.

Its called communication.

Pollycat

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

See your just picking an argument now - ~You knew exactly what I meant by saying i believe the OP - As In i believe what has happened to her..I do not believe that they could hear or read what was being said on the CCTV now stop being so bloody picky for once in your life would you.

No, I'm not just picking an argument.
Of course, I didn't know exactly what you meant.
We're not having a face-to-face discussion on this where nuances of voice, facial expressions and body language can also help to understand the meaning of the spoken word.
I read your words - I commented on them.

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Oh no, as you can see Polly is still being pedantic and holding out for an argument about what i may or may not have said let alone the Op.

This was in response to the post below from Freddie_Snowbits:about

Funny how the Abuse Button Punchers and OP Victim Huggers are strangely silent on this thread today. Yesterday 2:49 PM

I'm not being pedantic.
When I'm asked to 'remember that the cctv had no sound' and no such thing had (as far as I can see and you have not (yet) showed where I've missed it) ever been said or proved, then I have every right to disagree with you.
I have not been abusive or rude to you.

I'm not sure from your response to Freddie_Snowbit's post whether you think my posts are in need of reporting as abuse or if you think I'm one of the posters who are reporting Freddie's posts.

I'd guess that you see me as an OP Victim Hugger.
That's YOUR prerogative - in the same way as it's MY prerogative to believe what the OP says if that's what I choose to do.

Freddie_Snowbits

Can we leave the spculation, grief and guidance on thios post alone now, it is past its sell by date.

marleyboy

peachyprice wrote: »

It's an Ipod, not the crown jewels.

Do you really thing the police are going to do this, especially taking into account that the theft involved no violence towards the child who lost (yes, lost) it?

Sorry peach, but Theft is Theft, no matter what is stolen, its still a criminal offence. When it comes to value, I am reminded of the phrase "One persons junk is another's treasure".

That would be like saying "Yes the old womans house was burgled, but they only stole £30, and some cheap jewellery, its not as if they took all her antiques".

I am pretty sure the child does not think its some cheap tacky gift that isn't worth the hassle.

I am shocked that you think just because it is an Ipod, its not worthy of being a crime.

Pollycat

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

We have not hounded her at all Polly.. its been a fair few days since this thread was started so yes, we would like some answers to our questions. Thats kind of how this place works. You have a problem - you ask about it on here. People answer with more questions to the OP then they answer back.

Its called communication.

Then we muist agree to disagree, Jeff.

I 'kind of know how this place works' but thanks anyway.

It would be great if it were as simple as you describe:
have a problem
ask for advice
get asked questions
answer questions
problem solved - result!!!

but the OP (IMHO - but obviously not yours) has been accused of lying, has been told her grandson is 'stupid', her son is irresponsible to give his son such an expensive item, some silly posters posting photos of police boxes etc.

It doesn't surprise me at all that she's not come back.

marleyboy

Good point Pollycat, but I have to admit I would not give an 11yr an Ipod, Iphone, Laptop or any other type of expensive gift, this is not so much for the fear of him losing it or mistreating it (albeit those factors would also be the case), it would be more the fear of some older kid stealing it from him.

However, we are not here to judge either the OP, the Father or the Son. Yes he bought his Son an Ipod, and Yes the child left it behind in the store, (kids do these things regardless of their value), but neither of these factors should deter anyone from the fact that an Ipod was stolen, whether or not it was originally lost.

lucylucky

As the OP is happily posting away on other threads I assume (dangerous thing to do I know) that she has no more interest in this particular thread.

marleyboy

Who can blame her, this thread has turned into more of a circus act with false accusations and petty quibbling, by members who really should know better, if I was the OP I would probably do likewise.

The OP has stated she will update the thread when she has anymore information to give, not when other members click their fingers, nor when others think she should, she will post an update in her own time IF and WHEN there are any further developments to report.

peachyprice

marleyboy wrote: »

Sorry peach, but Theft is Theft, no matter what is stolen, its still a criminal offence. When it comes to value, I am reminded of the phrase "One persons junk is another's treasure".

That would be like saying "Yes the old womans house was burgled, but they only stole £30, and some cheap jewellery, its not as if they took all her antiques".

I am pretty sure the child does not think its some cheap tacky gift that isn't worth the hassle.

I am shocked that you think just because it is an Ipod, its not worthy of being a crime.

Marley, you misunderstood me.

I agree, a crime has been committed, a woman has stolen the child's IPod, no dispute. And for that child it must have been distressing.

However, I don't believe for one minute that the police are going to start tracing IP addresses and breaking down doors for a) a £150 ipod b) the fact that the boy was not robbed, harmed or held at knifepoint etc. c) a crime that was only committed due to the owners carelessness in the first place. Do you?