JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

pulliptears

peachyprice wrote: »

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?

Thats the bit I have taken issue without throughout the thread. Yes, the boy was careless and lost the ipod however, the ipod was found and given to JJB Staff.
The woman who lied and stole it is 100% at fault here and is the criminal. Its neither here nor there as to how the ipod came to be in JJB's possession in the first place and not of any consequence that the boy lost it.

Working on that theory should we not treat burglary as seriously if the owner left a window unlocked? Where does it stop?

Pollycat

marleyboy wrote: »

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.

Me too, Marleyboy.
My niece has some pretty expensive (IMHO) gadgets, including an ipod, DSi and phone - and I'm not 100% sure that she appreciates the need to look after them.

BUT - it's none of my business.
Just as it's nobody else's business that this 11 year old boy had an ipod which he (admittedly carelessly) lost.

[Deleted User]

pulliptears wrote: »

Thats the bit I have taken issue without throughout the thread. Yes, the boy was careless and lost the ipod however, the ipod was found and given to JJB Staff.
The woman who lied and stole it is 100% at fault here and is the criminal. Its neither here nor there as to how the ipod came to be in JJB's possession in the first place and not of any consequence that the boy lost it.

Working on that theory should we not treat burglary as seriously if the owner left a window unlocked? Where does it stop?

But you have to consider the wider picture here.

iPod = £150 (actually, a bit less)

How much will it cost the police (i.e. you, the taxpayer) to resolve this?

An awful lot MORE than £150 - that's for sure!

In the grand scheme of things, the woman's a thief yep...but I can fully see why the police aren't interested.

pulliptears

Deleted_User wrote: »

But you have to consider the wider picture here.

iPod = £150 (actually, a bit less)

How much will it cost the police (i.e. you, the taxpayer) to resolve this?

An awful lot MORE than £150 - that's for sure!

In the grand scheme of things, the woman's a thief yep...but I can fully see why the police aren't interested.

so this would make it right for me to go over to Tesco and shoplift a nice beef joint for tea because its under a tenner so not worth it?

Theft is theft regardless, and stopping it is actually part of the job of the Police. Its ridiculous to think that the law should rest on the value of the items stolen.

peachyprice

pulliptears wrote: »

Its neither here nor there as to how the ipod came to be in JJB's possession in the first place and not of any consequence that the boy lost it.

But it is though. If JJB had offered to look after it for the boy then given it away they would have be as liable as the thief, but they didn't, they only had is in their possession because of the carelessness of the owner. It is IMO very relevant how they came to be in possession.

pulliptears

peachyprice wrote: »

But it is though. If JJB had offered to look after it for the boy then given it away they would have be as liable as the thief, but they didn't, they only had is in their possession because of the carelessness of the owner. It is IMO very relevant how they came to be in possession.

which doesnt change the fact that it was stolen though does it? regardless who it was stolen from, it was stolen.

There is far too much farting around in all of this, it boils down to the fact the woman intentionally lied to procure an item she knew did not belong to her.

peachyprice

pulliptears wrote: »

which doesnt change the fact that it was stolen though does it? regardless who it was stolen from, it was stolen.

There is far too much farting around in all of this, it boils down to the fact the woman intentionally lied to procure an item she knew did not belong to her.

Of course it doesn't change the fact that it was stolen, but it does change who OP should have been blaming and pursuing in the first place.

She was convinced that it was JJB's fault, and that they should recompense her grandson.

If she had taken her blinkers off and accepted that her grandson played a role in the saga and insisted from the off the police pursue the real thief rather than trying to apportion blame entirely on JJB she may have had a result by now. As it is, some week - 10 days later the evidence has probably been overwritten and the thief is home and dry.

Freddie_Snowbits

pulliptears wrote: »

There is far too much farting around in all of this, it boils down to the fact the woman intentionally lied to procure an item she knew did not belong to her.

But the fact remains the negligence of the boy LOST the trinket in the first place. If said emporium had no CCTV, then ... it would still be lost.

As for the police, other woman, whatever, these events occured after the item was Lost.

If, when and should the police get involved is down to the person who Lost the trinket

aliasojo

Can you imagine you lot together on a jury? It would be a hung verdict and a stalemate for weeks.

(Notice I said 'you lot', I gave up ages ago. )

peachyprice

aliasojo wrote: »

Can you imagine you lot together on a jury? It would be a hung verdict and a stalemate for weeks.

(Notice I said 'you lot', I gave up ages ago. )

Do you think they'd put us up in a nice hotel, or a very MSE hostel