So... What do you guys think of this story in the Daily Mail? Does it make you angry?

[Billy the Fish]

Very clever of the Mail to just throw in a one liner about the insurance just to absolve the couple. Insurance would have lessened the crime, that's what it is for. Had they not let the policy lapse, and let's be honest, they would have received renewal notices, then their insurers would have paid for either a replacement or, more likely, market value. Talking of market value, the Mail bang on about a £30,000 caravan when in fact it was worth considerably less! Quick look at Auto Trader shows a four berth four year old caravan is in the region of £10k. Not quite such a big impact as saying it is £30k.

And why would insurance lessen the crime? Because the couple would have had a pay out and could have bought a second hand caravan and continued with their holidays. The ownership problem would have transferred to the insurance company (and of course it would be unlikely that the mail would then have the human interest story!).

They are victims of a crime but they are also stupid victims. I have little sympathy. Compares with people who get hurt abroad but didn't have any insurance and then expect us to club together to pay for them to come home.

Blimey, I can see your logic, but it's some of the most backwards and tenuous guerilla logic i've ever seen!

 

[drew]

I am sorry......but blaming the victims is just the ravings of an arssehoole......you really need to think a bit before you spout your craap.......a crime is a crime.....don't even try to dilute that.....

Think it is you that is the moron. They are victims but by not having insurance they exacerbated their predicament. Perhaps you should read my post properly before making a prat of yourself.

 

[drew]

Blimey, I can see your logic, but it's some of the most backwards and tenuous guerilla logic i've ever seen!

Guerilla logic, fantastic phrase!

 

[somerset]

Think it is you that is the moron. They are victims but by not having insurance they exacerbated their predicament. Perhaps you should read my post properly before making a prat of yourself.

a crime is a fookin crime....... why don't you shape up.......

 

[beorhthelm]

Obviously I'm using my brain to ignore the sensationalism and the bullsh*t, but when you look at the facts - they had their property stolen and the police have no power to retrieve it for them - it is still ridiculous situation, regardless of which newspaper reported it.

you haven't got all the facts and you're being swayed by the sensationalism. just after the video is says "...the officers failed to obtain sufficient evidence to prove the traveller had stolen the caravan or was handling stolen goods" and this is in the letter from the local plod. does the newspaper go on to explore the details and reasons behind this? no, it goes on to editorialise that this is because its travellers involved and their human rights. it relies on the victims account that the police had an issue with evicting and rehousing the travellers, but theres nothing to back this up.

though no doubt they are a victim of crime, and frankly i dont see why the police couldn't prosecute, its more likly down to lack of time and resources than any issues of human rights blurted out in the headline.

 

[drew]

a crime is a fookin crime....... why don't you shape up.......

Still a moron then!! Where did I say they weren't the victims of a crime!

 

[Billy the Fish]

you haven't looked at the facts and you're being swayed by the sensationalism. just after the video is says "...the officers failed to obtain sufficient evidence to prove the traveller had stolen the caravan or was handling stolen goods" and this is in the letter from the local plod. does the newspaper go on to explore the details and reasons behind this? no, it goes on to editorialise that this is because its travellers involved and their human rights. it relies on the victims account that the police had an issue with evicting and rehousing the travellers, but theres nothing to back this up.

though no doubt they are a victim of crime, and frankly i dont see why the police couldn't prosecute, its more likly down to lack of time and resources than any issues of human rights blurted out in the headline.

These are exactly the facts I'm talking about. As others have poined out the DM have chucked in a few half truths and the insurance angle to outrage it's readers a little bit more once they've established the anti-gypsy stuff.

The facts are that the couple have proof of purchase of a particular vehicle that is tied to them by serial number and they have reported it stolen.
Another person now has posession of that vehicle, which the police themselves found by matching the serial number.

To most sane people that would be proof of handling stolen goods. The issue is why the police can't, or don't want to prove something that is obvious to anyone, and why they don't have any power to give it back to it's rightful owner.

 

[beorhthelm]

The issue is why the police can't, or don't want to prove something that is obvious to anyone, and why they don't have any power to give it back to it's rightful owner.

right, that is the core issue. thats not the headline. nowhere in the story does it explore the possible reasons for this situation. insufficient evidence? maybe they dont have the power because of a technicality? or a normal procedure which would apply to you having my stolen stereo? maybe there *is* simply a reluctance to confront travellers, but they dont convincingly make that case.

 

[drew]

These are exactly the facts I'm talking about. As others have poined out the DM have chucked in a few half truths and the insurance angle to outrage it's readers a little bit more once they've established the anti-gypsy stuff.

The facts are that the couple have proof of purchase of a particular vehicle that is tied to them by serial number and they have reported it stolen.
Another person now has posession of that vehicle, which the police themselves found by matching the serial number.

To most sane people that would be proof of handling stolen goods. The issue is why the police can't, or don't want to prove something that is obvious to anyone, and why they don't have any power to give it back to it's rightful owner.

Makes you wonder whether they have a claim against the Police for failing to do their job! Problem now is the travellers are no where to be seen!

 

[Billy the Fish]

So basically we all agree then

 

[Leighgull]

Anyone stupid enough to want a caravan deserves to have the ****er stolen.

 

[drew]

So basically we all agree then

When didn't we?

They were victims of a crime.
The mail story had an agenda against travellers
The Police didn't do a very good job!!!!
Their situation was made worse by the fact they chose not to renew their insurance!