Strange tale. A man is caught on CCTV in detailed close-up, in what appears to be the act of theft, yet police have decided that there is "not enough evidence" to prosecute the man concerned!
Sam Down, who runs the Railway Inn in Plymouth with her husband, was stunned to receive a letter from local officers saying they were "no longer actively investigating the crime". The letter arrived a day after the suspect's picture was published in several local newspapers. "I assumed that giving the police a large and clear picture of the man they need to find would help the investigation," said Mrs Down. "But apparently a mug shot isn't enough any more. I just can't believe it - how much evidence do they need? His face has been plastered all over the newspapers. They clearly aren't taking me seriously. It makes me so angry."
The thief was spotted on film after climbing up a drainpipe outside the pub at around 6am on July 13. When Mrs Down realised her £300 outside camera was missing, she checked its footage which is automatically sent to a video recorder inside the pub. The suspect's face stared back at her, bold as brass. Officers believe the thief is the same man who stole another camera from the pub weeks before on June 27. They told Mrs Down they would do their best to track him down.
It seems that the Police aren't really that interested in, erm, policing! I know that there are many good and dedicated officers out there who do their very best, so it must be equally galling for them to read stories like this. Perhaps persecuting motorists has become such an over-riding priority for those at the top of our constabulary that they just don't have time to catch burglars anymore?
Perhaps the fact that road accidents kill 3000 a year may have something to do with their priorities Permalink? Rather than one persons £300 camera? Arn't lives more important that property?
Posted by: Daniel Bright | September 13, 2006 at 02:37 PM
Isn't fighting crime a priority? What if iy were YOUR £300 camera? How about it was a £3000 camera, or a £30,000 camera. This is about Police turning away what seems a prima facia instance of burglary. No excuses Daniel. And who say that persecuting motorists saves lifes?????
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 02:42 PM
what if it was one of my family's lives that got killed... and what about police turning down a motorist driving at 80 in 40 mile zone going on to kill someone. No excuses David.
Posted by: Daniel Bright | September 13, 2006 at 02:48 PM
ok so which should a police be concentrating resources on: property or one of the biggest killers in the UK? I dont get the comment about no-excuses...
Posted by: Daniel Bright | September 13, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Daniel,
Let me spell this out. When a citizen provides the police with the level of evidence as in this case, NOT to prosecute is virtually criminal.
I am not suggesting that we do not deal with the many bad drivers on our roads, but this should not be the EXCLUSIVE priority for our Police, in my view.
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 02:50 PM
ok, and if the police did see his I accept that they need action. But say the Police SEE motorists on CCTV RUNNING PEOPLE OVER doesnt that merit the equal amount of attention? Thats the inconsistency of Permalink's statment.
Posted by: Daniel Bright | September 13, 2006 at 02:54 PM
All crime should be dealt with Daniel. Perhas we can agree on this.
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 02:58 PM
I go back to my first statment about Permalink's post: The Police concentrate more resources on the worst threat to our lives, not our property.
Posted by: Daniel Bright | September 13, 2006 at 03:00 PM
Perhaps, the most 'important' crimes should be dealt with.
Posted by: Daniel Bright | September 13, 2006 at 03:01 PM
It's funny, but that face is exactly how I've always imagined Andrew!
Really, some people would do anything to get ih front of a camera!
Posted by: Cunningham | September 13, 2006 at 03:03 PM
Daniel
You don't get the point of David's post. This is nothing to do with police resources. It is about a clear and unambigous piece of evidence being disregarded. The police did not say they had no time to deal with this, just that a CCTV image wasn't acceptable. Of course the police must concentrate more time and effort on more serious offences but it has to be proprtionate not absolute, and not at the expense of completely ignoring other blatant crimes - that way lies anarchy.
Posted by: Colm | September 13, 2006 at 03:06 PM
Cunningham,
You're in good form today! Just wait till I tell Andrew....
PS. Andrew will return in about a week's time - his house has been re-wired but the devastation is pretty bad so he's cleaning up this week!
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 03:09 PM
The owner's of the pub should bring a private prosecution and then send the bill to them. They would be acting on the advice of the Crime Prosecution Service, which is totally spineless.
Posted by: Ellee | September 13, 2006 at 03:24 PM
hahahah this is great a stolen camera is talk of Britain!!
Posted by: Simeon Boikov | September 13, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Simeon,
No. The application of the rule of law is the talk of Britain.
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 03:36 PM
CPS is a disgrace, as you say Ellee.
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 03:38 PM
'King' David
Simeon has paid ATW a compliment. He thinks ATW IS Britain. That would make you our monarch, your majesty !
Although it would be a stretch to get Helen Mirren to portray you in a film :)
Posted by: Colm | September 13, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Colm,
I am quite a fan of Ms Mirren - not sure Mrs V appreciates my admiration for Helen's talents, mind you!
Anyway. I like to think ATW is Britain - all life is found here!
Posted by: David Vance | September 13, 2006 at 04:00 PM
>>I like to think ATW is Britain -<<
Just thank God the political balance found here isn't reflected in the country!
Posted by: Cunningham | September 13, 2006 at 04:07 PM
This doesn't surprise me in the least.
The pub owner should complain to her local police authority with a view to disciplinary action being taken against the officer responisible.
Posted by: Peter | September 13, 2006 at 05:18 PM
'and what about police turning down a motorist driving at 80 in 40 mile zone
Or even a PC doing 154mph in a 60 mph zone while test driving a new car? and not even getting a reprimand...or being responsible for the shooting of an innocent man, and getting a promotion...
Oh Danny boy, you have a lot to learn about the way the police operate...
Posted by: Ernest Young | September 13, 2006 at 06:41 PM
It is nonsence to say that murder is a priority so the police son't have time to charge people with theft, burglary etc..
There may be a need to prioritise intersm of how much time you spoend investigating but when you ahve the evidence handed to you on a plate, there is no excuse.
Posted by: aileen | September 13, 2006 at 07:31 PM