Workshop burgled, now my tools are on eBay

[John Brown]

No it can't, if it's tried it failed on numerous occasions. I don't know anyone who has been killed by 230v AC. If it was that dangerous why does almost every home in the country have it installed?

Why does almost every household have a car, when 5 people a day die in road traffic accidents? I'll grant you that electrocutions are thankfully rare, but we do have fairly strict safety laws with regard to domestic electrical installations.

 

[Max Power]

A lot to unpack in that sentence. My understanding was that the UK did not permit the term, 'crime of passion' to be a defence, unlike the French 'Crime Passionel'. Where a murder in the UK was associated with adultery, the husband may cite 'provocation' as a defence to murder of a wife's lover. In fact, I think they now have to cite 'loss of control' because the term provocation is not used any more. Action taken in the heat of the moment may be provoked by many different motives.

The case of the farmer, Tony Martin, was one where he was actively defending his property against a couple of intruders. He used a shotgun and killed one of the men. Had that man been running towards him when he shot him, he may have escaped a long term in jail. As the man was running away, the law assumed that he was no longer a threat and should not have been shot. There were several other factors which impinged on that case but the motive of Mr Martin was to protect his property and to take care of his personal safety.

It's easy to see how any planned actions may be seen by the courts. At the very least, planned actions will usually be regarded as taking the law into one's own hands. The matter of retribution is not left to the victims of crime for clear reasons. Cutting one's losses and making entry harder along with disguising the activities if possible and trust to luck may be useful adjuncts to keeping a workshop intact. Possibly a guard dog will help too. The replacement value is not the issue but the attachment to the tools for whatever reason will never be repaired. I will check with my house insurer but as far as I can remember, they will not insure valuable items kept in a temporary structure (shed) .

EDIT: spelling mistakes

It was a 16yr old boy that Tony Martin shot, who, as you say was running away at the time

 

[sploo]

A landline has 50 volts but it's completely harmless because it's low current. It's the current/Amps that does the damage not volts.

I give up, I'm not here educate the ill informed.

Higher voltages more easily break down conductors (e.g. bridge air gaps), so while (dry) human skin is a pretty good insulator, sufficient voltage becomes hazardous as it makes it more likely for you to get the "mills that kills".

As for 230VAC deaths; difficult to separate stats that include industrial electric kit, but I've seen figures (for what appears to indicate home electrics and/or appliances) of between 30 and 70 deaths per year in the UK.

 

[John Brown]

A landline has 50 volts but it's completely harmless because it's low current. It's the current/Amps that does the damage not volts.

I give up, I'm not here educate the ill informed.

That's what you hear all the time, but the amps are proportional to the volts for a given resistance, as you probably well know. My car battery can deliver over 200 amps, but I can touch the terminals without fear of getting a shock.

 

[Crazy Dave]

Why does almost every household have a car, when 5 people a day die in road traffic accidents?

Because people don't pay enough attention when driving, sorry I don't see the connection. (Pun intended)

 

[JimJay]

"Capital punishment has a zero percent reoffence rate" is an amusing comment to make in jest. Made seriously, not so much.

As pointed out by others; serious crime exists in jurisdictions that have capital punishment => it doesn't prevent serious crime

Miscarriages of justice exist => if you have capital punishment it's a statistical certainty that at some point you'll execute the innocent *

(full) Life sentences for serious crimes mean zero chance of reoffences => no need for capital punishment in order to prevent reoffence

As also noted by others, the severity of punishment doesn't really seem to have a high degree of correlation with deterrent. It's more about the chance of being caught; and that's about adequately funding law enforcement.

(* though you can also use "Priti Patel logic"; which is where you support capital punishment except in cases of miscarriages of justice. But that one only makes sense if you're as intelligent as Priti Patel)

"serious crime exists in jurisdictions that have capital punishment => it doesn't prevent serious crime"

You're putting the cart before the horse: NOTHING prevents serious crime but capital punishment certainly prevents repeat offending; moreover, what persuades you that the rate of serious offending wouldn't be even higher in the absence of the "ultimate deterrent"?

"Life sentences for serious crimes mean zero chance of reoffences => no need for capital punishment in order to prevent reoffence"

Dream on! In 2022-2023, there were 35,586 criminal offences committed in UK prisons; does that sound as though prisons are preventing reoffending to you?

"the severity of punishment doesn't really seem to have a high degree of correlation with deterrent. It's more about the chance of being caught.."

Rubbish! The problem is that being caught is just a joke, and there is NO "severity" of punishment; a combination of being caught and suffering serious punishment is what would really deter people from offending in the first place, let alone reoffending.

Don't get me wrong: in principle, I am against capital punishment; the idea that the state has the power to decide to end someone's life is definitely something that I have great qualms about. However, that is already the case, whether we like it or not. The police have carried out public executions of major criminals, such as people guilty of being Brazilian electricians in a public place, barristers having a nervous breakdown in their own home, "Irishmen" carrying loaded table legs home et al. Did any of those stop the practice of allowing gung-ho coppers to run loose on our streets with loaded firearms?

 

[John Brown]

Because people don't pay enough attention when driving, sorry I don't see the connection. (Pun intended)

I was just pointing out that society tolerates a certain level of risk, if the perceived benefits are high enough, so we have 230VAC mains, even though a few people get killed annually, just like we tolerate the motor car, despite 5 people a day being killed on the roads.

 

[Max Power]

And that's why there are no thieves in Saudi Arabia.

Oh, wait...

I'm guessing there aren't many repeat offenders though?

 

[Crazy Dave]

That's what you hear all the time, but the amps are proportional to the volts for a given resistance, as you probably well know. My car battery can deliver over 200 amps, but I can touch the terminals without fear of getting a shock.

Are you sure Spectric might have a different opinion.

 

[John Brown]

Are you sure Spectric might have a different opinion.

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[sploo]

"serious crime exists in jurisdictions that have capital punishment => it doesn't prevent serious crime"

You're putting the cart before the horse: NOTHING prevents serious crime but capital punishment certainly prevents repeat offending; moreover, what persuades you that the rate of serious offending wouldn't be even higher in the absence of the "ultimate deterrent"?

"Life sentences for serious crimes mean zero chance of reoffences => no need for capital punishment in order to prevent reoffence"

Dream on! In 2022-2023, there were 35,586 criminal offences committed in UK prisons; does that sound as though prisons are preventing reoffending to you?

"the severity of punishment doesn't really seem to have a high degree of correlation with deterrent. It's more about the chance of being caught.."

Rubbish! The problem is that being caught is just a joke, and there is NO "severity" of punishment; a combination of being caught and suffering serious punishment is what would really deter people from offending in the first place, let alone reoffending.

Don't get me wrong: in principle, I am against capital punishment; the idea that the state has the power to decide to end someone's life is definitely something that I have great qualms about. However, that is already the case, whether we like it or not. The police have carried out public executions of major criminals, such as people guilty of being Brazilian electricians in a public place, barristers having a nervous breakdown in their own home, "Irishmen" carrying loaded table legs home et al. Did any of those stop the practice of allowing gung-ho coppers to run loose on our streets with loaded firearms?

As noted; there are miscarriages of justice, therefore the argument that capital punishment prevents repeat offending is a dangerous path to tread. It also prevents the innocent from ever being released... because they'd be dead.

In terms of life sentences and reoffending; I was meaning "reoffending in public". If we're going to talk about offences within prison then we might as well either close all prisons, or have instant capital punishment for any crime that would previously have resulted in a custodial sentence. Voila; no offences in prisons.

In terms of severe punishment being a deterrent; it's always hard to separate causes and effects (e.g. you could compare areas of the US that do or do not have capital punishment, but if the demographics/economics etc of the two areas aren't identical then it's hard to meaningfully compare offence rates). Regardless, I've never seen any good evidence that the threat of severe punishments deter offense; largely because people that commit those crimes don't tend to think about the consequences.

 

[Krome10]

I costs about £90 p. a.

It costs £90 p.a.?

Or

You cost £90 p.a.? You're hired if so!

Snuck through your spell check?

 

[AndyMc]

A sample.

Total crimes per 1000

3.88 (Saudi) Ranked 71st.

109.96 (UK) Ranked 4th. 28 times more than Saudi Arabia

Would seem to suggest something they're doing works.

Per the fine article: "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence"
According to this data Iceland is the worst hellhole on the face of the planet with 200/1000. Albania has half the crime rate of Saudi, and crime in Burma has almost been completely wiped out. Oh, and the data is 20 years old.

 

[Crazy Dave]

Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word and weight four it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh - my chequer tolled me sew.

I've tried to ignore this but I personally find it offensive.
I'm sure it wasn't meant that way so, just feelings hurt.

 

[Luckosaurous]

You're putting the cart before the horse: NOTHING prevents serious crime but capital punishment certainly prevents repeat offending; moreover, what persuades you that the rate of serious offending wouldn't be even higher in the absence of the "ultimate deterrent"?

Given that we know there have, and will continue to be, miscarriages of justice that result in the incarceration of innocent people, are you proposing that the state should kill a few innocent citizens as collateral damage in the hope that killing all the guilty will result in less reoffending?



As an aside iirc one of the main reasons the UK moved away from capital punishment was financial. It was decided that in order to be confident enough of guilt to kill somebody for their crime, they must go through 3 court cases (they get 2 appeals). The cost of these cases on the justice system would be greater that keeping the guilty person locked up indefinitely.

Again we’re going back over a decade and I’m only recalling this from a lecture so the figures I’m quoting may be a little wide of the mark. But the cost of proving that level of guilt (fallible though we now know that to be) was over £100k and the cost of keeping somebody in prison indefinitely was less that half of that (back then anyway).

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I've tried to ignore this but I personally find it offensive.
I'm sure it wasn't meant that way so, just feelings hurt.

No offence meant, it just points out the perils of relying on a spell checker.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

As an aside iirc one of the main reasons the UK moved away from capital punishment was financial. It was decided that in order to be confident enough of guilt to kill somebody for their crime, they must go through 3 court cases (they get 2 appeals). The cost of these cases on the justice system would be greater that keeping the guilty person locked up indefinitely.

I don't think it would have taken three court cases to prove the guilt of the murderers of Lee Rigby. Nothing on this earth will persuade me they shouldn't have been hanged (along with others in cases where there was absolutely no doubt).

 

[Blackswanwood]

I doubt consensus will ever be reached on the topic of criminal justice as there isn't an easy fix.

Obviously there is agreement that being the victim of a crime is horrible The victim has to contend with the physical loss of property/injury as well as the psychological impact it has on them. Going back to the OP it's clear we all empathise with him as the tool collections we have mean something more than the £'s we've spent on them.

As I understand it the law in the UK allows reasonable force to protect you or your property. On the one hand what constitutes reasonable force is left open to interpretation but defining exactly what it means for the myriad of situations it needs to cover would be impossible. As in the case of Tony Martin ultimately if it comes to it a jury of twelve of our peers decides what was reasonable having listened to the facts. Clearly in his case having heard how he'd already frightened off the burglar him subsequently discharging a shotgun into his back wasn't judged as being reasonable.

I'm personally happy that works and we stay with that as the basic principle of the right to protect yourself or your property.

I fear it's a slippery slope and violence escalates if we were to move towards an ability to administer summary justice. Where does the line get drawn? Who decides what is reasonable? What about trespassers (a civil not criminal offence) - can I shoot them or just rough them up a bit? You've just reversed into my car and are threatening to drive off - can I punch you? Saying that doesn't mean that I am shrugging my shoulders at crime happening.

It also doesn't mean that I'm saying the criminal justice system is perfect as it's not and could do with improvement. Our prisons are full, the courts have massive backlogs, there is a shortage of barristers wanting to take on criminal law work and the Police are busy covering for other services that have been withdrawn (i.e mental health). On balance though I'd rather have the UK than say the US or Saudi criminal justice system.

Comparing our crime rate to that of Saudi Arabia doesn't really inform anything - I don't think adopting the Saudi system of running a country is going to win many votes - we also have a different view of women's rights which probably means instances of **** and domestic violence don't show up in their reported crime stats. Equally looking back on "how it was when I was a lad" may induce a warm feeling of nostalgia but probably isn't accurate. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was needed after a series of miscarriages of justice and Stephen Lawrence's family are still waiting for justice.

Sorry I've not got the answer - I think it's actually wrapped up in some far deeper questions about what we want UK society to be and putting aside that's not really a topic for a woodworking forum I've been told to get off my laptop as we're about to take off!

 

[Deadeye]

The burglary was traumatic, 30yrs of accumulated hand tools, clamps and power tools gone over night from my garage. Thought I was secure but some building work on an extension meant they had forced a temporary gate into my garden and broke the lock on the pedestrian garden door. No CCTV or name to give them so police wouldn't even come out.

I know there will be lots of sympathy from this community, but the reason for posting is rather to try and document all the lessons I am now learning (stable door, horse gone) so other might implement them before rather than after such an event. I also want to tap into the wisdom available here. As the second half of my title indicates, the robbery is not the end of the saga.

Very very sorry to hear.

I think you have to do something to make the tools individual - a stamp for example - and photograph it with date and time. At least helps with the insurance claim and might help with recovery.

I think if the scrotes know you have stuff, then the advent of cordless angle grinders makes entry inevitable.

Oh, and for those that took the thread from the OP to arguing the dis-merits of capital punishment in 10 pages. Really? You couldn't help yourselves?

 

[user 43593]

It was a 16yr old boy that Tony Martin shot, who, as you say was running away at the time

When does a 16 year old boy (who is a thief) become a man? That 16 year old 'boy' would have been a man by dint of his age in many other countries. The two boys who killed Jamie Bulger were held to be criminally liable for their actions at the age of 10 years old. My recall is that they ceased to be 'boys' and became "heartless killers" in the popular press.