Shopkeeper told off

I feel for the shopkeeper and understand why he printed off the photo. Glad he got his tablet back.

Appreciate the legal issues but in our road we have had a lot of burglaries and many residents have installed CCTV - although when images have been sent to the police, they seem to be too busy to do anything about the images.

I have been attending the local police meetings and the shortage of staff, staff vacancy rates, and lack of resources including transport is appalling. The officers spend a lot of time travelling from one part of our area to another, time consuming and not at all cost effective or efficient I would imagine.

Hope that this situation improves but can’t see any likelihood if it, I’m afraid.

Definitely in support of the shopkeeper. The police don't want to know and don't have the time - either excuse doesn't cut it!
You made a great point Chewbacca - as follows - 'And if you know that the police are no longer responding to "petty crimes", due to staff cutbacks, would you not be surprised that they apparently do have sufficient officers available; not to investigate the theft, but to reprimand you?' Priorities eh!

I'm with the shop keeper. The police would have not seen this theft as a priority.

I would publish it even if I knew the police were going to tell me off. They didn't give much time to burglaries even before the present cuts and seem to give shoplifting even less priority.
The Police aren't particularly clued up on data protection anyway. You have to inform people that you have cctv with a notice and if people ask for a tape of any filming of them, they have to be given it but the police themselves film people in the street and put the pictures on line. They don't have any dispensation under the DPA. They have had to pay compensation if they film someone vulnerable (they put on TV a picture of a man who was having a mental breakdown and was considering suicide and had to pay him) but not if it is someone committing a crime. It is also not true that people's faces have to be blanked out unless they are in a situation or place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You don't have to ask permission from police if you want to put up posters when a pet, person or bike has gone missing. His tablet went missing. Tbe fact that it was in the hand of the thief in the photo, matters not.
Police have no powers to prosecute, they can only obtain evidence and the CPS would never sanction prosecuting such a case.

I think that with the lack of police resources these days and the poor sentencing that occurs, more and more people will act as this shopkeeper did. It worked after all.

If he had the CCTV images he should most definitely not have printed and circulated them himself. He could have easily handed the tape to police and handed them also a print out of the culprit. That would have been useful.
They probably knew him anyway!

We really must resist the temptation to go it alone, even though the police are short staffed. Where does the “do it yourself” mentality lead? And for which crimes does it seem appropriate? Where do you stop? And whilst it may be satisfying to find the offender, are we likely to muddy waters or alert criminals to being “onto” them messing up possible prosecution?
Having worked with offenders/ex offenders and with victims too, I think taking the law into our own hands is also potentially dangerous.

Tere was the Kent incident in July where residents were ordered to empty the large paddling pool every night in case burglars drowned in it

Sorry everybody, I'm with the shopkeeper.
I'm sick of reading and hearing everyday of criminals getting off Scot free because of data protection and other acts seemingly designed to protect the rights of the criminal rather than the victim. Time and again we hear of cctv evidence that clearly shows the crime being committed and the face, number plate etc of the wrongdoer being dismissed as evidence as it breaches the rights of the criminal.
Sick of it all. Time for proper police investigation and justice to prevail.
I could rant on all day, but I'm sure you get the gist.

The BBC understands the images would not have breached data protection rules as they were owned by Mr Callaghan.

Does this change anyone's opinion? And if you know that the police are no longer responding to "petty crimes", due to staff cutbacks, would you not be surprised that they apparently do have sufficient officers available; not to investigate the theft, but to reprimand you?

I think the police point of view stems from the legal side of any prosecution. When victims 'muddy the waters' the criminal's defence can argue that he was not fairly treated.
The police will always say that you need to report straight to them first and then perhaps work with them with the evidence you have collected.
Of course some people have low expectations of what the police can and actually do - and they may well have a point with ever decreasing police resources.

I agree entirely with Maggiemaybe on this. The shopkeeper should have handed his CTV film to the police, not taken the law into his own hands.

I suppose the police didn't like someone almost doing their job for them and it's amazing what people find to complain about these days.
The shopkeeper could have been sued by the thief, do you think?
However, all's well that ends well.

Well said, Maggiemaybe

Good for the shopkeeper in this case. You can see where problems arise though. Photos being distributed of the wrong person, either maliciously or in error, people taking the law into their own hands. We’ve had a couple of cases on our local Facebook site recently where people have been “named and shamed”, with photos, for things they simply didn’t do. It was shocking how eager people were to jump on the bandwagon without any way of knowing the truth of the matter. The police are seriously underfunded and unable to investigate as they’d want to. That needs addressing urgently, imho. But I agree (reluctantly) with their advice.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45209127

Previous link didn't work.

Absolutely the right thing assuming that the thief was an adult! it would be different if a child was involved. however the thief was breaking the law and deserved the bad attention his crime generated it