To (Not) Catch a Thief

In London, a thief who defrauded a camera retailer of $74,000 worth of equipment decided to try his luck again with the same store. Soon after his first successful attempt, he dispatched a taxi to pick up another batch of cameras that he'd just "purchased" from the store, again using falsified paperwork. Dumb move, right? All the police needed to do to catch the swindler (and probably recoup the pricey gear) was tail the taxi, or have an undercover officer take the place of the driver.

The cops' reply? "Not interested, thanks."

Presumably, British police officers are too busy paying homage to Franz Kafka, mostly by refusing to disclose the exact locations throughout the country where picture-taking is prohibited.

Comments

[Jeff Wiebe]

We all understand that police and other emergency services do triage. But as you point out, Rogier, when the priority valuation behind the triage is this off-kilter to the rest of us, it sure undermines our faith in the system.

I'd like to think there is an explanation for this reaction which would enable us laypersons to understand, but at the moment I don't get it.

[hermesten]

I'm old enough to remember when this kind of "governing" was considered to be a hallmark of totalitarian regimes like the old Soviet Union and "Red" China.

On the bright side, the UK is driving down the road to serfdom with the pedal to the metal, so we in America can get a glimpse of our own impending future before it arrives.

[hermesten]

Check out this anti-photography insanity, in, where else? --the world's most extreme Nanny State:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5560978/Parents-banned-from-taking-pictures-of-their-own-children-at-sports-day.html