Boy Electrocuted

[truman]

:roll: I was not saying we should all become thieves what I was saying is that if there were no receivers then perhaps the scroats would try earning their money LEGITIMATELY

 

What I was saying was that we don't all become thieves even though the receivers are there for us to use.....it's only the fault of the lad that he was in that place stealing ......

[scottf]

This is called natural selection in my book.

[denlin]

there is still the market out there...at present its top dollar....do you really think the scrap firms are going to turn it away...nicked scrap and legit scrap...it all goes into the same melting pot....just one less scrapman to collect it...so more for the rest...

 

Do you realise you're not only condoning theft but also saying it's ok to be a receiver. South Yorkshire Police watch this site. :nono:

[denlin]

What I was saying was that we don't all become thieves even though the receivers are there for us to use.....it's only the fault of the lad that he was in that place stealing ......

 

No he would not steal if he didn't have a buyer, the receiver is equally to blame. He was stealing it to sell on not to rewire his house with

[ronthenekred]

:roll: I was not saying we should all become thieves what I was saying is that if there were no receivers then perhaps the scroats would try earning their money LEGITIMATELY

 

But thieves and receivers are one in the same, they both profit from others misery/loss. Or do you think receiving is any less than taking?

[truman]

No he would not steal if he didn't have a buyer, the receiver is equally to blame. He was stealing it to sell on not to rewire his house with

 

Still his decision to do it..his fault....if no-one stole there'd be no business for the receivers....

[denlin]

But thieves and receivers are one in the same, they both profit from others misery/loss. Or do you think receiving is any less than taking?

 

I don't think you've read my threads properly:roll: I was saying receivers are worse than thieves

[ronthenekred]

I don't think you've read my threads properly:roll: I was sar=ying receivers are worse than thieves

 

I never said you did, I was asking. Your argument fails because the receiver up until he/she receives is only complicit in the crime at the time of receiving. You could argue that if crime, or as in this case copper didn't exist in the same way receivers didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is both copper and crime does exist and always will do. You are responsible for your own actions, not the actions of others.

[denlin]

I never said you did, I was asking. Your argument fails because the receiver up until he/she receives is only complicit in the crime at the time of receiving. You could argue that if crime, or as in this case copper didn't exist in the same way receivers didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is both copper and crime does exist and always will do. You are responsible for your own actions, not the actions of others.

 

That's not entirely true. If the thieves had nowhere to sell their stolen goods what would they do with them? The receivers incite the thieves by being willing to buy the goods. Crime exists but needs stamping out, it's not right or fair on those on the receiving end ie the law abiding citizens:D:help: It's out of control:roll:

[melthebell]

The ultimate punishment is death. You'd think that would be enough to put people off!

Never stopped people in the victorian era