As anyone interested in trends would know, there’s been a surge in a specific type of city-center crime recently, one which involves a scrote whizzing past his victim, snatching their phone from their hand en passant. This has made London, amongst others, a place where one should not walk the streets while catching up with an old friend on the phone, or even just calling home to make sure that the kids have not set fire to the house while one has been busy at the gym.
I’ve never understood this connectivity obsession anyway, especially as one shouldn’t talk on the phone in the street (for any reason) because believe it or not, passers-by are not really interested in your choice of wine for tonight’s dinner party.
But back to the phone robbers. Britishland is applying the boot with a heavy hand in response to this epidemic:
E-scooters and e-bikes driven by brazen phone snatchers are to be destroyed by police within hours of being seized amid a crackdown on London’s mobile theft epidemic.
Previously officers had to warn offenders before taking away and crushing a bike, scooter or any other vehicle driven in an anti-social manner or if it was used to facilitate a theft.
But now, new powers will mean police won’t have to wait two weeks before throwing them away and will be able to do so in a two-day time frame.
Now far be it for me to rail against the crushing of these electric pestilences, which have been involved in so many pedestrian collisions because their riders are reckless assholes, not to mention the above assholes of the larcenous kind.
But it seems to me that the wrong part of this equation is being punished. I’m no expert on the topic, but I have to feel that crushing a thief’s e-bike is rather pointless, in that said thieves having been thus dispossessed will simply steal a fresh bike with which to continue their little reindeer games.
Surely, for all sorts of reasons, it should be the thieves getting fed into the crusher’s jaws rather than their conveyances? Much more likely to slow this modern kind of theft, I think.
But no doubt someone’s going to have a problem with this, as would my followup suggestion that said crushing of scrotes be made a PPV TV event.
Why is it that gov’t almost always gets everything wrong?
So, a thief on foot gets away with the crime but the thief on the bike loses the bike?
That assumes, of course, that the E=bike or motor bike is, in fact, owned by the thief. Once they know that any property they used in the commission of the crime is forfeit to the crown, the theft of such vehicles will increase. No time to appeal the ruling, and of course, if the innocent party is out of the country and thought he locked HIS scooter away securely, well, that’s the cost of fighting crime.
Personally, I think if the criminal escapes on foot and is captured and convicted, he should be hamstrung forthwith. Fair is fair, I always say.
I think it’s time to revive the cane as a fashion accessory. An El Kabong society is a polite society. Any of y’all remember El Kabong, Queeksdraw’s alter identity?
And oooh, oooh! Shalaylees! 🙂
I was thinking the same thing. A nice walking stick either a shillelagh or a walking stick with a brass head to it.
I thought the shilelagh was a short stick, at most two feet long.
Better a Blackthorn walking stick that can be used as a walking aid. Just make sure that the only part of your fine Blackthorn Walking stick isn’t the handle. They’re making the shafts out of Hawthorn lately, and you don’t want the knout to come off prematurely.
I thought the forfeiture of a hand was the prescribed remedy in muslim countries.
I think we should bring back a public caning for some crimes. Remember Michael Faye in the early 90s who got in trouble for vandalizing cars. I bet he didn’t repeat his crimes.
I was unaware of this “trend.” Unless I’m missing something, it seems pointless, from the point of view of the douchebags. I have a mid-level (read: inexpensive) phone, which requires either fingerprints or facial recognition to use. I’m under the impression how that level of security is pretty ubiquitous. Anyone stealing my device will have acquired a paperweight. In which case, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn this is some sort of tiktok fad like the fucksticks eating tide pods.
Maybe that level of security is not allowed in the land of thought crime.
Airstrip One, home of Winston Smith, the land formerly known as Great Britain. Where the United Kingdom is now.
Why not both?
It’s Formerly-Great Britain. I’m pretty sure they’ve made it illegal to actually punish criminals (real criminals, not “thought criminals”) over there.
Ummm… the cops crush your bike because the guy who stole it used it to commit another crime?
Max Geldray raises his baton…
.
.
Once again, the focus is on the tool being used to commit the crime rather than the tool committing the crime.
Using the cell phone while walking down the street, especially with earbuds in, reduces situational awareness by half, at least. Provided, of course, that one is situationally aware in the first place.
Provided, of course, that one is situationally aware in the first place….
And that is really the crux of the matter.
But, the thief should lose something, and I do believe the Muslim solution is a just solution…
….do we really have to return the phone to the braindead idiot that lost it in the first place?
Who should they? Now they don’t have to return stolen scooters and bikes to the victim.