What a load of arseholes

[Timmy]

The police and the buyer

http://tinyurl.com/brcfoo4

Bear in mind this is from the daily heil ...

When Faris Quayum sold a pair of headphones on eBay, he didn't expect a
call from the police.
But the 22-year-old medical student was arrested, questioned for eight
hours and charged with fraud after a buyer on the online auction site
complained his goods had never arrived.

[petrolcan]

In article <MPG.2ae92c364...@news.aioe.org>, Timmy says...

>
> The police and the buyer

So why not the seller too?

[Rob Morley]

For not sending tracked/insured? Does seem a bit odd.

[Roland Perry]

In message <20121018092305.1d4b9d40@hyperion>, at 09:23:05 on Thu, 18
Oct 2012, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> remarked:

>> So why not the seller too?
>
>For not sending tracked/insured? Does seem a bit odd.

The seller could specify that he'll only send tracked, but with the
buyer paying. Both are quite common.

Meanwhile, I'm amazed the police investigated this at all - there must
be something we aren't being told.
--
Roland Perry

[Niel Humphreys]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rXYDHfJy...@perry.co.uk...

I agree. Why did he "offer" a refund and why did the buyer refuse it? Why
not just refund anyway. Why did the buyer not open an item not received
dispute and get their money back from Paypal?

Also seems odd that the buyer didn't follow it through legally, if he'd have
turned up in court he would have got all expenses and probably his refund
anyway.

Definitely a lot more to this story than is being reported (or told to the
press)
--

Cheers
Niel H

[michael adams]

"Timmy" <Ti...@to.ms> wrote in message
news:MPG.2ae92c364...@news.aioe.org...

According to the story Quayum offered a refund only on condition
that Royal Mail first refunded him. Which the buyer rejected.

Quayam didn't refund the buyer. Which he could have done
at any point regardless of whether his own claim against
RM succeeded.

He didn't even try and contact Royal Mail.

"He did not, however, alert the Royal Mail. T"

He just hung onto the money hoping the buyer would just go away.

Although why the buyer didn't open a dispute is another matter.

Plod on the other hand are probably clueless about eBay and
Paypal dispute procedures. All they know is that Quayam is
hanging on to £140 of somebody elses money - true and has made
no real attempt to resolve the issue - true

The rest is just an irrelevant sob story.


michael adams

...
>
>
>
>

[Roland Perry]

In message <avWdnagyQrAjc-LN...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:57:49 on Thu, 18 Oct 2012, michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk>
remarked:

>Plod on the other hand are probably clueless about eBay and
>Paypal dispute procedures.

Not so clueless that 999:1000 they'll say "it's a civil matter Sir".

(And even if they thought it was criminal, they'll usually be looking
for at least five grand of loss before committing effort to such an
investigation)

What was different this time?
--
Roland Perry

[michael adams]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:OIF6QUL4...@perry.co.uk...

Maybe based on what the buyer told them, they thought it was
an easy nick. Which would help with the crime statistics,
get more DNA and fingerprints on the database, and be
good PR in the local press at least. "Lancashire Police
crack down in eBay fraudsters". The actual amount
would be irrelevant.


michael adams

...


> --
> Roland Perry

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:58:05 +0100, Timmy <Ti...@to.ms> wrote:

>The police and the buyer
>
>http://tinyurl.com/brcfoo4
>
>Bear in mind this is from the daily heil ...

Also bear in mind this is the same polis force that tasered a blind
man for possessing a white stick.

[michael adams]

"michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b8SdndKDy-wf3x3N...@brightview.co.uk...

Sorry I wasn't paying attention

from the original article -

<quote>

"Two police officers arrived at Mr Quayum's family home in Littleover,
Derby, where he was revising for exams.

He said they urged him to 'admit what you have done' and that the
matter could be resolved by paying back the buyer. Mr Quayum
refused and was charged with fraud."

</quote>

Basically plod gave him every chance to resolve the situation
but Quayaum decided to play the smartarse.

Always a big mistake when dealing with plod

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219065/eBay-Student-quizzed-8-hours-charged-fraud-headphones-sold-got-lost-post.html?ITO=1490


michael adams

[Roland Perry]

In message <b8SdndKDy-wf3x3N...@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:55:12 on Thu, 18 Oct 2012, michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk>
remarked:

>> What was different this time?
>
>Maybe based on what the buyer told them, they thought it was
>an easy nick. Which would help with the crime statistics,
>get more DNA and fingerprints on the database, and be
>good PR in the local press at least. "Lancashire Police
>crack down in eBay fraudsters". The actual amount
>would be irrelevant.

It was Derbyshire Police, and no, I don't think any of those aspects tip
their balance (having tried to get the same force to act in much more
serious matters, even with the local MP on our side).
--
Roland Perry

[michael adams]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:UetcVqNZwEgQFAI$@perry.co.uk...

> In message <b8SdndKDy-wf3x3N...@brightview.co.uk>, at 18:55:12 on
> Thu, 18 Oct 2012, michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> remarked:
>>> What was different this time?
>>
>>Maybe based on what the buyer told them, they thought it was
>>an easy nick. Which would help with the crime statistics,
>>get more DNA and fingerprints on the database, and be
>>good PR in the local press at least. "Lancashire Police
>>crack down in eBay fraudsters". The actual amount
>>would be irrelevant.
>
> It was Derbyshire Police,

according to the article two forces were involved

"with Lancashire and Derbyshire police involved,"

As the complainant lived in Lancashire presumably
it was the Lancashire force who decided to initiate
proceedings.

Given the matter was referred by another force, presumably
Derbyshire had no option but proceed.

Then

<quote>

"Two police officers arrived at Mr Quayum's family home in Littleover,
Derby, where he was revising for exams.

He said they urged him to 'admit what you have done'

( By which they presumably meant he'd banked the buyer's money,
and as he hadn't contacted Royal Mail to take matters forward
he'd demonstrated no intention of refunding the buyer)

and that the matter could be resolved by paying back the buyer.
Mr Quayum refused and was charged with fraud."

</quote>

as I suggested in the other post he tried to act the smartarse
with plod and came unstuck


michael adams

...

[Roland Perry]

In message <YeidnfADjvMczx3N...@brightview.co.uk>, at
20:03:27 on Thu, 18 Oct 2012, michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk>
remarked:

>As the complainant lived in Lancashire presumably
>it was the Lancashire force who decided to initiate
>proceedings.

That's true.

>Given the matter was referred by another force, presumably
>Derbyshire had no option but proceed.

It's even more difficult to proceed when two forces are involved, rather
than one. Nothing automatic or compulsory about it at all.

No, there's something we aren't being told.
--
Roland Perry

[Deux]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:58:05 +0100, Timmy wrote:

> When Faris Quayum sold a pair of headphones on eBay, he didn't expect a
> call from the police.
> But the 22-year-old medical student was arrested, questioned for eight
> hours and charged with fraud after a buyer on the online auction site
> complained his goods had never arrived.

I love how the story says the headphones went missing in the post, yet
there's a photo of the seller holding a pair of headphones.

[Roland Perry]

In message <zO2dncIBMvuEaBzN...@supernews.com>, at 19:49:29
on Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Deux <de...@none.none> remarked:

>I love how the story says the headphones went missing in the post, yet
>there's a photo of the seller holding a pair of headphones.

That's typical journalistic licence. Trying to recreate the "crime",
with whatever props happen to by laying around.
--
Roland Perry

[A.Lee]

Yet this is exaclty what happened when I received an empty box instead
of the item.
The seller said it was in the box when sent, said it had been stolen by
the PO. The postage price paid gave this away - just the postage for the
empty box was paid, not the 2kg(ish) it should have been.
I did post about this on this group

Paypal were useless (this was 6 or so years ago, maybe I paid by
cheque). The Leics. Police took an interest, and said they would pass on
the sellers details to the Devon Police. The Devon Police rang me up a
few days later to say I would be getting a refund, and if I didnt
receive it, to call them back, and they would make an arrest, they had
vistied the seller, and told them refund, or be charged with fraud.

I got the refund.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

[Simon Finnigan]

No, it's the same force that tasered someone they thought had a sword that
they'd instructed to stop and didn't.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On 21 Oct 2012 23:01:54 GMT, Simon Finnigan

<simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Also bear in mind this is the same polis force that tasered a blind
>> man for possessing a white stick.
>
>No, it's the same force that tasered someone they thought had a sword that
>they'd instructed to stop and didn't.

Oh, that makes it all right, then.

[Simon Finnigan]

Ok, so what would you want to be done? Bear in mind there had been reports
of someone with a sword in the area, the police found someone that
apparently matched some of the description and asked them to stop. That
person ignored the instruction to stop - what do you do, in the heat of the
moment knowing that a taser is significantly less likely to kill the person
being hit with it than a police officer or member of the public being hit
by a sword? Bearing in mind of course that hindsight is 20/20, and the
actual decision is likely to be a split second one.

[Timmy]

Simon Finnigan wrote ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On 22 Oct 2012 19:52:00 GMT, Simon Finnigan

What would I do?
I'd try not to be a thick twat, that's what I would do.

[Simon Finnigan]

If you think you'd be perfect in such a situation, then you've failed.

[michael adams]

"Simon Finnigan" <simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1518226615372794423.87936...@news.individual.net...

Perfect, as in

1) able to distinguish a blind man with a white stick from someone
brandishing a samurai
sword

2) Following a suspect around for a day or two who you think may have
abducted a child
in the expectation he will eventually visit the place where she's
being held.


michael adams

...

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On 24 Oct 2012 18:13:28 GMT, Simon Finnigan

I don't know why you're defending the arsehole - he bottled it and
shot. He shouldn't be in charge of a glass of water, never mind a
taser.

[Simon Finnigan]

Are you an eye witness to the events that happened?

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On 26 Oct 2012 19:56:59 GMT, Simon Finnigan

<simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Are you an eye witness to the events that happened?

Of course not; were you?

[Simon Finnigan]

No, I'm the one who isn't jumping to the conclusion that the police
deliberately or negligently taser someone for carrying a white stick.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On 28 Oct 2012 21:27:43 GMT, Simon Finnigan

<simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, I'm the one who isn't jumping to the conclusion that the police
>deliberately or negligently taser someone for carrying a white stick.

And yet... it happened.
By the very act taking place it reeks of irresponsible or negligent
use of a potentially lethal weapon. As you doubtless know, people have
been killed by those damned things.
Coppers who negligently or carelessly discharge them, most especially
into innocent persons, should have their arses well and truly kicked
from now until next Sunday.

[Simon Finnigan]

No, yet again you seem confused. He was tasered for failing to follow
instructions to stop when carrying something that potentially looked like a
sword, in an area where someone had just been reported carrying a large
sword. He wasn't tasered for carrying a white stick - I would hope the
difference is clear enough now it's been explained more than once.

I'm not saying the police are ion the right here, but neither one of us has
enough facts to do anything more than make assumptions that are quite
likely to be wrong. At least my assumptions are supported by the known
facts - you seem determined to believe that the police are going round
tasering people for carrying a white stick. Which is impossible to support
from the evidence at hand, and strongly suggests you have a chip on your
shoulder for some reason.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On 29 Oct 2012 18:28:08 GMT, Simon Finnigan

<simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, yet again you seem confused. He was tasered for failing to follow
>instructions to stop when carrying something that potentially looked like a
>sword, in an area where someone had just been reported carrying a large
>sword. He wasn't tasered for carrying a white stick - I would hope the
>difference is clear enough now it's been explained more than once.

He was tasered because the copper was an arsehole - a fucking idiot
who failed to realise it was a white fucking stick. FFS, even in the
most dire of lighting situations how the fuck could anyone mistake a
white fucking stick for a sword, especially of the faux-Samurai
variety?
So, we have a situation where a guy, blind, and not knowing he's the
one being shouted at, carries on ABOUT HIS LAWFUL BUSINESS and is
rudely tasered because of some fucking idiot. FFS, all the wanker
copper had to do was wait a few seconds.

>I'm not saying the police are ion the right here, but neither one of us has
>enough facts to do anything more than make assumptions that are quite
>likely to be wrong. At least my assumptions are supported by the known
>facts - you seem determined to believe that the police are going round
>tasering people for carrying a white stick. Which is impossible to support
>from the evidence at hand, and strongly suggests you have a chip on your
>shoulder for some reason.

Nah, you're wrong. I can't stand thick coppers who taser innocents,
but I've got a lot of time for normal, intelligent ones, so don't go
kidding yourself that just because you're making an arse of yourself
by taking an untenable position, that it's somehow my attitude.

You're wrong; you lose.

[Simon Finnigan]

Grimly Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2012 18:28:08 GMT, Simon Finnigan
> <simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, yet again you seem confused. He was tasered for failing to follow
>> instructions to stop when carrying something that potentially looked like a
>> sword, in an area where someone had just been reported carrying a large
>> sword. He wasn't tasered for carrying a white stick - I would hope the
>> difference is clear enough now it's been explained more than once.
>
> He was tasered because the copper was an arsehole - a fucking idiot
> who failed to realise it was a white fucking stick. FFS, even in the
> most dire of lighting situations how the fuck could anyone mistake a
> white fucking stick for a sword, especially of the faux-Samurai
> variety?
> So, we have a situation where a guy, blind, and not knowing he's the
> one being shouted at, carries on ABOUT HIS LAWFUL BUSINESS and is
> rudely tasered because of some fucking idiot. FFS, all the wanker
> copper had to do was wait a few seconds.

That's your opinion of the situation, based on what seems to be a cursory
read of a Daily Mail article and nothing more.

>> I'm not saying the police are ion the right here, but neither one of us has
>> enough facts to do anything more than make assumptions that are quite
>> likely to be wrong. At least my assumptions are supported by the known
>> facts - you seem determined to believe that the police are going round
>> tasering people for carrying a white stick. Which is impossible to support
>> from the evidence at hand, and strongly suggests you have a chip on your
>> shoulder for some reason.
>
> Nah, you're wrong. I can't stand thick coppers who taser innocents,
> but I've got a lot of time for normal, intelligent ones, so don't go
> kidding yourself that just because you're making an arse of yourself
> by taking an untenable position, that it's somehow my attitude.
>
> You're wrong; you lose.

You can say that all you want, you're the one trying to argue a point that
is entirely unsupported by any evidence you are able to provide. For all
you know the blind person shouted "come on then, I'll fucking have you"
when challenged by the police. That possibility is as well supported as
anything you've said.