Petrol DRIVE-OFF's/not paying for petrol
Noodle
What do the big chain Petrol Stations do when a person "drives off"
without paying for petrol?
I know they *CAN* do a lot of things - call Police, etc.
But what *DO* they actually do?
What are Caltex's policies in NSW?
What are Mobil's policies in NSW?
What are BP's policies in NSW?
What are Shell's policies in NSW?
What is the actual name of the Form they fill in to send to their HQ,
verbatim?
Do staff just "write it off" at the end of their shift?
They are all different.
Can someone who actually works at a petrol station please describe the
details of their written policies? For instance, it is a fact that
Caltex policy is to ignore the theft if the amount is $10 or less.
What about their other competitors? Any other things like this?
Also, what do NSW Police actually do about petrol theft below $50?
Since 2007, NSW Police have been told to stop chasing shoplifters less
than $300. So, do they also ignore petrol theft less than $300?
Again - not what they *CAN* do, but they actually *do* do in practice,
in the real world, please.
Much appreciated,
Noodle.
Scotty
"Noodle" <ozno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:767ee154-3f06-4b2b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
: Hello.
Why dont you ask them? Find a freindly operator and ask him/her. Noones going to tell you their
actual policy as a lot are privately or franchise owned.
Milton
" Scotty" <sco...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b5213e1$0$5423$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Better still, ask OzOne or Sylvia.
Oz...@crackerbox-palace.com
wrote:
>
>Better still, ask OzOne or Sylvia.
Apparently when I reply to you, I'm talking to myself....BUT, I know
nothing of drive offs other than seeing a few and hearing attendants
discuss having the number plate or a picture of the vehicle.
What they do with it, I have no idea.
OzOne of the three twins
I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
Milton
<Oz...@Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
news:6uf4l5lsce4rg5qve...@4ax.com...
Thanks, now I'll sit back and be entertained as your credibility is again
pulled apart, even if you are telling the truth.
F Murtz
This is a car group and some one may know and tell anonymously
George W Frost
"Noodle" <ozno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:767ee154-3f06-4b2b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
First, they notify the manager, then the owner of the site, then the police.
Then they go through the tapes and get the number if they haven't already.
Then there is a long drawn out process of writing everything down in the
book and passing that information on.
The operator also tells any other incoming operators who the drive-off was,
number plate, person description etc.
Including passenger information and any other stuff relevant.
Everything is written down in the book.
The operator, usually gets an idea if they suspect the car will be a drive
off by the actions of the driver and passengers.
Most of the time, the driver will stay behind the wheel
a passenger will get out and put the fuel in
another passenger might get out and stand between the car number plate and
the console operator, that is if the number plate is legitimate, sometimes,
the fuel dispensing passenger will proceed to the console, then make a
diversional route to the toilets or somewhere else, then as the driver
drives from the bowser, the console operator thinks everything os okay
because the passenger is in the shop, but loses track of them when he/she is
busy, allowing the passenger to vacate the premises, into the car and off.
But every station has different procedures
Police are notified whatever the amount is
Another ruse used is for the driver to fill up with fuel, then hand over a
credit or debit card for payment, only for the console operator to find out
there is not enough funds in their account for payment.
All their details are taken down and put in the book and they usually claim
they will pay as soon as they get back there, which is usually the next dole
payment day.
Some of these ferals might try this weekly, but the console operator usually
remembers who it is and asks for proof of payment before starting the pump.
Or, the ferals will wait till another operator is on shift before trying it
again
But, again, the Police are notified
Noddy
"Noodle" <ozno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:767ee154-3f06-4b2b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> What do the big chain Petrol Stations do when a person "drives off"
> without paying for petrol?
Look at the statistics, work out the average and factor that cost into the
pump price for everyone.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Epsilon
>
>
> Look at the statistics, work out the average and factor that cost
> into the pump price for everyone.
But you'd be utterly lost at the first step.
Noodle
> Police are notified whatever the amount is
> ..again, the Police are notified
I've also found this, for everyone's info:
In NSW, Police prefer all non-critical events to go to the "Police
Assistance Line" (PAL) - basically, a statistics-collecting 24 hour
call centre at 5 Enterprise Avenue, Tuggerah and Lithgow. They give
out "Crime Reference Numbers" to the public for newly reported non-
urgent crimes, but pretty useless for anything else. They can be
called on 131-444.
In the Link above, they have included a Form that they request all
Petrol station Operators to fill in, and fax off to the Tuggerah PAL
centre whenever a drive-off happens.
Basically, it's all about Police Statistics...there appears to be no
"proactive" Policing for petrol drive-offs, as it's not a high
priority/visibility crime (no matter what words the Police may use to
describe it).
Much in the same way that collisions that have no impact on human life
(ie: property damage) aren't pursued by Police, but filled away for
statistics with a Reference Number given for your Insurance to use (if
you have Insurance).
Noodle..
a
> Can someone who actually works at a petrol station please describe the
> details of their written policies?
I used to work at at Woolworths Petrol Plus. For drive-offs where they
don't pay, we just note their car details in a log which gets sent to
head office. Never knew what happened after that, but I assume a team
of Woolies investigators did something with the cops.
The other situation is when someone came in to pay and then apologized
that they didn't have their wallet, or credit card, or insufficient funds.
We just logged their details (sighting their driver's license if they had
it) and they were obliged to come back the next day to pay. They usually
did. So, if you ever need a full tank before pay day, try it. It works. :)
Sylvia Else
Well, I can certainly say that it's against the law. But that didn't
seem to be in question. Beyond that, I don't see why you would think I
could help.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
You mean those signs warning that the police would be called in such a
situation were just a bluff?
Mind you, I always suspected as much, and had I been in such a situation
and the police had been called, I'd have told them to butt out on the
grounds that this was a civil matter.
Sylvia.
hippo
All depends where you are. Nowra? At least two sites insist on payment
before leaving. If no cash & card doesn't work, then there you stay until
the money shows up from somewhere else - or the Police arrive.
One of the Mobils now refuses to start the pump for any m/cycle rider who
hasn't removed their helmet.
Taxi depot BP at Granville has published a list of car and driver types
where prepayment is required 24/7 - basically it reads like "old cars,
bogans, younger people with P plates &/or hoodies, or vehicles with more
than two passengers", but not in so many words.
Several around the state insist on some high value item (watch, phone,
toolkit, iPod) being left as security against non return.
Various sites all over exhibit some probably illegal policies towards
various ethnic minorities or indiginous customers.
Amazing what you see sometimes too....
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Kev
> Amazing what you see sometimes too....
>
a while back I watched a ute pull into the 7-11 at Palm Beach
one passenger went into the shop while the driver and
other passenger went about filling it up
They eventually noticed that I was watching them and the driver yelled
to the passenger coming out of the shop with some drinks "Did you give
the cunt money for the fuel", he answers quite loudly "Yeah I payed the
cunt"
so I got my pen out and walked in front of the ute and wrote down the
rego, make atc.
driver just give me a one fingered wave and reverses out in a big hurry
and drives out the other driveway
As soon as they left console op comes out asking if I saw who got fuel
so I just handed him the bit of paper with the info
I've watched plenty of people fill up and then just casually get back
into the car and drive out
I listen to the scanner a lot and often hear Police attending servos to
take drive off reports, sometimes they follow up by heading direct to
the offender's address for a chat
and all the info is added to the vehicle's rego data
so when a vehicle is pulled over you often hear it's tagged as being
involved in a drive off
Drive offs are quite common, but heaven forbid any servo operator takes
measures to stop it, like paying before activating pumps
Kev
a
> You mean those signs warning that the police would be called in such a situation were just a bluff?
Back then when I worked there, yes. Who knows what they'd do now, but
I still doubt they would call the cops, especially in a busy station.
George W Frost
"a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b5e560b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
They still call the coppers, whether it be a busy station or not
mainly because, it may not have been when you worked there
but today, the operator is responsible for any moneys in the till and for
any losses from that till
So, it is in the interest of the operator to contact the police otherwise,
pay for any losses out of his or her pocket.
Which option would you prefer?
atec 77
laid
a
> They still call the coppers, whether it be a busy station or not
> mainly because, it may not have been when you worked there
> but today, the operator is responsible for any moneys in the till and for any losses from that till
>
> So, it is in the interest of the operator to contact the police otherwise, pay for any losses out of his or her pocket.
> Which option would you prefer?
I'm talking about Woolworths Petrol Plus. The operater was NEVER responsible
for lost money due to drive offs or what not. Back in 2005, anyway. I know
from personal experience. I will ask a mate who still works there if the
policy has changed.
George W Frost
"a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b5e98cf$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
It is the policy with BP that you are responsible for the cash in the till
Otherwise, you could tell the boss that someone drove off when you were busy
with over $100 worth of fuel and you could put the cash in your pocket
Atheist Chaplain
> "George W Frost" <george...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> They still call the coppers, whether it be a busy station or not
>> mainly because, it may not have been when you worked there
>> but today, the operator is responsible for any moneys in the till and for
>> any losses from that till
>>
>> So, it is in the interest of the operator to contact the police
>> otherwise, pay for any losses out of his or her pocket.
>> Which option would you prefer?
I would suspect that such a policy would be at best severely frowned upon
and at worst illegal, the operator cannot be held responsible for other
peoples illegal intentions.
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
a
> It is the policy with BP that you are responsible for the cash in the till
> Otherwise, you could tell the boss that someone drove off when you were busy with over $100 worth of fuel and you could put the
> cash in your pocket
That makes no sense. A drive-off doesn't make money disappear from the till.
Toby
ahHa!
Somebody gets it!
The only way an attendant can be liable is if they knowingly or
negligently allow drive-offs to occur.
The bullshit perpetrated by the companies if precisely that, and I
would suggest at law that in the higher courts losses from drive-offs
could very well be considered the fault of the companies NOT providing
sufficient staff to actually serve customers, and raking in the profits
from that situation with a straight face.
Next we need a discussion of the relative merits of NOT allowing a
purchase unless money has been taken from a customer.
The so-called fast food outlets (they're most assuredly neither
Restaurants nor Caf�s in the drive-thru role - but they pull the same
stunt at the counters, too) have pioneered this
everyone-is-a-criminal-approach to retailing in this country .
My thinking is that then need to be hung out to dry - before the
disgusting behaviour spreads any further. Like to fuel retailing,
ferinstance.
Noddy
"a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b600f29$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> That makes no sense. A drive-off doesn't make money disappear from the
> till.
No, but it makes reconciling the amount of fuel sold with the cash in the
tell at the end of the day awfully difficult.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
George W Frost
"Toby" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hjp3i5$fk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Already has in a few stations around Melbourne, last time I was down
visiting
The attendant would not start the bowser unless I left my credit card with
him
I told him to fuck off and I will go somewhere else and I did.
Toby
New word...
Computer.
The company would know precisely which pump and at what time the drive
off occurred . ie, from 'this' dispensing event no payment is matched.
Add in the video loop, or less mucking about due the assistance of an
alert 'person' pressing the right buttons, and there's no problem there
at all.
Noddy
> New word...
>
> Computer.
Old world: Theft.
> The company would know precisely which pump and at what time the drive
> off occurred . ie, from 'this' dispensing event no payment is matched.
> Add in the video loop, or less mucking about due the assistance of an
> alert 'person' pressing the right buttons, and there's no problem there
> at all.
That's all well and good, but what it *won't* stop is the guy who walks in
on the busy console operator after filling his car and paying for a packet
of twisties. Net result is a short till with no idea who didn't pay.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> ahHa!
> Somebody gets it!
> The only way an attendant can be liable is if they knowingly or
> negligently allow drive-offs to occur.
Define "negligence" :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Toby
uh-huh - the busy console operator gag.
We've been down that road - and the whyfores about asking every
customer if they're put any fuel in their vehicle.
Still pretty easy though - a payment for twisties, or fags or tampons
or anything else other than fuel in a transaction (all the crap in thee
places is bar-coded, and if not a code is entered by Manuel) pretty
much points to the drive-off .
the console operator also has an alarm system where after a few
custimers have been through, Pump Number 6 is still up there in lights
as not having it's last sale paid for. In fact the two last sales. So
they're one customer off nailing the drive-off in terms of who's been
where.
but all that is aside from the heinous crime of ripping off a servo -
when the servo deliberately makes that activity possible, in serving
it's own ends - that's profit at the expense of the community.
You see,some turd does a drive-off, and we see the pigs getting involved.
You and I pay for that drive-off - possibly even the drive-off
themselves pays a little if they have any income of consumption they
actually pay for going on.
The servo owner simply writes off the loss as a tax deduction (as in
shop-, not shirt-lifting), and we pay for the pigs to go after the
advantage taker.
Why did they take advantage?
Because they can.
And, as I said, we pay.
Noddy
> but all that is aside from the heinous crime of ripping off a servo -
> when the servo deliberately makes that activity possible, in serving
> it's own ends - that's profit at the expense of the community.
> You see,some turd does a drive-off, and we see the pigs getting involved.
> You and I pay for that drive-off - possibly even the drive-off
> themselves pays a little if they have any income of consumption they
> actually pay for going on.
> The servo owner simply writes off the loss as a tax deduction (as in
> shop-, not shirt-lifting), and we pay for the pigs to go after the
> advantage taker.
> Why did they take advantage?
> Because they can.
> And, as I said, we pay.
One of the things I find pretty interesting is how you can take something
like a drive off, which 9 times out of 10 is a deliberate act of theft, and
turn it completely 180 degrees so it's the *service station* owner's fault.
By your logic, a seductively dressed woman who flirts in a bar "deserves" to
get raped.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Toby
It isn't?
Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for
transgressions?
What's wrong with that?
Nice work if you can get it.
> By your logic, a seductively dressed woman who flirts in a bar "deserves" to
> get raped.
>
Huh?
Remarkable leap of credibility there..
We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we?
The woman in the bas ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an
extremely vigourous strip performance, applied half a tub of BP L2 on
the relevant bits, and screamed out something to the effect that she
requires servicing right fucken now.
There's the analogy I believe you were searching for.
And no, I still wouldn't "take advantage" in even that situation.
Many would.
Toby
It isn't?
Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for
transgressions?
What's wrong with that?
Nice work if you can get it.
> By your logic, a seductively dressed woman who flirts in a bar "deserves" to
> get raped.
>
Huh?
Remarkable leap of credibility there..
We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we?
The woman in the bar ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an
Noddy
> It isn't?
> Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for
> transgressions?
> What's wrong with that?
> Nice work if you can get it.
And yet if pre-paying for fuel was introduced across the board tomorrow,
you'd be pissing and moaning about how inconvenient it is, right?
> Huh?
> Remarkable leap of credibility there..
How is the situation the slightest bit different.
> We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we?
> The woman in the bas ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an
> extremely vigourous strip performance, applied half a tub of BP L2 on
> the relevant bits, and screamed out something to the effect that she
> requires servicing right fucken now.
> There's the analogy I believe you were searching for.
Um, no, not really.
I used the one I wanted to. You, on the other hand, have invented some
ridiculous bullshit in an infantile effort to make your ramblings look
valid.
> And no, I still wouldn't "take advantage" in even that situation.
That's nice, but I'd bet my left one that you'd feel compelled to write some
long winded nonsensical post about it anyway.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noodle
> The attendant would not start the bowser unless I left my credit card with
> him.
> I told him to fuck off and I will go somewhereelseand I did.
You are right.
Furthermore, the only people who work at Petrol Stations in the Cities
are INDIANS.
I would ***NEVER*** trust my credit card with any foul-smelling
INDIAN!
George W Frost
That's okay, I am not racially prejudiced
I wouldn't trust you with my credit card either
hippo
FWIW 'Noodle', I doubt if many Indians, even if they were foul smelling,
would wish to trust either you or your credit card.
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
hippo
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Noddy
"hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
message news:hjr8h5$u3q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "The act of carelessly wearing short, sheer, female night attire". :)
There's one in every crowd :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
a
> That's all well and good, but what it *won't* stop is the guy who walks in on the busy console operator after filling his car and
> paying for a packet of twisties. Net result is a short till with no idea who didn't pay.
I doubt you've ever worked in a servo. Cameras show all, and are timestamped,
and can match the time/date of the so-called Twisties transaction. It's easy
to know who didn't pay. Joe Average is filmed filling up, walking in, making
a $2.50 transaction, and driving off from the pump. Nuff said?
Noddy
"a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b6171e5$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I doubt you've ever worked in a servo.
I've *never* worked as a console operator in a servo. Why would anyone
*want* to?
> Cameras show all, and are timestamped,
> and can match the time/date of the so-called Twisties transaction. It's
> easy
> to know who didn't pay. Joe Average is filmed filling up, walking in,
> making
> a $2.50 transaction, and driving off from the pump. Nuff said?
I guess I must be lucky then :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
David
I dont know what they do in the city, but here in the bush the SS makes
a report to police and they go after the offender
David
a
> I've *never* worked as a console operator in a servo.
Then you are NOT qualified to discuss this topic at all.
> Why would anyone *want* to?
Don't know. Ask someone who wants to. A job is a job?
> I guess I must be lucky then :)
Probably. Sometimes investigations can take years.
Noddy
"a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b61...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Then you are NOT qualified to discuss this topic at all.
And your qualifications would be what exactly? Apart from being a fuckwit I
mean?
> Probably. Sometimes investigations can take years.
Investigations can take *years*? For a tank full of petrol? :)
Oh yea, you're an expert. Ray Charles could have seen that.
Fucking idiot....
--
Regards,
Noddy.
George W Frost
"David" <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote in
message news:postings-49A4D9...@news.bigpond.com...
Same in Brisbane B.P. as of last night
The console operator is responsible for the takings and if there is a
drive-off, then that operator MUST report it to the manager, then report it
to the Police, taking down all relevant information.
The Police then act on it and the manager will usually decide that the
operator does not have to pay the money lost.
Otherwise, if these directions are not followed, the operator is responsible
for any lost money, petrol and goods.
Sometimes though, those darned pesky cameras, are not working to their best
capability, so, you can never rely on them.
D Walford
Ex Vic Cop brother in law told me about a drive off from the Shell servo
in Benalla which just happens to be next to the Police station, to cut a
very long story short they were called by the servo attendant and they
went after them straight away, turns out the car was stolen and the
blokes were wanted on armed robbery charges in Melb so it was very much
worth the effort going after them.
Both offenders were arrested at gunpoint after they tried to abandon the
car and run off.
Daryl
George W Frost
"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:00ebfa2c$0$15627$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Bloody Benalla Coppers
They will do almost anything to get a booking and conviction
Never do anything with a sideways glance in Benalla
D Walford
over zealous, the general duties cops used to give to bait him
continuously which probably made him even worse.
Despite spending lots of time in the area for some reason I've never had
an issue with the Benalla police:-)
Daryl
a
> Fucking idiot....
A person always resorts to profanity when they realise they're losing. ;)
Epsilon
Why do you assume the intelligence to realise they're losing?
Noddy
"a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b6373d5$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> A person always resorts to profanity when they realise they're losing. ;)
You can believe that bullshit if it makes you happy. Personally, I just
prefer to call it as I see it, and you are a class A fuckwit.
It's as simple as that.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
Fucking binned like the stupid window licking cunt deserves to be.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> "a" <b...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4b6373d5$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> "Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote
>>
>>> Fucking idiot....
>>
>> A person always resorts to profanity when they realise they're losing. ;)
>
> Noddy resorts to swearing even when he is winning :-)
Winning? You mean whining, don't you?
atec 77
t_l_bir...@hotmail.com
> Hello.
>
> What do the big chain Petrol Stations do when a person "drives off"
> without paying for petrol?
>
> I know they *CAN* do a lot of things - call Police, etc.
>
> But what *DO* they actually do?
>
> What are Caltex's policies in NSW?
>
> What are Mobil's policies in NSW?
>
> What are BP's policies in NSW?
>
> What are Shell's policies in NSW?
>
> What is the actual name of the Form they fill in to send to their HQ,
> verbatim?
>
> Do staff just "write it off" at the end of their shift?
>
> They are all different.
>
> Can someone who actually works at a petrol station please describe the
> details of their written policies? For instance, it is a fact that
> Caltex policy is to ignore the theft if the amount is $10 or less.
> What about their other competitors? Any other things like this?
>
> Also, what do NSW Police actually do about petrol theft below $50?
> Since 2007, NSW Police have been told to stop chasing shoplifters less
> than $300. So, do they also ignore petrol theft less than $300?
> Again - not what they *CAN* do, but they actually *do* do in practice,
> in the real world, please.
>
> Much appreciated,
>
> Noodle.
What they do is put pressure on the console operator to pay up for the loss. It is not fair but often it is the difference between having a job and not having one. Console operators need to be better protected against the illigal action of dishonest public
Bob Milutinovic
news:348207e4-3421-4ddd...@googlegroups.com...
supposed to be doing, and less time trawling for ancient newsgroup posts to
reply to.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
Clocky
> "Noodle" <ozno...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Can someone who actually works at a petrol station please describe the
>> details of their written policies?
>
> don't pay, we just note their car details in a log which gets sent to
> head office. Never knew what happened after that, but I assume a team
> of Woolies investigators did something with the cops.
>
> The other situation is when someone came in to pay and then apologized
> that they didn't have their wallet, or credit card, or insufficient funds.
> We just logged their details (sighting their driver's license if they had
> it) and they were obliged to come back the next day to pay. They usually
> did. So, if you ever need a full tank before pay day, try it. It works. :)
>
>
Police no longer investigate fuel station drive-off's in Victoria since
July 2013.
Unless a car has false plates, no plates or is stolen the police no
longer get involved and consider drive-off's a civil matter.
Noddy
> Unless a car has false plates, no plates or is stolen the police no
> longer get involved and consider drive-off's a civil matter.
person who steals a 5 buck bottle of wine. The real idiocy in the
current VicPol policy is unless the police get involved how does one
know if the car or plates are stolen?
What the Victorian Police are saying to the public is that this
particular crime is happening *far* too often for us to keep up with and
we're washing our hands of the matter. The result, as one would expect,
is a massive increase in the number of drive offs.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jeßus
that's the case.
Jeßus
wrote:
Noddy
> Really? Christ, you could have a field day ripping off petrol if
> that's the case.
Fill up your own car and drive off without paying and the only recourse
the servo owner has is to take a civil suit against to to recover his
losses, and they *ain't* going to do that for 100 bucks or so.
The end result? Free petrol.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jeßus
wrote:
position, I can't see how this won't become a massive problem in the
long term. In my younger days, I would have been all over this,
rightly or wrongly... well, wrongly.
D Walford
when I was married we lived in a small flat in Murrumbena , we were
burgled a couple of times and the police didn't attend once, there were
so many burglaries in that area that they didn't have enough people to
attend.
We had to go to the police station and fill out a report which we then
handed to our insurance co, only cops we saw were at the cop shop.
--
Daryl
D Walford
if they implement them.
We used to have a servo that you entered by driving over one way spikes,
if you tried to go out over the spikes you would get a flat tyre.
You paid at a window without getting out of your car and exited through
a boom gate but the place just sold fuel so they lost a fortune by not
having a shop, they knocked it down and replaced it with a more
conventional servo and the money they make from shop sales far exceeds
any losses from drive off's.
They can also have pre pay but it pisses off the customers so they don't
do in normal hours, pre pay also reduces shop sales as well as there is
no need to go inside to pay so they accept drives off's as a minor
negative relative to other commercial considerations.
--
Daryl
Noddy
> Nothing all that new about the polices attitude to crime, back in 1974
> when I was married we lived in a small flat in Murrumbena , we were
> burgled a couple of times and the police didn't attend once, there were
> so many burglaries in that area that they didn't have enough people to
> attend.
> We had to go to the police station and fill out a report which we then
> handed to our insurance co, only cops we saw were at the cop shop.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
>
> Amazing. Surely they (the police) will have to reconsider their
> position, I can't see how this won't become a massive problem in the
> long term.
The Service Station owner's association (Or whatever they call
themselves) understandably made a big noise about it when it was first
made public, but the cops just told them to go fuck themselves and
change the way they do business to reduce the risk.
> In my younger days, I would have been all over this,
> rightly or wrongly... well, wrongly.
reckons he gets about a dozen drive offs a week on average. All he can
do about it is jack up the price of his petrol to make up the difference.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> There are ways to prevent it but the servos will loose even more money
> if they implement them.
> We used to have a servo that you entered by driving over one way spikes,
> if you tried to go out over the spikes you would get a flat tyre.
> You paid at a window without getting out of your car and exited through
> a boom gate but the place just sold fuel so they lost a fortune by not
> having a shop, they knocked it down and replaced it with a more
> conventional servo and the money they make from shop sales far exceeds
> any losses from drive off's.
> They can also have pre pay but it pisses off the customers so they don't
> do in normal hours, pre pay also reduces shop sales as well as there is
> no need to go inside to pay so they accept drives off's as a minor
> negative relative to other commercial considerations.
by getting rid of driveway attendants and making it easy for people to
do a runner, but that doesn't wash with them turning up to a supermaket
to arrest a kid who pinches a Mars bar or any other type of
"convenience" business.
They're just picking ands choosing what crimes they want to spend time
dealing with, and in my opinion it's a dangerous precedent.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Bob Milutinovic
news:r9t85als8ds8ghr5h...@4ax.com...
Abbottard & Co. won't want people skipping the opportunity to pay said
excise.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
Noddy
> Stand by for a Federal decree - now that the fuel excise is being pumped
> up, Abbottard & Co. won't want people skipping the opportunity to pay
> said excise.
cents per tank.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Clocky
"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
news:m31k0o$efe$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Unless a car has false plates, no plates or is stolen the police no
>> longer get involved and consider drive-off's a civil matter.
>
> And yet they'll attend the nearest bottle shop to arrest and charge a
> person who steals a 5 buck bottle of wine.
doubt whereas you could drive off from a bowser and "forget" to pay and that
isn't theft.
I think that is their reasoning, however dubious that may be.
The real idiocy in the
> current VicPol policy is unless the police get involved how does one know
> if the car or plates are stolen?
>
> What the Victorian Police are saying to the public is that this particular
> crime is happening *far* too often for us to keep up with and we're
> washing our hands of the matter. The result, as one would expect, is a
> massive increase in the number of drive offs.
>
drive-offs by having a service attendant, a swipe card before the bowser
initiates kind of system or simply have a prepay system during periods where
driveoffs are most common.
The servo near where I used to live had a spate of drive-off's and all they
did was change it so you had to go inside and tell the operator which bowser
you were at before they switched it on so you were sighted (and your face on
camera). That was so simple yet effective enough that it ended driveoff's
almost overnight.
A lot of theft is opportunistic and it's up to the servo to make it more
difficult.
Noddy
> Yes, because there was a direct offense that can be proven beyond reasonable
> doubt whereas you could drive off from a bowser and "forget" to pay and that
> isn't theft.
something in your hand that you "forgot to pay for".
It's *still* theft. Deliberate or otherwise.
> I think that is their reasoning, however dubious that may be.
> Ofcourse. Now I suppose service stations could stop a large percentage of
> drive-offs by having a service attendant, a swipe card before the bowser
> initiates kind of system or simply have a prepay system during periods where
> driveoffs are most common.
> The servo near where I used to live had a spate of drive-off's and all they
> did was change it so you had to go inside and tell the operator which bowser
> you were at before they switched it on so you were sighted (and your face on
> camera). That was so simple yet effective enough that it ended driveoff's
> almost overnight.
*still* doesn't stop people driving away with a tankful of free petrol
because for the most part they know that there will be no follow up.
> A lot of theft is opportunistic and it's up to the servo to make it more
> difficult.
encourages people to steal fuel, service station owners have to boost
their security and we ultimately have to foot the bill for it.
And that seems fair to you?
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
John_H
>
>Stand by for a Federal decree - now that the fuel excise is being pumped up,
>Abbottard & Co. won't want people skipping the opportunity to pay said
>excise.
It doesn't matter a shit to GovCo what happens after that. :)
--
John H
John_H
component to cover its loss.... Hence Tony's extra 40¢ will probably
end up costing the rest of us 80¢. :-(
--
John H
Jeßus
<dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>On 01/11/2014 4:56 PM, no...@all.org wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:24:13 +1100, Noddy <m...@wardengineering.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/11/14 2:53 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? Christ, you could have a field day ripping off petrol if
>>>> that's the case.
>>>
>>> People are :)
>>>
>>> Fill up your own car and drive off without paying and the only recourse
>>> the servo owner has is to take a civil suit against to to recover his
>>> losses, and they *ain't* going to do that for 100 bucks or so.
>>>
>>> The end result? Free petrol.
>>
>> Amazing. Surely they (the police) will have to reconsider their
>> position, I can't see how this won't become a massive problem in the
>> long term. In my younger days, I would have been all over this,
>> rightly or wrongly... well, wrongly.
>>
>There are ways to prevent it but the servos will loose even more money
>if they implement them.
so I drove into a servo on the highway. I sat there for ages holding
the petrol pump, but nothing. Went inside to inquire and was asked how
much fuel I wanted, and to pay first. Well, I had no idea how much
fucking fuel I wanted - I just wanted to fill the tank.
Normally I'd have told them to jam it up their arse, but I needed 98
octane for the Skyline, it was late at night and I was also low on
fuel. In the end he was happy to hold onto my keys, so that's how I
got my fuel. Needless to say, I never went back there again.
>We used to have a servo that you entered by driving over one way spikes,
>if you tried to go out over the spikes you would get a flat tyre.
>You paid at a window without getting out of your car and exited through
>a boom gate but the place just sold fuel so they lost a fortune by not
>having a shop, they knocked it down and replaced it with a more
>conventional servo and the money they make from shop sales far exceeds
>any losses from drive off's.
patronise them anymore. You always get some cock smoker doing their
grocery shopping in the shop after fuelling their car up. Naturally,
they don't move their car first...
>They can also have pre pay but it pisses off the customers so they don't
>do in normal hours, pre pay also reduces shop sales as well as there is
>no need to go inside to pay so they accept drives off's as a minor
>negative relative to other commercial considerations.
then they won't get my business.
news13
> On 01/11/14 1:25 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Unless a car has false plates, no plates or is stolen the police no
>> longer get involved and consider drive-off's a civil matter.
>
> And yet they'll attend the nearest bottle shop to arrest and charge a
> person who steals a 5 buck bottle of wine.
Ex-copper owns it?
> The real idiocy in the
> current VicPol policy is unless the police get involved how does one
> know if the car or plates are stolen?
and the vehicle's don't match?
> What the Victorian Police are saying to the public is that this
> particular crime is happening *far* too often for us to keep up with and
> we're washing our hands of the matter. The result, as one would expect,
> is a massive increase in the number of drive offs.
Jeßus
wrote:
under no legal or constitutional obligation to 'protect and serve' the
public.
Jeßus
news13
> Amazing. Surely they (the police) will have to reconsider their
> position,
> I can't see how this won't become a massive problem in the
> long term.
B; IME, most local servos know their regulars,
C; repeat offence make it worth the follow up efforts
In NSW, it is a small claim. About $120 to file, wich offender pays, plus
your solicitor can claim $600 in legal fees, plus expenses(identifying
ownwer $30 and the sheriff dept does the collecting of goods(repeatedly)
until judgement is paid.
In my younger days, I would have been all over this, rightly
> or wrongly... well, wrongly.
D Walford
>> They can also have pre pay but it pisses off the customers so they don't
>> do in normal hours, pre pay also reduces shop sales as well as there is
>> no need to go inside to pay so they accept drives off's as a minor
>> negative relative to other commercial considerations.
>
> Fuck their shop sales, is all I can say. If they need that to survive
> then they won't get my business.
>
drink but that's about it, I only need to fill up the ute about every 2
weeks so they don't get too much of my money.
--
Daryl
Clocky
> On 01/11/14 10:46 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Yes, because there was a direct offense that can be proven beyond
>> reasonable
>> doubt whereas you could drive off from a bowser and "forget" to pay
>> and that
>> isn't theft.
>
> Bullshit. It's no different to walking out of a supermarket with
> something in your hand that you "forgot to pay for".
>
supermarket *by paid security* where you get to explain why you did what
you did and state your case which isn't the case in a drive-off.
> It's *still* theft. Deliberate or otherwise.
>
>> I think that is their reasoning, however dubious that may be.
>
> Think whatever you like, but it's not like you know.
>
>> Ofcourse. Now I suppose service stations could stop a large percentage of
>> drive-offs by having a service attendant, a swipe card before the bowser
>> initiates kind of system or simply have a prepay system during periods
>> where
>> driveoffs are most common.
>
> What, you mean like *anytime*?
>
measures to minimise theft, especially opportunistic theft so why
shouldn't service stations. It is in their best interest after all.
>> The servo near where I used to live had a spate of drive-off's and all
>> they
>> did was change it so you had to go inside and tell the operator which
>> bowser
>> you were at before they switched it on so you were sighted (and your
>> face on
>> camera). That was so simple yet effective enough that it ended
>> driveoff's
>> almost overnight.
>
> That's nice. Most servo's here have cameras all over the place and that
> *still* doesn't stop people driving away with a tankful of free petrol
> because for the most part they know that there will be no follow up.
>
inside is closer and much better at revealing closer detail, plus the
fact that it requires personal interaction is enough to put most
opportunistic thieves off.
People who understand retail know full well that a lot of theft is not
by habitual thieves but by opportunistic thieves. If you make it easy,
opportunistic theft increases. If there is no follow-up, of course that
makes it worse but it isn't a cause of theft.
>> A lot of theft is opportunistic and it's up to the servo to make it more
>> difficult.
>
> So because the *cops* have created an environment that actually
> encourages people to steal fuel,
attendant Joe in a booth and expect thieves to be honest.
service station owners have to boost
> their security and we ultimately have to foot the bill for it.
>
recovered just because you apprehend the perp.
> And that seems fair to you?
>
>
but hand out slaps on the wrist for such offences anyway?
If drive-off's are a problem you need to find a way to prevent them just
the same as any other retail business has to try to minimise theft.
Clocky
> On 01/11/14 5:09 PM, D Walford wrote:
>
>> There are ways to prevent it but the servos will loose even more money
>> if they implement them.
>> We used to have a servo that you entered by driving over one way spikes,
>> if you tried to go out over the spikes you would get a flat tyre.
>> You paid at a window without getting out of your car and exited through
>> a boom gate but the place just sold fuel so they lost a fortune by not
>> having a shop, they knocked it down and replaced it with a more
>> conventional servo and the money they make from shop sales far exceeds
>> any losses from drive off's.
>> They can also have pre pay but it pisses off the customers so they don't
>> do in normal hours, pre pay also reduces shop sales as well as there is
>> no need to go inside to pay so they accept drives off's as a minor
>> negative relative to other commercial considerations.
>
> The cop attitude is that the servo operators brought this on themselves
> by getting rid of driveway attendants and making it easy for people to
> do a runner, but that doesn't wash with them turning up to a supermaket
> to arrest a kid who pinches a Mars bar or any other type of
> "convenience" business.
>
bugger all investigative time as the suspect is in front of you already
apprehended. In the case of a drive-off the police have to find,
determine the circumstances and then make lay charges (or not) which
takes significantly more resources.
If a kid is caught stealing a Mars bar on camera at woolies but not
apprehended at the store, do you really think they refer it to the
police for them to follow up and find the kid?
Don't be absurd, they would do nothing.
> They're just picking ands choosing what crimes they want to spend time
> dealing with, and in my opinion it's a dangerous precedent.
>
Clocky
charge in their "shops".
There is a Woolies fuel station in town and not 100 metres away is a
Woolies supermarket. A milk drink at the supermarket costs $2.50 or
thereabouts, at the servo which I'm sure is on the same delivery run
from the same Woolies truck you pay an extra $2. Let's not talk about
the docket scam they run...
Fuck them.
Clocky
customers. He can write his losses off as a tax deduction in any case.
Clocky
with the windfall that we will all get to pay for... for evermore.
Jeßus
>On 1/11/2014 8:01 PM, Noddy wrote:
>> On 01/11/14 10:46 PM, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, because there was a direct offense that can be proven beyond
>>> reasonable
>>> doubt whereas you could drive off from a bowser and "forget" to pay
>>> and that
>>> isn't theft.
>>
>> Bullshit. It's no different to walking out of a supermarket with
>> something in your hand that you "forgot to pay for".
>>
>
>It's very different in that you are apprehended right away at the
>supermarket *by paid security*
>People who understand retail know full well that a lot of theft is not
>by habitual thieves but by opportunistic thieves. If you make it easy,
>opportunistic theft increases.
Noddy
> It's very different in that you are apprehended right away at the
> supermarket *by paid security* where you get to explain why you did what
> you did and state your case which isn't the case in a drive-off.
aren't exercising any legal process in questioning you and deciding to
let you off if they should feel like doing so.
Theft is theft, no matter how it happens.
> That still needs to be determined, not assumed.
> They have stated that reason themselves I believe.
crime is a drain on police resourses and that unless criminal intent is
present it is a private matter, so they're not getting involved. They're
also of the view that service stations make it "easy" for people to
commit such crimes, so they bring it on themselves.
How they manage to make a distinction between a petrol drive off and a
theft from any other "convenient" retail outlet remains a mystery.
> If that is what it takes. Shopping centres and shops themselves take
> measures to minimise theft, especially opportunistic theft so why
> shouldn't service stations. It is in their best interest after all.
to queue, or to be forced into any type of behavioural response that is
a result of nothing to do with their own actions.
> Sure, but the camera on the bowsers is at a distance whereas the camera
> inside is closer and much better at revealing closer detail, plus the
> fact that it requires personal interaction is enough to put most
> opportunistic thieves off.
are filmed.
> People who understand retail know full well that a lot of theft is not
> by habitual thieves but by opportunistic thieves. If you make it easy,
> opportunistic theft increases. If there is no follow-up, of course that
> makes it worse but it isn't a cause of theft.
policy of not investigating such crimes is just a coincidence?
> They haven't, servos have done that for themselves. They have locked
> attendant Joe in a booth and expect thieves to be honest.
might have been drive-offs before there has been a sharp increase since
it was announced that it would no longer be a Police matter
Cause and effect is *clearly* there, even if you can't see it.
> If drive-off's are a problem you need to find a way to prevent them just
> the same as any other retail business has to try to minimise theft.
stations are currently the *only* ones that Police will *not* assist
with regards to trying to catch offenders after the event.
If you think that is a fair and equitable situation you're off your nut.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> It's completely different. A kid caught in the act of shoplifting takes
> bugger all investigative time as the suspect is in front of you already
> apprehended. In the case of a drive-off the police have to find,
> determine the circumstances and then make lay charges (or not) which
> takes significantly more resources.
If someone smacks the crap out of you in the street should the cops not
bother looking for them if they've done runner and only get involved if
the perp is standing there waiting to be arrested?
> If a kid is caught stealing a Mars bar on camera at woolies but not
> apprehended at the store, do you really think they refer it to the
> police for them to follow up and find the kid?
>
> Don't be absurd, they would do nothing.
Whether or not the *store* decides to hand what information over to the
police is entirely up to them, but if they elect to do so the Police
have no legal right to refuse to do anything about it.
*Unless* you're talking about someone driving off with a tankful of petrol.
> Bullshit, you are comparing apples and oranges.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> They should be charged for stealing themselves for the prices they
> charge in their "shops".
> There is a Woolies fuel station in town and not 100 metres away is a
> Woolies supermarket. A milk drink at the supermarket costs $2.50 or
> thereabouts, at the servo which I'm sure is on the same delivery run
> from the same Woolies truck you pay an extra $2. Let's not talk about
> the docket scam they run...
>
> Fuck them.
coppers. And now we know what it is :)
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Then he needs to do something about the theft other than whinge to his
> customers. He can write his losses off as a tax deduction in any case.
before he can do so.
The first is that he has to carry that cost regardless, and he doesn't
just simply "get it free" just because he may be able to claim it back
later.
The second is that in order to make a claim he needs to be able to prove
it with something like a police report.
Fark. How does he get one of those...?
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
D Walford
>
> The cops in Victoria have publicly stated that following up on such
> crime is a drain on police resourses and that unless criminal intent is
> present it is a private matter, so they're not getting involved. They're
> also of the view that service stations make it "easy" for people to
> commit such crimes, so they bring it on themselves.
theft, there are ways that servo owners can reduce petrol theft but they
don't want to implement those measures because it may cost them shop
sales and piss off their customers, in a way I don't blame the Police
for not wanting to help people that won't help themselves
--
Daryl
Bob Milutinovic
news:16s835holmamj$.dlg@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:18:29 +1100, Jeßus blathered on in:
Far from it. When local councils start managing their own police forces,
each with their own agendas, that's when we'll be on par with the Septics.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
F Murtz
Jeßus
wrote:
interested?
Noddy
> Pretty sure that that is why the Police no longer investigate petrol
> theft, there are ways that servo owners can reduce petrol theft but they
> don't want to implement those measures because it may cost them shop
> sales and piss off their customers, in a way I don't blame the Police
> for not wanting to help people that won't help themselves
they want to help, and letting them get away with that shit sets a
dangerous precedent.
There is not the slightest bit of difference between a petrol station
and a drive in bottle shop in terms of an "ease of theft" perspective,
yet police will follow up on a theft from one and not the other for no
reason other than that's what they want to do.
Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> They already don't,they did not go and get my computer.
random house inspections until they find it is likely to cause a
*shitload* of unpopular press.
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jonz
> On 01/11/14 4:56 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>
>>
>> Amazing. Surely they (the police) will have to reconsider their
>> position, I can't see how this won't become a massive problem in the
>> long term.
>
> It's been policy for about 2 yeas now, with no sign of it being changed.
> The Service Station owner's association (Or whatever they call
> themselves) understandably made a big noise about it when it was first
> made public, but the cops just told them to go fuck themselves and
> change the way they do business to reduce the risk.
>
>> In my younger days, I would have been all over this,
>> rightly or wrongly... well, wrongly.
>
> I get on well with the bloke who runs the local servo in town, and he
> reckons he gets about a dozen drive offs a week on average. All he can
> do about it is jack up the price of his petrol to make up the difference.
Wee whoosh?.
>
>
>
--
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.”
―Gene Spafford
Clocky
> On 02/11/14 11:54 AM, Clocky wrote:
>
>> It's very different in that you are apprehended right away at the
>> supermarket *by paid security* where you get to explain why you did what
>> you did and state your case which isn't the case in a drive-off.
>
> You're talking out your ring. "Paid Security" aren't cops, and they
> aren't exercising any legal process in questioning you and deciding to
> let you off if they should feel like doing so.
>
only have to attend and take it from there. That is entirely different
to a servo handing the cops an incident report and having them do all
the legwork for a $75 offense.
> Theft is theft, no matter how it happens.
>
at all.
>> That still needs to be determined, not assumed.
>
> There is no difference between your examples.
>
>> They have stated that reason themselves I believe.
>
> The cops in Victoria have publicly stated that following up on such
> crime is a drain on police resourses and that unless criminal intent is
> present it is a private matter, so they're not getting involved. They're
> also of the view that service stations make it "easy" for people to
> commit such crimes, so they bring it on themselves.
>
> How they manage to make a distinction between a petrol drive off and a
> theft from any other "convenient" retail outlet remains a mystery.
>
comparable, the store would have camera vision and hand it to police who
would then try and catch the kid who stole the mars bar.
It's an utter waste of time and police resources to chase up and
investigate such petty thefts.
>> If that is what it takes. Shopping centres and shops themselves take
>> measures to minimise theft, especially opportunistic theft so why
>> shouldn't service stations. It is in their best interest after all.
>
> Because it's *not* what customers want.
not the honest ones but it sure helps the stores reduce theft.
People don't want to pre-pay, or
> to queue, or to be forced into any type of behavioural response that is
> a result of nothing to do with their own actions.
>
"service" went out of service stations.
>> Sure, but the camera on the bowsers is at a distance whereas the camera
>> inside is closer and much better at revealing closer detail, plus the
>> fact that it requires personal interaction is enough to put most
>> opportunistic thieves off.
>
> If there are no consequences then it makes no difference from where they
> are filmed.
>
very effective at discouraging opportunistic theft.
>> People who understand retail know full well that a lot of theft is not
>> by habitual thieves but by opportunistic thieves. If you make it easy,
>> opportunistic theft increases. If there is no follow-up, of course that
>> makes it worse but it isn't a cause of theft.
>
> So you believe that a sharp increase in drive offs timed with the Police
> policy of not investigating such crimes is just a coincidence?
>
theft like they should have been doing in the first place.
>> They haven't, servos have done that for themselves. They have locked
>> attendant Joe in a booth and expect thieves to be honest.
>
> But that situation has existed for a number of years, and while there
> might have been drive-offs before there has been a sharp increase since
> it was announced that it would no longer be a Police matter
>
burden to protect themselves especially from opportunistic theft.
> Cause and effect is *clearly* there, even if you can't see it.
>
simple as blaming the cops for not investigating, it lays equally with
the way servos do business.
>> If drive-off's are a problem you need to find a way to prevent them just
>> the same as any other retail business has to try to minimise theft.
>
> Just about all retail businesses suffer from theft problems, but service
> stations are currently the *only* ones that Police will *not* assist
> with regards to trying to catch offenders after the event.
>
are going to waste precious resources finding some petty crook who has
just knocked off a $10 of plonk when handed some security vision?
That is what you are effectively asking Police to do to investigate a
drive-off.
If the servo attendant however has apprehended the thief, as is the case
in a shop theft where security has caught the suspect you can bet the
police will attend.
> If you think that is a fair and equitable situation you're off your nut.
>
more to help themselves, but aren't interested in doing so.
Clocky
customers.
Clocky
> On 02/11/14 12:18 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>> It's completely different. A kid caught in the act of shoplifting takes
>> bugger all investigative time as the suspect is in front of you already
>> apprehended. In the case of a drive-off the police have to find,
>> determine the circumstances and then make lay charges (or not) which
>> takes significantly more resources.
>
> So what?
>
> If someone smacks the crap out of you in the street should the cops not
> bother looking for them if they've done runner and only get involved if
> the perp is standing there waiting to be arrested?
>
dickhead, give it up.
>> If a kid is caught stealing a Mars bar on camera at woolies but not
>> apprehended at the store, do you really think they refer it to the
>> police for them to follow up and find the kid?
>>
>> Don't be absurd, they would do nothing.
>
> Now you're talking about something else entirely :)
>
> Whether or not the *store* decides to hand what information over to the
> police is entirely up to them, but if they elect to do so the Police
> have no legal right to refuse to do anything about it.
>
and effort and I can't blame them.
> *Unless* you're talking about someone driving off with a tankful of petrol.
>
>> Bullshit, you are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> If anyone's doing that around here Pal, it ain't me :)
>
try to find the cunt who violently assaulted me on the street then worry
about some petty fuel theft which could likely have been avoided if the
servo owner took some measures to prevent it in the first place, and for
which "justice" will be nothing more then a slap on a wrist to the perp,
if that should they even be caught and convicted.
Clocky
"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
news:m347fi$cdr$2...@dont-email.me...
Your are the one blaming the police for theft!