There is zero point in having a discussion with someone who makes up a definition of what they think fraud is, flatly ignores what the law says it actually is, and then applies that made up definition to the discussion about breaking the law.
I’m out.
Fair enough. Just wanted to voice my disapproval of giving mere slaps on the wrist to people actually stealing money (seeing how ineffective these things are, at least in France). If you want to bring up totally unrelated stuff in there it’s up to you, but I do not believe this makes my argument about what’s being discussed here any less valid?
Let’s just agree to disagree! 
I feel like this type of crime is just so easy to do and perceived to be so victimless that many card finders wouldn’t even think twice about giving it a spin in Pizza Perfecto.
In a society where an increasing number of people will think “great, what can I get for under £30?” rather than “Oh no some poor person must be looking for this- let me see if I can find them or let their bank know it’s missing”, there’s a very good chance that someone will try to use it.
Most people would surely still do the right thing as their empathy for the person who lost it outweighs their need for £30 (or £100 or whatever you can run up on contactless), but other people don’t have any empathy or they really want the money.
The banking industry should find solutions to prevent fraud rather than leaving the door wide open and then passing it to the justice system. Card freeze for example put a stop to this case, albeit one transaction too late to prevent a criminal offence taking place. This is a great solution to limit any fraud spotted in real time, however most banks have not implemented anything like that and they’re happy to pay the fraudsters’ costs and charge their honest and god fearing users more overdraft fees to cover the costs.
Why does the average legacy bank require a customer when accessing their money online to have several login passwords, passcodes, memorable data and secure keys, a card reader thingy and a phone to receive verification calls and texts just to send a few quid to a new payee, but when using your card in a store there is not a single thing to stop a good £100 being spent before anyone even notices it’s being used fraudulently?
Who’s great idea was contactless and were they thinking about security when they came up with it - or were they thinking “how can we speed things up and get more sales?”.
In a sad way I feel like.the thief here is a bit of a victim himself of the lazy banking industry. Yeah, people should have empathy and do the right thing, but here’s a homeless guy with mental problems looking for something to eat and finding money on the floor and going to buy food. If I was dying of thirst in a desert and came across a bottle of water, I wouldn’t hand it in as lost property.
He thought he’d get himself a free meal, but he also got a fine and publicly named and shamed to the world as being a criminal. If any prospective employer or girlfriend ever types his name into Google they’ll know exactly how low he’s been and that’s a huge sentence in my opinion…
I wonder if it was a £20 note he found on the floor and went to buy food with - would that be a serious offence where he’d be named and shamed as the scum of the earth and have people on a global forum debating whether he should have been jailed or not?
If I’d heard about a homeless person finding a £20 note and being able to eat I’d have felt a warm fuzzy feeling inside and wished him the best.
And how much to the tax payer do you think that will cost
Good the card fraud was stopped in its track. As to the sentencing do I agree it’s long enough I don’t know. Depends on the individual I guess and the crime. If he is homeless and has mental health issues should he not get help with that.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.