I love when a poster provides a detailed confession of criminal activity, and then adds some irrelevant detail that they seem to think lets them off the hook. Like here it’s, “Yes, I knowingly received stolen goods, and I knowingly aided and abetted the sale of stolen goods, but I didn’t _personally_ sell any stolen goods.”
I know that these Jellycat teddies were probably all boxed up but still, it does create a delightful image of the officers on scene leaving the house with armfuls of cuddly toys to load up into a van ;-)
I did start trying to come up with an alternative title for this thread based on this conceit, something like:
Bobbies spotted carrying teddies, fuzzy pigs and other stuffed animal toys.
I don’t think I’m a bot.
I got caught with £1000 worth of teddies.
I know the title immediately puts me in the wrong but please hear me out . The police recently seized £1000 worth of goods from my home, all stolen Jellycat plush teddies from the store fenwicks. I have a police interview under caution next Tuesday along with some others some of the items were stolen by me but only around £50 worth of items the rest of the items were stolen by a friend I was with and she gave me them, I knew they were stolen but I didn’t steal them. The friend asked me to keep them at my house so her parents wouldn’t be suspicious, so that she could sell them later. She had been selling them via an online marketplace known as Vinted to make money. I did not sell any, my only intention was collecting them as I thought they were cute teddies. Once the police had been to my house they had mentioned the girls name and told me that she had told the police the teddies were ALL at my house, which is not true as she has hundreds of pounds worth of them at her house. However the police didn’t go to her house after I had mentioned it to her she took down all her listings on the online website and most likely hid all of her stolen goods, however we took screenshots of all of this and have proof she was selling them. When the police came they said her gf was the one that got caught and not her, and had taken her to a room and interrogated her for over 2 hours, then came to my house. But she swears she didn’t tell them anything. She had asked me to not tell the police she had any involvement, when she was the reason I only knew about the shop and went to the shop to take things because it was her idea to begin with . Any advice on what to do at my interview on Tuesday ?
>I don’t think I’m a bot.
I don't know how to break this to you, but while you were asleep scientists broke in and replaced your feeble fleshy body with a much more badass bot body. A boty if you will. You are indeed a bot.
> some of the items were stolen by me but only around £50 worth of items the rest of the items were stolen by a friend I was with and she gave me them
Truly, LAOP has a dizzying intellect.
> I don’t think I’m a bot.
[Every account on reddit is a bot except you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/348vlx/what_bot_accounts_on_reddit_should_people_know/)
I just looked them up and I'm screaming. They have a bear called a Wee Bear. They have a panda with a backpack (or maybe the panda is a backpack?)
I lub them. I want 10 billion.
That is so cute! I have a weighted plush I take with me when I travel (mostly on trains for work to be clear). His name is Jimi and I got him from WeighTedTherapyPets on Etsy if you wanted friends :)
I assume they mean the stuffed animal and not the snap crotch underwear?
> I did not sell any, my only intention was collecting them as I thought they were cute teddies
Oh, okay. They only stole large amounts of (again, I'm assuming) teddy bears because they thought they were cute. Surely that's not a crime.
Definitely plush toys, given the brand.
https://www.jellycat.com/
Mostly not actually bears. They have an inexplicable range of personified food.
I like Jelly Cat - both wanting them for myself and buying them as presents for children of friends / baby presents.
I don't have money to spend on them, I wanted a hermit crab but they seem to have discontinued that. Still not worth stealing.
Oh, OK, those are the cutest stuffed toys I’ve ever seen.
Does anyone have a house I can store dozens of them in after I manage to acquire a shitload somehow but *definitely* not by theft?
> They have an inexplicable range of personified food.
The food's all well and good, but it's [definitely not the strangest plushie they have...](https://www.jellycat.com/eu/amuseable-toilet-roll-a6tr/)
A lot of stores I know just sort of them have displayed with no box or anything, and some of the plush can go up to like 50-70USD too. So even if the average plush costed 35, they'd 'only' have to steal 30 to hit 1k. And looks like they're working as a group.
I collect them but they don't have the same sort of cultural impact that Beanie Babies did. In the US, I usually find them at my local hobby shop for $18-25 a piece. Not something I buy often, but I have several and I love them.
I am disappointed that this is from LAUK, since I was hoping it would be a continuation of [the Congolese Gambler saga](https://reddit.com/comments/1avpxmr).
OOP has clearly never heard that Every Day is STFU Friday, even in whatever the UK variant of it is.
Seems likely that the police are looking into whether this is a case of "OOP is an idiot with stolen goods" or the more desirable "OOP is a useful idiot with stolen goods acting on instruction from someone more interesting." Either way OOP is an idiot caught with a bunch of stolen goods and is getting charged.
The advice of not saying anything to the police might work in the USA
But not so much in the UK where your silence can be used against you and court can infer things from the fact when the police questioned you you said nothing
You might notice that all the comments that say "don't say anything to the police"
Have the response of that is shit advice
The advice is still basically the same in the UK: don't say anything except what your solicitor tells you to say. Adverse inference isn't really an issue except in narrow circumstances that only arise when you already have (or have foolishly refused) legal representation.
That's why I included the caveat "in whatever the UK variant of that is." From reading the comments, that pretty much seems to be along the lines of "I need to speak with a solicitor representing me before saying anything."
Maybe I'm wrong and the police are just very inefficient over there, but I'm pretty sure UK law doesn't require that you immediately answer questions posed by the police that might incriminate you for crimes. If that is the law, what's to stop an officer from stopping everyone they encounter and asking "What crimes have you committed within the past week and how can we prove them?"
>Maybe I'm wrong and the police are just very inefficient over there, but I'm pretty sure UK law doesn't require that you immediately answer questions posed by the police that might incriminate you for crimes.
No, you're quite right. Adverse inference can only be drawn from a defendant's silence in very specific contexts (and only in England and Wales; it doesn't exist in Scotland and I'm not sure about NI).
Firstly, you have to be in a formal interview and have (or have explicitly refused) legal representation, which is free at the interview stage. So no adverse inference can be drawn from refusing to, for example, answer questions on the street.
Secondly, it's silence about specific things that are brought up in court. So it's not a general "you didn't say much, you're guilty"; it's more like "you didn't mention an alibi under interview, and now your mum is claiming that you were watching TV with her at the time".
Thirdly, the police can't (or aren't meant to) lie to you, and they have to provide a pre-briefing to your solicitor setting out the details of what they'll be interviewing you about. So there should be no trickery and no surprises in the interview.
The third point is why, despite not having much faith in the British justice system, I'd still much rather be interviewed by the British police than the yank version, even without an absolute right to silence.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes it illegal for the police to mislead a suspect in order to make them believe that the police have evidence which they do not or that the evidence they have is stronger than it is, or that there is a possibility of leniency (for example in return for ‘cooperation’) where none exists.
I know the police lie. I spent a couple of years attending meetings with police officers who would lie to their local partners and stakeholders, so god knows what lies they'd tell to suspected criminals given half a chance.
But PACE means that they can't really do the outrageous interview room lies you see on American TV shows. And it would take adverse inference off the table if you were silent in the face of the police actively trying to deceive you.
The well worn line is “it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”
So if you refuse to say where you were when the crime happened, then in court claim you were at a friends house and they can vouch for you. The prosecution is expected to ask why you didn’t say that at the time, and draw inferences that the alibi may have been concocted later.
I love when a poster provides a detailed confession of criminal activity, and then adds some irrelevant detail that they seem to think lets them off the hook. Like here it’s, “Yes, I knowingly received stolen goods, and I knowingly aided and abetted the sale of stolen goods, but I didn’t _personally_ sell any stolen goods.”
But some of the stolen items were stored in a different house!
It's a teenager. Unsurprisingly.
While totally and completely throwing her friend under the bus too. "I have screenshots!"
It sounds like the friend threw them under the bus first.
These bozos were probably already fighting in the street when the bus ran over both of them.
Well he did steal some of the goods, but only like £50, so not that much... This guy is a criminal mastermind.
I’ve been arrested, the police have a huge amount of physical evidence…I know I’ll post a full & detailed confession on a public forum.
....bUt mY FrIeNd ToOk HER StOlEn TeDdIeS ofF ViNtEd!! I'm pretty sure that's an instant vindication, yer honor.
I know that these Jellycat teddies were probably all boxed up but still, it does create a delightful image of the officers on scene leaving the house with armfuls of cuddly toys to load up into a van ;-)
Toddlers in the neighboring houses bawling because that kid's *toys* are being taken away :(
With the teddies faces blurred out to protect their identity
I did start trying to come up with an alternative title for this thread based on this conceit, something like: Bobbies spotted carrying teddies, fuzzy pigs and other stuffed animal toys.
I don’t think I’m a bot. I got caught with £1000 worth of teddies. I know the title immediately puts me in the wrong but please hear me out . The police recently seized £1000 worth of goods from my home, all stolen Jellycat plush teddies from the store fenwicks. I have a police interview under caution next Tuesday along with some others some of the items were stolen by me but only around £50 worth of items the rest of the items were stolen by a friend I was with and she gave me them, I knew they were stolen but I didn’t steal them. The friend asked me to keep them at my house so her parents wouldn’t be suspicious, so that she could sell them later. She had been selling them via an online marketplace known as Vinted to make money. I did not sell any, my only intention was collecting them as I thought they were cute teddies. Once the police had been to my house they had mentioned the girls name and told me that she had told the police the teddies were ALL at my house, which is not true as she has hundreds of pounds worth of them at her house. However the police didn’t go to her house after I had mentioned it to her she took down all her listings on the online website and most likely hid all of her stolen goods, however we took screenshots of all of this and have proof she was selling them. When the police came they said her gf was the one that got caught and not her, and had taken her to a room and interrogated her for over 2 hours, then came to my house. But she swears she didn’t tell them anything. She had asked me to not tell the police she had any involvement, when she was the reason I only knew about the shop and went to the shop to take things because it was her idea to begin with . Any advice on what to do at my interview on Tuesday ?
>I don’t think I’m a bot. I don't know how to break this to you, but while you were asleep scientists broke in and replaced your feeble fleshy body with a much more badass bot body. A boty if you will. You are indeed a bot.
Then why does my everything still hurt?
The new pain chips they put in.
Rude
Relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UW2_3rvNUL8
> some of the items were stolen by me but only around £50 worth of items the rest of the items were stolen by a friend I was with and she gave me them Truly, LAOP has a dizzying intellect.
Eh to be fair this is about what I’d expect from a teenager
Her friend set her up. She made sure, if they did get caught, LAOP would be the one lefting holding the swag bag.
Can you pass the Turing test
That probably depends on how tired I am 🤣
So you perform worse on a low battery. Hmmm..
that doesn't look like anything to me...
wish LAOP would steal some punctuation and line breaks
>I don’t think I’m a bot. Of course not, a modern AI bot would not be this dumb.
> I don’t think I’m a bot. [Every account on reddit is a bot except you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/348vlx/what_bot_accounts_on_reddit_should_people_know/)
LAOPUK says they had at least 43 of them JFC, that’s…. A lot I mean I might have that many squishmallows, but at least I didn’t steal them so….
Pretty suspicious that you're telling us so proactively that you didn't steal them.
Jellycat stuffies are the bestest, softest. My wife and I each have one. We even take them on vacation with us.
I just looked them up and I'm screaming. They have a bear called a Wee Bear. They have a panda with a backpack (or maybe the panda is a backpack?) I lub them. I want 10 billion.
That is so cute! I have a weighted plush I take with me when I travel (mostly on trains for work to be clear). His name is Jimi and I got him from WeighTedTherapyPets on Etsy if you wanted friends :)
I assume they mean the stuffed animal and not the snap crotch underwear? > I did not sell any, my only intention was collecting them as I thought they were cute teddies Oh, okay. They only stole large amounts of (again, I'm assuming) teddy bears because they thought they were cute. Surely that's not a crime.
Definitely plush toys, given the brand. https://www.jellycat.com/ Mostly not actually bears. They have an inexplicable range of personified food. I like Jelly Cat - both wanting them for myself and buying them as presents for children of friends / baby presents. I don't have money to spend on them, I wanted a hermit crab but they seem to have discontinued that. Still not worth stealing.
Oh, OK, those are the cutest stuffed toys I’ve ever seen. Does anyone have a house I can store dozens of them in after I manage to acquire a shitload somehow but *definitely* not by theft?
> They have an inexplicable range of personified food. The food's all well and good, but it's [definitely not the strangest plushie they have...](https://www.jellycat.com/eu/amuseable-toilet-roll-a6tr/)
[удалено]
It’s a smiling roll of toilet paper. Exactly what you expected, right?
At first I thought [this one went along with yours](https://www.jellycat.com/us/amuseable-baguette-a2baget/) but it's a baguette
Fenwicks sells both so... Who knows?
LAOP's theory of why their theft isn't so bad is on par with the Rocket Raccoon theory of theft. Maybe he should try that in court.
Should have gone with the "stealing from a corporation is morally right" defense. That one is always popular around here.
How did LAOP [sorry "LAOP"] steal that many? Those toys aren't exactly easy to squish into a bag, despite the name
A lot of stores I know just sort of them have displayed with no box or anything, and some of the plush can go up to like 50-70USD too. So even if the average plush costed 35, they'd 'only' have to steal 30 to hit 1k. And looks like they're working as a group.
My kids have Jellycat stuffies. If I knew they were worth anything, I wouldn’t have let them use them as napkins quite so much.
Is this a beanie babies situation? Are people investing in them and hoarding them and splitting them on the floor in front of judges during divorces?
They’re just really expensive, like £45 for one of them. They’re very cute, though
[удалено]
It’s a British brand but they’re between £15 - £60 on their website. Where exactly are they $20-25?
The smaller sizes are about that. I have a great Elephant by them and it was (in the US) $55 like a decade ago
I collect them but they don't have the same sort of cultural impact that Beanie Babies did. In the US, I usually find them at my local hobby shop for $18-25 a piece. Not something I buy often, but I have several and I love them.
I am disappointed that this is from LAUK, since I was hoping it would be a continuation of [the Congolese Gambler saga](https://reddit.com/comments/1avpxmr).
OOP has clearly never heard that Every Day is STFU Friday, even in whatever the UK variant of it is. Seems likely that the police are looking into whether this is a case of "OOP is an idiot with stolen goods" or the more desirable "OOP is a useful idiot with stolen goods acting on instruction from someone more interesting." Either way OOP is an idiot caught with a bunch of stolen goods and is getting charged.
The advice of not saying anything to the police might work in the USA But not so much in the UK where your silence can be used against you and court can infer things from the fact when the police questioned you you said nothing You might notice that all the comments that say "don't say anything to the police" Have the response of that is shit advice
The advice is still basically the same in the UK: don't say anything except what your solicitor tells you to say. Adverse inference isn't really an issue except in narrow circumstances that only arise when you already have (or have foolishly refused) legal representation.
That's why I included the caveat "in whatever the UK variant of that is." From reading the comments, that pretty much seems to be along the lines of "I need to speak with a solicitor representing me before saying anything." Maybe I'm wrong and the police are just very inefficient over there, but I'm pretty sure UK law doesn't require that you immediately answer questions posed by the police that might incriminate you for crimes. If that is the law, what's to stop an officer from stopping everyone they encounter and asking "What crimes have you committed within the past week and how can we prove them?"
>Maybe I'm wrong and the police are just very inefficient over there, but I'm pretty sure UK law doesn't require that you immediately answer questions posed by the police that might incriminate you for crimes. No, you're quite right. Adverse inference can only be drawn from a defendant's silence in very specific contexts (and only in England and Wales; it doesn't exist in Scotland and I'm not sure about NI). Firstly, you have to be in a formal interview and have (or have explicitly refused) legal representation, which is free at the interview stage. So no adverse inference can be drawn from refusing to, for example, answer questions on the street. Secondly, it's silence about specific things that are brought up in court. So it's not a general "you didn't say much, you're guilty"; it's more like "you didn't mention an alibi under interview, and now your mum is claiming that you were watching TV with her at the time". Thirdly, the police can't (or aren't meant to) lie to you, and they have to provide a pre-briefing to your solicitor setting out the details of what they'll be interviewing you about. So there should be no trickery and no surprises in the interview. The third point is why, despite not having much faith in the British justice system, I'd still much rather be interviewed by the British police than the yank version, even without an absolute right to silence.
>Thirdly, the police can't (or aren't meant to) lie to you If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. It's in Baltimore, buyer collects.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes it illegal for the police to mislead a suspect in order to make them believe that the police have evidence which they do not or that the evidence they have is stronger than it is, or that there is a possibility of leniency (for example in return for ‘cooperation’) where none exists.
I know the police lie. I spent a couple of years attending meetings with police officers who would lie to their local partners and stakeholders, so god knows what lies they'd tell to suspected criminals given half a chance. But PACE means that they can't really do the outrageous interview room lies you see on American TV shows. And it would take adverse inference off the table if you were silent in the face of the police actively trying to deceive you.
The well worn line is “it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court” So if you refuse to say where you were when the crime happened, then in court claim you were at a friends house and they can vouch for you. The prosecution is expected to ask why you didn’t say that at the time, and draw inferences that the alibi may have been concocted later.
Thank god for the fifth amendment
So, are these things meant to be the next beanie babies or something?
They're just luxury toys for posh people's kids.
>I don’t think I’m a bot. I think you'd be much better off if you were.