£40M Armed Robbery In Kent

Von Smallhausen · 23 Feb 2006 at 18:52

Phnom_Penh said:
Making someone **** themselves is hardly a crime, but attempted robbery is.

Did the person feel in fear for their life ?

benjo plz. · 23 Feb 2006 at 18:54

Von Smallhausen said:
So that is not harming someone ? They will be totally unaffected by that ?

Unless you can prove PTS or psychological damage, no. Look at the Milgram study into obedience, the participants in it were crapping themselves bigtime, yet no psychological damage was found.

Von Smallhausen said:
And Lloyd's will absorb that loss totally without recouping any off Lloyd's customer base ? Who do you think will pick up all or part of that loss ? That sort of money has to be recouped and the customer base will foot that directly or indirectly. Again I ask .... victimless ?

Lloyds is one of the world's biggest markets, £40m is a drop in the ocean. Dunno who you mean by their customer base, didn't know they had "customers". The people who will pick up the loss will be the insurers, and they insured knowing they had the risk of that kind of loss, and would have underwritten a policy with that taken into account.

Von Smallhausen said:
And there are never victims ?

Only if you hit someone, then its classed as dangerous driving rather than speeding.

gib786 · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:00

I take my hat off to the guys that planned it, done with complete precision!

MrMoon · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:22

gib786 said:
I take my hat off to the guys that planned it, done with complete precision!

why thank you

now who can let me pay some money into their bank account that requires cleaning

Von Smallhausen · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:23

Phnom_Penh said:
Lloyds is one of the world's biggest markets, £40m is a drop in the ocean. Dunno who you mean by their customer base, didn't know they had "customers". The people who will pick up the loss will be the insurers, and they insured knowing they had the risk of that kind of loss, and would have underwritten a policy with that taken into account.

Yes, and insurance payers will pay higher premiums to cover it. That is guaranteed, drop in the ocean or not.

Only if you hit someone, then its classed as dangerous driving rather than speeding.

So when a street where kids play is affected by people speeding, although people are not hit, people and their quality of life is affected. Are they not victims ?

Robert · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:35

Phnom_Penh said:
Making someone **** themselves is hardly a crime, but attempted robbery is.

No, I would've already commited the damn crime! But what followed would have mentally scared that person for life.

Stinky · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:42

gotta be said but that was planned done to a T.

amazing stuff.....

Robert · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:43

Shame two have apparently been caught

Beansprout · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:56

Aye, £40m is a drop in the ocean for Lloyd's....

2004:

Income

* Gross premiums written: £14,713 million
* Pro forma profit on ordinary activities before tax: £1,357 million

Balance sheet

* Balance sheet assets: £50,248 million
* Capital, reserves, and subordinated loan notes: £12,169 million

But it's not nothing.

I take my hat off to the guys that planned it, done with complete precision!

This was not an amazing crime. This was a low-level strategy used because, well, security systems are just too good.

benjo plz. · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:58

Robert said:
But what followed would have mentally scared that person for life.

Unless you can prove it, no. Psychological damage is not enevitable.

Von Smallhausen said:
Yes, and insurance payers will pay higher premiums to cover it. That is guaranteed, drop in the ocean or not.

So when a street where kids play is affected by people speeding, although people are not hit, people and their quality of life is affected. Are they not victims ?

Doubt it, Insurance companies will be able to cover the policy with their cash pool, they won't need to make premiums higher. They only really adjust policies across the board when something major happens, like 9/11, and will suit the policies to the company.

So if you live under a flight path of an airport, which affects quality of life (according to Evans et al 98), you're a victim?

Robert · 23 Feb 2006 at 19:59

Well you'll be a victim of noise pollution, that's for sure!

benjo plz. · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:14

Robert said:
Well you'll be a victim of noise pollution, that's for sure!

Not of a crime your not. How does speeding affect quality of life anyway?

gib786 · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:17

This was not an amazing crime. This was a low-level strategy used because, well, security systems are just too good

I agree it wasnt an amazing crime, but they still managed to pull it off without shooting anyone, or screwing up (so far) Im not saying what they did was good, im just saying im suprised they pulled it off

ScarySquirrel · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:17

I went to College in Tonbrige, and only live about 10 mins from it now

ps. I hate Tonbridge

benjo plz. · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:25

West Kent?

heh

.

ElRazur · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:28

OH MY GOD

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1213153,00.html

The arrest was round the corner from my flat!!!! I know the dude in question, he own a saloon and drives expensive car.

Now i aint implying nothing, im just saying i know the dude arrested.

ScarySquirrel · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:33

Phnom_Penh said:
West Kent?

heh .

yeah

from 2001-2005.

you?

benjo plz. · 23 Feb 2006 at 20:45

Not been there personally, but I agree with the idea of hating Tonbridge

.

Toast · 23 Feb 2006 at 21:40

Phnom_Penh said:
Unless you can prove PTS or psychological damage, no. Look at the Milgram study into obedience, the participants in it were crapping themselves bigtime, yet no psychological damage was found.

Lloyds is one of the world's biggest markets, £40m is a drop in the ocean. Dunno who you mean by their customer base, didn't know they had "customers". The people who will pick up the loss will be the insurers, and they insured knowing they had the risk of that kind of loss, and would have underwritten a policy with that taken into account.

Only if you hit someone, then its classed as dangerous driving rather than speeding.

You're unbelievable. You think that because no one was physicaly hurt then this was a victimless crime? You seriously think that unless *we* can prove it there was no psychological damage?

Get a grip! A man's family was kidnapped, that was his wife and 8 year old son. I wouldn't be surprised if the child peed himself. You ever shouted at a child? That's all it takes to make them cry, just raise your voice and sound mad. Now add pointing a gun at it and threatening their life and you're going to end up with one distressed and deeply upset child. Then there's the mother, fearing for her sons life, scared her child's life will be ended before his time. She too probably peed herself, who knows what she was threatened with. Rape? The prospect of seeing her son be killed? Then you have the father who is fearing for the lives of both of them, their lives hanging in his balance. And there's all the remaining staff too, maybe some had heart conditions, maybe some were easily stressed, who knows, but you can't possbly say that at least some of 18 people aren't going to suffer psychological issues for who knows how long of their life.

I know quite a few armed robbers some of which have done ten years for their crimes, none of them are pleasant people (one looks like an even angrier and beefier Vinnie Jones). I can say that if you came face to face with any of them and they were threatening your life at gunpoint, I seriously doubt you wouldn't be scarred for life. I also know for a fact that one of them caused serious pyschological damage to a number of victims during his robbery.

:rolleyes:

benjo plz. · 23 Feb 2006 at 22:08

All I'm doing is expressing is my view. You don't have to start nuking left, right and center just because you don't like it.

Toast said:
You're unbelievable. You think that because no one was physicaly hurt then this was a victimless crime?

In this case, yes.

Toast said:
You seriously think that unless *we* can prove it there was no psychological damage?

Yes. Can you prove otherwise?

Toast said:
Get a grip! A man's family was kidnapped, that was his wife and 8 year old son.

Ok, but were they harmed?

Toast said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the child peed himself.

So? Is that relevant?

Toast said:
You ever shouted at a child?

Nope. You?

Toast said:
That's all it takes to make them cry, just raise your voice and sound mad.
Now add pointing a gun at it and threatening their life and you're going to end up with one distressed and deeply upset child. Then there's the mother, fearing for her sons life, scared her child's life will be ended before his time. She too probably peed herself, who knows what she was threatened with. Rape? The prospect of seeing her son be killed? Then you have the father who is fearing for the lives of both of them, their lives hanging in his balance. And there's all the remaining staff too, maybe some had heart conditions, maybe some were easily stressed, who knows, but you can't possbly say that at least some of 18 people aren't going to suffer psychological issues for who knows how long of their life.

You're speculating, I would need to see full details of what happened to make a proper decision.

Toast said:
I know quite a few armed robbers some of which have done ten years for their crimes, none of them are pleasant people (one looks like an even angrier and beefier Vinnie Jones). I can say that if you came face to face with any of them and they were threatening your life at gunpoint, I seriously doubt you wouldn't be scarred for life. I also know for a fact that one of them caused serious pyschological damage to a number of victims during his robbery.

Maybe, I've never been in a situation like that, but unless you have a good knowledge of psychology, or know about some evidence I don't, I'll stick to what I know.