How to outwit a burglar.

[gordonartist]

How to outwit a burglar. Worth a read.

From the BBC

How to outwit a burglar WHO, WHAT, WHY? The Magazine answers...

New research suggests that alarms and home security systems don't deter burglars, so what does? Britons spent an astonishing £522m last year on measures to protect themselves against burglars, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research.

But new research suggests it is a waste of money as burglars are not deterred by alarms, home security systems or dogs. They simply choose homes that offer easy access and escape routes and appear "profitable'' targets.

So if the latest high-tech security systems won't stop a burglar, what will? It is a question that more and more people are asking. The most recent British Crime Survey, released in February, showed the burglaries in England and Wales fell by 7% last year but still topped 75,000.

Predictable

Almost half of 50 persistent burglars interviewed for the study by researchers from Portsmouth University believed home security had improved over the past 10 years, but all of them felt security features were "rarely enough to deter them''.

Burglars have a mental map when they do a job, which comes automatically. What they rely on is the fact that most householders leave valuables in predictable places, meaning most homes can be searched in exactly the same way.

Their search pattern usually involves heading for the main bedroom, as the most likely location for hidden valuables, then moving to other bedrooms and living rooms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4938394.stm

Take care,

Gordon.

[BabyRider]

Here's an even better way that I have said many times before: if you catch someone trying to break into your home, the very distinctive sound of a shell being racked into the chamber of a pump-action shotgun will make the bravest burglar turn tail and run, peeing on himself the whole way.

[BabyRider]

koochikoo wrote: A friends husband and a few of his mates came home drunk one night and caught a burglar red-handed in their house. They took him out to the backyard put his hands on the chopping block, got the axe and asked him which side of it he would prefer, the back or the front. He got away with several smashed fingers and I'll bet he thought twice about his carreer in home invasion!
I like your friends husband. He sounds like someone I'd get along with well. :yh_bigsmi

[golem]

In GB it is illegal to have hand guns for ANY purpose. Consequently many criminals carry handguns, especially in the major cities where drug and street crime really is rife. I am more fearful of walking around some parts of London when visiting the UK which I do on a regular basis than walking around even some of the hot spots of The West Bank.

In GB it is very difficult to have a shot gun and even then it must be kept in a gun cupboard and generally inaccessible.

In GB a criminal can sue a householder if he is injured in the execution of his crime by some defect in the house.

In GB if you attack a criminal who has broken into your home beyond the force needed to defend yourself you will be prosecuted – by the police and possibly later by the criminal for damages.

It seems to me that the people in GB are getting what they deserve for having such stupid laws.

There are times that I think that the laws have been drawn up to be of assistance to criminals. It really is bizarre.

[BabyRider]

golem wrote: It seems to me that the people in GB are getting what they deserve for having such stupid laws.

There are times that I think that the laws have been drawn up to be of assistance to criminals.


Those are by far two of the most intelligent comments I have ever heard in regard to gun control and the laws in the UK.

[golem]

Diuretic wrote:



What do you suggest as alternatives?


Once a person sets out to commit a crime he is stripped of all protection provided under Human Rights legislation. He should be, for the duration of the crime that he is committing, beyond all protection by the law. He becomes in effect fair game.

There will be mistakes, some with tragic consequences, but a ‘fits all’ solution is not ever possible and the present situation in the UK is dreadful.

All law abiding householders should be permitted and even encouraged to possess a small to medium calibre hand gun in their houses subject to first passing a test to demonstrate capability of using it and awareness of what it will do.

Then there is the root cause of so much crime. Drugs.

Like the making of guns illegal in the UK the making of drugs that can be used for recreational purposes illegal simply doesn’t make sense. I strongly suspect that the present bans are as much a result of successful lobbying in the past by the alcohol and tobacco interests as anything else.

The illegality of drugs and the effect on the market by demand far outstripping supply results in very high prices whilst the illegality of possession and dealing in drugs that further squeezes supply creates a situation where the addicts simply have to resort to crime to fund their habit.

Legalise drugs. All drugs. Let those who will die from overindulgence die. At least it removes them from the gene pool. The massive reduction in commodity price associated with legalisation combined with easing of supply would remove much of the motivation for people to commit crime as their costs to live their sick lifestyle fell.

I suspect there would probably be a secondary benefit when young people saw drugs not as a route to demonstrate their rebellious instincts (we all had them) but as a hazarded to be avoided when they saw the drug addicts falling like flies.

But going back to GB, the country really seems to have lost its way. Maybe it’s my only being there a few days every couple of months that lets me see it in true perspective. There is no way that I would take my family to the UK for vacation. Apart from the very real danger in most cities the prices for everything are ridiculous and the quality of what you get is at best second rate or worse. For the most part the place is dirty, the people sullen, the society is mostly foul, and such few attractions as there are over hyped.

Sorry if it offends but it's how I see the UK these days.

[theia]

golem wrote: But going back to GB, the country really seems to have lost its way. Maybe it’s my only being there a few days every couple of months that lets me see it in true perspective. There is no way that I would take my family to the UK for vacation. Apart from the very real danger in most cities the prices for everything are ridiculous and the quality of what you get is at best second rate or worse. For the most part the place is dirty, the people sullen, the society is mostly foul, and such few attractions as there are over hyped.

Sorry if it offends but it's how I see the UK these days.


Fair enough, Golem, if that's the way you see the UK. Some of it may well be true but aren't you in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Or worse, stereotyping? I believe there is no one true perspective, all are partial.

Some parts of some cities are dangerous. Prices are indeed very high here but quality varies as I'm sure it must all over the world. Some places are dirty, some are clean. Some people are sullen, some are not. Some of our society is foul, some isn't. Some attractions are over hyped, some aren't. Yet, couldn't your observations be levelled at other places in the world too? I believe most of the world has lost its way.

[gordonartist]

You say, "Once a person sets out to commit a crime he is stripped of all protection provided under Human Rights legislation. He should be, for the duration of the crime that he is committing, beyond all protection by the law. He becomes in effect fair game."

Exactly where does it say this in the UN Charter of Human Rights or the the US Declaration of Human Rights or the French Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen or anywhere in British Common Law?

I have spent many months travelling in the UK, months travelling in the USA and Canada and years travelling in my country and have never felt the need to protect myself or my family with a firearm. You may feel the need in your country. Perhaps that is a problem with the people in your country.

Gordon.

[golem]

theia wrote: Fair enough, Golem, if that's the way you see the UK. Some of it may well be true but aren't you in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Or worse, stereotyping? I believe there is no one true perspective, all are partial.

Some parts of some cities are dangerous. Prices are indeed very high here but quality varies as I'm sure it must all over the world. Some places are dirty, some are clean. Some people are sullen, some are not. Some of our society is foul, some isn't. Some attractions are over hyped, some aren't. Yet, couldn't your observations be levelled at other places in the world too? I believe most of the world has lost its way.


I fully agree that it’s not possible to make statements that universally apply to the whole of the UK, also that any statement is universally true in all respects.

In general terms much as it’s possible to generalise about France and write that the people are xenophobic or that Germany offers good value for money and good quality in both goods and services, so the UK is, at least in MY opinion, as I describe it.



I don't know what's happened but it's got this way over the last ten years - again in my opinion.

[golem]

gordonartist wrote:

You say, "Once a person sets out to commit a crime he is stripped of all protection provided under Human Rights legislation. He should be, for the duration of the crime that he is committing, beyond all protection by the law. He becomes in effect fair game."

Exactly where does it say this in the UN Charter of Human Rights or the the US Declaration of Human Rights or the French Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen or anywhere in British Common Law?


It doesn’t.

It should.

gordonartist wrote: I have spent many months travelling in the UK, months travelling in the USA and Canada and years travelling in my country and have never felt the need to protect myself or my family with a firearm. You may feel the need in your country. Perhaps that is a problem with the people in your country.


Not just mine, also Switzerland. Also several US states as well.

A gun is not just a means of attack. Itis also a thing that provides protection by the potential attacker having in his mind that if he does attack he may come off worse.

[golem]

Diuretic wrote:

Originally Posted by golem

Once a person sets out to commit a crime he is stripped of all protection provided under Human Rights legislation. He should be, for the duration of the crime that he is committing, beyond all protection by the law. He becomes in effect fair game.

The problem there is that it has to be an ex post facto process. It doesn’t help the person dealing with the criminal at that time. Sure, later on a court, having found the criminal guilty after due process, can make that declaration (a bit like the trespasser ab initio idea at common law) but it doesn’t give much hope to the person dealing with the criminal. What if the criminal is found ‘not guilty’ and then the focus turns to the former ‘victim’? I think it’s best to leave it as it is now, it’s clearer in that proportionate force can be used (I know that’s hard enough to work out in the first place, I’ve had years of trying to work out what proportionate force to use in violent situations and it’s not very comforting but common sense usually works).


Common sense is a very scare commodity especially in the UK legal system. I really can’t understand why as the rest of the EU seem to manage fine, there’s something quite bizarre about how the Brits interpret the law.

It’s not possible to get a one size fits all in this and there is a risk (certainty) that there will be a very few cases where a person has entered a home for legitimate reasons will come off worse but there’s a need to work the numbers. There’s also the opportunity for a person to invite another into their house and shoot them and subsequently claim that the person had broken in.

But there’s a but. The but is the likelihood of it happening and the numbers involved. Maybe the few cases of such abuse are worth accepting for the benefits of reducing the burglary rate.

Diuretic wrote: Quote:

There will be mistakes, some with tragic consequences, but a ‘fits all’ solution is not ever possible and the present situation in the UK is dreadful.

Yes, the tragic consequence will be a householder sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.


Not if he can claim that he acted in the reasonable expectation that the person that he shot had broken into his home.

Diuretic wrote: Quote:

All law abiding householders should be permitted and even encouraged to possess a small to medium calibre hand gun in their houses subject to first passing a test to demonstrate capability of using it and awareness of what it will do.

Which means then that housebreakers will select at random a house to break into to get money, jewellery and other items which are easy to get rid of and as a bonus they can expect to get a handgun.


Or more likely a small piece of nickel coated lead FROM a handgun and appplied internally.

Diuretic wrote: Quote:

But going back to GB, the country really seems to have lost its way. Maybe it’s my only being there a few days every couple of months that lets me see it in true perspective. There is no way that I would take my family to the UK for vacation. Apart from the very real danger in most cities the prices for everything are ridiculous and the quality of what you get is at best second rate or worse. For the most part the place is dirty, the people sullen, the society is mostly foul, and such few attractions as there are over hyped.

Sorry if it offends but it's how I see the UK these days.



I haven’t been there since 1982, but I keep hearing bad things about it.


That's around 24 years ago. Nearly a quarter iof a century.

I go there every few weeks. It’s very bad and getting worse. I only go because I have to.

[golem]

Diuretic wrote: How do the Brits interpret the law? I know that many countries in the EU have inherited their systems from Roman law and it differs in its logic from the English common law but I'd be interested in your response. Let me say though that the Engish common law definitely could do with some modernisation but I think there's still similarity between legal reasoning in common law systems and legal reasoning in civil law systems.

I hope I'm not dragging this thread way off topic.


From what I’ve seen the Brits seem intent of following the law to the letter even when the result is not in their national best interest.

Take ‘asylum seekers’. France and Italy and Spain seem quite able to rapidly decide if a claim is legitimate or not and expel all those who fail in a matter of days if not hours yet the Brits seem to be unable to do so and even continue to pay them from public funds to remain.

Then the immigrant workers from other EU states, especially the new states where the rest of the EU states put very strict controls on what such people may or may not do and what they are and are not entitled to from the member state yet the Brits (along with the Irish) seem hell bent on giving public funds to anyone who asks for it.

Next prisoners. The British prisons are infamous for being lax and far more like hostels than prisons.

Then children. The British kids are for the most part undisciplined if not actually criminal horrors in many cases especially in the major cities. Again not all, but certainly most. The law seems unable or unwilling to do a thing about them and the introduction of the ‘ASBO’ is ludicrous. Nothing short of political window dressing.

No, there’s something very unhealthy about British society at present.

[golem]

Diuretic wrote: So should the British government (that's who we're referring to I take it) ignore their own laws on the basis of the national interest? Can Tony Blair or Jack Straw or Charles Clarke say, "hmmm, this is not in our national interest, let's just ignore the law"?


There may even be times that is precisely what they should do and then let parliment decide.

But what is at issue is the manner in which the intent of a law is overridden by the British judiciary to the detriment of the British people as a whole. Parliment is being usurped by law made by unelected judges.

The adoption by Britain of the ECHR was in my opinion a massive mistake for them to have made. It is the abuse of the ECHR by lawyers and legalistic judges that is causing so many problems in GB today.

[gmc]

golem wrote: In GB it is illegal to have hand guns for ANY purpose. Consequently many criminals carry handguns, especially in the major cities where drug and street crime really is rife. I am more fearful of walking around some parts of London when visiting the UK which I do on a regular basis than walking around even some of the hot spots of The West Bank.

In GB it is very difficult to have a shot gun and even then it must be kept in a gun cupboard and generally inaccessible.

In GB a criminal can sue a householder if he is injured in the execution of his crime by some defect in the house.

In GB if you attack a criminal who has broken into your home beyond the force needed to defend yourself you will be prosecuted – by the police and possibly later by the criminal for damages.

It seems to me that the people in GB are getting what they deserve for having such stupid laws.

There are times that I think that the laws have been drawn up to be of assistance to criminals. It really is bizarre.


Maybe you should stop visiting if you feel that way about it. I'm sure no one will miss you. There are bits of any city that are best avoided by tourists, if you do come keep away from them you can usually get a good sense of whether you should hang around or not. Actually there are some bits of London I would avoid as well, especially at night.

You should also stop reading the tabloid press who like to take things and spin them in to a good scare story. Next time you read about someone being jailed try and remember we have jury trials in this country. If someone is found guilty then it is their peers that have judged them so not the police, not the govt and not the judges but their peers. There have only been a handful of people so convicted over the last fifteen years. Maybe you don't have jury trials where you come from.

In Scotland there are plans afoot to ban the sale of air rifles to those under 16 and require them to be licenced in future. There have been a spate of little thugs shooting at people with them and two toddlers were killed recently killed, We react by taking the guns of the little sh)YYRs rather than by arming toddlers in self defence. If you think it is an action imposed by govt you would be very mistaken. Same with the banning of hand guns the govt was left in no doubt as to how people felt about the issue the ban was as a result of lublic demand.

We don't have a gun culture here-comparisons between such diverse attitudes is meaningless and a waste of time and tells you nothing.

Given your conviction that everybody is out to get you it's probably just as well you cen't get a gun while you are here in case somebody bumped in to you and ou assumed they were about to attack.

[golem]

Diuretic wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by golem

There may even be times that is precisely what they should do and then let parliment decide.

But the Crown can't break its own laws and if they did that it would mean the rule of law - one of the things that prevents dictatorship taking root - would be overturned. In the British system the executive (Cabinet) has to persuade the legislature (Parliament) and both have to act within the bounds of the constitutional law as it is, not as they would like it to be. I suspect you're familiar with the doctrine of the separation of powers. And by the way that is not a sarcastic comment, I am making an assumption.


No sarcasm assumed. Many people are not aware of the principle.

But for one thing there is no such thing as real constitutional law as the much vaunted British Constitution is non existent. There is NO written British Constitution. OK. We’ve not yet got one either but we do have a draft that has a least some legal standing and it is intended that we will soon have it formalized and issued.

What’s more the problem seen from a distance is one of the corruption of the traditional legislation process by the present and to a lesser extent previous governments whereby patronage by the PM has resulted in a cabinet that no longer forms a chamber where policy is decided, it has become a chamber where policy is dictated by the PM and the cabinet ministers are then delegated to get it undertaken with the parliamentary whips keeping the back bench MP’s on song.

This has resulted in both bad law and also badly worded and constructed law as the committee stages have also been stuffed with members that are not representative of the electorate not to mention lacking in ability. Add to that the ridiculous first past the post electoral process, a thing that is now utterly undemocratic with more than two principle parties splitting the vote, and the whole British parliamentary system is failing.

Certainly there are many times when I think that we in Israel have the worst of all worlds as our permanent coalition form of government as the effect is so often that the minority (and often single issue) parties can have massively greater political clout than their electorate numbers would indicate so I’m well aware that I’m throwing stones from within a glass house but at least I’m well aware of it and I’m aiming through an open doorway!

Diuretic wrote:

Quote:

But what is at issue is the manner in which the intent of a law is overridden by the British judiciary to the detriment of the British people as a whole. Parliment is being usurped by law made by unelected judges.

No it isn't. The British judiciary is merely doing its job pursuant to the doctrine of the separation of powers. I'm stating the obvious here but Parliament exists to make the law. In Britain there is an elected chamber (Commons) and an unelected chamber (Lords) so in essence legislation is made by people who are elected and those who are unelected. Given that the unelected nature of judges is irrelevant. After all the supreme court of England and Wales is the House of Lords. That's the limit of Parliament's authority. Parliament doesn't interpret and apply the law to specific cases. That's the job of the judges.

Judges have to decide cases based on precedent, stare decisis. I know in civil law systems that precedent is not as strong but it does exist. In English common law stare decisis is a bulwark against dictatorship, it values stability. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, it avoids fleeting popular opinion in favour of considered reasoning.


In theory that is unquestionably true but in practice it’s not what is happening. The reality is that there are now judges that are riding roughshod over the law that parliament has enacted and basing their decisions on the output from Brussels, the pure legalistic interpretation of Brussels law, and the pure legalistic interpretation of the EHCR even when this runs counter to the will of palliment and the national interests.

[gmc]

posted by golem

In theory that is unquestionably true but in practice it’s not what is happening. The reality is that there are now judges that are riding roughshod over the law that parliament has enacted and basing their decisions on the output from Brussels, the pure legalistic interpretation of Brussels law, and the pure legalistic interpretation of the EHCR even when this runs counter to the will of palliment and the national interests.


Actually they're not riding roughshod over the law. If parliament write a badly worded law the courts are there to interpret and apply the law and also to act as a check on parliament andn in particular government ministers exceeding theor powers.

I presume you are referring to the recent case where they ordered the releaseof people detained on the orders of the home secretary under terrorism legislation.

One of the fundamentals planks of our freedom is the freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. The terrorist act is badly written and passed in haste and quite frankly it was a good thing that the home secretary got put back in his place. We have the ludicrous situation where and octogenarian heckling at the labour party conference was arrested under the terrorist act anti-war demonstrators are being arrested under the same act.

The judiciary is independent of parliament and govt precisely so it can act as a check on the power of govt.

The home secretary and the security services do not and should never have the authority to order the detention of people without trial. If they have enough reason to suspect someone is a terrorist they have enough to bring them to trial. You need some check to stop people being held without trial.

posted by diuretic

Hear hear! There is a de facto presidential system corrupting the process and it has grown immeasurably worse under Blair.


started under Thatcher and got worse under Tony. Know who I blame? The MP's, they have the power to stop TB and his cronies but are so worried about getting reelected they are making sure they get kicked out of office. Sonner or later tbey will realise TB is now a liability IMO.

I reckon TB has destroyed the Labout party as a political force for the immediate futrure muchas Maggie destroyed the Tories.

We could do with a coalition govt here rather than the ludicrous situiation where a party that has less tharn 2/3rds of the vote thinks it has a mandate to rule.

Don't knock our much vaunted constitution it has served us well and many have tried to emulate it. The very fact it is not written gives it a flexibility and adaptability that allows it to change with the times rther than break under pressure.

[gmc]

Diuretic wrote: Good points in your post gmc, if I may say so.

I wasn't knocking the British constitution. I was making the point that the constitutional base of Britain's liberal democracy is built not on one document but on a collection of statutes, of which the 1688 Bill of Rights is but one, common law precedents stretching back to before Henry II and custom.

The intricacies of the British constitution and the fact that it works even though it's not contained in one single place are perhaps lost on those who have a written constitution.

I am well aware of the arguments for and against both forms. The blazing argument in the US between the various "originalists" and the so-called "activists" in terms of constitutional interpretation is fascinating to me.


You might find this of interest-assuming you are unaware of it.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glo ... ebates.htm

It's one of my favourite what ifs-what if the levellers had won out in the debate and it's aftermath. I reckon you can see echoes of the arguements on both sides of the atlantic.

Personally I reckon what many see as a flaw is the major advantage of our parliamentary system. You can't micro manage human society.

[Frederick]

I know it's terribly old hat, but if I were a burglar walking past a house and saw a hefty pair of mud-covered Paddy boots, I'd probably walk on. Pure psychology, but it does actually work. The same as seeing a sticker Wan Pie Su Karate club on the back of a car windscreen. Neighbourhood Watch is crap - the only thing they's watch is television.

[Frederick]

Diuretic wrote: You would indeed Frederick, but when you walked back and saw the boots weren't there you'd think to yourself, "hmmmm, gone to work" and you - well not you, but the housebreaker - would then go to work. Housebreakers generally speaking don't want to confront the householder, it's too dangerous. It's why they prefer what you would call a bungalow and like to leave both the front and back doors open when doing the break. That way if the householder comes in one door the breaker can exit via the other.


Indeed, but here's the clever part - like the karate club sticker, it is a VISUAL deterrant - basically it's a suggestion for the ladies. Pure psychology. That's why I don't have a burglar alarm - it attracts the burglar's attention. If somebody is prepared to fork out a couple of thousand quid on a burglar alarm system, there must be something worth pinching! I could just about afford a Mercedes, but why advertise the fact that you've got money? Talking of which I saw a poster of a rotweiller in a window with the message: "Go on, break in - make my day!"

[BabyRider]

Frederick wrote: Talking of which I saw a poster of a rotweiller in a window with the message: "Go on, break in - make my day!"
A friend of mine has a similar one, only it's a Doberman picture and it says, "I can make it to the fence in 1.6 seconds....can you?"

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

I have a simple CCTV system one camera in my porch covering the front door and car one camera covering the back of the house and one camera high up covering the court yard of the small mews that i live in and if all of that fail's i have a 10 1/2 stone Rottie that will introduse himself to you if you so decide to break into my house ...........why take a chance... for as little as thirty english quid you can have cheap efficient recordable CCTV system protecting your home ..protect yourself because nobody else will:D

[Frederick]

BabyRider wrote: A friend of mine has a similar one, only it's a Doberman picture and it says, "I can make it to the fence in 1.6 seconds....can you?"


Brill!:yh_rotfl

[Jives]

The Poor Man's Security system:

1. Get a life-sized cardboard cutout of a human being from the grocery store when they are done with the ad campaign.

2. Put it in your back window.

3. Park your cars in the garage. Make sure there are no ways to look in the garage. That way there's no way to tell if the people are home or not.

4. Install videocameras. (They don't even have to work. They sell very realistic mock-ups for dirt cheap, they even have a little "LED" light to make them seem real.)

5. Get a set of "Security System Installed" stickers from Radio Shack. Put them in the corners of all windows.

It has worked wonders for me!

;)

[valerie]

We used to live in a place that had a parking lot on one side, and a swimming

pool area for an apartment complex on the other. A lot of times guys (sorry

it was ALWAYS guys) would be running from the police and come down

through there, that way they only had to cross one fence (ours) at the

corner instead of a half dozen in backyards. It was I can't tell you HOW

satisfying to see a guy come over the fence, and all of a sudden here is

this 75 pound fearsome German Shepherd girl barking at their feet. I went

out and said stuff to a couple of the guys, too. Like: Don't fall in, I can't

guarantee what she'll do!! :yh_giggle (Windmilling arms trying to keep their

balance, it was hilarious)



But the best deterrant was one of those man figure targets from the

shooting range, taped in the back window. When they see only ONE

of your 17 shots missed... they think twice about comin' in'!!



:-6

[golem]

A burglar had broken into a house at night.

Sneaking around he suddenly hears a voice quietly say "Jesus is

watching you!"

He’s shocked. He crouches down, keeps schtum for a while, but nothing more is said.

After a short time having heard hears nothing, he gets up and starts to look for anything he can steal.

Again it comes, this time louder

"Jesus is still watching you!"

"My life!” he thinks, "What’s happening?”

VERY quietly and carefully he steps back towards the wall but again – this time very loud and very distinctly ---- "Jesus is REALLY watching you and every move that you make!"

In desperation and feeling both afraid as well as spooked he turns on the desk light half expecting to see a clergyman who might have been dozing or ---- well, who KNOWS what but he never expected to see what he did.

A large cage and in it --- a large parrot.



Says the Burglar "Did YOU say that?"

Says the parit "Yep!"

"You talk good!" Says the burglar.

"Yes” replied the bird, “I'm very old and have seen a great many things and learned even more.”

"Oy Vey!” says the burglar, “ You scared me like crazy --- but hey --- isn’t ‘Jesus’ a dumb name to give a parot?"

”It would be” replied the bird “except my name is Polly. Jesus is that 50 kilo Rottweiler sitting slavering quietly by the window he let you come in through, Now for him that really is a dumb name.”

--Unknown Author

[theia]

Jives wrote:

1. Get a life-sized cardboard cutout of a human being from the grocery store when they are done with the ad campaign.


Jives, my ex used to leave a photograph of me on his dashboard...he said that it would ensure that no-one would come near the car, let alone try to steal it :wah:

[Nomad]

A few I like.

Attached files

[BabyRider]

Nomad wrote: A few I like.
There's a sign in the clubhouse parking lot that says, "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again."

[woppy71]

LOL!! Some great ideas!! Have to say I prefer the "Organic" burgular alarm: A dog!:)