• Hello, If you are looking for the YouTuber Special Camp - Gregg Virgoe Meetup please CLICK HERE

Fuel theft!

Minisorella

Moderator

Messages
1,325
*snip*

You can't wire your door handles to the mains power just because nobody should be trying them.

*snip*
It seems that you can... provided there's a clear warning and the shock wouldn't be enough to do serious harm
 

WildCamper

Free Member

Messages
34
It seems that you can... provided there's a clear warning and the shock wouldn't be enough to do serious harm
Mains power would do them lots of harm!
You have highlighted the difference though between intending to do harm/damage/taking revenge and intending to protect your property. The warning notice covers you to some extent as it shows your intent is to prevent them trying to enter your property, not to hurt them.
 

trevskoda

Full Member

Messages
1,093
A farmer friend of mine was fed up with visits from the other group of travelers , who helped themselves to the fuel in his horsebox on a regular basis . He drained the tank , disconnected it and filled with a diesel cocktail , including some red and even roundup and sugar !! Sure enough it went , never had a visit since . He also ran a merc diesel car on red , had an auxillary tank in boot , normal tank was not connected but 3/4 full of road fuel .
They can open fuel filter which will be red with dye.
 

Markd

Full Member

Messages
344
They can open fuel filter which will be red with dye.
[/QUOTE]
See post #21

Sqirrelcook - Second theft is worrying, sorry to read of it.
Can you get cctv surveillance?

Wildebus - I tend to agree with you about setting a trap with unusable fuel.
Yes it's going to wreck any engine it's put in but that's just tough on the thieves and a risk they take when acquiring second hand fuel.
If it works - it works!

Just don't see the argument that taxes are theft - if we don't agree with them there are legitimate avenues to have them changed - good luck with that😀
 

daygoboy

Free Member

Messages
227
It seems that you can... provided there's a clear warning and the shock wouldn't be enough to do serious harm
And how would someone live with the knowledge that a neighbour's 5 year old may go awol and
cannot read the warning, may even have a weak heart? I'm certain such a vigilante would have a
few years in pokey to contemplate their actions!
 
Last edited:

Minisorella

Moderator

Messages
1,325
And how would someone live with the fact that a neighbour's 5 year old may go awol and
cannot read the warning, may even have a weak heart? I'm certain such a vigilante would have a
few years in pokey to contemplate their actions!
I'm not condoning it, just reporting. I meant to include this link in my post...

 

wildebus

Full Member

Messages
1,860
I believe the had to be a level of reasonableness when deploying a deterrent. i.e. What is the impact of the deterent and what is the likelyhood of an innocent party getting involved/impacted?
This is a good example of someone getting fed up and putting up a deterrent without thinking it through properly and it resulting in tragic cicrumstances - https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/two-men-charged-over-death-16532357

Setting a "trap" for burglars that gave them a whack in the head if they forced open a locked door - sounds fine to me.
Doing the same if the door is to a public building and unlocked but just has a "no entry" sign on it - definately not as any innocent party could accidently go through the door irrespective of signage (may not be able to read; may not be able to read the language it is written in; may be blind).
Setting up a shotgun to fire if that locked door is forced open - totally dispropotionate deterrent.


In the case of the spiked fuel, an innocent party is not going to go up to a fuel store thinking it was free to use. That just doesn't happen. The only people who are going to access the fuel legitimately is the owner and no one else will access it for legitimate reasons. If the farmer set explosives up so the tank blew up when the fuel started to drain, then THAT would be disproportionate to the crime as the risk to life would be great (you don't get a death sentence handed down by the courts for theft, do you.), but spiking the fuel to cause inconvenience and possibly damage to a theives engine by using stolen fuel? seems a perfectly reasonable deterrent and it seemed to work as no more fuel was stolen. I don't think a "please do not steal" sticker would have worked? There was no loss of life or any potential loss of life. (Now if he was getting brake fluid stolen say and he tampered with that to make it corrosive to eat away at brake pipes, that could be considered OTT, but causing an engine to run bad and then break ... a broken-down vehicle is not generally dangerous)
And actually the farmer has lost out also as whatever fuel was stolen or not stolen, all the spiked fuel is probably no use for anything?

There was mention in a post about someone being culpable if they had a gun and it was stolen and used to hurt/kill someone? Well this is why there is a requirement to keep them in a gun safe. If someone breaks into a house and then a gun safe and steals a gun, the owner took reasonable precuations and has - and should feel - no guilt in the matter. Guns can be very dangerous and so additional safeguards are obviously needed. that goes without saying I would have thought.
 

WildCamper

Free Member

Messages
34
I believe the had to be a level of reasonableness when deploying a deterrent. i.e. What is the impact of the deterent and what is the likelyhood of an innocent party getting involved/impacted?
This is a good example of someone getting fed up and putting up a deterrent without thinking it through properly and it resulting in tragic cicrumstances - https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/two-men-charged-over-death-16532357

Setting a "trap" for burglars that gave them a whack in the head if they forced open a locked door - sounds fine to me.
Doing the same if the door is to a public building and unlocked but just has a "no entry" sign on it - definately not as any innocent party could accidently go through the door irrespective of signage (may not be able to read; may not be able to read the language it is written in; may be blind).
Setting up a shotgun to fire if that locked door is forced open - totally dispropotionate deterrent.


In the case of the spiked fuel, an innocent party is not going to go up to a fuel store thinking it was free to use. That just doesn't happen. The only people who are going to access the fuel legitimately is the owner and no one else will access it for legitimate reasons. If the farmer set explosives up so the tank blew up when the fuel started to drain, then THAT would be disproportionate to the crime as the risk to life would be great (you don't get a death sentence handed down by the courts for theft, do you.), but spiking the fuel to cause inconvenience and possibly damage to a theives engine by using stolen fuel? seems a perfectly reasonable deterrent and it seemed to work as no more fuel was stolen. I don't think a "please do not steal" sticker would have worked? There was no loss of life or any potential loss of life. (Now if he was getting brake fluid stolen say and he tampered with that to make it corrosive to eat away at brake pipes, that could be considered OTT, but causing an engine to run bad and then break ... a broken-down vehicle is not generally dangerous)
And actually the farmer has lost out also as whatever fuel was stolen or not stolen, all the spiked fuel is probably no use for anything?

There was mention in a post about someone being culpable if they had a gun and it was stolen and used to hurt/kill someone? Well this is why there is a requirement to keep them in a gun safe. If someone breaks into a house and then a gun safe and steals a gun, the owner took reasonable precuations and has - and should feel - no guilt in the matter. Guns can be very dangerous and so additional safeguards are obviously needed. that goes without saying I would have thought.
Consider this:
“Thirteen year old boy dies after inhaling lethal cocktail of chemicals when trying to siphon diesel.
A thirteen year old boy died of asphyxiation today after trying to siphon what turned out to be a lethal cocktail of chemicals set up by the owner to damage the vehicles of diesel thieves.
Although the boy was stealing the diesel his father said he had never been in trouble with the law before. He added that he had recently been made redundant & couldn’t afford to start a new job he was offered because he couldn’t afford to run his car to get to the distant job. He said he believed his son was likely trying to get some diesel for him to be able to go to work as he had no need for it himself. ”
It is likely the farmer will face prosecution as the tank was labelled as diesel when it in fact contained deadly chemicals.”

Too far fetched?

“A fireman died today after a ‘diesel tank’ exploded whilst he was trying to put out a fire under the tank. Diesel is not normally volatile enough to explode in a fire of this type but it has been rumoured that the tank did not contain diesel but a volatile mix of other chemicals that were used to cause damage to the vehicles of thieves who had been regularly stealing the diesel.
It is likely the farmer will face prosecution as the tank was labelled incorrectly causing the fireman to approach the fire in a manner he would not have, had he known it contained unknown chemicals. ”

Too far fetched still?

Look up about the driver who died after crashing into a broken down Audi in the dark (for one). Breakdowns do kill.

You cannot predict the consequences of actions such as these which is why when you put in security measures that may harm you must point them out. Whether that be having guard dogs, electric fencing, armed guards etc.

Just as a reminder; I did not object to the farmer’s actions – neither of them. Yet it appears his most dangerous action received great support whilst his ‘stealing’ a few quid from the Government was considered unacceptable. At least stealing from the Government would not have unintended consequences for anybody else.
 

RV2MAX

Full Member

Messages
222
Consider this ,
a farmer keeps getting his truck drained , so he does nothing but keep filling it up , a 13 year old boy knows his dad gets his diesel from the farm , and its easy no risk , so he goes and nicks some himself and puts it in his dads van takes it out for a joyride , but coz his dad doesnt maintain the van as hes got no care for anyone else the brakes fail and the lad goes down the road too fast cant brake for the bend and goes over a cliff the farmer feels guilty for not putting a 24 hour guard on the fuel but they all lived happily ever after ! :)
 

wildebus

Full Member

Messages
1,860
Consider this ,
a farmer keeps getting his truck drained , so he does nothing but keep filling it up , a 13 year old boy knows his dad gets his diesel from the farm , and its easy no risk , so he goes and nicks some himself and puts it in his dads van takes it out for a joyride , but coz his dad doesnt maintain the van as hes got no care for anyone else the brakes fail and the lad goes down the road too fast cant brake for the bend and goes over a cliff the farmer feels guilty for not putting a 24 hour guard on the fuel but they all lived happily ever after ! :)
I think the farmer is very irresponsible actually. What he should do is provide a strirrup pump so no thieves run the risk of getting ill when siphoning out the fuel. Also maybe some approved fuel containers for them to pump into? as, if say coke bottles were used and leaked, the farmer could be liable as it is his fuel being carried.
Actually, maybe he should employ an attendant to fill the containers to ensure it is being stolen in a safe manner?
And maybe the thieves should demand he fill up the store with premium diesel just in case the nicked fuel will be used in higher performance cars - after all, if it causes the injectors to clog up or whatever, we wouldn't want to see him sued for damaging someone elses property.
 

Phantom

Full Member

Messages
106
So if I cover my MH in warning stickers saying something like “Danger of death”, “Contains deadly chemicals”, etc and some thief had a real bad day as a consequence of their actions then I would consider it that they had fair warning and knowingly still chose to take the risk upon themselves. I agree that the law is way outdated and does not fit the current times. So see no real issue with capture and torture as a deterrent. :rolleyes:
 

trevskoda

Full Member

Messages
1,093
If you are caught stealing from the wrong people here you may never be found in some bog in galway.
 

SquirrellCook

Full Member

Messages
105
So proving locking does not work, as they do more damage defeating it. We've now opted for leaving them unsecured. Next pain is to find non locking fuel caps! Just a note unsecured fuel filler caps is an MOT failure!

So the next plan of defence is some kind of proximity device mounted within the bodywork. The idea is if someone reaches for the cap an alarm will sound. Waiting on the post man now. Watch this space.
 

wildebus

Full Member

Messages
1,860
So proving locking does not work, as they do more damage defeating it. We've now opted for leaving them unsecured. Next pain is to find non locking fuel caps! Just a note unsecured fuel filler caps is an MOT failure!

So the next plan of defence is some kind of proximity device mounted within the bodywork. The idea is if someone reaches for the cap an alarm will sound. Waiting on the post man now. Watch this space.
When you say "unsecured" do you mean that it has to be a twist-lock fitting (rather than an emergency push-on one) or there has to be some kind of lock before you access the fuel filler?
The fuel cap on my car (Vauxhall) has no lock on it - the lock is provided by the fuel flap (and released by the CL). I thought all cars were like this nowadays?
Likewise on all the VW Vans I have had - the fuel caps have not had any key locks on them, but were behind a fuel flap which could not be opened without the passenger door being opened first (a pain, but the design is really for a LHD van so the driver gets out and has the now-unsecured fuel filler right by him). I must admit I thought just about all van fuel fillers had this setup with the filler by the B Pillar and a flap end covered by the door edge.

Maybe try a VW or Mercedes Dealer (Sprinter is just the same as the LT & Crafter)? If their cap fits .....
 

SquirrellCook

Full Member

Messages
105
As you say Dave, many modern vehicles have a locking or captured flap. This provides the security for the fuel cap, rather than the cap being locking itself.
It was something that I've been picked up on over the years getting vehicles MOT'd
 

wildebus

Full Member

Messages
1,860
As you say Dave, many modern vehicles have a locking or captured flap. This provides the security for the fuel cap, rather than the cap being locking itself.
It was something that I've been picked up on over the years getting vehicles MOT'd
So your MOT station want you to have a locking cap even though it is behind a flap anyway? or you don't have a flap? (sorry, I am not familiar with your van :( )
EDIT: Thinking about it, the VW T4 had a locking cap even though behind a secured flap IRRC - gonna have to check now as that will bug me!

Yup - locking cap (same key as rest of locks so guessing original)
image.jpg1_22 by David, on Flickr
(Flap missing as taken off to fix rust and repaint - these flaps are notorious on the T4s for rust)
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:323)

Allen, StreetSleeper, john and janet, helmit, Ian1950, Haaamster, saxonborg, Exwindsurfer, tonybvi, WildCamper, nabsim, wildebus, GreggBear, Phase3begins, Boots, BOTCANU, Gixer, Campervanannie, Carrerasax, TeamRienza, St3v3, maingate, bobj808, cronkle, Obanboy666, Budgie, pj650, Full Member, Val54, vanda, pj palance, RV2MAX, Taurian, Ardachaidh, Molly 3, Chris356, Millie Master, jeffmossy, campervan, daygoboy, jagmanx, Beemer, wesaaron, Veloman, Markd, Edina, Tezza33, Vanterrier, RoadTrek Boy, Wooie1958, trevskoda, Stevie, oppy, witzend, Chris Evans001, pagey, highlandron, UFO, Lee, ian and cath, noah and nelly, 2cv, runnach, Glass man, Silver sprinter, trixie88, Wully, Lorraine, Annabella, Asterix, norman64, yorkslass, Steveandjulie, rustydog, 47643, britcoms, IJenk52, El radge, Trotter, Biggarmac, Trek, mike17, silverweed, ibs7491, rugbyken, CardMaker, countrycruisers, Dulvil, TJBi, Jeanette, davidrtd, Linda, Topmast, DTDOG, Bounce, helen262, PeteS, debs, Misterbun, grath, Barge1914, tapfitter, clarkpeacock, number14, nickvanbitz, Vinnythehat, andyjanet, Caz, wints, Rec, MollsPhot, Edward B, kevlakes, HurricaneSmith, royh28, Greengrass, eurajohn, mendit, guerdeval, RoaminRog, timatabsa, Reiverlad, Tjay, Clunegapyears, Telstar, Mark135, Winks, Alf, walpeter, GeoffL, steve strange, dalspa, pedro, wanderlust, Tribute11, Bouydog, Weefifer, Lord Lucan, Printerjohn, GWAYGWAY, Izwozral, DaveAdele, Phantom, Okta, Somerled, Joe, Bigshug, Pudsey Bear, Growlie69, Olly, gerrevelyn, Tonyhezz, Carrotts, mistericeman, DirkC, traveller221, Roxy, coffeenut, LANDS43, sunrisemac, maxsdad, Undertaker, 2vans, Crocket, Diamondgeezer, The Simpsons, wildbill, Crystalight, craigstig, yorkieowl, rottytara2004, Chip, snapster, Phillybarbour, ladyhamilton, Aly1, BertietheBus, Blackwatch, ken sowerby, MikeK, Kingneptune, familywagen, bampi, Grim the Viking, JohnsCrossMotorhomes, MarkJ, tripper, FERENZA, Adrianne, Minisorella, ScoTTyBEEE, Scampi30, Ellendale, Rixster, geminithree, time4t, Mischief2, Truffle, Old Tosh, PeteMGW, steveandchez, Matchlock, johnmac185, Bri, ironman, abmnw, Hellfire, Forest1, Colchester, cowanhouse, silverfox13, Avocadopicker, alun100, Jennyp19, suemar, Sueben, Plumber-Jim, On a journey, Seafarer, hg41hs, Raptor107, Yorkscol, Neodafyd, Dunfillin, Papillon, gseiler, Mike Tomlinson, Catch55, tommi, Markymark, kneespots, Bikercat, Fred Chase, Brakers, sandya, Martinsvitotravels, Castaway, Wrp, Iandsm, Amk, Forrory, dpsuk999, Mr K2, bullfist, starcott, Anotinous, Littlemush, Monkeybrand, tannerrocklands, hdeagle, Dotty, Jack Alfie, Robina, Ivan D Weller, chas142, TissyD, Malcdhill, Royal turkey, paulhelenwilko, Ezzo York, cliveyn, IanT, Chr15, Ifor, tugboat, Master, omnitravel, hayhiker, woodhouse boy, Harleyboygaz3, Raddy, JanettaVienetta, Marzar, Fdhadi, Tony Lee, Stormin, Cjshan, bartman, Mobilvetta, Forresbroons, VWann, driver12, Captain Haddock, AndyJL, charlie356, old cronies, RAW, Stonedaddy, Andy Flav, Mark B, Eric Eke, Fifty 21, Ozbit, Owlhouse, GMJ, HelterSkelter, cornish hymer, deejaywat, Adriandp, 76zedfour, Gazzno, neckender, Trail Doug, erchie, German Shepherd Dog, Primmie, PughGlobal, johnnyboy, Andyshep, Soeultraveller, Timtomxf, Kanianne, Bigbarry, Rugbyreddragon, SteveJ, TheLizard, raggeevets, CliveW, carmel thornton, Raymondo, Wildman, BobbyT, john lawrance,
Top