A word from Yorkshire constabulary

Apparently this is doing the rounds on FB.

May be worth looking at by some , although I am not sure if it is true or not.

Cheers

neilly said:

Apparently this is doing the rounds on FB.

May be worth looking at by some , although I am not sure if it is true or not.
View attachment 115335
Cheers

Click to expand...

neilly.

As an ex-bobby. I'd be very sceptical about this. It's a scam.

If you needed the rozzers to tell you that you need to fit extra security cos defenders are commonly nicked then you've led a sheltered life

Don't know if it's a scam but I had a letter and two other defender owners I know had them too

Not sure what the scam could be but there is a typo in the thatcham link.

The scam would be a list of approved items which the thieves have learned how to defeat.

Wimblowdriver said:

The scam would be a list of approved items which the thieves have learned how to defeat.

Click to expand...

Which from what I've read on the stolen section is most of them depending on how clued up the toe rag is

raywin said:

Don't know if it's a scam but I had a letter and two other defender owners I know had them too

Click to expand...

There is a post in the stolen section 6th January about north yorks and an associated police campaign, possibly genuine, but worth checking the letters are part of that campaign. The timing of the scam in this thread would be opportunistic. Forgive me if I have an overly suspicious outlook at the moment.

Wimblowdriver said:

The scam would be a list of approved items which the thieves have learned how to defeat.

Click to expand...

Assuming the link is to the genuine thatcham site (I've not checked) it will be a list of the approved items. They can all be defeated but they're still the best options we have.

Thieving scrotes are unlikely to encourage owners to buy additional security even if they can get past them. At the very least it increases the time and effort therefore risk.

What would be the point?

Just dug out my letter and it is not the same as the one on here and mine is signed by chief inspector Neil Hunter Rural Crime Lead.
It was posted in York which may be just an admin centre North Yorks Police headquarters is at Newby Wiske Hall Northallerton.
Also my address is hand wrirren on the envelope.
Might give them an e mail tomorrow just to ask.

raywin said:

Just dug out my letter and it is not the same as the one on here and mine is signed by chief inspector Neil Hunter Rural Crime Lead.
It was posted in York which may be just an admin centre North Yorks Police headquarters is at Newby Wiske Hall Northallerton.
Also my address is hand wrirren on the envelope.
Might give them an e mail tomorrow just to ask.

Click to expand...

It may be a silly question, but how did the Police get your address?

boguing said:

It may be a silly question, but how did the Police get your address?

Click to expand...

Come on it aint ROCKET SCIENCE is it

Can't find specific mention of letters but N York's do have this on their website

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/land-rover-quad-bike-crime-prevention-warning-rural-residents/

blue beasty said:

Can't find specific mention of letters but N York's do have this on their website

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/land-rover-quad-bike-crime-prevention-warning-rural-residents/

Click to expand...

Well that seems to say they are warning people.
I would imagine it's easy to get the addresses just do a filtered search on the DVLA database.

Magicgrotto said:

Come on it aint ROCKET SCIENCE is it

Click to expand...

That's why I asked - if it's from a DVLA database search then I'm a) quite impressed, b) a bit disappointed that it's not done here, where three or four have gone within the last few months, and c) surprised that the envelope was hand written.

But since the envelope was handwritten, it could have been from a watchful PC noticing a Landy on a drive and writing the envelope there and then, having got the owner's name from DVLA.

Similarly it could have been an observant reprobate as above, wanting to convince the owner to buy a device that can be bypassed as Wimblowdriver suggested, having found the owners name with a quick web search.

But my favourite is that it's the owner of the Thatcham site, similarly cruising around looking for Landys on drives and also wanting to convince owners to buy security gear - whether it can be bypassed or not.

And this is much more fun than rocket science.

Colonial said:

neilly.

As an ex-bobby. I'd be very sceptical about this. It's a scam.

Click to expand...

So what did you change your name to, Sue?

boguing said:

That's why I asked - if it's from a DVLA database search then I'm a) quite impressed, b) a bit disappointed that it's not done here, where three or four have gone within the last few months, and c) surprised that the envelope was hand written.

But since the envelope was handwritten, it could have been from a watchful PC noticing a Landy on a drive and writing the envelope there and then, having got the owner's name from DVLA.

Similarly it could have been an observant reprobate as above, wanting to convince the owner to buy a device that can be bypassed as Wimblowdriver suggested, having found the owners name with a quick web search.

But my favourite is that it's the owner of the Thatcham site, similarly cruising around looking for Landys on drives and also wanting to convince owners to buy security gear - whether it can be bypassed or not.

And this is much more fun than rocket science.

Click to expand...

Still don't see the sense in a thief encouraging extra security even if they can get past them.

Do the think they're a bit bored, lacking job satisfaction and want more of a challenge?

Just a guess, but if the thieves have got the capability to crack the electronics side of security, wouldn't it make sense for them to encourage mechanical upgrades (as suggested in the "memo" in the original post) which they know they can defeat, rather than the owner going for electronic upgrades which they might not be able to defeat?

blue beasty said:

Still don't see the sense in a thief encouraging extra security even if they can get past them.

Do the think they're a bit bored, lacking job satisfaction and want more of a challenge?

Click to expand...

OK. Either I didn't think that option through, or what I meant was that the reprobate knows full well about Landys and that if he were so stupid as to steal one that it would have fallen apart by the time he got it to his secret hideout. No, what he needs is some security devices to double the value of his Saxo, and the Landy owner is going to provide them.

This is giving me some worryingly immoral ideas.

Wimblowdriver said:

Just a guess, but if the thieves have got the capability to crack the electronics side of security, wouldn't it make sense for them to encourage mechanical upgrades (as suggested in the "memo" in the original post) which they know they can defeat, rather than the owner going for electronic upgrades which they might not be able to defeat?

Click to expand...

Sending them to the thatcham site which will advise all manner of aftermarket trackers and alarms as well as additional physical security would be kinda stupid to my way of thinking