This should get blood boiling

[glojo]

The points you make are exactly right and are the blindingly smart ideas that Solicitors advise their clients every day. They aren't new by any stretch - they relate back to the Theft Act.

Make you see why Carrotchompers job is as much an art as a science. And one that requires more skill than they tend to show on the telly...

Last night I was thinking about this and came to the conclusion that we have allowed the lunatics to run the asylum! I mean this in a polite jovial way but it beggars believe that we have to try and prove the state of someone's mind or their 'intent' to deliberate deprive us of our property.

If some oik, breaks into my house, steals my car keys, then drives off in my car, then I would suggest he stole the blooming thing and one of the charges should be theft (of my motor vehicle) Why oh why should anyone have to prove he intended to 'permanently' deprive me of my pride and joy. If he writes the thing off, or sets light to it then that is exactly what he has done, but that is a side issue, he stole my car. I never gave permission for it to be taken and no reasonable person would think it a lawful act. I would contend that the legal profession enjoy making these things unnecessarily complicated and enjoy the adversarial battle of words.

Dangerous driving is another offence that has gone down this path and why should we have to prove that the driver would know their actions are dangerous, (or words to that effect). Why not simply say was it reasonable behaviour? Was it the actions of a sensible person to drive at 80mph through a town centre. I don't care what driver X may or may not think. I would much prefer a jury to decide on whether it was sensible or perhaps even dangerous?? behaviour. Present the evidence of the driving and NOT the driver's state of mind

Got that off my chest but I might not have done a good job of putting my thoughts into words?

Getting back on topic it looks like Swiss Toni and I might have to go to the funny farm for reprogramming as we appear to be the only two that cannot see anything wrong with what the police inspector said.

My personal take on this issue might be that this inspector might have upset one of his junior officer's and perhaps this person has decided it was payback time and released this innocent instruction to the media??

Regards
John

 

[verytalldave]

And the answer is............................

The Daily Mail as we all know is a paper that sets out to inflame and wind people up. Its what they do. Very well.

And who owns/runs The Metro?

Why, The Daily Mail.

And its worked.


Its all just newspaper waffle.

 

[recycled]

How do you get so much info about who is banned or not.
Anyway i agree with swiss toni. dangerous driving is the key here, but we see a lot more convictions of these(driving) than say Twocers, i mean more punishment.
E.g you will likely 95% get puninshed for speeding/ dangerous driving. what is the conviction rate for a shoplifter that has been caught red handed 3 times in a row?
Most likely 5%.
Feel free to correct me if it is an urban myth

 

[DaveK]

It could be argued that Daily Mail is one of the last papers who forsake spin in order to bring us the truth

 

[Mr E]

If some oik, breaks into my house, steals my car keys, then drives off in my car, then I would suggest he stole the blooming thing and one of the charges should be theft (of my motor vehicle) Why oh why should anyone have to prove he intended to 'permanently' deprive me of my pride and joy. If he writes the thing off, or sets light to it then that is exactly what he has done, but that is a side issue, he stole my car. I never gave permission for it to be taken and no reasonable person would think it a lawful act. I would contend that the legal profession enjoy making these things unnecessarily complicated and enjoy the adversarial battle of words.

I think the comments on this and other recent threads show why the law has to be precise, and can appear convoluted to the layman.

There is a precise definition to theft, which is further enhanced by definitions of robbery and burglary (which, I didn't realise until discussing with an expert last night, doesn't have to include theft). The "casual" removing of a vehicle, driving it around, etc, comes under TWoC - essentially bought into effect as it was proving difficult to get convictions where the definition of theft could not be met. For example, nicking a car and selling it is good proof that someone was intentionally trying to deprive someone of their property, but driving it around isn't.

The law is by necessity a blunt instrument - so 31mph is breaking the law, 3 days out of date is breaking the door, deliberately breaking a car window is breaking the law. However, there needs to be evidence, and where none is available (such as a broken window, but no evidence of actual or attempted theft, no other damage, etc) then what should you do?

Problem is, we cry out either way - evidence or not - when it could or does hurt us personally. I find that "discretion" is unfair and would rather see all treated in exactly the same way - in accordance with the law - and then we can rightly complain about real injustice.

 

[DaveK]

Just before some plod on here gets all excited, could I just point out that I have a clean driving licence and that I am not , nor have I ever, served or am serving, any sort of driving ban.

 

[glojo]

There is a precise definition to theft, which is further enhanced by definitions of robbery and burglary (which, I didn't realise until discussing with an expert last night, doesn't have to include theft). The "casual" removing of a vehicle, driving it around, etc, comes under TWoC - essentially bought into effect as it was proving difficult to get convictions where the definition of theft could not be met.

I fully understand where your coming from and agree with all that you say, it is just me having a moan and I know nothing will change, but matching the definition of theft is a game.

Years ago you took a car that did not belong to you and it was theft. Then one day a very clever lawyer suggested his client was merely 'joy-riding' and he had no intention of permanently depriving the owner of his car. . Instead of the court chucking out this defence they allowed it and here we are.

If I steal your watch and when caught I say I was merely checking out how accurate it was and fully intended to return it next week. Do you seriously believe the court would believe that? If I stole your television and gave the same excuse, do you think I would be believed? As I said earlier, for the time I have your car I have deprived you of it, and if I dump it in Tooting, then would you ever find it without outside assistance? I fully accept the law will not alter and a silly, separate offence has been conjured up, but it would have been much easier for the court to stand firm and deem that any unlawful taking is theft, including 'bilking' Another rant coming on.

You go away on holiday and when you return I open the front door to greet you. Squatters rights I say, you left the front door open and I have moved in! You go to the police, they say did you leave your door unlocked. You say no, I say yes, along with the ten other revellers inside your house.

Did your friend tell you about shop lifters that are banned from shops actually commit burglary when the steal a pair of socks etc and yes burglary does not always involve theft.

Perhaps those that have only known this twit-a-woo offence might not uinderstand what I'm trying to say but it is us making something that is simple..... complicated.

Regards
John the ranter

 

[Dragon]

Speeding is not a recordable offence, so no matter how many times you get caught, you never end up with a criminal record as a result (if there are other offences associated with it, you may eg driving whilst disqualified, drink driving).

The others are recordable offences and on conviction or caution result in a criminal record.

I have never known anyone serve time in prison for speeding, but in the past 2 weeks I have for all of the other offences.

Not liking the consequences of the crime you are most likely to commit and being 100% convinvinced the cops are out to get you suggests that the system has got it right...

Go to jail if you don't pay the fine. Granny did that for not paying council tax in protest. Try it.

 

[recycled]

Speeding is not a recordable offence, so no matter how many times you get caught, you never end up with a criminal record

but if you do not pay the fine, jail awaits you. seizure of your property, bailiffs e.t.c
Does not apply to shoplifters and burglars

 

[Dieselman]

It could be argued that Daily Mail is one of the last papers who forsake spin in order to bring us the truth

Are you drinking this early Dave..??

 

[Swiss Toni]

but if you do not pay the fine, jail awaits you. seizure of your property, bailiffs e.t.c

Most likely

Does not apply to shoplifters and burglars

If they don't have any property because they sold it all to feed their habit, then I'll grant you there is nothing to be seized, but otherwise, they get the treatment.

 

[Swiss Toni]

Go to jail if you don't pay the fine. Granny did that for not paying council tax in protest. Try it.

I am not sure what you point is? Yes, you go to jail if you don't pay fines - it is a contempt of Court and (spooky this) the Courts don't like that.

 

[Carrotchomper]

I agree, the article in the Daily Mail is possibly flowered up, but far from untruth.

There is a strong push within the Crime Management Units (Basically, the people who record, classify and allocate crime reports) to "No crime" incidents where there is no positive evidence of criminal activity.

This is sometimes a bit silly though, and my supervisor did once show me a crime report for a vehicle arson, returned to us as there was
"No clear evidence of a crime". He returned it with some comments about a "Miracle similar to the biblical burning bush" and it did not bounce back

However, there are two sides to this. We are measured on figures as a primary Performance Indicator, and recording incidents where there is no need seriously damages the detection rate...

...Here I am not referring to spontaneously exploding windows. I am referring to the glut of "volume crime" reports received by front offices and call handlers. These staff have minimal law training, and the default position is to create a crime report.

Frequently in the past this has led to all sorts of "I just want a crime number" spurious doleite trickery. In fact, I was privy to one such report passing the front office, when a chap had been on a seaside holiday that weekend and had had money "stolen" from his jeans, which he left on the beach. No problem there?

It was giro money. He had left these public funds in his jeans on the beach whilst he was playing in the sea. He then mislaid his jeans on the beach. He wanted a crime number so he could have those public funds restored into his possession.

He did not leave the station with a crime number.

Here is the gist- This is stupid when taken to its fullest extent, such as the Met recording a bag snatch as an "attempt" because it was subsequently recovered.

It is not stupid when it stops us recording the "Theft" of mobile phones lost in pubs for insurance purposes. Or indeed if it results in better trained and more discriminate civilian staff learning to determine if something actually is an offence, or simple loss/damage.

 

[Swiss Toni]

Make you see why Carrotchompers job is as much an art as a science. And one that requires more skill than they tend to show on the telly...

I quote myself.

Mobile phones that get "stolen" so that the owner gets the latest version, persons looking for employment who collect their dole money but have it "stolen" from them by someone they can't quite describe, but when it is pointed out the location they gave is covered by CCTV remember that it happened somewhere else....

A Policemans lot is not a happy one.

Apparently.

 

[Colin_b]

And the answer is............................

The Daily Mail as we all know is a paper that sets out to inflame and wind people up. Its what they do. Very well.

And who owns/runs The Metro?

Why, The Daily Mail.

And its worked.


Its all just newspaper waffle.

Which newspaper doesn't do as the Mail does, with varying degrees of subtlety?

 

[Swiss Toni]

Which newspaper doesn't do as the Mail does, with varying degrees of subtlety?

Watchtower?

 

[glojo]

Which newspaper doesn't do as the Mail does, with varying degrees of subtlety?

Newspapers are out to sell copy and my own view is that it is a type of mild snobbery to talk down any one particular paper compared to another.

What I always try to do is read a news report and try to look at it with a critical eye. Most journalists will exaggerate a story and slope it to-wards what they believe the editor wants to read?? Of course there will be a factual content, but it is the content that lacks facts

Many, many years ago I knew a young girl that had been savaged by a black Labrador. Newspaper headlines all condemned a dangerous German Shepherd and showed pictures of a random German Shepherd dog just to add a picture to the story. I actually challenged the editor and was politely told that nobody would be interested in a dangerous Labrador, they just don't bite people!!! I could rattle off dozens of personal examples of journalistic 'licence' and this applies both to broad sheets and tabloid papers.

regards
John

 

[recycled]

Newspapers are out to sell copy and my own view is that it is a type of mild snobbery to talk down any one particular paper compared to another.

What I always try to do is read a news report and try to look at it with a critical eye. Most journalists will exaggerate a story and slope it to-wards what they believe the editor wants to read?? Of course there will be a factual content, but it is the content that lacks facts

Many, many years ago I knew a young girl that had been savaged by a black Labrador. Newspaper headlines all condemned a dangerous German Shepherd and showed pictures of a random German Shepherd dog just to add a picture to the story. I actually challenged the editor and was politely told that nobody would be interested in a dangerous Labrador, they just don't bite people!!! I could rattle off dozens of personal examples of journalistic 'licence' and this applies both to broad sheets and tabloid papers.

regards
John

totally true john.
In march there was this story about a russian kid that was raised by some birds or something like that. In the london metro
The story then carried the picture of the african kid that was raised by monkeys to draw attention to it. As africans raised by monkeys is apparently more catching

 

[DaveK]

'Many, many years ago I knew a young girl that had been savaged by a black Labrador.'
You just had to bring Race in to it.

 

[Colin_b]

Watchtower?

Na, it has an agenda