Bike sting operation?
Andrew Lewis
worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of this,
I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and found one
unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way was stopped by a
police car. 2 members of the police force emerged, asked me who I was
and where I was from, and if it was my bike. I told the truth, that I
had 'found' the bike, and was then told that they had been following me
on CCTV for the entire time since I took the bike, and had to 'blat
across the city' to catch me. I was then told off and was ordered to
put it back, which I did. I have no issues with any of this - in fact I
was let off quite lightly for my crimes.
What I have a problem with is that I was out tonight as well, in the
same club, and on exiting I saw the exact same bike, still unlocked. If
it belonged to someone I believe that it would have been taken home by
then, unless they were still out at closing time (which is when I left
the club). I have a feeling, and this is backed up by several of my
friends, that the police have left that bike outside the club in order
to entice people to take it, and then they can show their apparent
competence by accosting them.
I'm not entirely convinced that this is a good move - statistics show
(as far as they can) that most criminals are opportune criminals, and
indeed I admit that when I took the bike I wouldn't have nicked anything
had they not been available. I think that this is a honeypot trap of
the most wasteful kind, and should not be a method of catching the gangs
of bike thieves that doubtless exist - it's striking at the bottom rung
of the ladder, and this always proves ineffective.
Sapient Fridge
<af...@cam.ac.uk> writes
This has *got* to be a troll. You are admitting to being a bike thief
and claiming that the police actions are ineffective, even though they
caught you?
If it's true then the only thing wrong in the police actions is that
they didn't prosecute you for theft.
Or perhaps you are actually a policeman pretending to be a student to
spread the rumour that there are honeypot bikes lying around the city,
in order to discourage thieves?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Alun
get evidence on prolific thieves than detecting crimes days after.
What were you going to do with the bike? Take it back the next day and
leave it unlocked, possibly for days? Or maybe take it to the police
station with an anonymous note?
Alun
charliejuggler
> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
> worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of this,
> I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and found one
> unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way was stopped by a
> police car.
You stole a bike? You're a git. Too many of us will have lost bikes to
have any sympathy. Even if it was unlocked, even if it was a sting, it
*wasn't your bike*.
C
Jon Green
> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
> worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of this,
> I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and found one
> unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way was stopped by a
> police car.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
Night clubs aren't cheap. If you can afford the door fee and the cost
of drinks, you can afford the taxi fare home. Next time, I imagine you
will.
Good job, police.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
DrC
> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
> worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of this,
> I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and found one
> unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way was stopped by a
> police car.
The Police around here do use their own bikes to trap thieves. They
have left it/them at a certain college in Cambridge that had a theft
problem previously. I must admit I didn't know they left the bike(s)
unlocked though. Why not lock the bike up with your own locks and
then when the Police chop them off to recover their bike charge them
with criminal damage ;-)
David
Tim Ward
news:8Ow3abDg...@spamsights.org...
>
> If it's true then the only thing wrong in the police actions is that they
> didn't prosecute you for theft.
That's what I thought. Bit of a waste of effort if they only tell people
off, isn't it?
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Steve
> "Sapient Fridge" <use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote in message
> news:8Ow3abDg...@spamsights.org...
> >
> > If it's true then the only thing wrong in the police actions is that they
> > didn't prosecute you for theft.
>
> That's what I thought. Bit of a waste of effort if they only tell people
> off, isn't it?
Totally.
Did they take the thiefs name and address, so that they can prosecute
should they commit another offence?
Andrew Lewis
that the police are using, rather than 'blah blah blah OH YOU STOLE A
BIKE YOU TWAT blah blah blah'. I'll freely admit that I should have
done it and even though my judgment was clouded by alcohol, I was still
an idiot. That's not the point.
Andrew Lewis
Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to prosecute a
1-time offence of this nature? Should they also prosecute all the
students who take traffic cones, free-standing road signs, and the like?
You're looking at fairly hefty bureaucratic bills for the police here...
Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular bike.
However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is effective
in the long term.
Ed Weatherup
You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#England_and_Wales
for a general outline.
--
Ed.
John Burnham
> Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to prosecute a
> 1-time offence of this nature?
You stole a bike.... Do I believe people who steal bikes should be
prosecuted ? Hmm. It may surprise you but yes.
And how the hell are the police supposed to know it's a one time offence ?
Gods, undergrads these days....
J
Duncan Wood
Well not if they're not going to prosecute. However I can't think of an
equivalent to TDA for a bicycle.
Mittens
news:5fca83ceaa9d476b7d789420673b795e@localhost...
I don't think you people have much understanding of what happens out in that
real world on which you consider yourself such expert authorities. You
should stay up and watch Steve Scott's 'Nightwatch' (or whatever it is)
sometime: night after night you'll see a load of policemen in cars and
helicopters chasing people around the place (bicycle thieves especially).
And at the end of the whole wastefully expensive effort, everyone gets sent
home with a caution.
Keeps the plod in 'work', though, eh...?
M.
Mittens
>
> Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to prosecute a
> 1-time offence of this nature? Should they also prosecute all the
Frankly, I think they should have taken you into an alley and beaten the
shit out of you, you sociopathic turd.
M.
Duncan Wood
That's a nice use of irony,
Steve
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Andrew Lewis wrote:
> Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to prosecute a
> 1-time offence of this nature? Should they also prosecute all the
> students who take traffic cones, free-standing road signs, and the like?
> You're looking at fairly hefty bureaucratic bills for the police here...
For theft? Yes, perhaps they just need to make the process less
bureaucratic? Anyway, isn't it a RTA offence to ride a bike when over the
limit? Did you have operational lights? Sounds like they could have had
you on several counts if they wanted to.
> Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular bike.
> However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is effective
> in the long term.
I wonder what would happen if you'd have had an accident on the bike, due
to it not being roadworthy? Probably, in this mad world, you could have
sued the police?
Mittens
news:704vprF...@mid.individual.net...
> Andrew Lewis wrote:
>> I'm not expecting sympathy. I was expecting a discussion on the
>> methods that the police are using, rather than 'blah blah blah OH YOU
>> STOLE A BIKE YOU TWAT blah blah blah'. I'll freely admit that I
>> should have done it
Lovely Freudian slip, there...
>> and even though my judgment was clouded by
>> alcohol, I was still an idiot. That's not the point.
I think you ought to meet our Councillor Rosenstiel. The two of you would
have great fun swapping evasions.
M.
Jon Green
> Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular bike.
> However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is effective
> in the long term.
That sounds to me like an admission that you're going to do the same
thing again.
Perhaps this, and the original incident, are something the College
authorities should know about.
magwitch
> I'm not expecting sympathy. I was expecting a discussion on the methods
> that the police are using, rather than 'blah blah blah OH YOU STOLE A
> BIKE YOU TWAT blah blah blah'. I'll freely admit that I should have
> done it and even though my judgment was clouded by alcohol, I was still
> an idiot. That's not the point.
>
No you are not an idiot. You are a thief. And a drunk.
Alan
> Andrew Lewis wrote:
> > Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular
> > bike. However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is
> > effective in the long term.
>
> That sounds to me like an admission that you're going to do the same
> thing again.
>
> Perhaps this, and the original incident, are something the College
> authorities should know about.
>
Someone should forward his original post to his College :-) Assuming
he's not just inventing the story and trolling.
But yes, he claimed he was drunk the first time - so presumably once
he's drunk again, he'll happliy steal again.
--
Alan
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with 'penguinclub.org.uk' to reply in email.
Steve
I just wonder if it's different rules for different people?
Somebody accused a friend of mine that they had stolen a bike. A dispute
ensued and the police were called. My friend was young, looked a bit
radical and lived on the Arbury. The person making the accusation was well
spoken and middle class.
Needless to say, she was dragged down the police station and strip
searched - Now what was that all about? Only after several hours and
someone delivering the receipt for the bike to the police station was she
released. No apology, however, was made.
I fully respect the law but it should be the same rules for everyone.
Patrick Gosling
>I'm not expecting sympathy. I was expecting a discussion on the methods
>that the police are using, rather than 'blah blah blah OH YOU STOLE A
>BIKE YOU TWAT blah blah blah'. I'll freely admit that I should have
>done it and even though my judgment was clouded by alcohol, I was still
>an idiot. That's not the point.
What makes people think you're a twat is that you behaved selfishly
and sociopathically while drunk, and that you don't appear to have any
shame or remorse about this when sober.
-patrick.
Andrew Lewis
> "Ed Weatherup" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:704vprF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Andrew Lewis wrote:
>>> I'm not expecting sympathy. I was expecting a discussion on the
>>> methods that the police are using, rather than 'blah blah blah OH YOU
>>> STOLE A BIKE YOU TWAT blah blah blah'. I'll freely admit that I
>>> should have done it
>
> Lovely Freudian slip, there...
>
charliejuggler
get to that. <plonk>
C
Mittens
>
> Someone should forward his original post to his College :-) Assuming
> he's not just inventing the story and trolling.
>
> But yes, he claimed he was drunk the first time - so presumably once
> he's drunk again, he'll happliy steal again.
The 'reward-and-punishment' aspects of this are revealing. The tosser did
what he wanted when he wanted (feelings of entitlement); the police told him
they had a hard time catching him (feelings of strength and power); and then
he was allowed to go without there being any negative consequences at all
(feelings of omnipotence and untouchability).
*Of course* he'll 'happily steal again': by the time he got home that night
he'd been made to feel like *a god*...
M.
Eleanor Blair
>
>Anyway, isn't it a RTA offence to ride a bike when over the
>limit?
It's an offense to ride a bike while unfit through drink or drugs, but
unlike drunk driving there isn't a specific blood alcohol limit over
which you're guilty, and they can't force you to take a breath or blood
test.
Fevric J Glandules
Never done anything pissed that you wouldn't do sober?
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
Cris Galletly
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Andrew Lewis wrote:
>> Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular bike.
>> However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is effective
>> in the long term.
>
>That sounds to me like an admission that you're going to do the same
>thing again.
>
>Perhaps this, and the original incident, are something the College
>authorities should know about.
And the Proctors, perhaps.
--
+ Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
magwitch
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:22:12 +0000, charliejuggler wrote:
>
>> Andrew Lewis wrote:
>>> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
>>> worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of this,
>>> I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and found one
>>> unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way was stopped by a
>>> police car.
>> You stole a bike? You're a git. Too many of us will have lost bikes to
>> have any sympathy. Even if it was unlocked, even if it was a sting, it
>> *wasn't your bike*.
>
> Never done anything pissed that you wouldn't do sober?
>
Drunk and Disorderly used to warrant a night in the cells, a court
appearance and a fine - oh and a record.
Andrew Lewis
No shame or remorse? I just said that I was an idiot. What do you want
me to do, prostrate myself for your judgment?
I wasn't trying to stir up chat about me or my actions, I was just
trying to have a discussion about police tactics.
Andrew Lewis
> Andrew Lewis wrote:
>> Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular bike.
>> However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is effective
>> in the long term.
>
> That sounds to me like an admission that you're going to do the same
> thing again.
>
> Perhaps this, and the original incident, are something the College
> authorities should know about.
>
> Jon
So many things wrong with this I don't know where to start... How is
this in anyway an admission of anything? If I have to spell it out for
you, I'll do so: I'm not going to do the same thing again. No need for
a witch hunt. If I was going to do it again, do you honestly believe
that I would write up my actions on a public newsgroup?
In what way is this something college should know about? If someone
overheard you talking about any possible crime you may have committed,
would you expect them to tell your employers? Perhaps the accusations
of trolling should go back the other way - are you trying to irritate me
on purpose?
Andrew Lewis
prize twat. However, say what you will.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>"Sapient Fridge" <use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote in message
>news:8Ow3abDg...@spamsights.org...
>>
>> If it's true then the only thing wrong in the police actions is that they
>> didn't prosecute you for theft.
>
>That's what I thought. Bit of a waste of effort if they only tell people
>off, isn't it?
If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be. If it is a
sting operation, I suspect that the primary aim is deterrence rather
than securing convictions.
Mark
--
Geek for Hire: http://mark.goodge.co.uk/geek-for-hire/
Mittens
>>
>>
> Actually, this happened in front of some of my friends and I felt like a
> prize twat.
If I'd caught you stealing my bike you'd be feeling a fuck of a lot worse,
believe me.
M.
Mittens
>
> No shame or remorse? I just said that I was an idiot. What do you want
> me to do, prostrate myself for your judgment?
>
> I wasn't trying to stir up chat about me or my actions, I was just trying
> to have a discussion about police tactics.
Yes. You started to try and share the 'judgement' around. 'They were guilty
of something too, weren't they...?'
You pathetic, pampered sad-arse.
M.
Cris Galletly
If you can't understand that you have just brought Catz into disrepute
by your actions, I have to admit to thinking there must be something
wrong with their Admissions process.
Eleanor Blair
>
>I wasn't trying to stir up chat about me or my actions, I was just
>trying to have a discussion about police tactics.
Were you intending to put it back? You decided it
was abandoned because it wasn't locked but it could easily have just
been an oversight.
It's just as annoying to come out of a pub or club and find your bike
has gone because someone nicked it to ride home on as if it's been
nicked by someone out to make a profit. One of the bikes I had nicked
I've never quite been sure if I remembered to lock it properly or not:
both the bike and the lock were gone when I came out of the pub, and I
*thought* I'd locked it to the rack, but maybe I was distracted and
missed?
In a city like Cambridge where there is a lot of bike theft I personally
am happy that the police are cracking down on "casual" theft as well as
on large-scale gang theft. Hopefully being stopped once will discourage
you from doing it again. Did they take your details at all or really
just let you go once you'd put the bike back? I'd hope that if people
*do* reoffend the police will prosecute on a second offense.
Out of interest what do you think they could be doing instead?
Tom Wright
> If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
> nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
> a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be.
How does that work (seriously)? If I'm caught with something that I've
taken without consent of the owner I can't believe that saying I'd borrowed
it would hold water. What about if I intend to borrow something for, say,
30 years and then give it back?
--
I'm at CAMbridge, not SPAMbridge
Andrew Lewis
I honestly can't say if I intended to put it back or not - I hadn't
thought that far ahead. My main concern was home -> sleep. In
hindsight I would have probably used it to cycle back into town the next
time I went, and left it there. Obviously I can't prove this, so think
what you will.
I know what it's like to have bikes nicked, I'm on my third one in the
last year. I don't condone my actions at all.
I'm not sure what they could be doing instead. I was hoping that this
could get people thinking, but instead everyone has resorted to the
option of taking out their frustration on me.
Andrew Lewis
Do you really feel the need to resort to personal insults and
name-calling? I'm neither a sociopathic turd nor a pathetic, pampered
sad-arse. I made a massive error of judgement, one that I won't make
again. Is there really anything else you want me to say or are you
happy to take cheap shots?
Andrew Lewis
thing again then I see no reason for them not to prosecute me.
Eleanor Blair
>
>If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
>nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
>a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be.
Even if there was no intention to keep the bike I can't believe there
was any intent to give it back to the rightful owner, because they have
no idea who that owner is. Even if you take it back to where you
pinched it from the owner could well have been and found it missing and
gone and never realised it has reappeared.
Sapient Fridge
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
writes
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>> In message <gniisb$67g$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Andrew Lewis
>><af...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>>> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
>>>worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of
>>>this, I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and
>>>was and where I was from, and if it was my bike. I told the truth,
>>>that I had 'found' the bike, and was then told that they had been
>>>following me on CCTV for the entire time since I took the bike, and
>>>across the city' to catch me. I was then told off and was ordered
>>>to put it back, which I did. I have no issues with any of this - in
>>>fact I was let off quite lightly for my crimes.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is that I was out tonight as well, in the
>>>same club, and on exiting I saw the exact same bike, still unlocked.
>>>If it belonged to someone I believe that it would have been taken
>>>home by then, unless they were still out at closing time (which is
>>>when I left the club). I have a feeling, and this is backed up by
>>>several of my friends, that the police have left that bike outside
>>>the club in order to entice people to take it, and then they can
>>>show their apparent competence by accosting them.
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely convinced that this is a good move - statistics
>>>show (as far as they can) that most criminals are opportune
>>>criminals, and indeed I admit that when I took the bike I wouldn't
>>>have nicked anything had they not been available. I think that this
>>>is a honeypot trap of the most wasteful kind, and should not be a
>>>method of catching the gangs of bike thieves that doubtless exist -
>>>it's striking at the bottom rung of the ladder, and this always proves ineffective.
>> This has *got* to be a troll. You are admitting to being a bike
>>thief and claiming that the police actions are ineffective, even
>>though they caught you?
>> If it's true then the only thing wrong in the police actions is that
>>they didn't prosecute you for theft.
>>to spread the rumour that there are honeypot bikes lying around the
>>city, in order to discourage thieves?
>
>Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to prosecute a
>1-time offence of this nature?
Yes. You stole someone's bike and (potentially) left them to a long
walk home that you couldn't be bothered with yourself, not to mention
the cost and hassle of them replacing the bike. You are a thief.
<snip>
>Obviously the police were effective at protecting this particular bike.
>However, looking at the big picture, I don't believe it is effective in
>the long term.
The objective sounds like it was not to protect that bike - it was to
catch bike thieves, and it worked. Looks pretty effective to me.
tony sayer
<af...@cam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
There was a very nice looking bike at the end of our road for some weeks
with a rather flimsy chain thereon..
I did wonder if it might have been a "tagged" bike!
--
Tony Sayer
Steven Kitson
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
>> nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
>> a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be.
>
>How does that work (seriously)?
It works because magistrates and juries weren't born yesterday.
Jonathan Amery
Sapient Fridge <sapient_...@spamsights.org> wrote:
>Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
>that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
TWOC of a car *is* a crime.
--
Jonathan Amery. God says "Who will go for me? Who will extend my reach?
##### And who, when few will listen, will prophecy and preach?
#######__o And who, when few bid welcome, will offer all they know?
#######'/ And who, when few dare follow, will walk the road I show?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
>> nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
>> a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be.
>
>How does that work (seriously)?
In law, someone has committed theft if he/she "dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it". Taken individually, the five
key aspects are:
* Dishonestly: You must be aware that you have no right to take the
item. It is a defence to honestly believe that you had permission.
* Appropriate: You must actually take posession of it (not merely
attempt to take it or plan to take it).
* Property: It must be something which the law considers capable of
being owned.
* Belonging to another: It's not theft if you take posession of your
own property, even in cases where you have no right to do so.
* Intent to permanently deprive: You must be intending that the
legitimate owner will never regain posession.
In the OP's case, any prosecution would fail on the last of these if
he could demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that he intended to
return the bike.
> If I'm caught with something that I've
>taken without consent of the owner I can't believe that saying I'd borrowed
>it would hold water. What about if I intend to borrow something for, say,
>30 years and then give it back?
It would be up to the court to decide if your explanation was
reasonable. If they believe you, then you haven't stolen anything. But
they don't have to believe you, and wheher they believe you or not
will depend on how plausible your argument is. If it was a neighbour's
lawnmower taken from his garden without any forced entry, then it
probably would be plausible. If it was a DVD player taken from a house
elsewhere in the city where you had forced entry in order to acquire
it, then it probably wouldn't be plausible.
Tim Ward
news:gnjm16$gfd$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> How does that work (seriously)? If I'm caught with something that I've
> taken without consent of the owner I can't believe that saying I'd
> borrowed
> it would hold water. What about if I intend to borrow something for, say,
> 30 years and then give it back?
The court would decide whether they believed you or not.
Suppose one of my mates borrows something of mine, honestly believing that
if I hadn't been out I'd have given permission, but I wasn't in so he just
took it.
If this was a reasonable and honest belief then it's not theft, even if in
fact I wouldn't have given permission (eg because I wanted to use it myself
that day, or I got out of bed the wrong side that morning, or whatever).
If you do something that clearly demonstrates an "intent to permanently
deprive", eg by destroying or selling or eating the thing you've taken, then
that's obviously theft.
Where it's "blatantly obvious" that you were stealing it, but you've still
got it undamaged and you claim that you were going to give it back then the
court has to decide whether they believe you or not, which is a longer and
more expensive process. The court can decide it doesn't believe you and
convict you of theft.
This is why there are specific offences to do with taking cars away without
permission, because otherwise the joyriders would escape theft charges by
saying they were just going for a ride, they were going to abandon the car
when they'd finished with it, and there was no "intent to permanently
deprive".
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Jon Green
> In article <H6M5XsDT...@spamsights.org>,
> Sapient Fridge <sapient_...@spamsights.org> wrote:
>> Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
>> that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
>
> TWOC of a car *is* a crime.
Likewise a bicycle. Theft Act 1968 s.12(5). Penalties not as high as
for a car, but it's still TWOC.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Steven Kitson
>I'm not sure what they could be doing instead. I was hoping that this
>could get people thinking, but instead everyone has resorted to the
>option of taking out their frustration on me.
No, you've got people thinking. Of course, the danger of getting people
thinking is that they might not think the way you want them to think.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> In article <H6M5XsDT...@spamsights.org>,
> Sapient Fridge <sapient_...@spamsights.org> wrote:
>> Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
>> that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
>
> TWOC of a car *is* a crime.
>
And, indeed, is a separate offence from theft to make it clear.
The case law is well established for the Theft Act and there are many,
many successful prosecutions each year.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
>
> In what way is this something college should know about? If someone
> overheard you talking about any possible crime you may have committed,
> would you expect them to tell your employers? Perhaps the accusations
> of trolling should go back the other way - are you trying to irritate me
> on purpose?
You signed a bit of paper and/or made an oath making it something the
college can and should know about.
Jon Green
> In what way is this something college should know about? If someone
> overheard you talking about any possible crime you may have committed,
> would you expect them to tell your employers?
Maybe, maybe not. However, you were announcing your crime using a
cam.ac.uk email address, and through the University's servers, and hence
did so as a member of the Uni. If someone felt that by doing so, you
had brought the University into disrepute, they may also feel that it
needs to know. *shrug* I'm not going to bother, personally, but I'm
not a Cambridge grad.
> Perhaps the accusations
> of trolling should go back the other way - are you trying to irritate me
> on purpose?
*chuckle* I think that self-righteous indignation is possibly not your
best policy, right now.
Jonathan Amery
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Amery wrote:
>> In article <H6M5XsDT...@spamsights.org>,
>> Sapient Fridge <sapient_...@spamsights.org> wrote:
>>> Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
>>> that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
>>
>> TWOC of a car *is* a crime.
>
>Likewise a bicycle. Theft Act 1968 s.12(5). Penalties not as high as
>for a car, but it's still TWOC.
>
bed now to get on to tomorrow faster :-).
--
Jonathan Amery. While others bowed to changeless gods,
##### They met a mystery;
#######__o God with an uncompleted name,
#######'/ 'I am what I will be'; - Brian A. Wren
Fevric J Glandules
> This is why there are specific offences to do with taking cars away without
> permission, because otherwise the joyriders would escape theft charges by
> saying they were just going for a ride, they were going to abandon the car
> when they'd finished with it, and there was no "intent to permanently
> deprive".
Which is pretty much what joyriders *do* do, except that they frequently
set fire to the things in order to destroy any evidence which could be
used against them on a TWOC charge, and so end up permanently depriving
the owner anyway...
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
Patrick Gosling
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
>nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
>a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be.
Someone else pointed it out, but in a different sub-thread, so it seems
worth dragging in here for future reference:
You appear to be incorrect. Theft Act 1968 S12(5) (as subject to
more recent amendments).
> (5) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to pedal cycles;
> but, subject to subsection (6) below, a person who, without having the
> consent of the owner or other lawful authority, takes a pedal cycle for
> his own or another’s use, or rides a pedal cycle knowing it to have
> been taken without such authority, shall on summary conviction be liable
> to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale.]
Subsection (1) is the bit that defines TWOC for a "conveyance". Subsection
(6) is the bit that defines the exemptions of belief in lawful authority
or belief of consent.
So, perhaps the OP should be being very, very, _very_ grateful indeed
that he's not been fined #1000 . I don't think his attitude here would
have got him a very sympathetic hearing if he'd tried it on a magistrate.
-patrick.
Tiger
> I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club, and found one
> unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way was stopped by a
> police car.
Hopefully by a police officer in a car, rather than by rapid
deceleration on impact with the said vehicle?
Were you intending to return the "borrowed" bike as soon as reasonably
possible (i.e. when you had regained some measure of sobriety the next
day)?
I suspect not. The balance of probability is that you intended to
deprive the owner of it permanently, which makes you a thief (c.f.
Theft Act 1968 - I'd quote more exact references, but my copy has been
stolen). Don't take what doesn't belong to you.
Was the bike roadworthy? Was it lit?
As has been said, if you can afford to go clubbing you can afford to
be driven home. If you're a victim of the credit crunch, try cutting
out the nightlife. If you can't manage that, remember that in a state
of intoxication you're more of a hazard to both yourself and others on
wheels than afoot.
Mittens
> name-calling?
Yes: it could have been my bike, shit-bag, and I might have never seen it
again.
M.
Jules
> I honestly can't say if I intended to put it back or not - I hadn't
> thought that far ahead. My main concern was home -> sleep.
If you get drunk enough that you think that sort of theft is a good plan,
let's just hope you don't take a car next time...
Tim B
wrote:
> Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> considered Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:11:54
> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Jonathan Amery wrote:
> >> Sapient Fridge <sapient_usene...@spamsights.org> wrote:
> >>> Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
> >>> that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
>
> >> TWOC of a car *is* a crime.
>
> >Likewise a bicycle. Theft Act 1968 s.12(5). Penalties not as high as
> >for a car, but it's still TWOC.
>
> >Jon
>
> (1)(a).
ie a bike as opposed to a scooter or skateboard, I'd guess.
UncleEnglish
> This is exactly what the cops should be doing. It's an efficient way to
> get evidence on prolific thieves than detecting crimes days after.
[snips]
One of my teachers had a mountain bike stolen, shortly after she got
it. Secondhand, she had payed £250 for it (original cost, about £350,
maybe more, it was a nice one!). Anchored to the railings of our
school, it was protected by a flimsy chain, easily snipped Was she
upset? You bet! However, I had warned against the chain, offered to
take it down into our basement, daily, so she got a mixture of anger
and sympathy from me.
Security is relative, but people do not do what they ought to do to
protect their own property!
--
foolsrushin.
Cris Galletly
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Maybe, maybe not. However, you were announcing your crime using a
>cam.ac.uk email address, and through the University's servers, and hence
>did so as a member of the Uni. If someone felt that by doing so, you
>had brought the University into disrepute, they may also feel that it
>needs to know. *shrug* I'm not going to bother, personally, but I'm
>not a Cambridge grad.
I am one such person. Can you imagine how all this would look spread
across the pages of some ghastly tabloid? (*No* I am not going to leak
it to a tabloid because, despite everything, I do still care about the
University, but ...)
I have spent the day wrestling with my conscience as to whether I ought
to report this. *On balance* I think probably not, but I will have to
take professional advice from the appropriate people in my own College
(I had hoped to do so today, but they weren't in).
--
+ Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
Sapient Fridge
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:15:18 +0000, Tom Wright put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> If the OP hadn't intended to keep the bike, it's not theft and there's
>>> nothing he could be prosecuted for. It's not against the law to borrow
>>> a bike without permission, however antisocial it may be.
>>
>>How does that work (seriously)?
>
>In law, someone has committed theft if he/she "dishonestly
>appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
>permanently depriving the other of it". Taken individually, the five
>key aspects are:
>
>* Dishonestly: You must be aware that you have no right to take the
> item. It is a defence to honestly believe that you had permission.
>
>* Appropriate: You must actually take posession of it (not merely
> attempt to take it or plan to take it).
>
>* Property: It must be something which the law considers capable of
> being owned.
>
>* Belonging to another: It's not theft if you take posession of your
> own property, even in cases where you have no right to do so.
>
>* Intent to permanently deprive: You must be intending that the
> legitimate owner will never regain posession.
>
>In the OP's case, any prosecution would fail on the last of these if
>he could demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that he intended to
>return the bike.
1) He gave no indication that he intended to return the bike
2) Since he wouldn't know who he had stolen the bike from, how could he
possibly return it to them?
The prosecution declares that there was no intention nor capability for
the defendant to return the bike to its rightful owner, and calls for a
jail sentence.
Cwatters
> Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to prosecute a
> 1-time offence of this nature?
The owner of the bike you left stranded with a 10 mile walk home might have
thought so.
Fevric J Glandules
It was unlocked. Nobody in their right mind expects an unlocked bike in
central Cambridge, late at night, to last more than five minutes. The
owner is quite possibly Plod himself, as is being suggested.
Cwatters
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:rtbrp4pab135j45us...@4ax.com...
> Tim B <timbu...@onetel.net> considered Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:59:46
What mode of transport isn't?
Ed Weatherup
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:39:43 +0000, Cwatters wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Lewis" <af...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:499D4912...@cam.ac.uk...
>> > Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to
>> prosecute a
>>> 1-time offence of this nature?
>>
>> The owner of the bike you left stranded with a 10 mile walk home
>> might have thought so.
>
> It was unlocked. Nobody in their right mind expects an unlocked bike
> in central Cambridge, late at night, to last more than five minutes.
> The owner is quite possibly Plod himself, as is being suggested.
The suggestion being that Cambridge Plod isn't in her/his/its right mind?
:-)
--
Ed.
A Wieser
>
> What mode of transport isn't?
>
couple.
Here's the definition:
"mechanically propelled vehicle" means a vehicle (with or without
bodywork)propelled either by a positive ignition engine or a compression
ignition engine,having at least four wheels and a maximum design speed
exceeding 25 kilo-metres per hour, and which is intended for use on the
road;
Tony
Ed Weatherup
> Fevric J Glandules wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Lewis wrote:
>>>> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
>>>> worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of
>>>> this, I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club,
>>>> and found one unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way
>>>> was stopped by a police car.
>>> to have any sympathy. Even if it was unlocked, even if it was a
>>> sting, it *wasn't your bike*.
>>
>> Never done anything pissed that you wouldn't do sober?
>>
> Why is drunkenness some kind of get out clause or excuse nowadays?
I don't think "nowadays" is applicable in this case.
> Drunk and Disorderly used to warrant a night in the cells, a court
> appearance and a fine - oh and a record.
Or a record for the false name ...?
--
Ed.
Fevric J Glandules
Err, no?
andrew...@hotmail.com
So a Reliant Robin isn't a "mechanically propelled vehicle" then?
Richard Kettlewell
> Cwatters wrote:
>>> Do you think it's worth the time, effort and resources to
>>> prosecute a 1-time offence of this nature?
>>
>> The owner of the bike you left stranded with a 10 mile walk home
>> might have thought so.
>
> It was unlocked. Nobody in their right mind expects an unlocked
> bike in central Cambridge, late at night, to last more than five
> minutes. The owner is quite possibly Plod himself, as is being
> suggested.
People do sometimes make mistakes and accidentally fail to lock their
bikes, though.
Duncan Wood
Or a Prius with an empty tank.
Tony Raven
m...@wieser.plus.com says...
That's not the UK legal definition of a mechanically propelled vehicle,
its just the definition in one European regulation. The UK definition
is much wider and would include e.g. electrically (and other) powered
vehicles and two wheeled powered vehicles. A mechanically propelled
vehicle is also not restricted to being designed for use on the road.
Basically the mechanically propelled refers to the propulsion system
being mechanical not e.g. biological or wind.
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
Jon Green
'Course it is. There's another wheel inside the rear luggage area!
The Natural Philosopher
magwitch
> magwitch wrote:
>> Fevric J Glandules wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:22:12 +0000, charliejuggler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew Lewis wrote:
>>>>> So I was out on Tuesday night, came out of the nightclub fairly the
>>>>> worse for drink, and didn't really want to walk home. Because of
>>>>> this, I looked around the bikes that were left outside the club,
>>>>> and found one unlocked. I took it, cycled home, and on the way
>>>>> was stopped by a police car.
>>>> You stole a bike? You're a git. Too many of us will have lost bikes
>>>> to have any sympathy. Even if it was unlocked, even if it was a
>>>> sting, it *wasn't your bike*.
>>> Never done anything pissed that you wouldn't do sober?
>>>
>> Why is drunkenness some kind of get out clause or excuse nowadays?
>
> I don't think "nowadays" is applicable in this case.
The increase in publicly drunk (and disorderly) people around in the
small hours is quite obvious to anyone. I don't remember this being the
norm 20 years ago, so "nowadays".
>
>> Drunk and Disorderly used to warrant a night in the cells, a court
>> appearance and a fine - oh and a record.
>
> Or a record for the false name ...?
>
Give the police a false name and that's attempting to pervert the course
of justice, with a possible jail term, not a fine. Fairly easy to verify
in the case of a student, I'd have thought.
Paul Rudin
Whether or not it's locked is beside the point. You know whether it's
your bike or not...
Richard Kettlewell
I'm not sure what you think the point is then. My point was that you
can't conclude, simply from it being unlocked, either that it was the
police's bike, or that the owner couldn't have reasonably expected it
to be there when they came back.
Ed Weatherup
> Ed Weatherup wrote:
>> magwitch wrote:
>>> Why is drunkenness some kind of get out clause or excuse nowadays?
>>
>> I don't think "nowadays" is applicable in this case.
>
> The increase in publicly drunk (and disorderly) people around in the
> small hours is quite obvious to anyone. I don't remember this being
> the norm 20 years ago, so "nowadays".
I think we are at cross purposes, probably my fault:
My point was that drunkeness as an excuse was being argued in Aristotle's
time.
>>> Drunk and Disorderly used to warrant a night in the cells, a court
>>> appearance and a fine - oh and a record.
>>
>> Or a record for the false name ...?
>>
> Give the police a false name and that's attempting to pervert the
> course of justice, with a possible jail term, not a fine. Fairly easy
> to verify in the case of a student, I'd have thought.
Again I was thinking of a historical context.
--
Ed.
magwitch
But he'd probably sewn in a sack and tossed in the Tiber anyway.
Fevric J Glandules
> I'm not sure what you think the point is then. My point was that you
> can't conclude, simply from it being unlocked, either that it was the
> police's bike, or that the owner couldn't have reasonably expected it
> to be there when they came back.
<sigh>
If a bike is unlocked in central Cambridge the owner cannot reasonably
expect it to be there when they get back.
They may *be* expecting it to be there, but they have no *reason* to do so.
See?
Ed Weatherup
Depends who his friends were ...
--
Ed.
Jon Green
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:00:19 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what you think the point is then. My point was that you
>> can't conclude, simply from it being unlocked, either that it was the
>> police's bike, or that the owner couldn't have reasonably expected it
>> to be there when they came back.
>
> <sigh>
>
> If a bike is unlocked in central Cambridge the owner cannot reasonably
> expect it to be there when they get back.
>
> They may *be* expecting it to be there, but they have no *reason* to do so.
Why? Has the law suddenly changed, so that any unlocked bike is now
"finders keepers"?
The owner has both reason and right to expect their bike to be there
when they return, whether or not unlocked. The fact that it probably
won't is a sad indictment.
Richard Kettlewell
>> I'm not sure what you think the point is then. My point was that you
>> can't conclude, simply from it being unlocked, either that it was the
>> police's bike, or that the owner couldn't have reasonably expected it
>> to be there when they came back.
>
> <sigh>
>
> If a bike is unlocked in central Cambridge the owner cannot reasonably
> expect it to be there when they get back.
>
> They may *be* expecting it to be there, but they have no *reason* to do so.
>
> See?
They do have a reason to expect it to be there. They don't realize
that they forgot to lock it. If they knew that, they'd go back and
lock it.
They're factually wrong, indeed, but it's perfectly possible to have
good reasons for beliefs that turn out to be wrong.
A Wieser
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
> "A Wieser" <m...@wieser.plus.com> considered Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:20:24
> -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>>> Well, it could be argued that bicycles are mechanically propelled,
>>>
>>> What mode of transport isn't?
>>>
>>Er... Sailing and other windpowered vehicles and horse riding to name a
>>couple.
>>
>>Here's the definition:
>>
>
> The regulations you cite actually specify that the definition is "in
> these regulations" rather than anywhere else.
How could it be otherwise. Anyway, IANAL, but I should have used the
indefinite article, and said:
"Here's a definition:"
Tony
Steve Slatcher
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> considered Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:11:54
>+0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Jonathan Amery wrote:
>>> In article <H6M5XsDT...@spamsights.org>,
>>> Sapient Fridge <sapient_...@spamsights.org> wrote:
>>>> Where do you park your car? I thought I'd ask just in case I am ever in
>>>> that area of town and I can't be bothered walking home.
>>>
>>> TWOC of a car *is* a crime.
>>
>>Likewise a bicycle. Theft Act 1968 s.12(5). Penalties not as high as
>>for a car, but it's still TWOC.
>>
>>Jon
>
>Shame they have the words "mechanically propelled" in section 12A
>(1)(a).
12A deals only with "Aggravated vehicle-taking"
Section 12 is "Taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without
authority".
Under section 12 a conveyance means "any conveyance constructed or
adapted for the carriage of a person or persons whether by land, water
or air, except that it does not include a conveyance constructed or
adapted for use only under the control of a person not carried in or
on it, and drive shall be construed accordingly".
So that seems to me to include bikes, horses, skateboards and
surfboards. But not children's buggies.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1204238
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
Steve Slatcher
Ah. Just seen there is indeed an exception for bikes - in that case
you do not commit an offence under section 12, but will be summarily
convincted and fined. But the point surely is that the person can be
charged with TWOC and fined - it is not necesary to prove intent to
keep the bike.
Linda Fox
>adapted for the carriage of a person or persons whether by land, water
>or air, except that it does not include a conveyance constructed or
>adapted for use only under the control of a person not carried in or
>on it, and drive shall be construed accordingly".
>
>So that seems to me to include bikes, horses, skateboards and
>surfboards. But not children's buggies.
>
a horse is "constructed" to carry a person or persons. Or even
adapted.
Linda ff
HE Elsom
wrote:
Maybe it depends whether you steal the saddle and bridle as well.
Regards,
Helen
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
The Natural Philosopher
unnatural selection, and/or intelligent design.