twok...bollox its theft

[daveb47]

Isnt it about time this was changed,its not "taking without owners consent"...Its theft,, considering the amount of distress, inconvenience, time and money it causes.

Wonder if i was to nip into harrods and borrow a diamond studded watch for a few days,then dump it by side of road a few days later.

Its only twok isnt it

Thieves should in my opinion be made to pay back total cost to owner including hire/replacement vehicle/ all out of pocket costs including insurance loading costs.

Money should be stopped from thieves benefits or their property seized in payment,

 

[Junkman]

As much as I agree to thieves having to pay for the damage they did, an old Austrian proverb applies in most cases - a naked man has no deep pockets.

[Micrashed]

Well, yes they should, and rapists should have their dicks cut off and they should introduce the death penalty for lawyers.

 

But sadly the world doesnt work like that.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

 an old Austrian proverb applies in most cases - a naked man has no deep pockets.

 

Another old proverb says 'the thieving cunt has two hands to give in part exchange'.

[HillmanImp]

I think that 'taking without the owners consent' is actually wording from the Theft act. Therefore they are probably classed as thieves. 

 

*EDIT* Just looked at Wikipedia (probably not best to use this in real legal issues though). 

 

 

 

The definition of theft under the Theft Act 1968 is ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it’

 

 

 

Adopting the standard section 1 definition of theft would require a dishonest appropriation of the conveyance with intent to permanently deprive the owner. There will therefore be little difficulty in prosecuting as theft situations where the stolen car is later sold (sometimes through a process of 'ringing' i.e. its identity is changed and forged documents of title produced) or broken for spare parts, because the evidence of an intent permanently to deprive is clear.  But the twoccing situation usually describes joyriding where all that is intended is an unauthorised use for a short period of time. Alternatively, it covers situations where a vehicle is taken for the purposes of another offence, e.g. it is to be used to escape after a bank robbery and then abandoned.

So they are 2 differently applied legal points. However I have literally no idea how they are treated differently in the courts and what the different sentences are. 

[Mr Livered]

Of course it's theft - but with the mitigating factor of being temporary.

[lovejoy]

As much as I agree to thieves having to pay for the damage they did, an old Austrian proverb applies in most cases - a naked man has no deep pockets.

Achtung, Junkman,  I'd like to see what Lucas has to say about that old proverb !

[Guest Breadvan72]

Dave, the offence is good policy.  It  was created to make things easier for law enforcement and better for the law abiding.  To prove theft you must prove an intention permanently to deprive the owner of the car.   Fail to do that and the case fails.  

 

Proving TWOC is easier if, for example, you have a joyrider who abandons the car, or otherwise can't be proven to have intended permanent deprivation of the owner.  

 

If theft can be proven, theft may be charged, but a resources strapped CPS will understandably seek the straightest path to a conviction if it can.  

[Lankytim]

The owner probably wouldn't want a burnt out shell back though.

[Guest Breadvan72]

In that scenario the CPS may be able to prove the taking (for example by CCTV or eye witness evidence)  but the scrote may say that the car was fine when he left it and some other scrote must have torched it, so again the CPS may opt for the TWOC conviction rather than risk an acquittal because the jury cannot be sure that the scrote is lying, even though he very probably us.     TWOC is, as noted above, a species of theft. 

[MrDuke]

If TWOC and Theft carry the same penalties, I don't really see the issue. It's not exactly the sole occurence of a crime being euphemistically titled.

[Jim Bell]

If only there was a section for threads like these....

[Station]

I think that 'taking without the owners consent' is actually wording from the Theft act. Therefore they are probably classed as thieves.

 

*EDIT* Just looked at Wikipedia (probably not best to use this in real legal issues though).

 

 

So they are 2 differently applied legal points. However I have literally no idea how they are treated differently in the courts and what the different sentences are.

That's true, it's a home office definition.

[martybabes]

Well, yes they should, and rapists should have their dicks cut off and they should introduce the death penalty for lawyers.

 

But sadly the world doesnt work like that.

 

And when you want to make a Will (that your family wont fight over after you've died)...

And when you want to buy a lease on a flat...

And when you get stopped for speeding or drink-driving...

And when you want advice on the Ts and Cs of a long and complicated contract...

And when you need to consider how to dismiss an employee...

And when you get sued by someone but you need to properly defend yourself...

And when someone libels you and you want to know what you can do...

And when your Mrs divorces you and wants to take you to the cleaners...

And you want access to your children but your ex says no way...

And your neighbour's shed is built a bit on your land but you don't really want to fall out over it...

And a female family member continues to suffer domestic violence...

And your youngest child drank some fluids that were not marked as poisonous and you want compo to pay for lifelong medical treatment...

 

 

Yeah, these pesky lawyers - who needs 'em huh?

[SambaS]

I got aggravated TWOC too, Rover 216 Coupe

[daveb47]

If only there was a section for threads like these....

There is,its here as its about motoring..........

[Micrashed]

And when you want to make a Will (that your family wont fight over after you've died)...

And when you want to buy a lease on a flat...

And when you get stopped for speeding or drink-driving...

And when you want advice on the Ts and Cs of a long and complicated contract...

And when you need to consider how to dismiss an employee...

And when you get sued by someone but you need to properly defend yourself...

And when someone libels you and you want to know what you can do...

And when your Mrs divorces you and wants to take you to the cleaners...

And you want access to your children but your ex says no way...

And your neighbour's shed is built a bit on your land but you don't really want to fall out over it...

And a female family member continues to suffer domestic violence...

And your youngest child drank some fluids that were not marked as poisonous and you want compo to pay for lifelong medical treatment...

 

 

Yeah, these pesky lawyers - who needs 'em huh?

You really need to take life less seriously. And read some Douglas Adams, then you may get the reference.

[tooSavvy]

Achtung, Junkman,  I'd like to see what Lucas has to say about that old proverb !

On the kraut theme...

 

I recall 'naked man stood infront of large box, asked to fill in long form about family history, whilst testicles are irradiated'.

 

Perhaps they were other Austrians?

 

 

TS

[brickwall]

As much as I agree to thieves having to pay for the damage they did, an old Austrian proverb applies in most cases - a naked man has no deep pockets.

.

Very true and thus they should have to work it off. A naked man can still hold a shovel.

[Jim Bell]

There is,its here as its about motoring..........

I see.

[Jim Bell]

A naked man can still hold a shovel.

Seems to be more about law, the criminal justice system, misspent youth, what's wrong with the world and casual references to Germans than it is about motoring.

Maybe my view is blocked by all the pictures of cars though.

[Jim Bell]

Confessed twoc-er and old interesting car photo.

 

Unfortunately I have no opinion on the subject of theft to add.

[castros_bro]

Doing some security at the Ralph Lauren HQ in Paris I snapped this TWOC though there seemed to be a quiet* gaelic dispute being enacted simultaneously. 

 

 

 

[martybabes]

You really need to take life less seriously. And read some Douglas Adams, then you may get the reference.

 

Ah, I didn't get the point originally (not having read Douglas Adams).

 

Please now re-read my earlier post which is now to be considered a little tongue-in-cheek!