Were we right to walk out?

Silver-Surfer_2

unholyangel wrote: »

If you understood what I said about proof then why did you question it?

At no point have I said or implied that the prosecution do not need to prove the guilt. Only that - in the circumstances described to us by OP - that proof would be easy enough to come by and therefore, if they wanted to avoid a conviction, it would be up to them to put forth a defence to counter the prosecutions argument. You seem to have misunderstood that as me saying the burden is on the defendant.

As for not stating whether you think the OP is guilty or not guilty, I suggest you reread your own posts.

And as of yet, I've not even went into the specifics about how not satisfying all elements of a particular charge does not mean that an offence has not been committed. Its actually the reason the section on making off without payment exists. If missing elements weren't needed to for an offence to be committed things like twoc and making off would exist. All the elements need to be present. There was not an offence committed before they existed, yes it was wrong to do it but not an offence.

For example, if you didn't have the means to pay for your meal, that would be obtaining services dishonestly. Yet if you do have the money to pay and decide not to, that is marking off without payment.

Likewise if you leave your details and they are false, its making off without payment and possible fraud. If you leave the correct details it then becomes a civil matter as leaving your details negates the intent to permanently deprive.

However in the circumstances we've been discussing, all of the elements that are necessary to return a guilty verdict are present and accounted for. Have they though, how long should you wait before deciding they don't want to take your money?

..........

neilmcl

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Not sure what you're say there. Are you saying it's unreasonable for them to have to wait 25 minutes to pay? If so then you are also saying they are they have not acted dishonestly by leaving without paying.

So you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right then!

Silver-Surfer_2

neilmcl wrote: »

So you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right then!

No, I'm trying to work out what you were saying. How long is reasonable to wait? I've already said the dishonesty test may need to be applied and without dishonesty there is no offence.

neilmcl

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

No, I'm trying to work out what you were saying. How long is reasonable to wait? I've already said the dishonesty test may need to be applied and without dishonesty there is no offence.

As I stated, yes I agree it's unreasonable to have to wait 25 minutes for someone to take payment but it was also unreasonable for someone to just walk out without making more of an effort to to get the bill paid. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Silver-Surfer_2

neilmcl wrote: »

As I stated, yes I agree it's unreasonable to have to wait 25 minutes for someone to take payment but it was also unreasonable for someone to just walk out without making more of an effort to to get the bill paid. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Because on one hand you're saying the op hasn't committed an offence and on the other you're saying they are wrong to walk out.

neilmcl

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Because on one hand you're saying the op hasn't committed an offence and on the other you're saying they are wrong to walk out.

Are you for real? Where have I said anything about offences being committed (or not as the case may be)?

unholyangel

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

If missing elements weren't needed to for an offence to be committed things like twoc and making off would exist. All the elements need to be present. There was not an offence committed before they existed, yes it was wrong to do it but not an offence.

Have they though, how long should you wait before deciding they don't want to take your money?

Can you try the first part again? Have a feeling theres a few typos there. Pretty sure I get the general sentiment of your post though so yes, it wasn't an offence. But they obviously think it should be an offence or wouldn't have amended the legislation.

As for how long you should wait - imo no wait time justifies walking out without paying. I've been in the same position as OP - numerous times. I'll wait approx 15 minutes and if no one comes back to collect the bill then I take it to them (or another staff member). Never in a million years would it even cross my mind to walk out without first paying what was owed.

[Deleted User]

I'm bemused that this thread has reached 120 replies.

It seems everyone has an opinion on this….

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

If you understood what I said about proof then why did you question it?

At no point have I said or implied that the prosecution do not need to prove the guilt. Only that - in the circumstances described to us by OP - that proof would be easy enough to come by and therefore, if they wanted to avoid a conviction, it would be up to them to put forth a defence to counter the prosecutions argument. You seem to have misunderstood that as me saying the burden is on the defendant.

As for not stating whether you think the OP is guilty or not guilty, I suggest you reread your own posts. And as of yet, I've not even went into the specifics about how not satisfying all elements of a particular charge does not mean that an offence has not been committed. Its actually the reason the section on making off without payment exists.

For example, if you didn't have the means to pay for your meal, that would be obtaining services dishonestly. Yet if you do have the money to pay and decide not to, that is marking off without payment.

Likewise if you leave your details and they are false, its making off without payment and possible fraud. If you leave the correct details it then becomes a civil matter as leaving your details negates the intent to permanently deprive.

However in the circumstances we've been discussing, all of the elements that are necessary to return a guilty verdict are present and accounted for.

I will repeat what I originally said that you took issue with and led to this rather long and ultimately unfruitful discussion.

If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law. [Note the word if. I am not saying the person did in fact intend to pay later. I am simply saying if they intended to pay later then they would not be guilty of "making off".]

I am still of the same view.

wealdroam

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'm bemused that this thread has reached 120 replies.

It seems everyone has an opinion on this….

Don't be shy... your opinion is welcome too.