Hit and run while at red light

Car_54

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Jenni_D

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Car_54

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

Sandtree

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

Unless its one of those sit on motorised ones... which is wasn't.

Anyway, think we've gone far enough off topic, my point was simply that the police for decades haven't been interested in minor property damage/loss type incidents

Jenni_D

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

As I suspected, you've taken a path to try and support your argument - even though I was addressing your direct assertion that TWOC <> stolen. I was not correlating TWOC/stolen with the briefcase incident. 🙄

DB1904

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

As I suspected, you've taken a path to try and support your argument - even though I was addressing your direct assertion that TWOC <> stolen. I was not correlating TWOC/stolen with the briefcase incident. 🙄

So why mention Section 12?Sandtree said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

Unless its one of those sit on motorised ones... which is wasn't.

Anyway, think we've gone far enough off topic, my point was simply that the police for decades haven't been interested in minor property damage/loss type incidents

and rightly so in your circumstances. Too many children being sexually exploited and violent crime about to be concerned about adults who cannot look after their property. 

Jenni_D

I give up. It seems some people are unable to read. 🙄

DB1904

Jenni_D said:

I give up. It seems some people are unable to read. 🙄

I can read, the brief case was taken without consent but don't see the relevance of Section 12 so maybe you could explain?

Manxman_in_exile

Given the smiley I interpreted it as a hopefully amusing observation about the aptness - or otherwise - of a motoring board containing a thread about a briefcase being - possibly - stolen or TWOC'd.

I didn't take it that any deeply philosophic discourse on the nature of theft and the meaning of taking without consent was intended...

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

As I suspected, you've taken a path to try and support your argument - even though I was addressing your direct assertion that TWOC <> stolen. I was not correlating TWOC/stolen with the briefcase incident. 🙄

So why mention Section 12?Sandtree said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

[Deleted User] said:

Jenni_D said:

The briefcase was in a location
A while later the briefcase was no longer in that location
A briefcase cannot move by itself (I'm assuming it did not have wheels)
The poster knew where it was supposed to be - it was no longer there.

They didn't lose it - so how else would it no longer be in the place it was put? Someone took (or moved) it. The poster doesn't state that they gave someone permission to take or move it, thus it was stolen. (Taken without owner's consent, which would seem apt for this Motoring board).  

"Taken without owner's consent" is not the same as "stolen".

Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968?

(And if you're going to dissect the minutiae of the meaning of words - e.g. the precise legal definition of "stolen" - then you've lost the argument. Most people will see the correlation).

Section 12 applies to motor vehicles, not briefcases ...

Unless its one of those sit on motorised ones... which is wasn't.

Anyway, think we've gone far enough off topic, my point was simply that the police for decades haven't been interested in minor property damage/loss type incidents

and rightly so in your circumstances. Too many children being sexually exploited and violent crime about to be concerned about adults who cannot look after their property. 

Or minor fender benders with no injuries and with insurance to cover the losses... to link it back to the OP