Hit and run while at red light

DB1904

Sandtree said:

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

Not sure what you're saying there but no injuries and no offences isn't a police matter. 

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

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

Not sure what you're saying there but no injuries and no offences isn't a police matter. 

Did you not read the original post? It was a hit and run

ontheroad1970

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. 🙄

TWOC isn't the same as the legal definition of theft.  My older brother once drove my father's car without consent.  He wasn't permanently depriving my father of the car, so it wasn't theft.  He also didn't get caught, but that's by the by.  

The OP's situation is definitely theft, not loss.  

DB1904

ontheroad1970 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. 🙄

TWOC isn't the same as the legal definition of theft.  My older brother once drove my father's car without consent.  He wasn't permanently depriving my father of the car, so it wasn't theft.  He also didn't get caught, but that's by the by.  

The OP's situation is definitely theft, not loss.  

It's not, the OP was involved in a crash. 

DB1904

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

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

Not sure what you're saying there but no injuries and no offences isn't a police matter. 

Did you not read the original post? It was a hit and run

I did but in the mean time someone lost a handbag. 

Manxman_in_exile

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

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

Not sure what you're saying there but no injuries and no offences isn't a police matter. 

Did you not read the original post? It was a hit and run

I did but in the mean time someone lost a handbag. 

                   

Dalby84UK

Best time to get hit and run is when the other car has a private number plate, funniest one i ever heard of was a bank robbery who used the plate J4 MES and got caught due to it: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/100000-bank-robbers-jailed-2085053 you literally cant make it up

I actually found the private plate used in the article, I wonder who owns it now, they should of just sold that instead : https://www.click4reg.co.uk/private-number-plates/J4MES/