Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> "next generation" wrote in message
> news:6376a99b-227b-4b8a-9676-82c7b3d7b5c6@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 25, 8:45 pm, "Steve Walker" wrote:
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> I agree. IMO I would say that:
>>>> If a scrote takes his Dad's car it's TWOC.
>>>> If said scrote takes neighbours car, it's theft.
>>>> I think it's mostly dependant upon whether the victim and the
>>>> perpurtrator know each other.
>>>
>>> Nope, it's got nothing to do with that. JoL is right.
>>
>> Unfortunetly he's not. In law if you take something without the
>> owners consent its illegal, in this case, ether Theft, TWOC, UTMV or
>> TDA. A defence is "I was going to return it" but that will not hold much
>> water in court.
>
> For theft, this is a defence; for TWOC it isn't. Where on earth did
> you study law?
NexGen is misapplying the word "take". Perhaps it would be simpler to
accurately describe the subject's behaviour as "using" the bicycle. It
then becomes clear that riding someone's unsecured bicycle round the car
park is not per se an act of dishonesty.
|