On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:08:25 -0700 (PDT), next generation
wrote:
>On 25 Mar, 19:59, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>> "next generation" wrote in message
>>
>> news:24b8e35f-d5a2-4858-beaf-127f385f5d46@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > for theft in law the police have to prove that you:
>> > -dishonestly
>> > -appropriate
>> > -property
>> > -belonging to another
>> > -intenting to deprive the other
>>
>> > borrowing amounts to taking for his/her own use and is the same as
>> > outright taking, regardless of whether you planned to return it.
>>
>> It only amounts to an outright taking if, when returned, the bicycle has
>> lost what is called "its virtue"- e.g. taking a season ticket, using it up,
>> and returning the actual piece of card itself still amounts to theft of the
>> season ticket, because when returned it is useless. The same cannot be said
>> of a bicycle, if it's still a bicycle when it is returned.
>
>I'm sure I've already replied to this, but it hasn't appeared. Your
>wrong on both counts. The intention to deprive happens because the
>victim does not know who took the bike and for what purpose and has
>not given consent for it to happen. Consent is the main issue. Unless
>you knew the person and could argue implied consent, it's theft.
You appear to be unaware of the basic definition of theft, as defined
by the Theft Act 1968, sections 1 - 6.
You have put the basics of the first 5 requirements correctly, but not
the last, and that is important.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If idiots could fly, this would be an airport.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |