I am watching HIDEF TV!!! I LOVE it!!! (i'll explain how)

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:38:15 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:

Also, do you seriously suggest that thieves are in any way more or
less likely to be recidivists than "takers away"? No, the act and the
reasons for it are the same. The effect is the same. How long the
thief intended to keep the car is neither here nor there.

The effect is NOT the same. In general, if the car is subjected to
Theft the owner loses it, if it is only Taken Away then he gets it
back.

The effect at the time is indeed the same.

It is not the effect of a continuing episode, it is the state at a
particular point in time during that episode.

Until the item is returned no one can know whether it will be or not.

Quite. It has thus been "taken away", not generally an offence; it has
yet to be stolen.

Indeed the law stupidly differentiates between the two according to the unknown and unprovable
intentions of the perpetrator,

It differentiates because those future events are irrelevant to the
offence of "taking away" a vehicle; the improper use of a vehicle not
being in the general good interests of the public. They are not
irrelevant to the offence of Theft as that offence in general does not
tend to criminalise the mere possession and use of another's goods in
public unlike the Taking Away offence which does usually have that
practical effect. As explained to you before, intention is one of the
key elements of proving Theft otherwise it would be too easy to accuse
an innocent person who was merely in possession of an item which was
away from its owner. Just as apples and pears are both fruit with
similarities but still different, Theft and Taking Away are both
offences with similarities but still different.

instead of according to whether the item was indeed returned voluntarily or not.

Irrelevant to the Taking Away offence, not to the Theft offence.

And are you now trying to tell me that if the police find and return
my stolen car, money, valuables etc. then they weren't in fact stolen
at all, just taken away?

It depends. Has this metaphorical vehicle been found abandoned or
still in the possession of the taker ? If the former then the evidence
goes against Theft having occurred, if the latter then Theft remains a
possibility but not a certainty.

You have already said many times that definition is based on the intention, not the fact.

The necessary circumstances for a particular offence having been
committed have been explained to you several times by different
people. Your sentence above is an over-simplification of what has been
explained to you. Both facts and intentions are ingredients for the
general consideration of whether or not an offence has been committed.

You should make your mind up.

Nothing has changed WRT the explanations given to you.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:

And are you now trying to tell me that if the police find and return
my stolen car, money, valuables etc. then they weren't in fact stolen
at all, just taken away?

It depends. Has this metaphorical vehicle been found abandoned or
still in the possession of the taker ? If the former then the evidence
goes against Theft having occurred, if the latter then Theft remains a
possibility but not a certainty.

You have already said many times that definition is based on the intention, not the fact.

The necessary circumstances for a particular offence having been
committed have been explained to you several times by different
people. Your sentence above is an over-simplification of what has been
explained to you. Both facts and intentions are ingredients for the
general consideration of whether or not an offence has been committed.

All of which is the most obvious proof that the law is nonsense. All
this complexity serves no purpose whatsoever, apart from
self-perpetuation.
The law makes a mountain out of a molehill, to ensure employment for
Sherpas.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)