HMService

Resident Members
  • Content count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

HMService last won the day on April 23

HMService had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

147 Great

1 Follower

About HMService

  • Rank
    Training

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Herts

Recent Profile Visitors

313 profile views
  1. The offence is "without consent". I thought I could without consent is still without consent.
  2. I would agree with Mr Potter. George has expanded upon the ruling about minor variations in levels of consent to do different things with vehicles when consent has been conditional into being able to think you would have got consent if you asked.
  3. 15 year old says he thought his mum wouldn't mind if he took her car for a joyride around town and for reasons of his own did not actually ask her. I think that may have already been extensively tested without acquittal.
  4. I was actually trying to get you to read the legislation. I already know what it is. Please read the below:- On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..), without the consent of the owner (you will note this part doesn't say or thought you would have got it if you asked), or other lawful authority, took a conveyance, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..) for the use of yourself or another Legislation Contrary to section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Points To Prove date and location without the consent of the owner/other lawful authority took a conveyance for your own/another's use Also may be of interest:- To be convicted as an 'aider or abettor' a person must have knowledge of all the circumstances which constitute the offence. Whether the 'aider' realises that the particular circumstances constitute an offence is immaterial. AID means to provide help or assistance to a principal offender, whether before or at the time of commission of the offence. ABET is somewhat difficult to describe, but such an activity could include where an individual incites, instigates or encourages the principal to commit the offence. COUNSEL means to advise or solicit the commission of an offence. PROCURE Lord Widgery described this as 'to produce by endeavour'. It has also been defined as 'obtaining by care and effort'. A course of action is procured by setting out to see that it happens and taking the appropriate steps to produce that happening. A causal link must be established between what the procurer did and what the principal did. So if you don't have a problem with your car being used in the commission of an offence(drive otherwise than in accordance/no insurance etc) then you have aided/abetted that offence.
  5. What is the wording of the TWOC offence in the statute? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. Theresa May's review of Stop & Search has led to many officers and indeed some elements of the public being shocked at what is required to justify a search. Theresa May does not want us searching people standing at the corner of the street smelling of cannabis or even apparently under the influence of drugs- (If they are high the drugs are likely gone having been consumed.) Nor does she want us searching previously convicted burglars just for sneaking around in the dark. As stated you need much more than that. -A member of the public telling you a person has drugs on them because they just bought some cocaine from that person and they still had some left is the sort of level we need to look at now. The government have been very clear.
  7. What happens is a supervisor monitors the mention of a suspected terrorist and starts asking lots of questions. The supervisor will conduct a risk assessment and probably direct enquiries to be made with the person filming asking them what their intentions are. If it is known from the outset that it isn't a terrorist, it's just some oddball with a Police fetish etc they will likely be ignored. If being ignored leads to them upping the ante (this is about attention seeking after all) and they start getting very close to the officer to provoke a reaction, the officer may begin to feel threatened and harassed and that may lead to the suspicion of an offence by the officer concerned. Any person who gets off on making another person feel frightened or hunted for their own enjoyment is a very unpleasant individual. Direct threats have been made by ISIS toward military and police personnel. Acting in a way whereby a soldier or Police Officer might be made to think they are being stalked for personal amusement is in my opinion sick. Looking out for hostile reconnaissance to prevent another Lee Rigby has been very much at the fore of every officers mind. The recent loss of PC Keith Palmer should be enough evidence alone for you to understand why people doing what you do endangers officers. Regardless of what you think of the Police, I hope you can see why this is pretty reprehensible.
  8. The text seems to be suggesting that the reason he isn't paying is because the food quality was inconsistent with the price. If he furnishes his name and address to the restaurant giving them fair opportunity to sue for their losses and dispute the matter in court, it is as stated a civil matter. If he is found to have no means of payment and has consumed all the food, then that would lead to the reasonable suspicion he never had any intention to pay and committed an offence.
  9. Being anti-social or even obnoxious isn't an offence. So person A says something that person B doesn't like. It happens every day what has that got to do with the Police? You asked virtually the same question about someone singing the national anthem outside a kebab shop... I'll ask you one..... You live in Swansea and enjoy playing the guitar. Dave lives in Leeds. You have never met Dave but see a post on a musical news group on the internet that he has written explaining why ukulele's are better than guitars. You call the Police. When they arrive they ask why you have called them. What do you say?
  10. I agree. Straightforward matter that could be dealt with by anyone as described by TR.
  11. The offence is taking without consent. If you didn't have consent but believe you did you may have a defence. So did the suspect have a reasonable held belief that he had consent? If this is a question at all in the case that you are dealing with, then you would have a reasonable suspicion that the offence of TWOC had been committed. You would likely want to question the suspect about what he believed and why as part of your investigation. This need combined with your reasonable suspicion could well lead to an arrest if you needed. So parent says : - "I didn't give consent." (I am an innocent of aid/abet but my child is guilty) and child says. a) "I didn't get consent" - (I am guilty of TWOC and my parent is innocent) b)"I didn't get consent but if I'd asked my parent would have let me" - ( This requires investigation. Is the belief that consent would have been given reasonable?) E.g i) Consent to drive from Sunderland to Newcastle was demonstrably given but the driver took a short detour mid way to stop and visit a relative. -Most people would agree that consent would have been given. ii) No consent was given but the driver says, the owner is my mate/mum/ uncle/neighbour and I think because I'm a nice bloke they would let me borrow it. - Most people would agree consent was not given. But regardless the average officer when confronted by parent saying one thing and the child another is going to suspect some dishonesty and an attempt to circumvent the law. Only one of the parties can be innocent but both are reasonably suspected and could be arrested if required. George, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not, or want this to be a convenient loophole for people taking cars, it isn't. It's been tested in court time and time again and you asserting that therefore the law lords are wrong again makes little difference. If officers have suspicion that an offence has occurred they are empowered to arrest. If people wish to start trying to argue disputable matters at the scene and win their defence case before it's even got to Court this changes nothing. If I had a penny for every suspect being aggressive toward arresting officers because "I ain't done nuffing wrong" and thinking that therefore the arrest is unlawful I would have significantly more money than I have now. Take a car without consent- You are getting arrested. Say your parents let you drive it or would have done because that's the sort of people they are; without a licence or insurance, they may get arrested because you are accusing them of a crime. It's quite simple really.
  12. It's called obstruction or sometimes harbouring. Would I arrest a parent letting their child drive a car that might kill someone? Yes if they wouldn't come to the police station for questioning I would. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. And you do have to submit to questioning - that's an arrest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. The simplest way is deal with the crime as is presented. You have a parent committing offences- deal with them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. Ah I understand.... there is no sinister meaning behind the word deal. It's just like how we "deal" with the public. People who lie in evidence are criminals- that is perjury. People who don't want to give evidence can be witnessed summonsed by force if necessary. Every citizen has an obligation to comply with the law and help keep our country safe. You don't have a right to lie and refusing to answer the questions of a court can be an offence. Misleading a police officer deliberately to frustrate an investigation is an offence. We deal with criminals and liars all the time. We don't need to break the law to deal with those situations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk