george b

Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


george b last won the day on March 5

george b had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

35 Reputable

1 Follower

About george b

  • Rank
    Regular User

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

263 profile views
  1. its unfair to lay that on Ms May, the government reacted to massive and mostly unjustified over use of the stop and search powers. That the police have had the power restricted is largely the fault of the police
  2. ministers of state, or their civil servants, write the legislation, I doubt some what, that they wrote the police internal documents, particularly as most of them will be dead, since it was written 40 years ago. I cant see why your getting uptight, its just a discussion on what's in a statute. I have no intent to try it. Though I did some years ago, take my mates car with out asking, he was on holiday and mine had broke down, so I used my spare key to his house, got the car keys and used it for the week, I was confident that i hadn't twoced it, as he would have let me of I had asked. So its the same defence, but a defence that you seem in denial about as its not included in the police internal documents
  3. yes but its not the statute is it, which is what you claimed it be, it is infact an internal police document. Ie a document designed by the police,Which is what I said it was,
  4. that wasn't the statute, that was some internal police documentation, the statute is section 12 of the theft act, and you didn't post that
  5. I've not expanded on any ruling, I'm quoting directly from the statute. The issue of conditional consent equating to twoc, if its used outside the specified conditions is a different issue entirely
  6. im speechless, Il see if any one else wants to tell you that the ghost test doesn't apply to twoc, as your flights of fantasy are to wild to handle
  7. no your making things up again . The ghosh doesn't apply to twoc as twoc is NOT theft. There is no requirement to show dishonesty with twoc. Come mate , raise your game
  8. that's rather the point im making, it isn't the wording of the section in question. It's wording you have decided to add, as you think it sounds better. What don't you TRY and discuss what's actual written in the statute rather than randomly adding words to it. have you now accepted that the test for theft is not applicable to twoc, ?
  9. and again,, he isn't saying he thinks she wouldn't mind, he is saying he believes she would have consented,
  10. your at it again, the theft act doesn't say honestly held belief, just BELIEF . Twoc isn't theft, that's why it has its own section, so the test for theft doesn't apply
  11. after a brief interlude of talking sense, youve gone back to writing your own laws, all that matter is if he believes it, the rest is that you muddying the waters with how you want it be, nb its not real you don't have to take it personally if he is aquited
  12. I didn't suggest it wouldn't need to tested in court. But you and the other guy have on numerous occasions, denied the defence existed and then miss quoted it to change its meaning. That the youth only has to convince the court that he believed it to be so. That he only has to do this on the balance of prob, makes it a lot easier for him than if it was beyond reasonable doubt
  13. you appear to have moved the goal posts in to the next field, i have no idea what that lot is supposed to show, the only thing of relivance is the wording of section 12 of the TA. That clearly included the statutory defence that you believed permission would be given had you bothered to ask
  14. I've just told you the salient point, don't you think you should have read it before entering in to detailed discussion, rather than asking me to research for you
  15. saying your parents would have let you, is NOT accusing them of a crime, is it ? I see your playing about with the law as well, the theft act only requires belief that consent would be given, not reasonable belief as you quote above. To arrest you need reasonable suspicion , not suspicion as you quote above. Including the word reasonable where it shouldn't be and omitting it where is should be, complete alters the law