Bicycle Theif on K&A

[RLWP]

I think you have some valid points but I would ask this hypothetical question- if somebody offered you an expensive mountain bike

at a ridiculously low price would you buy it? If you did buy it and it turned out to be stolen would you be surprised? I don't

see any difference between buying stolen goods and nicking them in the first place, to me it is all feeding the beast.

 

Where did that bit of information come from?

 

Richard

[JDR]

Where did that bit of information come from?

 

Richard

 

It didn't, hence the hypothetical scenario.

[RLWP]

It didn't, hence the hypothetical scenario.

 

So this is a random bit of speculation, not connected with the facts of this incident then?

 

Richard

[JDR]

So this is a random bit of speculation, not connected with the facts of this incident then?

 

Richard

 

The point I am trying to make is that Canalwalker is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the person

found to be in receipt of the bike is the person responsible for it's theft. What I am trying to say is that regardless of whether this is the case by being in receipt of the stolen bike is the degree of guilt any less?

[RLWP]

The point I am trying to make is that Canalwalker is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the person

found to be in receipt of the bike is the person responsible for it's theft. What I am trying to say is that regardless of whether this is the case by being in receipt of the stolen bike is the degree of guilt any less?

 

I don't know under what circumstances the bike was found. I do know that the person who had the bike stolen, the person who knows most about it, chose not to press charges. I don't see how I can make a more informed conclusion than they did

 

Richard

[WotEver]

The point I am trying to make is that Canalwalker is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the person

found to be in receipt of the bike is the person responsible for it's theft. What I am trying to say is that regardless of whether this is the case by being in receipt of the stolen bike is the degree of guilt any less?

I agree with your sentiments, although it wasn't immediately obvious what point you were trying to make from your earlier post.

 

I too really don't see that Canalwalker has any kind of a point. A bike was stolen. The bike was then seen on another boat and the owner of that boat subsequently took steps to hide the fact that he had the bike, even down to stripping parts off it. How much more evidence does Canalwalker need? The guy with the hidden and stripped bike was either a thief, or an accepter of stolen property (which is no better).

 

Where's the grey?

 

Tony

[CanalWalker]

I don't know under what circumstances the bike was found. I do know that the person who had the bike stolen, the person who knows most about it, chose not to press charges. I don't see how I can make a more informed conclusion than they did

 

and yet people are "quite happy to accept your word that he is a thief".

[WotEver]

and yet people are "quite happy to accept your word that he is a thief".

What's the difference between a thief and one who accepts stolen goods? None.

 

Neither would exist without the other.

 

Tony

[JDR]

I don't know under what circumstances the bike was found. I do know that the person who had the bike stolen, the person who knows most about it, chose not to press charges. I don't see how I can make a more informed conclusion than they did

 

Richard

 

That sounds eminently reasonable, I wasn't there, I don't know. I don't doubt rhe account given in any way but as it never went to court will never be tried in law. All a bit academic anyway as I believe the Home Office put unlicenced firearm posession under

mandatory sentencing guidelines so I think any charge of receiving is the least of the person's problems.

 

I still stand by the point that receiving stolen goods is IMHO no different in moral terms to nicking them in the first place.

Edited July 19, 2011 by JDR

[David Schweizer]

Your friend may have been there when the bike was stolen and on the boat when it was found and when the suspect was interviewed by the police but no one else on this forum was and you did not give much information in your original post in order to find this person guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously some people would have just hang people without a trial and have no interest in namby pampy things like evidence, justice or the law. they prefer a good knee jerk reaction and a quick lynching regardless of the facts or the actual events. they like to run paedatricians out of town based on someone elses second hand account.

 

So in order to answer your serious concern, I am in no way seeking to imply anything about your friend or yourself, just the people who will find some one guilty based on two sentences on an internet forum.

 

I hope that has settled your concerns without being too handwringing or nampypamby.

I just find it interesting that you are less than enthusiastic to believe what I have posted, but are prepared to suggest that the person who admitted the theft may not have stolen the bike.

 

Why would I seek to misinform?

[WotEver]

All a bit academic anyway as I believe the Home Office put unlicenced firearm posession under mandatory sentencing guidelines so I think any charge of receiving is the least of the person's problems.

Yes, conviction of possession of an unlicensed firearm is indeed under mandatory sentencing guidelines of a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 10. If a search of the serial number shows that the gun has been stolen then it gets heavier. If the serial number has been filed off then I think the cell key will end up in the cut

 

Tony

[CanalWalker]

I just find it interesting that you are less than enthusiastic to believe what I have posted, but are prepared to suggest that the person who admitted the theft may not have stolen the bike.

 

I have never questioned the veracity of the brief comments you have made and have not made any suggestions based on comments you had not yet made.

[luctor et emergo]

Whilst you all indulge in pedantic point scoring, there are those who live on this stretch, and who would like to know who the prat is with the shotgun. Forwarned and all that.

David, at least narrow down where the boat was, above or below the lock? Past Sainsbury Bridge? Widmore? Beyond?

[J R]

Whilst you all indulge in pedantic point scoring, there are those who live on this stretch, and who would like to know who the prat is with the shotgun. Forwarned and all that.

David, at least narrow down where the boat was, above or below the lock? Past Sainsbury Bridge? Widmore? Beyond?

 

I agree with Luctor. Do not disagree with the facts as presented by David S; the facts as originally posted are in the public domain via the internet. As, imo, CWDF is a community, you are free to disclose who the idiot with steals other peoples property and allegedly has unlicensed firearms on a boat. Its a safety issue for us boaters, with kids as well, to know who/where to stay away. If an arrest has been made it can be reported in the local press and this forum for that matter without fear of prosectution. If someone has been arrested it is not illegal or sueable to report that fact. It will be common knowledge along this end of the cut in any case over the next couple of days. No point in posting about thefts and guns unless you can back up your further posts. Would have thought you would have had a more sharing attitude to your information. All the above is without predudice (thats the legal bit so you can't be done by the courts).

[Canal Cajun]

there are those who live on this stretch, and who would like to know who the prat is with the shotgun. Forwarned and all that.

 

 

I would feel exactly the same way.

 

I heard tell of a local thug who stole from, terrorized and intimidated the community of a small Wiltshire village. When the police showed "sympathy" because he was "known" to them . . . but unforetunately couldn't catch him in the act , the locals resolved to ring the police giving his name and saying he was acting "suss" whenever the opportunity arose.

 

The Thug claimed harrassment, but after a while recognised that he couldn't go anywhere without being under the spotlight, and moved away.

 

I also believe that if the shotgun is illegally held (particularly with ammunition) and he is convicted, you may not be seeing him for a while

[Doug Scullery]

you may not be seeing him for a while

 

That would be great.

[deletedaccount]

I'm with luctor and JR here.

[Doug Scullery]

I'm with luctor and JR here.

 

I am in theory, but in practice I think I would be reluctant to cross a criminal with a propensity for carrying firearms.

[deletedaccount]

I'm sure it'll be on the telegraph soon.

[Doug Scullery]

I'm sure it'll be on the telegraph soon.

 

I very much hope so.

[Sir Nibble]

I'm sure it'll be on the telegraph soon.

Sure it will but I want to know this.

So, next time I'm on the boat I shall ask a fellow boater who it is. You know who it is I'll be asking in my ignorance don't you, that's right, the bloke with the shotgun!

What on earth is the point of saying "There is a thief caught in possession of an illegal firearm in your community but I'm not saying who". Cheers David, I'm really glad I know that.

[Doug Scullery]

"There is a thief caught in possession of an illegal firearm in your community but I'm not saying who". Cheers David, I'm really glad I know that.

 

I think the point of Davids post was mainly to say "watch your bikes". Clearly we are all very concerned about the whole shotgun thing, but it is up to David whether he chooses to share that information or not. I think he may have ethical problems with 'naming and shaming', but also if I was in his position I would be very wary of not just the legal implications of this (which I know nothing about at all), but also of angering someone who sounds like he could be potentially dangerous. While I would love to know exactly who this is, I do not blame David for being unwilling to share.

 

Hopefully the law will be able to deal with this man now, if he ends up in prison then none of us will have to worry about it.

[sueb]

I think the point of Davids post was mainly to say "watch your bikes". Clearly we are all very concerned about the whole shotgun thing, but it is up to David whether he chooses to share that information or not. I think he may have ethical problems with 'naming and shaming', but also if I was in his position I would be very wary of not just the legal implications of this (which I know nothing about at all), but also of angering someone who sounds like he could be potentially dangerous. While I would love to know exactly who this is, I do not blame David for being unwilling to share.

 

Hopefully the law will be able to deal with this man now, if he ends up in prison then none of us will have to worry about it.

If no one is prepared to press charges it is unlikely. Why do people contact the police if they aren't prepared to give evidence? It is just a waste of time.

Sue

[Chalky]

If the serial number has been filed off then I think the cell key will end up in the cut

 

Tony

 

Would that then be an offence of fly tipping and creating a hazard to navigation?

[steamraiser2]

Some years ago my son noticed that someone had broken into our boat which was at the bottom of the garden. More importantly the thief was still in there. I promptly dialled 999 and, at the same time let Tess, my German Shepherd, out. I arrived at the boat to find the guy half in ,and half out, of the broken window with the dog attached to his crotch. Two policeman arrived shortly after and began to deal with the uninvited guest. I held on to the dog who looked extremely proud of herself.To my astonishment they didn't arrest the guy, preferring to let him go and chase a motorist who went past the house with an overloaded trailer instead. I still regret calling Tess off to this day. The police did return the next day though... to tell me to keep the dog under control.