Hand Wringers...on your marks...
Discussion
TripleS said:
Personally I approved of those devices the Finnish police tested for pursuits..........
A sodding great harpoon, fire into rear of target vehicle, apply brakes, get cuffs ready.
Might that not be a bit of pain in the ass for any back seat passengers, who might, after all be relatively innocent?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I think it was a bit of a pain in the ass when they fired it into a big 4x4, applied the brakes, only to be dragged along the road, wheels locked, bit like a Dinky toy on the end of a piece of hairy string..... DOH!
Flat in Fifth said:
Hope you're joking FiF; the Finn's are utterly mental, it's why they make such outstanding rally drivers!!!
Your hope is not misplaced.
edited to say:
Reading it again realise I could have misunderstood your question Iolaire.
I was generally joking about the device being suitable, but I'm not joking when I say the Finns actually tried one. Bit like a small whaling harpoon...... seriously!
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 11th October 18:28
I know; I saw the training video for it on Top Gear.
I think it's the only time in TV history where Clarkson was speechless!!
He was spluttering to get the words out and I thought he was going to have a heart attack!
Do these maniacs realise that most vehicles have their fuel tanks in the boot or under the boot floor?
IOLAIRE said:True, but even having it would be a great deterrent to twoccers!
I know; I saw the training video for it on Top Gear.
I think it's the only time in TV history where Clarkson was speechless!!
He was spluttering to get the words out and I thought he was going to have a heart attack!
Do these maniacs realise that most vehicles have their fuel tanks in the boot or under the boot floor?
Think - if the police catch up with you you're going to have a metal snooker cue fired at the car, which may cause it to explode...would work a lot better than the "ahh, he's had a hard life, lets send him on holiday" sentences that seem to be handed out!
Actually, why not just use Hellfire missiles - would prevent repeat offenders!!!
I notice car theft in America is taken alot more seriously in terms of jail sentances.
I believe TWOC used to apply to "in the old days" when people would nick the car to get home in and leave it somewhere undamaged. The biggest problem is the term "joy riding", implies its fun and without consequence. Why not call it car theft and bloody stupidity.
I believe TWOC used to apply to "in the old days" when people would nick the car to get home in and leave it somewhere undamaged. The biggest problem is the term "joy riding", implies its fun and without consequence. Why not call it car theft and bloody stupidity.
medicineman said:
I notice car theft in America is taken alot more seriously in terms of jail sentances.
I believe TWOC used to apply to "in the old days" when people would nick the car to get home in and leave it somewhere undamaged. The biggest problem is the term "joy riding", implies its fun and without consequence. Why not call it car theft and bloody stupidity.
Too damn right, Grand Theft Auto...minimum 6 months in the slammer and hard labour at that, that'd reform the little scrotes.......
none of this liberalistic slap on the wrist stuff anymore!!!!!
medicineman said:
I notice car theft in America is taken alot more seriously in terms of jail sentances.
I believe TWOC used to apply to "in the old days" when people would nick the car to get home in and leave it somewhere undamaged. The biggest problem is the term "joy riding", implies its fun and without consequence. Why not call it car theft and bloody stupidity.
You can get 30 years in the States for "Grand Theft Auto" !!!
havoc said:I thought the motorist at fault was already liable to pay for damage to street furniture and property. A mate of mine got charged about £3k for damaging a bus shelter a few years ago.
A good point above...does a law exist requiring twoccers and similar to pay for damages caused by their actions while breaking the law?
Need to be careful, though, because the same could be extended to an otherwise law abiding motorist breaking the speed-limit and then being involved in an RTA...insurance get-out?
[Note - in my example, if the driver was massively over the limit, e.g. banning levels, he deserves what he gets. But for someone just "making good progress" in good conditions, discretion is required. Unfortunately, where motorists are concerned the law seems very black-and-white at the moment. Unlike the real world.]
I think (and this will be unpopular) we are ending up with the society we (well, previous generations) wished for.
As individuals, the average Brit:-
- Thinks he/she deserves what their next-door neighbour has.
- Thinks all their problems are somebody elses fault.
- As a result, thinks someone else should pay for their mistakes.
- Doesn't want to work any harder than they absolutely have to, and certainly won't go out of their way to help a stranger.
So we have people without a sense of responsibility, self- or social-
As society, the British:-
- Want to help the "helpless" and the less-fortunate. However, see above, meaning we want someone else to help them!
- Knee-jerk agree with every NIMBY complaint that someone else comes up with, before thinking about the consequences.
So we have a society that results in poorly thought-out laws which take pity on the less-fortunate without regard for "victims". Add in a large dose of liberal law-lords and overly-PC politicians...
Notice, however, that car-owners CAN'T be "less fortunate", as they've got cars. But twoccers, clearly, can!
As can someone so weak-minded to get themselves addicted to an expensive, illegal substance, which obviously "forces" them to break the law to sustain their addiction. Why DO we pity junkies, anyway?
As individuals, the average Brit:-
- Thinks he/she deserves what their next-door neighbour has.
- Thinks all their problems are somebody elses fault.
- As a result, thinks someone else should pay for their mistakes.
- Doesn't want to work any harder than they absolutely have to, and certainly won't go out of their way to help a stranger.
So we have people without a sense of responsibility, self- or social-
As society, the British:-
- Want to help the "helpless" and the less-fortunate. However, see above, meaning we want someone else to help them!
- Knee-jerk agree with every NIMBY complaint that someone else comes up with, before thinking about the consequences.
So we have a society that results in poorly thought-out laws which take pity on the less-fortunate without regard for "victims". Add in a large dose of liberal law-lords and overly-PC politicians...
Notice, however, that car-owners CAN'T be "less fortunate", as they've got cars. But twoccers, clearly, can!
As can someone so weak-minded to get themselves addicted to an expensive, illegal substance, which obviously "forces" them to break the law to sustain their addiction. Why DO we pity junkies, anyway?
medicineman said:
I notice car theft in America is taken alot more seriously in terms of jail sentances.
I believe TWOC used to apply to "in the old days" when people would nick the car to get home in and leave it somewhere undamaged. The biggest problem is the term "joy riding", implies its fun and without consequence. Why not call it car theft and bloody stupidity.
Because to commit theft, in law, you have to intend to permanently deprive the owner of it. Joyriding and such like isn't to deprive the owner permanently of the vehicle, but to just take it unlawfully for a drive.
That's why TWOC was brought in...cos the car thieves were getting off at court, due to the slimy, lower than a snake's belly solicitors...
Street
Streetcop said:
Because to commit theft, in law, you have to intend to permanently deprive the owner of it. Joyriding and such like isn't to deprive the owner permanently of the vehicle, but to just take it unlawfully for a drive.
How about going "round the houses" for a better conviction?
Surely the scrote has permanently deprived the rightful owner of his petrol?
Steve
towman said:
Because to commit theft, in law, you have to intend to permanently deprive the owner of it. Joyriding and such like isn't to deprive the owner permanently of the vehicle, but to just take it unlawfully for a drive.
How about going "round the houses" for a better conviction?
Surely the scrote has permanently deprived the rightful owner of his petrol?
Steve
Nope...can't quantify petrol..for a cost to replace...ie: accurate amount...doesn't work....
It's not going round the houses...it's brining people to justice....Christ, car thieves were getting off with theft of car, because they hadn't "Intended to permanently deprive"...so the new law was brought in.....
Do you not agree with that..or are you happy for Joe Scrote to walk free?
Street
towman said:
Nope...can't quantify petrol..for a cost to replace...ie: accurate amount...doesn't work....
What about a good old fashioned robbery of cash? If the amount stolen cant be quantified - no prosecution? I dont think so.
"Robbery= force or threat of force to achieve the theft" Not the case in a theft of car...(unless it's a carjacking and then that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Keep trying................
Like I said on another thread to you Steve....the system is set up in the favour of the smelly scrote....
Street
"I think so"towman said:
I knew that was coming! Sadly I dont know the definition of robbery! Lets try theft of cash then shall we?! 
Steve
Theft of cash...by what means?
Theft from person, theft by finding, obtaining property by deception.....it has to be £££ cash...not the price of the vehicle...because that is 'property'
Street
towman said:
Theft of cash...by what means?
Street
Taking money which is not yours without violence. Got it - nicking the cash out of a charity box and leaving the box behind.
Steve
Yep..that's theft..
However...it might only be given a nominal amount on the charge sheet. If the amount isn't known...then the theft will be of £1.
Happy with that?
Back to taking a car...
What is wrong with TWOC...at least those being carried in the car are convicted also...not the case with theft..
Street
Streetcop said:
However...it might only be given a nominal amount on the charge sheet. If the amount isn't known...then the theft will be of £1.
Thats my point! Why not convict the scrote for the theft of a nominal £1s worth of petrol. If this carries a harsher sentence than TWOCing surely it`s the way to go.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff