human rights pi$$ boiler

[rxe]

Eric Mc said:

The key difference is the word "home".

The law is reluctant to throw people out on the street, especially families with children. Even if someone has acquired a residential property (mobile or fixed, illegally, deliberately or inadvertently), the legal process will not include automatic eviction until adequate provision for accommodation has been provided.

If the stolen item is a lawnmower or a tin of beans, the legal procedures will be different.

It isn't that different.

A neighbour of mine had a digger stolen. He realised it had gone, activated the tracker, and it gave a precise longitude and latitude. He went to the location and called the police. The location was an encampment of fine upstanding travelling folk.

Police arrived. Oh, they said, we can't go in there. My friend did not record the conversation but is was along the lines of "we'll get the st kicked out of us if we go in". So they buggered off. Some more grown up plod took two days to arrive, by which point the tracker was disabled,. and the digger was reduced to parts with the serials ground off. No evidence, no convictions, here's a crime number for your insurance.

[Eric Mc]

No different. Police can normally only enter a premises with a warrant. It doesn't mater what type of people live on or in the premises.

If they think there might be violence, they get backup in advance.

[del mar]

Eric Mc said:

No different. Police can normally only enter a premises with a warrant. It doesn't mater what type of people live on or in the premises.

If they think there might be violence, they get backup in advance.

Does that apply with say vehicle trackers for example ?

The police know the the vehicle is in a certain location / building. I don't know anything about the process to obtain a warrant, but a days delay and the vehicle is gone. Surely a warrant suggests they have cause / reason to want to enter a location. A tracker beeping away moves past this level of interest / proof ? I know more extreme and bit unrealistic but in A missing persons case they would not wait for a warrant.

If they can't go in straight away and recover the car, I may aswell cancel my subscription.

[Eric Mc]

del mar said:

Does that apply with say vehicle trackers for example ?

The police know the the vehicle is in a certain location / building. I don't know anything about the process to obtain a warrant, but a days delay and the vehicle is gone. Surely a warrant suggests they have cause / reason to want to enter a location. A tracker beeping away moves past this level of interest / proof ? I know more extreme and bit unrealistic but in A missing persons case they would not wait for a warrant.

If they can't go in straight away and recover the car, I may aswell cancel my subscription.

The police can't just break into private properties without following proper legal procedures. If the property is residential and being lived in then the procedures may be a bit more complex than say, breaking into a container.

[Bigends]

Rovinghawk said:

In the 1980s we had the hippy convoys in Wiltshire eg going to Stonehenge for the soltices.

No MOT, no VED, red diesel, no insurance, probably no licence for the class of vehicle (coaches, etc), logbooks not sent to DVLA.

Police just moved them on as the councils didn't want to deal with hundreds of homeless if the vehicles were confiscated. Pragmatic decision but it made a mockery of the concept that we're all equal before the law.

Cops did run amok on that job though

[voyds9]

Cold said:

Corbyn wants to give a certain section of society even more rights if elected. Don't forget to vote.

That's alright I am the face of the patriarchy and therefore have white privilege.

[Guybrush]

Cold said:

Corbyn wants to give a certain section of society even more rights if elected. Don't forget to vote.

Quite true. Any way to erode the indigenous UK population. That and open door immigration which, as Labour said, was to 'rub the right's nose in diversity', is clear evidence of the left's corrosive effect on most people's lives.

[Rovinghawk]

Bigends said:

Rovinghawk said:

In the 1980s we had the hippy convoys in Wiltshire eg going to Stonehenge for the soltices.

No MOT, no VED, red diesel, no insurance, probably no licence for the class of vehicle (coaches, etc), logbooks not sent to DVLA.

Police just moved them on as the councils didn't want to deal with hundreds of homeless if the vehicles were confiscated. Pragmatic decision but it made a mockery of the concept that we're all equal before the law.

Cops did run amok on that job though

Could you elaborate on that?

[Tom Logan]

Rovinghawk said:

Could you elaborate on that?

I do recall seeing something on the box a while back where plod were stopping the crusty buses and lorries (I hesitate to call them motorhomes) and wrecking them, smashing windscreens and windows to disable them, legalised vandalism IMO, regardless of the people who were rendered immobile and probably homeless.

[Ayahuasca]

Eric Mc said:

No different. Police can normally only enter a premises with a warrant. It doesn't mater what type of people live on or in the premises.

If they think there might be violence, they get backup in advance.

Are you saying that if the police witnessed a crime and pursued the suspect to his home, as long as the suspect managed to get inside and shut the door, the police have to go away and get a warrant?

[Amused2death]

Tom Logan said:

Rovinghawk said:

Could you elaborate on that?

I do recall seeing something on the box a while back where plod were stopping the crusty buses and lorries (I hesitate to call them motorhomes) and wrecking them, smashing windscreens and windows to disable them, legalised vandalism IMO, regardless of the people who were rendered immobile and probably homeless.

Search for "Battle of the Beanfield"

[Tom Logan]

Amused2death said:

Tom Logan said:

Rovinghawk said:

Could you elaborate on that?

I do recall seeing something on the box a while back where plod were stopping the crusty buses and lorries (I hesitate to call them motorhomes) and wrecking them, smashing windscreens and windows to disable them, legalised vandalism IMO, regardless of the people who were rendered immobile and probably homeless.

Search for "Battle of the Beanfield"

Thanks for the link, it was some time since I saw it and didn't remember the details.

[mjb1]

Eric Mc said:

No different. Police can normally only enter a premises with a warrant. It doesn't mater what type of people live on or in the premises.

If they think there might be violence, they get backup in advance.

I thought they had right of entry without needing a warrant if they believe a crime is in progress?

[wiggy001]

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

Eric Mc said:

wiggy001 said:

Afraid so. Caveat Emptor.

I don't think so.

You don't think it is the case, or should be the case?

To clarify, I know it is not the case but it definitely should be.

If you cannot take reasonable steps to ensure that your home is not stolen then you shouldn't be buying it!

So what are reasonable steps?

It'd be a start to take a look at a receipt or, if a motor home, a v5 before buying would it not? If the seller can't provide some evidence that they own the caravan/motor home then you don't buy it.

[Eric Mc]

mjb1 said:

Eric Mc said:

No different. Police can normally only enter a premises with a warrant. It doesn't mater what type of people live on or in the premises.

If they think there might be violence, they get backup in advance.

I thought they had right of entry without needing a warrant if they believe a crime is in progress?

Depends on the nature of the crime. If somebody was being murdered or being assaulted, I'm sure they can gain entry without having to fill out forms. However, to search for stolen goods, they will probably need some sort of warrant. I know that in past times (and possibly still current), the police would sometimes enlist the power of HM Customs and Excise (now HMRC) to gain access to premises because HMCE had more powers of entry than the police had,.