The police don't need to prosecute, what's important is just arresting them so that the owner can get back the house while they are at the station. Though they can issue cautions without the courts intervention anyway.
Squatters and UK law
- Thread starter Sem
- Start date
The police don't need to prosecute, what's important is just arresting them so that the owner can get back the house while they are at the station. Though they can issue cautions without the courts intervention anyway.
Soldato
As they are simply homeless scum, just get a blow touch and some razor blades and go to work on them in your house... murdering homeless is a victimless crime as no one cares about these rats.
Caporegime
Patrick Bateman? Is that you?
Soldato
The article states there is no running water or electricity.
Despite this, it also says the squatters are using the bathroom to wash up and are making use of the owner's DVDs and TV.
Despite this, it also says the squatters are using the bathroom to wash up and are making use of the owner's DVDs and TV.
Soldato
Coming Mother...
Well surely the point of property is that you live in it - so therefore it's impossible to protect your home in the eyes of the law as it cannot be stolen?
Surely, therefore, I should have someone at home at all times as squatters could just move in when i'm at the shops and I can't do anything about it?
I don't understand how squatting is allowed - the whole situation is utterly absurd and completely undermines a lot of other laws.
So can it not be considered "taking without owner's consent"?
A crime is a crime. Why should they be let off completely because it was considered low value?
Caporegime
No, you just lock your doors. Squatters can't break in. If they do, they are guilty of breaking and entering, at which point you can call the police as a criminal offence has been carried out.
Tute said:
As I've said, it's a historic thing, which made sense at the time. If you think it should be abolished, stop arguing here and write to your MP. I don't care about it, and I have no power to change it.
Tute said:
Possibly, depending on the legal definition of TWOCing and whether it requires that something be removed.
Tute said:
That's not my point. My point is that you'll struggle to find a lawyer that is going to touch a prosecution over £20 of damage, unless you represent yourself... good luck. Furthermore, as I said earlier, if the lock has been removed and changed but not damaged, then you don't even have a criminal damage charge in point.
Associate
The thing that bothers me the most is, the fact that they don't see themselves doing anything wrong. How I would love to smash their faces in! Smiling from the window like they are totally innocent and smiling at the camera too.
Caporegime
but that in itself is a lie and abuse of process.
its true that they didnt intend to strip the car or deport it...but neither did they take the vehicle with the intention of bringing it back to the owner <now the important bit> in the condition that it left in. or even at all.
its not like they go for a joyride, check the tire pressures, then re top of the fuel and park it back on your drive in time for your trip to work, is it? they are stealing it without realisation of the actual consequences, they probably have the same amount of intent to smash the car into a tree as they do to return it directly to the owner.
hence why the police find them and return them, rather than the crooks simply returning it themselves? to me a ditched car is a stolen car by theft - now a simple TWOC.
sadly our legal system fails owners of land and cars.
Now now, put the keyboard down.
Yeah use a hammer instead.
Caporegime
The truth is only relevant in a criminal case to the extent that you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The introduction of TWOCing offences was a pragmatic solution to the difficulty that prosecuting barristers had in proving the issue of permanent deprivation in a court of law.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 728
Not true, just depends on whether the DPP / CPS wants to make a point of it. There was a murder case years ago where the police investigating charged the suspect with malicious damage to a pen-knife, since that was a scheduled terrorist offence and allowed them a longer detention period than plain and simple murder.
Also, I'm not sure that I'd want to run an argument that removing part of a lock didn't amount to an intention to permanently deprive the person of that lock. Otherwise, I could see an easy defence to shop-lifting - "But I was only taking it for the party that night, your honour, I'd have returned it the next day..."
Caporegime
how can they prove beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to return it?
the fact that they took it without consent, to use for illegal purposes and to damage, and then did not take the car back to the owner in pristine condition is evidence enough that this was never an intention to do so.
How many twocs are prosecuted with the car already back on the drive way and the keys slipped back through the owners door with a fiver for wear and tear costs? the law is as though they are borrowing without consent.
its not true, they arent borrowing it - they are taking it and just dumping the car wherever
for me the average joyride should be picked up for:
-Taking without owners consent
-With the intention to deprive the owner of the usage of said item (as its physical and not virtual then the car can only be in 1 lace at once and therefore removing it will ensure deprivation of use)
With an intention to cause damage (did they let the engine warm up before nailing it? wearing out the tyres and potentially driving innaporpriately
-With no regard for the owner nor the owners property
-Whilst driving illegally (tax, insurance, plus any motoring offences incurred whilst driving)
-With no intention to return the car to its rightful owner
i.e throw the book at them. TWOC is a simple get out that is a huge loophole in itself which is an outdated concept and that does not take into account the actual actions that have been undertaken, nor do they sufficiently protect the item owner..
most of the above can also be transposed onto squatters too. fgor instance, once they were in, did they try to ascertain the whereabouts of the owner? did they intend to contact the rightful owner? did they cause damage to get in, and to stay in? have they arranged payment of bills or a fund to cover damaged carpets, windows, locks, beds etc?
of course not.
Soldato
Me and the boys would be right in there with a sledge hammer and fists a waving lol!
Last edited:
Soldato
Man of Honour
