<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>

I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
That's why TWOC was introduced.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>
>I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>That's why TWOC was introduced.

In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.

Mark

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:27:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>>
>>I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>>fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>>That's why TWOC was introduced.
>
>In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
>earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
>almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
>reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
>that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.
>
It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
of an offence.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:47:31 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:27:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>>>
>>>I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>>>fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>>>That's why TWOC was introduced.
>>
>>In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
>>earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
>>almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
>>reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
>>that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.
>>
>It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
>wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
>insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
>guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
>details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
>of an offence.
>
Driving with no insurance was reported as one of the offences by the
"Dunmow Broadcast" -
https://www.dunmowbroadcast.co.uk/news/crime/man-charged-after-cheshunt-rail-incident-8199142
as was also assaulting an emergency worker which the BBC failed to
mention.
The other dodgy bit involving intent was "unlawfully and maliciously
putting across the railway a car with intent to endanger the safety of
any person travelling or being upon the railway" [Dunmow Broadcast]
which seems to relate to s.32-33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
(life imprisonment). The following offence in s.34 only requires "By
any unlawful act or wilful omission" (2 yrs prison) which seems much
more cast iron.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/transport-offences

If that has been properly reported then it might be a CPS cockup that
the court has allowed to run past them. We might hear more?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:27:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>>> fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>>> That's why TWOC was introduced.
>>
>> In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
>> earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
>> almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
>> reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
>> that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.
>>
> It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
> wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
> insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
> guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
> details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
> of an offence.

I’ve been reading this with a bit of a odd feeling. In Scotland the
corresponding offence is Taking And Driving Away (I’d guess that’s TADA but
I’ve never seen it abbreviated). What’s giving me pause is that in a
medical context TWOC is something quite different.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

"Sam Wilson" <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tdlesd$11vvu$1@dont-email.me...
>> It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
>> wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
>> insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
>> guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
>> details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
>> of an offence.
>
> I’ve been reading this with a bit of a odd feeling. In Scotland the
> corresponding offence is Taking And Driving Away (I’d guess that’s TADA
> but
> I’ve never seen it abbreviated). What’s giving me pause is that in a
> medical context TWOC is something quite different.

Is TWOC/TADA used as the offence name to get round some legal problem with
the term "stealing"? Surely *any* theft/stealing is "taking without the
owner's consent". Is it because "stealing" and/or "theft" tend to mean
"*permanently* removing", which would fail the legal test if the car was
subsequently found abandoned and/or burned out.

I've never heard of the term TWOC in its medical context, but I now know
that it means "trial without catheter" - ie remove a urinary catheter to
determine whether a patient can urinate normally. I've learned something
new.

On 18/08/2022 14:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:27:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>>>> fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>>>> That's why TWOC was introduced.
>>>
>>> In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
>>> earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
>>> almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
>>> reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
>>> that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.
>>>
>> It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
>> wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
>> insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
>> guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
>> details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
>> of an offence.
>
> I’ve been reading this with a bit of a odd feeling. In Scotland the
> corresponding offence is Taking And Driving Away (I’d guess that’s TADA but
> I’ve never seen it abbreviated). What’s giving me pause is that in a
> medical context TWOC is something quite different.
>

That could bring tears to the eyes!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tdlgfn$12aou$1@dont-email.me...
>> I’ve been reading this with a bit of a odd feeling. In Scotland the
>> corresponding offence is Taking And Driving Away (I’d guess that’s TADA
>> but
>> I’ve never seen it abbreviated). What’s giving me pause is that in a
>> medical context TWOC is something quite different.
>>
>
> That could bring tears to the eyes!

I can vouch for the fact that it does sting a bit ;-) When was in hospital
after I had a heart attack and cardiac arrest, I was catheterised while I
was in a coma, and when I recovered they did a TWOC and proved that I had no
problem passing urine; stopping was the problem ;-) I was quite surprised
at how large the diameter of the catheter tube was - it looked about half an
inch ;-) (OK, maybe I exaggerate a bit)

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/08/2022 14:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:27:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>>>>> fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>>>>> That's why TWOC was introduced.
>>>>
>>>> In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
>>>> earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
>>>> almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
>>>> reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
>>>> that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.
>>>>
>>> It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
>>> wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
>>> insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
>>> guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
>>> details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
>>> of an offence.
>>
>> I’ve been reading this with a bit of a odd feeling. In Scotland the
>> corresponding offence is Taking And Driving Away (I’d guess that’s TADA but
>> I’ve never seen it abbreviated). What’s giving me pause is that in a
>> medical context TWOC is something quite different.
>>
>
> That could bring tears to the eyes!

I gather that the insertion is even more likely to cause involuntary yelps.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 13:29:49 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 18:27:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:59:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tdgfj8$3fm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:20 on Tue, 16 Aug
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62565317>
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised he was prosecuted for stealing the car, because it's
>>>> fairly well known you can get off by saying you intended to return it.
>>>> That's why TWOC was introduced.
>>>
>>> In this particular case, given that the car had been taken four days
>>> earlier, any assertion by the thief that he intended to return it would
>>> almost certainly not be taken seriously by the jury. I would expect that the
>>> reason he was acquitted of theft was simply because it couldn't be proven
>>> that he himself had stolen it, as opposed to someone else.
>>>
>> It would be far from the first time that a newspaper report has
>> wrongly described TWOC as "stealing". It also doesn't mention
>> insurance but lists "abandoning the car" as something he pleaded
>> guilty to, suggesting either some abbreviation or omission of other
>> details along with failing to distinguish between offence and evidence
>> of an offence.
>
>I’ve been reading this with a bit of a odd feeling. In Scotland the
>corresponding offence is Taking And Driving Away (I’d guess that’s TADA but
>I’ve never seen it abbreviated). What’s giving me pause is that in a
>medical context TWOC is something quite different.
>
"Taking motor vehicle without authority, etc."
[s.178 Road Traffic Act 1988, applicable only in Scotland]
It provides a specific defence of "the accused acted in the reasonable
belief that he had lawful authority, or in the reasonable belief that
the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given
consent".

The English Law offence [s.12 Theft Act 1968] requires "knowing that
any conveyance has been taken without such authority".

There would seem to be a subtle difference in definition which
probably derives from the different theft laws. In England theft is
mostly a statutary offence requiring an intention to permanently
dispossess; in Scotland it is generally a Common Law offence where the
intended dispossession need not be permanent but there has to be
dishonest intent.