On 26-Nov-21 12:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Max wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically unlocks the door upon the activation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a criminal offence at common law, and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter how short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fits into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detain someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, with the detention being merely a foreseen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcome, just hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked
>>>>>>>>>>> the door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing
>>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory
>>>>>>> power to detain for a period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily
>>>>>>> confine a person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where
>>>>>>> a person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>>>
>>>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that
>>>>> is enough.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>>>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>>>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>>>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>>>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>
>>> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person
>>> being trapped.
>>
>> Now you've made a fatal mistake. Rod Bot will focus on the fact that
>> there are situations where that's not the case, and continue to ignore
>> the specific scenario of interest.
>
> I have never ignored your original scenario, I have in fact kept
> rubbing your nose in the fact that there was never any INTENT
> to imprison anyone. At most a poorly designed system.
>
>> Not that avoiding fatal mistakes will get you much further. The bot
>> will just go round in circles, desperate to avoid the conclusion that
>> it was wrong in the first place.
>
> You are the one who keeps doing that.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Max wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked
>>>>>>>>>>>> the door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false
>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power
>>>>>>>> to detain for a period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine
>>>>>>>> a person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>>>>>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that
>>>>>> is enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>>>>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>>>>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>>>>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>>>>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person being
>>>> trapped.
>>>
>>> Now you've made a fatal mistake. Rod Bot will focus on the fact that
>>> there are situations where that's not the case, and continue to ignore
>>> the specific scenario of interest.
>>
>> I have never ignored your original scenario, I have in fact kept
>> rubbing your nose in the fact that there was never any INTENT
>> to imprison anyone. At most a poorly designed system.
>>
>>> Not that avoiding fatal mistakes will get you much further. The bot will
>>> just go round in circles, desperate to avoid the conclusion that it was
>>> wrong in the first place.
>>
>> You are the one who keeps doing that.
>
> You have carefully ignored:

On 26-Nov-21 2:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Max wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code, which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically unlocks the door upon the activation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed for this option to be used, because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a criminal offence at common law, and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter how short the period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fits into the common law offence of false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - a kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detain someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, with the detention being merely a foreseen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcome, just hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implied consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week due to my fault, where there is food, shower and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toilet, that I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max
>>>>>>>>>>>>> locked the door to prevent other people from stealing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> food?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario,
>>>>>>>>>>> that involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting
>>>>>>>>>>> locked in.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing
>>>>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false
>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory
>>>>>>>>> power to detain for a period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily
>>>>>>>>> confine a person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario
>>>>>>>>> where a person is confined without their consent (implied or
>>>>>>>>> otherwise)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>>>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>>>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>>>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>>>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then
>>>>>>> that is enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>>>>>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>>>>>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>>>>>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>>>>>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person
>>>>> being trapped.
>>>>
>>>> Now you've made a fatal mistake. Rod Bot will focus on the fact that
>>>> there are situations where that's not the case, and continue to
>>>> ignore the specific scenario of interest.
>>>
>>> I have never ignored your original scenario, I have in fact kept
>>> rubbing your nose in the fact that there was never any INTENT
>>> to imprison anyone. At most a poorly designed system.
>>>
>>>> Not that avoiding fatal mistakes will get you much further. The bot
>>>> will just go round in circles, desperate to avoid the conclusion
>>>> that it was wrong in the first place.
>>>
>>> You are the one who keeps doing that.
>>
>> You have carefully ignored:
>
> You are lying, again.
>
>> "Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the
>> door to prevent other people from stealing the food?"
>
> I rubbed your nose in the fact that in individual did
> anything like that in your original scenario. No individual
> locked any doors to stop anything being stolen.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically unlocks the door upon the activation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a criminal offence at common law, and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter how short the period of imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fits into the common law offence of false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detain someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, with the detention being merely a foreseen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcome, just hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked
>>>>>>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing
>>>>>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory
>>>>>>>>>> power to detain for a period.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily
>>>>>>>>>> confine a person.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where
>>>>>>>>>> a person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>>>>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>>>>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>>>>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>>>>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that
>>>>>>>> is enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>>>>>>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>>>>>>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>>>>>>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>>>>>>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person
>>>>>> being trapped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you've made a fatal mistake. Rod Bot will focus on the fact that
>>>>> there are situations where that's not the case, and continue to ignore
>>>>> the specific scenario of interest.
>>>>
>>>> I have never ignored your original scenario, I have in fact kept
>>>> rubbing your nose in the fact that there was never any INTENT
>>>> to imprison anyone. At most a poorly designed system.
>>>>
>>>>> Not that avoiding fatal mistakes will get you much further. The bot
>>>>> will just go round in circles, desperate to avoid the conclusion that
>>>>> it was wrong in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> You are the one who keeps doing that.
>>>
>>> You have carefully ignored:
>>
>> You are lying, again.
>>
>>> "Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door
>>> to prevent other people from stealing the food?"
>>
>> I rubbed your nose in the fact that in individual did
>> anything like that in your original scenario. No individual
>> locked any doors to stop anything being stolen.
>
> I don't know whom you think you're fooling. Perhaps yourself. Certainly no
> one else.