Born Hunter 17,907 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 might start parking it in the garage more Saying that it shouldnt be the responisbility of the new owner "because he brought it in good faith" is daft. The same could be said for stolen cars, if you buy it in good faith you are still breaking the law by purchasing stolen goods and even if you had just paid £15k for the motor, it will be taken off you and no compensation given. Are you sure? To break the law you have to be aware they are stolen goods, buying it in good faith would imply you were not aware. So you're saying if I went to the local carboot and bought a second hand lawnmower for 40 quid that turned out to be nicked I would be locked up even though I had no reason to believe it was anything other than legit? Nah, that's bollocks. So I'd say the two situations are nothing alike. One is non intentional handling of stolen goods the is other is the intentional handling of stolen goods one its a criminal offence and the other is not. although there is an offence of theft by finding :laugh: Paulus, if you have bought stolen good with all good intention then you have absolutely not broken the law, which is exactly the opposite as what was stated. To my knowledge there is no 'Non intentional handling of stolen goods' only' 'handling of stolen goods' which requires the accused to have the beliefe that the goods were stolen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 might start parking it in the garage more Saying that it shouldnt be the responisbility of the new owner "because he brought it in good faith" is daft. The same could be said for stolen cars, if you buy it in good faith you are still breaking the law by purchasing stolen goods and even if you had just paid £15k for the motor, it will be taken off you and no compensation given. Are you sure? To break the law you have to be aware they are stolen goods, buying it in good faith would imply you were not aware. So you're saying if I went to the local carboot and bought a second hand lawnmower for 40 quid that turned out to be nicked I would be locked up even though I had no reason to believe it was anything other than legit? Nah, that's bollocks. So I'd say the two situations are nothing alike. One is non intentional handling of stolen goods the is other is the intentional handling of stolen goods one its a criminal offence and the other is not. although there is an offence of theft by finding :laugh: Paulus, if you have bought stolen good with all good intention then you have absolutely not broken the law, which is exactly the opposite as what was stated. To my knowledge there is no 'Non intentional handling of stolen goods' only' 'handling of stolen goods' which requires the accused to have the beliefe that the goods were stolen. thats what ive just said :laugh: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 might start parking it in the garage more Saying that it shouldnt be the responisbility of the new owner "because he brought it in good faith" is daft. The same could be said for stolen cars, if you buy it in good faith you are still breaking the law by purchasing stolen goods and even if you had just paid £15k for the motor, it will be taken off you and no compensation given. Are you sure? To break the law you have to be aware they are stolen goods, buying it in good faith would imply you were not aware. So you're saying if I went to the local carboot and bought a second hand lawnmower for 40 quid that turned out to be nicked I would be locked up even though I had no reason to believe it was anything other than legit? Nah, that's bollocks. So I'd say the two situations are nothing alike. I never mentioned getting locked up fella. I said you would be breaking the law and it would be seized. Its called handling stolen goods. It replaces the offence of receiving stolen goods under section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916. Still don't think you can be breaking the law if you don't know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,907 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 I never mentioned getting locked up fella. I said you would be breaking the law and it would be seized. Its called handling stolen goods. It replaces the offence of receiving stolen goods under section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916. You're wrong. To have broken the law you have to have had the beliefe that they were stolen! You may very well have them taken from you but you have absolutely not broken the law! There is no punishment under English law for handling stolen goods that you had no knowledge or beliefe to be stolen. It's in black and white. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,907 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Paulus, if you have bought stolen good with all good intention then you have absolutely not broken the law, which is exactly the opposite as what was stated. To my knowledge there is no 'Non intentional handling of stolen goods' only' 'handling of stolen goods' which requires the accused to have the beliefe that the goods were stolen. thats what ive just said :laugh: Sorry mate, got your post around my neck. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 I never mentioned getting locked up fella. I said you would be breaking the law and it would be seized. Its called handling stolen goods. It replaces the offence of receiving stolen goods under section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916. You're wrong. To have broken the law you have to have had the beliefe that they were stolen! You may very well have them taken from you but you have absolutely not broken the law! There is no punishment under English law for handling stolen goods that you had no knowledge or beliefe to be stolen. It's in black and white. Its called "purchased in good faith" anything relating to handling stolen goods would have to be either admitted to, or be proven in court Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. ive alreadt advised him to take out a log book loan as fast as possible :laugh: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. ive alreadt advised him to take out a log book loan as fast as possible :laugh: Better make it a big one to buy his car back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,907 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. Well, it sounds like it's nicked aswell now! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. Well, it sounds like it's nicked aswell now! I don't like to speculate, but it's probably nicked, written off, cloned, and has loads of finance on it. Maybe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. Well, it sounds like it's nicked aswell now! I don't like to speculate, but it's probably nicked, written off, cloned, and has loads of finance on it. Maybe. Good tyres though Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,907 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. Well, it sounds like it's nicked aswell now! I don't like to speculate, but it's probably nicked, written off, cloned, and has loads of finance on it. Maybe. He should probably check the boot too, a pound to a pinch of piss there's a kilo of coke in the tyre well! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paid 935 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. Well, it sounds like it's nicked aswell now! I don't like to speculate, but it's probably nicked, written off, cloned, and has loads of finance on it. Maybe. Good tyres though thats true, and i have receipts for them will the repo man let me take the tyres off ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paid 935 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Look. the fact of the matter is Paid is going to have his car repossessed and all we can do is bicker. Well, it sounds like it's nicked aswell now! I don't like to speculate, but it's probably nicked, written off, cloned, and has loads of finance on it. Maybe. He should probably check the boot too, a pound to a pinch of piss there's a kilo of coke in the tyre well! no chance, the wife would of found that in seconds, she puts the air ports finest dogs to shame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.