Crosswords10 mins ago
Is There Something Not Quite Right Here?
54 Answers
http://
Here we have a couple who have had their caravan stolen, and a travelling family who are in possession of the said stolen caravan, yet the police have no lawful rights to recover the couples property, why?
Here we have a couple who have had their caravan stolen, and a travelling family who are in possession of the said stolen caravan, yet the police have no lawful rights to recover the couples property, why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The real reason is likely to be that the police will not go onto a travellers site unless they go 'mob handed' with sufficient manpower to overcome the defences the travellers will put up. There was a case a while back where a stolen car was seen on a traveller site but the police would not go and get it back. They were quoted as saying that it would need at least 50 officers to raid the site and they could not justify it. traveller sites are a 'no go' area for the police.
DJ you are obviously not living in the real world '' go on to a traveller site and get it back'' they would not let you get 10 yards on to the site before you were attacked by 50 or more travellers . You would be damn lucky to come out alive !
As I said even the police will not go on to a traveller site unless they can out number the occupants . Remember the eviction of the Essex traveller site 2 years ago ? it took over 300 bailiffs and police to get them out and cost over £million .
If this caravan had been insured the insurance would have paid out even though they knew where the van was . It is the easy option, getting it back would cost 1,000s of time what it was worth and the travellers would have set it on fire rather than let it be taken back
Even in a murder investigation the police will ask permission before trying to get on to a traveller site.
As I said even the police will not go on to a traveller site unless they can out number the occupants . Remember the eviction of the Essex traveller site 2 years ago ? it took over 300 bailiffs and police to get them out and cost over £million .
If this caravan had been insured the insurance would have paid out even though they knew where the van was . It is the easy option, getting it back would cost 1,000s of time what it was worth and the travellers would have set it on fire rather than let it be taken back
Even in a murder investigation the police will ask permission before trying to get on to a traveller site.
Ah the police. Quite happy to destroy the front door of a home to grab some herbs in a baggy but not so keen to confront somebody who will fight back.
If the caravan had belonged to a police officer there would be no debate, it would be fumigated and returned to the rightful owner.
The couple need to seek out some sharp lawyer who has built a career on keeping certain clerics comfortable at the expense of the state and set them on the "buyers".
If the caravan had belonged to a police officer there would be no debate, it would be fumigated and returned to the rightful owner.
The couple need to seek out some sharp lawyer who has built a career on keeping certain clerics comfortable at the expense of the state and set them on the "buyers".
I suspect the insurers would know the situation and accept they needed to wait, and wait, and wait, ...
I'm not oblivious to the making a family homeless point; even though we know the system is being played. But how difficult is it for authorities to buy and supply a temporary accomodation caravan for rent and let the victims have their property back. Then sorting the situation is properly left with the authorites not a private individual victim.
I'm not oblivious to the making a family homeless point; even though we know the system is being played. But how difficult is it for authorities to buy and supply a temporary accomodation caravan for rent and let the victims have their property back. Then sorting the situation is properly left with the authorites not a private individual victim.
What's "not quite right" is that it is complete legal nonsense, and the force's solicitor is pig ignorant!
Title to stolen property is never lost. The police are perfectly entitled to, and should seize it, title being established. The police have a duty to prevent crime and take property which has been stolen. It doesn't matter that the current possessor didn't steal it or they bought it in good faith; somebody stole it and that is all that matters. It is only a civil matter if the present possessors of it wish to sue the person from whom they bought it, for selling something without title.
It is not a matter of human rights. No human right exists to protect those who benefit from a crime, or those who are subsequent beneficiaries.
Title to stolen property is never lost. The police are perfectly entitled to, and should seize it, title being established. The police have a duty to prevent crime and take property which has been stolen. It doesn't matter that the current possessor didn't steal it or they bought it in good faith; somebody stole it and that is all that matters. It is only a civil matter if the present possessors of it wish to sue the person from whom they bought it, for selling something without title.
It is not a matter of human rights. No human right exists to protect those who benefit from a crime, or those who are subsequent beneficiaries.
Update. The couple were on TV this morning with a QC. The QC said they should go to a 'no win no fee' local solicitor but the woman said they couldn't be bothered because the caravan would be probably be in a bad state by now!
Even odder, it turns out the person who now has it says that they bought it for £300 from a man in a pub. That means that the 'buyer' should have been arrested for handling stolen goods. The caravan cost £30,000. It would not even be strictly necessary to prove that it was stolen because the value and the circumstances of its acquisition themselves are sufficient to show that the defendant must have known or believed that the goods were stolen. (A "Fuschillo handling" from R v Fuschillo, which established that principle)
Any police officer who accepts stories like that will find that he'll hear one a hundred times or more in the course of a few years.
Even odder, it turns out the person who now has it says that they bought it for £300 from a man in a pub. That means that the 'buyer' should have been arrested for handling stolen goods. The caravan cost £30,000. It would not even be strictly necessary to prove that it was stolen because the value and the circumstances of its acquisition themselves are sufficient to show that the defendant must have known or believed that the goods were stolen. (A "Fuschillo handling" from R v Fuschillo, which established that principle)
Any police officer who accepts stories like that will find that he'll hear one a hundred times or more in the course of a few years.
