Found bike

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tumbleweed said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:05:43 GMT, Graeme <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Does that not work on the assumption that one police station talks to

the

Quoted message said:

> other?

Jeez, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered now. I should have left

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the woods.

Colin

LOL ...

Well, at the moment I am living in fear of being dragged off a bike built
around a 1980's Peugeot low-end frame by someone who thinks I nicked his
bike because he reported it stolen in Spennymoor while I found it in
Durham. And, despite being worth less than the insurance money, he was
really attached to that scruffy old twelve speed with those cute fall-off
jockey wheels.

I think a tin of hammerite might be in order.

Colin

Thats worth more than the bike as well :-)

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Graeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but in that case it hadn't been found and (virtually) handed in
so the thief would be likely to be riding it, if it was being ridden.
In this case it has been reported found so the police are unlikely to
tell the owner to keep an eye out for it since the police know
exactly where it is.

Does that not work on the assumption that one police station talks to the
other? I know they almost certainly do not on an inter-force basis, but
even on an intra-force basis I wouldn't be too certain that they'd bother
putting too much effort into checking about a stolen bicycle. They may

send

Quoted message said:

you to a central station (HQ?) as they do in Edinburgh, I think all found
property goes to Fettes.

Graeme

I'm almost certain that reported property is recorded on computer and
becomes part of a central record. In the case of bicycles the frame number
would form a tie-in that would be picked up on the system if it was reported
lost or stolen.... TO the best of my knowledge that was the general idea of
the system Strathclyde Police had in place 15 years ago + .....

I'd give my local station the frame number and description..... when they
clear it it should be ok.... By the sounds of it it's been fly-tipped
anyway!

LaoFuZhi said:

"Graeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but in that case it hadn't been found and (virtually) handed in
so the thief would be likely to be riding it, if it was being ridden.
In this case it has been reported found so the police are unlikely to
tell the owner to keep an eye out for it since the police know
exactly where it is.

Does that not work on the assumption that one police station talks to the
other? I know they almost certainly do not on an inter-force basis, but
even on an intra-force basis I wouldn't be too certain that they'd bother
putting too much effort into checking about a stolen bicycle. They may

send

Quoted message said:

you to a central station (HQ?) as they do in Edinburgh, I think all found
property goes to Fettes.

Graeme

I'm almost certain that reported property is recorded on computer and
becomes part of a central record.

I think each force holds a central record, but these records aren't shared
between forces.

A policeman once told me (after my bike was stolen) that there was a
national database.

When the police were giving away free RFID chips for bikes here, they told
me that there was no central nationwide database for stolen property, but
that the RFID chip vendors maintained a nationwide database for bikes /
cars that had the RFID chips in them.

I don't know what to believe.

AC

Quoted message said:

In the case of bicycles the frame number
would form a tie-in that would be picked up on the system if it was reported
lost or stolen.... TO the best of my knowledge that was the general idea of
the system Strathclyde Police had in place 15 years ago + .....

I'd give my local station the frame number and description..... when they
clear it it should be ok.... By the sounds of it it's been fly-tipped
anyway!

Police could be waste of time - they are not too pro-active.
We had a bike stolen from outside our house and reported it to the
police same day on the off chance.
3 years later we spotted it in a neighbours garage about 5 doors away.
He gave it back with apologies, didn't know it was ours etc and we
believed him.
He said he had found it thrown over his wall 3 years ago and had
reported it promptly to the police - same station same day it appears.
They obviously didn't have enough clues to go on and found the case
too difficult to solve.
To be fair - when I lost my wallet it turned up at the cop shop 2
hours later with money intact and I was able to get it back - but I
asked them, they didn't contact me.

cheers

Jacob

Quoted message said:

I think each force holds a central record, but these records aren't shared
between forces.

A policeman once told me (after my bike was stolen) that there was a
national database.

When the police were giving away free RFID chips for bikes here, they told
me that there was no central nationwide database for stolen property, but
that the RFID chip vendors maintained a nationwide database for bikes /
cars that had the RFID chips in them.

I don't know what to believe.

Back in the mid-80's I served as a Special Constable for a short while....
And it's from those days I recalled what I wrote in my last post. I too was
under the impression that there was , if not actually a national database,
then at least some means of cross-referencing information nationally.
Hopefully we have at least one current, regular PC who can clarify the
point.

Quoted message said:

I think a tin of hammerite might be in order.

Yes, hammerite or similar will make it look like you've unsuccessfully
tried to make an expensive bike look cheap :-)

Colin Blackburn said:

When and if I'm riding it, it will be *my* bike and I will have police
paperwork to prove that.

Colin,

If the originally owner correctly identifies it as his bike, you will
have to give it back - it remains his property.

What you have done by (absolutely correctly) speaking to the police is
to show that you had no intention to dishonestly deprive the owner of
the bike - you have provided a pretty rock solid defence to any
allegation of theft.

But, even if you had paid money for it, in good faith, the bike remains
the property of the original owner. There are some fairly sad cases
where people who have bought stolen cars perfectly innocently end up
losing their money. 'Caveat emptor'... (Basically, the thief doesn't
acquire 'good title' so he can't pass that on to you.)

http://www.car-crime.com/n_e_m_.htm

David

anonymous coward <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

When the police were giving away free RFID chips for bikes here, they
told me that there was no central nationwide database for stolen
property, but that the RFID chip vendors maintained a nationwide
database for bikes / cars that had the RFID chips in them.

Free? Bugger, I had to pay for mine. The RFID companies (DataTag in this
case) do have a national database. Fat lot of use that'll do me now me and
my bike are in Australia. Anyway, I'm off for a ride on my now pointlessly
tagged bike ;-)

Graeme

David Bertenshaw said:

Colin Blackburn said:

When and if I'm riding it, it will be *my* bike and I will have police
paperwork to prove that.

Colin,

If the originally owner correctly identifies it as his bike, you will
have to give it back - it remains his property.

No I don't. I have to undertake to "return the same or the value." How
that is decided I do not know but I don't *have* to return the bike.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

No I don't. I have to undertake to "return the same or the value." How
that is decided I do not know but I don't *have* to return the bike.

Colin

Well, OK - I suppose what I said was a bit ambiguous. You don't *have*
to give the bike back in the sense that there *are* legal ways in which
you can retain it - e.g. by coming to an agreement with the owner.

But is that the same as saying that you could choose not to return it
against the owner's wishes and insist he takes your money? If you don't
have proper title (and according to the stated case, you don't), if the
owner wants his bike back, wouldn't it be his decision, not yours? How
can you make him take money for something that is legally his, not yours?

You could offer him fair value, I suppose, but would he be forced to
take it - and how much? I suppose if you couldn't agree it would be a
matter for a civil court to decide, which would cheer up m'learned
friends no end... I do know that the police will be most reluctant to
get involved in what is now a 'civil case'.

But IANAL and I'm quite happy to accept that I'm wrong on this.

David

David Bertenshaw said:

'Caveat emptor'... (Basically, the thief doesn't
acquire 'good title' so he can't pass that on to you.)

Nemo dat quod non habet, I believe you mean.
--

Cheers,

Al

Al C-F said:

David Bertenshaw said:

'Caveat emptor'... (Basically, the thief doesn't
acquire 'good title' so he can't pass that on to you.)

Nemo dat quod non habet, I believe you mean.

Nemo dat... etc is indeed the latin tag for the principle of 'the thief
doesn't acquire good title'.

But the latin tag for 'buyer beware', which is what I meant and wrote,
is caveat emptor.

Vade in pace... ;-)

David

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Bertenshaw said:

'Caveat emptor'... (Basically, the thief doesn't
acquire 'good title' so he can't pass that on to you.)

Nemo dat quod non habet, I believe you mean.

Errrrr.... urmmmm . Quantum Canis est in finestra???? ;-)

.....Or as they say in certain 'perts' of 'Glesaga' Who's Wee Dug?

Quoted message said:

Vade in pace... ;-)

Oooo...Errrr they're going all Polari now...... ;-)

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Bertenshaw (') said:

Al C-F said:

David Bertenshaw said:

'Caveat emptor'... (Basically, the thief doesn't
acquire 'good title' so he can't pass that on to you.)

Nemo dat quod non habet, I believe you mean.

Nemo dat... etc is indeed the latin tag for the principle of 'the
thief doesn't acquire good title'.

But the latin tag for 'buyer beware', which is what I meant and wrote,
is caveat emptor.

Vade in pace... ;-)

Semper in faecibus sumus...

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Vade in pace... ;-)

Semper in faecibus sumus...

......sole profundum varia

Tony

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Vade in pace... ;-)

Semper in faecibus sumus...

.....sole profundum varia

Sona si latine loqueris

Quoted message said:

Vade in pace... ;-)

Sentio aliquos lycra contra me conspirare.......

in message <[email hidden]>, LaoFuZhi
('the.real.address [email hidden]

thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out') said:

Quoted message said:

Vade in pace... ;-)

Sentio aliquos lycra contra me conspirare.......

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, LaoFuZhi
('the.real.address [email hidden]

thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out') said:

Quoted message said:

Vade in pace... ;-)

Sentio aliquos lycra contra me conspirare.......

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

Caesar adsum iam forte.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/