Pigmentation dispute amongst kitchen utensils

Makes sense. Ta. I stand corrected. However, the law is what it is,
which is the main point.

 

Maybe they should. But, as the law stands, they aren't. I can't see why
this is so hard to understand. It's not theft. It's not illegal. It may
be reprehensible and the law may be wrong, in which case change the
law, but night now, it is not theft.

 

Troo. I blame the Northern Scum for heading down south to the beaches.
Can we turn this into a thread about Scousers now?

 

I already tried, but one of the fuckers stole my post.

--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250

 

<TOG@toil>; <>; <>
wrote in message

Are you sure you're looking at the latest relevant law TOG? Todays
Torygraph claims that the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 says that it is an
offence for people to remove items from a wreck if they conceal or keep
possession of cargo. They also go on to say that anyone who finds wreckage
on a British beach must inform The Receiver of Wreck or face a £2500 fine,
they have to fill in a form saying what they have found and store it for 28
days in case the owners want it back. IANAL but it sure looks like looting
to me, it seems e-bay have already pulled quite a few ads at the request of
the Police according to the article.

 

Oh, FFS. Go back further, and you'll see that I've pointed out *at the
time of the removal* no crime has been committed. It may be committed
afterwards.

 

<snip>

I really, really, really don't want to make you seem even more stupid
than your posting style and posting name indicate you are, but this
refers to salvage of wrecks, not stuff washed up on shorefronts.

And if it *was* a criminal offence, do you think Her Majesty's Finest
would be standing there, handing out forms, instead of arresting
everyone in sight?

YTTTTC.

 

in message

Read the link again,
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-e...s_row_receiver_of_wreck/mcga-dops_row_law.htm
"Wreck is defined as anything which is found in or on the sea, or washed
ashore from tidal water. All items which are raised, regardless of age
or importance, must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck". That's a
direct cut and paste so **** you - do your research before resorting to
insults, if posting names mean anything then you are neither older than
me and nor are you a gentleman.

To everyone else, sorry about the formatting of my last post - I dunno
what happened there but hopefully this one will be better.

Of course it was criminal - as I said, damage to the containers that
were broken into and theft of goods. The act gives the "salvers" time to
declare their finds to the receiver of wreck but they should have had
permission from the owner(s) of the wreck before removing anything from
the scene. They may well say they intend to declare the goods but you
know very well a lot of people had no intention of doing so and that is
theft. Her Majesty's Finest would have had a riot on their hands if they
had tried to stop the looting mob so they played it low key - they are
now calling on people to declare their finds and blocking e-bay ads.
That's their decision - if you don't agree then take it up with them.

Why don't you read the Merchant Shipping Act précis on the Coastguard
web page before you spout any more crap

YTTTTC

 

That page, AIUI, is referring to wrecks and the recovery of wrecks. That
paragraph refers to someone trying to salvage a ship, not items washed
up. It makes no reference to items washed up, although it does refer to
"items of wreck" found within 12 miles. Read it again.

That page you just quoted says: "Under the provision of section 236 of
the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, all items of wreck found within or
brought within UK territorial waters (12-mile limit) must be reported to
the Receiver of Wreck." No mention of "before". This makes sense. It
might take days or weeks to find out who a shipowner is. You are allowed
to remove as long as you notify (or say you will).

You cannot prove this in law, at the time. Ifthey offer to sell
afterwards, then yes, it's theft. That's the law.

Yes - they must declare them and selling without declaration is theft.
Removal from the scene is not, not under current law.

I agree with this - but it's not what you said originally.

Is English your mother tongue?

 

in message

Which bit of "washed ashore from tidal water" do you not understand?

Look again at the quote I made. It gives a clear definition of the word
"wreck", for the purpose of the act, that states ANYTHING washed ashore
from tidal water is "wreck" and must be declared. Clear and unambiguous.
The word "wreck" in the 1995 act does not refer just to the ship itself.

Also in the Coastgurd web site :-

Wreck is defined in section 255 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as
including "jetsam, flotsam, lagan and derelict found in or on the shores
of the sea or any tidal water"
Jetsam: goods cast overboard in order to lighten a vessel which is in
danger of being sunk, not withstanding that afterwards it perishes.
Flotsam: goods lost from a ship which has sunk or otherwise perished
which are recoverable by reason of their remaining afloat.
Lagan: goods cast overboard from a ship which afterwards perishes,
buoyed so as to render them recoverable
Derelict: property, whether vessel or cargo, which has been abandoned
and deserted at sea by those who were in charge of it without any hope
of recovering it.

So those containers are Flotsam which has washed ashore from tidal water
and is therefore classed as "wreck"

Look further into the site - it says legitimate salvers should get
permission from the owners as all wreck has an owner. Since the items
have owners taking them without permission is theft and breaking into
otherwise intact containers is criminal damage. I already said that
salvers have time to declare what they find.

True - intention to deprive can often be hard to prove. If someone takes
your bike and when caught say's he meant to bring it back later he may
get away without being charged with theft. Intention to deprive the
owner of their goods has to be proved, anyone who doesn't declare items
to the receiver of wreck won't have that defence. The stuff on the beach
is not "lost" and it's not simply finders keepers.

My reply was to your assertion that anyone can take what they want
without any law to say otherwise. You were wrong and I cited the
relevant act which does indeed place limits on the looters. You resort
to insult and bluster but no research to back up what you say. Try
browsing further on that web site - not just the page I linked, the
duties and powers of the receiver of wreck and the 1995 act are covered
in some detail if you could be bothered to read it properly.

More insults, what a surprise. You started off by calling me stupid and
claiming the law didn't cover stuff washed ashore but it's obvious you
haven't done any research at all before bursting into print - how stupid
is that?

 

I have always said that mere removal of the goods thrown up on the shore
is not theft, and is permitted. Every single media report has said the
same thing. The Receiver of Wrecks said the same thing the other day. So
did the police.

It counts as theft, or looting, if they don't report it, then or
subsequently. And the site even gives a link for a wreck reporting form!

Yes, all wreck material must be reported. From that site: "Wreck is
defined as anything which is found in or on the sea, or washed ashore
from tidal water. All items which are raised, regardless of age or
importance, must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck. Finders who
report their finds to the Receiver of Wreck have salvage rights. The
Receiver of Wreck acts to settle questions of ownership and salvage."

I have no problem with this.

I have problems with your assumption that it's automatically theft if
they simply remove stuff.

From S237 (that bit covering cargo washed ashore) of the Act itself:

237.—(1) Where a vessel is wrecked, stranded, or in distress at any
place on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom or any tidal water
within United Kingdom waters, any cargo or other articles belonging to
or separated from the vessel which are washed on shore or otherwise lost
or taken from the vessel shall be delivered to the receiver.

(2) If any person (whether the owner or not)—
(a) conceals or keeps possession of any such cargo or article, or
• (b) refuses to deliver any such cargo or article to the
receiver or to any person authorised by the receiver to require
delivery,
he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level
4 on the standard scale.

I see no reference to permission being required before the articles are
removed.

So: we have every news report I've read, listened to or see saying that
removal of the goods is permitted. And we have you saying it isn't.
Well, you may be right and everyone else wrong, but I'll go with the
percentages.

One further thing - the law does not impose an absolute duty to
ascertain the owner and seek permission.

Would you like your rattle back, now? Or are you going to continue to
insist that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Oh, and a "salver" is a large plate, by the way.

 

message

Fucking hell, TOG as the voice of reason... I'm going for a lie down...

 

Hmf. I see now that they've decided not to let anyone take anything off
the shoreline. Oh well, it was bound to happen.

 

message

Well as much as I think the balance of the law is probably about right on
this one... once it became clear that organised gangs were turning up with
trucks and cracking open intact containers, I became less comfortable with
the whole thing.

 

Yes, agree absolutely.

As I said to Champ elsewhere, though, simple removal of the goods from
the seashore was (and is) *not* theft under the law as it stands.

I wouldn't argue against a change to the law, except that I fear it
would be (in the way this government does things) so broadly worded as
to be applicable in all sorts of instances unrelated to the original
intention.

 

in message

I never said it wasn't, I said it wasn't the free-for-all you seemed to
imply. In my very first post on the subject I said "if they conceal or
keep possesion of the cargo".

Merchant Shipping Act 1995
The key issue for salvors is that under UK law, all wrecked vessels are
presumed to have an owner. This may be an individual, an insurance
company or underwriters. Therefore, the first thing an intending salvor
should do, is make every effort to trace the owner, with a view to
obtaining his or her permission before recovering the hull, fittings or
items of cargo.

Intending salvors are also advised to notify the appropriate authorities
before commencing salvage operations.



OK it say's "should" and "are advised to" but how much effort was made
to contact the owners or notify the appropriate authorities before
"salvaging"?

You've just quoted back at me the very stuff I was saying, so at least
you finally did some research. In two of your earlier posts you claimed
the act didn't cover cargo washed ashore and called me stupid when I
said it did, care to apologise for that? No I didn't think so, just snip
out your own wrong statements and move on quickly eh?

The criminal act I have been referring to was breaking into the sealed
containers - ie criminal damage. I have always said that the people
removing stuff had committed no offense PROVIDED they declared it to the
receiver - but breaking into a container and removing items from it is
pretty close to theft in my view.

No flying rattles from me - you were the one who resorted to a lot of
highly personal abuse. Yes, I did spell salvor wrong in one post but if
you look at my other posts I did spell it correctly elsewhere, so any
typo warrants an insulting remark from you does it?

"I really, really, really don't want to make you seem even more stupid

That para is cut and pasted from your reply to me and it's just plain
wrong as your latest post finally acknowledges. My posting name is just
"Alan", what's wrong with that? It is my name after all, my e-mail
address is a nod to the Rick Mayall character - it doesn't mean I think
I am him, the formatting of one post was crap but then who hasn't made
the odd typo or format error.

 

Well, then, yes. I was going off on the wrong track.

No, you said it was theft. Not "pretty close". Just theft. Now who's
back-pedalling? Strikes me you're guilty of the sins you accuse me of
committing.

If you think that was an insult, sweetie, you won't last long here. In
fact, there was no insult at all. You're the one who's resorted to
swearing and stamping your little foot. Still, you spelled "****"
correctly, so there's hope for you yet. Next week we'll test you on
"bugger".

That right? Oh, lordy lordy.

You're coming across as remarkably similar. If he had a bike, I'm sure
it would be a ZX9R.

 

in message

Is that an apology then? Come on, grit your teeth and admit you were
being insulting as well as wrong.

No back pedalling, IANAL but to me breaking into sealed containers and
taking goods from them is criminal damage and theft. Just my own view
OK? and I did say it was my own opinion the first time round too.

That wasn't the only insult I meant, see above.
No foot stamping I'm afraid and as for swearing, well your second post
to me ended with YTTTTC. I'm not offended by swearing at all, I just
don't do it much (yes I know I swore and responded with YTTTTC in
return). I didn't complain about swearing just the insults you were so
liberal with, and they won't cause me to leave either. I've been
insulted by experts in my time in the RAF. What did annoy me very
slightly was the way you immediately resorted to insult rather than
debate, right from the very first reply to me which began "FFS",
patronising, insulting and swearing right from the off. Insert your
*proud* remark here if you wish.

More insults, you know absolutely nothing about me other than what has
been posted here.
I notice you snipped your own para where you demonstrated that you don't
know the difference between an e-mail address and a posting name. Your
own posting name is pretty useless too, as I said earlier, I think you
aren't the oldest here and you've demonstrated you are no gentleman or
you would have admitted when you were wrong without having to have it
dragged out of you

 

message

OI! YOU! Yes, I said you! Put that conker back NOW!

Ali

 

Sure it wasn't the SAS?

If you think that that was an insult, you're remarkably strange.

That's really obtuse. Lord, Lord.... I've never come across anyone who
found Rik Mayall so gloriously funny that he had to nick his handle.

I bow before your incredibly skilled interrogation techniques. There's a
future for you in Iraq, you know.

Oh, I admit when I'm wrong. Now, about you back pedalling. What's the
difference between "pretty close to theft" and "theft"? I' suggest
that"pretty close" isn't theft at all.

Did you see the pic of the bloke wheeling away the BMW? Comments?