|
He has admitted 47 counts of criminal damage and should be procecuted as such, anything less would be an outrageous abuse of the legal system.
|
|
Or otherwise sued by the said car's insurers.
|
|
How about both? Although I suspect this Emin wannabe hasn't the funds for the repairs to one car, let alone this many.
|
|
Lock him up then at least, would teach others who may want to break the law in the name of art a lesson.
|
Lock him up then at least......
Lock him up and throw away HIS key!
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
Note: the police are doing nothing unless one of the vehicle owners complains.
The man has admitted to repeated, intentional acts of criminal damage. The police are aware of the crime and of the identity of the offender.
Am I alone in wondering why they don't get on with doing their job>
|
The police can't prosecute for a crime that doesn't yet exist. It won't until one of the victims makes a complaint and they have the evidence to put before a court.
He can then be given further help with his art by keying the walls of his prison cell for a year or two.
|
This bloke is just an attention seeking saddo. His other *claims to fame* include pushing a peanut with his nose, and strapping a 27lb turkey to his head and walking backwards for eleven miles!!
www.bbc.co.uk/london/yourlondon/my_london/mylondon...l
www.ukfineart.co.uk/MarkMcGowan/McGowan.html
|
This bloke is just an attention seeking saddo. His other *claims to fame* include pushing a peanut with his nose, and strapping a 27lb turkey to his head and walking backwards for eleven miles!! www.bbc.co.uk/london/yourlondon/my_london/mylondon...l www.ukfineart.co.uk/MarkMcGowan/McGowan.html
The most memorable one was eating the roast fox in public!
|
This bloke is just an attention seeking saddo. His other *claims to fame* include pushing a peanut with his nose, and strapping a 27lb turkey to his head and walking backwards for eleven miles!! www.bbc.co.uk/london/yourlondon/my_london/mylondon...l www.ukfineart.co.uk/MarkMcGowan/McGowan.html
who now admits it's a hoax...
|
|
The police can't prosecute for a crime that doesn't yet exist. It won't until one of the victims makes a complaint and they have the evidence to put before a court.
Do the victims need to complain in order for there to be a murder investigation?
In this case, the crime exists once the criminal damage is done, not when someone notices. The police have the evidence that they need in the form of his admission.
Granted, in a case consisting of a single instance of modification to an item of property, it might be arguable that it had been done with the owner's permission. A builder ripping out a window, for example, should not be accosted by a passing PC. However, (i) keying a car is intrinsically unlikely to be with permission, (ii) keying (x) different cars at random is very unlikely indeed to be with permission, and (iii) he admitted that he had chosen the cars from the street and therefore admitted that he had not consulted the owners to obtain their permission.
So the crime clearly took place, and the police have all the evidence needed for a prosecution. However, they are doing nothing.
I admit that this is something that irritates me. It has done ever since the police made no effort whatsoever to investigate two burglaries suffered by my retired mother, yet have given her 6 points for two instances of 36 in a 30. For both burglaries they were given clear leads, but nothing was done.
Only convenient crimes are investigated, and motorists are getting the brunt of that.
|
|
Well seen he picked the West end of Glasgow. Next time he feels the creative urge to damage cars. He should go to Easterhouse,Gorbals,Cranhill and Whitecrook to mention a few. I would give him 10 minutes and gladly watch as people were creative on him.
|
|
For him to have been filmed keying the cars, I guess there must have been someone else present, to hold the camera. Since the other person's involvement was crucial to the planned damage, could the camera-operator be charged too? (I do hope so!)
|
Do the victims need to complain...
When it comes to crimes such as these, then yes. Since the principle in law is that if there is no victim, then there is no crime. Efforts can be made to trace the owners and encourage them to come forward, but if they do not then as you have no 'complainant' therefore no crime.
Silly I know, but if no-one says they've been a victim, then if you have no-one who has been prejudiced, then how can someone be held to account?
As for the murder aspect, every death is investigated. Some are investigated as possible murders since the dead person cannot make a complaint - so the benefit of the doubt is given that their life was taken without their consent. Remember that skydiver chap who was a military cadet? His death was treated as a Murder Investigation, until it was proved otherwise. Thats why murders get treated differentaly.
In this case, the crime exists once the criminal damage is done,
Yes thats right, the offence is complete. But you can report it as a Third Party, but in order to bring a prosecution under this section, the owner has to complain to the Police as well because it is their property that has been damaged...not yours not mine not anyone elses' apart from the chap who OWNS the car.
not when someone notices. The police have the evidence that they need in the form of his admission.
Admission is not enough in these cases (various reasons I shant bore you with) but if he later changes his admission to a defence: IE The owner of the car asked me to do it. Then with the Owner not deciding to press charges - how can we prove that what this guy did was without the permission of the owner? Thats one example why an admission alone is not enough.
>>However, (i) keying a car is intrinsically unlikelyto be with permission, (ii) keying (x) different cars at random is very unlikely indeed to be with permission, and (iii) he admitted that he had chosen the cars from the street and therefore admitted that he had not consulted the owners to obtain their permission.
Yes, true, but you cannot 'assume' - you have to prove based on fact. And that comes back to my point of the actual owner having to complain. Remember, anyone can report and have a crime reocrded as a witness, but in some instances, without the actual owner, no prosecution can be brought.
So the crime clearly took place, and the police have all the evidence needed for a prosecution. However, they are doing nothing.
>>
It isn't the Police who prosecute, it is the CPS. Police gather the evidence and pass it onto the CPS for prosecution. It's NOT the Police who propsecute offenders.
I admit that this is something that irritates me. It has done ever since the police made no effort whatsoever to investigate two burglaries suffered by my retired mother, yet have given her 6 points for two instances of 36 in a 30. For both burglaries they were given clear leads, but nothing was done.
>>
Well, having been burgled doesn't give her, or anyone, the right to speed. Although, yes I sympathise with your mother's predicament, but the Police can only act within the law. You might feel they are doing nothing, but most Forces have Burglary as a priority crime - and investigate each offence as fully as possible. If you're not satisfied then approach the Force and ask for what they ahve done/are doing rather than assuming they have done nothing.
Only convenient crimes are investigated, and motorists are getting the brunt of that.
Sometimes, but whether it is a small infringement of the law or a major one, it is still breaking of the law. To someone drink driving isn't an issue...does it make it right then that because Society might accept drink driving then it should be allowed to happen? No of course not. So stop whinging at the Police and having a go.
|
the principle in law is that if there is no victim, then there is no crime.
I think not. Speeding is an example of a crime that is defined in the absence of a specific victim. Murder is an example of a crime that is investigated without a complaint from the victim. There is therefore no such "principle".
Your comments on the suspect changing his story are a matter for the Court to decide when presented with the evidence. If the police do not investigate, the matter never reaches the court.
You refer to the owner not pressing charges. How many of us bother to report a keyed car? I have reported an instance of criminal damage to a car and all that happened was a letter from victim support. No, I'm not kidding, and next time I won?t bother ? what?s the point?. Yet, in this case, the police could seize the tape, view the reg nos, and discover the owners' identities. But this will never happen because they are not investigating.
Yes, true, but you cannot 'assume' - you have to prove based on fact.
Of course, yes. But the quality of the proof is a matter for the Court. And if the police do not investigate, it will never reach the court.
It isn't the Police who prosecute, it is the CPS.
But the CPS cannot prosecute if the police do not investigate (am I beginning to repeat myself here?)
Well, having been burgled doesn't give her, or anyone, the right to speed.
I agree; I didn't intend to suggest that it did. But the difference in handling of the two offences is instructive, and has seriously dented my respect for the police.
the Police can only act within the law [...] - and investigate each offence as fully as possible.
OK, some details. Apologies now to those who will be bored by them.
The first burglary was of her handbag from her hall. She reported it and pointed out that the car keys were also taken. The police declined her suggestion that the car be watched from time to time overnight, on the grounds that they didn't believe that the thief would return for the car. That night, it was stolen. The officer who attended the next morning expressed the view that the two thefts were not linked. Duhhh!
The thief was there for the taking, but no-one bothered.
In the second burglary, her neighbour informed the police of the reg no of the van that had been parked outside during the burglary with its engine running and its doors open. They visited the owner, who admitted being there but said that he was there on a job. The officers accepted this and left. The did not ask what sort of job, on behalf of whom, or to see any of the paperwork, or why he finished in 10 minutes, or whether he usually worked on a job with his doors open and his engine running, or whether he saw anyone enter her house. The investigation was closed.
I don't (personally) class these investigations as having been as full as possible.
Yet the images from roadside enforcement machines are analysed if necessary to yield the registration number. If the registered keeper alleges that they don't know who was driving then it all goes to court. Quite right, of course, but inconsistent.
If you're not satisfied then approach the Force and ask for what they ahve done/are doing rather than assuming they have done nothing.
I did. The reply was dismissive. What remaining respect I did have for the police was killed off by that letter.
My view now is that the forces consist of a large number of dedicated and professional constables who are kept from doing any useful work for the communities they want to serve by the politicians and the politically-minded management that sit on top of them and direct their every action in a politically correct but strategically incorrect direction.
And, as I said before, motorists are (a) easy to find (b) in the political firing line and (c) unlikely to defend a prosecution. So when they break certain laws, they are stamped on. Other crimes such as burglary and reckless driving which are harder to define and harder to investigate and thus fail to offer the "quick kill" that helps the Chief Constable meet his targets but which have a real and immediate victim are not given the same attention.
|
Other crimes such as burglary and reckless driving which are harder to define and harder to investigate and thus fail to offer the "quick kill" that helps the Chief Constable meet his targets but which have a real and immediate victim are not given the same attention.
I agree that most policing is up the spout, but I think you are wrong about burglary -- the stats show a big fall in burglaries in most areas since they were made a priority in the late 90s, and around my way that matches what I see on the ground.
But whether it's proper road policing or investigation of other crimes, I dount we'll see much change as long as we continue to drive drug-users into criminality. Chasing that sort of crime wastes a lot of police time, and a lot of the rest is gobbled up dealing with all the crimes committed by those who have to pay the criminals to feed their habit.
With police resources being misdirected, the stuff which really matters (such as the sort of systematic vandalism described in this thread) gets squeezed down the priority list.
|
|
The new 'ethical' recording standards mean that if there is definite proof a crime has been committed, there is no need to identify a victim. Hence why the amount of time I spend on paperwork is going through the roof.
|
I agree that most policing is up the spout, but I think you are wrong about burglary -- the stats show a big fall in burglaries in most areas since they were made a priority in the late 90s, and around my way that matches what I see on the ground.
I think our areas must be different. Judging from what I see in the local NHW reports, burglars are doing a steady business near us.
Glad to hear things are better near you, though.
|
I agree that most policing is up the spout, but I think you are wrong about burglary -- the stats show a big fall in burglaries in most areas since they were made a priority in the late 90s, and around my way that matches what I see on the ground.
Did any one see Panorama last night, according to one of the criminals it wasn't worth stealing TV's DVD's etc because new ones are now so cheap that people won't pay good money for second hand (stolen) equipment. It?s a bit like the fall in car crime, more to do with the circumstances rather than criminality going away.
A few year ago someone jumped on my car bonnet, and a week later marked a big x in the drivers door, one guy who had parked in the same place had to sell his Golf GTI Mk1 show car (his pride and joy) because his bonnet was marked and the front needed a re-spray. Of course the police were not interest.
|
Speeding is an example of a crime that is defined in the absence of a specific victim.
Speeding comes under Road Traffic Law which has a totally different burden of proof if you will. These offences are considered to be 'absolute' offences and not subjective.
Murder is an example of a crime that is investigated without a complaint from the victim. There is therefore no such "principle".
>>
As I said, when it comes to 'seriois crime' like Murder, the investigation is approached from the point of view that the dead person had their life taken without their wishes/consent - thats why it is investigated in the absence of a complaint from the dead person - because they are dead. They cannot speak for themselves so they are given the benefit of the doubt if you will since it is a SERIOUS crime. But Murder is different from Road Traffic Law and you cannot compare the two.
Your comments on the suspect changing his story are a matter for the Court to decide when presented with the evidence. If the police do not investigate, the matter never reaches the court.
Yes I agree, but just because there is an admission, in the absence of any other proof, the matter will most probably not reach the Courts why? because the CPS will not likely run with it. To prosecute or not is NOT the remit of the Police, this is down to the CPS. Police should investigate, but needs vs. resources must be balanced. Finite resources and prioritisation ahs to take place. Not right, but thats jsut life.
You refer to the owner not pressing charges. How many of us bother to report a keyed car?
Depends where you live I guess.
I have reported an instance of criminal damage to a car and all that happened was a letter from victim support.
Well atleast you got that letter, because when you were asked 'Would you like any support/contact from the VSS?' you most probably said 'Yes'. But you don't make it clear if it was your car that was keyed (Victim) or you witnessed it happen (Witness to a crime). I'm going to say that you were the Victim - and the response will be determined by what you tell the Police.
No, I'm not kidding, and next time I won?t bother ? what?s the point?
Well if you witnessed someone damaging another persons car, I would like to think you will call the Police and do your Civic Duty for if it was your own car, then you'd expect (or atleast hope) someone would do the same for you. You do your bit.
Yet, in this case, the police could seize the tape, view the reg nos, and discover the owners' identities. But this will never happen because they are not investigating.
>>
Well not entirely true. Police deal with reported crime And as I said before, if it is something such as Criminal Damage, then it will usually only trigger an investigation IF the owner comes forward and files a report...and yes there is a decent prospect of a 'positive result' from the ensuing investigation - but when it comes to Criminal Damage offences you have to PROVE that the property damaged had an owner and the damage was done WITHOUT the owners consent. No owner = no case.
>> Yes, true, but you cannot 'assume' - you have to prove based >> on fact. Of course, yes. But the quality of the proof is a matter for the Court. And if the police do not investigate, it will never reach the court.
But Police have to balance resources with need. Will throwing 50 man hours investigating this be best spent or would the time best used investigating a Burglary? But in any event, even before a case reaches Court, the CPS decide on whether or not to pursue - and you'd be surprised how many cases fall in this grey area.
But the CPS cannot prosecute if the police do not investigate (am I beginning to repeat myself here?)
Again correct. But you said the Police didn't prosecute' - so I was merely correcting you.
>> Well, having been burgled doesn't give her, or anyone, the >> right to speed. I agree; I didn't intend to suggest that it did. But the difference in handling of the two offences is instructive, and has seriously dented my respect for the police.
That is unfortunate. But the two offences are dealt with separately since they fall into different categories as explained earlier.
The first burglary was of her handbag from her hall. She reported it and pointed out that the car keys were also taken. The police declined her suggestion that the car be watched from time to time overnight, on the grounds that they didn't believe that the thief would return for the car.
For the Police to 'sit up and watch' for a car that might be In an ideal world, yes, thatd be great. Sitting up and waiting for a crime to occur, but if resources don't allow then they don';t allow. Officers can't be magiced up and resources (ie: money) can't be found if it isn't there in the first place. I think in your case it was a fact of resourcing and prioritisation.
If it had been me, or my Mother's car, then I would have immobalised or moved it and aprked it elsewhere rather than waited for it to be stolen to report it.
That night, it was stolen. The officer who attended the next morning expressed the view that the two thefts were not linked. Duhhh!
Well traditional Burglars don't steal cars - they Burgle your home and then sell on whatever they find. Then someone else comes across those wares and then uses them for their own Criminal enterprise. But if, as you say only the handbag was stolen, whyw asn't the car simply driven off the driveway in the first place when they obviously had got the handbag and keys the first time? Not so D'uhh is it now?
The thief was there for the taking, but no-one bothered.
>>
IF the Police had set up then yes, but there is that *IF* and that is disctated to by resoruces and availability of said resources.
In the second burglary, her neighbour informed the police of the reg no of the van that had been parked outside during the burglary with its engine running and its doors open. They visited the owner, who admitted being there but said that he was there on a job. The officers accepted this and left.
Look, I can't comment in detail on this but if after initial enquiries the Officers felt there was insufficient to arrest, then thats it. You can't go around arresting people willy nilly. If no grounds exist, then no grounds exist. Why are you so sure that this van was involved? Just by merely being parked in the area and with it's doors open - so what? Perhaps it was there legitimately and the guy produced evidence to that effect to the officers? I mean it could/could not have been involved, but nothing you have said indicates that it was involved, other than 'it was in the area' at the time? Why would a dodgy van be traced - I mean it would have false paltes to start with...or be found in a field burnt out...not being driven around during the day.
I don't (personally) class these investigations as having been as full as possible.
>>
Then you write into the Force demanding a written explination for what they ahve done. If the Force fails to answer your request, then you lodge a formal complaint. You have the right to see the Crime Report and all associated notes on it. Read it in it's entirity and then determine what they have done is adequate or not...but you are levying your own subjective view. You are not an Officer and not an investigator. What might appear to be common sense does not always mean can be done since it contravenes principles of law. Police are contratined by the previaling laws. If you are unhappy then write in.
Yet the images from roadside enforcement machines are analysed if necessary to yield the registration number. If the registered keeper alleges that they don't know who was driving then it all goes to court. Quite right, of course, but inconsistent.
No, not inconsistent, because the burden of proof is different to that of the other criminal laws. The onus is on the Driver/Owner to prove they are not guilty rather than the prosecution proving it beyond all reasonable doubt.
I did. The reply was dismissive. What remaining respect I did have for the police was killed off by that letter.
Then lodge a formal complaint. As a victim you should NOT be fobbed off, the Police work for the Victims and you certainly don't feel they have done a good job - maybe it's all about delviery - but in any event, you need to get answers.
My view now is that the forces consist of a large number of dedicated and professional constables who are kept from doing any useful work for the communities they want to serve by the politicians and the politically-minded management that sit on top of them and direct their every action in a politically correct but strategically incorrect direction.
Thank you ;) I thought you were quite anti-Police but I genuinely now beleive that you are more aggrieved at being elt down than anything. Please, approach the Force through the correct channels and suvbmit your concerns inw riting and see what happens. IF all else fails, lodge a complaint. it MUST be followed up and usually to your satisfaction.
And, as I said before, motorists are (a) easy to find
Yes, but thats all down to the way the Road Traffic Law is worked.
(b) in the political firing line
Right again, rememebr we're all drivers too :P
and (c) unlikely to defend a prosecution.
Well it is harder to defend the braches of Road Traffic Law due to the way the burden of proof is handled. WSo yes, securing a prosecution is 'easier' if you comapre it to say Murder.
So when they break certain laws, they are stamped on.
Penalties are set by Law and the Courts ;)
Other crimes such as burglary and reckless driving which are harder to define and harder to investigate and thus fail to offer the "quick kill" that helps the Chief Constable meet his targets but which have a real and immediate victim are not given the same attention.
>>
Yes and no. The detection rate for Burglary is quite high when considerd to that of say other offences thanks to the advent of DNA profiling. But when you have Lord Chief Justice Wolfe arguing that 'first time burglars should not face jail' - what do you expect?
|
Thanks for the effort, ihpj, but I'm not convinced.
I'll agree that "Police should investigate, but needs vs. resources must be balanced", but will disagree if you're suggesting that the balance is right at the moment.
I'm not anti-police per se. Every officer that I have met has been genuinely fair-minded, reasonable and helpless in the face of the system they must work in. And the senior officers that I have heard from? Let's just say that moderating policy forbids me from commenting.
Anyway, my needs this afternoon don't permit me to devote the resources needed for another detailed reply (much as I would love to). Sorry.... ;-)
|
Thanks for the effort, ihpj, but I'm not convinced.
I'm just trying to help pout the record straight my man. because it is dis-heartening to see someone who is a supporter loose faith. if we all loose this faith then we're all worse off.
I'm not anti-police per se. Every officer that I have met has been genuinely fair-minded, reasonable and helpless in the face of the system they must work in.
Thanks man ;)
And the senior officers that I have heard from? Let's just say that moderating policy forbids me from commenting.
Well I shant object :0)
|
Patently, I have to say that I agree with you on this. I consider myself to be a "normal" citizen of this country, and was brought up to believe in right and wrong. From my outsider's view, the nicities of what crime belongs to what category is lost. Either a crime has been commited or it hasn't. If the perpetrator is known, as in the keying cars case, he should be prosecuted. No one has to make a complaint before a speed camera prosecution goes ahead, what is the difference? I also find it hard to believe that in motoring cases the motorist is presumed to be guilty and must prove innocence.
The son of a friend of mine had his car broken into and the radio stolen. The perpetrator of the crime cut himself rather badly smashing the window and left clear fingerprints and sufficient blood to become a doner! Reporting it to the police was a total waste of time. all that was offered was the usual crime number and victim support rubbish. My friends offer to find the criminal and stop him offending for a while with a baseball bat was met with a lecture on taking the law into his own hands. This is exactly the reaction designed to alienate the police.
Sorry, ihjp, the more I see the way that both the law, and its enforcement is going in this country, the less faith I have in justice prevailing.
|
|
|
|
I hope the Police have the sense to remove his 'art' from display as evidence and the art appreciation society can then study bare walls. That should suit them as new artistic expression.
This guy is definitely not an artist in any form as he is not creating anything, but damaging other people's property in the name of free expression. Or in my words a vandal. On this basis he should be charged and made to pay for all his 'art' to be restored.
|
This guy is definitely not an artist in any form as he is not creating anything
Good point...
|
|
Got us lot talking - which was probably the point. If the cops bought a damage case with no victim to any court near me...I'd earn my money well. (Murders are the exception)
|
Got us lot talking - which was probably the point. If the cops bought a damage case with no victim to any court near me...I'd earn my money well. (Murders are the exception)
I thought the absence of a body made the defence a little easier?
|
As I understand it, not only has no one made a complaint as yet, but the cars that were keyed have not been identified. I would think that any prosecution would be a complete waste of time in this case.
As the "artist" is identfied, however, perhaps it would be an idea if some artiscally talented person were to perform a similar work of art on his car or house. I'm sure he would understand.
|
"...his car or house."
Probably he owns neither, nor anything else of any value.
|
Its made my head spin reading some of the convoluted arguments here, and I've decided 3 thing, IMHO.
1-laws are made by lawyers
2-because of 1-, you need a lawyer to tell if something is illegal or not.
3-lawyers cant seem to tell right from wrong.
WTM
(yes, I know this post has nothing to do with motoring, but it is a comment about this thread)
|
Lets see, some sad inadequate makes an outrageous claim solely to get attention.
So we give him loads of attention ??????
I rather think ignoring the idiot would have been more appropriate.
|
|
|
1-laws are made by MPs. MPs are often ex-lawyers (Blair, Straw, Howard?, etc.). Good lawyers generally remain lawyers (Cherie).
2-You employ a lawyer (a solicitor) to tell you if something is illegal or not. The solicitor employs another laywer (barrister) to argue your case. The other party employs another solicitor and another barrister. The 2 barristers have an argument before another senior lawyer (judge). The losing client pays all the lawyers.
3-lawyers can't seem to tell right from wrong. Right and wrong are nothing to do with the law.
|
1-laws are made by MPs. MPs are often ex-lawyers (Blair, Straw, Howard?, etc.). Good lawyers generally remain lawyers (Cherie).
In the last century, the Lawyers' Party was reputed to be the largest party in the Commons. However, they were eclipsed by the huge majority of the governing party after 1997.
|
What was wierd, down here in Portsmouth, the next door neighbour, about 2 years ago, bought a used 540. He took out a key, in front of me, and scratched down two door panels. His justification was - well, no-one else will do it now.
SBT.
(Strange but true)
I had an Alfa GTV 3L at the time, with no vandalism, but maybe there's more respect for alfa's or maybe people know if you key them, something else will fall off (:-)
I woke one morning and some g*t was going down the street kicking off every car wing mirror. If it was folded in, he opened it first. I was going to follow him, but the thought of being arrested for "stalking" was enough to put me off..
what can you do?
|
I woke one morning and some g*t was going down the street kicking off every car wing mirror. If it was folded in, he opened it first. I was going to follow him, but the thought of being arrested for "stalking" was enough to put me off.. what can you do?
Apply a size nine to his wing mirrors (ears)? I'd be willing to take my chances on that one.
No Do$h - Alfa-driving Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
