Gumtree - stolen goods or what?

[MacB]

If it's too cheap and you just get a mobile number and the instruction 'bring cash', it's nicked. And you know it is.

Precisely, way too many folks try to play the innocent when they know, at the very least, things might be suspect. I mean what are the two options here:-

you know it's probably knicked but you persuade yourself it's not your problem

you know it's not nicked but you're happy to take advantage of the ignorant or the desperate


Depends on your view really, but one persons successful bargain hunter could easily be another persons scuzzball.

 

[Riverman]

Well, what if the loser of the bike has been scouring the ads and sees this advert. The police track the seller down and he tells them he hasn't got the bike anymore, he sold it to a nice Mr Riverman. The cops visit Mr Riverman who says, "Yes, we all like a bit of a bargain, and so I happily paid £60 for something I knew full well should be worth about 700 quid. "

As the post with the case example shows, it's all about whether a REASONABLE person would suspect or believe that the bike was stolen given the ridiculous asking price. In this instance, even with a decent brief to get you off the hook you'd lose the bike and your 60 quid, because the original owner never loses title of the goods in question.

Waste of time and money? Far from it. The people who would happily walk away with this sort of bargain are almost wholly responsible for the fact that some ****ing parasite has been mooching around your shed/garage looking to **** off with your pride and joy.

Sleep tight.

I think you've missed the point. I don't have any problem with people being criminalised for stealing things, however I have a major problem with the police being given the power to criminalise people for buying things. Buying the item, should not make you complicit in the crime.

This law may deter would be 'rogue buyers' in some cases but personally I think it's a waste of police time. Go about catching the real criminals not people who buy items in good faith from people on the internet. And lastly, no I am not the sort of person who would buy what I thought were stolen goods from someone on gumtree.

Why give the police these extra powers to abuse when they ignore that crimes are taking place? A casual glance at gumtree and it doesn't take long to notice stolen bikes. I'm sure some stupid people would buy them though.

 

[Nufab]

It's not a waste of police time... It's about deterring the sale of stolen goods to reduce the market and hence reduce crime.

Riverman... Buying 'in good faith' implicitly means you don't commit the offence. If someone bought that Scott as a first bike, knowing nothing about bikes, then perhaps the police might believe they didn't know It's true value and hence bought it innocently. If however, the buyer owned several other bikes, and was an active member of a cycle club, for instance, then they would be expected to have an idea of the true value of the bike. The burden of proof lies on the police to show evidence of the 'guilty mind' of the suspect.

 

[Cubist]

I think you've missed the point. I don't have any problem with people being criminalised for stealing things, however I have a major problem with the police being given the power to criminalise people for buying things. Buying the item, should not make you complicit in the crime.

This law may deter would be 'rogue buyers' in some cases but personally I think it's a waste of police time. Go about catching the real criminals not people who buy items in good faith from people on the internet. And lastly, no I am not the sort of person who would buy what I thought were stolen goods from someone on gumtree.

Why give the police these extra powers to abuse when they ignore that crimes are taking place? A casual glance at gumtree and it doesn't take long to notice stolen bikes. I'm sure some stupid people would buy them though.

Nobody's giving anybody any extra powers to abuse. Go and google the offence of receiving or handling stolen goods, then come back and have another go.


Then go and do 24 years of hard graft in an occupation that does anything but ignore crimes, then come back and fail to be offended by the nature of your posting.

In case you're still missing the point and need it spelling out to you, if it wasn't for people willing to receive or handle stolen goods, there wouldn't be an outlet for things people steal. By tackling handlers and receivers the police are preventing crime. So who, in your enlightened opinion are the "real criminals"?

 

[Cubist]

Handling has been an offence since the 1968 Theft Act, and was previously included in the Larceny Act 1816, so it's not exactly groundbreaking is it?

The police are not given the power to criminalise anybody. They are there to prevent and detect crime (among other roles). Their role is to uphold the law which is written in statute via the legislature, or houses of parliament. Once they have detected the crime they present their findings to the Crown Prosecution Service who in turn decide whether the case should be brought before a court. The court in turn decides whether there is a case to answer, and then whether that person is guilty of committing an offence.

Anybody who buys stolen goods has a defence that they did not act dishonestly, but it is a rebuttable assumption that any person in recent possession of stolen goods is either a thief or a handler. It is then for the defence to prove whether or not they are in innocent possession of those goods.


By Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968:

A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.[sup][1][/sup]







​

 

[slowmotion]

Just to go back to a previous post....

I don't think that an experienced cyclist, who might be expected to know the value of an expensive bike at auction, is obviously guilty if he bids for a low priced item. The antique furniture business almost entirely relies on the vendors not knowing the value of the objects that they are selling.

BTW, yes, Gumtree stinks.

 

[Riverman]

Nobody's giving anybody any extra powers to abuse. Go and google the offence of receiving or handling stolen goods, then come back and have another go.


Then go and do 24 years of hard graft in an occupation that does anything but ignore crimes, then come back and fail to be offended by the nature of your posting.

In case you're still missing the point and need it spelling out to you, if it wasn't for people willing to receive or handle stolen goods, there wouldn't be an outlet for things people steal. By tackling handlers and receivers the police are preventing crime. So who, in your enlightened opinion are the "real criminals"?

I do think you're missing the point. This is about the powers of the police. Just because you may be innocent does not mean the police can't arrest you on suspicion (try spending a couple of hours in a police cell and come back and make that comment). To give them that right over the simple purchase of something is absolutely ridiculous imo.

And I just don't buy that point you're trying to make about demand for stolen goods. If the law was so important why is it so ineffective, if it's been in place since 1968? It's absolutely useless and rides a horse and carriage through peoples right to buy things without the threat of arrest.

Stop supporting a law which puts perfectly innocent (or perhaps just stupid people) at threat of arrest and at threat of the power of the police coming hard down upon them. The solution to the problem of people buying stolen goods online is not the blunt instrument of the law. We're talking about giving people criminal records simply for buying second hand goods online, something which will no doubt blight the chances of the individuals in life.

 

[Alembicbassman]

Buying something at an undervalue is not an offence per se.

There can be offences of deception if the buyer offers a little old lady a paltry amount for a valuable antique.

If you get something for £1 at a car boot sale that turns out to be worth £1000 there are implications in Contract Law, but no crime is committed.

I've bought bargains in the free ads and sold them on at a profit, but the seller has always set the price and I've always taken reasonable steps to ensure the items are legitimate.

The law is pretty fair when it comes to the reasonableness test. It doesn't assume a reasonable person is a bowler hat wearing Times reader, probably more like a Sun reader nowdays.

 

[slowmotion]

Buying something at an undervalue is not an offence per se.

There can be offences of deception if the buyer offers a little old lady a paltry amount for a valuable antique.

I'm not a lawyer but if "the little old lady" offers something for sale at a price of her own choosing, however low, mis-guided and reckless, then the buyer is surely free to scoop up a bargain? Not ideal, I concede.

If the sleazy antique dealer insinuates himself into her home, tells her that the piece is worth £25, and then buys it for £30 knowing that he can move it for £50,000 next day, it is a quite different matter.

 

[al-fresco]

Who buys stolen bikes? Cyclists.
Who suffers when bikes get nicked? Cyclists.

If you buy a bike believing it to have been stolen you are complicit in the theft.

 

[Cubist]

I do think you're missing the point. This is about the powers of the police. Just because you may be innocent does not mean the police can't arrest you on suspicion (try spending a couple of hours in a police cell and come back and make that comment). To give them that right over the simple purchase of something is absolutely ridiculous imo.

And I just don't buy that point you're trying to make about demand for stolen goods. If the law was so important why is it so ineffective, if it's been in place since 1968? It's absolutely useless and rides a horse and carriage through peoples right to buy things without the threat of arrest.

Stop supporting a law which puts perfectly innocent (or perhaps just stupid people) at threat of arrest and at threat of the power of the police coming hard down upon them. The solution to the problem of people buying stolen goods online is not the blunt instrument of the law. We're talking about giving people criminal records simply for buying second hand goods online, something which will no doubt blight the chances of the individuals in life.

In that case we are at completely different ends of the scale in terms of opinion, let's just leave it there shall we?

 

[Riverman]

Are gumtree trying to use stolen goods as their marketing campaign? Look what's being advertised prominently on this random website?
http://timworstall.c...e-point-of-use/

(words of warning though; don't listen to the bollocks written in the article).

 

[Alembicbassman]

I've listed things on Gumtree but never had any sales.

I try to sell an old banger with no MOT/Tax for £300, had a call from a Nigerian fella in London who wanted to collect it at 5am and drive it back to London from South Yorks.

I politely declined.