On Dec 28, 2:28*pm, D1039 wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:18*pm, Denis McMahon wrote:





On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:11:34 -0800, furnessvale wrote:
Indeed! *Now all we need is government prepared to bring the law on
scrap metal out of the days of Dickens and into the 21st century and
courts prepared to believe the offence is worth more than the miniscule
scrap value the thief gets........but don't hold your breath.

Maybe it's about time BT and Network Rail started taking civil actions
against the thieves and the scrapyards for the consequential costs caused
by their actions.

A civil judgement for the compensation costs incurred by NR for a 6 hour
shutdown on the ECML would probably be enough to close the scrapyard that
paid for the signalling cable involved.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

Consequential losses are seldom recoverable in civil actions, as being
too remote.

Compensation costs are contractual penalties between NR and TOCs and
are irrecoverable in tort from a third party

Indeed it might not be possible to prove that the scrapyards 'knew or
ought to have known' the cable was stolen

I would have thought that Restitution Orders or Proceeds of Crime
orders against the proven perpetrators would be more likely to be
successful (in the later their assets are seized and they have to
demonstrate what proportion they can retain as coming from legitiate
means).

That assumes the proven perpetrators have any meaningful assets

Patrick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excuse me replying to my own post, but a good example of Proceeds of
Crime seizures is shown (in the below link) by Holyhead border
officials (and so tenuously on thread for uk.railway!)

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nort...5578-30026703/

Patrick

"Denis McMahon" wrote in message
.com
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:11:34 -0800, furnessvale wrote:

Indeed! Now all we need is government prepared to bring the law on
scrap metal out of the days of Dickens and into the 21st century and
courts prepared to believe the offence is worth more than the
miniscule scrap value the thief gets........but don't hold your
breath.

Maybe it's about time BT and Network Rail started taking civil actions
against the thieves and the scrapyards for the consequential costs
caused by their actions.

A civil judgement for the compensation costs incurred by NR for a 6
hour shutdown on the ECML would probably be enough to close the
scrapyard that paid for the signalling cable involved.

BBC London ran a sting operation a few weeks ago. They found that some
dodgy scrapyards wouldn't buy obviously stolen BT cable (provided to the
Beeb by BT), but did give sotto voce advice to the thieves on how to
disguise the origins (ie, to burn off the insulation and melt the
copper). They even suggested a quiet location where to do it. Once
that was done, it's pretty hard to prove that it was originally stolen,
and from whom/when/where, and so the scrapyards would then buy the
anonymised copper from the returning 'thieves'.

On 28/12/2011 00:05, SB wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=metal%20thefts

====

Scrap metal raids: Police seize tonnes of rail cable

The British Transport Police (BTP) regards metal theft second only to
terrorism in its list of priorities

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16307310

Police have seized 14 tonnes of suspected stolen railway cable and
made 45 arrests after searching around 160 scrap metal yards in a
single day.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the haul followed
visits to 400 scrap metal recyclers in England and Wales on 14
December.

The day of action aimed to tackle the "growing" crime of metal theft,
thought to cost the economy £700m a year.

Scotland Yard is launching a dedicated unit to target the thieves.

The Waste and Metal Theft Taskforce is based in Bexley, south-east
London, one of the boroughs most severely affected because of the high
number of scrap metal yards.

'Unscrupulous'

Meanwhile, a newly formed cross-ministerial group has also met several
times to discuss the problem.

It is clear that a law dating back to the 1960s is not sufficient to
deal with an increasingly organised crime”

Acpo said police across Britain had joined forces with a number of
agencies to hit back at thieves and "unscrupulous" scrap dealers.

"Metal theft is a huge, cross-industry, problem which is not only
having a massive impact on the economy, but also communities across
the nation, said deputy Ch Con Paul Crowther.

"The day of action was designed to drive home the message that metal
theft will not be tolerated and that all agencies will work together
to tackle the issue."

Other bodies involved in combating the problem include the Environment
Agency, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, BT and Network Rail.

British Transport Police said it considers cable theft second only to
terrorism in its list of priorities.

Home Office minister Lord Henley said: "It is clear that a law dating
back to the 1960s is not sufficient to deal with an increasingly
organised crime.

"That is why we are looking at a range of legislative options,
including ending payments in cash for scrap metal."

Some 275 separate searches of scrap metal yards in the first two weeks
of December led to 15 arrests and the seizure of 16 vehicles.

Acpo said dedicated days of action would continue throughout 2012.


I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage & endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

In message , at 16:36:42 on
Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Bevan Price remarked:
I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage

Perhaps. Or why not simply Criminal Damage?

& endangering safety of rail passengers", rather than theft, with
severe minimum penalties specified by law, such that some namby-pamby
do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of sentence. Dodgy scrap
dealers should also face similarly severe charges & penalties.

That's somewhat in conflict with the idea that signalling systems are
fail-safe.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:45:09 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:42 on
Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Bevan Price remarked:
I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage

Perhaps. Or why not simply Criminal Damage?

& endangering safety of rail passengers", rather than theft, with
severe minimum penalties specified by law, such that some namby-pamby
do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of sentence. Dodgy scrap
dealers should also face similarly severe charges & penalties.

That's somewhat in conflict with the idea that signalling systems are
fail-safe.

Removing lumps of power cable tends to put signals out, and a row of black
signals isn't especially fail-safe.

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables could
result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.
--
WZR

"WZR" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:45:09 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:42 on
Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Bevan Price remarked:
I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage

Perhaps. Or why not simply Criminal Damage?

& endangering safety of rail passengers", rather than theft, with
severe minimum penalties specified by law, such that some namby-pamby
do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of sentence. Dodgy scrap
dealers should also face similarly severe charges & penalties.

That's somewhat in conflict with the idea that signalling systems are
fail-safe.

Removing lumps of power cable tends to put signals out, and a row of black
signals isn't especially fail-safe.

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables could
result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.
--
WZR

Yes that scares me what they are doing now.

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables could
result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.

Doesn't the absence of a signal indication where expected indicate "Stop" or
the most restricting indication possible?

That alone is fail safe.


--
Merry Christmas
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

Roger Traviss wrote:

Then there's the rather creative method of theft intended to avoid
detection
which was employed recently (for obvious reasons I will not go into
details). Suffice to say the use of that method on the wrong cables
could result in a decidely non fail-safe situation.

Doesn't the absence of a signal indication where expected indicate "Stop"
or the most restricting indication possible?

That alone is fail safe.



In the dark, in the fog on a bend with lots of lines???

--
Tim Watts

On Dec 28, 4:36*pm, Bevan Price wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage & endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

As another poster said, the real beef is with the guidlines and the
dickhead who makes them.

George

On Dec 28, 5:01*pm, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36*pm, Bevan Price wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage & endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. *Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. *When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.

As another poster said, the real beef is with the guidlines and the
dickhead who makes them.

George

That would be the maximum with several aggrevating factors, e.g. being
the ringleader, violence or threats of violence. Discounts are applied
for mitigating factors such as age, early guilty plea, genuine
remorse, helpfulness to the police etc.

Part of the sentence is usually paroled for good behaviour.

I'm generally in favour of this approach

Patrick