%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

In my case they are looking for text only, word processing, email and
web browser cache. They have absolutely no reason within the
circumstances of this issue to show any interest in images of any kind
whatsoever.

Steve Firth <%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk> posted

There are two answers, a legal one and a moral/political one.

The legal one is that the equipment was seized under a PACE warrant that
authorises the police to look only for evidence regarding the offence
specified in the warrant. But maybe this isn't true any more. It may
have been superseded by section 867(b)(i) of the 2008 Police Powers
Against Terrorism, Serious Crime and Paedophilia Act, as amended by
Schedule 24, part 9 of Statutory Instrument no 40,895, paragraph no
2,567,984.

The moral/political objection is that, if the authorities can switch
investigations at the drop of a hat from one "suspected" crime to
another, then it becomes incredibly easy for the police to persecute...

Foolishly I left a downstairs window open so my ex-partner's young daughter
could climb through a window.

I believe all that was taken was her post.

Due to various other things being taken from this house in an earlier
incident, I wrote to her solicitor to insist that she only gains entry with
mutual consent and I also changed the locks.

My understanding is that, despite the house being in joint name, that we
have a landlord - tenant relationship where she must give notice of entry
and indeed have a valid reason. Is this correct?

For your info I have already received a letter where it is quite clear that
she gave up occupancy and also that I should maintain the house, pay all
bills which I assume includes the mortgage.

I thought it was a criminal offence for her, or her daughter under
instruction, to enter the house? Am I right?

Mark gmspamx.net> wrote:

[snip]

They won't go out of their way to look exhaustively for evidence but
they will report all the evidence they find. As mentioned before EnCase
provides thumbnal views of all images on the disk, whether they are
deleted or not. Standard practice is to look through these thumbnails
since a text search will not find them or classify their content.

Why would the search be restricted? If a computer is seized for (say) a
blackmail case and there is evidence of a terrorist or paedophile
offence why should the examiner be instructed not to look for that
evidence?

Hello

I am a software developer in a fairly specialist area. About five years ago
a friend of a friend had a business and we talked about applying my
specialist software to his industry. Anyway, I adapted a prototype which
could at least be demonbstrated and after showing to a few potential
customers his company thought that there was potential in this area. The
idea being to sell software.

Anyway, they paid me to write some software for them - they paid me on a
daily basis for I think about 30 days.

They launched the product but did not really achieve many sales with it and
the vcompany had financial problems and they dropped the product.

Anyway, I realised there was potential in thier industry and I totally
re-wrote software with a totally different architecture. This product I am
now selling myself. Due to the architecture used it is much more flexible
than the version I wrote for them.

Now the other person has seen that I am making sales with this product (much
more than they ever achieved) he is getting jealous.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:10:09 +0100, stucknow
legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:

I am aware of a very similar case.

The amount was 40k, the person had gambling debts, and owned up before
they were caught!!

He has been through magistrates - pleading guilty - next visit is
Crown(?) Court for sentencing - the advice from his solicitor is
that he is looking at a year to be actually served inside.

(He cannot pay back any of the money)

I will report back when I know sentence.

With reference to this
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133942&command=displayContent&sourceNode...#views,
and in many other papers.

A man asked a pal to kidnap his former girlfriend using an air pistol and
Dalek voice changer after she dumped him.

James Wakefield, 28, wanted the friend to carry out the abduction so he
could turn up at the last minute and rescue his ex.

Wakefield hatched the plot with Aaron Rawson between December last year and
February, 2008.

Rawson was to take the woman to woods near her Newark home and threaten to
rape her; Wakefield would arrive in the nick of time and stop him.

Nottingham Crown Court heard that Rawson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
kidnap at an earlier hearing.

He told police that Wakefield had asked him to kidnap the 24-year-old woman
for

Hi,

Go to ebay or freecycle groups and you will find dozens of refillable
gas bottles of various sizes on offer. What is the legal position of
those offering such bottles and those taking them?

AFAIK, the position is that the *original* customer *may* have been
asked to sign a "refill" agreement which makes it clear that the bottles
remain the property of the company.

However, IME, this is the exception rather than the rule - the 4 large
propane and butane bottles I have were simply "given" to me by the local
companies - I signed nothing. (Unlike acetylene and oxygen bottles!)

But that agreement, where it exists, will surely be a civil matter
between original customer and supplier - someone that has been given or
has bought a bottle without such an agreement cannot be bound by such an
agreement.

I already know the definitions of Joint T and of T in common thanks.

20 years ago my Mother turned her aunt's leasehold property into
freehold, paying all the costs on the basis that she would get them
repaid out of her aunt's will prior to any bequests being made
elsewhere. This was to protect the value of the property from a soon
expiring lease. To her surprise my mother has now discovered that the
land registry has both her and her aunt down as proprietors i.e. both
of their names are on the house's deeds. All this time she has owned
the house to some degree without knowing, although she vaguely
understood what the original solicitor (now gone) had done she thought
it was something less than full proprietorship. What we cannot tell is
if she is a joint tenant or tenant in common by looking at the
Register and landreg.co.uk.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:45:07 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

I was hearing on the radio recently that for some trips it was actually
significantly cheaper to buy two tickets and have an artificial journey
break anyway...