"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
Howard Neil wrote:

Zak wrote:

I think that the extent of the criminal in this case damage is rather
limited. I do not propose to etch the windscreen or to actually damage it.
In fact with a bit of work and the right solvents and a good pair of
overalls it could all be sorted out in half an hour. No more than a tenner
including labout I would guess.

If you are the driver and have to go and fetch those items but have no car
to travel in then it would take much longer.

Hardly worth pursuing a court case over.


You do not have to actually cause damage to be convicted of Criminal Damage.

One of the earlier cases brought under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 involved
a tyre being let down. The person was convicted of Criminal Damage and
appealed. The appeal court, on upholding the conviction, said that the act of
letting down the tyre had caused the owner to take an action that he would
not have otherwise have had to do (pumping up the tyre).

By affixing the sticky label, you would cause the owner to take an action
that he would not have otherwise have had to do and, therefore, would be
committing an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Blimey.

So if you are coming down the road and a car is coing toward the main road
from a side turning, you are commiting criminal damage, by forcing him to
stop, which he otherwise would not have had to do?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you have a very strong liquid lunch?