Talk:Lock picking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Metalworking (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lock picking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed nonsense from UK legality.[edit]

The article previously read... "In the case of items specifically made or altered to be usable in burglary or theft, such as lock-picks, mere possession presumes intent – there is no need to prove it." This is complete nonsense.

While Section of 25 (3) The Theft Act 1968 states "Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, proof that he had with him any article made or adapted for use in committing a [burglary or theft] shall be evidence that he had it with him for such use" this does not preclude the possession of item which MIGHT be useful for committing an offence but which also has a legitimate purpose.

The possession of a set of picks does not 'prove intent'. Neither does the possession of a crowbar, a pair of bolt croppers, a roll of tinfoil (useful for defeating security tags), a battery drill or a coat with big pockets. They all have perfectly legitimate uses while also being "useable" for theft.

It's important to note that The Theft Act says "shall be evidence" not "shall be proof". This simply means it would be up to the defendant to show he or she had a legitimate reason to possess the item rather than the prosecution to show he or she didn't. In the case of legitimate possession this would probably be trivial to do and would never even result in a prosecution. "Evidence" and "proof" are not the same thing... Not even close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)