Talk:Lock picking

Removed nonsense from UK legality.
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 178.78.66.211 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Lockpickers
I'm a little surprised that there isn't a category and/or a list in this article of famous lockpickers.Bill (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)