These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins. Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners.
No, since it wasn't their intention. Bitcoin's technical implementation is of no relevance.
I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is.
No. You're ignoring both the existing case law that has been posted as well as claiming BTC is somehow "special". The only way I can see why you would do that is if you completely ignore all the information in the thread in preference for your own ramblings.
That's pointless. This is a clear cut case, based in law, with no special provisions needed for it being about bitcoins.