From: Alan Holmes on 20 Apr 2007 13:54 " cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:58rjfrF2i3mj3U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Alan Holmes wrote: >> " cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:58r4laF2hqnvaU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Alan Holmes wrote: >>>> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1177002495.685498.72370(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> no, i'm not worried...just frustrated that I'm pretty sure i have >>>>> the law on my side, to some extent, yet i don't know it THAT well >>>>> to argue my points to the police, and they'll just run over me just >>>>> like they do to other people who just decide to accept the fine and >>>>> move on. I didn't make up the canadian story. It's true, and I >>>>> think i still >>>>> can specify a different person because i got "form B" which is >>>>> basically a duplicate of the original form where i need to fill in >>>>> details of the driver at the time the offence and "should the >>>>> particulars entered relate to the driver previously named..." to >>>>> provide the insurance details for them. So looking at that, I think >>>>> they're just giving me another chance to give a british driver name >>>>> so they can fine that person instead of having the hassle to >>>>> contact the canadian guy (which they probably wouldn't bother). >>>>> As you can see...playing the law......and those that know it well >>>>> have the upper hand, in this case the police...and it just seems >>>>> like they can play it well because they also have the strong >>>>> ability to threaten you with legal action, even though they might >>>>> not actually have a strong case. >>>>> >>>>> it's just frustration...that's all...not worry. >>>> >>>> Did you ask to see the 'evidence', this is vital. >>> >>> No it's not. >> >> Why? > > Because he's not the driver. So he has absolutely no reason to be worried or communicate with the police force any more? > >
From: Alan Holmes on 20 Apr 2007 13:54 > Steve Firth wrote: >> Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>> As you can see...playing the law......and those that know it well >>>> have the upper hand, in this case the police...and it just seems >>>> like they can play it well because they also have the strong >>>> ability to threaten you with legal action, even though they might >>>> not actually have a strong case. >>>> >>>> it's just frustration...that's all...not worry. >>> >>> Did you ask to see the 'evidence', this is vital. >> >> He's already said that someone else was driving at the time. So by >> what stretch of the imagination do you come to the conclusion that he >> has the right to see the evidence that may be used in the prosecution >> of someone else? >> >> Do you regularly write to courts asking to see the evidence of any >> prosecutions that your neighbours may be facing, for example? No, only those where I have been accused of an offence.
From: Alan Holmes on 20 Apr 2007 13:58 "Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2092af8bb7c1e57c98a593(a)news.karoo.co.uk... > In article <1177003066.699470.292420(a)p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > says... > >> My arguments are partially based on this statement off a website that >> seems to know enough to give drivers some support in situations like >> this: >> > OH for the love of God... > >> --- >> "My car was being driven by someone else at the time." You should >> provide the police with the details of the driver and they will then >> pursue them for the speeding offence. If the driver was visiting from >> outside of the UK and especially outside of the EU, then experience >> shows that they will not pursue the case outside of the UK.They may >> write to you and try and get you to prove that this other person was >> driving, but you only need to give them the name and address and don't >> need to supply any more info. >> --- >> >> Looking at that, i dont see why i need to go any further in providing >> information. If this was an insurance case where there was a traffic >> accident, it would make sense for me to provide the insurance cover >> information. But in this case insurance is off the table...it's about >> speeding, and since they have the name and address of the driver at >> the time, they can contact them and pursue the issue that way. >> >> > THAT ARTICLE WAS FOR A SPEEDING FINE. THEY'RE AFTER INSURANCE. Then they need to pursue the driver, not the car owner! > > -- > Conor > > Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright > until you hear them speak.........
From: Alan Holmes on 20 Apr 2007 13:57 "Trust No One�" <dana.scully(a)usa.xnet> wrote in message news:58s77mF2i8sq0U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1hwtxjp.1qfy4zf1qpvrulN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... >> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Looking at that, i dont see why i need to go any further in providing >>> information. If this was an insurance case where there was a traffic >>> accident, it would make sense for me to provide the insurance cover >>> information. But in this case insurance is off the table...it's about >>> speeding, and since they have the name and address of the driver at >>> the time, they can contact them and pursue the issue that way. >> >> Argh! >> >> You may, or may not, have allowed an uninsured driver to drive your car. >> That is an offence in UK lawn, hence why they're chasing you for it. If >> they secure a prosecution for said offence, it'll attract a penalty >> similar to that of driving without insurance yourself. This is not good, >> as insurance companies tend not to like people with convictions for >> driving without insurance or allowing other people to drive their cars >> without it. >> >> You don't have to be very bright to understand this, but it appears >> that, in this case, we're dealing with someone who is as dim as a 5W >> light bulb. > > Actually I think the OP is being extremely smart by keeping his cards to > his chest and not admitting on a very public newsgroup to allowing his > Canadian friend to drive his motor without proper insurance! It is not > beyond the bounds of possibility that the Old Bill reads the newsgroup. > > Assuming the OP did allow his Canadian friend to drive his car without > proper insurance, isn't he being forced to incriminate himself by filling > out this second form? Shouldn't it be down to the Police to prove that the > OP committed the offence rather than the OP gifting them a conviction? > > Suggest the OP maintains his silence and seeks proper legal advice. And, asks to see the 'evidence'! > > > -- > Peter <X-Files fan> > > > > >
From: Adrian on 20 Apr 2007 14:00
Steve Firth (%steve%@malloc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : > There's also (not raised in this instance) a question about the validity > of the driving licence of the driver. Why would there be a question over the validity of a foreign visitor's licence? |