From: Alan Holmes on

" 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

> 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

"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

"Trust No One´┐Ż" <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
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?