You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 23 Mar 2010 19:31 On 23/03/2010 22:21, Steve Firth wrote: > That's down to the operational side (the Kevins of this world) and > basically I think you'd be on a loser. The plod are keen to seize and > crush cars and they don't listen to any arguments at the side of the > road. They expect drivers to carry all of their documents with them at > all times and TBH they don't even accept Certificates of Insurance as > evidence that a car is insured. Not forgetting that according to them, the Motor Insurance Database is infallible and even when you prove your innocence you, the innocent person, are still left with a �150 recovery bill plus �12 for each day your car is in storage plus the cost of travel to the police station and then the storage compound after it was taken off you. Do you get an apology? No. And the Police wonder why the public have the attitude they do. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Vernon on 23 Mar 2010 19:44 > > The point I am trying to make is that the lives of the vast majority of > the motoring public are totally innocuous and, as such, the police have > not the slightest interest into checking where they are going. > > Kev So there is a knock at the door, can you tell us where you were xx months ago? You say no, they ask if you have ever been to so-and-so you say not that I can remember. Wrong answer, they already know you have been there as they have your registration, so therefore you have lied to them, next question why did you not come forward to eliminate yourself from our enquiries..... oh dear doesn't look good does it, and all because a database recorded your car (or a clone of your car) XX months ago in the area where some serious crime occurred. It has always suprised me that the police have not yet installed ANPR cameras on all roads in and out of towns, real easy to produce a list of possibles from that.
From: Adrian on 24 Mar 2010 02:53 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> I've been stopped at a checkpoint whilst going about my legal >>> business, asked who I worked for (plastered all over the side of the >>> wagon) >> Every wagon that says has a brand name on the side is driven by an >> employee of that organisation, is it? >> >> No, thought not. > It was a haulage company, not something with Carlsberg on the side And no contract driver or owner-driver ever drives a haulage company branded wagon?
From: Adrian on 24 Mar 2010 02:54 I.curious <I.curious(a)aol.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Or one of the illegal style of number plates. However thinking about it, > I don't seem to be seeing many of those about at the moment - have they > tightened up on them at last? A year or so ago.
From: Phil Stovell on 24 Mar 2010 04:09
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:55:39 +0000, Adrian wrote: > Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>> Trivial, although Phil's suggested method is completely wrong. Just >>> store the raw data, then perform whatever queries you wish at a later >>> date. > >> Well, I was thinking of sort/merge and cobol! > > Cobol? Tha don't know tha's born. When ah were a lad, all we 'ad were > Fortran, and a lump o'coal once a month. Ha! You were lucky! We had to write it in PLAN and punch it on cards with our teeth when all the lights went out. |