Start saving for your next insurance premium hike right now.
If a drunk staggers in front of a car and causes an RTA, it's always the drivers fault?
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_2097000/209787...m
|
You'd have loved police Camera Action on ITV2 last night then!
Car speeding. (Not by much)
Three local yobbo kids were playing chicken on the motorway. Kid runs from behind bridge *directly* in front of Car. Kid has timed it right and just avoids death.
Car driver is prosecuted, kids are not.
In keeping with HJ sites policy on commenting on the UK police I now have to say:
"This is excellent policing and I concur with the implied message that Jaywalking on a motorway is an excellent way for children to spend their summer afternoons."
Someone on another site might suggest they'd been toking at the Camberwell Carrots that they're so keen to legalise. But not me of course.
Also on PCA last night it finally happened. A guy got done for Dangerous driving and I simply couldn't see what he'd done wrong... What does that say about my driving???
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Toad of TH,
I don't understand, why was the driver prosecuted and the kids not? What had the driver done wrong?
Andy
|
Toad of TH, I don't understand, why was the driver prosecuted and the kids not? What had the driver done wrong?
They didn't say what he'd been prosecuted for.
I'm assuming the speeding offence that they hadn't bothered stopping him for before looked a bit more significant when a) a kid had run 4 feet from his fast moving bonnet b) He hadn't slowed earlier at the sight of kids hanging around a pillar. c) He hadn't slowed at the sight of a Jam Sandwich in his mirror.
Don't get me wrong, stopping the driver and telling him he was a blind, ignorant twit for failiong to slow to 15mph when kids & a Patrol Car are in sight would have been entirely appropriate.
However the driver was the victim of the Jaywalking not the perpetrator and certainly couldn't have know a kid was about to play chicken. I'd have said the shock of a child jumping in front of the car was punishment enough.
I'd love to see the look on his face when he was pulled over presumably thinking he was going to be asked to be a witness and instead given a speeding ticket!
On a similar note - proseuting victims. I saw a guy get mugged in a west country town. The victim was knocked to the floor and a second man helped him out. The perpetrator was over powered and given a beating. I (foolishly) offered to be a witness to the the 'mugging'. Unfortunately when I was called to court it became apparent the two victims were to be in the dock. The fact that they had been attacked was not relevant. One had kicked the mugger, whilst the mugger had only used fists, this was considered to not be reasonable force and both were advised by their barrister to plead guilty before the day of the trial. I'm still annoyed now that my evidence was used in this way. At no time was I told my evidence was to be used to prosecute the victims. As far as I know the attacker did not go to court.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
Toad
Sorry to be niaive but you cannot prosecute anyone without evidence which in todays system has to be substantial.
If as you say a prosecution took place and conviction then in addition to implying a corrupt Police Force, then also a corrupt Legal profession (CPS prosecution and legal defence) and Magisterial system.
You have read Growlers posts are you implying it is as bad here, surely not?
DVD
|
Sorry to be niaive but you cannot prosecute anyone without evidence which in todays system has to be substantial.
There *was* evidence! Mine was part of it. You are not allowed to retaliate. Only use reasonable force. The view of their Barrister was that by kicking the attacker rather than merely punching him, and doing so after the guy had effectively ceased to be a threat they were not using reasonable force. The CPS and Police must have thought the same.
That deosn't make it right.
If as you say a prosecution took place and conviction then in addition to implying a corrupt Police Force,
Not corrupt. Although alook in the papers might lead other to that conclusion. I'm not sayign they behaved outside the law. Just that it was a bit harsh to prosecute the victims for being lucky enough to get the upper hand.
You have read Growlers posts are you implying it is as bad here, surely not?
Can't see Gorwlers post. Personally when I get done for speeding I'd rather hand over 60 quid to a policeman and not get points than to the courst and get points.
*But* nowhere in this thread have I suggested that the UK police are in any way corrupt. [1] They have a perfect right to prosecute speeding motorists & victims of crime who get the upper hand over their attackers. I'm merely suggesting it would have been nice to let these people off their offences.
[1] Nor to I accept that any of the policemen tried and convicted of offences relating to corruption over the last 2 years were guilty of any wrong doing.[2]
[2] Or that these cases were reported in National Broadsheets.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Toad
Reasonable force is the fact in law like it or not.
Take the Martin case, the chap that shot the burglar screwing his home in the middle of the night. He was imprisoned. My view a traversty of justice and I do not think that the Officer preparing the case took andy enjoyment in doing so but what was done was against the law as it stands.So if you batter someone and get the upper hand then its likely you can be charged with assault.
I am aware that there are bad apples in the Plod which seems to be increasing from the old days but thats society as a whole is it not. I took your post to imply otherwise. Accept a grub.
Growlers posts outline back handers right, left and centre and cases of Smith and Westons stuck on you all to see your Driving Docs etc towards the approach of pay day.
DVD
|
that the Officer preparing the case took andy enjoyment in doing so
I heard that the police are opposing his release because the Pikeys have said they'll kill him if he gets out. Poor guy. The police won't stop break ins at his home. They won't stop Gypsies killing him. They won't follow up threats against his life. Someone other than me might say that someone up high has got some free clothespegs out of this affair.
So if you batter someone and get the upper hand then its likely you can be charged with assault.
Wheras if you get caught shoplifting you'll get a caution. It sounds to me like you've had a conversion on the road to Damascus DVD. Let's hope there were no cameras on it!
I am aware that there are bad apples in the Plod
Hey thats my argument! Go and find your own!
Growlers posts outline back handers right, left and centre and cases of Smith and Westons stuck on you all to see your Driving Docs etc towards the approach of pay day.
Does Growler live in West Mercea? ;-)
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
|
DVD:
I can testify from personal experience that these things happen.
A few years ago, I was stopped by an off-duty "officer", who just wanted to ask me about my brand new sports car.
6 weeks later, I received a notice from the next County that I had failed to provide documentation as requested by that PC who claimed to have stopped me in a town I had never been to! I had never been to! I hurrriedly produced it at my local Station.
2 weeks later I recd a NIP for dangerous driving.
I went to a Solicitor in the other County, specialising in traffic matters. He advised me that it was no use arguing against the word of a PC as the court would take his word against mine. He said he would talk to the CPS to see if the charge could be reduced if I agreed to plead guilty. Deal was done - charge reduced to Driving without Due Care. All because the PC was jealous that I could afford a car like that!
|
I can testify from personal experience that these things happen.
I've just remembered another one. A medical student freind was stopped for drink driving, moving his car in a private car park. (A recent spate of vehicle break ins made parking near his tent a good idea but he hadn't been able to earlier in the day.)
Two excellent policemen doing the world a favour stopped him as he got out an breathalised him. Over the limit.
He pointed at the 'Private' sign and the fact that he'd driven all of 50 feet on Private land and got nowhere.
His folks are rich and hired a barrister to fight the case all the way.
Unfortunately the Barrister had to concur with the policemen. The RTA clearly defines private car parks as public places *if* the public have access to them. Well there was no gate to prevent access to the place so it was a public place. THe Barrister advised them to plead guilty.
The lad and his parents were not prepared to do so and in the end somehow managed to convince the magistrate of the lunacy of the situation. The Magistrate critisized the police but *still* had to convict.
And next time you're having a B-B-Q with your car in the drive & your keys in your pocket and a few sherries under your belt remember what a Traffic Rozzer told me a few weks ago: You only need to show intent to convict for drink driving. Having your key's in your pocket has in the past been accepted as evidence of intent. So there's a good chance that we've all be technicaly drink driving at one time or another.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
Sorry and I mean no offence but there are a lot of discrepancies in your account for me to believe. Principally you cannot be prosecuted for the offences you mention unless you were warned at the time or a NIP was served on you or the reg keeper within 14 days of the offence. You mention 8 weeks.
What was the evidence to support this that a Solicitor would not fight for you or yourself to take up the cudgel.
Guess we could only resolve this over lengthy discussion and probably too boring for the rest of the Forum.
DVD
|
You can choose not to believe me. That is pricisely what my solicitor had said would happen if I challenged the PC.
The answer is that you are missing the whole point: this PC cooked up the whole case against me - incident, place, dates, times, etc. to suit the law and himself. My account is absolutely true. The NIP was for a made up incident for a fictitious date. There was absolutely nothing I could do prove him wrong - except deny his story. My solicitor's view was that this man was a rogue PC and that I could not win. It cost me £600 fine+legalcosts, plus 3 points. Two years later, this same PC was caught doing this to someone else - the story appeared in all the National newspapers. I went back to my Solicitor and he said to get my case re-examined would probably cost in excess of £5000 and I would not get legal aid. So I let it go.
This happened a few years ago, it still bothers me that I was stitched up in this way. I had no defence, and that I still do not know why that PC took exception to me or my car. I discovered later that he lived two roads away and that he frequently saw me in my car in town. He worked in the adjoining county 5 miles away.
I am now extremely suspicious of all Police and avoid getting involved even when I witness a crime. This is despite the fact that I now personally know 3 local police officers, and have a contact very high up in the Home Office.
Because this incident bothers me so much, I have kept all the papers to show my son when he is old enough: so that he can be aware of that these things can happen for no apparent reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/fallback/coming-soon.jpg)
