I feel a charge of dangerous driving may be in the wind... by Raistlin (Page 2 of 3)



PaulT
raistlin wrote:
PaulT wrote:My impression of the Police is you phone up, get a crime number and then claim on your insurance and that is it.


Paul, this seems to be a widely held view and if you don't mind me saying so is a view held, in part, as the result of an urban myth. Unfortunately, Police officers, or more probably, help-desk (an oxymoron?) staff, are only human and might well try to filter out the less determined caller.

However, the Police are there to serve us all and, although we shouldn't have to, a little more forcefulness might indicate the absence of willingness of the caller to be fobbed off.

At the very least a request to be put through to the duty inspector, or a request for their name and the correct address of the Police station might serve to prove to the individual fielding the call that you are not prepared to be fobbed off.

I personally have come across the apparently lackadaisical attitude and have always been able to get my point across.

I find a polite request to speak to the duty inspector... immediately, makes my point.

Not wishing to belittle anyone's experiences here, just hoping that my experience might be of use to others :)


I said immpression but should be experience, although limited to my garage being broken in to and tools stolen and the side window of an LR Disco being smashed and the radio stolen.

In the latter case I took the car to an RAC windshield place where they were making a perspex window as they did not have the proper one until the next day. Received a call from the police - they wished to come down and take a statement which was quite a number of miles from their station and where the crime was committed. Two of them drove down - why TWO. They were keen as they had caught the person who did it and he would be in court the next day. I asked about claiming compensation and was told to contact my local station who told me that the investigating officer should have given me a form.

To digress a little more, in my professional capacity I was contacted by the local beat sergeant about trying to find a location on my employers site for a portable building they could use as an office. This was because if the officers had to do any paperwork (arrest some one etc) they had to return to the station several miles away. So time of the streets could be very limited, a cry echoed on some of these reality police programmes whereby the paperwork takes an eternity to the detriment of the public.
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 15 Nov 2011, 17:43 #21 

User avatar
Raistlin
So what you're saying is that your experience wasn't the same as your impression Paul? :)
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 15 Nov 2011, 19:03 #22 


PaulT
I suppose what I meant is that from what I have read is that others impressions of the police is that all they want to do is give a crime number and my experience bears that out.

However, the last part of my post was to echo some of the frustration of those above constable in the way that a great deal of time is wasted in dealing with a crime which must have an impact on the overall service that is offered
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 08:50 #23 

User avatar
Raistlin
PaulT wrote:However, the last part of my post was to echo some of the frustration of those above constable in the way that a great deal of time is wasted in dealing with a crime which must have an impact on the overall service that is offered


I agree Paul.

In fact, the reason the Police made so few arrests during the recent riots is that they were stretched to the limit and an arrest would take two or three police officers off operations for several hours during which time they would not be available to ensure the safety of people and property.

It all comes down to lack of funding, of course :(
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 09:45 #24 

User avatar
Bernard
raistlin wrote:
It all comes down to lack of funding, of course :(


..Or entrenched and archaic systems and working practices. ;)
I don't like signatures, they take up too much screen space.

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 14:46 #25 

User avatar
Raistlin
Bernard wrote:..Or entrenched and archaic systems and working practices. ;)


A bit like engineers really :lol:
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 17:58 #26 

User avatar
Bernard
raistlin wrote:
Bernard wrote:..Or entrenched and archaic systems and working practices. ;)


A bit like engineers really :lol:


Not in the private sector, we had to rethink just about everything to survive cut after cut after cut.......

But then again, we didn't have the luxury of government contracts that were so badly overseen. ;)
I don't like signatures, they take up too much screen space.

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 18:34 #27 

User avatar
Raistlin
You mean like the extra £566 million it has cost the MoD to "save" with cutbacks?
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 19:55 #28 

User avatar
Raistlin
Stepping back to the OP for a moment:-

"A 48 year old female, from the ******* area of Wolverhampton, was yesterday charged with dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, driving with no insurance, failing to stop for a Police officer, driving with uncorrected defective eyesight."

Apparently, she made "certain admissions" during interview and has been unconditionally bailed to attend Wolverhampton Magistrates' Court on Friday 18th November.

I have to say that certain aspects of the information above are of PARTICULAR interest :)
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 20:04 #29 

User avatar
geesmith
If only you could be a fly on the wall.....





....unless there's a better seat of course.

I hope she can see the taxi company phone number because she will probably end up in the back of a removal van if she goes for the bus..arf arf!

Posted 16 Nov 2011, 20:12 #30 


carlpenn
raistlin wrote:
carlpenn wrote: Its illegal to drive like a Numpty on a road but its ok on a Supermarket Car Park? :(


Not at all Carl.

The law differentiates between wholly private land, for example a farmer's field, where the public are not assumed to have access unless invited, even if not gated (Your driveway is included in that), and private land to which, whilst the public do not have right of way, are assumed to have limited access to conduct business. For example a pub or supermarket car park.

So the above would be taken into account when determining whether any offence had been committed.

To further illustrate the point, you are entitled to get into your car whilst as pissed as a fart if it is on your private drive, but are not allowed to do the same if on a pub car park. I know of many a defence to a charge of excess alcohol that has been doomed to failure on that point, regardless of what "my mate in the pub" says.


So I was "fobbed off" then :(
Upgrades:

Fitted Electric Memory Seat, Leather Cubby Lid, Wood Dash, Message Centre.

Posted 17 Nov 2011, 08:28 #31 

User avatar
geesmith
.....impatient pacing......

Posted 18 Nov 2011, 16:06 #32 

User avatar
Raistlin
If anybody is interested, she pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of careless driving. The drive while disqualified was dismissed owing to lack of evidence (monumental CPS occk-up), failing to stop, no insurance, defective eyesight.

She received fines totalling £425, £15 Victim surcharge, £85 costs and was disqualified for six months under the totting up procedure.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 25 Nov 2011, 18:58 #33 

User avatar
Dave
Puzzles me how the "driving whilst disqualified" was dropped evening allowing for the male-chicken up with the evidence. Surely the fact that a charge of "dangerous driving" was applied illustrates that she was, in fact, driving? And assuming the the disqualification was in force at the time, doesn't this provide enough evidence?! :confused:

Posted 25 Nov 2011, 19:04 #34 

User avatar
SpongeBob
It's annoying isn't it. However, if al the t's aren't crossed and the i's aren't dotted then the defence will rip apart the argument for the charge of driving whilst disqualified. I'm sure Paul might be able to elaborate but it's always in the details that people get away with things that (in their simplest form) seem overwhelming and unarguable against them :(

Posted 25 Nov 2011, 19:15 #35 

User avatar
Mick
(Site Admin)
Cock isn't in the swear filter

Posted 25 Nov 2011, 19:28 #36 

User avatar
Raistlin
'Tis quite simple Paul. An individual is innocent until proven guilty. The CPS have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor stands up an "offers no evidence" the Bench have no choice but to dismiss the charge, frustrating though it may be.

As to why they offered no evidence, they are not obliged to say.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 25 Nov 2011, 19:41 #37 

User avatar
MN190
I don't think it will make any difference to her choice to drive or not as she has already driven while disqualifed previously.

Posted 25 Nov 2011, 23:41 #38 

User avatar
geesmith
...sounds like she leads a charmed life having got off with "carelessly" driving across a pedestrian crossing with a child already crossing. At least she sounded her horn to warn others that she was without "care". Well done to them for losing her data.

As MN190 says, off she goes then, almost bombproof.

Posted 26 Nov 2011, 00:30 #39 

User avatar
Raistlin
MN190 wrote:I don't think it will make any difference to her choice to drive or not as she has already driven while disqualifed previously.



Has she? When was that then? :)

geesmith wrote:...sounds like she leads a charmed life having got off with "carelessly" driving across a pedestrian crossing with a child already crossing. At least she sounded her horn to warn others that she was without "care". Well done to them for losing her data.

As MN190 says, off she goes then, almost bombproof.



A lot of people are prepared to plead guilty to the lesser charge. CPS are "risk averse" so if the offer is made will always give it consideration.

Not at all sure why she's "bombproof" though? She has had her licence revoked. I imagine she won't be too keen on driving while disqualified ;)
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 26 Nov 2011, 07:51 #40 


Top

cron