3 figure speeding d*ckhead
Discussion
Vaud said:
You aren't following advice well.
You weren't there. You don't know who was driving. Declare as such.
You aren't reading well.You weren't there. You don't know who was driving. Declare as such.
The OP was told outright by d
head that he was indeed driving at the time of the ticket. At that point, the OP does know who was driving and should declare as such.Hearsay aside, an admission from the individual is sufficient. "Oh I know it was him driving", third hand from someone sort of a mate - no, no chance, as you say you declare that you don't know. "Yeah, I got snapped at 119mph so I put a few names down so they'll leave me alone" is plenty clear enough.
A friend is telling you, another friend at the wheel of a car you were not driving or even travelling in, is trying to frame you.
Who do you trust? Dealt with a NIP, you simply disclose you were not there travelling in the vehicle, when this offence took place, hence you are not aware of who was driving. End of.
Who do you trust? Dealt with a NIP, you simply disclose you were not there travelling in the vehicle, when this offence took place, hence you are not aware of who was driving. End of.
DanSI said:
A friend is telling you, another friend at the wheel of a car you were not driving or even travelling in, is trying to frame you. Who do you trust? Dealt with a NIP, you simply disclose you were not there travelling in the vehicle, when this offence took place, hence you are not aware of who was driving. End of.
The OP needs to respond and say what he does know.If the driver of the vehicle in question has confirmed directly to the OP that he was indeed driving at said time and place, then this is information which is in the OP's power to give and would require to be disclosed.
That said, the OP would only fall foul of a s.172 prosecution if it could be proven that he failed to provide additional information which was in his power to give and which may have lead to identification of the driver.
Pegscratch said:
You aren't reading well.
The OP was told outright by dhead that he was indeed driving at the time of the ticket. At that point, the OP does know who was driving and should declare as such.
Hearsay aside, an admission from the individual is sufficient. "Oh I know it was him driving", third hand from someone sort of a mate - no, no chance, as you say you declare that you don't know. "Yeah, I got snapped at 119mph so I put a few names down so they'll leave me alone" is plenty clear enough.
My point is he wasn't there and it is still second hand? The OP was told outright by d
head that he was indeed driving at the time of the ticket. At that point, the OP does know who was driving and should declare as such.Hearsay aside, an admission from the individual is sufficient. "Oh I know it was him driving", third hand from someone sort of a mate - no, no chance, as you say you declare that you don't know. "Yeah, I got snapped at 119mph so I put a few names down so they'll leave me alone" is plenty clear enough.
irocfan said:
out of curiosity have you ever driven said vehicle - indeed are you insured on said vehicle since I would imagine that that in itself could throw up a shedload of issues...
Good question. Surely the driver who got caught/had the ticket should have already reported car as being 'TWOC'ed? That would make sense to me.If not, then that is another nail in the hammock.
agtlaw said:
I am, of course, assuming that OP was not in the car at the time of the offence and therefore does not have certain knowledge of the identity of the driver.
As for what OP is aware of, you might want to research the following word - hearsay.
I don't think there is any requirement for evidence. It is not up to a member of the public to decide what is and what is not admissible. Many CPS lawyers suggest it is not for the police. Hearsay is not relevant for an NIP, it is a decision for the court. The judge decides. If the OP has any information as to the driver at the time, then he is required to say so and, I suggest, should say so.As for what OP is aware of, you might want to research the following word - hearsay.
Rangeroverover said:
Why can't people follow simple advice from a person who is actually qualified to give it, by training and experience, AGT has it seems a practice that is mostly driving offences. Don't complicate your life just answer the question "I was not driving at time/place" leave it at that
Bout the size of it really. But there's always those that know better.TooMany2cvs said:
Countdown said:
Has OP actually received an NIP yet?
On a separate note, if OP isn't insured to drive mate's car then either OP gets done for TWOC or mate gets done for allowing OP to drive without insurance.....
Even though the OP hasn't actually driven the car...?On a separate note, if OP isn't insured to drive mate's car then either OP gets done for TWOC or mate gets done for allowing OP to drive without insurance.....
OP thinks his "mate" has named him. I was wondering if he'd received the S172 so that he knew for definite that his mate had named him IYSWIM
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff