police-related cock up of the month
Discussion
sorry for the repost, but i felt that this one deserved its own thread!
6 points £180 fine in court today.
Felt sorry for the poor guy next to me in the waiting room though.... He had been summoned for the same offence ... yes the same offence! apparently he was also driving my car in the same place at the same time!
Despite having written to the chief constable and recieved no reply, he had appeared at court to plead not guilty, as he had never even seen, let alone driven my car before. Even after i had been sentenced, i hung around to act as a witness for him, and had to be called to tell the beak that he couldn't have commited the offence as i had, and he had already fined me for it. Unbelievable or what???????
He's still not a happy bunny though, as he's a self-employed jobbing builder, with his wife due their first baby next week and he's lost a day's pay. Reckon he's gonna have to try and fight his way through the police complaints commision to try an get any compo though. poor sod. That has to be BiB related cock-up of the month!!
6 points £180 fine in court today.
Felt sorry for the poor guy next to me in the waiting room though.... He had been summoned for the same offence ... yes the same offence! apparently he was also driving my car in the same place at the same time!
Despite having written to the chief constable and recieved no reply, he had appeared at court to plead not guilty, as he had never even seen, let alone driven my car before. Even after i had been sentenced, i hung around to act as a witness for him, and had to be called to tell the beak that he couldn't have commited the offence as i had, and he had already fined me for it. Unbelievable or what???????
He's still not a happy bunny though, as he's a self-employed jobbing builder, with his wife due their first baby next week and he's lost a day's pay. Reckon he's gonna have to try and fight his way through the police complaints commision to try an get any compo though. poor sod. That has to be BiB related cock-up of the month!!
Adam_BGT said:
sorry for the repost, but i felt that this one deserved its own thread!
6 points £180 fine in court today.
Felt sorry for the poor guy next to me in the waiting room though.... He had been summoned for the same offence ... yes the same offence! apparently he was also driving my car in the same place at the same time!
Despite having written to the chief constable and recieved no reply, he had appeared at court to plead not guilty, as he had never even seen, let alone driven my car before. Even after i had been sentenced, i hung around to act as a witness for him, and had to be called to tell the beak that he couldn't have commited the offence as i had, and he had already fined me for it. Unbelievable or what???????
He's still not a happy bunny though, as he's a self-employed jobbing builder, with his wife due their first baby next week and he's lost a day's pay. Reckon he's gonna have to try and fight his way through the police complaints commision to try an get any compo though. poor sod. That has to be BiB related cock-up of the month!!
he should have clamed his loss of earning from the court.6 points £180 fine in court today.
Felt sorry for the poor guy next to me in the waiting room though.... He had been summoned for the same offence ... yes the same offence! apparently he was also driving my car in the same place at the same time!
Despite having written to the chief constable and recieved no reply, he had appeared at court to plead not guilty, as he had never even seen, let alone driven my car before. Even after i had been sentenced, i hung around to act as a witness for him, and had to be called to tell the beak that he couldn't have commited the offence as i had, and he had already fined me for it. Unbelievable or what???????
He's still not a happy bunny though, as he's a self-employed jobbing builder, with his wife due their first baby next week and he's lost a day's pay. Reckon he's gonna have to try and fight his way through the police complaints commision to try an get any compo though. poor sod. That has to be BiB related cock-up of the month!!
tell him the police complaints commision is a total wase of time
and to sue plod if he can
Edited by outlaw... on Tuesday 21st August 17:13
NobleGuy said:
That's class. What has it come to when the poor guy would have probably been found guilty (given that the evidence is never looked at) if you hadn't happened to have been there at the same time. I would contact the papers with that one....
It's your duty to crucify incompetents in public service; they are defrauding us all if they continue to collect wages.NobleGuy said:
That's class. What has it come to when the poor guy would have probably been found guilty (given that the evidence is never looked at) if you hadn't happened to have been there at the same time. I would contact the papers with that one....
Please Please do!This would be one big puncture in the hot air balloons they spout over "foolproof" system.
I hope he does make biggest stink bomb over it all. Those complacent submarinated oafs need kick in smug backsides
(Not that I disrespect Steviebabes. I admit his problem exacerbated by some numpty tourists
. But his "gems" or rather "gaffes" on local radio have been - shall we say - "memorable" as they incurred lot of local wrath. I know he lurk still 
. I know I make him spit up furballs 
To make him feel better - we still grateful for contaact over the most moronic cycle "path" in UK und we know he not agree with that situation to be very fair to him. It compromise any safety led policy for each side of scam equation. But for record Steviebabes .. I drive to COAST values anyway. )But there no excuse for false accusations.
You can never win argument of "system working" when this occurs.. never mind the manipulated/flawed at prime source statistics Hooli said:
nice to know how good & foolproof the system is. gives me such confidencce.
Did you see Jenni Bond's "Driving Me Crazy" tonight? That one really good piece. I particularly liked Kev Delaney's input too. 
(The bit about how far you travel.. 105 feet at 70 mph on casual glance at speedo when eye should be on road!" It sound a bit familiar. He was Kevin Delaney.. not Paulie .. yet he say same thing So there substance to muscle build on. They cracking..a bit more each time The show also highlight some of the flaws.. of incorrect ping.. incorrect car on the png film.. slippage on the mobile. (It got PC Fixed Gatso travelling at 4 mph because of hand shake. :roll: Case won at Preston Crown Court over it too - that shown on the programme too
Conclusion was Jenni urging us all the challenge the NIPs/parking tickets ) How did they connect him to your car, there must have been some sort of connection.
Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
Yung Man said:
How did they connect him to your car, there must have been some sort of connection.
Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
well, he drives a land rover, not an MG, his name is Gary, mine is Adam, He lives about 60 miles from me, our surnames are nothing like similar.Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
As for his not guilty plea .... if you plead not guilty, you do have to appear in court. He had photocopies of the paperwork he had sent back to Lancs police central processing unit in blackburn with 'not the registered keeper' written on it. He had even written to the chief constable asking for the evidence to be reviewed, but had recieved NO response. Also, bear in mind that the offence took place in January and it has taken until now to come to court.
doesnt surprise me that logic doesnt apply when they decide to continue to try & prosicute.
i got stopped once with no tax/mot or insurance in my name. i was taking the car to a MOT. produced documents showing the car had been put into my gf's name so i could drive it on my insurance that said 'any other car im not the RK of' & a copy of the garage's diary showing a booked MOT.
insurance/mot charges dropped but i had to go to court over the tax. it was dropped as soon as i produced the evidence. why did they even bother considering they dropped the other two charges?
i got stopped once with no tax/mot or insurance in my name. i was taking the car to a MOT. produced documents showing the car had been put into my gf's name so i could drive it on my insurance that said 'any other car im not the RK of' & a copy of the garage's diary showing a booked MOT.
insurance/mot charges dropped but i had to go to court over the tax. it was dropped as soon as i produced the evidence. why did they even bother considering they dropped the other two charges?
Adam_BGT said:
Yung Man said:
How did they connect him to your car, there must have been some sort of connection.
Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
well, he drives a land rover, not an MG, his name is Gary, mine is Adam, He lives about 60 miles from me, our surnames are nothing like similar.Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
As for his not guilty plea .... if you plead not guilty, you do have to appear in court. He had photocopies of the paperwork he had sent back to Lancs police central processing unit in blackburn with 'not the registered keeper' written on it. He had even written to the chief constable asking for the evidence to be reviewed, but had recieved NO response. Also, bear in mind that the offence took place in January and it has taken until now to come to court.
This guy wasn't the RK so they might as well charge any one out the phone book, the summons has to go to the RK, It is the easiest thing in the world to prove you aren't the owner, or put another way damn near impossible for the DVLA to prove he is (the owner).
If the summons arrived with the name Joe Bloggs on it (and his name is JB) then he would send it back saying not known at this address, after all he isn't the JB that owns the car ABC 123.
Yung Man said:
Adam_BGT said:
Yung Man said:
How did they connect him to your car, there must have been some sort of connection.
Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
well, he drives a land rover, not an MG, his name is Gary, mine is Adam, He lives about 60 miles from me, our surnames are nothing like similar.Does he have a similar car, post code, last name, It must have been very easy to prove his innocence.
Surely the summons must go to the registered keeper and he isn't it so the paperwork obviously went to the wrong person, If he sent it back saying Not Guilty then he would (might) have to appear in court, If he had sent the paperwork back saying "I wasn't driving it because I am not the RK, please try sending it to them" they might have double checked it.
As for his not guilty plea .... if you plead not guilty, you do have to appear in court. He had photocopies of the paperwork he had sent back to Lancs police central processing unit in blackburn with 'not the registered keeper' written on it. He had even written to the chief constable asking for the evidence to be reviewed, but had recieved NO response. Also, bear in mind that the offence took place in January and it has taken until now to come to court.
This guy wasn't the RK so they might as well charge any one out the phone book, the summons has to go to the RK, It is the easiest thing in the world to prove you aren't the owner, or put another way damn near impossible for the DVLA to prove he is (the owner).
If the summons arrived with the name Joe Bloggs on it (and his name is JB) then he would send it back saying not known at this address, after all he isn't the JB that owns the car ABC 123.
I think Justin had problem when car he not own seem to "belong" to him per the records. Or his car cloned somehow with the reg. That does happen.
But liebster Yung .. with automation - you talk to computer und not a real person. Mad Doc's colleague who got pinged at 34 mph (just before Lancs updated its Speed Aware criteria as result of public outrage led by my Lancs based cousin (Willipeedifhe couldgivenhalfachance as he call himself when fishing out submarinated ones
He also post to a clay pigeon shooting/archery forum as that his speciality - being of Swiss origin ) But the surgeon who had left patient with not one apparent problem in post op 70 minutes previous was informed of post op complication which meant immediate return to his patient. He drive back. He get pinged by the scam behind the bus stop - some 100 yards before the hospital entrance leading to staff car park. His NIP .. we see -read 34 mph. If he admit to "blatant law breaking" he get offer of course with no requirement to inform any one he been "such a naughty boy there"
He decide to fight this as it cost £85. Not that he cannot afford .. but the nuisance of postponing operations, arranging cover.. it cost the NHS more in reality Not to mention the inconvenience to patients awaiting his attention It took some long months.. but it got cancelled as he prove "life/death situation" This guy threatened to go to press as well. I think he did get mention in Lancs local rags even so. But he did get letter from Lancs prats. This computer generated. At bottom he got a handwritten apology for a "computerised letter as they could not over-ride the system"
So I think part of problem .. they not use their God given brains at all.
They rely on a machine. Machines make mistakes. Or are as "reliable" as the person operating them broadhat said:
Adam_BGT said:
i hung around to act as a witness for him, and had to be called to tell the beak that he couldn't have commited the offence as i had, and he had already fined me for it.
What did the judge say about it? Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff