Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.
Discussion
Antony Moxey said:
And I'm not sure how many times you're going to spectacularly miss the point: THE OP HAS SAID UMPTEEN TIMES IF THEY SHOW HIM THE PROOF HE'LL HOLD HIS HANDS UP. So although they don't have to, why wouldn't they? They show OP the proof, he's says fair cop, we all retire the lounge for medals and cigars and the whole thing's over and done with. What are the company gaining by not showing the OP their proof - are they desperate for a day in court?
Or is it that they don't have any proof and are trying to bully the OP into submission?
Everyone keeps making this last point over and over again, but that’s supposition and conspiracy theory. Or is it that they don't have any proof and are trying to bully the OP into submission?
They have decided they don’t want to show him for whatever reason. That’s their choice. You might not like it, you might think it’s a bluff, but it might not be.
The OP can gamble that they don’t have the proof, but it’s a gamble and a gamble he’ll have to take in court. His company provide the evidence that he was the driver and he denies it. He’s going to court, if he’s then presented with the evidence, the he’s screwed.
If there is no evidence and he gets a way with it, then he’s going to be persona non grata at his employers, so he’s screwed.
He’s screwed either way and that isn’t a great place to be. That’s the only poin I’ve been making to the OP, which is if he does know any more than he’s letting on, then he needs to stop getting swept up in the Fight The Power, Up the Tooting Liberation Front stuff that’s going on here.
It’s nice to see thatbhes seen my advice for what it is, unlike a few others who decided to throw personal insults around.
Gavia said:
If there is no evidence and he gets a way with it, then he’s going to be persona non grata at his employers, so he’s screwed.
If there is no evidence and it wasn't him, is he still 'getting away with it'?I would recommend that the OP names Gavia as the driver on his next S172! There's no evidence it was him driving, but he'll take it on the chin for you, it wouldn't be worth the hassle of arguing it.
Gavia said:
Antony Moxey said:
And I'm not sure how many times you're going to spectacularly miss the point: THE OP HAS SAID UMPTEEN TIMES IF THEY SHOW HIM THE PROOF HE'LL HOLD HIS HANDS UP. So although they don't have to, why wouldn't they? They show OP the proof, he's says fair cop, we all retire the lounge for medals and cigars and the whole thing's over and done with. What are the company gaining by not showing the OP their proof - are they desperate for a day in court?
Or is it that they don't have any proof and are trying to bully the OP into submission?
Everyone keeps making this last point over and over again, but that’s supposition and conspiracy theory. Or is it that they don't have any proof and are trying to bully the OP into submission?
They have decided they don’t want to show him for whatever reason. That’s their choice. You might not like it, you might think it’s a bluff, but it might not be.
The OP can gamble that they don’t have the proof, but it’s a gamble and a gamble he’ll have to take in court. His company provide the evidence that he was the driver and he denies it. He’s going to court, if he’s then presented with the evidence, the he’s screwed.
If there is no evidence and he gets a way with it, then he’s going to be persona non grata at his employers, so he’s screwed.
He’s screwed either way and that isn’t a great place to be. That’s the only poin I’ve been making to the OP, which is if he does know any more than he’s letting on, then he needs to stop getting swept up in the Fight The Power, Up the Tooting Liberation Front stuff that’s going on here.
It’s nice to see thatbhes seen my advice for what it is, unlike a few others who decided to throw personal insults around.
mjb1 said:
Gavia said:
If there is no evidence and he gets a way with it, then he’s going to be persona non grata at his employers, so he’s screwed.
If there is no evidence and it wasn't him, is he still 'getting away with it'?I would recommend that the OP names Gavia as the driver on his next S172! There's no evidence it was him driving, but he'll take it on the chin for you, it wouldn't be worth the hassle of arguing it.
Gavia said:
mjb1 said:
Gavia said:
If there is no evidence and he gets a way with it, then he’s going to be persona non grata at his employers, so he’s screwed.
If there is no evidence and it wasn't him, is he still 'getting away with it'?I would recommend that the OP names Gavia as the driver on his next S172! There's no evidence it was him driving, but he'll take it on the chin for you, it wouldn't be worth the hassle of arguing it.
vonhosen said:
If they showed him sufficient evidence that he was the driver he pleads guilty to speeding
If they don't he pleads not guilty to speeding until such time that he sees such evidence & then pleads guilty.
It's no big deal.
If the latter he won’t be getting a FPN or SAC so it could be a big deal in terms of impact on his licence. If they don't he pleads not guilty to speeding until such time that he sees such evidence & then pleads guilty.
It's no big deal.
If this does go to court, if I was the judge I would be pretty miffed if the company came up with evidence that it was the op but instead of showing him and then him saying fair cop and sending off the forms than to waste the courts time when it does not need too.
If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
If they showed him sufficient evidence that he was the driver he pleads guilty to speeding
If they don't he pleads not guilty to speeding until such time that he sees such evidence & then pleads guilty.
It's no big deal.
If the latter he won’t be getting a FPN or SAC so it could be a big deal in terms of impact on his licence. If they don't he pleads not guilty to speeding until such time that he sees such evidence & then pleads guilty.
It's no big deal.
steve2 said:
If this does go to court, if I was the judge I would be pretty miffed if the company came up with evidence that it was the op but instead of showing him and then him saying fair cop and sending off the forms than to waste the courts time when it does not need too.
If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
It won't get to trial, according to the OP, if pre-trial disclosure shows him he was the driver he'll plead guilty & the company (witnesses) won't be in court. It won't be a judge either.If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
vonhosen said:
His basic position doesn't change, because it's his own responsibilities (in relation to knowledge of what he is driving when) that lead to him being in that position. He is an LGV driver, it would be prudent to know exactly what driving he has been doing when at work in all works vehicles without relying on information from others.
Isn't that exactly what the other chap is paid to do and can thus can be reasonably expected to fleet manage effectively - but clearly didn't? Suggesting doubling up driving records as a prudence via hindsight is hardly constructive or useful.Ken Figenus said:
vonhosen said:
His basic position doesn't change, because it's his own responsibilities (in relation to knowledge of what he is driving when) that lead to him being in that position. He is an LGV driver, it would be prudent to know exactly what driving he has been doing when at work in all works vehicles without relying on information from others.
Isn't that exactly what the other chap is paid to do and can thus can be reasonably expected to fleet manage effectively - but clearly didn't? Suggesting doubling up driving records as a prudence via hindsight is hardly constructive or useful.His tacho records show nothing following him finishing driving on his round & removing the card at 1230. They should be showing something if he was doing any work driving at all (so surely he can't have been driving a works vehicle or he would have made a record - if not why not).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 20th December 20:53
vonhosen said:
steve2 said:
If this does go to court, if I was the judge I would be pretty miffed if the company came up with evidence that it was the op but instead of showing him and then him saying fair cop and sending off the forms than to waste the courts time when it does not need too.
If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
It won't get to trial, according to the OP, if pre-trial disclosure shows him he was the driver he'll plead guilty & the company (witnesses) won't be in court. It won't be a judge either.If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
This is still at the working out who is the driver stage. If there were photographic evidence available it would be forwarded to the person who is suspected of being the driver to confirm identity. Doesn't that mean that the evidence that company forwarded to the appropriate authorities will in turn just get shown to the OP at an early stage anyway - well before any pre-trial procedures are even considered?
And, for the benefit of Gavia, doesn't this make the companies refusal to disclose the information now rather pointless unless the manager is an idiot or the "evidence" doesn't exist; or both?
Steve H said:
vonhosen said:
steve2 said:
If this does go to court, if I was the judge I would be pretty miffed if the company came up with evidence that it was the op but instead of showing him and then him saying fair cop and sending off the forms than to waste the courts time when it does not need too.
If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
It won't get to trial, according to the OP, if pre-trial disclosure shows him he was the driver he'll plead guilty & the company (witnesses) won't be in court. It won't be a judge either.If I was the op that is exactly what I would be saying to HR and his managers.
This is still at the working out who is the driver stage. If there were photographic evidence available it would be forwarded to the person who is suspected of being the driver to confirm identity. Doesn't that mean that the evidence that company forwarded to the appropriate authorities will in turn just get shown to the OP at an early stage anyway - well before any pre-trial procedures are even considered?
And, for the benefit of Gavia, doesn't this make the companies refusal to disclose the information now rather pointless unless the manager is an idiot or the "evidence" doesn't exist; or both?
Steve H said:
vonhosen said:
The SCP/Police are under no legal obligation to provide photographs at the Sec 172 stage to aid the keeper in performing their legal duty.
But isn't it typical that they will if it's likely to lead to an accurate identification?They key thing is they aren't obliged to at that stage for that purpose.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff