Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
I am one of the 'anything for an easy life' crowd.
If I had been in the same position as the OP I am struggling to think why on earth I wouldn't cooperate with his initial request. He may have made a mistake. So what? Everyone does.
Easily resolved and part company on good terms would be my aim.
If I had been in the same position as the OP I am struggling to think why on earth I wouldn't cooperate with his initial request. He may have made a mistake. So what? Everyone does.
Easily resolved and part company on good terms would be my aim.
The Mad Monk said:
So, you are giving serious consideration to appealing against your conviction and sentence?
"Do you really think that is wise".
Taking advice from a professional adviser rather than from some car people on a car forum is wise. "Do you really think that is wise".
The advice from the former might be: do not appeal.
XCP said:
I am one of the 'anything for an easy life' crowd.
If I had been in the same position as the OP I am struggling to think why on earth I wouldn't cooperate with his initial request. He may have made a mistake. So what? Everyone does.
Easily resolved and part company on good terms would be my aim.
I think most people are in the "easy life" crowd.If I had been in the same position as the OP I am struggling to think why on earth I wouldn't cooperate with his initial request. He may have made a mistake. So what? Everyone does.
Easily resolved and part company on good terms would be my aim.
However, there are many reasons why people do not always behave in the "easiest" way.
Someone having a bad day, a clash of personalities, stubbornness, embarrassment at being accused of something ( especially in public ), etc etc etc.
The op has freely admitted and accepted that this was not "the easiest" way of dealing with things. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, etc etc.
Can we please stop beating him over the head with it ...
Roo said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Forgetting about the OP for one second. What is this utter s
t at the top of the page suddenly (I know not everyone will get the same pop-up banner) saying to vote Conservative?
Just you.t at the top of the page suddenly (I know not everyone will get the same pop-up banner) saying to vote Conservative?Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th December 15:56
Breadvan72 said:
OP, I do accept messages. I get them all the time. Not infrequently from people who post loudly on PH that all lawyers are scum, but then get into a bit of bother about something and want a freebie. I reply to most messages, but not all.
Cheers. I think I must be doing something wrong as when I try and click the email button I get red writing saying "Ooops that member doesn't accept messages". Or something similar. Breadvan72 said:
I have made no such statement and your attempt to misrepresent what I said is dishonest (and semi-literate to boot).
Breadvan72 said:
Picking up on a comment from above, everyone should have a serious attitude problem to people in authority. We are citizens, not subjects. A supermarket security guard has no authority.
Well this is the quote ad verbatim. I don't think it was ''misrepresent what I said is dishonest'', considering the context of the thread as well.I might make mistakes in spelling etc, I'm not a fancy laywer or someone of importance, just a normal person who lives in a normal world.
Breadvan72 said:
Roo said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Forgetting about the OP for one second. What is this utter st at the top of the page suddenly (I know not everyone will get the same pop-up banner) saying to vote Conservative?
Just you.t at the top of the page suddenly (I know not everyone will get the same pop-up banner) saying to vote Conservative?A Kia is very far removed from anything that I own/ have owned/ am likely to own/ have an interest in.
I am more likely to vote Conservative than buy a Kia (both are exemely unlikely).
It is not an algorithm, it is subliminal message. Pavarotti will put an X in that box whether he likes it or not.
Thesprucegoose said:
Yet all this you are still found guilty, which means that its relevance isn't really that important to your conviction. Anyway I'm not going to kick a man whose down, i think you need advice off here and decide best outcome for you as this thread can end up fueling the fire, which is not always best.
Well? Being found guilty doesn't equate to having committed the crime of which you are accused.I once went to court to defend a claim that i'd been involved in an accident and had driven away and failed to report it. Luckily it was a civil court, so no criminal record. Background? I was driving the 100 miles from Hampshire to Essex on a Monday morning as I usually did. Nothing particularly noteworthy happened. The following Wednesday I was watching an FA Cup 3rd Qualifying Round game somewhere in Bedfordshire when I got a call from my wife who was panicking because she'd received a letter from the police that mentioned that I'd been "involved in an accident". I assured her that I hadn't, and wrote back to the police to confirm as much. I eventually receive a "no further action" letter from Surrey Police.
Then came the call from my insurance company asking for confirmation of my involvement in said accident. Again, I replied that I hadn't been involved and I confirmed as much in writing when their letter got to me.
Fast forward several months and the driver accusing me of hitting his car is pushing on with the claim against me. My insurer accepts my side of the story, and tells his insurer where to get off. They demand an engineer's report on my car. I refuse. They've been getting way too aggressive on the matter, telling me that if I don't agree they'll send an engineer out anyway, etc, etc. This is probably my biggest error. Anyway, all their correspondence goes straight to my insurer, as per their instruction, and they deal with it by 2meeting them in the middle" and commissioning their own report. Which, of course, shows only "minor scratches and swirls in the paintwork commensurate with the age of the car and the rest of the paintwork. Case closed, surely, as a professional vehicle assessor has basically said there's no offside damage matching the claimants stated "several thousand pounds worth" of nearside damage to their car.
No. He/his insurer are like a dog with a bone. They won't back down. My insurer provides me with representation for the county court hearing (at this point it's "only" a financial claim for non-payment for the repairs to his car). Shortly before the case, I get rid of the car as i've retired and I buy a nearly new car with my lump sum. Clearing out the paperwork for the old car turns up a petrol receipt for the morning of the alleged collision. I inform my representative, he says we'll just turn up on the day, add it to the evidence, and walk away with judgement in our favour.
Come the day of the case, we ask to submit the receipt. The judge refuses. The claimant says I was somewhere at a certain time bumping into him deliberately. the police traffic camera says I was behind him on the road at this time and would have needed a Warp Core to have made it to the crash location. Claimant begins lying. He doesn't wear a watch (fair one), he doesn't carry a phone to tell time from (lie is obvious - he's a site manager on his way to open up for the first delivery of the day, ffs, yet he has no mobile phone?), and his modern BMW has no clock in the dash, as he's selected a no-clock option for his in car display (eh? My car has two clocks, one in the instrument panel behind the steering wheel, and the other as part of the stereo head unit). He's changed his tune so many times I'm beginning to think he's a jukebox. His story (especially the exact time the incident occurred)changes to suit my evidence, evidence which doesn't change at all, to suit anything. So he's a lying scumbag, and documentary evidence which places me several miles away at the time of the collision is rejected (the judge refused to even look at it). Apparently my receipt turning up is "suspicious". What? Even when backed up by a sheaf of receipts from the day I bought the car to the day I sold it?
Oh, and this is all after the judge had to tell both legal representatives off for posturing like a pair of peacocks. Neither of them was a solicitor, either.
Anyway. The judge decides, "on the balance of probabilities", than it's me who is lying because I can't provide evidence to prove a negative, and awards in his favour. I'm not out of pocket as my insurer coughs up, but I'm left with a 'fault claim' for an accident that I didn't even witness, let alone was involved in.
And to rub salt into the wound? Several months later, on exactly the same road, at roughly the same time on a Monday morning, what should go flying past me like a scalded cat? Yup, that's right, a car identical to mine, in exactly the same colour, driving in exactly the same reckless manner as described by the claimant. So he's lied again, this time about how he "followed me up the road to get my registration number, never losing sight of me". I reckon this other car, that looks exactly like mine save for the number plate, has overtaken me after crashing into the claimant, and when the wronged party gets to some traffic lights and sees my car in the queue ahead he puts two and two together and comes up with a bogus accusation which he rigidly sticks to and somehow our justice system lets him get away with it. Either that or he caused the damage himself and just randomly picked some other driver (me in this case) to pin the fault on.
So my faith in justice, and judges, is much diminished, and for that reason, I refuse to join in the OP-bashing on this matter, and am quite willing to accept his version of events and the fact that his security guard was a lying toe-rag who had a vested interest in lying under oath to protect himself from assault and hate crime charges. Ultimately, though, unless any of us (other than the OP) was there, we aren't going to know the full truth of the incident. and even if we were there, witnesses aren't usually very reliable in terms of detail in their stories. We often see only part of an incident and our subconscious simply fills in the blanks for us and we're none the wiser about the bits we made up. I know, as I've taken part in experiments/research about witness behaviours and why they should not always be relied upon even when they genuinely believe they are telling the truth.
Thesprucegoose said:
Breadvan72 said:
I have made no such statement and your attempt to misrepresent what I said is dishonest (and semi-literate to boot).
Breadvan72 said:
Picking up on a comment from above, everyone should have a serious attitude problem to people in authority. We are citizens, not subjects. A supermarket security guard has no authority.
Well this is the quote ad verbatim. I don't think it was ''misrepresent what I said is dishonest'', considering the context of the thread as well.I might make mistakes in spelling etc, I'm not a fancy laywer or someone of importance, just a normal person who lives in a normal world.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th December 17:01
Breadvan72 said:
When in a hole, do not send for a bigger spade You misrepresented what I said and if you had any decency you would apologise. No one here is either fancy or important, AFAIK, and we all live in the world, although normality seems to have exited some time ago.
I understood what you said as a normal laymen, again in the context of this thread. Maybe outside of this thread fair enough, but for me the context was clear, and context is the whole point. Anyway i hope you can help the OP out as you are the real expert here, and i wouldn't wish ill on anyman.
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 11th December 21:46
Red 4 said:
I've got an advert for a Kia.
A Kia is very far removed from anything that I own/ have owned/ am likely to own/ have an interest in.
I am more likely to vote Conservative than buy a Kia (both are exemely unlikely).
It is not an algorithm, it is subliminal message. Pavarotti will put an X in that box whether he likes it or not.
Too late. That boat has already sailed (metaphorically) in the post. A Kia is very far removed from anything that I own/ have owned/ am likely to own/ have an interest in.
I am more likely to vote Conservative than buy a Kia (both are exemely unlikely).
It is not an algorithm, it is subliminal message. Pavarotti will put an X in that box whether he likes it or not.
It was a tough choice of either Labour or this f
king lunatic https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/person/34907/lisabela...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff