Dangerous Driving
Discussion
this was my solution as well - basically if you send the form back, then you can be done for DD. If you do not (I dont mean send it back with a I dont know, I mean ignore it completely), the worst they can do is 'failure to supply' - which carries a maxiumum of 3 points and 60 quid..... i will be deleting this paragraph at the same time tomorrow....
Gone - I cannot understand the 'another driver reported you drivign like a twonk so you get a DD' thing - I've called the police before when following an obviously VERY p*ssed driver who was going to hit somethnig and was told nto a lot could be done without someone else independantly calling in cos otherwise it was my word being taken on trust (and I understand this cos obviously you could deliberately screw someone over othe4rwise). So how come no follow up seems to be have been done here? (and Kim, I am being astonishingly lenient with my credible belief here!)
Gone - I cannot understand the 'another driver reported you drivign like a twonk so you get a DD' thing - I've called the police before when following an obviously VERY p*ssed driver who was going to hit somethnig and was told nto a lot could be done without someone else independantly calling in cos otherwise it was my word being taken on trust (and I understand this cos obviously you could deliberately screw someone over othe4rwise). So how come no follow up seems to be have been done here? (and Kim, I am being astonishingly lenient with my credible belief here!)
Nightmare said:
Gone - I cannot understand the 'another driver reported you drivign like a twonk so you get a DD' thing - I've called the police before when following an obviously VERY p*ssed driver who was going to hit somethnig and was told nto a lot could be done...
Maybe at the time nothing could be done as there were no available resources to allocate to it.
Nightmare said:
without someone else independantly calling in cos otherwise it was my word being taken on trust (and I understand this cos obviously you could deliberately screw someone over othe4rwise).
This is quite wrong. It is the sort of thing that I would expect a civilian operator to state over the phone but not an experienced Police Officer in a control room
Nightmare said:
So how come no follow up seems to be have been done here? (and Kim, I am being astonishingly lenient with my credible belief here!)
Maybe the enquiries are in the first stages of development. This DD offence is unlikely to go away like some speeding tickets have a tendancy to do if you try and buck the system!
gone said:
without someone else independantly calling in cos otherwise it was my word being taken on trust (and I understand this cos obviously you could deliberately screw someone over otherwise).
This is quite wrong. It is the sort of thing that I would expect a civilian operator to state over the phone but not an experienced Police Officer in a control room
Im actually really pleased to hear that because I was genuinely shocked that was the reaction - as I was sure this guy could conceivably kill himself and several others before the end of his journey....that said, it does leave the victimisation route quite open.....
Nightmare said:
this was my solution as well - basically if you send the form back, then you can be done for DD. If you do not (I dont mean send it back with a I dont know, I mean ignore it completely), the worst they can do is 'failure to supply' - which carries a maxiumum of 3 points and 60 quid..... i will be deleting this paragraph at the same time tomorrow....
....but it will not stop a face to face investigation of possible involved and then bearing in mind the strength of the evidence already obtained by Plod another charge of DD ?
"The truth has an awful way of getting out"
DVD
jeffreyarcher said:
the worst they can do is 'failure to supply' - which carries a maxiumum of 3 points and 60 quid.
£1,000 max.; also discretionary ban possible, IIRC.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 19th May 23:57
Accept that this is a technical possibility, but never applied in reality
Dwight VanDriver said:
....but it will not stop a face to face investigation of possible involved and then bearing in mind the strength of the evidence already obtained by Plod another charge of DD ?
"The truth has an awful way of getting out"
DVD
I'd love to believe that we followed thnigs up this well in the UK, but I dont believe it. I think if you refuse to send the form back then legally there is nothing that can be done except giving you a penalty of 'failure to disclose'. What COULD happen, never does as this is still in the hands of the maggies.....
Nightmare said:
....but it will not stop a face to face investigation of possible involved and then bearing in mind the strength of the evidence already obtained by Plod another charge of DD ?
"The truth has an awful way of getting out"
DVD
I'd love to believe that we followed thnigs up this well in the UK, but I dont believe it. I think if you refuse to send the form back then legally there is nothing that can be done except giving you a penalty of 'failure to disclose'. What COULD happen, never does as this is still in the hands of the maggies.....
JA, care to comment?
BliarOut said:
JA, care to comment?
Why me, I never said anything quoted? If you're asking me of my opinion on what the others have said, then Dwight is, as usual, perfectly correct.
It is of course reliant on there being other evidence to get and whether it was deemed to be worth the resources.
IMO , in practice, it would come down to the seriousness and nature of the allegation. It would be highly unusual if there was no evidence to be found, if searched for, at all.
This comment by Nightmare, "I think if you refuse to send the form back then legally there is nothing that can be done except giving you a penalty of 'failure to disclose'," is bollox.
jeffreyarcher said:
This comment by Nightmare, "I think if you refuse to send the form back then legally there is nothing that can be done except giving you a penalty of 'failure to disclose'," is bollox.
I thought you might say something like that.... The only reason for singling you out is I know you are wise and understand the law.... Unlike Nightmare it seems. It has more gravitas coming from you
BliarOut said:
This comment by Nightmare, "I think if you refuse to send the form back then legally there is nothing that can be done except giving you a penalty of 'failure to disclose'," is bollox.
I thought you might say something like that.... The only reason for singling you out is I know you are wise and understand the law.... Unlike Nightmare it seems. It has more gravitas coming from you
well thanks for your opinion.
To clarify....I don't believe this IS bollox as it goes. I am not suggesting for a second that if a human-led investigation into this event was carried out that the indivudal couldn't then be done for the offence...however....if they decide NOT to investigate it then the ONLY thing he can be done for is 'failure to disclose'. My belief is that unless there is more to this story than we have been told then nothing more would be done...
I am just trying to balance the opinion here. It isn't good advice to ignore a NIP.
There may be ways to defeat the system, but if you go over to www.pepipoo.com and read up on all the S172 prosecutions you will see why I say what I say.
I am afraid it's just not that simple. You can get off, but you will need to spend hours on research. It's best to understand the implications before making a decision.
There may be ways to defeat the system, but if you go over to www.pepipoo.com and read up on all the S172 prosecutions you will see why I say what I say.
I am afraid it's just not that simple. You can get off, but you will need to spend hours on research. It's best to understand the implications before making a decision.
BliarOut said:
I am just trying to balance the opinion here. It isn't good advice to ignore a NIP.
I am afraid it's just not that simple. You can get off, but you will need to spend hours on research. It's best to understand the implications before making a decision.
I understand and applaud your intentions...but...in this case the NIP <i>is</I> irrelevant - this is not a speeding fine. I do not know your background outside this, but mine has rather a lot of legal backing behind it..... I would never post something like this normally, as I dont believe the purpose of this forum is necessairly to get peple off offences whatever the case......
p.s I have always been 100% behind JAs advice to date - I just disagree this time!
BliarOut said:
JA sure seem to know his stuff, hence my invite.
- agreed, he certainly does. I have postulated before that the alias may also be the real identity! BliarOut said:
I would follow the Mohindra route in this circumstance, IE the RK, but not the keeper. Provide whatever you can (signed) as to who the keeper was and let the burden of proof fall to the CPS.
This may well be the best route here - however....the risk with following the 'known case law' route is that it is known....and therefore the CPS have had more chance to work out what to do about it......when they see a 'known defence scam' (for want of a better phrase) they may also be more inclined to follow it up knowing that there is therefore something wrong and being hidden. No contact of any sort doesnt half make it more difficult to do something about.
Night
Nightmare said:
JA sure seem to know his stuff, hence my invite.
BliarOut said:
I would follow the Mohindra route in this circumstance, IE the RK, but not the keeper. Provide whatever you can (signed) as to who the keeper was and let the burden of proof fall to the CPS.
This may well be the best route here - however....the risk with following the 'known case law' route is that it is known....and therefore the CPS have had more chance to work out what to do about it......when they see a 'known defence scam' (for want of a better phrase) they may also be more inclined to follow it up knowing that there is therefore something wrong and being hidden. No contact of any sort doesnt half make it more difficult to do something about.
Night
Yes, who is the mystery JA
Unfortunately, not being a legal expert, I can only suggest "known" routes. All in all, the thread hasn't turned out so bad in the end
Nightmare said:
I am not suggesting for a second that if a human-led investigation into this event was carried out that the indivudal couldn't then be done for the offence...however....if they decide NOT to investigate it then the ONLY thing he can be done for is 'failure to disclose'.
Ahem...,
jeffreyarcher said:
This comment by Nightmare, "I think if you refuse to send the form back then legally there is nothing that can be done except giving you a penalty of 'failure to disclose'," is bollox.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff