Discussion
Hi - can anybody give me some advice. Getting caught by a plain clothes thingy police car on a motorway doing in excess of 100mph....(usual story all the nimrods driving in the outside line without regard for the empty lanes to their left, when road finally clears out put food down in frustation) WHY OH WHY DON'T THEY HAVE RETRAINING FOR DRIVERS EVERY 10 YEARS OR SO - THEY ARE NEARLY ALWAYS OLDIES! shall I expect to be giving up my licence for a considerable length of time? Also does anybody know how you can get legal advice/representation on this sort of stuff - is there a good website? And finally is it better to go to court or have it heard in absence? arhhhhhhhhh
If you were caught and NIPed by an actual Policeperson then you should take it like a, er, man. Yes, plead all you can in court to get off with 6 points and a fine instead of a ban etc. but you were caught fair and square - it's not like a scamera/tallivan. Plead guilty - it will be less painful as they probably have in-car evidence of you being naughty.
I think there is a site called Pepipoo or something similar with suggestions/advice. You might want to peruse the speeding links on this site.
I think there is a site called Pepipoo or something similar with suggestions/advice. You might want to peruse the speeding links on this site.
Are you 1000% sure it was yourself driving the car, or someone in a list of old EU-resident friends.
If it's the latter, then you can complicate things by asking for the photographic evidence so that you can make sure no innocent person is being blamed.
The 'evidence' will most probably show the vehicle clearly but not the driver.
You then ask for more help so you can identify the driver (at the time of the alleged offence)
You've taken reasonable steps to help the police with their enquiries, it's up to them now to "help you help them".
Check the photos first - it could be the case that without your cooperation they CANNOT identify the driver.
Say nothing if you can avoid it. Just general stuff, nothing specific. No names either, no need for that.
As far as the 'non-signature' routine goes, I find it lame, and everybody's doing it now. I think it's moronic to clearly identify oneself as the driver and then 'forget' to sign the form. Can't see it working for much longer, either...
>> Edited by justme on Monday 15th September 13:02
If it's the latter, then you can complicate things by asking for the photographic evidence so that you can make sure no innocent person is being blamed.
The 'evidence' will most probably show the vehicle clearly but not the driver.
You then ask for more help so you can identify the driver (at the time of the alleged offence)
You've taken reasonable steps to help the police with their enquiries, it's up to them now to "help you help them".
Check the photos first - it could be the case that without your cooperation they CANNOT identify the driver.
Say nothing if you can avoid it. Just general stuff, nothing specific. No names either, no need for that.
As far as the 'non-signature' routine goes, I find it lame, and everybody's doing it now. I think it's moronic to clearly identify oneself as the driver and then 'forget' to sign the form. Can't see it working for much longer, either...
>> Edited by justme on Monday 15th September 13:02
justme said:
Are you 1000% sure it was yourself driving the car, or someone in a list of old EU-resident friends.
If it's the latter, then you can complicate things by asking for the photographic evidence so that you can make sure no innocent person is being blamed.
The 'evidence' will most probably show the vehicle clearly but not the driver.
You then ask for more help so you can identify the driver (at the time of the alleged offence)
You've taken reasonable steps to help the police with their enquiries, it's up to them now to "help you help them".
Check the photos first - it could be the case that without your cooperation they CANNOT identify the driver.
Say nothing if you can avoid it. Just general stuff, nothing specific. No names either, no need for that.
As far as the 'non-signature' routine goes, I find it lame, and everybody's doing it now. I think it's moronic to clearly identify oneself as the driver and then 'forget' to sign the form. Can't see it working for much longer, either...
>> Edited by justme on Monday 15th September 13:02
And for the original poster to attempt to do this is an offence of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, = potential custodial sentence.
And for you expressing the means to achieve the above offence = Conspiracy To Pervert the Course of Justice or Counselling such an offence = very naughty
>> Edited by Tivster on Monday 15th September 13:05
justme said:
How is it perverting the course of justice - by telling the truth?
Why should one incriminate oneself when it might be someone else driving?
Please explain
>> Edited by justme on Monday 15th September 13:50
Are you telling the truth ? To use a friends details, who you know full well was not driving i.e. lives in the EU somewhere etc is a clearcut offence as I outlined. Let's not get paranoid here, if you were to do this then unless the details of your friend(s) were examined/investigated in detail, then the chances are that you'd get away from it. However I know for a fact that these excuses are becoming very common and are seen as suspicious. Only a matter of time before one or two of them get dip-checked for authenticity. Once it's proven that you've deceived or attempted to deceive then you're really are up to your neck in it.
Incidentally the last offence I outlined may be applied as a result of any further investigation that's carried out. So in theory - I'll stress that again - in theory, all those people on PH suggesting means to assist a person to avoid prosecution by means of a lie, are conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Difficult if not impossible to prove, but the offence is still committed all the same.
Tivster
Tivster said:
Are you telling the truth ? To use a friends details, who you know full well was not driving i.e. lives in the EU somewhere etc is a clearcut offence as I outlined.
If you know full well that someone was not driving, then it would be lying indeed. Why would anyone want to do that? We're talking hypothetically my friend.
If one is 100% certain they were driving then that's that.
Tivster said:
.. However I know for a fact that these excuses are becoming very common and are seen as suspicious. Only a matter of time before one or two of them get dip-checked for authenticity.
If it's true then of course they'll be verified.
I don't understand your reasoning - it's going in circles, like you're trying to entrap someone
Tivster said:
Once it's proven that you've deceived or attempted to deceive then you're really are up to your neck in it.
Well, of course. Who said differently? Why would you even imply that someone on this board might not tell the truth?
Tivster said:
So in theory - I'll stress that again - in theory, all those people on PH suggesting means to assist a person to avoid prosecution by means of a lie, are conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
so stop implying it then.
Let people do as their consience dictates
Tivster said:Do you take a cut from the fines paid? You certainly act like you do...
Difficult if not impossible to prove, but the offence is still committed all the same.
justme said:
Are you telling the truth ? To use a friends details, who you know full well was not driving i.e. lives in the EU somewhere etc is a clearcut offence as I outlined.
If you know full well that someone was not driving, then it would be lying indeed. Why would anyone want to do that? We're talking hypothetically my friend.
If one is 100% certain they were driving then that's that.
Tivster said:
.. However I know for a fact that these excuses are becoming very common and are seen as suspicious. Only a matter of time before one or two of them get dip-checked for authenticity.
If it's true then of course they'll be verified.
I don't understand your reasoning - it's going in circles, like you're trying to entrap someone
Tivster said:
Once it's proven that you've deceived or attempted to deceive then you're really are up to your neck in it.
Well, of course. Who said differently? Why would you even imply that someone on this board might not tell the truth?
Tivster said:
So in theory - I'll stress that again - in theory, all those people on PH suggesting means to assist a person to avoid prosecution by means of a lie, are conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
so stop implying it then.
Let people do as their consience dictates
Tivster said:
Difficult if not impossible to prove, but the offence is still committed all the same.
Do you take a cut from the fines paid? You certainly act like you do...
I won't take issue with the manner of your response. However what you were implying is IMO unwise for the reasons I stated and certainly not to be taken as the dead cert course of events should you decide to follow that route. It is advice, you choose to accept whether you follow it or not - your choice!
The point I make and you miss is that legislation is available to deal with such situations like the one that I responded to in your initial post
justme said:
Are you 1000% sure it was yourself driving the car, or someone in a list of old EU-resident friends.
justme said:You do!! see above..
Well, of course. Who said differently? Why would you even imply that someone on this board might not tell the truth?
And to ask me whether I take a cut from the fines imposed is a little uncalled for don't you think?
What exactly are you trying to prove?
Tivster
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff