Legal Bods

mickonline said:
Who's rattled you? Frivolous? If i was insured, as it looks like, and the PC dismissed that out of hand how is that frivolous?

And as it looks like my insurance cover is the exception not the rule and if they finally do admit i was covered then i have been very lucky.
Click to expand...
I think the complaint will be pointless. He can’t just take your word for it being insured. He’ll investigate properly then get back to you surely. If that takes an hour, a day, a week or a month is irrelevant.

It sounds like stress you probably don’t need.
 


mickonline said:
Who's rattled you? Frivolous? If i was insured, as it looks like, and the PC dismissed that out of hand how is that frivolous?

And as it looks like my insurance cover is the exception not the rule and if they finally do admit i was covered then i have been very lucky.
Click to expand...

No one at all.

You think you have done nothing wrong so fill in the box that requests a court hearing so you can plead not guilty.

Your complaint is frivolous because you are living in cloud cuckoo land, do you want the PC to just believe what people tell him at the roadside? Like I said at the start the only issue I can see is should the car have been seized, that could be argued quite validly either way to be honest, the fact it was seized from your drive is of no relevance, S165A of the RTA (of which you appear to be an expert on all of a sudden) allows power of entry to seize vehicles anyway so that point is irrelevant.
 
duff_man said:
No one at all.

You think you have done nothing wrong so fill in the box that requests a court hearing so you can plead not guilty.

Your complaint is frivolous because you are living in cloud cuckoo land, do you want the PC to just believe what people tell him at the roadside? Like I said at the start the only issue I can see is should the car have been seized, that could be argued quite validly either way to be honest, the fact it was seized from your drive is of no relevance, S165A of the RTA (of which you appear to be an expert on all of a sudden) allows power of entry to seize vehicles anyway so that point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Who has ever said I'm an expert, thats why i'm on here asking for advice.

If you remember and don't get confused with a lot of the comments being made on here i'm fighting driving with no insurance. The car is not mine, the insurance that should have been in place is not mine, theres a lot of people confusing the issue. My whole argument, and at the moment it is an argument, is if my insurance company was willing to pay out in the event of an accident how can i be driving with no insurance. Why would an insurance company do that if they did not have to? So therefore i must have complied with the RTA which would mean, I (notice i say I) committed no crime.

People ar confusing the issue by saying the car should be insured, I'm not contesting that, but that is not my crime.

My whole complaint will not be about compensation, getting people into trouble, it will be about the lack of common sense that was applied to my case in the hope future practices are not as final for somebody who has made a genuine mistake such as mine which could have been dealt with on the night. "can I have a look at your insurance certificate" instead of just dismissing my claim that i was insured. If you can't see what is wrong with that then I really worry for your impartiality.

Remember this PC spent at least 1hr in the house and 1hr outside waiting for the tow truck. Everything could have been dealt with and he could have been onto the next job.
 
duff_man said:
No one at all.

You think you have done nothing wrong so fill in the box that requests a court hearing so you can plead not guilty.

Your complaint is frivolous because you are living in cloud cuckoo land, do you want the PC to just believe what people tell him at the roadside? Like I said at the start the only issue I can see is should the car have been seized, that could be argued quite validly either way to be honest, the fact it was seized from your drive is of no relevance, S165A of the RTA (of which you appear to be an expert on all of a sudden) allows power of entry to seize vehicles anyway so that point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The op has been reasonable from the outset. Vinny and others have responded with advice in a similar fashion (except when he admonished us all for premature speculation) so there's absolutely no need for your sarkiness.

If you are indeed a bobby then your snotty and impatient approach on this thread alone does your service no favours.
 
The one thing @mickonline needs is to benefit from "reasonable doubt" at a trial.

Given that we're over 320 posts in and still can't agree a f***ing thing, it's safe to say there is, at least, an argument that the letter from the insurance company is capable of creating reasonable doubt in the mind of the legally unqualified magistrate.
 
mickonline said:
Who has ever said I'm an expert, thats why i'm on here asking for advice.

If you remember and don't get confused with a lot of the comments being made on here i'm fighting driving with no insurance. The car is not mine, the insurance that should have been in place is not mine, theres a lot of people confusing the issue. My whole argument, and at the moment it is an argument, is if my insurance company was willing to pay out in the event of an accident how can i be driving with no insurance. Why would an insurance company do that if they did not have to? So therefore i must have complied with the RTA which would mean, I (notice i say I) committed no crime.

People ar confusing the issue by saying the car should be insured, I'm not contesting that, but that is not my crime.

My whole complaint will not be about compensation, getting people into trouble, it will be about the lack of common sense that was applied to my case in the hope future practices are not as final for somebody who has made a genuine mistake such as mine which could have been dealt with on the night. "can I have a look at your insurance certificate" instead of just dismissing my claim that i was insured. If you can't see what is wrong with that then I really worry for your impartiality.

Remember this PC spent at least 1hr in the house and 1hr outside waiting for the tow truck. Everything could have been dealt with and he could have been onto the next job.
Click to expand...
Did you make him a cup of tea?
 
mickonline said:
Remember this PC spent at least 1hr in the house and 1hr outside waiting for the tow truck. Everything could have been dealt with and he could have been onto the next job.
Click to expand...
That'll explain why when i reported someone had slashed the tyres and keyed three vehicles outside my house last night all they could do was make an appointment for some fcker to ring me back in the middle of next week to discuss it

:evil::evil::evil:
"waiting for a tow truck FFS!!!!!!"
 
duff_man said:
Don’t dare to tell him that it is an offence and not a crime per se, that’ll blow his mind
Click to expand...

No need.

"Law makes no difference in the words crime and offence and, in fact, terms violation of penal laws as the definition of offence. An act or behavior that does not break a law is not an offence. The word offence comes from offender who is a person violating a law. ... However, a crime is always a violation of law".
 
mickonline said:
No need.

"Law makes no difference in the words crime and offence and, in fact, terms violation of penal laws as the definition of offence. An act or behavior that does not break a law is not an offence. The word offence comes from offender who is a person violating a law. ... However, a crime is always a violation of law".
Click to expand...

If you want to argue the point you can, you seemed to have became an expert in all things law over the last week.

All crimes are offences, not all offences are crimes.
 

Back
Top