PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

628 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

andy_foster
Posted on: Today, 21:50


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Whilst Mayhem007's use of the relevant terms is slightly unusual, I happen to know that he has addressed both.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1462822 · Replies: 55 · Views: 5,064

andy_foster
Posted on: Today, 21:35


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


The privilege against self-incrimination is generally held to be implicit in the right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence is an explicit right in the erm, right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So, obviously if the ECtHR had upheld an implicit right they would be perfectly happy for an explicit right to be breached.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1462817 · Replies: 18 · Views: 421

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 20:25


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (BA1N @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 12:46) *
so basically im ****** then


Only if "the Rookie" is working as a fixed penalty clerk...
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1462314 · Replies: 8 · Views: 740

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 19:38


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 12:26) *
The S172 request is specifically excluded from "right to remain silent"
Doesn't the Forum have an article somewhere explaining why this has been ruled not to be a breach of human rights ?


Would that be the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Right in the case of O'Halloran and Francis v the UK - the majority verdict of which said "Lord Bingham's judgment in Brown v Stott - what he said" as opposed to the 2 dissenting judgments which were very well set out, and the almost dissenting but not quite judgment which said that it would be a breach of the motorist's human rights, but motorists don't have human rights?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1462309 · Replies: 18 · Views: 421

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 19:27


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 22:19) *
Are there any other offences out there that result on a charge of PCoJ if someone chooses to not pay a [private] third party company for the privilege of sitting in a room with other willing occupants - even if what they were doing at the time was not an offence?


Presumably the point that you are seeking to make is that we perhaps ought to be aware of the apparent irony that many motorists openly avoid prosecution by paying private companies for speed awareness courses, which have no basis in law, and that the police take a £35 cut from them, but when a motorist seeks to avoid liability for his crimes using his own scam, not endorsed by the police and not funding 'jobs for the boys', then he is a serious criminal?

I would however like to believe that no matter how fundamentally corrupt I might consider the application of speed awareness courses to be, the police's view was that the motorist in this case perverted the course of justice, rather than that the cheeky sod tried to diddle them out of 'their' £35. Also, taking your post as it was written, motorists are entitled not to pay the 'bribe' requested by the police, but if they do not take the course they are liable to be processed on a manner with actual basis in law, such as an offer of a fixed penalty or prosecution for the motoring offence.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1462305 · Replies: 73 · Views: 8,374

andy_foster
Posted on: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:39


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:18) *
could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days?


You can ask for anything. However, you cannot simply put the prosecution to proof that a NIP was served - the requirement to serve a NIP is deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proven.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1461542 · Replies: 35 · Views: 2,620

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 20:19


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Logician @ Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 16:21) *
You are already being charged with a lower level offence, it could have been permitting driving with no insurance, which carries a large fine and 6 points.


Assuming that is accepted as fact that he sold the car, how could he permit driving a car which he had no legal or physical control over?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1460751 · Replies: 10 · Views: 898

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 20:14


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 17:26) *
But why will any more cause revocation as opposed to the normal 6?


The clue is in the relevant statute, but if you can't find it, the trigger is an offence committed within the probationary period which takes the total of relevant points to 6 or more - so if he has 6 or more relevant points (less than 3 years old at the date of the subsequent offence) and then receives any further endorsement that would be an offence committed within the probationary period which takes his total of relevant points to a number which is greater than 6.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1460748 · Replies: 21 · Views: 605

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 17:46


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


The discount for an early guilty plea is only against the fine, not the points.
You could plead guilty to the speeding and not guilty to the s. 172, and it is possible that the s. 172 will simply be dropped. However, it is also possible that it won't.

If you are determined top avoid going to court, you cold plead guilty to the s. 172 and not guilty to the speeding. There is apparently no evidence that you were driving, so it ought not to be possible to convict you if you plead not guilty, even if you don't attend the hearing.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1460689 · Replies: 18 · Views: 436

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 12:51


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 12:21) *
Is the OP for real? Defaming a solicitor is rarely a good idea.


Surely solicitors are the best people to defame as they are more likely to have a realistic idea of what is involved in suing for defamation.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1460622 · Replies: 15 · Views: 596

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 11:57


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Unlucky1 @ Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 18:16) *
I am not sure what to do at this point. I did respond to them within the given time but did not cpmplete the driver details, I sent them a letter instead. Since I hadnt heard anything for 2 months I thought that was the end of it.


Just to be clear, as a matter of law it does not matter whether you used their form or sent a letter, what matters is whether you provided the required information. Subject to any applicable statutory defence to the s. 172 charge (and there isn't one in your case), failing to provide the required information within the 28 days constitutes the offence - merely responding without providing the information is neither here nor there (unless they choose to engage in communication with you and allow extra time, which they apparently didn't).

Please clarify whether you admitted to being the driver in the letter - your original post suggests not, but there is a degree of ambiguity.

N.B. For future reference, the failure to serve a NIP on the driver or RK within the 14 days is only a defence to the original speeding offence, not to any subsequent s. 172 offence.

QUOTE
I'm now worried this is going to cost a while lot more. I would have paid if I had known the address was the reason for delay on the first place.


The immediate issue is not the slightly nebulous concept of paying the fine, but that you seemingly did not provide the information required under s. 172. From what you have told us, it seems likely that you are slam dunk guilty of this. The saving grace is that most prosecutors will happily drop the s. 172 charge if you agree to plead guilty to the speeding offence, if you ask them nicely. There is no set procedure for this, other than that we always say that you should maintain a not guilty plea to both charges until you have had a chance to ask the prosecutor if he will drop the s. 172 - in some cases the s. 172 is dropped if you plead guilty to the speeding, in others, you could plead guilty to the speeding and then be tried for the s. 172 - resulting in 9 points instead of 6 in the hope of only getting 3.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1460607 · Replies: 18 · Views: 436

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 20:03


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (LaughingLeaf @ Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 18:44) *
Presumably your dyscalculia doesn't prevent you from realising that 82 (or even 79) is more than 70. So why set your cruise control at that level?


As you hijacked a thread to ask the wrong person the wrong question, hopefully you won't mind me answering yours.

We are here to offer constructive advice to motorists facing legal problems, not to sit in judgment of them. That is one of this site's most fundamental rules.
If you were to employ basic reading and comprehension skills, you would be aware that the OP had set his cruise control at that speed in the belief that he world be safe from prosecution as his actual speed would be just within the ACPO guidelines.

The problem with pushing the envelope (other than receiving sanctimonious replies) is that you have little or no safety margin for any of the numerous factors that cold feasibly result in the recorded speed being at or above the enforcement threshold.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1460501 · Replies: 12 · Views: 578

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 20:12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


What does s. 172 RTA 1988 say about the police requiring information regarding the driver when an offence is alleged to have been committed?

If being the driver or otherwise is a matter of fact and degree, if the offence relates to parking in a particular manner, then on the face of it it seems probable that the person who parked it would be considered to be the driver.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1459854 · Replies: 8 · Views: 732

andy_foster
Posted on: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 20:07


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


There are 2 ways to approach this - personally I would be minded to be totally up front and state that my vehicle was not involved in the alleged offence(s). I would also be concerned at the possibility of my plate having been cloned and would be seeking confirmation that the plate was not simply misread - if it was not a misread, I would be reporting it to the real police, insisting on getting a URN or crime number and then getting the DVLA to issue a new VRM.

The downside with this approach is that some SCPs will take the view that their information is always right, and that anybody who claims that their vehicle wasn't there is trying to pull a fast one, and more problematically refuse to play ball by providing photos.

My concern with being less than entirely upfront when asking for photos is that that in itself could damage your credibility, and it might be suggested that you wanted the photos to see if you could get away with saying it wasn't your vehicle.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1459098 · Replies: 18 · Views: 1,220

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 20:02


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 19:22) *
Did anyone else see a discrepancy in the story given by the OP?


No
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1458467 · Replies: 38 · Views: 2,953

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 20:00


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 19:06) *
QUOTE (Tooslow @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 13:47) *
My wife is the registered keeper, she did get a NIP she filled it in and sent it back - I got a NIP - I sent it back - never heard anything else back till the 21/1/19 which was this letter.


I think they do have a signed driver admission...?


Sorry, my bad, had been working on the assumption that the OP had been telling us the truth when he previously said that he hadn't.

QUOTE (Tooslow @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 17:53) *
Single Justice Procedure after speeding, SJP received before NIP.

My wife received an NIP and sent it off with my details for a speeding offence committed on the 26.06.18 doing 101mph on a Motorway (on a computer motorbike M62 - fixed camera). The charge was authorised on the 14.12.18. The Single Justice Procedure was posted on the 21.01.19.

I have been given 3 options to respond.
Guilty (I do not want to attend court)
Guilty (I Wish to attend court)
Not guilty (send me a date for hearing/trial)

Background. On the day of the offence I had just finished work and was headed home on my motorbike. Before I joined the motorway I rode from Halifax Dean Clough Mills where I was working - to my house in Leeds. When I got to the M606 junction/roundabout 2 bikes set off from the cafe lay by and caught up with me at the red lights - initially i thought they were having biker problems cause one lad jumped off and walked towards me but then I realised he was trying to get my keys out of the engine! So I was out of there... I joined the m62 with the site of them 2 bikes behind me and what appeared to be a transit van was also involved they chased me up the motorway and instead of heading straight home I went past my house and straight to the police station on Elland road. When I got there I was shaking, had a cig spoke with the lady on the front desk and then rang my wife who rang a few local biker buddies who joined me down at Elland road and pretty much escorted me home where the bike went straight into the Garage. I was totally shook up about it and several times on the motorway I was definitely above the speed limit but I was literally in the process of getting robbed. I have my own business and was carrying a lot of cash with me on the way back from work. I was in fear of my life I felt like there was nothing else left to do but get away from them. can anyone suggest what I can do as I dont feel these 3 boxes cover this.

I also feel like after my wife sent the NIP naming me as the driver this is the only other piece of paperwork that has come through and I was expecting an NIP.

I have until the 11th of February to respond - please help!

Thanks



QUOTE (Tooslow @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 13:47) *
I’m not sure really what I’m being charged for the offence in the document says for speeding under the section 172 -

‘At 22:01 on the 26/06/18 at m62 between junctions 27&28 eastbound a motor vehicle - Honda CBF 600 activated a speed camera travelling at 101 mph the legal limit being 70mph. A combined Notice of Intended Prosecution/request under section 172 of the road traffic act 1988 was served on the registered keeper of the involved vehicle within 14 days. The defendant has responded to a request under section 172 of the road traffic act 1988 which was sent on the 16/07/2018 and provided an admission to bring the driver at the time of the offence’

My wife is the registered keeper, she did get a NIP she filled it in and sent it back - I got a NIP - I sent it back - never heard anything else back till the 21/1/19 which was this letter.

The offences charged are ‘ speeding - exceed 70mph motorway limit - automatic camera device.

I have spoke n with Elland road and they said as I didn’t make a complaint I won’t get a crime reference number, the police officer who I spoke with wasn’t event a police person she was police admin and she told me there was nothing I could do without the details of the vehicle following me and trying to rob me, I asked if they could provide Cctv of me entering the car park on my bike and how anxious I was etc and they said they only keep it for 3 months. Nobody will tel me who the lady at the police admin staff was (due to DPA) and apart from going there daily to see if I can pick her out and she remembers me I don’t know what to do!?




  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1458466 · Replies: 16 · Views: 833

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 16:02


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Tooslow @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 13:47) *
I’m not sure really what I’m being charged for the offence in the document says for speeding under the section 172 -


Try reading the actual words. Particularly the charge - you have posted the statement of facts.

S. 172 RTA 1988 is the law that says that the police can require you to name the driver. It is almost invariably included in a NIP - which is a warning required by s. 1 RTOA 1988.

The charge is speeding, which will be contrary to s. 17(4) RTRA 1984 and the 70mph, 60mph and 50mph Temporary Speed Limit Order 1977 (or somesuch, but it is not particularly important).

The statement of facts set out the basic purported facts, which the court would take into consideration if you were to plead guilty. It also appears to partially answer the question from your original post - they appear to be under the impression that they have a signed response from you admitting to being the driver. Your defence would appear to be simply to put the prosecution to proof that you were the driver - unless your report at the police station could be used to prove that you were the driver.

QUOTE
At 22:01 on the 26/06/18 at m62 between junctions 27&28 eastbound a motor vehicle - Honda CBF 600 activated a speed camera travelling at 101 mph the legal limit being 70mph. A combined Notice of Intended Prosecution/request under section 172 of the road traffic act 1988 was served on the registered keeper of the involved vehicle within 14 days. The defendant has responded to a request under section 172 of the road traffic act 1988 which was sent on the 16/07/2018 and provided an admission to bring the driver at the time of the offence’

My wife is the registered keeper, she did get a NIP she filled it in and sent it back - I got a NIP - I sent it back - never heard anything else back till the 21/1/19 which was this letter.

The offences charged are ‘ speeding - exceed 70mph motorway limit - automatic camera device.

I have spoke n with Elland road and they said as I didn’t make a complaint I won’t get a crime reference number, the police officer who I spoke with wasn’t event a police person she was police admin and she told me there was nothing I could do without the details of the vehicle following me and trying to rob me, I asked if they could provide Cctv of me entering the car park on my bike and how anxious I was etc and they said they only keep it for 3 months. Nobody will tel me who the lady at the police admin staff was (due to DPA) and apart from going there daily to see if I can pick her out and she remembers me I don’t know what to do!?

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1458418 · Replies: 16 · Views: 833

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 11:30


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Starting from the beginning of the process...

There was an allegation of a motoring offence (usually speeding or running a red light) on an as yet unknown date.
A NIP (including a requirement to provide information under s. 172 RTA 1988) would have been sent to the RK's last known address (the address on the V5C) to be delivered within 14 days of the alleged offence.
At the end of 27 days after the NIP was delivered (presumed to be 2 working days after posting), the s. 172 offence is committed, subject to any applicable defence.
Court proceedings would have been instigated some time within 6 months of the s. 172 offence having been apparently committed, and the paperwork (almost certainly a Single Justice Procedure Notice) sent to the address the NIP was sent to (unless the force in question have diligence procedures - which they seemingly don't)
After not responding to the SJPN, you were convicted in your absence of failing to provide the driver's details and given 6 points and a fine.

As you were unaware of the proceedings, if you make a statutory declaration under s. 14 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 within 21 days of becoming aware of the court proceedings, the court must quash the conviction. This would basically take the process back to the start of the court proceedings, and you would usually then be asked to enter a plea to whatever charges were instigated - the s. 172 charge and usually the original offence. It is often possible to do a deal to drop the s. 172 charge in return for pleading guilty to the original offence.


Depending on why the s. 172 requirement (NIP) was not received, you may or may not have a viable defence to that charge. Your description of events is somewhat "woolly" - it might help if you could set out a clear timeline. It would also probably help if you could check your endorsements on the DVLA website.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1458359 · Replies: 15 · Views: 982

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 23:15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (whyamihere @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 11:14) *
It is not his last known address, as this is my house and he has never lived here ( but yes of course understand that the insurers do not know his address ! )


Am am far from convinced that the police putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 would constitute your address being your father's 'last known address' in law - but unfortunately this is an area of law that I have barely scratched the surface of, and could not rule out the possibility that it could be so deemed.

However, whether or not it could be considered his 'last known address' is largely immaterial - as I stated, if you chose to do nothing with the notice (IOW not forward it to your father or otherwise make him aware of it), he would almost certainly be prosecuted - which would probably be quite inconvenient and stressful, but he would have a solid defence of it not being reasonably practicable to provide the information. He might well have another defence regarding the notice not having been served - if the address did not constitute his 'last known address', but having a second defence is irrelevant if his other defence is solid.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1456591 · Replies: 19 · Views: 1,355

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 20:44


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:04) *
No doubt it was a simple mistake, but you did not fulfill the conditions of the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty.


The "conditional" part of the offer of a fixed penalty is that the driver would not be liable to tot up. Sending off the licence is a requirement.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1456504 · Replies: 21 · Views: 1,124

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 22:17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Harleycap @ Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 20:17) *
Alleged Incident in Supermarket Carpark

<...>
It just says it happened in Tesco car park at 14:40 on said date and in pursuance of Section 172 (2) (a) (b). I have no recollection of any incident. I am scared and do not know what to do next.


What does it actually say? What is the alleged offence?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1455851 · Replies: 7 · Views: 720

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 19:07


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


...
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1455792 · Replies: 55 · Views: 5,064

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 18:25


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Apologies to those that appear to enjoy 'playing with their food', but there is no overarching statutory presumption of service, but there are statutory presumptions of service in certain circumstances - primarily under s. 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 - which applies "[w]here an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1455773 · Replies: 16 · Views: 702

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 13:28


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (TonyS @ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 12:51) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 16:56) *
...Youc an pass it to him and as saidm if you dont, expect him to be proscuted for a S172 offence ...

How can they prosecute his father for failing to respond to an s172 request sent in effect to somebody else's address? Or maybe I should say how could they convict.


It is lawfully served if/when it is delivered to his last known address. If it is lawfully served, the offence is committed at the expiration of 27 days from the date of service, subject to any applicable defence - such as not being reasonably practicable to provide the information.

If the OP wanted to play a game my father would refer to as "silly b*ggers", and not pass the notice to his father or otherwise inform him of it, his father would almost certainly be prosecuted and would on the face of it have a solid defence or possibly two. As regards avoiding anyone being fined or receiving an endorsement, that would work quite well. As regards the OP's father not having the stress of an unnecessary prosecution, not so much.

Clearly the OP's father's details have been obtained from the MID - the cliff-hanger question is "why?"
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1455615 · Replies: 19 · Views: 1,355

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 13:16


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Arrogant lies from a civilian department within "the police"? Shurley shome mishtake?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1455610 · Replies: 36 · Views: 2,238

628 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 16th February 2019 - 22:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.