Help, no insurance!

Trebor16

fivetide wrote: »

So what we have established is... Kent Police on their own do not make up the policy for the UK and The Turner is quite right.

5t

Right on the first point...............way off the mark on the second one.

The_Turner

[QUOTE=Trebor16;48830637"Although it is still an offence to fail to produce it to a police officer on demand. "

Remember that? Now, who is it who doesn't undestand the basics? It's not me.[/QUOTE]

You were proved wrong there.

Trebor16

The_Turner wrote: »

You were proved wrong there.

But only in your feeble mind.

The_Turner

Trebor16 wrote: »

But only in your feeble mind.

Whatever. Now enjoy your Happy Meal and toy.

Rover_Driver

[QUOTE=Trebor16;48830637
What a short memory you have. How easily you forget your statement in that other thread, but just to remind you, here is what you said in post number 9 of the "Driving Licence Query" thread:-

"Although it is still an offence to fail to produce it to a police officer on demand. "

[/QUOTE]

Which is correct.

Trebor16

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Which is correct.

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some cases of drivers, who on failing to produce their documents at the roadside have been reported there and then and have been prosecuted for it?

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some cases of drivers, who on failing to produce their documents at the roadside have been reported there and then and have been prosecuted for it?

I cannot, but if you look at any cases where drivers have been convicted of failing to produce their documents, you will find that it will be for failing to produce them at the time production was required at the roadside.

This is another thread with your incorrect assumption about the sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, where the correct information has been given, yet you still argue.

Trebor16

Rover_Driver wrote: »

I cannot, but if you look at any cases where drivers have been convicted of failing to produce their documents, you will find that it will be for failing to produce them at the time production was required at the roadside.

I didn't think you would be able to find any cases. But the only reason they have been prosecuted is because of their failure to produce within 7 days of the requirement to produce.

Rover_Driver wrote:

This is another thread with your incorrect assumption about the sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, where the correct information has been given, yet you still argue.

Which incorrect assumptions are you referring to? I've pointed out that police forces do have policies that supplement the relevant law, something which you have stated is the case. Nowhere have I stated that it is the law that a supervisor has to authorise a removal.

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

I didn't think you would be able to find any cases. But the only reason they have been prosecuted is because of their failure to produce within 7 days of the requirement to produce.

As has been pointed out to you before, the offence is not producing at time that the request was made - at the roadside.
All convictions will be for that - check for yourself, nothing about 'within 7 days'.

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

Which incorrect assumptions are you referring to? I've pointed out that police forces do have policies that supplement the relevant law, something which you have stated is the case. Nowhere have I stated that it is the law that a supervisor has to authorise a removal.

So why mention it? In your post no.80 you made the statement "The decision to seize is also not that of the officer on the street as they have to seek authority from a supervisory officer". Then in post 89 you said that it was only a policy decision in the Kent police force.

Force policy does not supplement or change the legislation, it is only an internal directive as to how that particular force implements the legislation.