just stoped by police driving borrowed car with no insurance .what will happen

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Thank you brat.

But no doubt he will argue it.

Of course I will. There isn't much (if anything at all) that Brat has shown conclusively where in fact I was incorrect.

Tilt

hethmar wrote: »

I dont follow this? The OP says the police stopped her and she had no insurance. And she asks if she needs to tell her mother, the owner of said vehicle?

Surely the police wouldnt have allowed her to drive the car after stopping her and so, who collected the car - who else is covered to drive it? It doesnt make sense.

Precisely! :T

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

Of course I will. There isn't much (if anything at all) that Brat has shown conclusively where in fact I was incorrect.

Tilt you're 100% correct all the time because its been on telly.

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Tilt you're 100% correct all the time because its been on telly.

Glad you agree with me as you no doubt have seen it yourself

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

Glad you agree with me as you no doubt have seen it yourself

Well you've had the best law input going, police camera action and Dave down your local. Beats a tpo course and experience any day of the week.

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Well you've had the best law input going, police camera action and Dave down your local. Beats a tpo course and experience any day of the week.

You forgot Road Wars!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Hmm, can't actually see any proof that is the case. Pretty weak attempt from a member of Sgt Pepper's fan club.

Nice try though.

Sgt Pepper's fan club! Even he wouldn't envisage me as a member! I think he hates me, although he's probly all soft and cuddly when you get to know him! :xmassmile

I'll leave your incomprehensible rebuttal unfettered. It's priceless in its inanity. :rotfl:

brat

brat wrote: »

I'll leave your incomprehensible rebuttal unfettered.

Other than this one;

Tilt wrote:

So perhaps you can tell us why the police did not seize the car when the OP by her own admission was not insured?

From this webpage

_Kent_Police wrote:

7. Discretion and application

7.1. Officers enforcing the powers to seize vehicles subject of this policy are expected to exercise common sense policing skills, judgment and appropriate discretion.

7.2. The aim of these powers is to prevent continued use of a vehicle where the driver is uninsured or unlicensed, not as a punishment for the driver. Consideration must be given to the human rights implications of seizing a vehicle and the duty of care that may arise to persons left without alternative transport facilities. Application of the powers must be measured and proportionate in accordance with the Proportionate, Legality, Accountability, Necessity (PLAN) principles.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Other than this one;


From this webpage

I'm sure you can come up with more if you put your mind to it!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

I'm sure you can come up with more if you put your mind to it!

Of course, but no-one else would read.

I know the ignorance in your comments, because this subject is within my professional knowledge, and you play your ignorance of it in spades. You must know your own knowledge weaknesses in this area, because you cannot claim any experience or knowledge through training for most of the drivel you post. Many others will recognise that too.

You probably mean well when you offer advice, but when those better informed than you put you right, it would be more edifying if you just acknowledged and accepted that gracefully, rather than trying to make out you actually meant something different.