We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Rtc police report contains inaccuracies, help please
Comments
-
You triumphantly quote the OP, yet ignore that he/she had to spend (waste) £88 to get the files before coming here just to ask how to lodge a "very formal complaint" (whatever that is).
I didn't ignore that - I said that I think a lot of victims of crime would want to see that the investigation was conducted properly. In order for the OP to do that she had to pay for it. So what? How is that relevant?So revenge? Sorry but I'm bigger than that.
Bullsh*t.
If something happened to you or your family and the offender got off lightly because of errors in the investigation, are you seriously telling me you'd be happy about that and wouldn't want something done about it?
It's not even about revenge - it's about a decision being made with all of the information to hand.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
Where do you see the OP a "victim of crime"?I didn't ignore that - I said that I think a lot of victims of crime.....
The police don't go round letting criminals escape justice!
You are forgetting that the OP was not given the drivers side to all this.
And as far as we know only one (irrelevant) "inaccuracy" is claimed by the OP0 -
Bullsh*t.
If something happened to you or your family and the offender got off lightly because of errors in the investigation, are you seriously telling me you'd be happy about that and wouldn't want something done about it?
It's not even about revenge - it's about a decision being made with all of the information to hand.
Why aren't you sticking to the matter in hand? We are talking about someone running into the back of the OP not hitting them over the head with a brick, it was an accident. As long as I was compensated for my losses I wouldn't care what happened to the driver, in fact I would feel sympathy if he lost his job over it, we all make mistakes.
And in the great scheme of things what's the difference between going on a course and receiving a fine and points?0 -
Where do you see the OP a "victim of crime"?
The police don't go round letting criminals escape justice!
You are forgetting that the OP was not given the drivers side to all this.
And as far as we know only one (irrelevant) "inaccuracy" is claimed by the OP
Someone drove into the back of her stationery vehicle. There are two motoring offences that would lead to that sort of thing, careless driving or dangerous driving. There is no doubt she is a victim of crime. If the driver had denied all liability, refused to accept a course and taken the matter to court, then the OP would have had to have given evidence in court like any other victim (presuming her evidence was not agreed by the defence). I think you're looking at this matter differently for some reason.
I am a police station representative and I represent people when they're interviewed by the police (usually they're under arrest, detained and interviewed, but I also deal with voluntary attenders as well). I'm at the police station most days. I see the police make questionable decisions all the time.
I'm not forgetting that that we haven't got the drivers side. I'm not saying the driver should be prosecuted. I'm just saying that the decision should be looked at again with the correct information being considered.
It's massively important that correct details are noted in police reports due to the effect it can have upon the investigation.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
Why aren't you sticking to the matter in hand? We are talking about someone running into the back of the OP not hitting them over the head with a brick, it was an accident. As long as I was compensated for my losses I wouldn't care what happened to the driver, in fact I would feel sympathy if he lost his job over it, we all make mistakes.
And in the great scheme of things what's the difference between going on a course and receiving a fine and points?
"It was an accident." again you're commenting like you know what happened, when none of us know what happened.
There were errors in the investigation, according to the OP, that may or may not have changed the outcome. I'm simply saying that the decision makers should look at the decision again, with the correct information.
This is such an obvious common sense thing to do I don't understand why people are actually questioning it.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
"It was an accident." again you're commenting like you know what happened, when none of us know what happened.
Oh god, so you think it might have been a deliberate act, attempted murder?There were errors in the investigation, according to the OP, that may or may not have changed the outcome. I'm simply saying that the decision makers should look at the decision again, with the correct information.
So a fine and points rather than a driving course whoopie do! (Unless of course it was attempted murder then it could have been life imprisonment.)This is such an obvious common sense thing to do I don't understand why people are actually questioning it.
No, the common sense to do, unless you are a lawyer who sees some fat fees coming their way, is to put the matter behind you and move on with life.0 -
"It was an accident." again you're commenting like you know what happened, when none of us know what happened.
We do. A bus drove into the back of a stationary car.
The findings were that the bus driver was totally at fault.There were errors in the investigation, according to the OP, that may or may not have changed the outcome.
Well, the only way the outcome could have been different is if the OP, the car driver, had been held to be partially or completely at fault. Is that what you're suggesting happened?I'm simply saying that the decision makers should look at the decision again, with the correct information.
So you DO think the OP was partially at fault...?
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that it wasn't an "accident", which would mean the bus driver did it deliberately?This is such an obvious common sense thing to do I don't understand why people are actually questioning it.
Riiiight.0 -
Excuse my bluntness, but PTSD from a minor accident, really? Some perspective is needed here!0
-
Oh god, so you think it might have been a deliberate act, attempted murder?
I never said it was deliberate.
There's a difference between something being an accident and grossly negligent. For all we know the bus driver was reading a book at the time.
Like I say, none of us know what the circumstances are so it's pointless to guess.So a fine and points rather than a driving course whoopie do! (Unless of course it was attempted murder then it could have been life imprisonment.)
Careless driving can carry a discretionary disqualification.
So the range of what can happen is a driver improvement course through to a fine and an instant disqualification.No, the common sense to do, unless you are a lawyer who sees some fat fees coming their way, is to put the matter behind you and move on with life.
Fat fees? Not any more. :rotfl:
Legal profession has had big cuts recently like everything else.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards