Witnessed an accident where driver didn't stop - what should I do?

casseus

Deanston wrote: »

You're paying too. :rotfl:

I'd love to, but you dont look as though you're all there talking to someone who has you on ignore and has no desire to entertain you. If thats your fun then ill put you on ignore too and let you entertain the rest of the class andy.

[Deleted User]

casseus wrote: »

I'd love to, but you dont look as though you're all there talking to someone who has you on ignore and has no desire to entertain you. If thats your fun then ill put you on ignore too and let you entertain the rest of the class andy.

:rotfl::rotfl:

An alleged serving police officer who trolls this Forum on a regular basis, I`m sure his superiors would appreciate the publicity.

Deanston

casseus wrote: »

I'd love to, but you dont look as though you're all there talking to someone who has you on ignore and has no desire to entertain you. If thats your fun then ill put you on ignore too and let you entertain the rest of the class andy.

Put me on ignore, but it won't make you right. :rotfl:


Keep paying your taxes and I'll keep earning.

Mercdriver

treboeth wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

An alleged serving police officer who trolls this Forum on a regular basis, I`m sure his superiors would appreciate the publicity.

He could be as much as a fantasist as our old friend, DM. Or is that Gina?...

casseus

treboeth wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

An alleged serving police officer who trolls this Forum on a regular basis, I`m sure his superiors would appreciate the publicity.

No chance he's a serving constable i dont buy it one bit . CSO once in a liftime i might accept at a extremely long stretch of the imagination, those austerity cuts hit him hard, he's talking to people on a forum that have him on ignore!.:eek:

Deanston

casseus wrote: »

No chance he's a serving constable i dont buy it one bit . CSO once in a liftime i might accept at a extremely long stretch of the imagination, those austerity cuts hit him hard, he's talking to people on a forum that have him on ignore!.:eek:

But you haven't hit ignore yet.:rotfl:

Austerity cuts have hit you more than me. I'm ok.

Deanston

Mercdriver wrote: »

He could be as much as a fantasist as our old friend, DM. Or is that Gina?...

You've been thanked by someone who's as clueless as you. :rotfl:

Robisere

A few years ago, my car was scraped across the front wing and bumper, whilst we were in the back eating lunch. Fortunately I live in a Sheltered Housing Close full of responsible Oldpharts like me. One of my fellow Senior Ghetto dwellers took the name on the side of the van and reg number. Another also volunteered as witness. It turned out to be a Pharmacy delivery van, driven by a retired police officer. I know he is an ex-policeman because he visited me, attempted to deny everything and force me to take no action. A neighbour was actually with me during the conversation and the ex-copper found himself in trouble with his ex-Force, attempting to pervert justice.



I was able to have my car repaired at the Pharmacy's expense, in my choice of garage, for a cash deal. Next time I saw the Pharmacy van, it was driven by someone else.

Car_54

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Umm its the requirement of warnings of prosecutions of offences not NIP requirements.

1Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences



(b)

within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or....






(c)within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—


(i)in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,


(ii)in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.


Subsection B is for summons, it's not related to a NIP part C deals with NIP's requirements.

But none of that applies to mobile phone offences. Wasn't that where we started?

Scrapit

Deanston wrote: »

Remember as a taxpayer you're funding this.

Not very well though. Now that's funny.