defenderdavie said:
reckon they stopped yer cos ye was in a disco if yer where in a 90 or a 110 or even aseries theyd a thought ye rhad a reason fer being there but disco plod thinks aye up 4x4 nut out fer fun
after all how many hours had he been working fer in the floods might have had a few folk up to look it the floods:confused: ffs thats wit sky news is fer:p
Click to expand...

But I was trying to get home
 
i'm no lawyer but i will say your defence as more hole's that a thing with lot's of hole's in it..

your story controdict's itself in more than one instence..

you reason for breaking the restriction is weaker than a two year old with a set of dumbells..

i don't know what you expect to happen in court but i reckon you will get in there the charge's read by the bench, then prosicution will read their case note's to the bench, then your solicitor(if you use one) will stand up and read your statment of fact's(not nessacerly the fact's) the bench will ask you to stand and give your statment, the prosicution will question you directlly looking for the same hole's i see above, then the bench will take a short recess(or not) then reinterven the case then pass their judgment based on both your statment the prosicutions case notes and questioning and your solicitor's statment...this is the good bit

the judge will most likely state that as you passed the said notice and the officer clearly saw you do so that you are guilty of the said charge's and give you a greater fine plus cost and possibility of double the penatly point's..case closed..

this is just a case scenario and i am not a lawyer but that is more likely than you walking out after a case enullment and no charges recorded.
 
Wanagetmuddy said:
None as Im trying to keep it clean
Click to expand...
take it on the chin then in case the judge decides against you n gives you six fer being a pain n fighting it :confused:
i ah was on 9 ahd fight but not on nil if you lose yer getting maybe 6 points £500 fine poss asbo fer 4x4 usage where vehicle can be crushed if order contavened:( :eek:
just saying if you fight and win ye ha
fight the system and lose an yer fecked
 
spudy said:
i'm no lawyer but i will say your defence as more hole's that a thing with lot's of hole's in it..

your story controdict's itself in more than one instence..

you reason for breaking the restriction is weaker than a two year old with a set of dumbells..

i don't know what you expect to happen in court but i reckon you will get in there the charge's read by the bench, then prosicution will read their case note's to the bench, then your solicitor(if you use one) will stand up and read your statment of fact's(not nessacerly the fact's) the bench will ask you to stand and give your statment, the prosicution will question you directlly looking for the same hole's i see above, then the bench will take a short recess(or not) then reinterven the case then pass their judgment based on both your statment the prosicutions case notes and questioning and your solicitor's statment...this is the good bit

the judge will most likely state that as you passed the said notice and the officer clearly saw you do so that you are guilty of the said charge's and give you a greater fine plus cost and possibility of double the penatly point's..case closed..

this is just a case scenario and i am not a lawyer but that is more likely than you walking out after a case enullment and no charges recorded.
Click to expand...


This is the officers witness statement.

""On the Day and the date overleaf I clearly saw the defendant driving through a road closure on deansway, Worcester
The Road was completely blocked by big foot cones and road closure sign."

The officer did not see me, he was half a mile up the road stationary with his blue lights on.

The police officer was parked at All saints road, between bridge street at the junction


"The defendant drove the wrong way around a keep left bollard and pedestrian crossing to get around the closure when stopped and question he said that he wanted to see the floods. "

He did not see me! I wanted to speak to an officer initially, as I had spoken to an officer suggesting half hour an before at Tewksbury who was the helpful one, to find a way home

If the officer had used my full sentence, "he wanted to see the floods so that i could find out if I could get home which I had been trying since friday night .

He was driving a 4x4 vehicle and appeared to be driving round the flooded areas, deliberately ignoring warning signs, just to drive through the floods

I was merely trying to get home it was 2am on sunday morning ! He jaust assumed the later part
 
Wanagetmuddy said:
This is the officers witness statement.

""On the Day and the date overleaf I clearly saw the defendant driving through a road closure on deansway, Worcester
The Road was completely blocked by big foot cones and road closure sign."

The officer did not see me, he was half a mile up the road stationary with his blue lights on.

The police officer was parked at All saints road, between bridge street at the junction


"The defendant drove the wrong way around a keep left bollard and pedestrian crossing to get around the closure when stopped and question he said that he wanted to see the floods. "

He did not see me! I wanted to speak to an officer initially, as I had spoken to an officer suggesting half hour an before at Tewksbury who was the helpful one, to find a way home

If the officer had used my full sentence, "he wanted to see the floods so that i could find out if I could get home which I had been trying since friday night .

He was driving a 4x4 vehicle and appeared to be driving round the flooded areas, deliberately ignoring warning signs, just to drive through the floods

I was merely trying to get home it was 2am on sunday morning ! He jaust assumed the later part
Click to expand...
fair comment although some assumptions on your part

was it a traffic unit or a normal police car:confused:
 
So it's all down to identification in court...........either shave off the beard or grow one in seven days, or borrow one of the wife's dresses and put on a bit of slap and try to confuse the fed..............last option is take the hit and observe any future road cones.
 
Wanagetmuddy said:
Was traffic :confused:
Click to expand...
most traffic cars are fitted with grill or dash mounted cameras that constantly record and have a range of up to 1.3 miles they also have pan/tilt date/time record are calibratted and are admissable in a court of law
or so may mates mate;) whose been banned tells me

do you think this could have any bearing on your position

my mates mate;) was clocked by said cameras in the rain at 930yds at 0333 on a sunday
was told would have got 3mth ban but as was unwilling to admit offence got 6mth ban:mad:
 
Wanagetmuddy said:
This is the officers witness statement.

""On the Day and the date overleaf I clearly saw the defendant driving through a road closure on deansway, Worcester
The Road was completely blocked by big foot cones and road closure sign."

The officer did not see me, he was half a mile up the road stationary with his blue lights on.

The police officer was parked at All saints road, between bridge street at the junction


"The defendant drove the wrong way around a keep left bollard and pedestrian crossing to get around the closure when stopped and question he said that he wanted to see the floods. "

He did not see me! I wanted to speak to an officer initially, as I had spoken to an officer suggesting half hour an before at Tewksbury who was the helpful one, to find a way home

If the officer had used my full sentence, "he wanted to see the floods so that i could find out if I could get home which I had been trying since friday night .

He was driving a 4x4 vehicle and appeared to be driving round the flooded areas, deliberately ignoring warning signs, just to drive through the floods

I was merely trying to get home it was 2am on sunday morning ! He jaust assumed the later part
Click to expand...

unless you have independent witness's to the act at the time it occured which will freely stand up in court and state that the officer's statment is untrue and give their view of what happened i'm sorry to say but the law will stand by the law..

and as i said above your defence is full of hole's mate, you state that you saw the officer's car and so tried to pull in, but you also state it was impossible for him to have seen you..now this they will pull you up on as if you saw him the chance's are he saw you which think about it he obviously did has he followed and stopped you.

next bit to pull is that you stated that you was looking at the floods(wether he shortened it or not) you was within intention of traveling to the flooded area..if you had solid reason you would have given them at the time of the event not after a period of thought.

now if i was the prosicution i would ask you the same question cleverly reworded a few time's and see how you deviate from your original response to the question posed...quite like the good peep's of lz did and you have deviated it by a verying degree in place's from what i see which is what they are looking for...the truth never waivers from the truth, however a lie can be confused with a lie.

wether you are guilty or not is not for me to decide but i will say without a witness for your defence the courts will take the good standing of the officer over you in 99.9% of all case's

oh and btw it isent cos you drive a 4x4 either his job will have been to stop anyone going into a classifide danger area(the flood) to prevent anyone getting into a situation that may be dangerous not only to themselfs but to emergency service's that are needed to rescue...and you blatently(in his eye's) decided that this precution isent needed for you.
 
Aye they have. Apparently a load of tractta boys raided the place tuther night.
 
spudy said:
unless you have independent witness's to the act at the time it occured which will freely stand up in court and state that the officer's statment is untrue and give their view of what happened i'm sorry to say but the law will stand by the law..
Click to expand...
spudy said:
and as i said above your defence is full of hole's mate, you state that you saw the officer's car and so tried to pull in, but you also state it was impossible for him to have seen you..now this they will pull you up on as if you saw him the chance's are he saw you which think about it he obviously did has he followed and stopped you.

next bit to pull is that you stated that you was looking at the floods(wether he shortened it or not) you was within intention of traveling to the flooded area..if you had solid reason you would have given them at the time of the event not after a period of thought.

now if i was the prosicution i would ask you the same question cleverly reworded a few time's and see how you deviate from your original response to the question posed...quite like the good peep's of lz did and you have deviated it by a verying degree in place's from what i see which is what they are looking for...the truth never waivers from the truth, however a lie can be confused with a lie.

wether you are guilty or not is not for me to decide but i will say without a witness for your defence the courts will take the good standing of the officer over you in 99.9% of all case's

oh and btw it isent cos you drive a 4x4 either his job will have been to stop anyone going into a classifide danger area(the flood) to prevent anyone getting into a situation that may be dangerous not only to themselfs but to emergency service's that are needed to rescue...and you blatently(in his eye's) decided that this precution isent needed for you.
Click to expand...
up here in gods country even cops need coroberation or if its there word against theres wallop not proven verdict:D :D :D an folk say were backward;)
 
defenderdavie said:
most traffic cars are fitted with grill or dash mounted cameras that constantly record and have a range of up to 1.3 miles they also have pan/tilt date/time record are calibratted and are admissable in a court of law
or so may mates mate;) whose been banned tells me

do you think this could have any bearing on your position

my mates mate;) was clocked by said cameras in the rain at 930yds at 0333 on a sunday
was told would have got 3mth ban but as was unwilling to admit offence got 6mth ban:mad:
Click to expand...


No I didnt follow them at all
They can have a five mile range but they cant see around a corner and brick buildings !!!
 
spudy said:
unless you have independent witness's to the act at the time it occured which will freely stand up in court and state that the officer's statment is untrue and give their view of what happened i'm sorry to say but the law will stand by the law..

and as i said above your defence is full of hole's mate, you state that you saw the officer's car and so tried to pull in, but you also state it was impossible for him to have seen you..now this they will pull you up on as if you saw him the chance's are he saw you which think about it he obviously did has he followed and stopped you.

next bit to pull is that you stated that you was looking at the floods(wether he shortened it or not) you was within intention of traveling to the flooded area..if you had solid reason you would have given them at the time of the event not after a period of thought.

now if i was the prosicution i would ask you the same question cleverly reworded a few time's and see how you deviate from your original response to the question posed...quite like the good peep's of lz did and you have deviated it by a verying degree in place's from what i see which is what they are looking for...the truth never waivers from the truth, however a lie can be confused with a lie.

wether you are guilty or not is not for me to decide but i will say without a witness for your defence the courts will take the good standing of the officer over you in 99.9% of all case's

oh and btw it isent cos you drive a 4x4 either his job will have been to stop anyone going into a classifide danger area(the flood) to prevent anyone getting into a situation that may be dangerous not only to themselfs but to emergency service's that are needed to rescue...and you blatently(in his eye's) decided that this precution isent needed for you.
Click to expand...


His car was stationary at the the designated point on the map I came up behind him and turn left whilst he was parked. At no time was I followed by the oficer
Where the original road block was over half a mile away on that road consist of high risisng buildings and a serroius amount of bends and the furthest vision you may have would be no more than 200 yards to another building or a bend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
JLR indifference.
Replies
9
Views
933
lightning
lightning
D
Freelander 2 help required P0336
Replies
2
Views
659
Defender or wife
D
ryan_1993
Began the underseal removal off my 1999 300 Tdi
Replies
1
Views
261
tottot
tottot
T
Disco 2 03 Discovery 2 TD5 no start
Replies
8
Views
580
Anaconda
A
Bogdan V
Freelander 2 (LR2) Whining noise won't go away after replacing the power steering pump and steering rack
Replies
15
Views
1K
Bogdan V
Bogdan V