iank
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
I'm sure she started out denying it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8447784.stm
... oh yes, she did
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8289159.stm
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 11:24 AM |
|
|
Its on Sky news atm
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 11:52 AM |
|
|
yeah but she was denying that she drove away without leaving details based on some witness statement.
But the first article says that charge was dropped once it had been established that she had infact left them.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
paul the 6th
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
£15 victim charge as well, bonus 
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
It all seems a bit odd, ok she hit someones car whilst parking or exiting, if there was no damage, no injuries, no insurance claims what is the
problem?
I'm sure any of us not 'in the public eye' folk, in a similar situation would feel pretty narked at getting a £90 fine and 3 points.
I think attempts were made to make an example of her, but an example of what?
Maybe there's more than meets the eye.....
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 12:18 PM |
|
|
It's presumably using the mobile phone that lead to the 'driving without due care and attention' conviction and fine. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Daddylonglegs
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
Sorry r1_pete, but if the law says I cannot use the phone even if I'm parked in a lay-by but with the engine running then how is reversing the
car whilst on the phone any different. I would be knarked, you're right, but then I never use the phone whilst driving unless it's on
bluetooth. If it's that important they'll ring again.
Moan over
JB
It looks like the Midget is winning at the moment......
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
makes nit odds, we'll end up paying as she'll claim it on expenses.
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daddylonglegs
Sorry r1_pete, but if the law says I cannot use the phone even if I'm parked in a lay-by but with the engine running then how is reversing the
car whilst on the phone any different. I would be knarked, you're right, but then I never use the phone whilst driving unless it's on
bluetooth. If it's that important they'll ring again.
Moan over
JB
If she'd been done for using the phone, I would agree, but that was dropped....
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
Just noticed that bit! Getting a DWDCA and £440 just for a no-damage 'parking incident' does indeed seem a little harsh!
|
|
|
