Harman

Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


WSR

webreader gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Of look, she was found guilty

No, she wasn't.

She pleaded guilty to DWDC&A.
The mobile phone charge was dropped.
She was never charged with not leaving her insurance details.

"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/

Er, she wasn't *found* guilty (by a jury, hearing the evidence). She
*pleaded* guilty, maybe in the hope of getting a lighter sentence than if
she denied it but was found guilty anyway.

It all seems very strange. Do the police really want to know about each and
every damage-only accident (or even no-damage accident, in this case) so
they can prosecute for DWDCA? Maybe the fact that it was alleged that she
was using her phone (a charge that was later dropped) tipped the balance in
them deciding to make an issue out of it instead of just saying "sort it out
with the other person's insurance".

When someone ran into the back of me at a roundabout, should have called the
police and said "Neither of us is injured, although my car is damaged. We've
exchanged insurance details. Everything is amicable - no-one's turned
violent. But I want her charged with DWDCA."?

"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


Which group?

"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


Was she found guilty of failing to stop at an accident and leave her
insurance details? Was she found guilty of using a mobile phone whilst
driving?

Road_Hog wrote:
"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


Was she found guilty of failing to stop at an accident and leave her
insurance details? Was she found guilty of using a mobile phone whilst
driving?

iirc she refused to leave her details at the time, which is a bit naughty.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
m...
Road_Hog wrote:
"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


Was she found guilty of failing to stop at an accident and leave her
insurance details? Was she found guilty of using a mobile phone whilst
driving?

iirc she refused to leave her details at the time, which is a bit naughty.

But she was never charged with that - not even charged but charges later
dropped, as for the mobile phone.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
m...
Road_Hog wrote:
"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


Was she found guilty of failing to stop at an accident and leave her
insurance details? Was she found guilty of using a mobile phone whilst
driving?

iirc she refused to leave her details at the time, which is a bit naughty.
Right, so next time I have an accident which is my fault, I'll just shout
out, "you know where to find me" and assume they know who I am and where I
live. And when plod catches up with me, I can say, yes, but it's not really
a crime is it, just a bit naughty, "can I go now"?

On 8 Jan, 14:53, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

m...

Road_Hog wrote:
"webreader" wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...ined-for-carel...

Was she found guilty of failing to stop at an accident and leave her
insurance details? Was she found guilty of using a mobile phone whilst
driving?

iirc she refused to leave her details at the time, which is a bit naughty.

But she was never charged with that - not even charged but charges later
dropped, as for the mobile phone.

to be fair, ITYF that her treatment is consistent with current police/
CPS guidelines .... it certainly seems average if you read your local
papers ...

On 08/01/2010 14:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
Road_Hog wrote:
wrote in message
...
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...5875-21951871/


Was she found guilty of failing to stop at an accident and leave her
insurance details? Was she found guilty of using a mobile phone whilst
driving?

iirc she refused to leave her details at the time, which is a bit naughty.

You are only legally required to leave details if third-party injury or
damage occurred.

--
Matt B