Trailer tragedy

chester:

dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
looks like its everybodys turn to show you tonight…

do tell how you satisfy yourself the load inside a container is secure and fit for the road when it will be outside your remit as a driver to break the seal without prior permission…your digging a deeper hole with this one sonny… :laughing:

It’s really quite simple…

You get permission!
and if consigner, consignee, pointy shoe boy refuse or bob on the FLT don’t allow you then refuse the load.
It really is that simple.
Jees get a spine and protect your livelihoods

^^^^^^^^^^^^
so every driver lifting a loaded box from whatever port docks should refuse to leave the dock or loading point unless the office ect gives him specific permission to break the seal so he can check the contents of the box to ensure blablabla…you really have not the slightest clue in the world to the extent that every single post just makes you more of a laughing stock.
there is a case where if the box is tilting the trailer over 30 degrees or so on the 1 side,or if its on its knees at the front.
at that point it may be prudent to take things further,but apart from that aspect,then you really are just trolling out of your jacksie.

your mums going to be cross if she finds out you have been on tinterweb under the blankets when your meant to be sleeping,or are you getting allowed a late night cos the clocks go back on a saturday?

you wouldnt need to wait too long before looking for another job…its always been more an obvious you have no concept of road haulage .

moomooland:

dieseldog999:
it couldnt possibly,but how do you know he bounced down?

On both Sky News and the Mail Online.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sorry,i dont watch live tv,and from what ive read online it never said he bounced down as my spies over here tell a somewhat varied story. :wink:
would anyone else care to do a tncsi on the latest dude to get his collar felt in dublin after throwing his phone away and spending a few days in france??

belfastlive.co.uk/news/belf … r-17153090

in true style of life in the land that time forgot,then heres belfast news version of events which are completely different from everyone elses…
belfastlive.co.uk/news/belf … d-17132277

England is England and doesn’t include Scotland, Wales or any part of Ireland.
The United Kingdom includes
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain is the big island containing England Scotland and Wales.
The British Isles are the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and the smaller ones.
The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles archipelago, but are a British Crown Dependency.
.
Easy to mix up geographic, political, and cultural terms and names.
.
And humans are genetically 60% banana, 96% chimpanzee, and the other 4% is all mixed up, so isn’t really worth arguing over.
.

nightline:
So so far its all your own who are involved, English subjects exploiting foreign people for money even putting them to death
That’s the way it reads and looks northern Ireland is uk so shame on the uk with this happening on there own door step
You can dress it up as you wish but it’s uk citizens who did this not Irish
Your [zb] living with dogs and [zb] heads shame on anyone who even slightly knows them

Why have you brought a load of unnecessary sectarian crap into this?

I can’t see anywhere anyone’s been going on about it all being down to the republic.

dieseldog999:

bald bloke:

Wheel Nut:
It’s times like this when I miss Limeyphil the most! [emoji14]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:smiley: :wink:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if woody gets banged up with limey phil then itl be phil gettting the bed nearest the door as he will deffo be out first… :slight_smile:

If he does get convicted it’ll be interesting to see how the sentences compare.

nightline:
So so far its all your own who are involved, English subjects exploiting foreign people for money even putting them to death
That’s the way it reads and looks northern Ireland is uk so shame on the uk with this happening on there own door step
You can dress it up as you wish but it’s uk citizens who did this not Irish
Your [zb] living with dogs and [zb] heads shame on anyone who even slightly knows them

Last time I looked County Offaly has not been part of the United Kingdom since 1921

Franglais:
England is England and doesn’t include Scotland, Wales or any part of Ireland.
The United Kingdom includes
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain is the big island containing England Scotland and Wales.
The British Isles are the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and the smaller ones.
The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles archipelago, but are a British Crown Dependency.
.
Easy to mix up geographic, political, and cultural terms and names.
.
And humans are genetically 60% banana, 96% chimpanzee, and the other 4% is all mixed up, so isn’t really worth arguing over.
.

So that explains why it says ‘United kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland’ on a British Passport.
That’s not a question, it’s just backing up your answer.
Btw, not sure I’m 60% Banana.

Geoffo:

Franglais:
England is England and doesn’t include Scotland, Wales or any part of Ireland.
The United Kingdom includes
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain is the big island containing England Scotland and Wales.
The British Isles are the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and the smaller ones.
The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles archipelago, but are a British Crown Dependency.
.
Easy to mix up geographic, political, and cultural terms and names.
.
And humans are genetically 60% banana, 96% chimpanzee, and the other 4% is all mixed up, so isn’t really worth arguing over.
.

So that explains why it says ‘United kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland’ on a British Passport.
That’s not a question, it’s just backing up your answer.
Btw, not sure I’m 60% Banana.

No.
But you are 60% water.
.
[emoji5]

chester:

muckles:

chester:
Feel free to correct me if Iam wrong, but isn’t it a driver’s responsibility to check vehicle and load is suitable for the public highway.

Bonus points awarded to the first numpty who says “you can’t always check your load because of a seal”

Although they are ultimately responsible, a driver isn’t required to physically check the vehicle or the load, they are part of the chain of people responsible for the safety and suitability of both. Therefore they can face prosecution for either being unsafe, but alternative systems and audit trails can be used as mitigating circumstances.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785463/guide-to-maintaining-roadworthiness-commercial-goods-and-passenger-carrying-vehicles.pdf

Daily walkaround checks

This section looks at the daily walkaround check. It offers best practice advice on setting up a system for reporting faults and looks at defect reports, while clearly stating your legal position.

A driver or responsible person must undertake a daily walkaround check before a vehicle is used. As a driver, DVSA recommend this check is carried out before you first drive the vehicle on the road each day.

Where more than one driver will use the vehicle during the day’s running, the driver taking charge of a vehicle should make sure it is roadworthy and safe to drive by carrying out their own walkaround check; however, due to health and safety implications this may not be practical on all occasions.

An example of a system for managing in-service driver changes is where a walkaround check is carried out by a responsible person, and the drivers monitor the vehicle during the day’s running.

Laws enforced by DVSA on load security

Regulation 100 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 – SI 1986 No 1078 “Maintenance and use of vehicle so as not to be a danger, etc.”
(1) A motor vehicle, every trailer drawn thereby and all parts and accessories of such vehicle and trailer shall at all times be in such condition, and the number of passengers carried by such vehicle or trailer, the manner in which any passengers are carried in or on such vehicle or trailer, and the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load of such vehicle or trailer shall at all times be such that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person in or on the vehicle or trailer or on a road.

Provided that the provisions of this Regulation with regard to the number of passengers carried shall not apply to a vehicle to which the Public Services Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984(a) apply.

(2) The load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at all times be so secured, if necessary by physical restraint other than its own weight, and be in such a position, that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused to any person or property by reason of the load or any part thereof falling or being blown from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or any part thereof in relation to the vehicle.

(3) No motor vehicle or trailer shall be used for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause or be likely to cause danger or nuisance to any person in or on the vehicle or trailer or on a road.”

Regulation 40A of the Road Traffic Act1988 introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991
40 A. A Person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle
or trailer on a road when:
(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,
is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.

So both the consignor and operator can face prosecution for load security offences.

No mention of physically checking the load, even when the driver isn’t present during loading, relevant parts from 2:12.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoVXOJXbMe4&t=109s

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411093/safetyloadsonvehicles.pdf

12.9 Incorrect loading of a container may result in dangerous situations occurring when the container is handled or transported; which could adversely affect the stability of the vehicle. In addition serious damage may be caused to the goods carried. In many instances the driver will have no control over the packing of a container nor be able to inspect its contents when he accepts it for carriage. If it is apparent that the container has not been safely loaded then it should not be accepted.

15.13 A particular problem of responsibility arises from drivers who have not been involved in the loading of dangerous goods, for example when collecting loaded and sealed freight containers for movement to ports for sea shipment. Drivers should assume that the load inside the container has been made secure, unless they have a good reason to believe otherwise, for example if leaking liquid appears from under the doors, or if noises are heard which would indicate the shifting of cargo inside. In such an event, the driver should stop the journey, and take action to have the inside of the container inspected before proceeding.

Securing loads on HGVs and goods vehicles - Guidance - GOV.UK

Involve drivers in the loading process if possible

If the drivers do not load the vehicle ideally they should be given the opportunity to observe the competent person loading the vehicle.

If it’s not appropriate for the drivers to watch the loading then they should be given information about how the load has been secured and/or given the chance to check the load prior to departure.

If a driver isn’t happy with how the load is secured or how stable it is, you should make sure that the load is:

assessed by a competent person
reloaded or resecured if necessary

Show me where I said a driver has to “physically” check the load?
I would say however, a driver has to be satisfied his load and vehicle meet legal standards before venturing onto the public highway.

I didn’t say you had said that, the reason I specifically said physically check the load and the vehicle was to differentiate it from having other systems in place, which according to the DVSA are also acceptable.

Just so we can be clear, what is your method for satisfying yourself that your load meets legal standards before you take your truck onto the public roads?

nightline:
If you’re part of the uk you are English simple they might believe they think they are not but they are

The stupid is strong in this one.

chester:

Franglais:
Is your Google broke?
Dvsa load security

I have, and nowhere does it say DVSA are happy that if you can’t check your load, it’s ok as long as you know who loaded it.

"Involve drivers in the loading process if possible
If the drivers do not load the vehicle ideally they should be given the opportunity to observe the competent person loading the vehicle.

If it’s not appropriate for the drivers to watch the loading then they should be given information about how the load has been secured and/or given the chance to check the load prior to departure."
gov.uk/government/publicati … r-guidance

Same page refers to
op.europa.eu/en/publication-det … 34b43edd7e
p11.
"Respnsibilities/Actions related to driving

  1. visual inspection of the outside of the vehicle and of the cargo if accessible to check for evident unsafe situations
  2. regular checks of cargo securing during the transport journey as far as accessible"

Highlights are mine.

This is in addition to the excellent posts and links of Muckles.


3. regular checks of cargo securing during the transport journey as far as accessible"

Highlights are mine.

This is in addition to the excellent posts and links of Muckles.
[/quote]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the reality of your accessibility starts and ends at the unopened back doors of the container if it is sealed. unless its leaning over or lying down somewhere and you take instruction from those higher up the food chain.

or am i wrong in every form of normal practice in container related road transport?

If a driver turns up at the port to collect a trailer he has never used, has no idea what is inside it, has no idea who loaded it then he can pop the seal to satisfy himself that load and trailer is safe, sound and legal for the public highway.

Why can you not grasp this!

Yes he may have to get permission in the first instance, but ultimately the decision lies with the driver, if he wants it open, than he can go through the process to open the doors, or to break the seal,

chester:
If a driver turns up at the port to collect a trailer he has never used, has no idea what is inside it, has no idea who loaded it then he can pop the seal to satisfy himself that load and trailer is safe, sound and legal for the public highway.

Why can you not grasp this!

A driver, in the normal run of things, will NOT “turns up at the port to collect a trailer he has never used, has no idea what is inside it, has no idea who loaded it”.
Normally the driver will be given the trailer references and relevant paperwork. Maybe by phone, email, whatever or by taking paperwork from a tube attached to the trailer.
NO ONE in the normal run of things will pick up a trailer with no idea of what is inside or where it is going.
The company giving the work to the driver will know where it was loaded, and (maybe not knowing if Tom or Jerry was the forkie) who loaded it. There is a chain of responsibility here.

In your world is the driver totally responsible for all the load?
Should he open the doors? He`ll only see the back two pallets. So, should he climb over the load to ensure the front pallets touch the headboard?
What if a box in the middle layer of the third pallet from the head board has drugs in it? Is it his fault for not offloading every pallet and examining the contents of each and every carton?

If you want to “pop the seal” on a bonded load of tobacco or booze, good luck to you mate!

muckles:

Winseer:
If we leave the EU single market, and control our borders - there won’t be any further point for any illegals trying to get to Britain, since there would be checks upon everything, rather than just a small sample of routinely “waved through” road freight, which continues to be the case at present…

They don’t check every vehicle and container coming into the UK from outside the EU, so why would they check everything coming from the EU after Brexit?

Following Brexit, as we’re leaving the single market - we won’t be needing or sending ANYTHING to the EU any longer, so what purposes can any continuing freight have - other than to “run the gauntlet” then?
Traffic levels through customs - should drop back significantly. Less traffic makes it easier and quieter to check a far higher percentage of that traffic there and then. Patrol vehicles can also routinely “follow” some traffic that has apparently been waved through, to see “what they do next” that might be "making an unscheduled stop in a layby/industrial estate… This would also create a LOT of jobs for those migrants already here (that are not going to be deported, let’s face it…) looking for a job that makes use of their presumably bi-lingual skills at very least…

How would you organise the logistics and how many staff and how much space do you think you’d need to check every vehicle just entering through Dover?

Winseer:
A future UK government outside the control of “Yuman Rights Laws” - could also save the lives or any hapless “trafficed” individuals - by stating as a worldwide decree “Future migrants to the UK legally, or illegally - don’t get housed, don’t get benefits, and are deported at the earliest opportunity every time, should they not have a job lined up upon arrival”.

If you only get state assistance if you are here legally, that is as a refugee or seeking asylum, by the very nature of being here illegally your presence and/or whereabouts is not known by the state, therefore you won’t get benefits or housing as you don’t exist on the system, these people and especially those exploiting them don’t want the state to know they’re here, they want them to work illegally, they can control them by telling them they’ll be deported if they go to the authorities.

Whats annoying here, is that when the authorities “capture” the latest batch of illegals, - they effectively become “legal” from that point on, simply because they are not immediately punished for being criminals. They are no longer “smuggler contraband” even - but “yumans with full rights”. The moment that transition happens - they have effectively “made it past the winning post”. NOT a good system, that is heavily tilted in favour of Non-EU AND Non-Caucasian illegal migrants, as it is. There is also a hint (as in this case) that “White, EU Drivers” are less prone to being “randomly pulled over” by the authorities, which in turn - has probably contributed towards the culture of “trafficism” that we now see about the EU, as apparently endemic as knife crime in Khaaan’s London right now.

Winseer:
We cannot enact such a law until we’ve left the EU jurisdiction/laws - BUT such a law WOULD save countless lives of those people who, in future - would find another country “in between” their nation of origion and the UK - to “find their promised land there” at hmm?

Human rights laws are not part of EU legislation, The ECHR has 47 countries signed up to it and is not and EU organisation, then the are UN agreements on treatment of Asylum Seekers, or are we going to leave the World as well?

We cannot leave the ECHR without the proscription of the EU upon our heads - but we CAN once we’ve left the EU. It is all a question of “Political Will”, which these days - seems more and more to exist among the voting public - but NOT among those who stand to be elected BY that public. That will change though, I suggest.

Winseer:
The current system we have - is an utter joke.

Yep, the system stinks, there are no doubt people here illegally, working in virtual slavery, but years of cuts to public services means we don’t have the Police and Border Agency officials to raid the places that might be employing these people or housing them. So while there isn’t a great risk in getting caught with illegal workers, people carry on reaping the rewards and traffickers have a ready market.
“Having no money” is the EU and Labour’s fault - Not the Conservatives for cutting because “sorry there’s no money” which has always been the historical case when Labour lose power. Brexit, and the Immigration topic that goes with it - should and could have been a “golden goose” for our politicians, but it is they who have turned it into a political football, when it need not have become one. I’ll start listening to the rants of wealthy champagne socialists - once they “give up all they have, and follow their own creed”. I want to see mansion owners - putting up syrian refugees, millionaires opting to pay full taxes, instead of using tax offsets, and the National Insurance system - being totally replaced by a “non-maskable income tax”. This favours the poor, and forces the seriously wealthy to pay extra for it. Never seems to happen during ANY mainstream government though - does it?

Winseer:
People dying inside a trailer that are well-heeled enough to both pay the trafficers thousands for their illegal passage, and able to afford mobile phones to make “final statements” to… Relatives living in the UK?
That would suggest that this “pipeline” is in fact a known transport method, with UK residents “expecting” further relatives to “make it to the UK” via that particular trafficing route - wouldn’t it?

Bust the trafficers, and prevent further “trafficing” by other criminal transport firms - by the implementation of strict border controls, customs points, and of course criminal bankrupcty proceedings (a rarely-used UK law) to extract the full measure of reparation from these clearly larger and more organized criminal gangs, operating with fairly large firms as a “front” like some latter-day Bond Villain.

All easily possible in Post-Brexit Britain. It would need to be a No Deal Brexit, of course. Migrant Lives, Money, and our Nation to be saved here. What’s “not-to-like”?

The laws are already in place to tackle traffickers and those employing illegal workers, but not the staff to carry out the searches.

Winseer:
“Waving them through” - clearly didn’t save their lives, and encourages other criminals to cash in on our lax borders, security, and continuing membership of the over-liberal EU

Again, down to our under investment in public services, not the EU.

Should Boris deliver No Deal this week - there will be plenty of money for ALL of that and I suspect, the political declarations to spend that money straight away on not just 20,000 extra police - but also a similar bloating of our “border control” sector, if you will. If Boris fails to deliver No Deal, then plenty of the 17.4m will be voting Brexit Party instead, past caring if it “lets in corbyn” by this point. At least Corbyn throwing borrowed money at everything - would crush the pound to such an extent that the debts of the poor get wiped out eh? Come to that, I don’t think foreign nations, including the EU would exactly be queueing up to lend a future corbyn government money on the very low interest rate terms that prevail these days… Corbyn - would at very least, be forced to drop all his “re-nationalization plans” for a start, thus losing voters from the word go… I predict that voters being “no longer scared of Corbyn” - will be the most devestating blow to the Labour party in our lifetimes at the coming election. Labour Leavers - might already be on the verge of “voting Brexit Party”, especially with Farage’s latest round of attacking Boris… It would make sense for Labour Leave voters to tactically vote BP in those places where the Tories are the incubment with Labour third or fourth OR The Tories second to a Libdem incumbent eh?? They might even prefer a BP MP to a Far-Remainer MP in their Far-Brexit seat as well of course?

The bottom line is though (getting back on topic) that “controlling our borders” in advance - would save countless lives - but requires the shackles of the EU to be taken off, so we can work more closely with the French in particular - in bringing the “migrant crisis” to an END - not just in Britain - but all around Europe.

Franglais:

chester:
If a driver turns up at the port to collect a trailer he has never used, has no idea what is inside it, has no idea who loaded it then he can pop the seal to satisfy himself that load and trailer is safe, sound and legal for the public highway.

Why can you not grasp this!

A driver, in the normal run of things, will NOT “turns up at the port to collect a trailer he has never used, has no idea what is inside it, has no idea who loaded it”.
Normally the driver will be given the trailer references and relevant paperwork. Maybe by phone, email, whatever or by taking paperwork from a tube attached to the trailer.
NO ONE in the normal run of things will pick up a trailer with no idea of what is inside or where it is going.
The company giving the work to the driver will know where it was loaded, and (maybe not knowing if Tom or Jerry was the forkie) who loaded it. There is a chain of responsibility here.

In your world is the driver totally responsible for all the load?
Should he open the doors? He`ll only see the back two pallets. So, should he climb over the load to ensure the front pallets touch the headboard?
What if a box in the middle layer of the third pallet from the head board has drugs in it? Is it his fault for not offloading every pallet and examining the contents of each and every carton?

If you want to “pop the seal” on a bonded load of tobacco or booze, good luck to you mate!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+1
in the reality of chester postings being obvious that the dude has to be without any idea whatsoever then he must have a dad or uncle that drives a truck.
otherwise you cant educate pork applies.

Benjie83:
Couple of questions I’d like to raise if I may to the chiller pros…

Firstly, Is it usual practice for a chiller to be used for anything other than chilled/frozen goods?

I mean it’s gonna look dodgy if the consignment notes say pallets of durex, yet she’s set to minus 25, and sealed up.
I mean don’t get me wrong I’ve wished for some pre chilled rubber over the friction stick in my time but it’s a bit odd.

Secondly, now surely 39 bodies are gonna add some weight to the trailer, and as yet no mention of cargo/amount I’ve seen…?
Which leads me to wonder if he noticed it were maybe feeling odd, so if empty apart from the pour souls in it, I’d presume passed at time of movement maybe they were causing a issues…
Or it felt heavier and so he felt it best to pull up somewhere quiet and check as if you know the Essex area it’s a vosa picknic spot, and being a young OD, nice rig, unusual registration process of wagon, and him being from across the shores maybe he just panicked as I’m sure Alot of us would and dived down a bolt hole before getting potentially crucified.
Now you may say Ooooh he went and hid, he’s guilty but I’m sorry to say if my home, job, income maybe at stake I’d be having a panic too, especially if i knew I’m done for regardless due to the bollox of law, and maybe he simply were tired and overlooked the obvious…
So it’s now a case of damage limitations…

Thirdly, I’m no expert on how long one of these needs to be running when empty to get it to the required temp for say its next load, but I’d assume not long IF empty, and would it be pre sealed for hygiene reasons even when empty if it were say going to be used for specialist goods like pharmaceuticals?

Alot of missing pieces in this case, like Where’s he been since coming over for a Bob tail session and all the other variations to the tale.

I feel press have been bang outta line plastering him out there, as at end of the day if he is guilty of anything it would have been made public in time, but as of yet…(unless the dark forces know otherwise or are playing otherwise…)…

Lads innocent till proven and should be treated as such.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

Fridges are used as said for anything and everything. Either a single or dual temp setup. Dual temp has a bulkhead so you can have say frozen at the front of the trailer set to minus 25 and say ambient at in our case 16° for our food product. Temp is set by the consignee as to what it should be set too.

So it would only be obvious if is stated frozen goods yet the temp or temps were not set to frozen.

An empty fridge will take longer to get to its set temp than a loaded fridge, the more space is taken up by the load the quicker it will reach the set temp.

Also where he opened the trailer is an odd one, right outside an old DHL depot that is no ljbher in use, probably one of the quieter areas around thay estate, but only a spitting distance from the 24hr big blue food bus where drivers congregate and also where all the idiot boy racers meet and drive like lunatics around that road every night pretty much. There is quite a decent amount of traffic flow around there.

So if the plan was to open the trailer and let the people out to be collected then it would be an odd place to do it where people may see things. You’d think you’d choose the quietest spot going.

As always the news reports get mixed and muddled by people. Around Purfleet it is common knowledge of minbusses waiting to collect illegals beijf smuggled in but I don’t think Eastern Avenue is one of this places, its just too busy in my eyes.

As for the whole seal business, it’s your right as a driver to know what’s being hauled and that it’s been loaded and restrained suitably before moving the trailer. The only sensible option is to have it opened at the port by officials and re sealed by them. Customs can inspect the trailer and reseal it and loads don’t get rejected as long as there is paperwork for doing so.

We have inbound loads coming in from Europe, and every one stays sealed until it goes on our bay, however some have been opened and resealed at ports for customs checks.

Paperwork is often tucked into the last pallets by thr Irish drivers that come into our place to collect loads from us for Ireland. We seal them up before they leave and I guarantee those seals will be broken before they get to the destination.

When we were dropping them at Liverpool docks the paperwork was always put in the back of the trailer and sealed.

The containers we take to Dirft are always sealed with a bolt, when we collect an empty or returned load there is a set of bolt cutters at the exit gate for you to remove the seal and check the contents or that it’s empty.

Practises will vary from company to company and probably port to port, but as the driver its your responsibility once you hook up to it, to ensure its safe to travel and that includes checking the oad for security and it’s safe to travel. It really is odd that so many drivers will happily collect something they have no knowledge of its safety.

Lots of people with there opinions on the driver and others arrested. But as far as I understand he has been charged now from news reports, which means the CPS believe there is enough evidence to charge and take it to court. It doesn’t automatically mean he is guilty and is one of the downfalls of our amazing justice system.

If enough evidence points your way you can be found guilty by a jury even when innocent, which is why sometimes innocent people go to jail for crimes they did not commit. Thankfully its probably rare it happens but it does happen.

you can bet your bottom dollar that well before now,his family will have been contacted and told exactly what will happen to them/him if he does or does not take the rap.
he has got to be looking at 14 or 15 years and out in 7 or 8 at most as even though on principal you would like to think him an unwitting prawn in the game,then theres a mountain of circumstantial looks like its about to smother him,plus the media attention and pc brigade will make sure the judge crucifies him.
if he plays ball with the boys,then his family will be financially well looked after with a lump sum also available when he comes back out for being a good boy and keeping quiet.
unfortunately in his case,i fear he got charged with murder to rattle him into grassing anyone he could,so they could reduce the charge before the court appearance hence so many arrested so soon.
…as usual,it passes the time speculating on here as its all supposition and itl come out in court.

you have to love the belfastlive news media as they are still saying the journey started in belfast where he took the trailer loaded with illegals down to dublin/holyhead and then on to essex…so much for accurate news reporting. :slight_smile:

nightline:
If you’re part of the uk you are English simple they might believe they think they are not but they are

By a country mile, that is by far the stupidest thing ive seen posted in a long long time

The-Snowman:

nightline:
If you’re part of the uk you are English simple they might believe they think they are not but they are

By a country mile, that is by far the stupidest thing ive seen posted in a long long time

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
so we now know that you have dozy,chester and jts on your block list then?? :laughing: