This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■? 
Ched:
This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■?
This topic has got to be the best larf on here of all time.
To quote exactly, the R2 reporter said that the police said “… they have no concerns that it was illegally driven …” (in terms of tax and insurance) and “it wasn’t being driven illegally”. I presume those statements are true but who knows? They are certainly after him for something more than driving without due care and attention. If the police can’t ascertain the facts, the insurers will be able to determine who’s liable and it’s Mr Red Mist who will be paying in some way. I’m sure they know who it is by now anyway with all the publicity. I don’t believe there’s anything racially-motivated about this attack - it’s just OTT road rage. The guy should’ve been laid out when he got on the step (self-defence) but probably it’s for the best that’s as far as the escalation went.
Snudger:
To quote exactly, the R2 reporter said that the police said “… they have no concerns that it was illegally driven …” (in terms of tax and insurance) and “it wasn’t being driven illegally”. I presume those statements are true but who knows? They are certainly after him for something more than driving without due care and attention. If the police can’t ascertain the facts, the insurers will be able to determine who’s liable and it’s Mr Red Mist who will be paying in some way. I’m sure they know who it is by now anyway with all the publicity. I don’t believe there’s anything racially-motivated about this attack - it’s just OTT road rage. The guy should’ve been laid out when he got on the step (self-defence) but probably it’s for the best that’s as far as the escalation went.
And if his boss won’t tell the plod who the driver was they can’t even say that, as he may not have a valid driving licence , or be disqualified , and the boss man will be looking at a fine and as it’s a hgv maybe a visit to the tc for tea and a chat about his o licence
Ched:
This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■?
Can some one please explain .
If plod were looking to fine this guy for speeding, is it ALSO the choice of the employer wether or not they tell plod who was driving at the time??
I thought they (the employer) would be legally obliged to disclose who was driving in either circumstances weather for this incident or anything else?
Gembo:
Ched:
This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■?Can some one please explain .
If plod were looking to fine this guy for speeding, is it ALSO the choice of the employer whether or not they tell plod who was driving at the time??
I thought they (the employer) would be legally obliged to disclose who was driving in either circumstances weather for this incident or anything else?
Back in the day if you had to drivers in a 3.5 t van, and it was snapped by a speed camera, the boss could say he doesn’t know which of the two drivers in it was driving at the time, they couldn’t do both as only one could be driving at the time, iirc they would then fine the boss instead ,(no points) but i think they changed the law since then
This offender deliberately damaged the lorry by using his vehicle to ram the other, and then by using a shovel , he also assaulted another driver So there are criminal offences forget the motoring offences why are the MSM going on about speeding and other crap , the employer i think should find himself being questioned under caution at a police stn if he comes i don’t know him or not telling you, whilst the police search his office for details of employees because once arrested and in custody on suspicion of something they can search your home /office without a warrant
A big fuss over handbags if you ask me.
Ched:
This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■?
Yes, it’s true. Different laws apply to those working in the drive tarmacking industry. 
Snudger:
To quote exactly, the R2 reporter said that the police said “… they have no concerns that it was illegally driven …” (in terms of tax and insurance) and “it wasn’t being driven illegally”.
Well for a start, it is illegal to drive a vehicle in reverse gear at any point on a motorway.
Harry Monk:
Ched:
This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■?Yes, it’s true. Different laws apply to those working in the drive tarmacking industry.
Aye, obviously.
So in future then , if plod asks employer who was driving at the time of an offence, they’ll just let you off if you don’t wana tell em!
truckerjimbo:
WATCH IT AGAIN.WATCH THE GOLD PHONE!!! There is more to this!!
WATCH THE GOLD PHONE!!!
Shouldn`t have done what he did but the truck driver has taken his phone.
You could well be right ‘truckerjimbo’
But But But … If the Coop driver kept the violent guy’s phone then surely there would be enough evidence on the phone ( calling history, contacts etc ) to identify the owner of the phone.
Or do you think, in that struggle, that the violent guy managed to grab his phone back?
Turbovision:
truckerjimbo:
WATCH IT AGAIN.WATCH THE GOLD PHONE!!! There is more to this!!
WATCH THE GOLD PHONE!!!
Shouldn`t have done what he did but the truck driver has taken his phone.
You could well be right ‘truckerjimbo’
But But But … If the Coop driver kept the violent guy’s phone then surely there would be enough evidence on the phone ( calling history, contacts etc ) to identify the owner of the phone.
Or do you think, in that struggle, that the violent guy managed to grab his phone back?
nut bar seems to back off quick after he leant into the wagons cab after smashing the window. I reckon he got the phone back before he buggered off.
Am I right in thinking, if the vehicle is only used for builders type work and within a 50 mile radius then it won’t need a tacho ? (and may be driver also dont need dcpc?) So could it be possible for an owner employing a great many people to genuinely not know who was driving it, is there any requirements to keep copies of peoples driving licences etc ?. If it was my business I would know who it was.
Also, is it not law now that you have to have full records of everyone you employ so as to prevent the employment of illegals ?
I am sure the police could trace this person if they really wanted to - all very peculiar!
Harry Monk:
Snudger:
To quote exactly, the R2 reporter said that the police said “… they have no concerns that it was illegally driven …” (in terms of tax and insurance) and “it wasn’t being driven illegally”.Well for a start, it is illegal to drive a vehicle in reverse gear at any point on a motorway.
Good point, though in this case that particular offence is rather minor considering the rest. Still, the police were allegedly technically wrong.
Harry Monk:
Ched:
This was on Vine earlier. Apparently happened 3 weeks ago. The police traced the owner of the 7.5T, but the owner has refused to name who was driving and the police can’t force the owner to name the driver because “the driver hadn’t done anything illegal” … really■■?Yes, it’s true. Different laws apply to those working in the drive tarmacking industry.
i heard 2 macodougalls getting charged a while ago…1st one,whats your address…answers no fixed abode…2nd one,whats your address…answers…upstairs from my mate here…
if theyre diddycoys,then he will be back in galway for the winter…
plain truck with motorway maintenance speaks volumes…usually they have a mobile no on the side to make them really super legal and bona fide.
they caught an old lady we know a while ago after her man died and the garden was getting overgrown…
white van,mobile no on the side.2 macodougalls…this new formula weedkiller will stop weeds for 10 years…theres your warranty with the mobile number.we will spray your entire garden for £500 cash…itl take a week to start working…so she paid them,and they sprayed her garden with water and vanished…( the weeds didnt)…
Gembo:
Aye, obviously.
So in future then , if plod asks employer who was driving at the time of an offence, they’ll just let you off if you don’t wana tell em!
Only if you say “to be sure, to be sure” at the end of every sentence. 
Harry Monk:
Gembo:
Aye, obviously.
So in future then , if plod asks employer who was driving at the time of an offence, they’ll just let you off if you don’t wana tell em!Only if you say “to be sure, to be sure” at the end of every sentence.
So it is.
Harry Monk:
Gembo:
Aye, obviously.
So in future then , if plod asks employer who was driving at the time of an offence, they’ll just let you off if you don’t wana tell em!Only if you say “to be sure, to be sure” at the end of every sentence.
or
you are only picking on me because im a muslim…standard rules apply there…
Harry Monk:
Gembo:
Aye, obviously.
So in future then , if plod asks employer who was driving at the time of an offence, they’ll just let you off if you don’t wana tell em!Only if you say “to be sure, to be sure” at the end of every sentence.
dieseldog999:
Harry Monk:
Gembo:
Aye, obviously.
So in future then , if plod asks employer who was driving at the time of an offence, they’ll just let you off if you don’t wana tell em!Only if you say “to be sure, to be sure” at the end of every sentence.
or
you are only picking on me because im a muslim…standard rules apply there…
To be fair the miscreant does look like he’s ethnically native of a part of the Emerald Isle that’s well South of Istanbul in that case. 