Sorry,that is what I was trying to say.
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
He will probably receive a summons in the post.
So why the sarcasm?
Originally Posted by Santa
All I was saying is how the process now works in some areas, i.e the officers now pass the offences to an office who decide on the course action. This is even the case clearly stated here by the op i.e he said he will write his report in my favour for the officer dealing.
So someone other then that that officer will be dealing and decide on the action.
You clearly know more than me.
I think I will leave it here and bid you all farewell.
All the best.
Last edited by Loony; 31-03-14 at 04:20.
There is no need for that, really, it's not always easy to write out what you mean, all the time. It's quite easy for misunderstandings, it's happened before and will happen again, now, as you were.
Quite true. It is much better to write another 'clarification' post and/or disagree without resorting to sarcasm. Just because MPs bicker like quarrelsome children does not mean we have to do likewise on this forum. I like the touch of the "upper crust" masters of dialogue in the Victorian era - they could decimate an adversary without either using crude language or raising their voices. We had a schoolmaster whose favourite expression, when really laying into a vexing pupil, would be, "Nothing personal, young man, and I'll even come to your parents' wedding".
Originally Posted by smudger
The problem is that Santa does not always know everything about the subject.
So it is a bit hard to take sarcasm from him when all I am doing is is giving the facts.
I make no such claim. I do, however, look stuff up, and use what small skills I have to pass correct information on.
In his post, the OP said - "The police officer said he should be giving a fixed noticed and this was an 'absolute crime' but he just cautioned us and said he's referring it to the prosecution office." My difficulty is the use of the word - caution. It seems to me that if he was given a caution, then that might be the end of the matter. However, if he is being reported, then he will certainly get a letter, but that may either be a NIP, or a stern warning not to do it again (Usually from the Chief Constable.)
You don't get a NIP for insurance offences. The officer will have given the standard caution - you do not have to say anything..... - once he decided there was evidence of an offence and to protect the OP as required by the courts.
Insurance offences are classed as 'absolute' because it is seen as a black or white situation i.e. either you have or you do not have insurance.
So when the officer gives a caution, this is indicating his suspicion an offence has been committed and then he will forward his report to a supervisor (in W. Yorks a sergeant who decides whether to continue the process or not) for a decision to pass for prosecution.
In Lincolnshire for many years road traffic offences, not requiring a NIP, were not required to have the caution given to drivers and this was accepted by the courts.
Hometune is right and I am wrong - sorry.
I don't know why a pit verbal nip.
I should have put verbal caution.
There would be no need for a nip as they have the drivers details from stopping with him.
I wouldn't rely on the internet to much.
Originally Posted by Santa
I also wouldn't be so quick to add sarcasm,when someone may know more than you.
As for your correct information.Have you not been corrected before on here?