 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: NMNM Date: Oct 2, 2006 09:03
I'm up before the beak on a dubious charge which they will have trouble
proving if they apply the rules of the real world.
I was put under a lot of pressure to plead guilty (and pay) even as far
as to offer me a one third penalty discount if I pleaded guilty,
I made my views quite plain about this being an example of indirect
taxation with justice having absolutly nothing to do with it, a view
not endorsed by the magistrate though he did seem somewhat embarressed.
They came as close as they could to insisting I employ a solicitor but
when I made it plain that I would only be interested in permitting
their mates to plunge their noses in the trough if the public was
paying the feed costs they lost interest rapidly. in fact they became
quite rude.
|
| Show full article (1.31Kb) |
|
| | 87 Comments |
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Oct 2, 2006 09:26
"NM" wrote in message
> I'm up before the beak on a dubious charge which they will have trouble
> proving if they apply the rules of the real world.
>
> I was put under a lot of pressure to plead guilty (and pay) even as far
> as to offer me a one third penalty discount if I pleaded guilty,
>
> I made my views quite plain about this being an example of indirect
> taxation with justice having absolutly nothing to do with it, a view
> not endorsed by the magistrate though he did seem somewhat embarressed.
>
> They came as close as they could to insisting I employ a solicitor but
> when I made it plain that I would only be interested in permitting
> their mates to plunge their noses in the trough if the public was
> paying the feed costs they lost interest rapidly. in fact they became
> quite rude.
>
> Funtime stars on the 13thish I have alway fancied being Perry Mason so
> I'm going for it, they have allocated 3 hours of court time I shall
> make it a mission to ensure it goes into the next day after all I've ...
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: NMNM Date: Oct 2, 2006 09:56
>>
>
> And the alleged offence was?
>
> Ian
Using a vehicle which may cause a danger.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: NMNM Date: Oct 2, 2006 10:16
Adrian wrote:
> NM (nik.morgan@ mac.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
> >>> And the alleged offence was?
>
>> Using a vehicle which may cause a danger.
>
> ....?
Exactly, a charge which emerged after 45 minutes of interregation and
nothing else to fall back on. As we know loosing face is unacceptable
behaviour in a police officer.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Nick FinniganNick Finnigan Date: Oct 2, 2006 11:31
NM wrote:
> I'm up before the beak on a dubious charge which they will have trouble
> proving if they apply the rules of the real world.
Is this the next chapter of one of your tales from a few months back?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Oct 2, 2006 12:22
>
>>>
>>
>> And the alleged offence was?
>>
>> Ian
>
> Using a vehicle which may cause a danger.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: NMNM Date: Oct 2, 2006 15:58
nightjar wrote:
> "Adrian" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9850BA86D42D2adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170...>> NM (nik.morgan@ mac.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying :
>> >>>>>> And the alleged offence was?
>>
>>>>> Using a vehicle which may cause a danger.
>>
>>>> ....?
>>
>>> Exactly, a charge which emerged after 45 minutes of interregation and
>>> nothing else to fall back on. As we know loosing face is unacceptable
>>> behaviour in a police officer.
>>
>> I was suggesting you might like to provide a little more detail...
>
> Indeed. That charge could cover anything from a vehicle that is coming
> unstitched at the seams to not covering the propeller on an outboard motor ...
|
| Show full article (1.84Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Oct 3, 2006 00:09
>
> nightjar wrote:
>> "Adrian" gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9850BA86D42D2adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170...>>> NM (nik.morgan@ mac.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying :
>>> >>>>>>> And the alleged offence was?
>>>
>>>>>> Using a vehicle which may cause a danger.
>>>
>>>>> ....?
>>>
>>>> Exactly, a charge which emerged after 45 minutes of interregation and
>>>> nothing else to fall back on. As we know loosing face is unacceptable
>>>> behaviour in a police officer.
>>>
>>> I was suggesting you might like to provide a little more detail... ...
|
| Show full article (2.48Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: NMNM Date: Oct 3, 2006 01:15
Conor wrote:
>>
> You deserve all you get, moron. You got your brains up your arse? What
> the fuck were you doing carrying an autistic 6 year old in anything
> other than a child seat strapped in with a seatbelt?
>
> You are quite rightly being prosecuted for an offence you DID commit.
> And you WILL lose.
>
Fool! they were asleep on a properly constructed and fitted matress,
exactly like the one you have in your lorry in fact safer because it's
impossible to be catapaulted out of the windscreen, there is no
provision/requirment for you to be strapped in whilst in your truck
bunk nor is anyone required to whilst in a campervan, how is my van
different? I could understand it if they were awake but they were
safely tucked up in bed in their pajamas.
Relevent chapters and verses from the gospel according to construction
and use please, as you are such a clever cunt.
|
| Show full article (1.31Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NMNM Date: Oct 3, 2006 01:17
Conor wrote:
> In article ,
> Adrian says...
>
>>
>> Ah, so you'd got two people in the back of a van without any seats for
>> them...
>>
> Of course he did...he's a fuckin pikey. Bet you were running it on
> cherry as well weren't you NM?
>
What's with the insults? feeling insecure?? Your sig. exactly sums you
up.
|
| Show full article (0.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
