scuta

God forbid, a sense of humour...how very dare they!!! ?

I did indeed mean veracity and 'seconds' was careless...thank you. 8/10 for spelling & grammar duly noted. I'd like to think however, that had I bothered my @&$3 to reach for a dictionary, even I'd have managed to copy it correctly! I must confess my punctuation can sometimes let me down too & I'm not yet sure where I stand on the Oxford comma...

Err...no, I've never said that, and thanks for stating the bleedin obvious! I'm just stunned that grown men & women promulgate this drivel as fact without a seconds thought to checking its voracity. It's a fairy story!!! If an adult needs someone to explain to them that they shouldn't pull over for an unmarked vehicle if they fear its nefarious & what actions they should take to protect themselves in such circumstances, then they shouldn't be allowed out on their own!

I realise pantomime season may be over, but oh yes it is! This an apocryphal tale, originating in America & has been doing the rounds in almost this exact format for over 15 years. It has been noted as false on various hoax exposing web sites. They all go on to say that although the phone numbers indicated invariably change, they are often not the correct or most appropriate number (911, 999, 112 etc.) to call. So if you need an adult fairy story to caution you to use your common sense, then great...but this is as factual as Humpty Dumpty...

What a complete crock of $#17!! You have no 'right' to pull over in a 'safe place'. Your expected to stop when & where directed to do so and your mobile won't work if you have no signal, regardless of the number you punch in! God, I hate the mindless drivel circulated as fact on Facebook...this is up there with don't flash your headlights at a car driving without its headlights on at night, 'cos its a gang initiation & they're going to kill you! Deep breaths & relax...

Will do, Cheers.

Hi TbirdX, All good thanks, still dabbling, but no serious shooting for a few years now...little'uns, house & work etc have put paid to that for the foreseeable! Absolutely devastating about Col, a lovely gent and sorely missed. Hope you're keeping well. S

The doctor should not be charging the individual, unless the individual has a relevant and declared medical condition that requires a report Link explaining all below, but in short, if the Police have requested it, then don't pay. https://www.cpsa.co.uk/userfiles/file/MedicalEvidenceFactsheet-March2016.pdf

It's contrary to the Theft Act 1968...

A little light reading... http://www.money.co.uk/article/1005023-can-you-keep-money-accidentally-paid-into-your-bank-account.htm http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dishonestly_retaining_a_wrongful_credit/

Cheers W&B My advice to you is sell the baby & buy this...it will be far cheaper in the long run!! ;-)

Another option to be considered, should the Police/CPS/Court route result in no joy, is contact your house insurance provider. My wife was bitten in the street, by a dog that had escaped from a nearby house, which after initially attacking our dog, had turned on her. Having promised much at the start, the Police seemed to lose interest & filed it in the 'too difficult' tray, suggesting we take out a private prosecution. The owner, having offered to make amends & settle vets bills etc. effectively stuck two fingers up at us and told us to go whistle...even adding (with a smirk) "claim off of your house insurance" To be fair, he gave me an idea... We sued the owner, claiming damages for harm and suffering caused to the wife and vets bills for the pooch. It was all covered under our insurance, and cost nothing more than two 'phone calls & half an hour filling in a simple form. Their insurer settled straight away with no arguments...for considerably more than the £120 vet bill & the bunch of flowers it would have cost...more than one way to skin a cat! Wish the wee one a speedy recovery & hope you have a satisfactory outcome.

I think what you did was unwise, however from your description, not illegal. Have a read of pepipoo 'fight back' forums, speeding & other criminal offences, which gives similar instances etc. the passenger def. commited opening a car door to danger. Even pose the question on there, you'll get a full act & section response. Whatever the outcome, lesson learnt & you walked away.

"So if someone reported hearing gun shots in a field ring the police. Armed police respond , you are doing a bit of pigeon shooting and don't respond to a challenge for whatever reason or hear them and turn round towards them with your shotgun. Then you think its ok for the police to shoot you. ? They did not know if he had a firearm they were going on what a member of the public told them. And I am sure they know how unreliable that can be. If they saw he had a firearm and he pointed it at them fair enough but they thought he might have a firearm , that's not a good enough reason to shoot someone in my opinion." Are you seriously comparing the above scenario with the Harry Stanley shooting!? There is a man in the pub now (described) with a sawn off shotgun in a carrier bag. The man, with the carrier bag is stopped and challenged. He then raises the bag towards you as if it were a gun...and you would wait to see if he shoots at you before deciding whether it really is a gun or not!!?? Much as I wouldn't think anyone shooting me is ok, (I think that's normal for most people!) I would understand that in any circumstances being told to put a gun down by an armed Police Officer and then pointing that gun at them or in there direction is likely to get me shot...and no I wouldn't think they were wrong in defending themselves from a perceived threat. Even in this day and age, I believe we can rely on the fact most people have the good sense to realise on the balance of probabilities, someone shooting in the field is likely to be there for lawful purpose, whether sport or pest control and a Police Officer responding to such a call would probably approach it as such and the shooter is likely to respond in an equally appropriate way...unless I've missed all the headlines about 'Rural Police massacre local shooting Syndicate'

He wasn't shot on the strength of a false report...he was shot on the strength of a report, the fact he didn't comply with direct instructions & his actions led them to believe there was an imminent threat to life. I would have thought a rational response by a wholly innocent party to a forth rite direction by an armed officer would be to comply...you can't always account for the irrational. I don't for one minute assume that all officers are sweet & innocent little lambs who have never over egged an incident or told a lie, however neither do I accept that all or most officers are out to stitch everyone up & lie at every given opportunity. As regards a civilian doing similar being locked up, I doubt it, however will bow to a recorded incident or two of a similar nature...