UkeThe whole year inn AP got the information from a copper, who himself broke the law by telling AP about Kitsons arrest.
That's the sort of thing that could cause a case to collapse
Plod can be complete numpties at times
Exactly.
by The whole year inn » 12 Jan 2008 14:16
UkeThe whole year inn AP got the information from a copper, who himself broke the law by telling AP about Kitsons arrest.
That's the sort of thing that could cause a case to collapse
Plod can be complete numpties at times
by Uke » 12 Jan 2008 14:16
The whole year inn Just because it was deleted it doesn't mean it didn't happen
by The whole year inn » 12 Jan 2008 14:20
by The Goat was fed » 12 Jan 2008 14:40
The whole year inn The fact that handbags_harris also 'knew about this information' despite the fact he has a sibling serving time for causing death by dangerous driving is absolutely shocking IMO.
by The whole year inn » 12 Jan 2008 14:55
The Goat was fedThe whole year inn The fact that handbags_harris also 'knew about this information' despite the fact he has a sibling serving time for causing death by dangerous driving is absolutely shocking IMO.
Yeah because that should be made public knowledge....TWAT.
by The Goat was fed » 12 Jan 2008 15:09
The whole year innThe Goat was fedThe whole year inn The fact that handbags_harris also 'knew about this information' despite the fact he has a sibling serving time for causing death by dangerous driving is absolutely shocking IMO.
Yeah because that should be made public knowledge....TWAT.
He admitted it on another thread.
by RoyalBlue » 12 Jan 2008 16:21
The whole year innRoyalBlueThe whole year innRoyal RotherSpaceCruiserRoyal Rother Blimey, I know I can keep a discussion going on well past it's "sell-by" but is this one still going round in circles?
I'd have expected you to take an active role in this discussion. It's your sort of thing, isn't it?
Until the circumstances are known there is nothing I could feel comfortable discussing about this particular situation, bar the fact that AP must surely be bricking it now, as will his contact in the TVP who leaked the news in the first place.
I agree with Rother here.
DK and his solicitors could do worse than checking HNA? out.
Never realised the Lita circumstances were fully known but that didn't appear to stop RR having plenty to say!
As for DK and his solicitors - yes some comments on here might be bordering on libellous but I suspect the last thing his reputation needs at present is for his lawyers to start hounding a very popular Reading fans' site or even individual fans!
AP got the information from a copper, who himself broke the law by telling AP about Kitsons arrest.
by Cemy Junction Expat » 12 Jan 2008 16:46
Archie's penaltyDiddyroyal i have no reason to lie, i think he's quality, im quite shocked tbh, why the fook was he in here at that time and not in the team hotel?
I believe you mate. He's obviously not gonna be in the team tomorrow. Coppell's a decent bloke. He will have told Kitson how it is. He'll be out of the team for one game so he can think about what he did...
by Alan Partridge » 12 Jan 2008 19:39
The whole year innUkeThe whole year inn AP got the information from a copper, who himself broke the law by telling AP about Kitsons arrest.
That's the sort of thing that could cause a case to collapse
Plod can be complete numpties at times
Exactly.
by Alan Partridge » 12 Jan 2008 19:40
papereyes I thought Kitson wasn't going to be playing.
by Tredder » 12 Jan 2008 21:22
The whole year innRoyal RotherSpaceCruiserRoyal Rother Blimey, I know I can keep a discussion going on well past it's "sell-by" but is this one still going round in circles?
I'd have expected you to take an active role in this discussion. It's your sort of thing, isn't it?
Until the circumstances are known there is nothing I could feel comfortable discussing about this particular situation, bar the fact that AP must surely be bricking it now, as will his contact in the TVP who leaked the news in the first place.
I agree with Rother here.
DK and his solicitors could do worse than checking HNA? out.
by Miss » 12 Jan 2008 22:52
The Goat was fed So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test? The answer is NO.
They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car matches that given by a witness).
So when you are convinced you have done nothing wrong presumably you can refuse to give a sample??
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 12 Jan 2008 23:24
they can't stop you at random - they have to have a reasonable cause. That doesn't have to be that you are driving badly. It could just be that you have a bulb gone on a headlight. If you give them an excuse, they can pull you over. If they then smell alcohol on your breath then they can demand a breath test. You don't have to have done something wrong before they can demand a breath test.MissThe Goat was fed So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test? The answer is NO.
They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car matches that given by a witness).
So when you are convinced you have done nothing wrong presumably you can refuse to give a sample??
So if they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause, they must have had reasonable cause.
by Dirk Gently » 12 Jan 2008 23:48
Dirk Gently I got stopped a few months ago simply for driving a car out of a pub car park. I took the test and passed it easily, but when I did some investigation it turns out that these days just driving away from a pub is considered sufficient grounds to stop a person on suspicion of drink driving.
by Platypuss » 13 Jan 2008 00:05
Dirk Gently See what I posted yeserday :Dirk Gently I got stopped a few months ago simply for driving a car out of a pub car park. I took the test and passed it easily, but when I did some investigation it turns out that these days just driving away from a pub is considered sufficient grounds to stop a person on suspicion of drink driving.
by Cookie » 13 Jan 2008 00:37
Diddyroyal Kits did not travel up with the squad today, he was in the crispin in harwell til 11:15, looking pretty pissed off, signed some autographs, suited and booted, god knows whats going on there....?
by Alan Partridge » 13 Jan 2008 12:04
CookieDiddyroyal Kits did not travel up with the squad today, he was in the crispin in harwell til 11:15, looking pretty pissed off, signed some autographs, suited and booted, god knows whats going on there....?
This is corroborated elsewhere by Mrs Butler and Alan Partridge. (I assume they're different people)
by RoyalBlue » 13 Jan 2008 12:06
CookieDiddyroyal Kits did not travel up with the squad today, he was in the crispin in harwell til 11:15, looking pretty pissed off, signed some autographs, suited and booted, god knows whats going on there....?
This is corroborated elsewhere by Mrs Butler and Alan Partridge. (I assume they're different people)
by Mrs Butler » 13 Jan 2008 12:29
Alan PartridgeCookieDiddyroyal Kits did not travel up with the squad today, he was in the crispin in harwell til 11:15, looking pretty pissed off, signed some autographs, suited and booted, god knows whats going on there....?
This is corroborated elsewhere by Mrs Butler and Alan Partridge. (I assume they're different people)
I heard it off Diddy!
Oh and yes, just a little bit different!
Users browsing this forum: 6ft Kerplunk, 72 bus, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 235 guests