Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police.

In each of the cases, the drivers were alleged to have been guilty of an offence but did not give information relating to the identification of the driver when required to do so.

Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they did not attend court.

The most recent of the cases was that of General All Purpose Plastics, based in Partnership Way, Blackburn.

Its driver was caught allegedly committing an offence on Friday, March 17, in a Peugeot Boxer in Lincolnshire, and the company was asked to provide details of the driver to the county's police force, which it did not do.

The firm was fined a total of £400 at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £85 and a surcharge of £160.

Also snared was Harwood Scrap and Skip Hire Limited, based in Meadow Street, Great Harwood.

It was ordered to provide details to Lancashire Police after one of its DAF trucks was spotted allegedly committing an offence, and on January 3 of this year failed to give the identity of its driver.

The company was fined £770 at Preston Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £308.

Finally, a Vauxhall VRM belonging to Premier Catering Manufacture Ltd, based in Strawberry Bank, Blackburn, was caught by police allegedly committing an offence in County Durham, and on February 20 failed to provide the details of the driver.

The firm was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £400.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23789158.three-blackburn-companies-fined-driving-offences/

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Old news: 16th September 2023

> https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23789158.three-blackburn-companies-fined-driving-offences/

--
Spike

On 30/10/2023 06:36 pm, Simon Misogynist wrote:

> Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police.
> In each of the cases, the drivers were alleged to have been guilty of an offence but did not give information relating to the identification of the driver when required to do so.
> Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they did not attend court.

Gerraway!

> The most recent of the cases was that of General All Purpose Plastics, based in Partnership Way, Blackburn.
> Its driver was caught allegedly committing an offence on Friday, March 17, in a Peugeot Boxer in Lincolnshire, and the company was asked to provide details of the driver to the county's police force, which it did not do.

Why wasn't the driver stopped by the police at the time of the alleged
offence?
>
> The firm was fined a total of £400 at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £85 and a surcharge of £160.
> Also snared was Harwood Scrap and Skip Hire Limited, based in Meadow Street, Great Harwood.
> It was ordered to provide details to Lancashire Police after one of its DAF trucks was spotted allegedly committing an offence, and on January 3 of this year failed to give the identity of its driver.
> The company was fined £770 at Preston Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £308.
> Finally, a Vauxhall VRM belonging to Premier Catering Manufacture Ltd, based in Strawberry Bank, Blackburn, was caught by police allegedly committing an offence in County Durham, and on February 20 failed to provide the details of the driver.
> The firm was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £400.
> https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/23789158.three-blackburn-companies-fined-driving-offences/

How many penalty points were placed upon the driving licences of the
entities known as General All Purpose Plastics, Harwood Scrap and Skip
Hire Limited and Premier Catering Manufacture Ltd?

QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS

The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for
> failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS
>
> The law views trying to pevert

eh?

> the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.

--
Spike

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:14:31 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS
>
> The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.

QUOTE: Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they did not attend court. ENDS

They don't like suspects who can't be arsed to turn up in court either as you found out.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:14:31 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

>> QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for
>> failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS

>> The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.

> QUOTE: Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they
> did not attend court. ENDS

<gasp> Really? No shirt, Sherlock!

> They don't like suspects who can't be arsed to turn up in court either as you found out.

--
Spike

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:16:56 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:14:31 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> > QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS
> >
> > The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.
> QUOTE: Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they did not attend court. ENDS
>
> They don't like suspects who can't be arsed to turn up in court either as you found out.

£400 for starters, don't forget!

On 31/10/2023 04:14 am, Simon Mason wrote:

> QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS
>
> The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.

Who got points on their licences?

On 31/10/2023 11:16 am, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:14:31 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>> QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS
>>
>> The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.
>
> QUOTE: Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they did not attend court. ENDS
>
> They don't like suspects who can't be arsed to turn up in court either as you found out.

It sounds like quite a positive result for whoever was doing the
driving, doesn't it?

Go on... stamp your foot in frustration!

On 31/10/2023 11:22 am, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:16:56 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:14:31 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> QUOTE: Three Blackburn companies have been fined in recent months for failing to give the identities of their drivers when asked by police. ENDS
>>>
>>> The law views trying to pevert the course of justice very dimly, silly fools.
>> QUOTE: Two of the companies were found guilty in absence, meaning they did not attend court. ENDS
>>
>> They don't like suspects who can't be arsed to turn up in court either as you found out.
>
> £400 for starters, don't forget!

Is that more or less than the company's losses in losing three qualified
drivers?

QUOTE: It was ordered to provide details to Lancashire Police after one of its DAF trucks was spotted allegedly committing an offence, and on January 3 of this year failed to give the identity of its driver. The company was fined £770 at Preston Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £308. ENDS

Over a £1000 for not disclosing a driver?
Ouch.

On 31/10/2023 03:46 pm, Simon Misogyny wrote:

> QUOTE: It was ordered to provide details to Lancashire Police after one of its DAF trucks was spotted allegedly committing an offence, and on January 3 of this year failed to give the identity of its driver. The company was fined £770 at Preston Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £308. ENDS
>
> Over a £1000 for not disclosing a driver?
> Ouch.

How much would the driver lose if disqualified for six months?

Let's see...

(Say) £500 a week for twenty-six weeks = £13,000.

And how much would the employing company lose though the loss of a
qualified driver?

Or would you and Diane Abbott (who obviously studied arithmetic
together) make it some other figure?

QUOTE: Finally, a Vauxhall VRM belonging to Premier Catering Manufacture Ltd, based in Strawberry Bank, Blackburn, was caught by police allegedly committing an offence in County Durham, and on February 20 failed to provide the details of the driver. The firm was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £400. ENDS

Nice little earner of £1500 for very little work - kerching!

On 31/10/2023 03:57 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> QUOTE: Finally, a Vauxhall VRM belonging to Premier Catering Manufacture Ltd, based in Strawberry Bank, Blackburn, was caught by police allegedly committing an offence in County Durham, and on February 20 failed to provide the details of the driver. The firm was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £110 and a surcharge of £400. ENDS
>
> Nice little earner of £1500 for very little work - kerching!

Could be a bargain, by comparison with the alternative.

Couldn't it?

QUOTE: In each of the cases, the drivers were alleged to have been guilty of an offence but did not give information relating to the identification of the driver when required to do so. ENDS
The old switcheroo as it is known in chavland.

On 31/10/2023 04:48 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> QUOTE: In each of the cases, the drivers were alleged to have been guilty of an offence but did not give information relating to the identification of the driver when required to do so. ENDS
> The old switcheroo as it is known in chavland.

English isn't your strong subject, eh?

No driver said anything.

Neither did the company. It was the equivalent of a "No comment".

And no driving licences were harmed during that process.

QUOTE: George Cowley 16th September 12:36 pm
User ID: 4773163
I wonder who was driving and owns the Gt Harwood one ?? ENDS

Are they the local bad boys?