At 82 year old farmer drives after and runs over a 71 year old metal thief.

[Hilly]

life in prison is better than life in a care home and its free as well., if i get old dont pee me off.

 

[honeyend]

life in prison is better than life in a care home and its free as well., if i get old dont pee me off.

The furnishings are a bit monotonous but he would probably be put on the vulnerable prisoner wing and have plenty of company.

 

[Hilly]

The furnishings are a bit monotonous but he would probably be put on the vulnerable prisoner wing and have plenty of company.

And save a fortune.

 

[tommyurray]

Nope, if you read the article it's the Motor Insurance Bureau that has to pay. Whilst it's easy to to sympathise with Tinslade's actions, what if the person whom he chased was not the perpetrator of a crime? Was the resulting injuries proportiate to the alleged crime? At the time of the incident Tinslade was not protecting his home or in fear of his life so he was lucky to have avoided being convicted for GBH with intent.

He was lucky to get off without a gbh conviction the presumed thief must not have impressed the jury much concidering the effort that was made to catch up with him.
Think of the % clear up for opertunist theft, the other offences rolled into a single conviction the chances of him not either stealing or weighing it up for later were pretty slim.
Pleased that the old boy does not have to pay damages himself but they probably shouldn’t have been due either

 

[caveman]

The un-insured part of the case relates to the fact that general motor insurance does not typically cover off-road activities - none of the articles I have read have suggested that the vehicle didn't have a general motor policy. Under EU law universal motor insurance is mandatory - where a government chooses not to apply this rule it is the national bureau that stands responsible for this cover.

Without a criminal conviction l believe the MIB would struggle to seek recompense from Tindale as there is no contract (express or implied) between Tindale and the MIB that would allow for such an action and there is no statute that I am aware of that would give the MIB the power to recover such loses. So ultimately it will be just another reason for premiums to rise in the future.

Third party damage is third party damage, whatever form it takes.
I wish I'd had a know it all for a brief, when, I fell foul of an incident with a tractor that turned out to be insured for the owner only........despite being told I was all road legal.
The MIB paid the third party and came after me for recompense.

 

[Fallowfield]

The MIB will seek to recover the payment from the driver.

 

[Ray]

I have a very good Terrano suitable for use on private land for sale if anyone is interested.

And I have one here too that's not suitable to drive anywhere.

 

[TheTallGuy]

Third party damage is third party damage, whatever form it takes.
I wish I'd had a know it all for a brief, when, I fell foul of an incident with a tractor that turned out to be insured for the owner only........despite being told I was all road legal.
The MIB paid the third party and came after me for recompense.

Presumably the accident occurred on the road or as a result of road going activities where it is a legal requirement to hold insurance & by having none you are by committing an offence givingt the insurance company a case to reclaim. Off road/private land is a different matter as under UK laws there is no legal requirement for insurance & as the farmer was acquitted in court MIB have little to make a case against the driver. Personally I think the driver in this instance should be liable as his actions were clearly reckless having driven along a footpath and through a barbed wire fence.

 

[Nearly]

Presumably the accident occurred on the road or as a result of road going activities where it is a legal requirement to hold insurance & by having none you are by committing an offence givingt the insurance company a case to reclaim. Off road/private land is a different matter as under UK laws there is no legal requirement for insurance & as the farmer was acquitted in court MIB have little to make a case against the driver. Personally I think the driver in this instance should be liable as his actions were clearly reckless having driven along a footpath and through a barbed wire fence.

IF it was his footpath and fence then it's not an issue?

 

[caveman]

Off road/private land is a different matter as under UK laws there is no legal requirement for insurance & as the farmer was acquitted in court MIB have little to make a case against the driver. Personally I think the driver in this instance should be liable as his actions were clearly reckless having driven along a footpath and through a barbed wire fence.

You did read and understand the last paragraph in the quoted piece?

 

[TheTallGuy]

You did read and understand the last paragraph in the quoted piece?

Which quoted piece are you referring to?

 

[Rookie]

The farmer in question is a well known local character who doesn't worry about taking the law into his own hands. Can't blame him though if he thinks hes in the right.
Photo shows him appearing at court in 2002 over another matter. At least he's supporting farm assurance and the red tractor !!!

 

[Kidds]

And I have one here too that's not suitable to drive anywhere.

I also have a second one that is suitable to go anywhere, not selling that one though.

 

[Fallowfield]

'The farmer in question is a well known local character who doesn't worry about taking the law into his own hands. Can't blame him though if he thinks hes in the right.'

###

Most people who break the law think they're in the right. I don't think it's a defence recognised by the courts

 

[Dry Rot]

'The farmer in question is a well known local character who doesn't worry about taking the law into his own hands. Can't blame him though if he thinks hes in the right.'

###

Most people who break the law think they're in the right. I don't think it's a defence recognised by the courts

Sometimes they are right. If they hadn't challenged the law, they'd still be burning people at the stake...or a lot worse.