The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[Skeleton]

Ok, so it looks as though the JJ prefix was retained by DVLA so they could sell it privately.

Looks that way, you may know the answer to this, why would the DVLA stipulate that any plates from that series must go on a car registered after January 2012?

[rumpelstilzchen]

You can put an old plate on a newer car but you can't put a newer plate on an older car. It is OK to make a car look older than it is but you are not allowed to make it look newer.

[Skeleton]

Ok Cheers, makes sense I guess, not that you could make my heap look newer, that would be impossible.

[NigelJK]

It is possible the number is going through the process of a cherished transfer

Yep, it would have to and takes a minimum of 3 weeks. You cannot put the new plate on the car until you have been told you can (i.e. after DVLA records have been updated).

[YiamCross]

He is banned from driving so hiring a car in his name is impossible, and his insurance company would have revoked any polices he had ...

When I checked that link the conviction was from April 2013 which would mean an 18 month ban ended October 2015. Whether he's taken his competency test, which I can only guess is a retake of the driving test, or not I cannot guess so it's possible he may not yet have regained his licence but his ban is ended.

I do agree, though, that given his driving record the cost of insurance would be prohibitive. Always assuming he could find an insurer who would take him on. Getting him on as a named driver would be equally difficult. Fortunately I don't think it's a problem he's had to overcome, though, since the chances of there being any compo for unlawful arrest or similar are zero.

More to the point, I wonder why he feels such a desperate need to impress us Quatloosers with a story about a car which in any circumstances is underwhelming as a status symbol and that, even if the whole fairy tale were true, could serve only to demonstrate a sorry lack of discernment.

[PeanutGallery]

Because he thinks it's going to lead to us choking on our brandy's in our fine exclusive members only clubs while that scamp Carruthers looks on in bemusement and the valet asks us if anything is amiss sir?

He takes the view that we don't want him to have nice things because he's an idiot, so if he shows pictures of himself with nice things, that is going to upset us. It's not. We don't care and frankly I like the idea of people buying nice things, I have investments in companies that make and sell nice things for people to buy, so people buying nice things makes me money.

What I do object to is people stealing nice things. Because that doesn't make me money.

James also thinks this is showing us up. It isn't. To be honest it's showing him up, because we know it is smoke and mirrors. Also just to point one thing out, James as a Disney stockholder I am very glad that you went on holiday to one of the parks the company I have invested money in runs, I hope you post lots of pictures on social media and advertise your trip for Disney, I also hope you buy your children lots of Disney merchandise and take them to see all the new Disney movies. Because you doing that helps the company and helps to make me a little bit richer.

[Bones]

HPI Results for JJ13RAD





If the HPI info gets updated, I will post it

[YiamCross]

Difficult to HPI a car on show plates. I guess the reason the lad Brad didn't want to reveal the genuine number plate in full on his European tour is that it will confirm the car is the property of a hire company or similar.

I see the mystery Merc has made an appearance at someone's wedding in Gretna Green, I'm guessing that's the reason for the hire & it will be going back at the end of the week. Or maybe Jay Brad has gone into the limo business, in which case a pretty poor choice of vehicle.

There's always a chance the Home Secretary will be writing a grovelling letter to apologise to Brad for a serious miscarriage of justice accompanied by a cheque for a 6 figure sum and then again there's always a chance a flock of flying pigs will give poor old Brad a reason to bring out the jet washer & Turtle Wax. If only.

[grixit]

It appears he had a few businesses surrounding cars, one a towing firm, one a budget car firm dealing with cars that have been written off and repaired and one the clamp fairy. I'd hazard a guess he's purchased or leased the car through one of those businesses to make it all appear legitimate

That's just what i want: a formerly totalled car that someone who believes that just rearranging words can change reality has pronounced as being roadworthy again.

[mac]

On Taylors Facebook Page:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6HB8VGYo14

[eric]

It appears he had a few businesses surrounding cars, one a towing firm, one a budget car firm dealing with cars that have been written off and repaired and one the clamp fairy. I'd hazard a guess he's purchased or leased the car through one of those businesses to make it all appear legitimate

That's just what i want: a formerly totalled car that someone who believes that just rearranging words can change reality has pronounced as being roadworthy again.

Just a minor note... In some jurisdictions the vehicle insurance company can and will write off a vehicle that may be still roadworthy. As an example, in Alberta, an insurance company can write off a vehicle as "salvage" for two typical reasons:
1. using an arcane formula they declare that the vehicle is beyond economical repair (BER);
2. the vehicle owner decides to do the body repair themselves to limit the rise in their insurance premiums or turns down their writeoff offer.
Not an unusual situation - a minor fender bender can cost an insurance company thousands of dollars. Very often a vehicle is worth much more than the book value but will be written off for a few dings. There is a good market in many areas for written off vehicles sold at auction, sometimes there is nothing wrong with them mechanically and a few days of work to repair the cosmetic damage is worth the effort.

[Skeleton]

Written - off repairable happens here a lot, because its a win win for the big insurance companies who generally have their own in house accident management centers. Pay client agreed value, keep car, repair and sell on. It pays here to be vigilant as to the agreed value of the car in the event of a write off. Without fail the first quote requires a phone call to get the value back up to a more realistic level, they try it every year, does not matter who you insure with.

[YiamCross]

.... There is a good market in many areas for written off vehicles sold at auction, sometimes there is nothing wrong with them mechanically and a few days of work to repair the cosmetic damage is worth the effort.

Much the same in this country these days. Anything that's an insurance write off gets tagged at the DVLA, some can be repaired and put back on the road with the proper certification, some are parts only and some have to be destroyed completely. Trouble is, all too often the buyer only finds out they have a damaged repaired vehicle when they get their bargain home and start phoning around the insurance companies and get refused. In all honesty I can't imagine that even with the kind of discount on an insurance write of Jay Brad would have the cash for the car he's been hooning around in lately. Who knows, though, maybe he won a prize on the lottery, maybe they came into some money from an inheritance.

The only thing which is 100% certain is there was no payout from the authorities for a miscarriage of justice from the rooftop protest and it seems odd that they should be so keen to make out it is.

[hucknallred]

The only thing which is 100% certain is there was no payout from the authorities for a miscarriage of justice from the rooftop protest and it seems odd that they should be so keen to make out it is.

Indeed. Just to put some perspective on it, spending 8 years behind bars after being wrongly convicted for murdering a TV presenter doesn't automatically result in a payout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31578422

[Skeleton]

The only thing which is 100% certain is there was no payout from the authorities for a miscarriage of justice from the rooftop protest and it seems odd that they should be so keen to make out it is.

Indeed. Just to put some perspective on it, spending 8 years behind bars after being wrongly convicted for murdering a TV presenter doesn't automatically result in a payout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31578422

Link wont work for me but he was acquitted if I remember rightly on a technicality to do with evidence, and has not proved he was innocent, hence no compensation.

[Philistine]

The only thing which is 100% certain is there was no payout from the authorities for a miscarriage of justice from the rooftop protest and it seems odd that they should be so keen to make out it is.

Indeed. Just to put some perspective on it, spending 8 years behind bars after being wrongly convicted for murdering a TV presenter doesn't automatically result in a payout.

Link wont work for me but he was acquitted if I remember rightly on a technicality to do with evidence, and has not proved he was innocent, hence no compensation.

How does one prove one is innocent? Isn't that a logical fallacy reversing the burden of proof?
I mean, outside of the obvious, like having an airtight alibi...

[PeanutGallery]

That is the problem with the law as it stands, the burden of proof is turned on its head. You can't prove innocence, without essentially establishing that another person was guilty. For most people who have been wrongly convicted that is a virtually impossible task.

This current system leads to a chain of thought where it would seem that the argument by the state is "We can't prove you did it, but we still think you did it". It leaves a miasma of guilt hanging over an exonerated defendant.

In my opinion Barry George should not be in a situation where he needs to prove his innocence. He should not have suffered from a mistrial and the state should bear responsibility for its actions, especially when they have obviously devastating consequences.

[hucknallred]

Link wont work for me but he was acquitted if I remember rightly on a technicality to do with evidence, and has not proved he was innocent, hence no compensation.

He was retried but without the gunpowder residue evidence that was ruled inadmissable. IIRC he was found guilty on the basis of 1 grain of gunpowder in a jacket pocket that could have come from a firework.

IMO he was found guilty due to the high profile of Jill Dando, someone HAD to pay for it. On his first conviction being quashed they showed video of the police interview.

PLOD "Did you kill Jill Dando?"
BG "No Sir."

To me seeing that it was obvious he was innocent. He just isn't clever enough to carry off lying to that extent.

For another miscarriage of Justice involving someone with learning difficulties see http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stefankiszko/

[Bones]

All quiet on the Crawfraud front ???

Why hasn't good old Tommy moved back into his castle yet ?

[Skeleton]

All quiet on the Crawfraud front ???

Why hasn't good old Tommy moved back into his castle yet ?

Because it is no longer his castle. Bit disappointed with Tom of late, he attends meetings and apparently they are great and lots of information is passed around but his last three posts on his own heavily policed FB group produced very few likes and even less comment other than "love to be there, but am to far away"

Spent force publicly he is maybe, but he is still heavily involved in helping others lose their homes, people are just not reporting on him. I assumed after the "victory" of the roof top six their would be a Guy Taylor style re-taking of Crawford Castle but other than the same six heading into the house to re claim it, who else would have been their? People have lost interest in the Crawfrauds and their lies, even the freetards of this world can only take so much. He admitted on his first post on GOODF that he did actually owe the money, and that has come back to haunt him.