Ekona

But he has committed a crime, not filing in the s192 request, for which he was fined and given points. You cannot start charging people with PTCOJ for not telling people stuff. If you did, you'd have to start charging rape victims who didn't name their attacker, which is plainly ridiculous.

If you want to go faster, do the brakes, wheels and tyres first. If you just want bigger numbers, then a plenum spacer and a remap with what you've got will be fine.

You would hope it's not down to using low octane fuel, and that you read the label inside the fuel cap before filling up, so you didn't actually put low octane fuel in. Get the codes read, either a reader or using the pedal dance.

Also, the M4 is a pile of crapness. Review coming soon, but suffice to say it was a huge disappointment.

But how do you know he knows? You don't, and neither do the police, hence they can't bring the case. You say it's quite clear, but it's clear that it's not quite clear (!), else CPS would prosecute. My point isn't about this case, it's about what happens if you change the law so this case works out okay but then Mr Innocent gets screwed because of it. I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent man behind bars.

With Renault ditching Pastor and picking up KMag along with Palmer as drivers, they're in danger of making me like the team again.

I want to protect the majority, which is what the current law does. I want to live in a land where I'm not forced by any method to tell the police anything I don't want to, and even more so if it might be something I don't actually know the answer to anyway.

DO NOT BUY THE CRAP FROM JAPSPEED Buy the proper stuff, you'll be glad you did in the end.

What have you tried so far? On the alcantara part, then regular interior shampoo cleaner usually works, along with a stiff brush but be careful not to tear it. You can also try a bit of water with lemon juice in as a gentle solution if that doesn't work.

If they're both in the car, and CCTV is inconclusive, you cannot charge them both. If they weren't in the car, you cannot force them to name who was. As always, the best case scenario is usually to stay quiet and let the police prove their case.

This is exactly why I keep buying ugly cars!

What if it wasn't him driving? What if it was one of his mates? What if you knew it wasn't him, but he was covering for someone else who would beat the sh*t out of him if he told the police? Would you admit it then? I doubt it. I wouldn't.

That could be joint enterprise, which would not apply in this case. Why not, both are conspiring to protect each other knowing one of them committed the act? Because it requires forethought. Is it reasonable to assume that when you get into a car with someone, that they are going to suddenly decide to ram someone off the road? No, of course not, hence joint enterprise would not be valid. Would it be reasonable to assume that if you go out with a group of lads and one of them has a baseball bat but doesn't particularly follow the sport, that ABH/GBH could occur? Potentially, yes.

That could be joint enterprise, which would not apply in this case.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're asking what I would try to get away with, and using that as a basis for how laws should be written... No, what I was saying was is that neither the person who hired it nor his wife his wife were driving it. They could've loaned it to their son, which means that he would've been driving without any insurance and the hirer would've known that. As such, not only would they have been grassing their son up, but also the hirer would've been subject to a charge of allowing a vehicle to be used without insurance. It's a smaller penalty financially to cough up to a S192 offence when getting your insurance renewal than it is admitting to any kind of insurance dodgyness. We all know how rare it is for parents to dob their kids in with the law. Should we make every parent responsible for what their kids do? Certainly there's an argument for yes, and I've made a hell of a leap there which isn't really fair, but I'd wager that most people would think no. This is such a rare incident, and unfortunately it does highlight an apparent injustice in the law, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Looks lovely Hugh, you'll have to get a wider shot so we can see them properly

If you're going to that much effort, you could make something MUCH better than the aesthetic mess of the 370 interior. Personally I'd go with something like in the 650S or the Huracan, a proper angled centre console would be immense.

And what if they'd lent the car to someone else, so opening themselves up to an insurance charge? Would you want that on your record, or would you keep quiet too? Too many variables. The law is correct as it stands IMHO.

When was the last time you acted like a child and did something really silly, and what was it?

Okay, so let's say neither you nor your wife can remember who was driving when that ticket comes through for speeding. Are you saying you'd be perfectly happy with getting the points simply because your name is on the V5? Same principle.

It's got a great chassis with one of the best V8s of modern times. What's not to like?

Well, exactly. There's more to life than bhp. It should be about how it makes you feel above all else.

It's the right call. The alternative is to put innocent people in jail on purpose, and once you start down that road it's not easy to come back from. Of course it's rubbish, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Who cares anyway? Power contests is for pub debates, there's more to driving than which is quicker. It's the reason I'd take a Gallardo over a GT-R, or a GT86 over a FRS, or an standard Elise over a supercharged one.

Well, yes it is actually. At regular speeds I'm going to stick my neck out and say that both cars have gearing vaguely the same: We're not talking about a Caterham here that tops out at 110 in 5th! Are they blind then?