The problems occur when assumptions run riot. I would always an vehemently agree that anyone who 'uses' a vehicle on the public highway or in a public place should have appropriate third party insurance. The whole (original) point of the legislation is that anything with the power of an engine of any sort should have constraints to protect the 'public' when it is 'in use'.

However, that is where we diverge and why I suggested looking at the case that led to the amendment of the RTA by the agency of the RSA last year or the year before.

The precedent quoted is often the subject of debate, the general view seems to be that it is unsafe and somewhat contrary. English (and the case of the RTAs UK law) takes the OED as the authority for the meaning of words in Statute Law. Ownership of something not 'in use' is not 'use'. This is a precedent ripe for review by the House of Lords which is why the CPS guidance says what it does and why Constabularies are wary of triggering the cost burden of taking this back up the tree.

After all a caravan parked on a street is more of a potential risk. It is large, it has wheels, its brake is easily tampered with . . . I don't hear the same calls for third party insurance.

Statute law does not require a vehicle that is not being 'used' to have insurance. That will soon change and, on balance, I'm happy with that. However, apart from a 'dodgy precedent', there is nothing at present requiring third party insurance.

What I objected to was the gratuitous assumption that Ahhhhh (or should it be Arghhhh) intended to drive / did drive - in other words actually 'used' the vehicle - and castigated him for offences uncommitted, not admitted and certainly unproven beyond reasonable doubt together with the bland assumption that everyone has a drive or garage when very many do not. (And before some suburban clot attacks me on that I don't have one here not because I wouldn't like one but because such concepts are not allowed in the conservation area in which I live and because there are no rental garages for about a mile and a half) Ahhhhhh may be in a similar situation.

I have no objection to fact. What I don't like is opinion dressed up as fact. It reminds me of such things as WMD. Uninformed opinion is simply prejudice and if unchallenged leads to mischief.

Regards, Funforus