On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:09:53 -0000, Apellation Controlee wrote:

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:21:35 -0000, "Gefreiter Krueger"
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:04:26 -0000, Apellation Controlee wrote:

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 20:48:01 -0000, "Gefreiter Krueger"
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 20:43:09 -0000, Apellation Controlee wrote:

----------------8
Apparently. Some years ago I found that a warrant had been issued for
my arrest because I had failed to answer a summons for a traffic
matter.
We had moved house soon after the incident in question occurred but,
although my driving licence and the vehicle reg doc had been updated,
the police were unable to find me when they sprang into action six
months after the event.
The mail redirection arrangement had expired, so communications from
the police went unanswered.

I guess I can understand that. They probably just looked at the address on file for you when you were originally summoned.

Doesn't quite square with being unable to find me, which was what was
claimed.

Ah well yes. Perhaps they should have checked more thoroughly at that point. Although why would they think you'd moved?

Not such an uncommon eventuality, I would have thought.

You're trying to attribute common sense to police officers. Why?

--
An Englishman was feeling a little queezy on his first sailing, and leaned over the edge of the boat. He saw a Frenchman below opening his porthole so, feeling the urge to bring up his dinner, he yelled "LOOK OUT!"
The Frenchman stuck his head out of the porthole and was decorated with semi-digested food. "YOU SILLY ENGLISHMAN!!!!" he yelled, "Why do you say look out when you mean look in?"