"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message



In case it got lost in translation, the point I am arguing here is not whether Dave
is
guilty or not, but whose job it is to find the proof that he really was a customer,
in
the absences of his supplying his detains at the time.

And as it's Dave who forgot to do it at the time, it's Dave who has to do it
afterwards.


And where have I claimed anything different ?

Just checking

As I've said now more than once let them take him to Court
if they wish. As soon as he said he's paid by CC they'll
have known that if he's speaking the truth then they're
stuffed basically.

Rubbish

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC



But given that, in his view, they're already trying to
"fine" him for something he hasn't done, why should he
necessarily trust them with details of his CC ?
Not being an expert in such matters he might suspect that
once having his CC number they might interpret that as an
admission of guilt on his part and deduct the "fine".
Thus putting him to the trouble of trying to recover
the money.



He is being advise to tell them to look for it themselves

this lack of co-operation would count against him in court and he will (rightfully) be
seen by the judge to have brought the action upon himself.

So if he does that, he IS stuffed.



You are aware of the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" I take
it ? Witholding evidence when being cautioned and arrested
for a criminal offence is an entirely different matter; as the
police need to have grounds before arresting anyone in the
first place.