Lowlife scrotes

Update on this...

Initially my insurers Saga select said i was covered on my windscreen cover, but now apparantly they're saying i'm not covered because it's vandalism???
Yet an hour later Autoglass called me to say they cannot replace the window because they can't source a replacement one in the UK, they are going to look overseas for one, possibly even Japan WTF!

I'm totally confused now

Wow while i was trying to post this Saga select called me to say i am covered :confused:

Cobra said:
A friend of mine had his car broken into albeit a few years ago now,
and there was a palm & fingers print on the roof. (Sloppy Eh? ;)
And guess what? Yep they weren't interested in that either :(
Click to expand...

If you don't pay your road tax they're interested though, probably because it doesn't take as much effort.
 
Last edited:
i would not want to leave a car in a public street overnight as where i live i have often seen cars vandalised in the street - remember seeing a car outside where a chav had jumped on the roof as the roof was all caved in
 
Have had works van done a couple of times outside house,cut themselves second time but not on data base unfortunately.
 
boliston said:
i would not want to leave a car in a public street overnight as where i live i have often seen cars vandalised in the street - remember seeing a car outside where a chav had jumped on the roof as the roof was all caved in
Click to expand...

For a lot of us that is the only option though.
 
Negative response crime. You just know thats how the crime figures have miraculously dropped in recent years, they probably only have to report on positive response crimes now. I blame government cut backs and league tables for all this fiddling of figures and not actually doing anything.
 
boliston said:
i would not want to leave a car in a public street overnight as where i live i have often seen cars vandalised in the street - remember seeing a car outside where a chav had jumped on the roof as the roof was all caved in
Click to expand...

Something slippery on the roof and bonnet so the little wasters slip and break their necks perhaps? Soon solve the problem :)
 
Daughter was at work the other night when some scrote had an argument with his girlfriend, picked up some bolt croppers, walked into the street and smashed them across the A-pillar of the first car he saw, which happened to be my daughter's.
£350 repair bill, she has protected no claims so spoke to her insurer who said, "you wont lose your no claims but your premium will go up because this is classified as a 'fault accident' because we cant reclaim our losses".
The guy has since been arrested so she may be lucky and get £1 a week off him for the next seven years.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Daughter was at work the other night when some scrote had an argument with his girlfriend, picked up some bolt croppers, walked into the street and smashed them across the A-pillar of the first car he saw, which happened to be my daughter's.
£350 repair bill, she has protected no claims so spoke to her insurer who said, "you wont lose your no claims but your premium will go up because this is classified as a 'fault accident' because we cant reclaim our losses".
The guy has since been arrested so she may be lucky and get £1 a week off him for the next seven years.
Click to expand...
Got to love insurance companies. Not. why cant they reclaim their losses? chase up the idiot who swung the bolt croppers, its not rocket science. Defining who's at fault however they like. It aint on.
 
Further update...

Autoglass cannot source a replacement window for my car, and I have been unable to find one from scrapyards etc, so it seems my car is a right off :(

Insurers will not payout as it's a windscreen claim but have offered to give me £500 as a token of goodwill which will only be seen as a windscreen claim by other insurers in the future.

I've bought another car now so it looks like I am just going to have to scrap it which is a shame because it's not a bad car.
 
Last edited:
Swissy said:
Further update...

Autoglass cannot source a replacement window for my car, and I have been unable to gfind one from scrapyards etc, so it seems my car is a right off :(

Insurers will not payout as it's a windscreen claim but have offered to give me £500 as a token of goodwill which will only be seen as a windscreen claim by other insurers in the future.

I've bought another car now so it looks like I am just going to have to scrap it which is a shame because it's not a bad car.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear your car is probably a write-off. Seems like such a waste but not much you can do by the sounds of it.

Reminds me of an incident our neighbour had a few years back. His car was broken into whilst the car was away from home. He drove the car home. Believe it or not, a few hours later someone (SOCO?) came round and was dusting for finger prints on the door. Was quite surprised really as he had driven the car after the event so I'd have thought the "evidence" would have been worthless. This was a few years ago so I guess they've had major cut backs since then.
 
boliston said:
i would not want to leave a car in a public street overnight as where i live i have often seen cars vandalised in the street - remember seeing a car outside where a chav had jumped on the roof as the roof was all caved in
Click to expand...
They're not that selective. Even if the car is on a driveway, it's not really any safer.
 
This might be a daft question, but have you tried sourcing one through specialist online forums?
 
There are a couple of doors for sale on ebay, ads only state no regulators or mirrors so worth finding out if they do have the glass. There are a couple of breakers with "whole" cars sould be worth seeing if they have the drivers door glass.
 
nilagin said:
There are a couple of doors for sale on ebay, ads only state no regulators or mirrors so worth finding out if they do have the glass. There are a couple of breakers with "whole" cars sould be worth seeing if they have the drivers door glass.
Click to expand...

Thanks all the one's suitable have no window.

viv1969 said:
This might be a daft question, but have you tried sourcing one through specialist online forums?
Click to expand...

Tried that but no luck so far.


Think i will just cut my losses so tried selling it on Ebay
 
Last edited:
What's the make and model of car? There has to be a whole one somewhere. Is there an owners' club site of any kind?

Worth trying national windscreens as well as they sometimes seem to be able to get hold of things Autoglass can't find.
 
It's a Peugeot 306 convertible, 2002 one of the last ones made, which brings further problems in that the inner door workings, ie the regulator, is different from earlier models :S
 
Is the same window shared with any other Peugeot models?

Seems ridiculous to have to scrap a perfectly good car just because a bit of glass.
 
some years ago my car was stolen and eventually I found it myself. Someone came out of his house to ask me about it as he was clearly suspicious and pointed out the thief's address

the police showed no interest except to lecture me on my "failure to adequately secure my vehicle". I suppose had I equipped myself with a blunt instrument and used it, I would have been arrested
 
Swissy said:
It's a Peugeot 306 convertible, 2002 one of the last ones made, which brings further problems in that the inner door workings, ie the regulator, is different from earlier models :confused:
Click to expand...


I am not familiar with the car in detail, but there are several 'drivers door window glass' on ebay today saying they are suitable for the Mark 2 & 3 Peugeot 306 convertible?
 
I had messaged a couple of those on Ebay just to make certain it is the correct fit for my car.
 
A friend of mine had his car broken into albeit a few years ago now,
and there was a palm & fingers print on the roof. (Sloppy Eh? ;)
And guess what? Yep they weren't interested in that either
Click to expand...

Oh good, a lets bash the Old Bill comment!

Ok, so just to remove the doubt here, a finger (hand) print proves exactly nowt. It is not evidence of the owner of the print putting a window in, it is not proof of guilt. It simply means someone put their hand there.

So, lets say the print is a. usable, and b. matches someones on record. Chummy gets nicked, and, oh does what everyone does and asks for a solicitor. He will doubtless then say in interview, yes, I saw the car, it'd been broken into. I must have put my hand on the roof when I looked in. No, I didn't report it to the Police, as I thought the owner would/didn't know I should/was scared in case I got the blame.

Solicitors are wise to the "I've got your prints on something, so I WANT you to deny everything" interviews.

And you have exactly what in terms of evidence then? Erm rock all.

Finger prints are not the evidence you'd like to think they are, far from it, it simply means someone touched your car.

Lastly, I mentioned a. if usable, most on greasy cars are not, and b. if it's on record, means its only any use if someones been nicked before and his prints have been taken.
 
Is Bernie becoming the new the new Steve?
 
ChasG said:
Is Bernie becoming the new the new Steve?
Click to expand...
I have very little time for most of what Bernie says about the police, but he is 100% right when he says that the existence of fingerprints on the outside of the car does nothing more than place the owner of the fingerprints at the scene, which is not evidence of a criminal offence.

Whether or not he is right about whether the prints are usable or not though, seems from my experience to depend on whether or not the police want to try hard or not - all too often, police don't even try to process prints or DNA, possibly on the grounds of cost. But their capability is beyond question, they seem to be able to process fingerprints from a crime scene where a police officer has been assaulted, without any difficulty.
 
Please don't get me wrong. I agree to a great extent with Bernie's comment but I find it tiresome that, it appears in his opinion, that the police can walk on water and only get their ankles wet whatever they do/don't do. Despite the statistics etc there are lazy, incompetent police personnel after all they are human.
 
Bernie174 said:
Oh good, a lets bash the Old Bill comment!

Ok, so just to remove the doubt here, a finger (hand) print proves exactly nowt. It is not evidence of the owner of the print putting a window in, it is not proof of guilt. It simply means someone put their hand there.

So, lets say the print is a. usable, and b. matches someones on record. Chummy gets nicked, and, oh does what everyone does and asks for a solicitor. He will doubtless then say in interview, yes, I saw the car, it'd been broken into. I must have put my hand on the roof when I looked in. No, I didn't report it to the Police, as I thought the owner would/didn't know I should/was scared in case I got the blame.

Solicitors are wise to the "I've got your prints on something, so I WANT you to deny everything" interviews.

And you have exactly what in terms of evidence then? Erm rock all.

Finger prints are not the evidence you'd like to think they are, far from it, it simply means someone touched your car.

Lastly, I mentioned a. if usable, most on greasy cars are not, and b. if it's on record, means its only any use if someones been nicked before and his prints have been taken.
Click to expand...

But a fingerprint 'inside' the vehicle is a completely different scenario, as is fragments of broken glass on the offenders clothing or fibres. It really depends on the forces objectives as how far the forensic examination goes and if someone is in custody or not.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
But a fingerprint 'inside' the vehicle is a completely different scenario, as is fragments of broken glass on the offenders clothing or fibres. It really depends on the forces objectives as how far the forensic examination goes and if someone is in custody or not.
Click to expand...

Not really. A fingerprint inside the car only proves that the suspect touched the inside of the car. Not, in itself a crime.
 
Bernie174 said:
Oh good, a lets bash the Old Bill comment!

Ok, so just to remove the doubt here, a finger (hand) print proves exactly nowt. It is not evidence of the owner of the print putting a window in, it is not proof of guilt. It simply means someone put their hand there.

So, lets say the print is a. usable, and b. matches someones on record. Chummy gets nicked, and, oh does what everyone does and asks for a solicitor. He will doubtless then say in interview, yes, I saw the car, it'd been broken into. I must have put my hand on the roof when I looked in. No, I didn't report it to the Police, as I thought the owner would/didn't know I should/was scared in case I got the blame.

Solicitors are wise to the "I've got your prints on something, so I WANT you to deny everything" interviews.

And you have exactly what in terms of evidence then? Erm rock all.

Finger prints are not the evidence you'd like to think they are, far from it, it simply means someone touched your car.

Lastly, I mentioned a. if usable, most on greasy cars are not, and b. if it's on record, means its only any use if someones been nicked before and his prints have been taken.
Click to expand...

Genuine question. If the scrotes put a brick through the window and it goes into the car, if the prints are on the brick is that enough to prove guilt.
 
fabs said:
Not really. A fingerprint inside the car only proves that the suspect touched the inside of the car. Not, in itself a crime.
Click to expand...

it is certainly grounds for arrest and it's down to the Interviewing Officer to illicit what information he/she can. If a persons fingerprints are found in a vehicle (or house for that matter) and there are no grounds for them to be there. I.e they don't have legitimate access. Then that's good grounds to charge them for the offence. It's up to the Courts to decide if they are guilty or not.
 
Purely a gut feeling thing but I imagine bricks dont hold fingerprints well. And again no not enough to prove guilt I doubt. Just means that at some point a person touched the brick.
 
ST4 said:
Genuine question. If the scrotes put a brick through the window and it goes into the car, if the prints are on the brick is that enough to prove guilt.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting a fingerprint off a brick.

Blank_Canvas said:
it is certainly grounds for arrest and it's down to the Interviewing Officer to illicit what information he/she can. If a persons fingerprints are found in a vehicle (or house for that matter) and there are no grounds for them to be there. I.e they don't have legitimate access. Then that's good grounds to charge them for the offence. It's up to the Courts to decide if they are guilty or not.
Click to expand...

Any solicitor will just say that his/her client just leant in out of curiosity. Evidence is purely circumstantial and agin, no prove that they committed any crime.
 
But a fingerprint 'inside' the vehicle is a completely different scenario, as is fragments of broken glass on the offenders clothing or fibres. It really depends on the forces objectives as how far the forensic examination goes and if someone is in custody or not.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question, it was a palm print of the roof.

Car window glass shatters into far too small bits for a useful print. A print on the inside of the car (if you can find one and lift it) is useful for arrest and interview, but its very unusual to get a usable print from the inside of a car. glass on clothing fibres it's not conclusive either. You'd have to disclose it to the prisoners solicitor, and the excuses will then flow, and there's a lot of those all of which solicitors and most yobs who watch CSI know.

However, it has worked in the past for me, I stopped a yob walking away from a car with a smashed window, and when I searched him, i stabbed my finger of a small bit of glass in his pocket. Happy days, he's nicked and told me all. But these days it simply wouldn't work.

The bottom line with forensics is it's an expensive thing to do. Cars don't give very good results for fingerprints, so my force only fingerprinted in exceptional cases. But again, i have to emphasis that forensic evidence is only part of a picture, it doesn't tell you anything much other than a person was there and touched something. Thats fine in say an underage rape, it's pretty much all you need, but in theft from cars its not that useful

Genuine question. If the scrotes put a brick through the window and it goes into the car, if the prints are on the brick is that enough to prove guilt.
Click to expand...

Erm, fingerprints off a brick? You'll be lucky! fingerprints are only found on smooth surfaces. There are exceptions to that, superglue is a wonderful invention for that, but bricks isn't one of them.

That's before you get onto, how do you prove that the person who fingerprint is on a brick, was the one that checked it? he could have picked it up a day before, to admire the work of the London Brick company, before simply discarding it by the side of the road and going about his merry way.
 
Last edited:
I don't have time to find the case here as I'm on my way out, Search on Google for Murder - Micky Little, lorry driver, M3, Surrey. The offenders were convicted by Mt. DNA from a house brick found in the cab a few years ago.
 
fabs said:
Good luck getting a fingerprint off a brick.



Any solicitor will just say that his/her client just leant in out of curiosity. Evidence is purely circumstantial and agin, no prove that they committed any crime.
Click to expand...

That is as maybe but when the suspect has been charged it is for the court to decide the outcome.
 
I don't have time to find the case here as I'm on my way out, Search on Google for Murder - Micky Little, lorry driver, M3, Surrey. The offenders were convicted by Mt. DNA from a house brick found in the cab a few years ago.
Click to expand...

There's a very big difference between a murder, and a 'minor' low value criminal damage. In a murder enquiry, money is pretty much no object. Criminal damage to cars is I'm sorry to say not worth spending the cash on. In an ideal world yes, it maybe, but frankly the results wouldn't get much better.
Yes, you can get DNA from an object, BUT that evidence is subject to the same valuation I gave before. The fact there's DNA/fingerprints/clothing fibers on an object is not in itself evidence of guilt.
If, in the case of the M3 death, the defendants had stuck to a story they picked up the brick, or whatever it was, for some reason and then dropped it harmlessly by the side of the road, then unless there's other evidence you've had it.
If of course there's other evidence, then forensic evidence can be seen in a different light, but for most crimes, forensics alone doesn't prove very much other than someone was there at sometime, before during or after. And that's the problem with it, it doesn't tell you when that person was there.
 
Cobra said:
A friend of mine had his car broken into albeit a few years ago now,
and there was a palm & fingers print on the roof. (Sloppy Eh? ;)
And guess what? Yep they weren't interested in that either :(
Click to expand...

Bernie174 said:
Oh good, a lets bash the Old Bill comment!
Click to expand...
I'm not bashing anyone.
Its a fact and I stated a fact.
 
In my area the Police sort it out as follow :-

A letter arrives in the post

" Sorry to hear you have been the victim of crime "

Case closed :rage:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top