On 28/10/18 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 17:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have
a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?

This person has a dashcam:-
~ he decided to go public to bleat about something;
~ we only saw edited highlights.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple
concepts.

Unless you can prove the unlikely proposition that he also had a "dash"
can shooting of the rear screen, it is you who cannot grasp the simple
context: there is no footage of what happened earlier (when the criminal
on the bike later alleged he was being "obstructed").

But that latter is what you were asking for.

Not in the slightest.

Saying that doesn't change what you were asking for (which is evidence
from a dash cam of something alleged to have been happening *behind* the
car.

Quote me.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts.

That evidence is 99% certain not to exist and your asking for it is an
evasion of the issue.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that
when the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?

The damage to the driver's pride.

I hope so too.

But they cannot ignore expensive criminal damage committed by a
criminal. How would you like it if £2000 worth of damage was done to
your property?

And have you dropped the "innocent until proven guilty" bit?

Very wise now that you know how it works (and how it doesn't work).

I still don't know how it works. I can't be bothered to ask for another
non-answer.