Speeding Fine Question

pudzey101

Sorry if has been asked before but got a fixed charge and points in the door today from last month , but i wasnt driving the car at the time . was in hospital for a week at the time the offence was committed . one of the brothers took my car without me knowing and none of them will own up

where do i go from here ? would be worth taking to court and explaining ?

CiniO

So you were not driving a car, and you can prove it.
There isn't really a way you can be prosecuted for speeding then, so do go to court.

visual

As regustered owner its your responsibility
either you take the points or one of your bothers admits and accepts points.

Either way points and fine will be dished out in court.

zurbfoundation

Think you will be urged in court to say who had the car

pudzey101

ok so take it to court ? does that mean not pay the fine etc ? telling the judge who was driving is going to be mission impossible lol

Victor

Ask the office that sent you the fine for the photo.

Then sit the brothers down together and in a non-accusatory manner, tell them that you have sent off for the photo and that you want them to own up promptly, but that you are happy to have the admission in private.

Does the location of the offence give a hint as to who it might be?

Henry Ford III

pudzey101 wrote: »

ok so take it to court ? does that mean not pay the fine etc ? telling the judge who was driving is going to be mission impossible lol

If you don't i.d. the driver the points will be all yours.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If you don't i.d. the driver the points will be all yours.

How can OP be penalised with fine and points, if he can prove he is innocent.

Yes - I read this mad Irish law which assumes that vehicle registered owner was driving during offence, until contrary is shown, which is clearly against basic rule of "innocent unless proven guilty".

But in OP's case, he can prove he was not driving (he was in hospital) - so that's the contrary which can be shown and prevent of from being prosecuted.

pudzey101

Victor wrote: »

Ask the office that sent you the fine for the photo.

Then sit the brothers down together and in a non-accusatory manner, tell them that you have sent off for the photo and that you want them to own up promptly, but that you are happy to have the admission in private.

Does the location of the offence give a hint as to who it might be?

dont think il get better advice than this !! cheers victor can be locked before a war erupts in here lol

whiteandlight

That's definitely the best plan. As an aside I'd be explaining in no uncertain tones that "borrowing" my car when I'm in hospital without asking is just pure cheek!

Effects

Your brothers sound like they are total knobs.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

How can OP be penalised with fine and points, if he can prove he is innocent.

Yes - I read this mad Irish law which assumes that vehicle registered owner was driving during offence, until contrary is shown, which is clearly against basic rule of "innocent unless proven guilty".

But in OP's case, he can prove he was not driving (he was in hospital) - so that's the contrary which can be shown and prevent of from being prosecuted.

Laws are not always fair. OP should have been more careful with the keys, or else find a way to i.d. the driver.

p.s. I'm not sure I beleieve the O.P. He/she starts way too many threads. Smacks of ADHD or something.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Laws are not always fair. OP should have been more careful with the keys, or else find a way to i.d. the driver.

Indeed they are not always fair.

But in this particular case, if OP was prosecuted for speeding, even though he could prove he wasn't driving, it would be to mad even for Irish law.
I don't believe anything like that can happen here.

p.s. I'm not sure I beleieve the O.P. He/she starts way too many threads. Smacks of ADHD or something.

Leave this aside. We can always discuss OP's case even if it's only hypothetical.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

....Leave this aside. We can always discuss OP's case even if it's only hypothetical.

You might but I couldn't be bothered.

No Pants

You've been bad recently OP. First caught by a guard with no seatbelt and now this. Report that your car was taken without your permission and let the guards handle it. Your brothers are dicks for behaving in this way.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

Indeed they are not always fair.

But in this particular case, if OP was prosecuted for speeding, even though he could prove he wasn't driving, it would be to mad even for Irish law.
I don't believe anything like that can happen here.

It doesnt matter if he can prove that he wasnt driving. The registered owner is obliged to know who was driving their car, and if they cannot nominate a driver to receive the points/fine then they get them. It may not be a fair system but thats the law. You are supposed to know who is driving your car.

The only other scenario is that the car was reported as stolen. The OP can go down this road if they wish and claim that the car was taken without their knowledge or consent, however Im not sure they are going to want one of their brothers facing charges of car theft over this...

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

It doesnt matter if he can prove that he wasnt driving.

IMO it matters a lot.

The registered owner is obliged to know who was driving their car,

Show me any law with such requirement. AFAIR there isn't one.

and if they cannot nominate a driver to receive the points/fine then they get them.

Driver can not be charged with fine and points for speeding, which he didn't commence.
Indeed - Irish law assumes that registered owner is driving the car, until contrary is shown. But it doesn't mean that driver can be charged for speeding, if it's clear that he wasn't driving.
That would be really ridiculous if court could charge someone for offence, which this person clearly didn't commit and could prove that in front of the judge.

It may not be a fair system but thats the law. You are supposed to know who is driving your car.

You are assumed to be driving your own car. But no where it says you need to know who is driving it (if it's not you) and nowhere it says that you will be prosecuted for offence which you can prove you didn't commit.

Look at it...
Imagine court case, where OP is accused of speeding.
Irish law assumes that if his car was caught speeding, then it was him driving it at that time, unless contrary is shown. That's why OP ends up in court.
So Judge asks OP if he was speeding and shows proof of OP's car being caught speeding, to which OP replies that it couldn't have been himself, as he was somewhere else at that time (hospital) and he presents credible proof.
Judge asks OP - so who was driving your car, to which OP replies "I don't know".
So then judge presents a verdict and pleads OP guilty of speeding and issues a fine and penalty points for him.

Does it make sense - of course not...
Judge will not be able to prosecute OP for speeding, if there is clear evidence that OP wasn't speeding, no matter if it can be found who was really speeding or not.

Judge can not just say - I know you were not speeding, but I'll prosecute you for speeding, as we can't establish who was.
Complete nonsense.

pudzey101

Just to clear up few things , i never knew the car had been taking as i gave no-one permission . the spare key was stolen from the drawer in my house and returned and i knew non the wiser . i can obtain valid evidence to prove i was in hospital at the time the offence was commited .

challengemaster

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_2002_0012.PDF wrote:

(4) Where—
(a) a notice under this section is served on the registered owner of a mechanically
propelled vehicle or affixed to such a vehicle, and
(b) the registered owner of the vehicle was not driving or otherwise using the
vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence to which the
notice relates,the registered owner shall—
(i) not later than 28 days after the date of the notice give or send to a member
of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden at the Garda Síochána station
or other place specified in the notice a document in the prescribed form
signed by the registered owner and stating the name and address of the
person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of such
commission, and

(ii) give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden
within such period as may be specified by the member or warden at the
Garda Síochána station or other place aforesaid such other information
within his or her knowledge or procurement as the member or warden
may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying, and establishing
the whereabouts of, the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this
paragraph.

(8)(d) if the registered owner of the vehicle concerned was not driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offense concerned, he or she is required by subsection (4) of this section –

(i) not later than 28 days after the date of the notice, to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden at the specified Garda Síochána station or another specified place a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of such commission, and

(ii) to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or traffic warden within such period as may be specified by him or her at a specified Garda Síochána station or another specified place such other information within his or her knowledge or procurement as the member or warden may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying, and establishing the whereabouts of, the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

(9)
(e) if the registered owner complies with the said subsection (4), the payment
aforesaid need not be made by the registered owner and a prosecution of
the registered owner in respect of the alleged offence aforesaid shall not be
initiated.


(11) Where, in a case to which subsection (2)(b) of this section applies, the registered
owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not furnish in
accordance with subsection (4) of this section the information specified in
paragraph (i) of that subsection, then, in a prosecution of that owner for the
alleged offence to which the notice under the said subsection (2)(b) relates,
it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving
or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said
alleged offence.

(17) A person who, pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, gives or sends to a
member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden information (whether or
not contained in a document) that is, to his or her knowledge, false or
misleading shall be guilty of an offence.

11 being the most relevant part here, but as you have proof you weren't driving at the time, I don't know how this will play out. The offence certainly won't magically disappear. I'd say unless one of the brothers owns up, they could be looking at more serious charges.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

IMO it matters a lot.


Show me any law with such requirement. AFAIR there isn't one.


Driver can not be charged with fine and points for speeding, which he didn't commence.
Indeed - Irish law assumes that registered owner is driving the car, until contrary is shown. But it doesn't mean that driver can be charged for speeding, if it's clear that he wasn't driving.
That would be really ridiculous if court could charge someone for offence, which this person clearly didn't commit and could prove that in front of the judge.


You are assumed to be driving your own car. But no where it says you need to know who is driving it (if it's not you) and nowhere it says that you will be prosecuted for offence which you can prove you didn't commit.

Look at it...
Imagine court case, where OP is accused of speeding.
Irish law assumes that if his car was caught speeding, then it was him driving it at that time, unless contrary is shown. That's why OP ends up in court.
So Judge asks OP if he was speeding and shows proof of OP's car being caught speeding, to which OP replies that it couldn't have been himself, as he was somewhere else at that time (hospital) and he presents credible proof.
Judge asks OP - so who was driving your car, to which OP replies "I don't know".
So then judge presents a verdict and pleads OP guilty of speeding and issues a fine and penalty points for him.

Does it make sense - of course not...
Judge will not be able to prosecute OP for speeding, if there is clear evidence that OP wasn't speeding, no matter if it can be found who was really speeding or not.

Judge can not just say - I know you were not speeding, but I'll prosecute you for speeding, as we can't establish who was.
Complete nonsense.

Somebody was speeding, and somebody has to take the rap for it.

ba_barabus

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Somebody was speeding, and somebody has to take the rap for it.

And given the OP says the key was stolen and they had no permission (or insurance I'd imagine) the brothers could find themselves in a lot if trouble if it went to court.

OP if your brothers were driving it would be a lot easier for them to take the points rather than go before a judge as you'll effectively be saying your brothers stole your car.

Effects

CiniO wrote: »

IMO it matters a lot.

You're opinion doesn't matter to the law though. It's a catch 33 situation.

ironclaw

If they were caught by a van, you can request a larger photo and you will probably be able to see who is driving and where. Tie that into times and dates, you should be able to work it out.

doolox

4 yrs ago while I was on holidays a close relative took the spare key of my car and was involved in a car accident for which she had to pay for the damage to both my car and the other car.

I have taken the precaution since then of taking BOTH sets of keys with me on holiday and leaving the car without petrol etc so as to avoid a repeat performance.

The hassle caused was monumental in terms of recovering the money owed and sorting out the insurance and other ramifications.

I have since found out that it is fairly common for people going abroad etc to have to secure their vehicles in a similar way to avoid temptation to car-hungry relatives taking the vehicle for a spin...........

Also when disposing or selling a car make sure to register the act with the local guardai who will advise you on what official steps to take to register change of ownership properly. Many small garages and casual dealers do not do this in good time and any speeding, parking etc fines can be sent to the last known owner of the car ie YOU if the paperwork is not done properly.

My dad was done for parking on a car he had sold but it took a lot of paperwork and explaining to get out from it.

mackeire

No Pants wrote: »

Report that your car was taken without your permission and let the guards handle it. Your brothers are dicks for behaving in this way.

Yeah you brothers are dicks so report them to the guards.
Thats how normal people deal with family issues!

The Dagda

visual wrote: »

As regustered owner its your responsibility
either you take the points or one of your bothers admits and accepts points.

Either way points and fine will be dished out in court.

That's not the way it works.

Only the summonsed person can be tried in court on the day.

If the judge believes the Op's story the case will be dismissed.

The judge can ask the Gardai to investigate who was driving the car but mosy likely won't as there's deadlines for prosecution which may be in play.

In any case, if the fixed charge notice is from a Go-Safe van, and OP decides not to pay, the case might not even make it to court because of the new loophole that arose this week.

No Pants

mackeire wrote: »

Yeah you brothers are dicks so report them to the guards.
Thats how normal people deal with family issues!

I never suggested that the brothers be reported to the guards. I said report that the car was taken without her permission to the guards. "Normal people" as you put it don't take other peoples stuff without permission. :rolleyes:

Please feel free to post your suggestion on how you believe the OP should handle the situation.

mackeire

No Pants wrote: »

I never suggested that the brothers be reported to the guards. I said report that the car was taken without her permission to the guards. "Normal people" as you put it don't take other peoples stuff without permission. :rolleyes:

Please feel free to post your suggestion on how you believe the OP should handle the situation.

He said one of his brothers took the car. you said to get the guards involved.
To me that sounds like you are suggesting he gets the guards to find out which brother took his car without permission.

So answer me this: If I took your car without permission and the guards found out that it was me, What do you think would happen to me?
Well the exact same thing would happen to his brother! Would you get your brother into that much trouble with the law over a poxy fine and a couple of penalty points?

CiniO

No Pants wrote: »

Please feel free to post your suggestion on how you believe the OP should handle the situation.

I believe OP should go to court. In court he should present a proof that he was in hospital at the time of offence, which will clear him off any accusations.
Then if court will follow case up to find out who was driving, OP can just make his statements to best of his knowledge (say where the keys were, who possibly could have access to them, etc) and let the guards to their job to find out who was driving.

CiniO

challengemaster wrote: »

11 being the most relevant part here, but as you have proof you weren't driving at the time, I don't know how this will play out. The offence certainly won't magically disappear. I'd say unless one of the brothers owns up, they could be looking at more serious charges.

That's what I means earlier - I just couldn't find relevant law.

(11) Where, in a case to which subsection (2)(b) of this section applies, the registered
owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not furnish in
accordance with subsection (4) of this section the information specified in
paragraph (i) of that subsection, then, in a prosecution of that owner for the
alleged offence to which the notice under the said subsection (2)(b) relates,
it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving
or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said
alleged offence.

So in short until contrary is shown, it should be presumed that registered owner was driving. However if OP can prove that he was in hospital and couldn't be driving at that time, that's literally this contrary.
After that OP can not be prosecuted for offence, which he just proved he didn't commit.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Somebody was speeding, and somebody has to take the rap for it.

Yes - someone committed an offence.
But it's crucial that person charged for doing so, is the actual person who committed that offence - not someone else.

If OP can prove he didn't commit the offence, there is no way he could be prosecuted for this offence, just based on fact that he doesn't know who did.

IMO Irish law goes way too far with this presumption that registered owner was driving at time of offence, and leaving obligation to prove otherwise on that person - as this is clearly against general rule of "innocent until proven guilty". And it doesn't work like that in other countries. But let it be - that's a fact that's how it works in Ireland.
But don't go too far. Once it's proved he wasn't driving at time of offence, he can not be prosecuted for doing so.

With saying - somebody has to take the rap - well - somebody should.
But if person who was really speeding at the time can not be found, then there is absolutely no reason for registered owner to take the blame, consider he can prove it wasn't him.
If that was the case, it would mean that there was something really wrong with Irish law system.

slimjimmc

CiniO wrote: »

That's what I means earlier - I just couldn't find relevant law.



So in short until contrary is shown, it should be presumed that registered owner was driving. However if OP can prove that he was in hospital and couldn't be driving at that time, that's literally this contrary.
After that OP can not be prosecuted for offence, which he just proved he didn't commit.

Over the years I've read newspaper reports of cases where the owner proved beyond doubt he wasn't driving but could not identify who was. In those cases the outcome was as you've outlined ie the owner was not convicted and Gardai to investigate further.

Whichever brother was driving is likely to end up in deep crud for speeding and taking a car without consent, unless the OP takes the full flak. The OP should remind him the Gardaí can ID him from the photo.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

Yes - someone committed an offence.
But it's crucial that person charged for doing so, is the actual person who committed that offence - not someone else.

If OP can prove he didn't commit the offence, there is no way he could be prosecuted for this offence, just based on fact that he doesn't know who did.

IMO Irish law goes way too far with this presumption that registered owner was driving at time of offence, and leaving obligation to prove otherwise on that person - as this is clearly against general rule of "innocent until proven guilty". And it doesn't work like that in other countries. But let it be - that's a fact that's how it works in Ireland.
But don't go too far. Once it's proved he wasn't driving at time of offence, he can not be prosecuted for doing so.

With saying - somebody has to take the rap - well - somebody should.
But if person who was really speeding at the time can not be found, then there is absolutely no reason for registered owner to take the blame, consider he can prove it wasn't him.
If that was the case, it would mean that there was something really wrong with Irish law system.

I think if the owner wasn't driving it's his/her responsibilty to know who was driving their car.

It's no excuse to say "someone stole it, got done for speeding, and now won't take the rap for it".

Think of the fine/points as being a penalty for irresponsibilty. I bet it'll never happen twice.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think if the owner wasn't driving it's his/her responsibilty to know who was driving their car.

I'm not sure if there is any law putting a requirement for vehicle registered owner to remember (or note down) who and when was driving his car. I actually don't think there is, but I might be wrong about it.

But even if there is such law, it doesn't mean person can get prosecuted for speeding which he didn't commit and can prove it, just because he doesn't know who was driving his car at that time. Exactly as slimjimmc confirmed above.

It's no excuse to say "someone stole it, got done for speeding, and now won't take the rap for it".

Well we are not talking about excuses. It's really simple. Owner is presumed to be driving during offence, but if he can prove he wasn't he can't get prosecuted for commiting this offence. It's really simple logic to be honest.

Think of the fine/points as being a penalty for irresponsibilty. I bet it'll never happen twice.

If they wanted to introduce fine for not disclosing person who was driving - then OK. Let it be.
But as far as I know, there is no fixed penalty or penalty points for non disclosing person driving.

Henry Ford III

Once again the laws don't have to be fair, nor logical. It's quite clear what this particular law means however - in the absense of i.d. of the driver the vehicle owner is liable.

Seems quite reasonable.

challengemaster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Once again the laws don't have to be fair, nor logical. It's quite clear what this particular law means however - in the absense of i.d. of the driver the vehicle owner is liable.

Seems quite reasonable.

Unless they can prove they weren't driving. Which he can.

The act doesn't actually explicitly state what happens in these circumstances.

Henry Ford III

challengemaster wrote: »

Unless they can prove they weren't driving. Which he can.

The act doesn't actually explicitly state what happens in these circumstances.

Yes it does. If the driver isn't identified the owner takes the fine/points. Puts the onus firmly on the owners feet.

challengemaster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Yes it does. If the driver isn't identified the owner takes the fine/points. Puts the onus firmly on the owners feet.

Point out the exact part of the legislation that says that.

Henry Ford III

challengemaster wrote: »

Point out the exact part of the legislation that says that.

I don't need to do that. Feel free to look it up yourself however.

The notice automatically goes to registered owner and it's unless they can i.d. another driver it's their issue. There's an assumption that the registered owner was driving.

I'd ask for a better picture in the circumstances outlined by the O.P. but wouldn't be surprised if the driver was wearing a comedy mask of some sort. The whole thing sounds very far fetched to me at least.

challengemaster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I don't need to do that. Feel free to look it up yourself however.

The notice automatically goes to registered owner and it's unless they can i.d. another driver it's their issue. There's an assumption that the registered owner was driving.

The legislation already quoted above (which if you bothered to read) proves you're wrong.

If you're going to make a statement of fact - find something to back it up. So - you do need to do that.

Henry Ford III

No interest in arguing. No lack of clarity in the legislation however in my opinion.

lillen

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I don't need to do that. Feel free to look it up yourself however.

I love seeing these statements on discussion forums.
If you claim that what you are saying is true, it is up to you to prove so - anything else just shows that you are full of 5hite.

Effects

No Pants wrote: »

I never suggested that the brothers be reported to the guards. I said report that the car was taken without her permission to the guards. "Normal people" as you put it don't take other peoples stuff without permission. :rolleyes:

So you advise wasting police time then. He knows it was one of his brother but you want to get the Gardai to solve this important case while withholding information on the two main suspects. Pretty smart.

No Pants

mackeire wrote: »

He said one of his brothers took the car. you said to get the guards involved.
To me that sounds like you are suggesting he gets the guards to find out which brother took his car without permission.

So answer me this: If I took your car without permission and the guards found out that it was me, What do you think would happen to me?
Well the exact same thing would happen to his brother! Would you get your brother into that much trouble with the law over a poxy fine and a couple of penalty points?

Neither brother has admitted to taking the car. Therefore the identity of who exactly used the car is still in question. The OP states that no permission was given for anyone to use the car. Therefore it is a matter for the Gardai.

My brother has a bit more respect for me than to:

1. Take my car without my permission.
2. Use it in a way that brings me to the attention of the authorities.
3. Not take responsibility for points 1 and 2.

Your family may be different. :rolleyes:

Effects

No Pants wrote: »

Neither brother has admitted to taking the car. Therefore the identity of who exactly used the car is still in question. The OP states that no permission was given for anyone to use the car. Therefore it is a matter for the Gardai.

You sound like one of those gumps that has a minor collision and then blocks the road while waiting for the Gardaí to arrive rather than pull off to the side.

No Pants

Effects wrote: »

So you advise wasting police time then. He knows it was one of his brother but you want to get the Gardai to solve this important case while withholding information on the two main suspects. Pretty smart.

Let's refer back to the OP:

pudzey101 wrote: »

one of the brothers took my car without me knowing and none of them will own up

So, a car has been taken without permission and we don't know who by. You write a letter to Santa if you want, I'd go with the Gardai. Taking cars without the permission of the owner is right down their street. I advise full disclosure to the Gardai.

Henry Ford III

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Licensed-Drivers/Penalty-points/How-it-works-why-it-matters/

Towards the bottom it says.....

"Where an offence is detected by camera, the fixed-charge notice will be sent to the registered owner. The Road Traffic Act provides that unless another person is identified as the driver it will be assumed that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence.

There is an explicit requirement that where the registered owner of a vehicle was not driving or using the vehicle he or she must give the name and contact details of the driver of the vehicle. No payment should be enclosed.

When this information is received, the fixed charge notice will be issued to the named driver, on whose licence record the points will be endorsed, either on payment of a fixed charge or a court conviction."

Clear enough?

No Pants

Effects wrote: »

You sound like one of those gumps that has a minor collision and then blocks the road while waiting for the Gardaí to arrive rather than pull off to the side.

No idea, I've never had a collision.

Effects wrote: »

gumps

WTF is this?

challengemaster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Licensed-Drivers/Penalty-points/How-it-works-why-it-matters/

Towards the bottom it says.....

"Where an offence is detected by camera, the fixed-charge notice will be sent to the registered owner. The Road Traffic Act provides that unless another person is identified as the driver it will be assumed that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence.

There is an explicit requirement that where the registered owner of a vehicle was not driving or using the vehicle he or she must give the name and contact details of the driver of the vehicle. No payment should be enclosed.

When this information is received, the fixed charge notice will be issued to the named driver, on whose licence record the points will be endorsed, either on payment of a fixed charge or a court conviction."

Clear enough?

It may help if you actually read the thread before replying again. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

This has already all been clarified. Yes, unless the owner of the vehicle can prove otherwise he is assumed to have been driving.

it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving
or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said
alleged offence.

HOWEVER, the OP already said many times he has proof he wasn't driving.

Henry Ford III

challengemaster wrote:

HOWEVER, the OP already said many times he has proof he wasn't driving.

That doesn't matter. He either produces the driver or takes the rap.

challengemaster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That doesn't matter. He either produces the driver or takes the rap.

Learn to read. Then try again.