| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Warped logic | |
| Posted by: | Rob Reynolds | |
| Date/Time: | 30/07/21 10:19:00 |
| It's a legal requirement to have third party insurance on a car, not to have theft cover for it. So Michael, your argument doesn't hold. Of course the police should prioritise responses based on factors like personal injury trumping property theft. But if the police's response in this instance was really 'we'll only come if the owner reports it' then that's plain wrong. I suspect misspeaking or misunderstanding on one side of the phone call to blame. Hope the stolen car wasn't used for other illegal activities, cloned, damaged other cars, used for a ram raid, used as get away vehicle for a burglary or a mugging etc. Criminals often have more than 1 string to their bow. |