|
Koll
Original Poster
424 posts
33 months
|
Viperz888 said: So you were racing on the public highway? No. We were all together in a conoy. It was brisk but not stupid,dangerous or putting anyone at risk. We race at the track. That's why they are there.
|
|
|
Koll
Original Poster
424 posts
33 months
|
Viperz888 said: So you were racing on the public highway? No. We were all together in a conoy. It was brisk but not stupid,dangerous or putting anyone at risk. We race at the track. That's why they are there.
|
|
|
ferrariF50lover
124 posts
95 months
|
Steffan said: Remarkable, how a really good lawyer can effect the attitude of magistrates. It was the quality of the representation that did it, not the excuse itself. Hence my advice. Good representation can balance a poor case. The more of this I read, the less believable it becomes. I wasn't going to bother, because I don't care enough, but please, do tell us all how you got God Himself to represent you at Court? In this type of case, the very opposite of what you say is true. 90 in a 30 goes miles beyond the remit of speeding, you'd be freakishly lucky not to be charged with dangerous driving. Assuming, somehow, your solicitor managed to convince the CPS that it was merely due care, the points for that offence range from 3 to 9, and there is no way that a Bench decided that this was at the very bottom end. This is, of course, assuming you haven't simply made up the whole thing, for reasons which escape me entirely. Simon.
|
|
|
Steffan
6,187 posts
97 months
|
ferrariF50lover said: Steffan said: Remarkable, how a really good lawyer can effect the attitude of magistrates. It was the quality of the representation that did it, not the excuse itself. Hence my advice. Good representation can balance a poor case. The more of this I read, the less believable it becomes. I wasn't going to bother, because I don't care enough, but please, do tell us all how you got God Himself to represent you at Court? In this type of case, the very opposite of what you say is true. 90 in a 30 goes miles beyond the remit of speeding, you'd be freakishly lucky not to be charged with dangerous driving. Assuming, somehow, your solicitor managed to convince the CPS that it was merely due care, the points for that offence range from 3 to 9, and there is no way that a Bench decided that this was at the very bottom end. This is, of course, assuming you haven't simply made up the whole thing, for reasons which escape me entirely. Simon. You are entitled to your opinion. Unfounded though it is. The offence was in Dorset on the main road running into Dorchester. 30 miles an hour limit on a dual carriageway and I was doing 89.4 mph when caught. I appreciate you do not like the facts. But they they are. The police helpfully informed me my right foot was bad for me. I was parked up waiting for them when they caught up. Had a great time looking at the car I was driving which was a gem. You should remember the various posts on PH that identified the myriad of drivers still on the road with significantly more than 12 points in their licence. Some at very high higher levels I believe there are a number of drivers with more than 20 points on their licence on the road. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383709/Sw...It is the Daily Wail but the facts are correct, 39 points. no ban I would say that was impossible. Clearly not. Magistrates courts, do vary very significantly, in their sentencing. Good representation, as I know from experience, can make a real difference. Hence my post.
|
|
|
Puddenchucker
1,959 posts
87 months
|
ferrariF50lover said: Steffan said: Remarkable, how a really good lawyer can effect the attitude of magistrates. It was the quality of the representation that did it, not the excuse itself. Hence my advice. Good representation can balance a poor case. The more of this I read, the less believable it becomes. I wasn't going to bother, because I don't care enough, but please, do tell us all how you got God Himself to represent you at Court? In this type of case, the very opposite of what you say is true. 90 in a 30 goes miles beyond the remit of speeding, you'd be freakishly lucky not to be charged with dangerous driving. Assuming, somehow, your solicitor managed to convince the CPS that it was merely due care, the points for that offence range from 3 to 9, and there is no way that a Bench decided that this was at the very bottom end. This is, of course, assuming you haven't simply made up the whole thing, for reasons which escape me entirely. Simon. It's possible to 'get off' relatively lightly for speed way over the limit: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/fire_fighter_rode_moto...Report said: ...speeds of 72mph in a 20mph zone and as high as 88mph in a 30mph zone along the road. Report said: ...was fined £150, ordered to pay £100 towards court costs and given six points on his licence.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
NSFW
1,402 posts
59 months
|
rob.kellock said: 4 - 6 points OR disqualify 7 to 28 days. Band B fine, 75 to 125% relevant weekly income less one third credit for an early plea.
Wear a cheap suit with a shirt one collar size too small and a tie - you're trying to show you take it seriously and you're not loaded. Or just send a nice letter and don't lose a day's holiday. Thats what I was thinkign, unsure if it was Ban territory or not, but understood a fine and 6 points would be the norm. I'll just wear my normal suit then 
|
|
|
Froomee
695 posts
38 months
|
10 Pence Short said: If you had been disqualified for 90 days instead you would have had the offence code... ...wait for it... ...SP30!  You wouldn't have attracted points, so you wouldn't lose 6 points space on your licence for 3 years, either. Indeed. My reference to the offence code was because the op's will be different and a ban generally is worse than points for insurance purposes. If you have two bikes and a car the last thing you want to do is give up your license for three months
|
|
|
ferrariF50lover
124 posts
95 months
|
I'm going to suggest, Steffan, that if you were Summonsed for speeding for that offence, which you tell me you were, then the disinterest of the Prosecutor, rather than the quality of your representation, was to blame for your being allowed to keep your licence/freedom.
As to 39 points and no DQ, that's Special Reasons for you. Quite how he found separate reasons for each argument, I'm not sure, but there it is. That is, of course, once again assuming that the reporting of the facts is accurate.
I'm not sure I'd suggest that I don't like what you did, it's more that I feel you never faced any sort of relative justice for it under the current system. That said, I'm not sure the current system is as good as it should be. I seem to be caught in a spiral of uncertainty, and that, at half three in the morning, is not a good place to be.
Simon.
|
|
|
Steffan
6,187 posts
97 months
|
ferrariF50lover said: I'm going to suggest, Steffan, that if you were Summonsed for speeding for that offence, which you tell me you were, then the disinterest of the Prosecutor, rather than the quality of your representation, was to blame for your being allowed to keep your licence/freedom.
As to 39 points and no DQ, that's Special Reasons for you. Quite how he found separate reasons for each argument, I'm not sure, but there it is. That is, of course, once again assuming that the reporting of the facts is accurate.
I'm not sure I'd suggest that I don't like what you did, it's more that I feel you never faced any sort of relative justice for it under the current system. That said, I'm not sure the current system is as good as it should be. I seem to be caught in a spiral of uncertainty, and that, at half three in the morning, is not a good place to be.
Simon. You may fell this is an appropriate post. I feel that an apology, from you, for impugning my honesty, as to the sentencing that I received for a specific speeding offence, without the slightest actual reason, would be more apposite. Your opinions are your own. They are worth as much as your knowledge of this actual case. Not a lot. Calling an individuals honesty into question, without good reason is simply wrong. Your opinion of the reasons for the courts decision are purely that. There can be no reasonable assessment of the facts or details of the courts decision, or sensible consideration of the reasoning behind the court decision by you. You do not know the case. You have had no detail of the actual proceedings. In consequence, any reasoning that you propose, is based on a complete lack of knowledge of the case. Impugning someones honesty, without the slightest reasonable grounds, is a shoddy act, on a public forum. Please admit the mistake.
|
|
|
Johnnytheboy
7,114 posts
55 months
|
Steffan said: You are entitled to your opinion. Unfounded though it is. The offence was in Dorset on the main road running into Dorchester. 30 miles an hour limit on a dual carriageway and I was doing 89.4 mph when caught. Which 30 limited DC in to Dorchester?
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,585 posts
86 months
|
Froomee said: 10 Pence Short said: If you had been disqualified for 90 days instead you would have had the offence code... ...wait for it... ...SP30! You wouldn't have attracted points, so you wouldn't lose 6 points space on your licence for 3 years, either. Indeed. My reference to the offence code was because the op's will be different and a ban generally is worse than points for insurance purposes. If you have two bikes and a car the last thing you want to do is give up your license for three months I'd be surprised if the offence code was anything other than SP30 for the OP. A ban, points and/or fine is a matter for sentencing and shouldn't affect the offence code. I'd also be surprised if 82mph in a 50 limit ended in a 3 month ban. The guidelines suggest a maximum of 56 days or 6 points.
|
|
|
Wozy68
1,370 posts
39 months
|
Steffan said: You may fell this is an appropriate post. I feel that an apology, from you, for impugning my honesty, as to the sentencing that I received for a specific speeding offence, without the slightest actual reason, would be more apposite.
Your opinions are your own. They are worth as much as your knowledge of this actual case. Not a lot.
Calling an individuals honesty into question, without good reason is simply wrong. Your opinion of the reasons for the courts decision are purely that. There can be no reasonable assessment of the facts or details of the courts decision, or sensible consideration of the reasoning behind the court decision by you. You do not know the case. You have had no detail of the actual proceedings. In consequence, any reasoning that you propose, is based on a complete lack of knowledge of the case.
Impugning someones honesty, without the slightest reasonable grounds, is a shoddy act, on a public forum. Please admit the mistake. I'm with you on this. How many times do posters just state that a post is made up without knowing any/all of the facts, and basically are stating you are lying. Reading through this thread, there must be at least six posts where someone has posted totally irreverent statements. I feel for you. It's a sad case that a forum that started up mainly for like minded petrolheads has been either infiltrated by the holy than thou brigade, or just a bunch of know it alls that have little to input. Reading the above, thinking about it, I guess my post is the same.  Best of luck with your case.
|
|
