New courts to deal with traffic offences
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
Someone's not telling you the truth.
You cannot be sentenced at Magistrates then sentenced again at Crown Court for the same offence.
You should also note that the minimum sentence for Dangerous Driving is 12 months disqualify not 3.
It sounds to me as if your 21 year old has committed multiple offences and dressed them up as one to make it look better for you.
In any case, you haven't got the full picture, I assure you.
The magistarates felt they could not deal with it so they took the decision to refer it upwards for sentancing. They suspended his licence for three months and refered him to the probation officer, where he has to go weekly. I have seen all the paperwork, his father is the manager of my Colchester branch and has now sought advice from our Barrister. Had he have done that before I suspect the outcome might have been sorted better, as it was the duty soliciter was not interested on the day. You cannot be sentenced at Magistrates then sentenced again at Crown Court for the same offence.
You should also note that the minimum sentence for Dangerous Driving is 12 months disqualify not 3.
It sounds to me as if your 21 year old has committed multiple offences and dressed them up as one to make it look better for you.
In any case, you haven't got the full picture, I assure you.
He has been charged with Dangerous driving, that is it nothing else at all. I suspect the magistrate felt they did not want him driving whilst this was sorted out which does not really make sense as he was able to drive up to the hearing which was nearly six months after the accident.
I can only tell you what I have seen in writing and the actions being taken. He has admitted the offence as he had no excuse for it, he did not lie and took the advice of the police officer who attended the accident and subsequently was the one who charged him. As I said he is of good character, never had a driving offence of any kind before that and even though it was a serious accident no one was hurt other than shock and a few bruises. The police man even said they felt it was a very low speed impact so he wasn't hooning about.
He is in Court tomorrow in Colchester for final sentancing hopefully someone will see sense and just fine him, serve the rest of his ban and get on with his life.
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
Abolish the "offences" and the meed for infrastructure vanishes. 
What sort of 'offences' do you have in mond?Einion Yrth said:
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
Abolish the "offences" and the meed for infrastructure vanishes.
What sort of 'offences' do you have in mond?Einion Yrth said:
singlecoil said:
fluffnik said:
Breaches of arbitrary speed limits and the like.
So one could drive at any speed one chose, then?I don't even drive everywhere at VMax on the fine unrestricted Bundesautobahnen.
If a driver's speed choice is not reckless there is no need for the law to get involved.
singlecoil said:
I'm not worried about you, but I wouldn't fancy sharing the roads with people who were not so thoughtful about their driving, and many of who might feel they had good reasons for covering the stretch of M5 between W-S-M and Patchway at 145mph.
I'm not familiar with that stretch of road, if there any particular reason why 145mph would be reckless in good conditions?
singlecoil said:
It would be interesting to know what proportion of drivers find themselves in court, out of the whole driving population. I expect it's actually quite small.
This was my thinking too. If anyone on here is a magistrate or works in a magistrate's court, please feel free to enlighten us. The proposal for special courts for traffic offences doesn't sit well with me. I think there's already a tendency to expect a motorist to plead guilty even if they're not or there are mitigating circumstances and this IMO will exacerbate it.
spaximus said:
<snip>
But why stop at this, why not have weekend courts for the drunks? Instead of providing sleep off buses and giving lifts home, bang them all up overnight and heavy fine drunk and disorderly next morning or at most two days after would raise a lot of money and might stop A&E looking like a warzone at the weekends, our city and town centres smelling like a urinal in the morning and might make the centres attractive to those who do not want to witness the worst of behaviour.
given minor D+D and s. 5 POA can be dealt with by a FPN when the DP is sober enough this is exactly what we do have But why stop at this, why not have weekend courts for the drunks? Instead of providing sleep off buses and giving lifts home, bang them all up overnight and heavy fine drunk and disorderly next morning or at most two days after would raise a lot of money and might stop A&E looking like a warzone at the weekends, our city and town centres smelling like a urinal in the morning and might make the centres attractive to those who do not want to witness the worst of behaviour.
'stopping A+E looking like a warzone because of drunken <chavs>' is not going to be a viable option unless and until you can fund sufficient Consultant Medical and Registered Nursing cover and additional custody staff / HCAs to enable D+Is to be dealt with in a seperate unit attached to acute general hospitals ... or is a toll of people with head injuries and underlying medical conditions dying in cells with the associated fall out in terms of the livelihood of the Custody Officers acceptable on your planet ? Chief officers decided D+I means A+E to protect both DPs and Officers after a number of such deaths, unfortunately they did not include the extra staffing in their budgets nor did they ensure that NHS funding was increased to cover this ...
singlecoil said:
It would be interesting to know what proportion of drivers find themselves in court, out of the whole driving population. I expect it's actually quite small.
and how many find themselves in a repeated pattern of ; offence - behave 6 months - offence - behave 6 months - near miss - drive like an angel until first lot of points no longer counts for totting - drive like a prat -offence - behave 6 months - offence - behave 6 months - near miss - drive like an angel until first lot of points no longer counts for totting - drive like a prat -offence - behave 6 months - offence - behave 6 months - near miss - drive like an angel until first lot of points no longer counts for totting - drive like a prat -offence - behave 6 months - offence - behave 6 months - near miss - drive like an angel until first lot of points no longer counts for totting - drive like a prat until they get banned or kill themselves fluffnik said:
singlecoil said:
I'm not worried about you, but I wouldn't fancy sharing the roads with people who were not so thoughtful about their driving, and many of who might feel they had good reasons for covering the stretch of M5 between W-S-M and Patchway at 145mph.
I'm not familiar with that stretch of road, if there any particular reason why 145mph would be reckless in good conditions?[quote=mph1977]
given minor D+D and s. 5 POA can be dealt with by a FPN when the DP is sober enough this is exactly what we do have
'stopping A+E looking like a warzone because of drunken <chavs>' is not going to be a viable option unless and until you can fund sufficient Consultant Medical and Registered Nursing cover and additional custody staff / HCAs to enable D+Is to be dealt with in a seperate unit attached to acute general hospitals ... or is a toll of people with head injuries and underlying medical conditions dying in cells with the associated fall out in terms of the livelihood of the Custody Officers acceptable on your planet ? Chief officers decided D+I means A+E to protect both DPs and Officers after a number of such deaths, unfortunately they did not include the extra staffing in their budgets nor did they ensure that NHS funding was increased to cover this ...
[/quote
In the schemes I have seen there is an NHS team who asses the drunks in the town centres, so someone is already paying them.
The current problem with A&E is that too many people are being sent via the 111 for aliments that are not serious and some who cannot get a GP appointment.
But there is no doubt that on a Friday and Saturday night the amount of abuse the staff get and the amount of injuries that are caused by drunken behaviour is unacceptable.
If we treated drunks like motorists they would be fined heavily and the money could be used to pay for any special service that were agreed between the police and the NHS.
given minor D+D and s. 5 POA can be dealt with by a FPN when the DP is sober enough this is exactly what we do have
'stopping A+E looking like a warzone because of drunken <chavs>' is not going to be a viable option unless and until you can fund sufficient Consultant Medical and Registered Nursing cover and additional custody staff / HCAs to enable D+Is to be dealt with in a seperate unit attached to acute general hospitals ... or is a toll of people with head injuries and underlying medical conditions dying in cells with the associated fall out in terms of the livelihood of the Custody Officers acceptable on your planet ? Chief officers decided D+I means A+E to protect both DPs and Officers after a number of such deaths, unfortunately they did not include the extra staffing in their budgets nor did they ensure that NHS funding was increased to cover this ...
[/quote
In the schemes I have seen there is an NHS team who asses the drunks in the town centres, so someone is already paying them.
The current problem with A&E is that too many people are being sent via the 111 for aliments that are not serious and some who cannot get a GP appointment.
But there is no doubt that on a Friday and Saturday night the amount of abuse the staff get and the amount of injuries that are caused by drunken behaviour is unacceptable.
If we treated drunks like motorists they would be fined heavily and the money could be used to pay for any special service that were agreed between the police and the NHS.
spaximus said:
mph1977 said:
given minor D+D and s. 5 POA can be dealt with by a FPN when the DP is sober enough this is exactly what we do have
'stopping A+E looking like a warzone because of drunken <chavs>' is not going to be a viable option unless and until you can fund sufficient Consultant Medical and Registered Nursing cover and additional custody staff / HCAs to enable D+Is to be dealt with in a seperate unit attached to acute general hospitals ... or is a toll of people with head injuries and underlying medical conditions dying in cells with the associated fall out in terms of the livelihood of the Custody Officers acceptable on your planet ? Chief officers decided D+I means A+E to protect both DPs and Officers after a number of such deaths, unfortunately they did not include the extra staffing in their budgets nor did they ensure that NHS funding was increased to cover this ...
In the schemes I have seen there is an NHS team who asses the drunks in the town centres, so someone is already paying them.'stopping A+E looking like a warzone because of drunken <chavs>' is not going to be a viable option unless and until you can fund sufficient Consultant Medical and Registered Nursing cover and additional custody staff / HCAs to enable D+Is to be dealt with in a seperate unit attached to acute general hospitals ... or is a toll of people with head injuries and underlying medical conditions dying in cells with the associated fall out in terms of the livelihood of the Custody Officers acceptable on your planet ? Chief officers decided D+I means A+E to protect both DPs and Officers after a number of such deaths, unfortunately they did not include the extra staffing in their budgets nor did they ensure that NHS funding was increased to cover this ...
The current problem with A&E is that too many people are being sent via the 111 for aliments that are not serious and some who cannot get a GP appointment.
But there is no doubt that on a Friday and Saturday night the amount of abuse the staff get and the amount of injuries that are caused by drunken behaviour is unacceptable.
If we treated drunks like motorists they would be fined heavily and the money could be used to pay for any special service that were agreed between the police and the NHS.
there isn't one - it's funding diverted from the Ambulance Service's general budget sometimes topped up by policing or NTE funding from local govt/ local licensees ...
also a lot of the 'NHS teams' doing this aren't NHS staff - instead it's volunteers with the presence of very limited support from the Ambulance Service ...
Silver said:
This was my thinking too. If anyone on here is a magistrate or works in a magistrate's court, please feel free to enlighten us.
The proposal for special courts for traffic offences doesn't sit well with me. I think there's already a tendency to expect a motorist to plead guilty even if they're not or there are mitigating circumstances and this IMO will exacerbate it.
It will be interesting to see what a motoring offense consists of. On the one hand a perfectly law abiding citizen with a license, tax and insurance breaking a speed limit no government has ever had a mandate to impose, let alone enforce. Losing his livelihood and his ability to pay tax and therefore contribute. The proposal for special courts for traffic offences doesn't sit well with me. I think there's already a tendency to expect a motorist to plead guilty even if they're not or there are mitigating circumstances and this IMO will exacerbate it.
On the other hand a 15 year old scrote who has broken into the citizens house, stolen the keys and then put his and others lives in danger, culminating in a car wreck. Seen leaving court with a big grin on his face because the stupid
In both cases the answer is a public flogging, in the first case for the magistrate and the second for the little scrote.
vodkalolly said:
It will be interesting to see what a motoring offense consists of. On the one hand a perfectly law abiding citizen with a license, tax and insurance breaking a speed limit no government has ever had a mandate to impose, let alone enforce. Losing his livelihood and his ability to pay tax and therefore contribute.
That seems very severe for breaking a speed limit. How much did he exceed it by?And when you say no mandate, do you mean speed limits have never been in a manifesto?
singlecoil said:
That seems very severe for breaking a speed limit. How much did he exceed it by?
And when you say no mandate, do you mean speed limits have never been in a manifesto?
30.1 mph four times = banned = lose job = lose wife = lose home = lose access to kidsAnd when you say no mandate, do you mean speed limits have never been in a manifesto?
Time the motorists liberation authority started hanging court officials and burning down the courts. In Britain you are now penalised for obeying the law. Much less trouble if you steal the car rather than owning it.
As for mandate, all of this s
t was introduce by non driver civil servants and politicians (Barbara Castle (should be dug up and hung like Cromwell)). Certainly no government has ever had speed cameras in a manifesto I have seen except promising to scrap them. Speed limits are jackboot communism. David Begg is the architect of all this and he is anti democracy and I say he should be hung too. So called fines are just tax and we should not allow taxation without representation and the ABD is not on the commitee. We need someone to stand up to these unelected tts like Begg and shout the fkers down and make them cry. 
Sorry just done 20 mins on punchbag and would really like to meet Begg
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff