Freddie's special reasons
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-28972...
a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
Red Devil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-28972...
a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
That looks like an arguably laughable response to an arguably laughable charge, made, incidentally, not by him but by his solicitor, and arguably reported out of context by the bbc.a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
Are you saying that he shouldn't escape punishment because Brenda from Barking doesn't, or that they should both escape punishment?
Red Devil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-28972...
a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
Presumably because his children would have to be chauffeured to school when Mrs Flintoff was unable to drive them, and that might expose their movements to third parties.a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
Stretching things a bit far? You bet, and you might have thought that the prospect of this would have been enough to deter Freddie from speeding AGAIN, but it appears it wasn't.
Don't the Swedes have a system where offenders can be jailed at weekends only so that they can continue working and avoid hardship being visited on their families?
Seems like we need something similar here to ensure offenders are deterred from FURTHER offending!
On a similar note I was watching one of those police fly on the wall things yesterday and they pulled over Katie Price. They didnt make her get out of the car, but instead got in with her to discuss things. Then they let her drive off down the road a bit to hide from the camera crew because it was a BBC crew and she is paid by ITV. Then she had no insurance but they let her drive off anyway with just a producer.
In the same programme we usually get the following when dealing with us mere mortals:
'ignore the camera, they can film what they want'
'get out of the car so I can talk to you'
'you cant prove you have insurance so your car is being impounded'
The copper went to pains to do a piece to camera saying how just because she is famous they didnt treat her any differently. Aha.
Not a plod bash, I have friends who are in the job and its difficult at the best of times but it just annoys me when people (not just plod but anyone) treats celebs as important just because they are on TV and have money,
In the same programme we usually get the following when dealing with us mere mortals:
'ignore the camera, they can film what they want'
'get out of the car so I can talk to you'
'you cant prove you have insurance so your car is being impounded'
The copper went to pains to do a piece to camera saying how just because she is famous they didnt treat her any differently. Aha.
Not a plod bash, I have friends who are in the job and its difficult at the best of times but it just annoys me when people (not just plod but anyone) treats celebs as important just because they are on TV and have money,
Edited by Dodsy on Friday 29th August 12:35
Dodsy said:
On a similar note I was watching one of those police fly on the wall things yesterday and they pulled over Katie Price. They didnt make her get out of the car, but instead got in with her to discuss things. Then they let her drive off down the road a bit to hide from the camera crew because it was a BBC crew and she is paid by ITV. Then she had no insurance but they let her drive off anyway with just a producer.
In the same programme we usually get the following when dealing with us mere mortals:
'ignore the camera, they can film what they want'
'get out of the car so I can talk to you'
'you cant prove you have insurance so your car is being impounded'
The copper went to pains to do a piece to camera saying how just because she is famous they didnt treat her any differently. Aha.
Not a plod bash, I have friends who are in the job and its difficult at the best of times but it just annoys me when people (not just plod but anyone) treats celebs as important just because they are on TV and have money,
This episode is on Dave the now, amazing how they treat her differently just because shes a celebrity, i wonder if an officer would get in a car with me and let me drive away to protect my privacy? In the same programme we usually get the following when dealing with us mere mortals:
'ignore the camera, they can film what they want'
'get out of the car so I can talk to you'
'you cant prove you have insurance so your car is being impounded'
The copper went to pains to do a piece to camera saying how just because she is famous they didnt treat her any differently. Aha.
Not a plod bash, I have friends who are in the job and its difficult at the best of times but it just annoys me when people (not just plod but anyone) treats celebs as important just because they are on TV and have money,
Edited by Dodsy on Friday 29th August 12:35
Phatboy317 said:
Red Devil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-28972...
a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
That looks like an arguably laughable response to an arguably laughable charge, made, incidentally, not by him but by his solicitor, and arguably reported out of context by the bbc.a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
Phatboy317 said:
Are you saying that he shouldn't escape punishment because Brenda from Barking doesn't, or that they should both escape punishment?
Sauce for the goose. I bet the saintly Brenda who raises a few hundred each year for the local hospice wouldn't be extended such leniency. So why should he? Oh of course, silly me, it's the amounts involved. Bigger sums raised = special treatment. Money talks.agtlaw said:
Red Devil said:
Freddie's special reasons.
He didn't argue special reasons. You're confusing SR with EH.Article - Former England cricket captain Andrew "Freddie" Flintoff has escaped a speeding ban after arguing "exceptional hardship" to magistrates in Carlisle.
His children were going to have their privacy destroyed if he received a ban. Really? Rachael Flintoff has already had paps follow her in the past when taking her daughter to nursery so press attention is nothing new.
Mill Wheel said:
Presumably because his children would have to be chauffeured to school when Mrs Flintoff was unable to drive them, and that might expose their movements to third parties.
Only to the chauffeur. Nothing else changes. I also doubt that Mr F spends much time ferrying his kids to and from school given his extensive media and promotional work.Mill Wheel said:
Stretching things a bit far? You bet, and you might have thought that the prospect of this would have been enough to deter Freddie from speeding AGAIN, but it appears it wasn't.
+1Quick doc, my heart is bleeding. I'll surely die if you don't stem the flow pdq!
Red Devil said:
Phatboy317 said:
Red Devil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-28972...
a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
That looks like an arguably laughable response to an arguably laughable charge, made, incidentally, not by him but by his solicitor, and arguably reported out of context by the bbc.a ban would also......intrude on the privacy of his three children.
Really? How, exactly? Perhaps Brenda from Barking should also try that one.
Phatboy317 said:
Are you saying that he shouldn't escape punishment because Brenda from Barking doesn't, or that they should both escape punishment?
Sauce for the goose. I bet the saintly Brenda who raises a few hundred each year for the local hospice wouldn't be extended such leniency. So why should he? Oh of course, silly me, it's the amounts involved. Bigger sums raised = special treatment. Money talks.agtlaw said:
Red Devil said:
Freddie's special reasons.
He didn't argue special reasons. You're confusing SR with EH.Article - Former England cricket captain Andrew "Freddie" Flintoff has escaped a speeding ban after arguing "exceptional hardship" to magistrates in Carlisle.
His children were going to have their privacy destroyed if he received a ban. Really? Rachael Flintoff has already had paps follow her in the past when taking her daughter to nursery so press attention is nothing new.
Mill Wheel said:
Presumably because his children would have to be chauffeured to school when Mrs Flintoff was unable to drive them, and that might expose their movements to third parties.
Only to the chauffeur. Nothing else changes. I also doubt that Mr F spends much time ferrying his kids to and from school given his extensive media and promotional work.Mill Wheel said:
Stretching things a bit far? You bet, and you might have thought that the prospect of this would have been enough to deter Freddie from speeding AGAIN, but it appears it wasn't.
+1Quick doc, my heart is bleeding. I'll surely die if you don't stem the flow pdq!
He was driving the car to what ? half it's potential, and yet a 60's mini doing 70MPH is safe because it isn't breaking the incredibly old limit set half a century ago. Odd world we now live in.
delboy735 said:
Surely the real question should be " Is 87MPH really that fast nowadays...especially on a motorway? "
He was driving the car to what ? half it's potential, and yet a 60's mini doing 70MPH is safe because it isn't breaking the incredibly old limit set half a century ago. Odd world we now live in.
And his previous 'offence' was doing 57 on the M60 with it's patently derisory 50 limit.He was driving the car to what ? half it's potential, and yet a 60's mini doing 70MPH is safe because it isn't breaking the incredibly old limit set half a century ago. Odd world we now live in.
Red Devil said:
Sauce for the goose. I bet the saintly Brenda who raises a few hundred each year for the local hospice wouldn't be extended such leniency. So why should he? Oh of course, silly me, it's the amounts involved. Bigger sums raised = special treatment. Money talks.
As I thought, you see nothing wrong with Brenda being punished for an arguably trivial offence.Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 29th August 20:34
tenpenceshort said:
None, which as you well know means there is no significant support for a change.
Do you not have anything which you would really like to see changed, but no parties are promising to do anything about it?Or, as in the case of speed limits, the parties who have spoken about changing things are not the ones which would get my vote, for other reasons.
However, that will all change as soon as a significant proportion of the voting public has been nailed.
And, with the proliferation of city-wide 20mph speed limits, that day isn't too far off.
And, btw, I've got little against speed limits in principle, just the unreasonable application of them.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 29th August 20:47
Phatboy317 said:
Red Devil said:
Sauce for the goose. I bet the saintly Brenda who raises a few hundred each year for the local hospice wouldn't be extended such leniency. So why should he? Oh of course, silly me, it's the amounts involved. Bigger sums raised = special treatment. Money talks.
As I thought, you see nothing wrong with Brenda being punished for an arguably trivial offence.I was not commenting subjectively on whether I believed Brenda (or Freddie) is deserving of punishment (or not), but the probability of an inequality of arms if/when TPTB decide to prosecute. Had Brenda found herself in the same boat I doubt she would have been afforded the same treatment.
Red Devil said:
You have assumed incorrectly. Using your own thought process to make assumptions about what you believe to be my POV is a fatal flaw. As a result you have completely missed what I was getting at. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't do it on purpose.
I was not commenting subjectively on whether I believed Brenda (or Freddie) is deserving of punishment (or not), but the probability of an inequality of arms if/when TPTB decide to prosecute. Had Brenda found herself in the same boat I doubt she would have been afforded the same treatment.
Ordinarily, yes. I was not commenting subjectively on whether I believed Brenda (or Freddie) is deserving of punishment (or not), but the probability of an inequality of arms if/when TPTB decide to prosecute. Had Brenda found herself in the same boat I doubt she would have been afforded the same treatment.
But your comment was in reply to my question: "Are you saying that he shouldn't escape punishment because Brenda from Barking doesn't, or that they should both escape punishment?"
...which puts it in an entirely different light.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff