Freddie's special reasons

[Red Devil]

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.

[Red Devil]

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.

In what way is the charge laughable? Flintoff admitted to speeding. For the 4th time in 3 years. Anyone in their right mind would make sure they drove like Mother Theresa if they were already on 9 points. Everyone knows the rules and the risks if they ignore them (while doubtless hoping the dice continue to roll their way).

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.

You have misunderstood because I didn't make what I meant sufficiently clear. His exceptional hardship reasons were a bit 'special'.

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.

+1

Quick doc, my heart is bleeding. I'll surely die if you don't stem the flow pdq!

[Red Devil]

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.

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.