Banned five times
Discussion
paper said:
A motorist who had been banned from driving on at least four occasions was fined £275 and disqualified from driving for two years yesterday at Perth Sheriff Court after being caught speeding at more than 115mph on the Dundee to Perth road.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Perthshire/article/10351/motorist-loses-licence-after-being-caught-driving-at-115mph-on-a90-at-inchture.htmlBanned from driving now on five occasions, and he is only 24. I don't think this one is ever going to learn his lesson.
The thing is they only ban when they catch you so...it could be this toe-rag is driving anyway between bans...So to stop that, lock him away for twice the length of the ban...if he does it again 3 times the length of the ban ad infinitum...Yes I know we'd be keeping the prat in chokey but perhaps just perhaps a long time in a cell might strike home better than these bans are at present....
If that don't work...shoot the 'arstard
If that don't work...shoot the 'arstard
Fined £275. That'll show him, he'll definitely never attempt that again. Interesting how that verdict would differ from mine, which would be, on his third offence, to ban him for life with a 10 year prison sentence, suspended for life, if he was ever caught again. Then we'd maybe see the on the bus.
link said:
"I will impose six penalty points which will disqualify you through the totting up procedure as this speed was at the high end of the scale.
"In addition, you will be disqualified from driving for two years and fined £275," he added.
So what does that in addition mean exactly? Did he get banned on the totting up as well as the two years or just the two years? "In addition, you will be disqualified from driving for two years and fined £275," he added.
You would have thought that with such frequently demonstrated disregard for the law that the court would have imposed a custodial sentence on him,
eerrmm somthing like one year in prison for each ban he has incurred or maybe one year for each year of ban accumulated, but it has been obvious for some years now that the punishment does not reflect the offence.
eerrmm somthing like one year in prison for each ban he has incurred or maybe one year for each year of ban accumulated, but it has been obvious for some years now that the punishment does not reflect the offence.
oldsoak said:
The thing is they only ban when they catch you so...it could be this toe-rag is driving anyway between bans...So to stop that,lock him away for twice the length of the ban
why do people always do this. It could be that this toe-rag has three arms & a club-foot but there was no evidence in court to even suggest it, so when you say "to stop that" you mean to stop something that you've plucked out of thin air from nowhere, or do you want to convict people with no evidence for what they might of done. Just because someone has not been caught doing something does not mean they are guilty of doing something.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 05:13
Larry Dickman said:
why do people always do this.
It could be that this toe-rag has three arms & a club-foot but there was no evidence in court to even suggest it, so when you say "to stop that" you mean to stop something that you've plucked out of thin air from nowhere, or do you want to convict people with no evidence for what they might of done. Just because someone has not been caught doing something does not mean they are guilty of doing something.
"Banned on 5 occasions"It could be that this toe-rag has three arms & a club-foot but there was no evidence in court to even suggest it, so when you say "to stop that" you mean to stop something that you've plucked out of thin air from nowhere, or do you want to convict people with no evidence for what they might of done. Just because someone has not been caught doing something does not mean they are guilty of doing something.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 05:13
What part of that is unclear to you?
The evidence is that with 4 previous bans, he continues to ignore the law by driving.
Had you misread, or you being deliberately obtuse?
Pints said:
"Banned on 5 occasions"
What part of that is unclear to you?
The evidence is that with 4 previous bans, he continues to ignore the law by driving.
Had you misread, or you being deliberately obtuse?
What? He was banned four times previously, yes, but where does it suggest or even hint that he was driving while banned. What part of that is unclear to you?
The evidence is that with 4 previous bans, he continues to ignore the law by driving.
Had you misread, or you being deliberately obtuse?
ETA.. I'll paste the whole article if will help.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Perthshire/articl...
Michael McEwan (24), of Catmoor Avenue, Scone, admitted that on October 31 on the A90 Dundee to Perth, near Inchture, he drove a car at 117.3mph in a 70mph zone.
Depute fiscal Stuart Richardson said McEwan was driving on the A90 at around 2.15am.
"Traffic was light and there were road lights in the area at this part of the carriageway," he said. "He was detected by police."
Solicitor Cliff Culley said his client had been picking up friends in Dundee and travelling back to Perth.
"He accepts he should not have been driving this fast and is aware of the consequences that could follow. He has said he will be careful in future.
"My client is a bricklayer and a driving ban would affect his availability for work."
Sentencing McEwan, Sheriff McDonald told him, "I have had the opportunity to look at your record and you have been disqualified on a number of occasions.
"The speed you were travelling here was extremely high for the type of road. I also have to consider that you had friends in the car.
"I will impose six penalty points which will disqualify you through the totting up procedure as this speed was at the high end of the scale.
"In addition, you will be disqualified from driving for two years and fined £275," he added.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 06:23
Larry Dickman said:
oldsoak said:
The thing is they only ban when they catch you so...it could be this toe-rag is driving anyway between bans...So to stop that,lock him away for twice the length of the ban
why do people always do this. It could be that this toe-rag has three arms & a club-foot but there was no evidence in court to even suggest it, so when you say "to stop that" you mean to stop something that you've plucked out of thin air from nowhere, or do you want to convict people with no evidence for what they might of done. Just because someone has not been caught doing something does not mean they are guilty of doing something.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 05:13
HTH.
I guess the banned driver will have no insurance etc, so why is`nt this much more serious offence accounted for in the sentencing? Chances are the offender has very little income and probavbly will not even pay the fine.
People like this are a cancer to our society and make a mockery of civilised behaviour and social fairness....give the git a parachute and chuck him out somewhere over Africa...he`ll get his prioities right pretty quickly.
People like this are a cancer to our society and make a mockery of civilised behaviour and social fairness....give the git a parachute and chuck him out somewhere over Africa...he`ll get his prioities right pretty quickly.
link said:
"I will impose six penalty points which will disqualify you through the totting up procedure as this speed was at the high end of the scale.
"In addition, you will be disqualified from driving for two years and fined £275," he added.
Didn't think you could get points AND ban.... (totting ban as a result of points hitting 12 excepted)"In addition, you will be disqualified from driving for two years and fined £275," he added.
oldsoak said:
Larry Dickman said:
oldsoak said:
The thing is they only ban when they catch you so...it could be this toe-rag is driving anyway between bans...So to stop that,lock him away for twice the length of the ban
why do people always do this. It could be that this toe-rag has three arms & a club-foot but there was no evidence in court to even suggest it, so when you say "to stop that" you mean to stop something that you've plucked out of thin air from nowhere, or do you want to convict people with no evidence for what they might of done. Just because someone has not been caught doing something does not mean they are guilty of doing something.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 05:13
HTH.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 16:47
JumboBeef said:
paper said:
A motorist who had been banned from driving on at least four occasions was fined £275 and disqualified from driving for two years yesterday at Perth Sheriff Court after being caught speeding at more than 115mph on the Dundee to Perth road.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Perthshire/article/10351/motorist-loses-licence-after-being-caught-driving-at-115mph-on-a90-at-inchture.htmlBanned from driving now on five occasions, and he is only 24. I don't think this one is ever going to learn his lesson.
Larry Dickman said:
oldsoak said:
Larry Dickman said:
oldsoak said:
The thing is they only ban when they catch you so...it could be this toe-rag is driving anyway between bans...So to stop that,lock him away for twice the length of the ban
why do people always do this. It could be that this toe-rag has three arms & a club-foot but there was no evidence in court to even suggest it, so when you say "to stop that" you mean to stop something that you've plucked out of thin air from nowhere, or do you want to convict people with no evidence for what they might of done. Just because someone has not been caught doing something does not mean they are guilty of doing something.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 05:13
HTH.
Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 16:47
Edited by oldsoak on Friday 4th February 23:10
He is 24, therefore been driving legally for a maximum of 7 years. In that time he has been banned for 4 periods of undisclosed length, but it is reasonable to say they will have become progressively longer.
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I think it is a fair assumption for posters to make that he was driving whilst banned. We can't be certain but it looks likely.
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I think it is a fair assumption for posters to make that he was driving whilst banned. We can't be certain but it looks likely.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff