Caught speeding - 125mph on A2 Kent!!!! Hellllp

[NRS]

kiethton said:

Of course, I'd loose my job alongside everything else owing to FCA regs.

If I was however being paid less, with official payslips showing the same surely that's not perjury? My issue is that although my income looks healthy on paper it's an awful lot tighter month to month than some, fear the fine won't reflect the liabilities I'm also committed to...

That's completely your choice. The reason some people's income is "better" is because they choose to have a bigger cushion if something goes wrong. Just because you take more risks it doesn't mean you should get off with a smaller punishment. Presumably you will be getting a bigger reward at the end due to those risks anyway (better lifestyle now, more money in future from investment etc).

[kiethton]

Soov535 said:

kiethton said:

surveyor_101 said:

kiethton said:

Of course, I'd loose my job alongside everything else owing to FCA regs.

If I was however being paid less, with official payslips showing the same surely that's not perjury? My issue is that although my income looks healthy on paper it's an awful lot tighter month to month than some, fear the fine won't reflect the liabilities I'm also committed to...

I will state that yes, I was rather belligerent last night, primarily owing to frustration, as said on reflection and running some numbers a short ban is ok, adding only £60 to my insurance quotes, it would just hugely inconvenience the girlfriend as I'd need dropping 5 miles to a station at 5:30 each morning, hence the motorbike..

Would it not worth thinking that prior to traveling at such a high speed. Think I will do in 120 plus along here I mean worse case scenario if I get caught.gf will have to run us to the train station at 5.30 am.

Seems a pretty selfish attitude.

In fact all your arguments have been about you, you.

125 isn't speeding it's taking the piss. 80-90-99 is speeding.

Thing is I wasn't going at 125, had the CC set at 90 but accelerated beyond this is a non-traffic bit of motorway for all of a few seconds, having just done 6k miles in a 0.9 Sandero I wasn't aware how fast it'd gone up (E39 540i) as it's rather insulated and quick in comparison.

I'm fine with a short ban, it's more that is the effect it'll have on others including the above, plus the charity that I do work for in my evenings etc.

"The car ran away with me".......


I'd suggest you tell them this. It will certainly help.........

Indeed, I'll likely seek some professional advice to draft a mitigation letter, submit a postal guilty plea alongside references from work, family and the charity and hope its determined in my absence. If called in I'll read the letter back and go from there...

[kiethton]

NRS said:

kiethton said:

Of course, I'd loose my job alongside everything else owing to FCA regs.

If I was however being paid less, with official payslips showing the same surely that's not perjury? My issue is that although my income looks healthy on paper it's an awful lot tighter month to month than some, fear the fine won't reflect the liabilities I'm also committed to...

That's completely your choice. The reason some people's income is "better" is because they choose to have a bigger cushion if something goes wrong. Just because you take more risks it doesn't mean you should get off with a smaller punishment. Presumably you will be getting a bigger reward at the end due to those risks anyway (better lifestyle now, more money in future from investment etc).

Indeed, hence why I'm looking to have an element of my salary retained to ensure that it doesn't create a risk, you can plan both ways....

[johnwilliams77]

kiethton said:

Thing is I wasn't going at 125, had the CC set at 90 but accelerated beyond this is a non-traffic bit of motorway for all of a few seconds, having just done 6k miles in a 0.9 Sandero I wasn't aware how fast it'd gone up (E39 540i) as it's rather insulated and quick in comparison.

I'm fine with a short ban, it's more that is the effect it'll have on others including the above, plus the charity that I do work for in my evenings etc.

Come on! We aren't born yesterday. I also have a BMW 540. It's quick but hardly a P1! Even so, how can you not be aware of doing over 100mph. It seems that you are more annoyed that you got caught, rather than manning up and and accepting you screwed up. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar thread from you in a year.

[kiethton]

johnwilliams77 said:

kiethton said:

Thing is I wasn't going at 125, had the CC set at 90 but accelerated beyond this is a non-traffic bit of motorway for all of a few seconds, having just done 6k miles in a 0.9 Sandero I wasn't aware how fast it'd gone up (E39 540i) as it's rather insulated and quick in comparison.

I'm fine with a short ban, it's more that is the effect it'll have on others including the above, plus the charity that I do work for in my evenings etc.

Come on! We aren't born yesterday. I also have a BMW 540. It's quick but hardly a P1! Even so, how can you not be aware of doing over 100mph. It seems that you are more annoyed that you got caught, rather than manning up and and accepting you screwed up. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar thread from you in a year.

I've manned up and have admitted it, will likely plead guilty too.

My posts and opinions here are highly unlikely to reflect the statement presented to the court which will be written to best influence any result, I'm purely in damage limitation mode.

[NRS]

kiethton said:

NRS said:

kiethton said:

Of course, I'd loose my job alongside everything else owing to FCA regs.

If I was however being paid less, with official payslips showing the same surely that's not perjury? My issue is that although my income looks healthy on paper it's an awful lot tighter month to month than some, fear the fine won't reflect the liabilities I'm also committed to...

That's completely your choice. The reason some people's income is "better" is because they choose to have a bigger cushion if something goes wrong. Just because you take more risks it doesn't mean you should get off with a smaller punishment. Presumably you will be getting a bigger reward at the end due to those risks anyway (better lifestyle now, more money in future from investment etc).

Indeed, hence why I'm looking to have an element of my salary retained to ensure that it doesn't create a risk, you can plan both ways....

Depending how they ask it could well be lying in court, which then is very different.

kiethton said:

Thing is I wasn't going at 125, had the CC set at 90 but accelerated beyond this is a non-traffic bit of motorway for all of a few seconds, having just done 6k miles in a 0.9 Sandero I wasn't aware how fast it'd gone up (E39 540i) as it's rather insulated and quick in comparison.

kiethton said:

...I'm capable of driving far faster as is the car...

Those two things contradict each other. If you're good enough to drive at far faster speeds you would have known how fast you were going. So either you're lying about not knowing the performance, or you're lying about being a good enough driver.

[johnwilliams77]

kiethton said:

I've manned up and have admitted it, will likely plead guilty too.

My posts and opinions here are highly unlikely to reflect the statement presented to the court which will be written to best influence any result, I'm purely in damage limitation mode.

No you haven't. You are moaning about you 'having enough st to put up' since you're buying a house and that your missus will need to give you a lift. Tough titties kiddo.

Worse than doing 109mph you were tailgaiting someone!

[jeffw]

kiethton said:

Not good, bit annoyed as last few speeding pulls have been settled via a negotiated payment with the officer at the roadside, didn't think it was worth trying that over here though...

You bribed your way out of a speeding fine?

[JacquesMesrine]

kiethton said:

Indeed, time and place but a brief 109mph on a quiet motorway isn't the worst And not in any way dangerous (CC was set at 90 but not being used at that point typically)

Microsoft's spell checker saves my life, helps to compensate for my dyslexia, don't necessarily get it right when on the phone

Are you bks dyslexic. You simply can't spell the odd word.

You're FCA regulated, as an Approved Person as they're the only ones that are specifically stated as requiring their position to be terminated if found guilty of a criminal offence, yet only earn £c55000 a year?

I also feel sorry for you, what with having that income, a high profile role, a car, motorbike and pushbike and a new home on the way. Life must really suck for you. Life on the poverty line can be tough.

[walsh]

JacquesMesrine said:

kiethton said:

Indeed, time and place but a brief 109mph on a quiet motorway isn't the worst And not in any way dangerous (CC was set at 90 but not being used at that point typically)

Microsoft's spell checker saves my life, helps to compensate for my dyslexia, don't necessarily get it right when on the phone

Are you bks dyslexic. You simply can't spell the odd word.

You're FCA regulated, as an Approved Person as they're the only ones that are specifically stated as requiring their position to be terminated if found guilty of a criminal offence, yet only earn £c55000 a year?

I also feel sorry for you, what with having that income, a high profile role, a car, motorbike and pushbike and a new home on the way. Life must really suck for you. Life on the poverty line can be tough.

Wow.. Guy doesn't come across particularly remorseful about speeding, so you have a pop at him because he has a reasonably decent job?

I don't normally bite on this stuff, rather find it quietly amusing, but really? These threads are interesting, both from a likely outcome perspective, and how people react when caught at 3 figure speeds. I don't see what anyone's income/job has to do with anything, bar the fine they are likely to receive, which is why it was mentioned in the first place. Bit Daily mail isn't it?

[JacquesMesrine]

walsh said:

Wow.. Guy doesn't come across particularly remorseful about speeding, so you have a pop at him because he has a reasonably decent job?

I don't normally bite on this stuff, rather find it quietly amusing, but really? These threads are interesting, both from a likely outcome perspective, and how people react when caught at 3 figure speeds. I don't see what anyone's income/job has to do with anything, bar the fine they are likely to receive, which is why it was mentioned in the first place. Bit Daily mail isn't it?

You've completely missed my point.

He says he's FCA regulated which he is unlikely to be with the job and income that he's previously described. If anything he's bigging himself up

[johnwilliams77]

JacquesMesrine said:

You've completely missed my point.

He says he's FCA regulated which he is unlikely to be with the job and income that he's previously described. If anything he's bigging himself up

No st! He has already said he is more than capable than driving at way more than 110mph so we are really dealing with a driving + financial hero here!

[walsh]

JacquesMesrine said:

walsh said:

Wow.. Guy doesn't come across particularly remorseful about speeding, so you have a pop at him because he has a reasonably decent job?

I don't normally bite on this stuff, rather find it quietly amusing, but really? These threads are interesting, both from a likely outcome perspective, and how people react when caught at 3 figure speeds. I don't see what anyone's income/job has to do with anything, bar the fine they are likely to receive, which is why it was mentioned in the first place. Bit Daily mail isn't it?

You've completely missed my point.

He says he's FCA regulated which he is unlikely to be with the job and income that he's previously described. If anything he's bigging himself up

That may well be the case, in which case he probably doesn't make the base he listed, and makes your sarcasm riddled line about "Living on the poverty line" all the more irrelevant?

Bah, I'm not sure why i'm arguing to be honest. As you were.

[kiethton]

Not a lie posted, you're in the ballpark for income. Childhood reports diagnosed dyslexia, reconfirmed at Uni although admittedly mild.

I am indeed an approved person, those that know me offline will be able to confirm, would invite you to check the register but don't want my full name on here for obvious reasons.

Salary is a product of age (mid 20's) and the fact I haven't completed my CFA charter, although I know I'm behind market rates atm.

[barian]

agtlaw said:

Full explanation by the Sentencing Council:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-m...

agtlaw - The guidelines appear to be for offenders who are in employment or self-employment, or solely reliant on state benefits. Purely out of interest, do you happen to know how the calculation is made for the retired who have an occupational or private pension?

[Muzzer79]

kiethton said:

I'm fine with a short ban, it's more that is the effect it'll have on others, plus the charity that I do work for in my evenings etc.

Sure, the effect on others and charity is clearly the foremost thing on your mind through all of this isn't it?

[NRS]

walsh said:

JacquesMesrine said:

walsh said:

Wow.. Guy doesn't come across particularly remorseful about speeding, so you have a pop at him because he has a reasonably decent job?

I don't normally bite on this stuff, rather find it quietly amusing, but really? These threads are interesting, both from a likely outcome perspective, and how people react when caught at 3 figure speeds. I don't see what anyone's income/job has to do with anything, bar the fine they are likely to receive, which is why it was mentioned in the first place. Bit Daily mail isn't it?

You've completely missed my point.

He says he's FCA regulated which he is unlikely to be with the job and income that he's previously described. If anything he's bigging himself up

That may well be the case, in which case he probably doesn't make the base he listed, and makes your sarcasm riddled line about "Living on the poverty line" all the more irrelevant?

Bah, I'm not sure why i'm arguing to be honest. As you were.

I think it was deserved in this case because he was basically arguing he couldn't afford to pay the fine properly because of all his outgoing despite earning a higher salary than a lot of people. Hence people "feeling sorry for him struggling along in life". If you're going to try and manipulate your finances to get a lower fine despite earning a good salary then it's fair play for comments like that.

[Devil2575]

Soov535 said:

kiethton said:

we all know it's a load of bks anyway

I can get my salary paid elsewhere/take responsibility for commitments I don't normally have my weekly income number will equate to a fine lower than it would normally

Managed to get off the last instance with a pretty small bribe, shame it couldn't be done this time eh

Only thing that pisses me off is that today they decided to give me a S59 in addition, why

how I appeal this as I don't accept it

I am going to put a private plate on the car so I don't have the marker pinging up

I have enough st to put up with, I'm capable of driving far faster as is the car

I currently don't live anywhere fixed its going to my parents, can they just turn it away so it 6m times out?

With all due respect you sound like a fackin liability, and exactly the kind of client who eventually made me give up this sort of work many years ago.

You got caught, you'll get banned and there is nothing you can do about it. Best get your wallet out as well.


And if I was you I'd adjust my attitude when you go to court, otherwise you will get a proper pole-ing. Which might be a good thing as it'll keep you off the roads my son uses on his bike.

Good luck on the bus.


FFS.

[daytona355]

No meaning to pop at anyone, but a point of fact, approved persons include those both at the top of large financial companies, and also independent small mortgage brokers who in some cases earn £20-30000 per annum if they are part time, still counted as approved persons since they are a one man band. I actually had one working for me, and he earns under £15000 a year, which wouldn't even run my cars! Therefore, I can well believe the guy is on £55k.

The question of perjury, well, depends on how the income is declared. If it's payslips, then payslips count 100%. If you run a business and the revenue have accepted er indoors receives income (and hence, you've split it) from the business, then legally the only income is your declared income they can take into account. It's not perjury, it's fact

If you pay yourself a salary, and dividends on top, then again, I would suggest that the courts can only use dividends already declared to the revenue for the current tax year, future dividends are not decided yet, and cannot be relied upon as income (ask any mortgage lender), this is the reason you are allowed to declare them and receive tax credits, if they were guaranteed, technically you should be increasing salary to reflect the guaranteed business income

[JacquesMesrine]

daytona355 said:

No meaning to pop at anyone, but a point of fact, approved persons include those both at the top of large financial companies, and also independent small mortgage brokers who in some cases earn £20-30000 per annum if they are part time, still counted as approved persons since they are a one man band. I actually had one working for me, and he earns under £15000 a year, which wouldn't even run my cars! Therefore, I can well believe the guy is on £55k.

The question of perjury, well, depends on how the income is declared. If it's payslips, then payslips count 100%. If you run a business and the revenue have accepted er indoors receives income (and hence, you've split it) from the business, then legally the only income is your declared income they can take into account. It's not perjury, it's fact

If you pay yourself a salary, and dividends on top, then again, I would suggest that the courts can only use dividends already declared to the revenue for the current tax year, future dividends are not decided yet, and cannot be relied upon as income (ask any mortgage lender), this is the reason you are allowed to declare them and receive tax credits, if they were guaranteed, technically you should be increasing salary to reflect the guaranteed business income

He's declared his PAYE status, his limited opportunity for holiday and the speed with which people up the line would dismiss him. He's not a one man band looking to grow his business or act as part of a larger network. If he were then a ban wouldn't end his career, rather it would be a minor inconvenience.