Lee Bowyer banned for speeding
Discussion
Interesting story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ty
Looks like fancy legal footwork to get 132mph (average 112) down to 99mph guilty plea!
I didn't think plea bargaining was allowed in this country? I guess we can't all afford Nick Freeman...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ty
Looks like fancy legal footwork to get 132mph (average 112) down to 99mph guilty plea!
I didn't think plea bargaining was allowed in this country? I guess we can't all afford Nick Freeman...
The CPS probably knew that if they got a plea they'd win something rather than risk everything (justice in mags courts being like poker after all) but if Freeman really went for it he'd probably find a technicality i.e. cock-up by the authorities and get the case thrown out.
It's more surprising that the police and CPS got their act together. Pity there was no description of the conditions at the time as it's likely 90 - 130 wasn't much to shout about. Can't imagine the blue rinse set on the bench would know anything much about road safety but she'd just follow guidelines anyway. Justice by the yard, get yer justice ere.
It's more surprising that the police and CPS got their act together. Pity there was no description of the conditions at the time as it's likely 90 - 130 wasn't much to shout about. Can't imagine the blue rinse set on the bench would know anything much about road safety but she'd just follow guidelines anyway. Justice by the yard, get yer justice ere.
It sounds like Mr Freeman did his job here.
We dont know all the details, but Sky News said that he was followed for something like 8 miles up the A1.
Perhaps something revealing was included in the evidence/video or he had a snippet of information or a loophole he threatened to use unless of course his client was offered a speed just under the psychological 100mph point for sentencing...
We dont know all the details, but Sky News said that he was followed for something like 8 miles up the A1.
Perhaps something revealing was included in the evidence/video or he had a snippet of information or a loophole he threatened to use unless of course his client was offered a speed just under the psychological 100mph point for sentencing...
Some out of touch magistrate said said:
Because this is the second time you have been excessively speeding in the past three years, we ban you from driving for 42 days.
Is it just me or does everyone find this "justification" they insist on giving patronising? Here you've obviously got somebody without the first idea of how unremarkable it is to travel at a-hundred-and-something miles per hour in a 911 talking as if they've analysed it all up and down and here's the conclusion.
SM
supermono said:
Because this is the second time you have been excessively speeding in the past three years, we ban you from driving for 42 days.
Is it just me or does everyone find this "justification" they insist on giving patronising? Here you've obviously got somebody without the first idea of how unremarkable it is to travel at a-hundred-and-something miles per hour in a 911 talking as if they've analysed it all up and down and here's the conclusion.
SM
I agree. His driving was so unremarkable in fact that the police thought of no reason to stop him for 8 miles...!
justinp1 said:
His driving was so unremarkable in fact that the police thought of no reason to stop him for 8 miles...!
I wonder if the game has changed from car snooker to dart scoring and they were hoping for one hundred and eeeeeeiiiiiighty. Joking (?) apart it does show that the safety impact was so weak that there's an 8 mile follow to build up evidence = see how high a speed is reached. If a ton up was dangerous they would / should have stopped the car earlier, but it rarely is dangerous at times when drivers select those kind of speeds in cars that can cope easily. It would be interesting and educational for Mrs Blue Rinse to be taken out in a 911 or 911T with the speedo covered and asked to estimate the speed at up to 130. On the Isle of Man, natch.
dcb said:Just like the A1 comment about dc/w or not dc/w, there are 30 limits and there are 30 limits. If it was a 30 at lunchtime on a narrow High St with parked cars, shops and a school along the relevant few hundred yards, yes major idiocy. If it was another 30 limit, triple carriageway with no houses or buildings alongside and dead straight for miles, he would have to be in the first lane at that speed not to cause problems.
Really sad. I've got no problem with him doing 132 up the
A1, provided it was on the dual c/w bit.
I've got major problems with his 67 in a 30.
[quote-dcb]I've got major problems with his 67 in a 30. [/quote]
Where does the story mention this?
with the vast increase in 30 limits in non-built up areas even on DCs I have no problem with this though.
Trouble is respect for the genuine 30 has been so eroded by this local NIMBY council nonsense
Where does the story mention this?
with the vast increase in 30 limits in non-built up areas even on DCs I have no problem with this though.
Trouble is respect for the genuine 30 has been so eroded by this local NIMBY council nonsense
Richard C said:
I've got major problems with his 67 in a 30.
Where does the story mention this?
in the bit where
Nick Freeman said:
He outlined previous speeding convictions that his client had received, including a 42-day ban for driving at 67mph in a 30mph zone.
Quite frankly Mr Bowyer is a bad egg.
Down the steps with him.
turbobloke said:
Quite frankly Mr Bowyer is a bad egg.
Down the steps with him.
His nightclubbingsdon't come under the RTA
But his bad boy behaviour on pitch / off pitch / private life / public highway is all getting a bit repetitive and tedious don't you think.
tbh he wants banging up.
Flat in Fifth said:
Quite frankly Mr Bowyer is a bad egg.
Down the steps with him.
His nightclubbings
But his bad boy behaviour on pitch / off pitch / private life / public highway is all getting a bit repetitive and tedious don't you think.
tbh he wants banging up.
Oh worldly wise Fif
Im wif chew
Gives the Transport people credence is that speeders are generally crims, which we all know aint true???????????????
dvd
Mr Freeman told the court his client should be given credit for his plea because it was the first time the offence of driving at 99mph had been put to him.
Give him f-all credit, be broke the law, and should be prosecuted appropriately, which I dont think he was.
Wouldnt be so bleeding smart if his speeding has resulted in a serious accident, which thank god it didnt.
At least now I know who Lee Bowyer is, which is a pity, now I know he is another immensly overpaid t
t.
Whoops tt was censored, why? oh well try tawt
>> Edited by vipers on Thursday 20th April 08:08
Give him f-all credit, be broke the law, and should be prosecuted appropriately, which I dont think he was.
Wouldnt be so bleeding smart if his speeding has resulted in a serious accident, which thank god it didnt.
At least now I know who Lee Bowyer is, which is a pity, now I know he is another immensly overpaid t
t. Whoops t
t was censored, why? oh well try tawt >> Edited by vipers on Thursday 20th April 08:08
If...but normal people speed where it's safe. The good thing about this is that it had the potential of police officers making a judgement. 100 up is illegal for sure but at the times and places when it's done it's almost always safe.
If someone falls off a ladder at roof height they may die, but ladders are sold and people climb them. Height kills, so let's have cameras on the side of every DIYer's house to take a snap and impose a fine if they go over 30 feet high without an exemption - after all far more people die from accidents in the home each year than on the roads.
If someone falls off a ladder at roof height they may die, but ladders are sold and people climb them. Height kills, so let's have cameras on the side of every DIYer's house to take a snap and impose a fine if they go over 30 feet high without an exemption - after all far more people die from accidents in the home each year than on the roads.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not worried about Doris, if she has bad eye sight, shouldnt be driving, I happen to one of many drivers who whilst not agreeing to all speed limits, do think they should be adhered to by drivers, and not abused by folk with too much money to worry about a few quid fine, in their little fast cars, and who hire smart arsed lawyers to get the charge reduced as far as possible. Why give him credit, If I choose to kill you, and admit it, should I be given credit?.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But Doris is driving and many like her, very slowly and dangerously.
I don't see why people shouldn't exceed stupidly low limits in their "little fast cars".
If they have the money to challenge such stupid laws, then why not? Would you rather we were all afraid to challenge the "law" because we can't afford it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff