One rule for sum?
Discussion
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7352103/S...
2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming. He can also afford a taxi or two.
2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming. He can also afford a taxi or two.
Edited by PAULJ5555 on Tuesday 13th August 13:36
PAULJ5555 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7352103/S...
2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming.
It was a load of old b2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming.
ks anyway. 36 in a 30 
Any sensible judge would have banned him, it would have saved the world from more of his absolutely dire 'comedy'
But yes, as per usual it's who you are and who you know, rather than what you have done.
the tribester said:
It's the same rule for all actually.
Not everyone who reaches 12 points get a ban, you've just got to convince the magistrates bench of the hardship.
Search the PH archives and you will see several non celeb drivers with 20+ penalty points.
Fair point but where is the hardship for him.Not everyone who reaches 12 points get a ban, you've just got to convince the magistrates bench of the hardship.
Search the PH archives and you will see several non celeb drivers with 20+ penalty points.
PAULJ5555 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7352103/S...
2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming. He can also afford a taxi or two.
He didn't reach 12 points - he's still 'only' got 9.2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming. He can also afford a taxi or two.
Sheepshanks said:
He didn't reach 12 points - he's still 'only' got 9.
Wrong. 3 points endorsed for the latest offence. 12 points in total and therefore a two month 'totting up' disqualification was imposed. This was reduced from the statutory minimum 6 months because of the "mitigating circumstances" accepted by the court.
"Ann Schroder, chair of the magistrates bench, said they had taken into account the 'exceptional hardship' it would cause other TV professionals if the Alan Partidge travelogue had to be cancelled."
Edited by agtlaw on Tuesday 13th August 15:35
PAULJ5555 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7352103/S...
2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming. He can also afford a taxi or two.
It's not one rule it's the same rule. He fulfilled the criteria, it's about as clear a case as you will find. Are you saying because he is a celebrity then other people deserve to suffer, who otherwise would not, and he should be treated worse. The ban was reduced so other people didn't lose work; you can't choose when to do the ban. A taxi can easily get him around but, won't let him drive on the road when filming. Non celebrities frequently go over 12 points in much less clear cut circumstances. 2 months ban for getting 12 points, even if he had work commitments that may have affected other peoples income he could always do the 6months after filming. He can also afford a taxi or two.
agtlaw said:
Sheepshanks said:
He didn't reach 12 points - he's still 'only' got 9.
Wrong. 3 points endorsed for the latest offence. 12 points in total and therefore a two month 'totting up' disqualification was imposed. This was reduced from the statutory minimum 6 months because of the "mitigating circumstances" accepted by the court.
"Ann Schroder, chair of the magistrates bench, said they had taken into account the 'exceptional hardship' it would cause other TV professionals if the Alan Partidge travelogue had to be cancelled."
agtlaw said:
Sheepshanks said:
He didn't reach 12 points - he's still 'only' got 9.
Wrong. 3 points endorsed for the latest offence. 12 points in total and therefore a two month 'totting up' disqualification was imposed. This was reduced from the statutory minimum 6 months because of the "mitigating circumstances" accepted by the court.
"Ann Schroder, chair of the magistrates bench, said they had taken into account the 'exceptional hardship' it would cause other TV professionals if the Alan Partidge travelogue had to be cancelled."
Edited by agtlaw on Tuesday 13th August 15:35
La Liga said:
agtlaw said:
Sheepshanks said:
He didn't reach 12 points - he's still 'only' got 9.
Wrong. 3 points endorsed for the latest offence. 12 points in total and therefore a two month 'totting up' disqualification was imposed. This was reduced from the statutory minimum 6 months because of the "mitigating circumstances" accepted by the court.
"Ann Schroder, chair of the magistrates bench, said they had taken into account the 'exceptional hardship' it would cause other TV professionals if the Alan Partidge travelogue had to be cancelled."
The OP appears to be looking for something that just isn't there.
Ultima Chat | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff