Banned five times

[JumboBeef]

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.html

Banned 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_Edge]

A truly special case in so many different ways.....

[oldsoak]

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

[carmonk]

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.

[Shaw Tarse]

Crush the car.
Leave the scrote in it.

[Larry Dickman]

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?

[SLCZ3]

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.

[Larry Dickman]

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

[Pints]

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.

Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 05:13

"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?

[Larry Dickman]

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.

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

[BertieWooster]

hora said:

"My client is a bricklayer and a driving ban would affect his availability for work."

How? Does he carry his bricks around with him?

Have one from me too:

Bertie W

[oldsoak]

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

Quite often it is often the case that someone already banned drives whilst under said ban. I would concede that not ALL do this but the serial offender, (9 times out of ten IME anyway) will. In my career I have lost count of the number of people I have arrested for driving whilst being banned, and, FWIW those scrotes ended up getting their ban extended which was by and large scoffed at,only two ending up in gaol because of their intransigence. THAT is why "People always do this"
HTH.

[CTE]

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.

[anonymous-user]

CTE said:

Chances are the offender has very little income and probavbly will not even pay the fine.

You're having a laugh. Show me a poor brickie.

[IanMorewood]

Ban isn’t long enough, ok so it’s debatable as to if he will/wont drive whilst banned but I would have thought a 5 year ban given his driving record would have been appropriate.

Fine is insufficient especially as it will be paid at £xPW with no interest charge.

[peterguk M500]

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)

[Larry Dickman]

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

Quite often it is often the case that someone already banned drives whilst under said ban. I would concede that not ALL do this but the serial offender, (9 times out of ten IME anyway) will. In my career I have lost count of the number of people I have arrested for driving whilst being banned, and, FWIW those scrotes ended up getting their ban extended which was by and large scoffed at,only two ending up in gaol because of their intransigence. THAT is why "People always do this"
HTH.

Fine I except that but you said, "lock him away for twice the length of the ban" which is not acceptable without proof. Where would we be if defendants were awarded a custodial sentence simply on the strength that someone else broke a law under similar circumstances. Obviously if he's caught driving while banned then that's a different matter.

Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 16:47

[Toffer]

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.html

Banned from driving now on five occasions, and he is only 24. I don't think this one is ever going to learn his lesson.

On the basis of the old adage "Set a thief to catch a thief", why not enlist him as a Police fast pursuit driver?

[oldsoak]

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

Quite often it is often the case that someone already banned drives whilst under said ban. I would concede that not ALL do this but the serial offender, (9 times out of ten IME anyway) will. In my career I have lost count of the number of people I have arrested for driving whilst being banned, and, FWIW those scrotes ended up getting their ban extended which was by and large scoffed at,only two ending up in gaol because of their intransigence. THAT is why "People always do this"
HTH.

Fine I except that but you said, "lock him away for twice the length of the ban" which is not acceptable without proof. Where would we be if defendants were awarded a custodial sentence simply on the strength that someone else broke a law under similar circumstances. Obviously if he's caught driving while banned then that's a different matter.

Edited by Larry Dickman on Thursday 3rd February 16:47

So what you are saying is that you agreed with what I originally said... that if a banned driver was caught driving whilst under a ban he should receive a custodial sentence twice the length of the ban he ignored?...I feel FAIL to see any other way your commentary can be construed....

Edited by oldsoak on Friday 4th February 23:10

[H_Kan]

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.