Rough justice? That's Life Esther
Discussion
See it at www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=333806&in_page_id=1773&in_a_source=
Rough justice? That's Life Esther!
(08:28am 12th January 2005 )
When Esther Rantzen was pulled over for a minor motoring misdemeanour it was not the £60 fine that hurt.
It was the police officer's aggressive tone that she didn't care for.
Something about his intimidating manner stirred the consumer rights champion within.
So instead of simply paying up, Miss Rantzen insisted on her day in court.
Yesterday that decision cost her an extra £280 after a judge decided she had been in the wrong.
But the 64-year-old former presenter of That's Life had no regrets as she emerged from the hearing.
"I just think that it's important to stand up and be counted when you are treated badly by police," she said.
"If he had been pleasant, courteous and civil, as most policemen have been in the past, I may have shrugged my shoulders, paid £60 and just thought 'that's life'."
Miss Rantzen, most recently seen as a contestant on BBC1's Strictly Come Dancing, told the court she had been driving in central London with her daughter Emily, 26, in June last year when she drove through the crossing.
"There was nobody visible on the crossing when I crossed. It was clear as I entered and exited. If there had been someone on the crossing I know now I would have seen them," she said.
"I would say I was driving at around two or three miles an hour. I was listening to my daughter who was reading poetry to me because she was due to write an essay about Browning.
"He is one of her favourite poets and I admire him greatly."
Miss Rantzen said she then noticed a "heavy-set man in a crash helmet" gesticulating at her.
"He was saying to me very loudly, and very belligerently I felt, "didn't you see the two women on the crossing?"
"It seemed to me to be in an abrupt tone and was quite intimidating. I found it rather alarming because he was so antagonistic."
Sergeant Kevin McKeown told the court Miss Rantzen was 'giggly' when he pulled her BMW over on Upper Woburn Place.
He said he had been riding a marked police motorbike behind her car when he spotted the pedestrians on the crossing.
"The women were approximately one fifth of the way across and I saw the car continue," he told the court.
"It was quite clear from where I was the car wasn't going to stop - no brake lights came on. The pedestrians slowed down on the crossing while the car passed in front of them."
Sergeant McKeown said he asked Miss Rantzen to pull over. "That's when the driver said "I didn't see them, sorry" and then I asked her to stop the car," he said.
"She was very giggly. She said she was sorry. She said she had been listening to her daughter.
"She had been reading poetry to her which she did not understand. I took that to mean she didn't understand the poetry."
District judge James Henderson, sitting at Highbury Corner magistrates court in North London decided Miss Rantzen had suffered a "momentary lapse of concentration".
She was found guilty of failing to give precedent to a pedestrian on a crossing and ordered to pay £90 plus £250 prosecution costs.
She will also have three penalty points on her licence. "I take the view that it was a momentary lapse of concentration with lots of things going on in difficult conditions," the judge told her.
"There is no careless driving element at all.'
After the case, Miss Rantzen, who has made a formal complaint about the officer's attitude, said the case had been expensive, especially taking her own legal expenses into account. But she said it was worth the bills.
"It's terribly important that when this happens, particularly if you believe yourself to be innocent, that you do argue your case," she said.
"Traffic officers are the interface between the law-abiding public and the police and if you want to continue to have trust and confidence in our policemen then they must treat us well."
Rough justice? That's Life Esther!
(08:28am 12th January 2005 )
When Esther Rantzen was pulled over for a minor motoring misdemeanour it was not the £60 fine that hurt.
It was the police officer's aggressive tone that she didn't care for.
Something about his intimidating manner stirred the consumer rights champion within.
So instead of simply paying up, Miss Rantzen insisted on her day in court.
Yesterday that decision cost her an extra £280 after a judge decided she had been in the wrong.
But the 64-year-old former presenter of That's Life had no regrets as she emerged from the hearing.
"I just think that it's important to stand up and be counted when you are treated badly by police," she said.
"If he had been pleasant, courteous and civil, as most policemen have been in the past, I may have shrugged my shoulders, paid £60 and just thought 'that's life'."
Miss Rantzen, most recently seen as a contestant on BBC1's Strictly Come Dancing, told the court she had been driving in central London with her daughter Emily, 26, in June last year when she drove through the crossing.
"There was nobody visible on the crossing when I crossed. It was clear as I entered and exited. If there had been someone on the crossing I know now I would have seen them," she said.
"I would say I was driving at around two or three miles an hour. I was listening to my daughter who was reading poetry to me because she was due to write an essay about Browning.
"He is one of her favourite poets and I admire him greatly."
Miss Rantzen said she then noticed a "heavy-set man in a crash helmet" gesticulating at her.
"He was saying to me very loudly, and very belligerently I felt, "didn't you see the two women on the crossing?"
"It seemed to me to be in an abrupt tone and was quite intimidating. I found it rather alarming because he was so antagonistic."
Sergeant Kevin McKeown told the court Miss Rantzen was 'giggly' when he pulled her BMW over on Upper Woburn Place.
He said he had been riding a marked police motorbike behind her car when he spotted the pedestrians on the crossing.
"The women were approximately one fifth of the way across and I saw the car continue," he told the court.
"It was quite clear from where I was the car wasn't going to stop - no brake lights came on. The pedestrians slowed down on the crossing while the car passed in front of them."
Sergeant McKeown said he asked Miss Rantzen to pull over. "That's when the driver said "I didn't see them, sorry" and then I asked her to stop the car," he said.
"She was very giggly. She said she was sorry. She said she had been listening to her daughter.
"She had been reading poetry to her which she did not understand. I took that to mean she didn't understand the poetry."
District judge James Henderson, sitting at Highbury Corner magistrates court in North London decided Miss Rantzen had suffered a "momentary lapse of concentration".
She was found guilty of failing to give precedent to a pedestrian on a crossing and ordered to pay £90 plus £250 prosecution costs.
She will also have three penalty points on her licence. "I take the view that it was a momentary lapse of concentration with lots of things going on in difficult conditions," the judge told her.
"There is no careless driving element at all.'
After the case, Miss Rantzen, who has made a formal complaint about the officer's attitude, said the case had been expensive, especially taking her own legal expenses into account. But she said it was worth the bills.
"It's terribly important that when this happens, particularly if you believe yourself to be innocent, that you do argue your case," she said.
"Traffic officers are the interface between the law-abiding public and the police and if you want to continue to have trust and confidence in our policemen then they must treat us well."
Maybe it's a case of Celebrityosis, in this case the sgt is a good guy but Esther's general point made at the end of the commentary is valid. The generally law abiding public will onloy come into contact with the police as motorists, so panda drivers and any remaining trafpol out there can either contribute their bit to repairing damaged police-public relations from GATSOs and SCAMPs - or make things worse.
With traffic light controlled crossings most people I see wait with me through a long period of red when nobody's anywhere near the crossing, as the-law-is-the-law but it's contrary to common sense when your eyes can see there's no pedestrian or cyclist or small furry creature within miles.
With traffic light controlled crossings most people I see wait with me through a long period of red when nobody's anywhere near the crossing, as the-law-is-the-law but it's contrary to common sense when your eyes can see there's no pedestrian or cyclist or small furry creature within miles.
Heebeegeetee said:
"There is no careless driving element at all.
Surely having a lapse of concentration to the point that you cant see pedestrians crossing a road is careless driving!!! If you're more interested in your daughters poetry than the ton of metal your in charge of then you shouldn't be driving.
She drove over a pedestrian crossing with people on it!
Christ - that's not just careless its positively DANGEROUS!
If she'd hit a pedestrian and injured him/her on a crossing they'd have thrown the book at her - she should think she was bloody lucky to get away with such a minimal fine rather than trying to blacken the name of a Trafpol.
I'd've been a sight less sympathetic!
Head in clouds whilst driving? AT LEAST Careless. What the hell was the beak thinking!
Christ - that's not just careless its positively DANGEROUS!
If she'd hit a pedestrian and injured him/her on a crossing they'd have thrown the book at her - she should think she was bloody lucky to get away with such a minimal fine rather than trying to blacken the name of a Trafpol.
I'd've been a sight less sympathetic!
Head in clouds whilst driving? AT LEAST Careless. What the hell was the beak thinking!
Stupid woman thinks that there's something special about her perhaps, just because she's been on telly and feels we should be sympathetic to her in this case perhaps.
Years ago, when I was skint, nothing changes! I got pulled for having a sidelight not working, this was 1.00am or thereabouts. BiB told me my car was a bit of a heap (grubby Austin A35) and why he pulled me, all in a kinda taking the pi55 tone. I looked at the side light which was'nt on and simply thumped the wing with my fist, this action got the light working
Oh Christ he muttered, lets see your doc's, sure I got it MOT'ed yesterday to which he muttered 'oh right' or to effect. OK on yer way he says, what do you have to do to start it 'KICK IT' to which I repied 'er no turn it over on the crank handle' to which we both laughed. Its just a matter of understanding on both sides sometimes IMHO.
Years ago, when I was skint, nothing changes! I got pulled for having a sidelight not working, this was 1.00am or thereabouts. BiB told me my car was a bit of a heap (grubby Austin A35) and why he pulled me, all in a kinda taking the pi55 tone. I looked at the side light which was'nt on and simply thumped the wing with my fist, this action got the light working
Oh Christ he muttered, lets see your doc's, sure I got it MOT'ed yesterday to which he muttered 'oh right' or to effect. OK on yer way he says, what do you have to do to start it 'KICK IT' to which I repied 'er no turn it over on the crank handle' to which we both laughed. Its just a matter of understanding on both sides sometimes IMHO.
crankedup said:Actually, I heard a joke based on this. The police officer replies "oh, well done sir. Now, if you'd perhaps like to thump your windscreen in the corner then your tax disc will come in date too."
I looked at the side light which was'nt on and simply thumped the wing with my fist, this action got the light working
autismuk said:
Witchfinder said:
An arrogant, bullying copper? Wot a surprise!
What an idiot.
probably .... but people will believe it.
..particularly when they've been on the receiving end of it, as I have many times. It seems to be a force-specific thing.
A few (but not many) years ago i was getting stopped regularly by Cheshire and Staffs Bib, who were unfailingly rude, arrogant and aggressive.
West Yorks Bib, more recently, were somewhat 'firm but fair' and I've yet to meet any Derbyshire Bib.
I'm NOT getting at Bib in general, or the PHers; but as ever, there IS a minority spoiling it for the majority. That minority will of course generate disproportionate coverage (see above
)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff