Discussion
That's new. Is it common for the police to tweet out arrests to shame people over there? I've seen random stories over here but they've mostly been people arrested for soliciting. Our local police have a news feed you can subscribe to that sends out nixle alerts when locals are arrested or roads closed and such. Www.nixle.com
keegs111 said:
4 year ban and £6k? Seems a little extreme!
Agree, it's completely OTT. Fine being relative to earnings seems fair enough, but 4 years? That's ridiculous.Bearing in mind people are basing it on "what if he did this". Well he didn't? If he killed someone then I agree the punishment should and would be more severe. It's like the ridiculous jail sentances you can get for doing 120mph+, all based on what ifs. It completely akes the piss when you'd get less of a punishment for stealing a car for example
George29 said:
Agree, it's completely OTT. Fine being relative to earnings seems fair enough, but 4 years? That's ridiculous.
Bearing in mind people are basing it on "what if he did this". Well he didn't? If he killed someone then I agree the punishment should and would be more severe. It's like the ridiculous jail sentances you can get for doing 120mph+, all based on what ifs. It completely akes the piss when you'd get less of a punishment for stealing a car for example
Totally! because he didn't actually do any damage to anyone or anything, he shouldn't have been punished at all. They should have sent him on his way and only punished him once he had killed or maimed someone. Bearing in mind people are basing it on "what if he did this". Well he didn't? If he killed someone then I agree the punishment should and would be more severe. It's like the ridiculous jail sentances you can get for doing 120mph+, all based on what ifs. It completely akes the piss when you'd get less of a punishment for stealing a car for example
Much better idea
Christmassss said:
Totally! because he didn't actually do any damage to anyone or anything, he shouldn't have been punished at all. They should have sent him on his way and only punished him once he had killed or maimed someone.
Much better idea
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the two shouldn't carry the same punishment. You could run someone over completely sober. Are you saying we shouldn't allow anyone to drive ever as it is a risk that could happen? I'm not advocating drink driving, but a 4 year ban is utterly ridiculous. Much better idea
Christmassss said:
George29 said:
Agree, it's completely OTT. Fine being relative to earnings seems fair enough, but 4 years? That's ridiculous.
Bearing in mind people are basing it on "what if he did this". Well he didn't? If he killed someone then I agree the punishment should and would be more severe. It's like the ridiculous jail sentances you can get for doing 120mph+, all based on what ifs. It completely akes the piss when you'd get less of a punishment for stealing a car for example
Totally! because he didn't actually do any damage to anyone or anything, he shouldn't have been punished at all. They should have sent him on his way and only punished him once he had killed or maimed someone. Bearing in mind people are basing it on "what if he did this". Well he didn't? If he killed someone then I agree the punishment should and would be more severe. It's like the ridiculous jail sentances you can get for doing 120mph+, all based on what ifs. It completely akes the piss when you'd get less of a punishment for stealing a car for example
Much better idea
s and banning them for life is little over the top........i'm sure the Aston driver deserved his 4 year ban and his 6k fine ......he should have done what every gentleman does and get his driver to drive ....and he can't afford a driver then he needs to work a little harder and be more aspirational :-)I have missed this forum
George29 said:
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the two shouldn't carry the same punishment. You could run someone over completely sober. Are you saying we shouldn't allow anyone to drive ever as it is a risk that could happen? I'm not advocating drink driving, but a 4 year ban is utterly ridiculous.
If you run someone over whilst sober, you would assume it was an accident,If you get in a car whilst drunk and hit someone it would be classed as premeditated. They knowingly broke the law the moment they got in the car. They made that choice.
To get 4 years, he is a repeat offender. Which means he doesn't learn, doesn't care and is a self centred pr**k. Should have locked him up.
I spent the this morning talking to my Police friend about this - he's a motorcycle officer for Surrey police. He said that it's not just based on the offence. For example, a previous ban, ignoring any previous fines that were due, other driving offences (points etc), are also taken into account.
We suspect that the level of ban and fine are because it's not a first offence - probably the second time he's been caught.
We suspect that the level of ban and fine are because it's not a first offence - probably the second time he's been caught.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff