Q for Madcop

[CVP]

Mad

We all know Geoffrey Robinson (yes the one who lent that nice Mr Mandelson that small sum on money) has just been nicked whilst driving, but there's one charge I don't understand.

The charge is "driving a vehicle otherwise than in accordance with your licence". He was nicked in his Jag, so it seems he's not driving a type of vehicle he's not allowed to (I'm assuming he has a full licence). Can you please tell me how this charge could arise.

He's also been charged with;
1 - refusal to supply a specimen for alcohol testing, and
2 - driving without insurance. This I really don't understand. He's meant to be a millionaire, how can he not afford insurance?

I understand there were also traces of suspicious white powder in the car.

Methinks he's been a very naughty boy. Still, it's brightened up my day to read that at least something has come home to roost for him.

Bye

Chris

[**999**]

Mad

We all know Geoffrey Robinson (yes the one who lent that nice Mr Mandelson that small sum on money) has just been nicked whilst driving, but there's one charge I don't understand.

The charge is "driving a vehicle otherwise than in accordance with your licence". He was nicked in his Jag, so it seems he's not driving a type of vehicle he's not allowed to (I'm assuming he has a full licence). Can you please tell me how this charge could arise.

He's also been charged with;
1 - refusal to supply a specimen for alcohol testing, and
2 - driving without insurance. This I really don't understand. He's meant to be a millionaire, how can he not afford insurance?

I understand there were also traces of suspicious white powder in the car.

Methinks he's been a very naughty boy. Still, it's brightened up my day to read that at least something has come home to roost for him.

Bye

Chris

Got here earlier than Madcop, so here goes:

Driving otherwise than in accordance with a license replaces lots of other similarly worded offences and places them all under the one 'banner'.
It can be used for a variety of instances, such as in the case of a person too young to drive a class of motor vehicle (previously dealt with as disqualified by reason of age...), or a learner driver driving without supervision... In this instance it's difficult to guess, but my best bet would be that he holds a full licence for automatics only and the Jag had a manual box....
As for the insurance offence, well this could (and I stand to be corrected) be linked to the Driving License offence. If his license wasn't valid for the car he was driving, then maybe his insurance had a clause invalidating his cover under certain circumstances.

[CraigAlsop]

I would imagine that 2/ would follow on from "driving a vehicle otherwise than in accordance with your licence", as you can only be insured to drive something that you are licensed to drive. (Just guessing here)

I think if you drove a manual car, but you only had an automatic license, this would count. (Can't imagine that this is the case here though, as I think most Jags have a J-gate automatic gearbox still)

Edited to say - if only I could type faster...

>> Edited by CraigAlsop on Thursday 19th December 18:29

[**999**]

Err...wasn't that what I said ?

[CraigAlsop]

That was pretty much exactly what you said, but you posted while I was typing (hence my comment)

Although I stand by my comment on Jags

[deltaf]

Me oh my.
How the mighty have fallen, one minute cock of the walk, next a feather duster!!

[**999**]

CraigAlsop said: That was pretty much exactly what you said, but you posted while I was typing (hence my comment)

Although I stand by my comment on Jags

Reeespect...

[HarryW]

I assume the punishment for the refusal to provide a specimen is the same or worse than being over the limit?
In which case , probably thought he was above the law, along with the rest of the government .

H

Obviously all IMHO

[CVP]

Thanks for the answers.

I'm coming to the conclusion that he must have been driving whilst banned for another offence. This may explain the driving whilst not insured as well as the driving not in accordance with licence.

I did a quick look and the punishments for each of these is pretty bad. Something like 6-8 points, upto £5k fine, discretionary ban and two of them carry up to 6 months in jail! and that doesn't include any charges for whatever this "white powder" turns out to be

I'm sure he's going to get away with a lot, but I'd love to be the magistrate he comes up against. I'm a easy going chap but I'd chuck the book at him as he really doesn't have defence most of the charges. He can't argue he's so poor that he can't taxis / a chauffeur so that will do nicely for drving whilst banned (if that is what it is), no insurance is an automatic step on from there. Then we are simply left with the failure to provide a specimen. Well seeing as I'm on a roll on dishing out fines and points I'd see no reason to go easy on this one either. Like I said I'm an easy going bloke really

Chris