That blind driver in the Midlands.........
That blind driver in the Midlands.........
Author
Discussion

bleesh

Original Poster:

1,112 posts

284 months

Monday 11th September 2006
quotequote all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/we

Suspended sentence - er, OK.
Banned for 3 years - eh?
Ordered to take an "extended driving test" if he "ever decides
to apply for a driving licence" - Magistrates were required BY LAW
(my capitals) to order Aziz to take an extended driving test, if
he ever decides to apply for a driving licence. WTF??

This is for the man who the article says
"Aziz, who lost his eyes in a bomb blast in Iraq, was driving
through Oldbury on 23 April."

Not being funny but they 'ain't likely to grow back, are they?

The law is indeed an ass!!

Peter Ward

2,097 posts

286 months

Monday 11th September 2006
quotequote all
Was there any mention of a fine? Any prosecution of the passenger?

It's odd, but here's a guy who went out knowing that he was effectively unable to drive safely, with a passenger who aided and abetted him. Yet all he gets is a suspended sentence, and I don't think the passenger got anything. This does seem to be an odd result given the possible consequences of what they did.

nelly1

5,666 posts

261 months

Monday 11th September 2006
quotequote all
Ah, but it's his 'Human Rights', innit?!?

rolleyes

shuvitupya

3,338 posts

247 months

Monday 11th September 2006
quotequote all
Good job he wasn't speeding ?

They would have thrown the book at him, and emptied his wallet.

Edited by shuvitupya on Monday 11th September 22:29

bleesh

Original Poster:

1,112 posts

284 months

Monday 11th September 2006
quotequote all
Quote #1 "Reached speeds of up to 35mph in a built up area" = speeding
Quote #2 "police spotted his car on the wrong side of thew road" = dangerous driving?
Quote #3 "The defendant, who has just three fingers on his right hand and suffers from leg tremors and is partially deaf, receives £520-a-month in incapacity benefit." = furious as he was injured in Iraq confused
Quote #4 "He was also ordered to pay £364 in prosecution costs." That's alright then.

heebeegeetee

30,191 posts

278 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
bleesh said:

Quote #4 "He was also ordered to pay £364 in prosecution costs." That's alright then.


And if he doesn't pay up, which he won't, what are they going to do about it?

GKP

15,099 posts

271 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
Confiscate his dog?

JMGS4

8,932 posts

300 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
Put the fecker on the next plane home, as well as the person who assisted him to commit this "crime"!!!
The law is an Ass!!!!!!

superlightr

12,920 posts

293 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
bleesh said:
"The defendant, who has just three fingers on his right hand and suffers from leg tremors and is partially deaf, receives £520-a-month in incapacity benefit." = furious as he was injured in Iraq confused
.



Why is he here and getting benefits from us?

bleesh

Original Poster:

1,112 posts

284 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
To coin a phrase.........I blame Tony Blair shoot

FortJefferson

8,237 posts

252 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
bleesh said:
THAT BLIND DRIVER IN THE MIDLANDS


You mean there's only one?

eyebeebe

3,867 posts

263 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
FortJefferson said:
bleesh said:
THAT BLIND DRIVER IN THE MIDLANDS


You mean there's only one?


The majority of the others are partially sighted not blind. It's just red lights they can't see mad

victormeldrew

8,293 posts

307 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
I amlost choked on my tea when I heard he was ordered to take a test. I still can't see why the "passenger" wasn't prosecuted - as he was the "eyes" of the driver he was arguably as much in control, and just as guilty of any driving offence. Dangerous driving at least.

The law is indeed an ass when the punishment here is little more than many get for speeding.

catso

16,506 posts

297 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
Always makes me wonder when some scrote-car thief-uninsured-joyrider-scumbag without a licence gets caught and receives a driving ban FFS, WTF good will that do then?......banghead

vonhosen

40,597 posts

247 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
catso said:
Always makes me wonder when some scrote-car thief-uninsured-joyrider-scumbag without a licence gets caught and receives a driving ban FFS, WTF good will that do then?......banghead


Because for many of the prior mentioned offences in your statement a custodial sentence is not an option. Once the court bans them though, they are more likely to get a custodial sentence if they drive when disqualified.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 12th September 23:49

vipers

33,514 posts

258 months

Tuesday 12th September 2006
quotequote all
catso said:
Always makes me wonder when some scrote-car thief-uninsured-joyrider-scumbag without a licence gets caught and receives a driving ban FFS, WTF good will that do then?......banghead


Bit like the ongoing scam of cars deliberately crashing, or reversing into cars to scam the insurence, the police know it goes on, but claim they havnt the manpower to investigate, no doubt they will wait until some poor sod gets killed or maimed, and when they do get get caught, what do they get, probably sod all. Almost makes it a worthwhile career to pursue.

Getting back to the original article, If the law requires the magistrate to order a BLIND driver to take a test, then it firmly demonstrates the well known fact that the law in this country of ours is a complete ass. God help us.