tinyurl.com/58x7ub
Amazing! I have a relative who, quite appropriately, got 6 month ban which was very inconvenient, as intended. The fact that they live the middle of nowhere with no public transport available. delivered Meal on Wheels, did voluntary work transportig patients to hospital etc seemed to cut no ice. Got what they deserved - can we say the same for the case above?
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 31/10/2008 at 11:21
|
The answer is he is not rich enough! Only earning 150-200k p.a. he cannot afford a chauffeur.
A two week ban would have been plenty IMO. He's not the usual sort of scrote who deliberately drives without insurance. You can't give somebody IMO a 6 month ban for making an administrative error, but you can give them a short ban.
|
|
|
How rich can you be and still not be banned?
Usually the answer is: Rich enough to afford a good lawyer.
However, in the above case, John Barnes apparently did not use a lawyer, but represented himself!
Although I do believe his story, I am surprised he did not have a direct debit set up to automatically renew his insurance.
|
|
|
Pretty much odds on that this would be posted.
Silly judgment, in my view. The guy's already got 9 points on his licence. While we don't know how he got them, you might have thought a little bit of caution and care on his part would have been in order. Even a bit of forward planning.
It's a ludicrous defence. Being banned is tough on anyone. That's the point. What's your financial ability to hire a chauffeur got to do with it? Make other arrangements like the rest of us.
|
I think there must have been a couple of rose tinted glasses wearing Liverpool supporters on the bench. After the damage another footballer did in an X5 on the M6 not so long ago you'd have thought he'd have had the book thrown at him.
I know someone earning a lot less then 3-4K/wk who emplys a driver.
|
After the damage another footballer did in an X5 on the M6 not so long ago you'd have thought he'd have had the book thrown at him.
Why is that? Their only connection appears to be their profession.
If an office worker causes death by dangerous driving one week, can I be expected to be banned for a defective sidelight the next?
I agree it seems bizarre to have been let off on the grounds of hardship, but to connect this to the M6 accident is crass.
|
If an office worker causes death by dangerous driving one week can I be expected to be banned for a defective sidelight the next?
Yes of course; that's exactly the same. :rollseyes:
|
Yes of course; that's exactly the same. :rollseyes:
So explain how it is different?
You're suggesting that this man should have the book thrown at him specifically because he is a footballer, and a different footballer recently caused an horrific accident.
Can you tell me how his profession has anything to do with it, beyond a general prejudice against footballers by those who don't follow the game, and a desire that they should 'get what's comeing to them'?
|
|
|
|
Being banned is tough on anyone. That's the point. What's your financial ability to hire a chauffeur got to do with it? Make other arrangements like the rest of us.
Exactly. Take bus, and if you're as rich as him, use a few taxis too.
Mapmaker is right, though; this was an admin error, not evasion. A short ban would suffice.
|
Mapmaker is right though; this was an admin error not evasion. A short ban would suffice.
deleted.
Edited by Bill Payer on 31/10/2008 at 15:41
|
|
|
Mapmaker is right though; this was an admin error not evasion. A short ban would suffice.
Indeed. In fact assuming the court believed his claims, you might even say that a ban is not really necessary. Maybe that's the reason they came to their decision, rather than because of 'hardship'.
|
In fact assuming the court believed his claims you might even say that a ban is not really necessary.
I have mixed feelings about it - some people think that those who drive with no insurance should be hung. drawn and quartered (just for starters). However there's a world of difference between what he did and someone who deliberately drives uninsured. And he could afford (despite only earning £3-4K/wk) to pay most 3rd party damages.
However he wouldn't have been banned for the insurance offence itself, but by virtue of totting up. We don't know how he got his other 9pts but let's assume 3 speeding fixed penalties. Pretty well anyone else who had a momentary lapse and got snapped at 36MPH in a 30 would have been banned for 6mths. Is that fair?
|
|
Not fair at all. Must remember the 'admin error' defence. A friend received a 6 month ban just as you desribe - 4x 3x mph in 30 limits within 3 years.
|
As he is so rich the court could have just fined him the max for no insurance - £2000 comes to mind, and given him no points/ban at all. If he can't afford a chauffeur he could try taxis or find some other way of dealing with his self-inflicted problem, same as the rest of us would have to.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 31/10/2008 at 17:37
|
|
Remember the very long insurance thread when some people couldn't believe that we seize high end uninsured cars.....
|
Did I miss the bit in the article that said his car was seized?
|
|
|
|
|
|
