# 42 points and keeps licence?



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Unbelievable http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html

I wonder if it can or will be overturned because if his defence really was a valid one a great many people who've offended a lot less would have grounds for arguing that they shouldn't have their licences taken away. I know it doesn't set any precedent by the way, Alan.


----------



## blindwatchertrev (Nov 4, 2011)

Sometimes the law really is an ass and refutes the 'Rule of Law' itself which states that we are all equal before the law!


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Would love to see his next insurance premium. Of course someone like him will probably just lie and say he has a clean licence. I'm no angel and when I was young I never had a clean licence but thats ridiculous.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Surely that decision will be re-examined?


----------



## blindwatchertrev (Nov 4, 2011)

Maybe he has a relative in the Upper House ( Janner etc)......... Do you remember a few years back when the CEO of Guiness was released early from a custodial sentence because of dementia only to go on and get various non executive directorships!


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

The right hand shake still works by the sound of it:wink2:

Dick


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Please don't blame the Police for this, the decision was taken by magistrates (who it would appear live very happily in La-La Land rather than here on Earth) 

Andy


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I'm more concerned by the realisation that Alan reads the Mail!!


----------



## david-david (Feb 24, 2013)

erneboy said:


> Unbelievable http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-points-licence-host-offences-AVOIDS-ban.html
> 
> I wonder if it can or will be overturned because if his defence really was a valid one a great many people who've offended a lot less would have grounds for arguing that they shouldn't have their licences taken away. I know it doesn't set any precedent by the way, Alan.


I heard about this yesterday on Radio 2. I still don't fully understand how you can rack up 42 points and keep your licence. If memory serves, he was caught one day doing 105mph in a 50mph zone. That must surely be an automatic ban on it's own.

I had a friend many years ago who racked up 12 points and got caught again by a speed camera, he was allowed to keep his licence for work but the insurance was almost as much as the car was worth and only a couple of dodgy Cayman Islands insurers would cover him. God only knows what would have happened if he needed to make a claim.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

And this has happened with a Government that is "tough on crime". Just think what would have happened if any of the other contenders had won the Election.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 21, 2009)

david-david said:


> If memory serves, he was caught one day doing 105mph in a 50mph zone. That must surely be an automatic ban on it's own.


I haven't read the article, but if that speed is correct then it was always the case that if you were caught in excess of 100mph, you would be disqualified and also if you were caught at double any speed limit, you would be disqualified.

The disqualification periods tended to be quite short, but still had to be disclosed to Insurers.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Blizzard said:


> I haven't read the article, but if that speed is correct then it was always the case that if you were caught in excess of 100mph, you would be disqualified and also if you were caught at double any speed limit, you would be disqualified.


I've known personally several people who have been to court for driving in excess of 100mph (on motorways / dual carriageways) and who have avoided bans. I think courts have always had discretion to not give bans if they feel there are extenuating or special circumstances.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 21, 2009)

peribro said:


> I've known personally several people who have been to court for driving in excess of 100mph (on motorways / dual carriageways) and who have avoided bans. I think courts have always had discretion to not give bans if they feel there are extenuating or special circumstances.


Me too, they normally claim hardship reasons and the impact on their family lives, along with a letter from their employer confirming loss of licence would result in loss of job.

It is supposed to be a 'one use' special reason, but discretion being what it is, I have seen it allowed more than once, which defeats the object and ultimately results in the situation that kicked this thread off.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Not to worry Peter, I don't read The Mail. I heard the story on PM and Googled it so I could post a link. The Mail was just the first entry that came up.


----------



## namder (Sep 20, 2006)

This situation is not unusual. Anyone facing a driving ban is entitled to make an exceptional hardship claim(exceptional being the key). This defendant was successful in his claim but unless you know his circumstances, you really can't judge.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

namder said:


> This situation is not unusual. Anyone facing a driving ban is entitled to make an exceptional hardship claim(exceptional being the key). This defendant was successful in his claim but unless you know his circumstances, you really can't judge.


15 points, 18 points, maybe even 24 I'd buy that. 42 points? Nah, other working people who depend on their ability to drive to make a living lose their licences and therefore their jobs every day.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

As I said have the right handshake and rank you lead a charmed life and you know it. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/211677.stm

Dick


----------



## Camdoon (Sep 21, 2012)

247 or less than 5% of judges in 1998 were in the Masons. 3 years later almost 0.8% of the population described themselves as Jedi which would suggest 40 judges. Anyone know the Jedi handshake?


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 21, 2009)

The vast majority of driving offences would never reach a Judge, they are dealt with at Magistrates level.


----------

