http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/wags/7967990/Joe-Cole-wins-driving-ban-delay-after-attack-on-wife.html

Got a bit pee'd off at reading this. Another footballer being allowed to get away with speeding and doing what he wants.

Why are celebrities allowed this freedom that the general public aren't,

A few years back a lady entered the US embassy and was found to have a small wrap of smack and a couple of E's in her bag.
On searching her and her husband's house they found an ounce of smack there.
They were both giving cautions because the amount of drugs was small in comparison to their wealth.
Yet if an everyday person had been found with an ounce of smack, they wouldn't be getting let off with a slap on the wrist.

Boils my pee it does.

He should be banned. He can afford to hire someone to drive him 🙂

Why are celebrities allowed this freedom that the general public aren't,

I personally know someone who got caught doing 106mph, even faster than Joe Cole, yet escaped a ban completely. So, in this case, it's the celebrity who's received harsher punishment than the 'ordinary member of the public'.

Mrs Zucker and her five-month-old baby would not be able to use public transport if Cole was banned because of their "profile", the lawyer added

How can that possibly be a reason to avoid a ban for somebody who can afford a chauffeur?

I don't really care, anything written after cheeseroller automatically confirms that they're a moron.

Oi! I play footie too!

Oh, right, yeah, sorry… 😳

Heroin storyHeroin Story

AftermathAftermath

Footballer can afford a driver – just shows the 'kids' that look up to him that rules don't apply.

So he drives over the speed limit. Naughty boy. He should face what the Law sees is an appropriate punishment. He will have top Lawyers to fight his case, who will possibly be able to get him a lighter sentence than someone with a mediocre lawyer. The best lawyers will be able to argue his case better, possibly, and influence the magistrates better in his favour.

Is that unfair? Maybe.

Question: Should dole-scrounging scrotes be entitled to top lawyers, rather than the pissed off unmotivated duty solicitors they get? Surely everyone should be entitled to the same standard of legal representation, no?

Justice is like the Ritz hotel, open to all. 😕

I was stopped at 105 on the A35 and escaped with 3 points. I was saved by the Hampshire Constabulary application pack on my passenger seat which lead to a long chat about policing and life in general.

Justice is normally available to those who can either afford the right lawyer, or who are prepared to pay for one as they realise that the possible fine/sentence is greater than said cost. 😳

Cost me £470 for a lawyer to write a letter to answer a 'charge'. CPS didn't believe it was worth continuing. Cheap letter compared to the day (or days) off work and possible fines/bans plus insurance increases etc.

To be fair, the A3 Esher bypass at Claygate is just like a motorway – it has 3 lanes and a hard shoulder on each carriageway – and a 70mph speed limit.

105mph is very fast, but I suspect that 80-90mph is very common.

Quote :

"Chairman of the bench John Neary agreed to suspend a 50-day ban and £750 fine while Mr Freeman, known as Mr Loophole, launches an appeal. "

So the ban has only been suspended whilst he appeals ? ……presumably he might still be banned then.

Personally I don't buy this "footballers and other famous people" are allowed to break the law stuff.

When I was at school, there was a local footballer called Dean Sturridge who was done for speeding. Unfortunately for him, the magistrate heard his case the same day our PSE class was in there to learn about justice and citizenship, and other fine upstanding principals.

We learnt that poor Dean shouldn't be banned because he couldn't afford a regular driver, but was too famous to go on the bus – opposing supporters would mock and harass him.

Think he got banned anyway…

is this what that injunction's all about then ?

joe cole getting a seeing-to from his mate's ex-wife Caroline while driving at 105 mph

They were both giving cautions because the amount of drugs was small in comparison to their wealth. Yet if an everyday person had been found with an ounce of smack, they wouldn't be getting let off with a slap on the wrist.

Boils my pee it does.
There's a certain logic to that. For a first offence of mere possession, a caution+treatment wouldn't be unusual at all. The fact that they could afford to spend a couple of grand on drugs at a time works to undermine a prosecution suggestion that the amount was such that they were supplying others, which is a different, more serious charge.

There's a certain logic to that. For a first offence of mere possession, a caution+treatment wouldn't be unusual at all. The fact that they could afford to spend a couple of grand on drugs at a time works to undermine a prosecution suggestion that the amount was such that they were supplying others, which is a different, more serious charge.

agreed – all they'd need to do is shoot it all up in 1 go & prove it was all needed for their own use.

Do you have any idea about how people use Heroin, scardeypants?

yes fred
"1 night" then
better ?

(ah, just read the story (not something I often bother with 😳 ) notice that the "large quantity" wasn't what they were caught with at the embassy party as I'd assumed)

still, is it too late for "ambassador, you're really spoiling us" ?

Joe Cole's wages are reportedly £90,000 per week. I am sure that he could find a chauffeur willing to work 24/7 on call (driving one of Mr Coles cars) for a fraction of this sum.

If the job was to ferry his bird around he might even get a few volunteers who would do it for nowt!

They should ban Mr Loophole and all his sorts. Oh and double the penalty for the celebrity c*cks that appeal when they KNOW they are guilty. Their clubs should discourage them from setting such a poor example so since the scousers haven't I propose a 5 point deduction. That can apply in November when they have 5 points 🙂 MOT.

otice that the "large quantity" wasn't what they were caught with at the embassy party as I'd assumed)

No, I think if they went to an embassy party with a pick n mix selection like that they might well have beed done for supply

yes fred
"1 night" then
better ?

In fairness, I suppose hardened addicts might be able to get through the Crack and Heroin, but 1.8 oz of Coke isn't an evening's snifter!

Point is, 'personal use' is something that is determined according to the individual case. Here, we have very wealthy people with a few thousand pounds worth of drugs. Equivalent to a scrotey smack head with the tiniest bit. When I were a lad, having an eigth of hash would be considered 'personal'. An ounce or two would indicate dealing. Now, friends of mine that puff might buy an ounce or two at a time, save having to make multiple shopping trips. The sentence isn't dependant on amount seized really, but the intent to consume or supply. A scrotey dealer with several grams of smack probably doesn't have it all for personal use.

That these two have escaped any prosecution at all definitely smacks (!) of 'one law for them' etc. Don't know the details of the CPS' decision though. something's not right there though surely.

Hey ho. The rich in 'getting away with crime' shocker. Hardly shocking news, is it really?

Joe Cole's wages are reportedly £90,000 per week. I am sure that he could find a chauffeur willing to work 24/7 on call (driving one of Mr Coles cars) for a fraction of this sum.

And you can't see the flaw in that ?

You have just pointed out why banning Joe Cole would be completely pointless and no punishment at all – he would simply get round the ban by getting someone else to drive his car.

In fact, you even emphasised just how easy it would be for him to do so.

I suggest if you are unhappy with the severity of the punishment, you try arguing for a larger fine 💡

I should have got quite a ban for 110mph on the M6, but didn't – represented myself in court. My circumstances and polices actions appeared to appeal to the magistrates human side. 6 points and £400 fine. And I'm not Joe Cole, nor is my wife.

"That these two have escaped any prosecution at all definitely smacks (!) of 'one law for them' etc. Don't know the details of the CPS' decision though. something's not right there though surely. "

Given that the "larger" quantities were in their home rather than on their person, the argument would be that it'd be ludicrous for them to be dealing it on grounds of their having no financial need at all to do so. (literally 1 law (or interpretation) for the rich).

If I was a (b/m)illionaire I'd have pharmaceutical grade smack etc too, so I reckon there's prob enough of any of that lot to fell a hippo (and maybe get it going again with the crack). Even so, I can see thet it may well be for private use, just a long supply (or else they're supplying to their posh mates, who're all on it – and as you know they're all giant lizards, so god knows how much they might need anyway)

TBH, I'm surprised you're not in the legalisation camp (with the rest of the sensible people)

I should have got quite a ban for 110mph on the M6, but didn't – represented myself in court………. I'm not Joe Cole, nor is my wife.

In that case I suspect if Joe Cole's appeal against his ban fails it will have more to do with the fact that he is Joe Cole and famous, and the judge wants to make a point.

Such as the one suggested above ^^ quote : "discourage them from setting such a poor example"

Sometimes being in the limelight puts a person at a distinct disadvantage over mere mortals.

Nick freeman, celebrity lawyer to the stars, especially footballers – he just takes advantage of discrepancies in paperwork etc – if I was in their situation and could afford it I'd hire him in a shot

Hiring him is what rich guilty folk do to ensure they look like knobs. Right to a fair defence of course but he's just a parasite praying on technicalities. Nothing to be proud of.

Easy, if his missus is clocked getting behind the wheel anytime soon then we know its perjury. Surely there will be paps ready to capture this moment.

If a fine or a driving ban isn't much of a punishment for the rich and famous how about a beating with a stick – or is that just wrong 😈

Easy, if his missus is clocked getting behind the wheel anytime soon then we know its perjury.

Really? Care to elaborate? I'd be very interested in learning why, exactly.

Right to a fair defence of course but he's just a parasite praying on technicalities. Nothing to be proud of.

See, the duty of the Police/Judiciary/Prosecution service etc is to ensure that they do their jobs according to the Law, to the utmost of their abilities. If they cock up, then so be it. If a very clever lawyer is able to find even the minutest crack in their efforts, then this serves surely to encourage those responsible to up their game accordingly.

I've had personal experience of having a decent lawyer get me off unjust charges. Fortunately in this country, you can appoint anyone you like to defend you. The fact that poorer people don't get the best lawyers is a result of economics, not the legal system, which is something to be truly proud of.

elf, it's the "unjust" bit that's important

do you doubt that the geezer was not doing over 100, or just that the lawyer was able to ask when the last calibration/training/masonic buggering took place ?

Well I was referring more to the cases where people get off because the police etc don't provide sufficient evidence that they were in the car/don't follow correct arrest procedures etc. The issue with Joe Cole's case is in regard to 'sentencing'; the level of punishment is dependent on all sorts of things, and it's not unfeasible to imagine someone getting away without any sort of ban at all, as the cases of my mate and iDave have proved.

The two rich sods getting away without any charge at all seems bang out of order though.

You have just pointed out why banning Joe Cole would be completely pointless and no punishment at all – he would simply get round the ban by getting someone else to drive his car.

So you think he won't be at all bothered by not being able to drive – in fact just as happy to get someone else to drive him? In that case why did he bother driving himself anywhere in the first place, and why is he trying so hard to avoid the ban? The fact him and his family won't be inconvenienced in logistical terms by a ban doesn't mean it's not a punishment.

In that case I suspect if Joe Cole's appeal against his ban fails it will have more to do with the fact that he is Joe Cole and famous, and the judge wants to make a point.

Not anything to do with his circumstances being different then? Such as if the judge gave JC the same penalty as iDave he'd still be getting a ban due to totting up. Of course there are some examples out there of people escaping a ban for doing over 100mph, but they're very much the exception rather than the rule. I'd imagine JC's sentence is a perfectly normal sentence for such an offence for somebody who already has 6 points on their licence and doesn't have a genuine hardship reason for not being banned.

The problem with the newspaper report is that the "my wife was carjacked and can't drive" line is just one argument that his lawyer made. There is nothing that says that this was the only reason why the "chairman of the bench" made the decision not to ban him. It might not have been a relevant consideration at all.