Forum menu
That and an ankle tag that stops cars starting with her in it.
I think I'd be OK with her catching a lift or taking a taxi. 😁
Blimey, not banned 3 times like I thought, but 6! That should not be possible. Third time, maybe even the second should be a lifetime ban and none of your severe hardship bullshit excuses.
Exceptional Hardship only applies to totting up bans. It does not apply at all to bans where the law sets the minimum such as drink driving or dangerous driving. It also doesn't apply where discretionary disqualification is applied (ie. where it could be points or a ban but the bench decide its a ban) although the impact on the offender and others can be a consideration in determining how long any such ban should be. Several of her bans were for totting - and I don't see any press report to suggest she's tried to argue exceptional hardship.
Totting up bans automatically get longer if you have previously been totted - 6m, 12m, 3yrs. Multiple drink-drive offences usually get longer too. 1y, 3y...
Lifetime bans really are exceptional. Any very long ban can be brought back to court after 5(?) yrs to argue that circumstances have changed. Do you accept that a stupid 19 yr old teenager who keeps driving uninsured and gets multiple bans might have matured in the 40 yrs by the time they are 59 and so should be allowed to be reconsidered to get their license back? If you accept that there are such situations then your automatic life bans, no exceptions stuff falls apart.
I hate drunk drivers as does anyone with a brain. I think she should never drive again, but bloody hell, if there was anyone more screwed up by fame and fortune, shat on by everyone about her and treated appallingly in attempts to feed of her celebrity , it’s her.
This is my feelings too, she's been exploited her whole adult life, the fallout is as predictable as it is sad.
This is my feelings too, she’s been exploited her whole adult life, the fallout is as predictable as it is sad.
so you don't think that she has had any part in that - and that she is just a victim? TBH, I think think she has free will, a huge sense if entitlement - and very little personal responsibility for any of her actions.
She has had multiple warnings / opportunities to address issues, she has been in rehab at least twice. When does it stop being everyone else's fault?
When does it stop being everyone else’s fault?
It's not a binary issue mate.
I'm sympathetic to her life situation, while still wanting to see the book thrown at her.
Equally, many people do get into a car pissed and stoned out of their brains but it just doesn’t make it to mainstream media.
Our local FB police feed is full of exactly this, people getting nicked for driving when disqualified, normally drunk and on drugs at the same time. Seems to be perfectly normal behaviour in society now.
She can get help whilst doing porridge and then any kids she’s got can go and be looked after properly (she clearly cant).
She won't - I think we've established further up the thread that the absolute maximum she could spend in jail would be 3 months and its more likely to be 6-8 weeks. That's the law - it can't be changed retrospectively. There's absolutely no way that prison is going to achieve anything constructive in that time. Ask Esselgruntfuttock if you don't believe us - he's a former prison officer - I'm sure he will agree that some long term prisoners do get rehabilitated and those serving sentences of 12 months or more can make progress towards drink and drugs issues but the system is not set up / funded to solve problems and its a conveyor belt where short term prisoners get released and go back to their old issues, probably with new ones and new contacts and the process continues.
I don't follow her life, but I have caught glimpses and I suspect she's actually a far better mother than many who we don't take their kids away from. You may disagree and think the state should intervene more often but that is neither simple nor necessarily the best outcome for the kids (having a shit mum might still be better than being in care - the prospects for looked after children are dreadful).
Im firmly in the camp she should be going away to protect others, not as the punishment for driving without a license, drugs, alcohol (though this is enough anyway)
OK - so she goes away for perhaps 8 weeks to protect others. Then what? comes back out probably goes on a huge bender to celebrate and we are back to the start...
6 times banned -jeez it just shows you can just not GAF and carry on as normal..-i can’t think of any context which would win over a judge – it’s not like saying -“yeah i killed that person………….but they were trying to stab me”
Please go and read the secret barrister's books - I don't have time to retype them here - but you are confusing mitigation and a defence (self-defence). I'm not saying she will avoid prison - but it would be a strong argument that "8 weeks to protect the public and punish the offender will achieve nothing to prevent reoffending or address the underlying issues, whilst a 12-month supervision with ongoing rehab and unpaid work, together with an ankle tag preventing going out for 6 months 7pm-7am would achieve all the objectives of sentencing and likely have a longer-lasting effect". In fact, presented with those alternatives many young offenders will say **** that I'll just do the jail time.
Our local FB police feed is full of exactly this, people getting nicked for driving when disqualified, normally drunk and on drugs at the same time. Seems to be perfectly normal behaviour in society now.
Its probably been that way since ordinary people could afford to drive - but now the police get to tell you about it via social media. Of course those people should be stopped, punished and anything reasonable done to prevent reoffending. BUT lets not think these headline grabbing, social media manipulating outrageous cases are the big problem on our roads. The standard of driving by plenty of sober licensed drivers is not any better! Our punishments are loaded towards those who have killed someone through their stupidity/selfishness/incompetence not in deterring the thousands who drive just as badly and get lucky every day.
Do you accept that a stupid 19 yr old teenager who keeps driving uninsured and gets multiple bans might have matured in the 40 yrs by the time they are 59 and so should be allowed to be reconsidered to get their license back?
No, I don't. Those with multiple driving bans or the death of another citizen should never drive again on pain of a very long period of tagging and unpaid work for society.
Edit: Multiple driving bans would mean that the recidivist will be mid to late twenties for the most recent not 19 and would point to an ongoing issue with meeting the requirements of holding a driving licence.
so you don’t think that she has had any part in that – and that she is just a victim? TBH, I think think she has free will, a huge sense if entitlement – and very little personal responsibility for any of her actions.
She has had multiple warnings / opportunities to address issues, she has been in rehab at least twice. When does it stop being everyone else’s fault?
Can you show me where I suggested this?. I said I agreed with brads, that she should never drive again.
While I don't know her personally, she doesn't strike me as being of high intelligence, or able to make good decisions in life, and as such has been spat out by the press for years.
Its probably been that way since ordinary people could afford to drive – but now the police get to tell you about it via social media.
Yep, it's quite fascinating reading it as you get an insight into what they do, which I hadn't really thought about before.
I'm also amazed how many people take cocaine, seems to be everyone they catch. I wouldn't have a clue where to find it. Cannabis on the other hand, half my neighbours seem to smoke it as I can smell it most days wafting over the gardens...
I'm really not bothered about her serving a punitive prison sentence. I would like to see proper enforcement of her driving ban(s) (and it possibly made a lifetime ban?) i.e. anyone who sells her a car or gives her the keys to one has a share of the capability and gets prosecuted for it. Like many celebrities with 'issues' there are always a few enablers facilitating her bad choices... bankrupt or not she clearly has some resources to call on for rehabilitation, she should be required to do that...
At the same time, the cynical part of me knows there's another book, an outing on loose women and maybe a fly on the wall show or whatever to be scored from this plus any subsequent "recovery"...
I suppose her "career" should be well over by now, she's a talentless remnant of the late 90s who should be easing into a comfortably saved for middle-age by now. The 00s yielded a bit of an extension to her presence in the public eye. But this is the problem with celebrity, some people just aren't equipped to deal with it fading away, and acting like a dickhead is an attempt to eek out more publicity...
The trouble with this episode is that it's gotten her some more media attention which is what she wants, but certainly not what she needs. It just serves to deepen a destructive cycle.
Do you accept that a stupid 19 yr old teenager who keeps driving uninsured and gets multiple bans might have matured in the 40 yrs by the time they are 59 and so should be allowed to be reconsidered to get their license back?
No, like Sandwich and his good point about how old you'd have to be to have multiple driving bans, I say **** 'em, As long as the law is clear on the consequences of multiple bans then such it up. Driving isn't a god* given right.
*insert deity of choice.
No, like Sandwich and his good point about how old you’d have to be to have multiple driving bans, I say **** ’em, As long as the law is clear on the consequences of multiple bans then such it up. Driving isn’t a god* given right.
+1
I wrote a long response to both these points but the forum binned it. Life is too short to retype it.
No, I don’t. Those with multiple driving bans or the death of another citizen should never drive again on pain of a very long period of tagging and unpaid work for society.
...just consider whether the consequences of not quite looking as well as you should pulling out a junction should be the same or as hugely different as you suggest if: (a) the cyclist I didn't see had good skills, is very alert and has great brakes - I apologise and he rides off (b) the cyclist I didn't see is not quite so sharp and hits my wing but walks away and my insurance replace his bike and helmet etc (c) the cyclist I hit was elderly breaks her hip, gets a secondary infection a few weeks later and dies...
Meanwhile, someone can intentionally use a mobile phone whilst driving and get away with 6 points; or needlessly close pass and likely get 3 pts (assuming they are caught in either case). Your proposed punishment (or protection of the public) is disproportionate to the culpability of the offender.
Edit: Multiple driving bans would mean that the recidivist will be mid to late twenties for the most recent not 19 and would point to an ongoing issue with meeting the requirements of holding a driving licence.
It's absolutely possible. There are people with multiple bans who aren't even old enough to get a license! But it's possible to accumulate multiple bans before you are 20 even without doing anything like driving whilst disqualified or drink driving. And I don't just mean theoretically possible, I mean if you go and sit in a magistrates court doing 100 road traffic cases in a day it's quite likely you'll actually see someone under 20 get their second or third ban!
Now have you never met anyone in their 40's, 50's, 60's who is now a responsible member of society but who in their teens or early 20s was irresponsible / out of control etc?
Slightly off topic....
I was in a pub in Ruislip many many yrs ago. Jordan as she was known back then was in there. A known local shouty bastard asked her very loudly why she was going out with Dwight Yorke and not him.
She looked at him , pulled a very large rubber cock out of her bag and said " Because he has a cock like this "
True story.
^^^ Why on earth would someone carry around a large rubber cock in their handbag (especially if their BF had an *actual* cock of that size - surely they wouldn't need it)?
Although, being Katie Price I suppose it is believable 🙂
Nah, you've still not changed my mind @poly and I doubt I'll change yours.
^^^ Why on earth would someone carry around a large rubber cock in their handbag (especially if their BF had an *actual* cock of that size – surely they wouldn’t need it)?
Makes for a great put down in a pub!
being Katie Price I suppose it is believable
This is consistent with stories I've heard.
Your proposed punishment (or protection of the public) is disproportionate to the culpability of the offender.
Maybe the punishment needs to be disproportionate as the current system doesn't work for us vulnerable road users. Too many regard the licence as a right not a privilege that can be revoked/permanently removed.
Only one of your scenarios involves the death of another citizen and, yes, the licence goes forever. For the other two some mandatory training or slow the **** down and concentrate lessons should be all that is necessary, with possibly an enforced session of using a bike.
I had the misfortune of seeing her hotel room after she was in town while touring the UK as part of her make up class tutorials. Fair to say it was pretty much trashed with A LOT of coke left behind. She got the room for free as part of holding the tutorial in the hotel's function room, caused thousands in damage and wasn't the nicest human with the staff.
While I sympathies with some parts of her life, her self entitlement is something else
But the error in each case was identical, it’s just “good luck” in the other two cases that I didn’t kill anyone. Would it not be better if the punishment related to the standard of driving - so i mistakenly pull out at a junction regardless of the end consequence I get a harsh penalty (perhaps retake test or several hours of driving instruction - not a classroom talk) compared to today’s 3pts but more importantly all the times you “get lucky” you get prosecuted rather than the tiny number of times it goes badly a disproportionate penalty is applied - but in contrast all the bad driving that is much more deliberate - using a phone, overtaking on double whites, close passes etc — much harsher penalty say a 6 month ban, longer for repeat offenders. That would both stop the conscious offences, and encourage far better awareness and I am sure have a reduction in casualty rates whereas your approach only stops people who kill once killing again and the number of those cases is tiny (probably less than 1 a year) so makes you feel better with a harsh punishment but in reality does little to make the roads safer.
so makes you feel better with a harsh punishment but in reality does little to make the roads safer.
That pretty much sums up the UK's approach to crime and punishment for the last 30 years. Anyone recall Michael 'Prison works' Howard?
Its all just a very very sad reflection of the *ed up world we live in.
She set out to be that celebrity, she thought it would bring fame and fortune, it didn't it presented a whole pile of problems she is simply not equipped to deal with.
Bit like giving a 4 year old petrol and a box of matches.
Her life was always going to end up at this place. I hope all the *s who made money out of her are happy.
Now have you never met anyone in their 40’s, 50’s, 60’s who is now a responsible member of society but who in their teens or early 20s was irresponsible / out of control etc?
Pretty much the entire principle of rehabilitation. If you remove the chance to turn your life around and have it recognised then you might as well sentence some folk at birth.
I'm back after a late finish and ride home. One close pass by someone who wouldn't wait and another Emmerson Fittipaldi wannabe in town who thought a 50mph pass of the cyclist was a good idea. It's no wonder I have no patience for rehabilitation, most days there's someone who doesn't think they need to follow the rules. Tonight there was a police patrol car who crossed the double white line while I was cycling at 15mph to save a few seconds!
So yes a short period of trashing peoples ability to operate a motor vehicle on the highway forever may encourage the rest to calm the **** down and concentrate. It's more socially acceptable than dragging them out of the car and shooting them at the roadside.