Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...

cougie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6982514.stm

Looks like he hired that slippery lawyer to get off the hook. I like Clarkson - he's very entertaining - but he's gone down in my estimation for this. Is there another charge he can be done for ?

Cunobelin

Apparently Top Gear is notorious for damaging and wrecking cars.

Many reviewers find cars that come to them following Top Gear are undriveable due to gearbox, engine and other damage.

Of course there is an answer to this, perhaps the companies will learn no t o "loan" cars to people who drive them dangerously and illegally.

On the brighter side...... An obituary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpL9a-5LFpI

Ratkilla

cougie wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6982514.stm

Looks like he hired that slippery lawyer to get off the hook. I like Clarkson - he's very entertaining - but he's gone down in my estimation for this. Is there another charge he can be done for ?

It's all about burden of proof, I think. If the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving the car then he can't be prosecuted. Pure and simple.
Therefore the 'evidence' doesn't stand up in court and so he can't be 'done' for anything else.
And why should he be? There is no evidence to suggest that he was actually driving the car.
It may well have been Captain Slow!

Cunobelin

So let's get this right........................

You lend someone a car................

....................they take such good care of it that they don't know who is driving it at a particular time!

Was he lending it out to his mates at the pub?

I would want the car back, and there would be no repeat of the loan!

cougie

I wonder if this was for Top Gear or the Times? Do they not have records of where their guys are ? Do they have a policy on speeding ?

Eat My Dust

Some people will have read this story before, but for those that haven't...........


Last year I was cycling through west London, travelling at the same speed as the traffic, when further up the road a white van was trying to reverse out onto the road. The car in front of me stopped to let him out, I stopped and so did several cars behind me, but further back there was a guy in a very old Volvo who couldn't wait, so he pulls out and goes flying past everybody, nearly hitting the reversing van and the oncoming traffic. I thought to myself "what a fanny". The guy in the van was majorly hacked off. Anyhoo, we all set off on our merry way, and I come around the corner to find that the WVM had managed to get in front of the Volvo and was out giving the driver a good bit of his mind. I gave the WVM the thumbs up and looked in the Volvo window. Who was the driver? it was only Captain Slow. I burst out laughing, and on seeing me Captain Slow gave me a sheepish grin!!!! It made my day to see him being ticked off by a WVM!!

hugo 1st

The guy is a top-drawer nasty piece of work. Like all bullies he is ever-read to lick the ***es of those more powerful and p!ss on the weaker guy.

That's just my opinion of course.

schlepcycling

Isn't the problem to do with the fact that it was a 'loan' car.

As I understand it (and please don't flame me if you know better) if you are the registered owner of a car that is caught speeding then a NIP (Notice of Intention to Prosecute) is sent to you and you are legally obliged to either comfirm that you were driving or name the driver at the time of the incident so that they can be prosecuted (this is the case for company vehicles and hire cars). In this case it seems that the vehicle was 'loaned' to Clarkson and then caught speeding by a speed camera so the registered keeper is still Alfa Romeo so they got the NIP which they then sent on to Clarkson (as his were the only details of the loanee that they had).

I assume that Clarkson said something along the lines of 'it wasn't me' and wouldn't tell them who it was so they went after Clarkson. Maybe next time Alfa will 'hire' cars out rather than loan them out as this seems to be covered.

Cunobelin

What really worries me is that thecar was being driven illegally in the fact it was speeding.

What we don't know is if the vehicle was insured or even if the person driving had a licence - at the moment we must assume that until proven it was not insured.

The vehicle should be confiscated until the Company or the person holding the vehicle on their behalf demonstrstes the vehicle was driven by a driver who was entitled to drive and had insurance.

Nuggs

Cunobelin wrote:

What really worries me is that thecar was being driven illegally in the fact it was speeding.

What we don't know is if the vehicle was insured or even if the person driving had a licence - at the moment we must assume that until proven it was not insured.

Why must you assume it wasn't insured? On that basis, shall we assume it was full of Al-Quaeda terrorists as well?

More likely than not it would have been insured as a fleet car by AR, thus allowing anyone to drive it.

And just because Clarkson was exceeding an arbitary speed limit, it does not necessary follow that he was doing anything dangerous...

Eat My Dust

Nuggs wrote:

And just because Clarkson was exceeding an arbitary speed limit, it does not necessary follow that he was doing anything dangerous...

If I were to wave a gun around in the high street, would you consider that dangerous?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

The vehicle should be confiscated until the Company or the person holding the vehicle on their behalf demonstrstes the vehicle was driven by a driver who was entitled to drive and had insurance.

Fortunately, our justice system generally works on an innocent until proven guilty method, not the other way around.

Nowhere in the article does it state that Clarkson was driving.

OffTheBackAdam

There was a similar case last? year. A BMW (Not a tractor, as you'd think from the top man's name! )hired out to a certain Premier FC, was flashed doing rather a lot up the M1.
The club "couldn't find out" who was driving it, so they copped the fine, but no one got a ban.
All more evidence to show that these tax-raising cameras aren't effective, whereas a proper copper would've had little problem with getting the driver's id.

bad company

I can understand why people were annoyed by this but if the police can't get the paperwork right.

stage_fright

ok - OT trivia - but I have just seen the aforementioned Mr Clarkson in the flesh as it were (oohh errr Missus).

He and the Top Gear tribe are at Silverstone and are racing the 24-Hour race there this wekend.

Cunobelin

Nuggs wrote:

And just because Clarkson was exceeding an arbitary speed limit, it does not necessary follow that he was doing anything dangerous...

If I have sex with a girl under an arbirtary age limit it does not neccessarily follow that I am doing anything dangerous - so we can accept paedophiles then?

Anonymous

Cunobelin wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

And just because Clarkson was exceeding an arbitary speed limit, it does not necessary follow that he was doing anything dangerous...

If I have sex with a girl under an arbirtary age limit it does not neccessarily follow that I am doing anything dangerous - so we can accept paedophiles then?

Do try and get things into perspective. :roll:
Please.

ddraver

i do think mr de lacy has a point there Cunobelin

i can'r see you being so vindictive if it was miss pendleton driving, if the car was loansed to "the bbc" it could be anyone driving it and the media have assumed its Clarkson - any excuse for them

He is driving around with a clean licence otherwise, that does say something about his driving

Cunobelin

There is a valid point - the suggestion is that it is permissible to ignore an "arbitrary" limit.

The process is the same, why should you be able to ingnor t=one not the other if in your personal opinion it is ok to do so.

As for the licence issue - it is irrelevant, unless he is now saying he was driving at this point?

JC and Co's "driving standards" are well known in the industry and the state of cars after Top Gear reviews stand testament to them!

Are you relly happy that a car of this type is being driven around with no-one aware of who is driving it, they have insurance, or a licence?

Alfa Romeo identified Clarkson, NOT the media, they were (mistakenly) in the belief that he had some morsl fibre and was taking reasonable care of the property they had oanded. Apparently not the case.

The owner / driver is irrelevant, if the law is broken then it is important that there is some form of retribution, that is the way it works, The regsterd owner or their delegate has a legal responsibility to ensure thatthe vehicle is being driven illegally.

As to "vindictive" towards Mr Clarkson- how did you work that one out - I really don't think Miss Pendleton has a right to drive in an irresponsible and illegal manner either, and would certainly have the same poor opinion if she had acted in the same way,

Celebrity is not an excuse for poor moral and personal standards.

top_bhoy

I find it hard to believe that any more than a very select few would have had access to this car during its loan period. How hard would it be to find the culprit. This is avoidance of the law by silence. The BBC, as part of its public charter, should insist on the production company holding an enquiry to determine the guilty party as this incident is tarnishing its reputation.

Sub3_99

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I find it hard to believe that any more than a very select few would have had access to this car during its loan period. How hard would it be to find the culprit. This is avoidance of the law by silence. The BBC, as part of its public charter, should insist on the production company holding an enquiry to determine the guilty party as this incident is tarnishing its reputation.

There is a right not to incriminate oneself. It's one thing being prosecuted for not revealing who was driving your own car as this is covered by legislation, but it's a bit presumptious of the law to expect someone to own up to driving some-one elses car, whethered borrowed or rented. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.

Methinks the proliferation of camera's is a bad thing. More camera's = less police out on the street. I'd rather see more police out on patrol, policing not only speed limits, but also all other types of bad, negligent, or downright dangerous driving.

ddraver

They give the cars back in a state because they test them to their limits, the same way the owners of this forum constantly break bikes and componants

that way they can/could tell us what the real deal is......

You seem to be putting an awful lot of responisibility on the company, who no doubt loans cars to many other driving programs/journalists, because this one was loaned to the bbc -people have automatically asssumed its Clarkson

Cunobelin

Wrong - Clarkson also reviews cars in his own right and has been known to "forget" to return them with threats of a bed review if the matter is pushed.

It is quite possible that the Alfa Romeo was loaned personally and not to the BBC!

bad company

Cunobelin wrote:

bed review !

Tourist Tony

Nuggs wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

What really worries me is that thecar was being driven illegally in the fact it was speeding.

What we don't know is if the vehicle was insured or even if the person driving had a licence - at the moment we must assume that until proven it was not insured.

Why must you assume it wasn't insured? On that basis, shall we assume it was full of Al-Quaeda terrorists as well?

More likely than not it would have been insured as a fleet car by AR, thus allowing anyone to drive it.

And just because Clarkson was exceeding an arbitary speed limit, it does not necessary follow that he was doing anything dangerous...

And a quote from your profile:
"Cars, Processing Beer, DIY, Gardening. Very new to this whole cycling thing..."
Joined September 1st.
Are you by any chance a member of another forum? Are any of your relatives Swiss?

Nuggs

Tourist Tony wrote:

And a quote from your profile:
"Cars, Processing Beer, DIY, Gardening. Very new to this whole cycling thing..."
Joined September 1st.
Are you by any chance a member of another forum? Are any of your relatives Swiss?

Yes - I am the member of another (car-related) forum. Not sure what the reference to Swiss is all about (Toni?)...

In fact, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If it's a veilled accusation of trolling: I'm not. I happen to think that motorists and cyclists should be able to exist in harmony. Some of the quotes on here are beyind comical (comparing speeding to paedophillia and gun crime); surely one can seek to address that inbalance without others trying to stifle the debate by posting irrelevant off-topic responses?

top_bhoy

You cannot be serious - debate? The whole raison d'etre of soapbox is to take an entrenched view and stick to it Go elsewhere if you want debate!!!

Nuggs

Top_Bhoy wrote:

The whole raison d'etre of soapbox is to take an entrenched view and stick to it

That's what I was trying to do (under the camoflage of 'debate')

Tourist Tony

Nuggs--Petrolheads or SS?
The whole debate about speeding on here is that it is dangerous. It kills people. It kills people who are not inside their protective cages. It ruins the quality of life for those who live beside the roads they use.
If you had been here for any length of time, you would know the suggestion that has been made many times: a dedicated trafpol force largely funded by the voluntary contributions made by criminals, or "speeding fines" as some call them.
Automated speed detection is simple and effective and releases police to concentrate on the drivers' other criminal activities. Besides which, those that speed habitually tend to commit other road crime.
So, we get a force freed from chasing speeding fines, able to concentrate on the things that you claim are more important, and funded by arrogant idiots. I call that a win-win.

You talk about comparing speed crime to paedophilia. Who mentioned paedophilia? You were asked a simple question about an "arbitrary limit", but while you think that road conditions vary enough for you to choose your own speed as a safe'n'experienced yadda yadda yadda, you don't consider that a human being can vary enough so that a precocious girl of 15 years and 6 months could be better able to choose than a rather immature 18 year old. You obviously feel that people can't be trusted to make a sane and unselfish decision in the latter case, and so must have a strict limit applied
It's called an "analogy".

Tourist Tony

Just picked up on the paedo reference. But my point still stands.

Anonymous

Tourist Tony wrote:

Just picked up on the paedo reference. But my point still stands.

I can't believe you just said that