Do Judges Live in the Real World?

sfichele

Check out the excuse this git used to in order to avoid having his licence suspended :shock:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/21032012/58/premier-league-pulis-pleads-relegation-dodge-driving-ban.html

What planet do some judges live on when it comes to passing sentences or giving out fines? Football managers are not low paid workers - this guy could easily afford a taxi to the football ground, and therefore the argument is BS.

SimonAH

Innocent until proven broke is the basis in this country.

Unless of course the crime is related to cats in which case you will be banged up until the second coming. We don't tolerate no funny business when it comes to cats, no-sirree

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Innocent until proven broke is the basis in this country.

Unless of course the crime is related to cats in which case you will be banged up until the second coming. We don't tolerate no funny business when it comes to cats, no-sirree

Funny really.


When people call me a pussy they don't mean it in a good way.

veronese68

Simon, would you like to come round to mine and lose my cats? I need to be abe to deny everything so I can make sure I have an alibi whilst you do the deed. I'll by you a pint.

vitesse169

This wasn't a Judge - it was heared at magistrates court. If it was a Stipend that heared the case he/she is legally trained. My guess it was lay magistrates (poss 3 of them on the bench) who are not legally trained and rely on the court clerk for legal points to be clarified - that is if they can be arsed.... Most mags benches I've come accross like to think they are the great and the good dispensing local justice.... and getting it right at least most of the time. Like this, sometimes they get it RAHEALLY wrong. Like sfichele says, it's not like he cannot afford taxis/PT for a year or 18 months - or more likely 6 months for totting up.... wonderful judgement by the bench....!

sfichele

Crucially though, did they not realise he is in charge of Stoke City - should have been charged for crimes against football

DrLex

As vitesse169 notes, it's possible that this was a decision by lay magistrates, who in my experience, give almost all nicely-dressed middle class defendants a light touch, especially those with silver-tongued defence representatives.

Now Rick, why haven't you kicked off a Budget thread yet?

bigmat

Pretty disgusting really. What about the whole "I couldn't use a chauffeur because he'd hear me discussing transfers" BS? What, you mean on your mobile, whilst driving at 96mph?! At the very least they could have just deferred his ban until after the season (I imagine they don't have the power to do that) but in truth they clearly were happy to let the guy off.

rick_chasey

DrLex wrote:

Now Rick, why haven't you kicked off a Budget thread yet?

viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12843111



Might as well test run checking out other parts of the forum for when the bottom bracket gets unlocked .

notsoblue

Thats what expensive legal representation gets you...

DrLex

Rick Chasey wrote:

DrLex wrote:

Now Rick, why haven't you kicked off a Budget thread yet?

viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12843111



Might as well test run checking out other parts of the forum for when the bottom bracket gets unlocked .

Ah, "Cake Stop" - not on my radar, but thanks for the link.

CiB

Am I the only one who thinks good luck to him? Like one of the comments says, he was going a bit quick on a motorway but at a speed that's legal in some places, and it's hardly baby-murdering territory doing 96 on the M6. Points accumulation should ordinarily lead to a ban unless the defendant can put forward good reason why it shouldn't. In this case the bench accepted that his reasoning was adequate and didn't enforce a disqualification.

There were some stats doing the rounds not so long ago that show the numbers of people still driving with more than 12 points. It's in the thousands and some have way more than 12; this isn't an isolated case. It's just a bit more high profile.

God luck to him for being able to swing it in his favour.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks good luck to him?

Yup.

rjsterry

CiB wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks good luck to him? Like one of the comments says, he was going a bit quick on a motorway but at a speed that's legal in some places, and it's hardly baby-murdering territory doing 96 on the M6. Points accumulation should ordinarily lead to a ban unless the defendant can put forward good reason why it shouldn't. In this case the bench accepted that his reasoning was adequate and didn't enforce a disqualification.

There were some stats doing the rounds not so long ago that show the numbers of people still driving with more than 12 points. It's in the thousands and some have way more than 12; this isn't an isolated case. It's just a bit more high profile.

God luck to him for being able to swing it in his favour.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like the speed limit is a *real* law is it? And he only exceeded the limit by 40%.

CiB

Expected sort of response. Like it or not a lot of people break the law, most don't get caught, some do and of those that do break the law big time - murder anyone? - it invokes more of a response than not so major laws. Pullis was nabbed doing 11 over the widely accepted limit for motorways speeds; his brief did the job required and got him off the expected ban.

I don't have a problem with this specific scenario.

sfichele

CiB wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks good luck to him? Like one of the comments says, he was going a bit quick on a motorway but at a speed that's legal in some places, and it's hardly baby-murdering territory doing 96 on the M6. Points accumulation should ordinarily lead to a ban unless the defendant can put forward good reason why it shouldn't. In this case the bench accepted that his reasoning was adequate and didn't enforce a disqualification.

There were some stats doing the rounds not so long ago that show the numbers of people still driving with more than 12 points. It's in the thousands and some have way more than 12; this isn't an isolated case. It's just a bit more high profile.

God luck to him for being able to swing it in his favour.

This is exactly the problem! When I got caught speeding, I thought poo! I'd better now be careful because I don't wanna get caught again, accumulate points and lose my licence because I won't be able to drive down the M1 and I'll lose my job.

Others keep driving like d:cks, and get away with it. What about the cow that killed a cyclist and already had 12 points. She was allowed to keep her driving because it was deemed to "inconvenient" for getting to work.

CiB

<Shrugs>

Thread title is Do Judges Live In The Real World? Answer is yes usually, and in this case they accepted reasons put forward for not imposing the disqualification automatically due to the potential consequences of a ban being imposed, and I'd like to think in part at least because of the nature of the offence.

If Pullis had been doing 37 down by a school at 3:40 on a Tuesday afternoon I'd agree that that offence should tip him over the edge to a ban. The offence he committed was way down the scale and as such doesn't necessarily require the same outcome.

I like to think that if I somehow went from clean licence to >12 points, I'd at least be in with a shout of convincing the courts that I shouldn't lose my licence, instead of having to face a wall of authority & silence that has absolutely zero leeway to make a decision.

jamesco

Wow, this really angries up my blood. The whole point of a ban is that it's going to be inconvenient - how can anyone bitch about it after the fact?

I lost my license for speeding* and had to suck it up. No reason this bloke can't.

(* 21, brand new TL1000S motorbike, 3 months having to watch it get dusty was a good lesson...)

bigmat

@ CiB, I'd have more sympathy for your viewpoint if it was his first offence, but to have already clocked up 12 points the guy must be habitually speeding and his defence argument strongly infers that he also uses the phone whilst driving. Just another dangerous tw*t in my opinion and I don't see any justification for him not being disqualified.

As for the "only doing 11 over the widely accepted limit for motorways speeds" line, that really is a pathetic argument.

sfichele

Plus it was on the M42, and the signs were restricting the speed to 60, so it was 36 mph over the limit. The likely hood was there was a lot of traffic on the road (hence the restriction). Also, and this is the moronic bit - everybody knows that stretch of motorway is heavily enforced, especially if you live/work around that area! Which paints a pretty dumb picture of the guy - he should have known he was speeding in an area where you'd definitely get caught by the cameras

I don't buy the it was only slightly over the speed limit and therefore not a problem - I would be more sympathetic if the motorway was empty - which I strongly suspect it was not.

CiB

Blimey.

BigMat wrote:

As for the "only doing 11 over the widely accepted limit for motorways speeds" line, that really is a pathetic argument.

No it's not. It's a common speed to do - drive up the M1 for an hour or two out of peak times and see how many cars pass at speeds quite a bit higher than what the rest of us are doing - i.e. something around the mid 80s. I'm not going to apologise or pretend that I don't travel over the limit, but the 85 cut-off is widely known and accepted. Going a bit higher than that isn't the worse crime on the planet. If he was on a stretch restricted to 60 he loses the argument, but in general terms the speed he was doing isn't the worse thing that happens on our roads.

sfichele wrote:

Also, and this is the moronic bit - everybody knows that stretch of motorway is heavily enforced, especially if you live/work around that area! Which paints a pretty dumb picture of the guy - he should have known he was speeding in an area where you'd definitely get caught by the cameras

I don't buy the it was only slightly over the speed limit and therefore not a problem - I would be more sympathetic if the motorway was empty - which I strongly suspect it was not.

Two points; he's the Stoke manager who presumably lives up near Stoke. Why should he be familiar with something that regular users of that particular stretch of m/way apparently are? And then you add your own bit of supposition offering him some sympathy if something were the case, but that you then admit to guessing about whether it is or not.

Like I said, <shrugs>. He stepped out of line, was caught and done for it but didn't receive the maximum penalty. So what? That is the real world.

sfichele

Anyone else here not know that bit of motorway is massively regulated? The first one to use the hard shoulder through electronic signs, which caused quite a bit of debate!

?

CiB

I don't know as I haven't used it.

alfablue

I would be interested in a list of laws I am okay to ignore. Can anyone help me with this? CiB perhaps?

sfichele

It was in the news a few years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8401336.stm

Overhead signs control speed limits. When there is congestion the limit drops to 50-60 mph. There are many speed cameras. Anyone who has driven on that lately would be brain-dead not realise that. If he was doing 96 mph through there is no doubt that he would have know the risk

bigmat

CiB wrote:

Blimey.

BigMat wrote:

As for the "only doing 11 over the widely accepted limit for motorways speeds" line, that really is a pathetic argument.

No it's not. It's a common speed to do - drive up the M1 for an hour or two out of peak times and see how many cars pass at speeds quite a bit higher than what the rest of us are doing - i.e. something around the mid 80s. I'm not going to apologise or pretend that I don't travel over the limit, but the 85 cut-off is widely known and accepted. Going a bit higher than that isn't the worse crime on the planet. If he was on a stretch restricted to 60 he loses the argument, but in general terms the speed he was doing isn't the worse thing that happens on our roads.

Its a common speed to do, but it is also in itself illegal. To then add another 11mph exacerbates this. If it was a 60 restriction that makes things even worse. Also, the guy was already on 12 points. Would you drive at 96mph in those circumstances? Would you expect to not be disqualified if caught? It defies any kind of reason.

notsoblue

alfablue wrote:

I would be interested in a list of laws I am okay to ignore. Can anyone help me with this? CiB perhaps?

You've never broken a law?

rick_chasey

sfichele

BigMat wrote:

Also, the guy was already on 12 points. Would you drive at 96mph in those circumstances? Would you expect to not be disqualified if caught? It defies any kind of reason.

^ THIS

CiB

Laws that are ok to ignore?

Off the top of my head:

Fox hunting ban.
Speed limit on motorways if conditions prevail.
Practicing archery on a Sunday
Not having a TV aerial or satellite dish fitted to a house in Milton Keynes
No Cycling signs at 3 in the morning in the rain
Likewise red lights in empty roads that aren't triggered by me on my bike
50 limit into Bicester in places (bike or car)
Having reflectors on pedals
Having a bell on the bike

Etc. I'm sure everyone can think of some petty laws that might be broken from time to time with no consequences. And you did ask.

Bored now. Enjoy the debate.

sfichele

^So what?
The point of the OP is that many drivers get to 12 points and keep their licenses because of inconvenience. Some people even kill, and still keep their licenses.