In the midst of some shock/horror facts, this was the bit that seemed most significant to me:
The Magistrates' Association, which represents magistrates in England and Wales, said about 30,000 drivers a year reach the 12-point mark with nine per cent of these escaping disqualification.
Magistrates and their spokesmen bleat about court diversion programmes, fixed penalties, and not having the discretion to impose condign punishment but when it comes to it, it looks as though they tend to go all soft.
However, the statistics are likely to include cases where drivers have served their period of disqualification and successfully reapplied for their driving licences.’
I thought that if you had a totting up ban then the points were removed from your licence. So is the above statement false or have I got that wrong?
Points can be put on a driver's licence for a variety of motoring offences, from speeding to drink driving and they stay on a driving licence for up to four years.
True, but they only count for totting-up purposes for 3 years (from the date of the offence). A driver who accumulates 3 points every year isn't liable for a totting-up ban, despite continually having 12 points on the licence.
I think we've got to face the fact that the UK is soft on criminals across the board,it's a criminals paradise! That's should they be caught in the first place,which is highly unlikely
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
I am making no order for disqualification because if he is looking for work he will need a car.
If I were the judge he'd need a pair of walking boots
I think the reality of it is that if he did drive it would be illegally. No insurance company is going to touch anyone with 54 points, they'd think you were winding them up by asking.
Reading gaz's link I see that the latest 30 points were all awarded at one go for a series of offences of theft of fuel. Crimes by any definition but not anything that directly affects fitness to drive, which was presumably why the judge let him continue looking for work. The responsibilty for the existing 24 points being overlooked till it was too late seems to have been an administrative cock up at the DVLA and hardly the fault of the judge.
Perhaps he might find work with Network Rail (as a pointsman. Sorry. )
reohn2 wrote:I think we've got to face the fact that the UK is soft on criminals across the board,it's a criminals paradise! That's should they be caught in the first place,which is highly unlikely
Points are mostly awarded for things like speeding, turning right against a no right turn sign, etc. these are traffic offences not crimes and do not make the person a criminal.
There is a certain connection between crime and motoring offences here, in that the defendant had been driving round stealing using an uninsured vehicle. It's the lack of insurance - possibly explained by kwackers - that attracted the points. Interesting that the local rag refers to him as "a motorist."
reohn2 wrote:I think we've got to face the fact that the UK is soft on criminals across the board,it's a criminals paradise! That's should they be caught in the first place,which is highly unlikely
Points are mostly awarded for things like speeding, turning right against a no right turn sign, etc. these are traffic offences not crimes and do not make the person a criminal.
I beg to differ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
kwackers wrote:I think the reality of it is that if he did drive it would be illegally. No insurance company is going to touch anyone with 54 points, they'd think you were winding them up by asking.
It didn't stop him in the first place and can also be argued that being banned won't stop him in the future,but at least he wouldn't have a licence which could make any future conviction all the more harsh .
Last edited by reohn2 on 21 Feb 2014, 8:37am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
kwackers wrote:I think the reality of it is that if he did drive it would be illegally. No insurance company is going to touch anyone with 54 points, they'd think you were winding them up by asking.
It didn't stop him in the first place and can also be argued that being banned in the future,but at least he wouldn't have a licence which could make any future conviction all the more harsh.
And pigs might fly. The best we can hope for is a longer ban not that that will make any difference.
If I were to put about breaking his legs then setting them backwards so that he could not drive or move very well (awkward to commit other crimes) somebody would get upset. So maybe I should not.
Of course we are not allowed to interfere with his human rights.
Keith Edwards I do not care about spelling and grammar
.
)
.